Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Safe, legal, and rare?

Acton’s Brooke Levitske calls our attention to this LAT piece describing provisions in an appropriations bill passed by the House. In order to reconcile "choice" and "rareness," Democrats have added a laundry list of programs "aimed at preventing unintended pregnancies and providing critical health and social support services that can help vulnerable women and families overcome economic pressures and other life challenges." This appears to be a version of the approach found in Rep. Tim Ryan’s (D-OH)Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act (full PDF text here).

Ryan states his party’s message this way: "Bring the baby to term, and we’ll provide for you."

Do pro-life conservatives have an answer that doesn’t involve a massive expansion of the public health and welfare bureaucracies?

Discussions - 5 Comments

First of all, the above excerpt shows the flaw in the thinking about abortion, as if it is an economic problem of poverty rather than a lifestyle choice of sexuality.

Secondly, the answer is a voluntarist effort by families, larger communities, churches, and organizations that provide money and psychological support to women who are in trouble and need our compassion. This effort is already being accomplished in my own Catholic Church and Catholic organizations as the church realizes that a strong stance and prayer against abortion are very important but so is helping real people in sometimes desperate situations.

I asked this before, but I will ask it again. If abortion is a right and a freedom and it is not killing a human being, why do Democrats want it to be rare? It should be as moral and routine and done often as removing a wart or a mole.

This issue needn't be that black and white, Tony. A fetus can be viewed as inhuman but still worthy of some respect, much like a dog. Most people think that stray dogs need to be killed when there is no more space for them at the pound, but that doesn't mean that we should round up all strays and slaughter them. Most people have the same view of animal euthanasia that the left does of abortions (safe, legal, and rare). Does that clear things up for you?

Thanks for trying, but no. Well, it clears up the thinking though it's an absurd argument. By the way, it is black and white, and I think that when dealing with the remote possibility of the fact that were dealing with humans here (and what else are they, if not human?), the left should err on the side of life and outlaw the practice. You haven't proven to me that the Left should want this to be rare.

"What else are they, if not human?"


Declaring the issue to be black and white and then demanding that someone take a side is merely a fallacious argument. If I were torturing puppies and you told me to stop I'm sure you could see the silliness of me responding: "Well, puppies are either human or they are not. Either you must let me torture puppies like you would let me pick at a wart or you declare that puppies have equal rights to humans."


There is no remote possibility that a fetus is a human. A fetus is a fetus, and we must deal with reality. The question here is to what extent an oak tree should value an acorn.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/10918