
<p>Ever since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, abortion has become the major moral issue of the day. ; Under Roe v. Wade, both sides of the issue held strong opinions on the subject &#8212; but the issue had very little influence on voting. ; For sure, there were small contingents on both sides who cast their vote on the basis of abortion – but not enough to make a difference in election outcomes generally. ;</p>



<p>People cast their ballots on what issues they decide to decide upon. ; Abortion was not at the top for the vast majority of voters. ; Other issues drove the voting decisions – that is until <em>Dobbs v. Jackson</em>.</p>



<p>That decision was correct constitutionally. Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg alluded to that problem – fearing it could be justifiably overturned. The Dobbs Decision did not make abortion illegal. It merely left the decision up to the people of the several states.</p>



<p>As can be expected in our federal system, the responses from the states varied from near total bans on abortion to legislation protecting the practice to the time of birth ; While most Americans favor legalized abortions, the vast majority – up to 70 percent in some polls – want restrictions, especially on second and third trimester abortions. ; There is a common ground.</p>



<p>The sentiment in favor of legalized abortions was seen when abortion was singularly the issue on the ballot – as was the case in Kansas and more recently in Ohio. ; An overwhelming majority of voters sided with the pro-abortion advocates.</p>



<p>It is clear that a vast majority of Americans believe that abortion was both moral and a civil right. ; Of course, there was a time that most Americans believed the same of slavery.</p>



<p>The allusion to slavery is not gratuitous. ; Many pro-lifers – like this writer – see our situation as similar to the abolitionist in the later Eighteenth Century when the evil institution of slavery was culturally accepted as … moral and a civil right of owners. ; In fact, the abolition of slavery had less public support in the late 1700s than the pro-life position today. ; Like abortion, slavery was predicated on a malignant belief that the subject was something less than human – mostly based on differences in appearance.</p>



<p>Most Germans in the 1930s seemed to support Hitler’s genocidal polices against Jews by characterizing them as lesser humans unworthy of life. ; The Jews genetic inferiority, according to Hitler, was a threat to his Aryan race. ; Again, we see dehumanization as a rationale for genocidal extermination.</p>



<p>The question of abortion is a profound fundamental moral issue. ; It is not a political issue as pro-abortion advocates suggest. ; It is the political narrative that argues in favor of abortion without any consideration for moral issues involving both the developing human being and the involvement of a father the partner in producing that developing human being. ; The public narrative perpetuates the false claim that abortion is exclusively a woman’s issue despite the obvious involvement of the developing human being and the father.</p>



<p>By the science of evolution, the human woman has been given responsibility for the nurturing of the new life – first inside her body and then as the young life mature outside the womb.  ;It is an unbroken chain of responsibility.  ;The argument that the new life in the womb cannot survive on its own – and is therefore not entitled to life – could be applied to the one-month-old baby for whom the mother – and others – bear legal and criminal responsibility to care for and nurture. ; The biological responsibility for the health, wellbeing and life of the fetus and the toddler remains the same reality. The only thing that changes is the political issue of legal responsibility.</p>



<p>In addition to the moral issue, the decision to abort is not based on science or biology. ; Most pro-abortion folks consider the developing human being as something less than a developing human being. ; ; Some even concede that the fetus IS a developing human being, but not yet entitled to the constitutional rights afforded human beings. ; Both arguments are fundamentally flawed.</p>



<p>As some point in the maturation process, we all agree that the developing human being attains human status AND the civil rights of citizenship – particularly the existential right to life. ; But when does that significant moment take place? ; Pro-abortion advocates dodge that issue – and let it up to politicians to make such determinations without a biological rationale. ; When an abortion is allowable is based on the pragmatic political need to create an arbitrary moment of transition. ; There is no consistent reference to science. ; Different folks and different politicians select their own favored moment to determine humanity – six weeks, twelve weeks, heartbeat, presence of pain … or never.</p>



<p>In the past, I have alluded to several political myths that permeate the pro-abortion narratives. ; I have already mentioned the “<strong>woman exclusivity fallacy</strong>” and the “<strong>non-human fetus</strong>” claim.  ;There are others.</p>



