I happened upon a Q & A with Bernie Sanders at Liberty University. In the video he takes the untenable position that disallowing mothers to kill their preborn children is to intrude upon women.
Thankfully, the person who posted the exchange was kind enough to dialogue with me.
Her words are bold and italicized.
“The law of the land says that the government does not have the right to force women to carry their child(ren) to term and give birth to the child(ren). That is a reality.”
How could government "force" a mother to carry her baby? Does government coerce women to become pregnant? Isn't a mother carrying her child due to a "force" of nature—the law of cause and effect, if you will?
The notion that "If moms cannot legally kill their pre or partially born babies, then government is forcing them to have children," is tortured logic, in my mind.
To disallow moms to murder their babies is not tantamount to forcing women to have children.
Yes, “abortion upon demand” is the law of the land. However, please know: What is legal is not at all the same thing as what is moral.
“It is easy for people to tell women that they should have a child that they are not prepared to have, without being willing to truly help that woman and her child beyond that. . . . it is often the same crowd who is screaming that women must keep their children that then bitch about them being a burden on the system and utilizing the very assistance that enabled them to choose life for their child.”
It’s true that many conservatives who oppose abortion also oppose cradle to grave welfare. You think this is an inconsistency on their part. (I don't think it is. "Pro-life" doesn’t mean "pro-welfare.")
But what of the blatant inconsistency within the progressive pro-abortion position?
A) If a baby girl has not fully traversed her mother's birth canal we have a moral obligation to ensure that she may be killed by her mom.
B) If the same baby girl has fully traversed her mother's birth canal we have a moral obligation to ensure that she is well cared for by society.
What sort of twisted logic is this? Is there some kind of essential transformation in the baby girl once she traverses the birth canal? Is the birth canal some kind of magical portal?
In other words, how can it be moral to kill the baby girl but immoral to not care for her—just because she's had a change in "geography"?