Two recent opinion editorials talk about coming to a “middle ground” compromise on the human life issue, but they each take positions that are anything but a compromise. Ellen Goodman’s piece in the Boston Globe (“Abortion’s elusive middle ground”) is decidedly pro-choice. Yuval Levin’s essay in the New York Times (“A Middle Ground for Stem Cells”) is decidedly pro-life.
I agree with Goodman that “middle ground” on the abortion issue has been “elusive.” This is the case because one side sees innocent human life as sacred and worthy of protection under law, and the other side doesn’t. How do you come to a compromise on that? As a pro-lifer myself, I can’t see how I can moderate my position in support of life. When it comes to unborn babies, I support enacting and enforcing laws that protect the lives of the innocent. How can a person compromise that position even one iota?
In any case, I highlight these articles because we are approaching the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (January 22, 1973), the Supreme Court decision that made it legal in the U.S. for a woman to abort her unborn baby at any time before the child is born. After thirty-four years, this issue is still not settled, and I for one won’t let it go until the immoral culture of death is turned back.