You know that rhetorical trick where one takes the opponent’s argument, extends it to its own logical conclusion, and asks: "Is that what you really want"? He or she is then supposed to recoil in confusion and respond: "Of course not." Well, I tried it on the BBC’s Moral Maze a few months back and it failed completely. The issue was abortion, I was on the panel, and the witness was Dr Ellie Lee, the co-ordinator of the ProChoice Forum and lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Kent.
Dr Lee stated her mantra that "abortion should be available as early as possible and as late as necessary". So, I asked her, suppose a mother gave birth to a baby at full term, and then just as the umbilical cord had been cut, found that the infant repelled her. Should she be allowed to have the baby killed? "I think so, yes," replied Dr Lee. There and then, live on Radio 4, I dried up. I suppose if I had been a lawyer I would have said: "I have no further questions." But fortunately the presenter, Michael Buerk, noticed my inability to continue and smoothly stepped in with a question of his own. [Source][Via Relapsed Catholic]
This at least is an intellectually consistent answer. If you can kill a child through abortion before birth then why should you have any squeamishness about it afterwards. The Human Fairy did not descend upon the child at birth and touch it with it’s magic wand bestowing humanity and rights. If only more pro-abortion supporters took off their masks of verbal obfuscation and say what their intellectual ideas really lead to. Maybe it is a good sign that they feel they still can’t come out fully in the open and that society still sees after birth infanticide as wrong. i just wonder how long it will remain that way?