Pro-abortion arguments are fraught with contradictions. For example: (1) Abortion defenders often say that it’s wrong to force morality on others. (2) They also say that abortion is a woman’s issue and that men have no proper say in it. Men ought to stay away.
If so, then the pro-abortion folks need to oppose Roe v. Wade because it transgresses the very principles the abortion lobby says it upholds.
(1) Before Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973, abortion was illegal in 45 states and was severely restricted in two others. Opposition to it was formal, legal, and almost universal. Yet, despite the near universal rejection of the practice, the Supreme Court imposed its morality on the entire nation. If imposing morality on others is wrong in principle, as the pro-abortion lobby insists, then the Supreme Court decision was wrong because it imposed its morality upon an entire nation. But that imposition of morality is never opposed by the pro-choicers, which tells you that they are either cheaters or liars. They say they oppose imposing morality in principle, but they don’t, not if their morality is being imposed. They only reject imposing morality when someone else’s morality is in view.
(2) If, as a matter of principle, men have no proper say in abortion, as the pro-abortionists insist, then they ought to oppose Roe v. Wade because it was decided entirely by men, a mere nine men who imposed their morality upon the whole nation. If men have no proper say in the issue, as the pro-choice defenders insist, then the Supreme Court decision doubly transgresses pro-abortion principles: It imposes morality and it was decided by men. But that double transgression of principle means nothing at all to those who endorse abortion. As long as men impose the same morality the pro-abortion faction holds, men can say, do, or impose whatever they wish. It’s only when men argue against abortion that they must be excluded.
In other words, it’s not really about imposing morality on others, and it’s not really about excluding men from the issue. It’s not really about the pro-choice lobby’s alleged principles. It’s really about vacuous self-contradiction. It’s about cognitive dissonance on the grandest scale.
But then whoever accused the pro-abortion cadre of logical consistency? Certainly not I.