A exchange of ideas in the comment section got me to thinking and I ended up posting an article to another site which I also reproduce here…
An inconsistency came to light in a recent discussion on the abortion issue. As some of you may know, I recently came out as pro-abortion (see collapsed article), but that doesn’t mean I don’t still enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies in the progressive position. In this case my discussion partner was actually a conservative, but the thought he expressed is certainly one that many consider a “main stream” position.
Personally I don’t feel we can make the raped mother morally responsible for the child that results from the rape.
I can’t see many progressives disagreeing with that position. The question now on the table is, if we agree that an exception should be made for rape, and I’m for abortions without restrictions, based on the fact that the woman had no choice in the matter, how does that support the notion that the rest of the nation should be responsible in any way for the product of an act of which they either had no knowledge or actively opposed? Rape is rape and choice is choice, shouldn’t the same rules apply to like situations?
Am I really going to do this? Am I really going to stick my neck out and blog about abortion? Am I really going to try and defend a position that will upset liberals and conservatives alike?
When I started this blog, I promised myself I would use it as a public sounding board for my own thoughts, and if in doing so I alienated every reader of the blog and had no followers, then so be it. Mind you, I’m not trying to alienate everybody, but if I was, a regular abortion essay would probably be the fastest route. As a Republican atheist professor, I’m used to having a minority world view.
The stimulus for today’s essay comes from a letter to the editor in the Orlando Sentinel. It appears to be an attack on Mitt Romney from the right:
Mitt Romney’s current position on abortion appears logically…
View original post 1,925 more words