How often have you heard so-called "moderates" scold pro-life activists, saying that we must "first reduce the need for abortion"? Usually we hear that pap from the so-called "common ground" bunch.
Right now I can just imagine my progressive fan-club getting all a-twitter about me being such a "right-wing fanatic" (or other euphamism of their choice) and perhaps some of the pro-life "kinder and gentler" crowd getting all nervous. They might even think that "reducing the need for abortion" is a pretty darned-good idea! If they've swallowed that bait, then they've just shot their credibility down the crapper.
Morally speaking, the object of a legitimate need must be a moral good in and of itself - or at least morally neutral. One would never dream of trying to "reduce the need for bank robbery", would they? No one in their right mind would consider bank robbery to be a true "need". One would reduce bank robbery by incarcerating the perpetrators. Similarly there is no way that sane people can equate baby-murder with a legitimate need.
We need to be very clear about this. We also need to be equally clear that we cannot seek "common ground" with those who support such a heinous, barbaric evil such as abortion.
Ten Years of TAC: Arise Ye Russian People!
3 hours ago