One of the logical necessities of the pro-choice movement is the de-humanification of the human fetus. A lot of moral angst and philosophical difficulties can be assuaged if a fetus is, as pro-choice advocates claim, nothing more than a clump of tissues.

But is the view that a fetus is human and may experience what we call pain an "extremist" view. This thought came to mind when I was reading New York Times Public Editor Byron Calame's latest column on the paper's "conservative beat."

During the 2004 Republican convention, a Times article took readers inside a closed, invitation-only Bush campaign rally for Christian conservatives, thanks to participants who invited Mr. Kirkpatrick to accompany them. He reported that Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas rallied the conservative Christian audience with a call for a broad socially conservative agenda — including a requirement that pregnant women considering abortions be offered anesthetics for their fetuses — that contrasted with the party's efforts to present a pluralistic face to moderate or undecided voters from the convention podium.

Is an abortion law that would require abortionists to explain to women that the "clump of tissues" might experience pain and to offer an anesthetic really an "extremist" law? There's no requirement that the anesthetic actually be administered, merely offering the woman a choice. That's not extremist. What is extremist is opposing something as simple as that -- simply because it would puncture the myth that the fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells.

The point of Calame's article seems to be that the Times "conservative beat" has been a success in diversifying the views presented in the liberal paper. Calame must have better eyesight than I, because I don't see it.