In today’s Clarion-Ledger, CNN news analyst Kirsten Powers has a column titled “‘Fetal heartbeat’ laws will hurt women.” In her rambling, pro-abortion attempt to claim the moral high ground–which is simply impossible–she says:
Recently, I followed the outrage over a New York abortion law, which conservatives claim allows abortion even as the woman is giving birth…. Many defenders of he redundant ‘Born Alive’ act claim that if even one baby is not provided medical care after surviving an abortion, it is reason enough for the law. But when it comes to far more American children being murdered by guns, many of the same people provide only ‘thoughts and prayers,’ not legislation. I’m struggling to see the moral consistency here.
Yes, it’s clear to see that Ms. Powers does have trouble identifying moral consistency. If she did, she would see that to support abortion on demand (aka, the right to kill the unborn) and to want to protect children in schools is as morally inconsistent as it’s possible to get. Okay to murder them before they’re born, but not afterwards.
Btw, she makes the mistake of thinking because someone is prolife, they are against all gun control. Fully half the Christian conservatives I know while supporting tough anti-abortion legislation also want tighter gun control laws. You don’t hear them because the Second Amendment and NRA advocates suck all the air out of the room and frequently shame those who try to be the voice of sanity here.
Personally, I resent our Clarion-Ledger presenting such a skewed and unworthy column.