To the Undecided in South Dakota

Andrew Longman has a very cogent, logical explanation why the various exceptions "sought after" by pro-abortionists are completely illogical on several levels.

Among the areas it examines are the contention that abortion is a "private matter," that you "can't legislate morality," and so on.

The piece is a little on the longer side, but is full of information for the person who truly wants to look at the issue logically and make the right decision:

Consider murder. It’s a very personally motivated crime. People murder other people most often for intensely private, mostly domestic reasons. Wives who have been beaten silly by husbands for twenty years, husbands cheated on - you know the pantheon of human evil. Most murderers have justifications. But there is a rigid law against murder that prevents the deaths of many millions of people. Is it perfect? Does it remove the moral burden of murder?

Or how about tax evasion, another so-called "victimless crime":

Well then, let’s consider taxes and cheating on them – the victimless crime. People have hard scrabble lives. They have kids in college, kids with disabilities, un-working leech relatives. People have their reasons. Can’t it be viewed as moral that they are cheating on their taxes? Can you imagine how utterly rigid the government law is that tries, and fails, to solve the problem of tax evasion? They have IRS agents that kick in doors with guns in the extreme cases! Because we cannot solve the problem of tax evasion, and because you are “always going to have the problem”, should we then give up the collection of revenue? Quit trying to legislate morality?

And for those who argue that it should be morally acceptable to kill the unborn child of the rapist (who is incidentally the unborn child of the woman, too):

For the killer who commits murder, in order to get back at him for his crime and for the incredible burden he has placed on the family of the victim, we should take the criminal’s youngest child and execute him or her. Violently.

For the rapist – oh, we’ve got that covered. We’re going to kill his youngest child. Ok, right. We’re just going to do all rapists that way.

So how much sense does it make to allow the murder of the unborn child whose only crime was to be conceived by a rapist?

The moral and cognitive disconnect for people who think they want an exception for rape or incest is: the baby is still not a person in your heart even though the baby is a person in fact. Without science changing at all, you think by a change in attitude you can give or take away the worth of the baby. You are dealing with this issue emotionally and not rationally. Rationally, it makes no sense to murder the baby because of the crimes of her father. Emotionally, you reach a wrong conclusion by being filled with angry injustice against the rapist-father and so you overlook the humanity of the child, calling her instead a “pregnancy”.

The piece sums it up well:

The South Dakota law, insofar as it will not allow any exception for rape or incest, is then morally cogent, morally coherent, and praiseworthy in that formulation. The undecided voters should recognize that protecting all human life is the only moral consistency. Anything else is prejudice and irrational contempt for an innocent baby human being who does not know why he should die for the sins of his father.

Go read the whole thing. It's well worth it, whether you're pro-life, pro-abortion, or undecided.