Recently, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has been hailed as a “moderate” for calling for a “big tent” approach that makes room for pro-life democrats. Early in the Primary cycle, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard broke with the current progressive narrative by reintroducing a mantra from the Clinton era: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Former Vice President Joe Biden, for much of his career, has described himself as taking a “middle of the road” position on abortion.
Some have regarded these statements and positions as evidence that “abortion moderates” are emerging in the Democratic party. The problem with this view is that it assumes a “moderate” approach to abortion can exist. This simply is not so. There is no such thing as an abortion moderate because there is nothing moderate about abortion. So-called “moderate” positions attempt to find a middle ground between two ideas that cannot co-exist.
Furthermore, Klobuchar’s voting record on abortion is not moderate in any sense of the word. She has voted in favor of abortion every opportunity that she has had, and supports abortion up until birth. She even opposes the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, which would make sure that abortion survivors receive medical care.
Many who claim to be abortion moderates will argue that they are personally opposed to abortion, but do not want to prevent someone else from making that choice, or that they want abortion to be allowed, but only in a small number of cases. But taking the life of another human being cannot be a “private” choice and the choice of a society or an individual to turn a blind eye to the taking of innocent lives is not neutral. If someone is only privately or personally opposed to abortion, they are either unwilling to say that it is evil and that it takes an innocent human life, or by their refusal to publicly oppose abortion they are saying that such evil is acceptable. As Kathryn Jean Lopez asked, “What good is private opposition in the face of the death of innocent life, the pitting of a mother against her child, the trail of misery that is legal abortion, with all the cultural pressures in favor of abortion?”
When Gabbard said that abortion should be rare, she received immediate backlash from abortion activists. Amelia Bonow, the co-founder of the “Shout Your Abortion” campaign said, “I cannot think of a less compelling way to advocate for something than saying that it should be rare. And anyone who uses that phrase is operating from the assumption that abortion is a bad thing.” Abortionists do not want to allow for an argument that acknowledges abortion is wrong because this requires them to accept full responsibility for the fact that they are killing babies. Abortion treats children as a commodity to be disposed of and destroyed if they are not wanted. When recognized for what it is, abortion cannot reasonably be defended.
This is why Amy Klobuchar’s “big tent” simply does not work. Pro-lifers think abortion is evil and are working to eradicate it. Pro-abortionists think it’s a good thing and are committed to keeping it legal. There is no possible middle ground between these two positions and no political “tent,” however large, could ever contain both.
However well-meaning arguments for a “moderate” abortion may be, the logic behind them is inconsistent. There can be no moderate argument for an inherently radical position. The acceptance of late-term abortion and infanticide are appalling, not because they are inconsistent with the pro-abortion position, but because they are its necessary logical outworking. If it is acceptable to kill unborn children at any stage of development, then it is acceptable to kill unborn children at all stages of development, and even after birth. Abortion with some restrictions inevitably leads to abortion with no restrictions. We must either reject abortion and work to end it completely or continue to live a society that demands the death of unborn children. And that is unacceptable.
