It would seem to me that there are very many logical compromises the abortion-rights advocates could make if they weren’t so evidently dead-set on genocide.
It can be tricky to suggest these logical compromises since the abortionists—the average ones, not just the ones who do the actual physical crushing of the skulls of the unborn—skillfully employ certain tricks to appear to be the moralists in this literally life-and-death battle.
One very reasonable such compromise: the banning of late-term abortions.
Offer this suggestion to an abortionist, however, and that’s when he starts trying to pull one over on you.
I ran into this just the other night, when a liberal reader of my site said, “I’m not against late-term abortion because the majority of those happen because the woman’s life is at risk.”
Well, he certainly sounds reasonable. It’s may be more loving for a person to sacrifice herself so that another may live—it’s what Jesus Christ did, after all—rather than to sacrifice another so that she may go on living. But should we really force someone to die for another?
I think not, just as I think we should not be forced by the government to be charitable to said government. Sacrifices and charity should come from love, not coercion.
But the argument the abortionist gave me is one that anti-abortionists hear frequently. In short, “I support late-term abortion because most of those save a woman’s life.”
The key word is “most.” An abortionist will never say all late-term abortions are committed to save the mother’s life, because that’s verifiably false.
Here’s where that logical compromise comes into play.
I suggested to the abortionist, “If you’re supportive of late-term abortions because some are committed in order to save a mother’s life, then does that mean you’re against late-term abortions when the mother’s life is not at risk?” This is the logical conclusion of his own pronouncement.
What almost always follows, and what did follow in my conversation last night, is the exposure of the abortionist’s lie.
Suddenly he doesn’t “know what circumstances the pregnant woman has found herself in,” and suddenly he doesn’t believe it to be his business regardless.
A moment earlier, he supported late-term abortions “because” “most” of them save mothers’ lives. And yet now he says he supports late-term abortions regardless of whether they save mothers’ lives or not.
His first reasoning allowed himself to appear more moral than I. Really, he was just BS-ing me.
Abortionists who use this guy’s first argument do not actually have any standards for abortion; they just want to sound like they do. When you take their proudly proclaimed viewpoint to its logical conclusion—that they should therefore be against late-term abortions if the mother’s life is not at risk—they expose their sanctimonious lie.
Banning late-term abortions when the mother’s life is not at risk is a logical, reasonable compromise. When abortionists fight so energetically to keep abortion going as often as possible and no matter what the reasons are, the best and worst we can deduce is that they do not simply like the freedom to choose abortion; they like the specific choice of abortion.