Compromising on Abortion. What does that mean? In the September 28th issue of Bloomberg’s Businessweek an article quoted two political scientists stating their opinion that some of the up and coming Republican Party female candidates are “very, very, conservative” and “they’re going to want to be confrontational.” The article’s author then went on to explain that 20 years ago, many conservative (Republican) women in Congress were moderates who compromised with Democrats on such issues as abortion, health care, and education. I can understand negotiating and compromising on health care and education. There are many facets to each and much of which entails finances and budgets. But exactly how does one compromise on abortion? Perhaps convicted murderer and abortionist Kermit Gosnell who actually killed children after they passed thru the birth canal is an example of compromising on abortion — he let them take a gulp of air and then went on to kill them.
As to the confrontational comment, I expect any one who has taken an oath to represent me to be confrontational. Taking the life of a child, stopping a heart beat and a brain wave is worth confrontation. If someone came inside your home to take your son, your daughter, your niece, your nephew, your grandchild wouldn’t you be confrontational? Or would you compromise? Would you say, take my daughter but not my son? How about you leave the 8-year-old but go ahead and take the infant? Or is it OK to compromise because the person under discussion cannot speak for themselves?
If we are willing to compromise with children’s lives, should we also be willing to compromise on society’s other vulnerable groups? How would we go about compromising with the lives of the homeless, drug users, or senior citizens – all of whom in fact can at least speak for themselves. Which ones do we keep and which ones do we toss, deciding that they have no value, no dignity and aren’t worthy of our best efforts to keep them alive? Oh, that’s a different story isn’t it? That kind of compromising might get a politician some bad press and we don’t want to appear socially insensitive, do we?
The issues with political discussions about abortion are two-fold. Firstly, politicians embracing abortion rights actually refuse to use the word abortion. These politicians and their followers mask the word abortion by referring to it as: health care, procedure, Roe v Wade, choice, right to choose, reproductive rights, etc. If you believe in it, then call it what it actually is…abortion. Secondly, they opt to ignore the fact that these children are just that, children who are growing with their own DNA, their own heartbeats and their own brain waves. And while the Roe v Wade decision of 1973 was as careless to newly created life then as it is now, we now have so much more medical and scientific knowledge to bolster the argument that these are in fact persons in their own right. Rather than saying abortion is legal and therefore OK, shouldn’t we be questioning the past and then pursuing positive (for the child) change to the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion. (See, I used the actual word abortion twice in one sentence – it can be done.). Cancel culture stops at the door of abortion rights apparently – not allowed to cancel those.
Compromise. We’ve all done it to avoid a standoff or to move things along. We might not have been 100% happy with the results but we knew we could come back another day and re-visit the issue. Once a child has been aborted, that option is no longer available. There’s no coming back from compromising someone else’s life. And in my home state of Pennsylvania most recent statistics report 30,364 compromises of someone else’s life in 2018.