May 22, 2022

On the legal front, it appears that Roe v. Wade may soon suffer a calamitous defeat.  But its defenders continue to insist that Roe remains popular with the American people because they have already won American hearts and minds about the moral necessity for women to have the ability to “choose” to kill their unborn child in the womb. 

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); }

In reality, they haven’t been faring any better in that regard.  Outside a small handful of the bluest states, which seem bent on enshrining a protection for a mother to kill her child up to the point of birth (and sometimes beyond the point of birth), many states are legislating stricter limits on abortion.

This is an understandable outcome.  Roe has made the abortion issue a centerpiece of national debate, and that has magnified the easily understandable scientific and moral truths that contradict what the pro-abortion advocates have been selling for many decades.

The first unavoidable truth is that a child in his mother’s womb is a living human being.  A child in a mother’s womb is nourished, moves, and grows.  The child is, therefore, certainly alive in a scientific sense.  That living creature is not, we know, a tree, a dog, or a chimpanzee.  The child is a living human being, with human DNA that is unique only to that one human child, and no other human child on the planet before him.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

This is a fact, and on this point, no serious person could disagree.  This introduces the ethical question about taking that child’s life while in the womb.  Even Margaret Sanger, the early-twentieth-century eugenicist who is often cited as a founder of Planned Parenthood, recognized the moral truth that contraception was always preferable to abortion because “no matter how early [the abortion] was performed, it was taking a life.” 

Considering that the humanity of unborn children is a given, the vast majority of Americans feels that there should certainly be some limitations as to when, why, and how unborn children are killed by mothers and their doctors.  Thus, the unabashedly radical disposition of pro-abortion advocates today is met with a near-universal disgust by Americans.  

Roughly twenty-percent — arguably a fringe element — of Americans support elective abortion in the third trimester or up to the point of birth.  The idea is not only undesirable, but repulsive to the vast majority of Americans.  Even the staunchest pro-abortion ideologues have difficulty defending their wicked propositions about killing children up to the point of birth.  For example, House Representative Mike Johnson (R-La.) recently asked a simple question to Aimee Arrambide, who is the executive director of the abortion “rights” group Avow Texas. 

“What is the principal distinction,” Johnson queried, “between the human being that is two years old, or nine years old, or one week old, or an hour old and one that is eight inches further up the birth canal?”

Obviously flummoxed, this abortion cultist responded, “I trust people to determine what to do with their own bodies — full stop.” 

But surely, we can find a compromise to limit abortion in America, can’t we?  After all, a compromise involving more restrictions on abortion should be possible in a nation that already has among the least restrictive abortion policies in the entire world, which was amusingly news to formerly left-wing but nowadays kinda-right-leaning comedian Bill Maher.