judicial requirement

since when was it a requirement that a supreme court nominee answer ever possible question that are presented to them by Senators even if that particular question may come before them in the future on the bench as a justice?
why should it also be a requirement that any supreme court nominee state that they are in FAVOR of the murdering of unborn children BEFORE they be approved to the bench?

i am by NO MEANS agasint the woman's "right to choose" as so many radical feminists put it these days.
however, the question i have for these women, didn't you have the right to choose to take contraception BEFORE you conceived?
didn't you have the "right to choose" to not have sex (save in the case of rape)?
didn't you have the "right to choose" to require your partner to use protection of some sort (and yes, I know it is only 98.999% effective in preventing pregnancy, it is written right on the package)?

i have yet to understand why it is ok to "not to choose" in those situations BEFORE conception, but AFTER conception it is okay to "unabashedly proclaim your rights as a woman" to choose what is best and right for your body by taking the life of an unborn child.
where is the logic there? where is the responsiblity?

~d