OK EV, I’ll “play”
First from the article:
“This debate isn’t even comparable to “Sophie’s Choice,” being forced to choose which children live or die. All children slated for abortion are going to die. But if given the opportunity, do we not rescue any of them? Purists say no, not unless we can rescue all of them.”
EV, It is not possible to pass a HLA. http://www.nchla.org/
Not even remotely possible at this time. We should save as many babies as we possibly can, NOW while also working to change the culture so that in the future a HLA will be possible.
This should never have been presented as an “either or” scenario. IMO, it is a “both and” real world situation. You do everything you can whenever you can.
When it becomes possible to pass a HLA, by all means we will do it.
The so-called “purist” seems to think that if we work incrementally now (which has saved untold thousands) that somehow will prevent us from working on a HLA when it is possible. That is very short sighted and costs lives in the process.
The incrementalists give up the core principles. After that, there’s nothing left but a phony shell.
All or nothing is such a ridiculous, irrational and losing strategy, I can't help but wonder if the people pushing it are trolls who are ardently pro-abortion.
And the sad fact is, some precious lives that are lost could have been saved.