Some anti-abortion activists are starting to embrace a reduction stance, due to their failure to overturn Roe v Wade. They are interested in working with Democrats to establish programs that will help pregnant women provide for their children, and encourage them to continue with their pregnancies.
Some hardliners are appalled at this new effort, stating that "you don't work to limit the murder of innocent victims--you work to stop it." Well, ok, but isn't it morally questionable to NOT try and protect the blastocytes and embryos and fetuses (the unborn, if you will) while you fight for the rights of the non-existent? I'm all for middle ground, and I understand anti-abortion stances, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Can't activists, like presidents, do two things at once? Advocate for policies that would reduce the currently legal abortions while also advocating for policies that would make abortion illegal?
I hope that this new middle ground will eventually include more effort to prevent pregnancies (birth control!) in addition to preventing abortions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment