Update: Some folks were wondering if I proposed using government to ban the practice of abortion. I’m not proposing that at all. I don’t trust the government to do much of anything these days. If change is going to come with regards to abortion, it will have to be cultural change. Else, the Left will be entirely correct in one point: banning the practice will only move it to the back alleys. It will be another Drug War (also a colossal failure), a never-ending source of animosity and police-state infringement on the Constitution. Nonetheless, abortion is an abomination and must be stopped. That leaves us with cultural change as the only effective means of putting a stop to it.
Abortion, like so many Leftist pet topics, contains a kernel of uncertainty, such that their position can seem less evil than it is. I’d like to clear this up for my fellow fence-sitters. This is why the Leftists always seem to revert to “what about cases of rape or danger to the mother?” Well, naturally, such cases are moral minefields in which a clean moral stance is difficult. Reasonable folks can be swayed here as, indeed, I was.
But this is the 0.1% case. If a tiny fraction of cases might be thought of as exceptions (I don’t say they are, only that they might be), then the Left grabs onto the excuse and uses it to justify slaughter on an immense scale. What becomes a situation of moral triage now becomes pure evil. And now, they go further and profit from the slaughter. Then, once they conquered this position, any attack on it is defended with “oh that’s a war on women.” Full stop. Somehow, they have simultaneously occupied the moral high ground while executing the most immoral campaign imaginable.
The level of cognitive dissonance is staggering to contemplate. I know my fellows of Libertarian instinct are similarly confused by the issue. To resolve it, I would ask them to answer a more simplistic question. If a person killed puppies, while in their mother’s body or while being birthed, and then sold the puppy parts to Big Pharma, would they approve of the deed?
If the answer is, as I suspect most Libertarian folk would agree, that such a practice is abhorrent, then how could one tolerate such treatment of humans? Some might suggest that the mother has a choice in the matter, and this is true. But the father does not, nor does the child, and we must, as a moral imperative, consider the human life as greater than that of the canine, no matter how much we may love our pets. Furthermore, every woman I know personally who has had an abortion regrets it and wishes they could take the choice back. I cannot imagine contemplating how some of them feel now, knowing the fetus could have been sold for profit.
Leftists will chain themselves to trees, naked, in order to save them, but sell the body parts of children to Big Pharma, or use them as fuel to fire their boilers. Their priorities are a complete inversion of rational thought. They are, quite literally, as irrational as they can possibly be.
I know there are still good people out there who consider themselves to be pro-choice. And I will be happy to debate them on this issue, having once been moderately pro-choice myself. But I can attest, personally, that I was fooled as, indeed, I suspect many Americans are.
Those who are not fooled, and who conduct this campaign for profit, are beyond the pale.