In Jack Ingram’s commentary on the conservative obsession with abortion, he made it seem like opposition to abortion is an arbitrary stance based on taste, comparable to my personal conviction that mushrooms should remain a fungus, not a food. The problem with this is that it completely divorces the issue from morality. We all agree that the murder of another human is morally wrong, so the entire debate over abortion comes down to whether the ones aborted are individual human persons. Pro-life says they are; pro-choice says they aren’t. All other arguments are peripheral.
Whatever Jack sarcastically says otherwise, conservatives are not fighting hard to keep abortions unsanitary and dangerous, they are fighting to stop abortion from happening. Since we strive to make abortion safer because it’s “going to happen anyway,” should we also have a government-funded institution that hands out money because it can be hazardous to your health to rob a bank and people do it anyway? No. It should not happen, period, because robbing banks is morally wrong. It is the same with abortion. Instead of having government-regulated abortion clinics, the funding could go toward supporting unwed mothers who carry their babies to term. We could give them resources, help and skills. Or, money could go toward adoption agencies that help to find homes for the unwanted babies.
Abortion does not have to be a reality and should not be tolerated just to make it safer; instead, we should fight to give life and hope.