It’s an old tactic—attacking the advocates of both sides of a contentious issue. In doing so, the pundit attempts to seize the mantle of objectivity. But it often doesn’t work, and it certainly didn’t work for Dana Milbank.
Milbank takes shots at both sides of the abortion issue. Some of what he says is uncontestable, but there are also some unfair swipes. No matter, what is most important is what he says at the end of his piece. He takes issue with an abortion advocate who said of her own abortion that “abortion is often the most moral choice.” Milbank says, sarcastically, “Abortion as a ‘most moral’” choice? He also told the abortion rights crowd that they need to “acknowledge that the other side [the pro-life side], and most Americans, have legitimate concerns.”
Every honest person must concede that abortion is the intentional killing of a nascent human being. It’s Bio 101—not religion. Milbank knows this as well. After all, if abortion doesn’t kill, why wouldn’t it be a moral act? Why is abortion different from a root canal? If a tooth extraction is needed, no one thinks twice about it. Why is an abortion extraction different?
Also, what are the “legitimate concerns” that most Americans have about abortion? Do they relate to cost? Or do they have something to do with what is being extracted? Milbank doesn’t say.
It is often said that no one is really pro-abortion. I’m still waiting to find out why not.