It's quite a rare thing for what is widely accepted as the more moderate position to actually be the more sinister. But nowhere is that more true than in the politics of choice. To examine this more closely, let's take a look at the candidate who managed to escape from the insane asylum that is the Nevada GOP and challenge Harry Reid for his Senate seat: Sharron Angle.
In a recent wide-ranging interview that fully demonstrated the depths of her extremism, Angle had this to say about the right to an abortion:
Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?
Angle: Not in my book.
Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?
Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.
Yes, Sharron Angle believes that if you are a woman and you are impregnated by a rapist or an abusive family member, that your ill treatment was all part of God's plan, and to be fair to it, you really ought to let your rapist's child come to full term. If you don't, then you are interfering with God's plan for you and your ill-begotten child. And keep in mind as well that this child's life began at conception, according to Angle--which means that even if you did decide to interfere with God's plan, you shouldn't legally be able to because it would constitute murder.
Now, those of us who favor reproductive rights in this country are fortunate: Angle's position is in a distinct minority, according to the most recent polling available, supported by only about 15 percent of the population. The fact that 15 out of every 100 people in this country support theocracy is a sobering thought, but at least it is an intellectually consistent one.
After all, if you were firmly convinced that God breathes a soul into a union of zygotes the moment sperm meets egg and the result divides from one cell into two, and it's the termination of this soul that makes murder the crime it is, then it stands to reason that you would, in your belief system, consider abortion to be murder--and that the resultant murder (in your view, of course) of millions of children every year would obviously be your main public policy concern. No other issue would loom as large, and no alternative could possibly be brooked besides a complete elimination of murder as viable public policy.
So much for that.
But now, let's take a look at the more "moderate" position: those who favor some restrictions on a woman's right to choose. According to the polling referenced above, this position holds a plurality with regard to American opinion on this issue, with 44 percent favoring it. Now, it's hard to know where that near-majority breaks down. Technically speaking, the ideas "I don't think an elective third-trimester abortion should be permissible" and "I don't think it should be legal except in cases of rape" would likely both be counted in polling as favoring "some restrictions" even though there's a large philosophical difference between the two. But for the sake of argument, let us consider the "middle ground" on this issue: the idea that abortion should be acceptable in case of rape, incest and medical emergencies, but illegal in other cases.
This may seem like a more moderate position, but let's consider one fact. First, the mere granting of any exemptions whatsoever is proof that the fetus is not the overriding concern. After all: a life created through a violent act of rape is no less innocent than one consciously created through the physical act of a married couple very much in love. That, of course, only leaves one notion as the overriding concern: Blame.
The issue here is simple: those in the category who would permit an abortion only in the circumstances of crime view the fetus not as a person, but rather as an inconvenience. They support a concrete punishment involving the supposed shame of pregnancy, the pain of childbirth, and lastly, a choice between either the expense and difficulty of raising a child or the emotional turmoil of giving one up for adoption. This attitude is not one that respects life, but one that seeks to use it as a bargaining chip in exchange for the social engineering of female sexual and economic repression.
When we take a look at the positions of a candidate like Sharron Angle, we should call them exactly what they are: extremist; theocratic; far outside the mainstream; dangerous. But we would make a mistake to assume that the position that seems more immediately toward the center is in fact inherently less dangerous. On the contrary, it promotes an ideology and a view of the world that is actually more sexist, less respectful of life, and equally as unpalatable.