Progressives’ compassion stops at the womb


Amid all the hubbub surrounding the recent legislation passed by states such as Georgia and Alabama regarding abortion, the left has been especially vocal in its opposition to these bills as great threats to women’s rights.

They intensely lament the plight of women who find themselves pregnant and may have no other option but to have that child. They see such measures as a draconian limitation on their freedom and an imposition on their so-called reproductive rights. (Reproduce all you want; just don’t kill the resultant life in your womb.)

In other words, they focus all of their compassion on the women who may be affected by these laws. But, curiously, they seem to have no compassion at all for the other party affected by these laws, the child in the womb.

And that made me wonder: for progressives, why does their compassion end at the womb?

I mean, they have bucket-fulls of compassion for illegal immigrants, the homeless, transgendered people, or anyone who is marginalized or left behind by the greater society. In this, their intentions are basically good for that is the role of the left-wing or the more liberal segment of our population: to make sure that those less fortunate are looked after by the society at large.

And these progressives are even willing to make others suffer for the benefit of these marginalized groups. They are willing to let city dwellers have their quality of life negatively impacted in order to make sure the homeless are treated with compassion. They are willing to overburden small towns near the border with illegal immigrant refugees so that those refugees can receive the care they need. They are even willing to deny all of us our comforts of transportation and housing in order that we ensure future generations live in a more hospitable climate.

In other words, they are not above asking others to sacrifice for the needs of the most vulnerable in our midst.

Unless those vulnerable ones happen to be in the womb. Then progressives are adamant that the mother not undergo any suffering for the sake of her unborn child. In fact, they go the other direction and want to make it as easy as possible for her to end the life of her child.

So my question is, why this double standard of compassion? Perhaps they might answer that the mother is a fully formed human person and so her rights outweigh those of her unborn child.

But, we don’t say that the rights of the strong in our society trump those of the weak, do we? In fact, our tendency is to uphold the rights of the weak more forcefully than those of the strong, because we are a compassionate and merciful society and know that the weakest among us need such special protection. That is usually the progressive stance.

So I would ask progresses and those who believe that abortion is a viable option for an unwanted pregnancy to reconsider your logic and to apply the same compassion to — truly — the most vulnerable among us, those in the womb, rather than discarding their rights and considering them, these tiny human beings, to be as disposable as garbage.

Until I see such compassion from the left, all their other pleading for this cause or that cause are mere crocodile tears, tainted with the hypocrisy of selfishness disguised as compassion.

I’m proud to be in the South, where once we used the twisted logic of racism to justify slavery, now we redeem ourselves fully by affirming the inherent value of each and every life.

We have learned our lesson and know the consequences of dehumanizing our fellow brothers and sisters, whether they are in the womb or in the world. And we will no longer tolerate this great shame of our society.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.


  1. I’d like to address the question of how someone can oppose both abortion and gun control restrictions:
    1. I oppose abortion because I choose to defend an innocent life in a womb.
    2. I oppose restrictive gun control laws because I choose to defend lives outside of the womb- my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of friends or strangers.
    I fail to see how the two are somehow mutually exclusive or inconsistent.

  2. I have often wondered how progressives/liberals are able to embrace 2 social concepts that are clearly in conflict with each other and common sense.
    1. Racism is certainly bad and the idea that a recently released slave was worth only 3/5 of another human being who was not a slave. Yes, I realize this was simply for census purposes, but it is always brought up shortly before the discussion turns to reparations.
    2. Plan Parenthood is viewed as a sacred organization which provides abortion services at the request of an unwed mother – supposedly for her health, but actually for her convenience. Margaret Sanger founded this organization and thought aborting black babies and those with possible birth defects would keep the races pure. Many more black babies are killed by abortion than all other causes including gang violence.

    How do those 2 views make sense? How does a pandering politician support either of those ideas or both together? And the bigger question – why in the world do the majority of black people continue to vote for the party that supports these ideas and was in fact the party that was last holdouts on slavery ?

  3. Stranger than Fiction – So, the better choice is to murder the child? It seems to me that we should be able to easily agree that murdering an innocent and helpless person and citizen is never right and then work on the other part of your concern (adoption, etc.). It is presumptuous to simply assume that the living child will have a “horrible life.”

    • Finally figured out the liberal obsession with abortion. My neighbor who shall remain nameless deserves most of the credit for this, but he doesn’t post anything.

      You know how teenagers think they know everything and almost always feel a need to rebel against the values of their parents? Yea, me too. Been on both sides of that. Well, apply that to voting. If all these wild-eyed climate-change libs had kids, they would almost certainly rebel at voting age and become Republicans. Therefore – liberals don’t have kids. That’s why abortion and gay marriage fit so neatly under the Democrat Party’s tent of crazy ideas. They don’t want their own offspring rebelling against their core “values.” Better to kill them off early before they get a voice.

      Much better to take advantage of our kids from normal families who are rebelling in the opposite direction. They can saddle them with student loan debt and inoculate them with nutty progressivism on college campuses by simply reinforcing their childish and rebellious behavior – sort of like drug dealers giving out free samples. A couple generations of that combined with the shrinking Greatest Generation and sensible Baby Boomers – voila! Instant Democrat voters. Of course you also get California and Detroit, but they won’t talk about that.

      You really have to admire the tactics and the long-range planning behind their “corrupt other people’s kids” movement. Ultimate in playing the long game. It also helps explain the previously inexplainable proposal to provide illegal (I mean ILLEGAL – use the word – it has meaning) immigrants illegally in our country with free health care, benefits and entitlements that were intended for others (citizens who are here legally) and of course voting rights. Naturally the Dems will accuse the mean old Republicans of wanting to take these rights away from these fine folks visiting our country on the technicality that they are ILLEGAL. Explains a lot doesn’t it?

  4. The headline could just as easily read, “Social Right Winger’s Compassion Ends at First Breath.” The Trey Hoffmans of the world will impose every restriction upon a pregnant woman and then totally abandon the child by removing every strand of the social safety net to ensure a horrible life for the child.

    Truth is always stranger than fiction.