trying to make their position politically less unpalatable
I appreciate the merit of political compromise on this issue, at least I would if the matter were back in the state legislatures, a ban on third trimester abortions against in exchange for tolerating first, for example. If one's position is posited as a proposed compromise, then that's what it is.
Perhaps all the pro-lifers who concede rape, for example, are really proposing a compromise rather than a making a statement of principle and have just, over time, skipped the fine point of making that qualification assuming it's understood. It's hard for me to tell, but I could have sworn I'd heard pro-lifers imply that it was less "wrong" to abort the product of rape than the product of indiscretion. It isn't less wrong, I don't think. It is certainly more expedient. I can respect expediency but I'd like to see more clarity, or perhaps honesty, on the subject. |
