A news report in late June showed that when the infamous Roe v. Wade decision was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, President Richard M. Nixon worried that abortion would promote “permissiveness.” But he also thought that abortion would be justified in cases of interracial pregnancies. “When you have a black and a white,” he said, “abortion is necessary.”
No one in the pro-abortion camp has any principled reason to object to Nixon’s selective justification for abortion. Indeed, pro-abortion advocates cannot logically claim that abortion is morally neutral and then object to abortions for reasons they find objectionable.
Who are they to decide what is a good reason or a bad reason? Who are they to decide that a woman’s right to choose must accord with liberal rationales for abortion? Ultimately, if extracting a baby from a mother’s womb is the moral equivalent of a tooth extraction, then all abortions are morally equal.
Remember a while back when liberal gays learned that a “gay gene” may exist? They were scared to death that prospective parents might elect to abort such kids. Now we have the sight of those who condemn Nixon on this issue.
Ironically, the man who sits in the White House is just the kind of guy Nixon thought our society would be better off without. That the current occupant is also a pro-abortion extremist makes the story all the more bizarre, if not sickening.
