The American Spectator

If he didn’t consider the unborn child a human being and/or didn’t think that abortion hurt women, there would be little reason for him to oppose it, especially with words like “wrong,” “hate” and “tragedy.”

In other words, if the child in utero were merely a “cluster of cells” and if the effects of abortion on women were “mainly positive,” as Planned Parenthood insists, why would anyone oppose it on a personal, or any, level?

No one would, of course, which is what makes the “personally opposed, but…” position so dishonest (and why it is in a very real sense a more deplorable position than that of the abortion advocate who fails to recognize the essence of abortion).

To acknowledge the grave injustice of abortion yet still promote its perpetuation is like saying: “I’m opposed to slavery but think it ought to be left to each plantation owner to decide (a popular position, incidentally, during the age of slavery), and in the meanwhile I’ll pass laws re-affirming the practice and forcing all taxpayers — even those who are “personally opposed” to slavery — to pay for it.”

In the end, the “personally opposed, but…” position on abortion cloaks itself in reason and compassion; but, it is merely a rhetorical device that shields the politician who refuses to follow through on in public what he purports to believe in private. As Thomas More says in A Man For All Seasons, “…when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties…they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”

An April Gallup Poll asked Americans an open-ended question about the most important quality they are looking for in the next president. A third of respondents (a strong plurality) stated that “honesty” and “straightforwardness” are paramount. Sadly, as more prominent politicians embrace the “personally opposed, but…” position on abortion, voters may find few honest candidates remain when it comes to the fundamental issue of life and death.