MYTH: “A compassionate response to abortion that respects the diverse opinions on this issue is to be ‘personally opposed but pro-choice; after all, it’s wrong to try to impose my morality on others."
TRUTH: Like many of the other Abortion Myths, the statement above is logically and morally incoherent; consider the following:
-There is nothing “compassionate” about allowing some people to hurt the innocent and defenseless. Is it
-If you are personally opposed, what is the reason? If it is because you know that abortion extinguishes an innocent life, how can you defend the “right” of others to perpetuate the killing?
-As we have seen in other posts, all laws involve moral judgments. Do we also refrain from imposing on others our judgments about rape, drunk driving, or even non-violent crimes like embezzlement and fraud?
-Those who opposed the constitutionally permitted practice of slavery in the pre-civil war United States were ridiculed at the time as religious zealots trying to impose their morality on everyone else. Those people, such as Stephen A. Douglas, who were “personally opposed but pro-choice” about slavery applauded themselves for their tolerance and open-mindedness. What do you think of these two groups today?
The bottom line is this: if abortion is wrong, it is because it involves the intentional taking of an innocent human life. If it’s not, there’s no reason to be opposed; if it is, it is a terrible crime that we cannot in good conscience allow to go unchallenged. As British statesman Edmund Burke supposedly said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of Evil is for good men to do nothing.”
DON’T BUY THE LIE!
Essential Pro-Life Resources:
Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (link)
The Elliot Institute (link)