I don’t usually get into the topic of abortion on this blog, however, this article by Kathryn Lopez over at ‘The Corner’ just floored me. It is astonishing to me how many on the left can reach so disparate conclusions on 2 different forms of (essentially) the same moral question.
I was taken aback during Wednesday press conference when I noted the difference in Obama’s answers to the questions on waterboarding and abortion. I haven’t seen anyone note the inconsistency of his reasoning. When it came to torture/ waterboarding/ enhanced interrogation techniques, Obama said we shouldn’t take shortcuts. Even when it’s hard, we should take the high road. It’s in our nation’s character to take the more noble option, though it will require a lot more work and effort to get the same information. But when it came to the issue of abortion, while he readily acknowledged it was a morally and ethically weighty issue, he said it should be an available option. Why? Because he trusted that women, along with their doctors and their families, appreciate the ethical weightiness of their decision and will make the best decision for their circumstances…
How is it that he cannot trust the educated opinion of government lawyers as they balance ethics (of inducing discomfort and pain) with practicalities (of stopping mass murder) and advise as to where enhanced techniques cross the line to become illegal torture? But a woman, by virtue of having two x chromosomes, can be trusted to weigh ethics (of live and death) and practicalities (of inconvenience and economic difficulties) while having a personal vested interest in those practicalities.
If we should take the “high road” when it comes to the protections we offer hardened terrorists… why should we abandon the highway system entirely when it comes to life in the womb?