What might be inside their heads:
- Pro-abortion advocates use a cost/benefit comparison to arrive at their position on the life of the unborn, offering the following four points for our consideration: because the developing unborn child is not a person and/or because the mother’s right to choose and/or because the mother’s purpose is to have rights equal to those of men, then these rights of the mother have greater value than those of her unborn child. This reasoning (which ignores fundamental facts) results in these advocates restricting their concern for protecting the lives of human beings to those who are already beyond the infant stage.
- A difficult task is to determine reasons legislators use to assign a greater value to the mother’s being protected by law when she procures an abortion, than the right of the unborn to be protected from lethal attack. Here are some reasons:
- The pro- abortion lobby is more vocal that the lobby for the unborn
- The pro-abortion donors contribute more funds to the legislators’ re-election campaigns than do the unborn children’s advocacy groups.
- The Supreme Court has already decided that the U S Constitution provides for the absolute right of a mother to procure an abortion. (This understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision is inaccurate)
- The majority of Americans favor the woman’s legal right to procure an abortion over the right to life of the unborn. (Most Americans oppose unrestricted abortion)
- The legislator can vote to fund programs for women, children and infants, for which action he/she has achieved the moral high ground even if he/she supports and votes for pro-abortion laws.
(A good result does not justify directly choosing an evil act to obtain it, especially if an innocent human being’s life is sacrificed)
- If the platform of a legislator’s political party is pro-abortion, he/she is required to vote on abortion legislation as the party director commands. The reprisals that result from breaking ranks are too costly. (Courage to stand alone is a virtue)