<p><strong>Abortion is a woman’s health issue. </strong> ;It is not a matter of “health.” ; The vast majority of abortions-on-demand are performed on healthy women and healthy developing human beings &#8212; fetuses. ; The issues that drive abortions are largely economic and a sense of personal inconvenience. ; Most pro-lifers make exceptions for the health and life of the mother – and also for rape and incest.</p>



<p><strong>Preventing the birth of bad people.</strong> As preposterous as it may seem, many abortion advocates argue that abortions prevent the birth of people who will live miserable and counterproductive lives. They will be abused as unwanted children – or turn out to be criminals and psychopaths. There is no more validity to that claim than it would be to argue all the saved babies would mostly turn out to be Albert Einsteins or Mother Theresas. There is no statistical data to support the claims of abortion supporters. In fact, that argument tracks more closely to false claims of Nazis and racists.</p>



<p><strong>Meaningless blob of flesh</strong>. Abortion advocates often see the aborted developing human being as merely a blob of flesh. ; In fact, many abortions are performed on fetuses that have already taken on human traits and appearances. ; There are heads with eyes and brains. ; Tiny arms and legs with fingers and toes. There are internal organs and heartbeats – and nerves that feel pain. ; So much so that Planned Parenthood – in what can only be described as a grisly service &#8212; harvests and sells such body parts. (I know PP claims they do not “sell” body parts, but only takes money for “services” in extracting and packaging them. ; You only pay “shipping and handling.” ; Un huh.)  ; ;The picture atop this commentary is of a fetus eligible for abortion by human vivisection.</p>



<p><strong>Pro-lifers hate women</strong>. Pro-abortion advocates claim that the opposition to abortion is not only male dominated but is based on anti-female misogyny – the product of so-called toxic masculinity. They obfuscate the fact that millions of pro-lifers are women – and that millions of lives that would be saved are mostly female. In fact, abortions of female fetuses out number male fetuses because many abortions-on-demand are based on gender preferences. The pro-life position is based on the protection of ALL human life at all stages of development.</p>



<p><strong>Pro-abortion denialism</strong>. ; Many of my pro-abortion friends take offense to my use of the term “pro-abortion.” ; They claim that they are not personally in favor of abortion but see no reason to prevent others from engaging in the practice. ; That is the rationale of many Catholic politicians, such as President Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. ; To me that suggests a conscious or subconscious uneasiness with the procedure. ; I take no offence at being referred to as pro-life or anti-abortion. ; They are two sides of the same proverbial coin. ; When someone supports abortion-on-demand and opposes efforts to ban or limit it– when they lobby for legislation to expand it – I see that as a pro-abortion position. ; They should own it proudly – but they do not.</p>



<p><strong>Summary</strong></p>



<p>Conversely, I have long pushed back on those in the Pro-Life Movement who describe those who have abortions or advocate for abortions as “baby killers.” ; While I think they are on the wrong side of morality and science, I understand that they are also a product of the times in which abortion-on-demand has become part of the culture. ; Family and friends I love and care about deeply do not share my pro-life position.  ;I do not consider them evil baby killers.</p>



<p>Again, it is similar to the many good people who were educated and influenced by society to honestly believe that Negroes were an inferior race of humans, and that slavery was an appropriate part of farming and commerce – or the ancient peoples who believed that sacrificing humans was moral and essential.</p>



<p>Political pragmatists call on the Republican Party to come in line with the current cultural opinion on abortion in order to succeed POLITICALLY. They do not understand that one does not surrender deeply held moral beliefs on the altar of political expediency. Yes, abortion is an issue currently working against the GOP, but that is not a reason for pro-lifers to bend to the zeitgeist of the times.</p>



<p>I do believe that there will be a future enlightenment as there has been slavery and human sacrifices. That will not happen in my lifetime, but the pro-life effort will continue well into the future. ; ; I do believe, however, that there will come a time when abortion-on-demand will be viewed in hindsight as a misguided and primitive practice based on political power and economics – not science or morality.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Being pro-life is not easy today … but still a just cause
