Last month, Princeton’s University Center for Human Values sponsored a discussion on the abortion debate. Austin Ruse wrote a scathing summary of the conference over at That Catholic Thing but I’m focused here on one point made by William Saletan of Slate Magazine who summed up a number of points he believed pro-lifers should learn from the conference.
While such as predictably liberal solutions like embracing contraception and more government programs subsidizing single mothers were paramount, one of the “lessons” Saletan thought pro-lifers should learn boggled my mind and made clear why there is such a disconnect between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Saletan wrote that pro-lifers’ push for waiting periods and required ultrasounds simply delay the date a mother can procure an abortion and this is bad because “early abortions are better than late ones.” So therefore we’d be better off removing all restrictions so that women can get their abortions quickly?
It’s kind of like blackmail. Don’t fight us or the babies will die after they look all cute.
November 16, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Call me a liberal, but I'm all in favour of every government assistance and subsidy possible for single mothers. Normally I balk at the idea of government hand-outs, but if it means taking one more excuse away from the pro-choicers, count me in.
November 17, 2010 at 8:00 am
Better early or late??? Kind of like is it better to be shot in the head or decapitated.