There seem to me to be several principles that govern the mentality of pro-abortion lobbyists (other than perhaps being in the pockets of the pro-abortion industry).  Many of these, I think, are assumed unconsciously.  I want to identify them, bring them into the light, and then analyze them from my perspective.  Again, I doubt too many pro-abortion advocates would (or perhaps could) state these aloud, but I believe they are the underlying “values” that are thought to  support their view.

Principle #1–The child in the womb (even at 9 months) is not a human person because we have legally declared him/her not a human person.  [This was the same rationalization that European colonists used to justify enslaving Native Americans.  I am NOT belittling these evils; I am only observing the identity of the rationalizing process.].

Principle #2–It’s my body and therefore my choice.  [There is no problem here:  except that your choice isn’t about your body—it’s the destruction of the body of someone else, and this is the problem.  If this were not the case, the slaying of a pregnant woman would not be able to be tried in court as a double-homicide.  Recently, a child was taken from the womb, operated on to correct a spina bifida, and returned to the womb.  I believe this operation was primarily aimed at someone else’s body, not the mother’s—even though she was clearly involved.].

Principle #3–Since there is no objective truth, and therefore no objective right or wrong, I can determine for myself whatever I want, to grant for myself what I regard as fulfillment for me.  [This goes back especially to the post-WWII French existentialists and to some extent carried further by the post-modernists.  Of course, the fact that you can reason at all argues that there IS such a thing as objective truth, and therefore objective morality…].

Principle #4–It’s too tiny to matter; it’s only a blob of tissue; it doesn’t feel any pain.  [This is a version of Principle #1, really.  But it’s the logic of bullies and a rationalization for destroying the natural consequences of one’s own actions/choices (see Principle #5).  Of course, when you get to the point of heart-beat, and when we’re talking 3rd trimester (as the law in New York now permits), these “arguments” are nonsense.].

Principle #5–This is about women’s reproductive rights.  [No, it’s actually about women’s rights of freedom of sexual activity—if the “evidence” of what I’ve done is inconvenient, let’s have the freedom to get rid of it. If a family truly cannot “afford” another child, there is another “A-word”, after all—adoption.].

Principle #6–Sexual activity is finally about recreation.  [No—it’s far more sacred than that, and the fact that the natural end of intercourse is the conception of a child—another unique human person—shows why that’s the case.  Sexual activity in marriage is not finally a form of hedonism but of “Holy Communion,” even when celebrated primarily for the sake of joy].

Principle #7–Sometimes there is no good choice.  [Perhaps, but to celebrate rather than lament the choice of an evil in such a context is a moral mistake.  If it is indeed an “exception,” it is one that proves (= tests and confirms) the rule; it does not become the rule.].