I legitimately do not understand the pro-choice argument. From a moral perspective, generally, but specifically when a kid is or is not alive/human.
If the argument is “it can’t survive on its own in the womb”, that’s particularly absurd. It can’t survive outside the womb, either. Location does not determine survivability or humanity. Leave a 2-year-old to fend for themselves. He’ll be dead in a day or two.
“It’s just a clump of cells until it is born”. People can only create people. The kid’s a human. It can’t BE anything else. Further, the heart doesn’t start beating when it goes outside. This is another way of getting around the “it can’t survive on its own” bit. The kid isn’t a waste product. You have to feed the little nugget while it’s growing.
Then there’s the argument about “it’s better to be dead than live with,” for example, autism or Down syndrome or something like that. Now, I understand that secular leftism sees life as a burden and humanity as a virus. This argument feels like an excuse to say, “Now it’s REALLY a burden and REALLY not worth living”, as if the conclusion is so obvious that one quirk justifies the misanthrope beyond ANY doubt.
On the rape and incest point: You need to be able to prove the situation. Incest is not difficult to prove, rape is apparently quite hard and made worse by the MeToo movement’s Salem Witch Trials approach at the peak of its power. So case-by-case is a challenge. Regardless, this exception does not invalidate the rest of the argument.
Of course, there are sensational cases in the news that pro-abortion argument loves to put on and imply that pro-life people are cruel because they accept a negative situation as good. But then we’re talking about exceptions here. The unique cases are not good, but they’re often used as a cudgel by an argument that has to explain away the baby-killing, which sits at its foundation to maintain a sufficient moral advantage to justify the argument in the first place.
We’re quite a distance from Hilary Clinton’s “safe, legal and -rare-” proclamation. As we’ve seen with the lockdown cult, gun control, the concept of self-defense, and maybe leaving other people’s children alone, the left isn’t very good at determining a moral line they will not cross. It should come as little surprise, then that the side of the aisle they have gaslit in those issues is deciding to draw a very harsh line on their behalf.
Is it good? Of course not, there is a difference between vengeance and justice. Still, we’ve long since left anything deeper than evangelical Christianity (a mile wide and an inch deep). Leaving that aside, we have since made abortion yet another secular, scientific left vs. right issue. An issue in which the misanthropic left is up against a reactionary right-wing that doesn’t love people so much as it hates the left. If people can prosper during their crusade, that’s fine; it’s just not the point.
Note that in the above points, I’ve made no appeals to Christianity (The CT article is talking about secularists joining the pro-life cause), even though it is true that God is the only one who bestows inherent value on people AND that without God, everything is just an “ought” with no foundation to stand on. This is just dealing with what is human and when the kid’s alive. On one hand, it can’t be anything other than human and the demarcation line for life is a lot closer to conception than abortion advocates need it to be.
Finally tonight 