The abortion debate doesn’t lend itself to logical arguments.
One the one hand, you have we liberals saying, “You know, it’s really hard to know when life actually begins, so it’s probably best to leave it up to the pregnant lady to choose what to do with her body and whatever is inside of it.”
On the other hand, you have Christian conservatives saying, “Once a sperm enter an egg, a soul gets pulled down from heaven, is inserted into that egg, and that four or five cells is now a human being with all the rights that that the title comes with. And in Arizona, you get might get a few rights before your egg is even fertilized, like maybe the right to bear arms if we can figure out a way to get a gun up in there.”
I respect the anti-choice point of view. If you believe life begins at conception, good for you. You have every right to make that argument, and I’m sure you are sending a lot of money to adoption charities and women’s health clinics so that poor, desperate women have options preferable to the one you equate with murder. Kudos to you!
What I don’t respect is the opinion pretzel some pro-lifers espouse when they don’t want to seem too pro-life, when they, for example, are running for some kind of public office and want to say a thing that sounds good to one group and not so bad to another group, even though it means nothing at all.
Mitt Romney’s official (current) position on abortion is this: Life begins at conception. Abortion should be illegal EXCEPT in the case of rape, incest and if the life of the mother is at risk.
Here is my problem. If life begins at conception, and all life is sacred, is a baby conceived in rape or incest therefore not alive? What is it about the five cells that were the result of a rape that make it not a person? And why are the five cells that are the result of a careless, yet consensual, drunken night deserving of the full protection of the federal government?
Read More
