Some people would argue that when we take a maximalist position on an issues, we undermine our position by taking it too far and making compromise impossible. There are cases were a maximalist position is unreasonable, and that we should be more willing to compromise. I have often railed against the "all or nothing" mentality that produces cults on both Right and Left.
But some things really are "all or nothing." One of those is abortion. Either the fetus is a human being or he is not. If he is a human being with rights, then allowing that life to be ended is wrong, even if it is done under the euphemism "reproductive choice."
This is why it is logically incoherent to argue that surgical abortions in the first trimester should be permitted while partial-birth abortion should not be. But what it comes down to is that the baby who is delivered feet first only to have his skull crushed "looks like a baby" by then. This is an emotional position, not a logical one. Whether the fetus is a baby or not is not determined by whether it has reached a certain stage of development.
So here is a question: What about chattel slavery? Was slavery OK when only adults are enslaved, but the children of slaves should go free? Was it more reasonable to put basic humanitarian obligations on slave owners? Or was chattel slavery enough of a moral evil that it had to be abolished (whether immediately or with a gradual emancipation) and not permitted to continue forever?
The maximalist pro-abortion position is much more unreasonable than the maximalist pro-life position. When you are arguing it is perfectly fine to murder a full-term baby who could easily survive outside of the womb, the majority of people recognize that is morally abhorrent. There is a line that is crossed there. The consistent pro-life position asks that if there is a line, where should that line be drawn? If we draw the line at 30 weeks gestation, what is the logical basis for allowing an abortion at 29 weeks and three days? Does something magical happen four days later?
And no, this should not be handled as a state-by-state issue. Looking back at slavery, the abolitionists were not content with slavery being outlawed in the North, but wanted it ended in the South. If abortion is a fundamental violation of basic human rights, you cannot have the murders be allowed in some states and not in others. Either the organism gestating in a woman's womb is a human being or he is not. We do not allow the states to infringe on rights protected by the Bill of Rights, as the Fourteenth Amendment applies those same restrictions to state governments. Something as basic as the right to life is far more important than the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process or even private property rights.
The people who argue that a maximalist pro-life position weakens the anti-abortion argument demonstrate that they fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life position. Instead, it becomes about feelings and vibes about whether the results of an abortion looks like medical waste or looks like a fully formed newborn baby. The fundamental question is not about feelings. It is about when life begins. If the gestating fetus is a human being (spoiler: he is) then we cannot deny him equal protection under the law - at least not if we want to be a nation that values basic human rights.
When a maximalist position is the only logical position
Something as basic as the right to life is far more important than the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process or even private property rights.
