Some strange fight about something she said about terrorists which then some (not she) applied to abortion rights marchers…
I don’t think an apology is due from either one of them. Hughes denies that she was comparing supporters of legal abortion to terrorists. The most that can fairly be said is that by implication she was likening abortionists to terrorists, and supporters of abortion to supporters of terrorism. But the comparison is an extremely limited one: At most, she was saying that abortionists are like terrorists in that both groups violate the right to life and that supporters of abortion are like supporters of terrorism in that both fail to respect the right to life. In no way is she saying that abortion is just like terrorism, or that abortionists have the same are as evil as terrorists, or that support for abortion is as inexcusable as support for terrorism. (What she was mainly doing, I assume, is trying to find a way to switch the topic from abortion to the war.) Indeed, her implicit argument assumes that supporters of abortion can be moved to value human life in a way that supporters of terrorism, presumably, cannot.
By taking offense at a comment not directed at them, advocates of abortion stumbled into associating themselves with terrorists. The Smeals and the Engels reveal themselves in their wild charge against Hughes.
Unable to leave well enough alone, they demand an apology for a comparison to terrorists not made until they opened their mouths and formed an association that invites the public to ponder the casualty counts of the abortion industry.
Read Previous Post