One of the most interesting messages in a recent Dallas Morning News story came from Dr. Matthew Wilson, associate professor of political science at SMU. He studies religion and politics, and said that exceptions for rape and incest are “politically defensible because it makes a pro-life position more likely to prevail in the court of public opinion. But it is almost indefensible from a moral or ethical standpoint.” He stated that if the fetus “is a human being, it doesn’t really matter from a moral standpoint how it got here. If you feel the child in the womb is not human, then you should be radically pro-choice. You should be in favor of abortion, with few or no restrictions, because if the child is not human what is your basis for intruding into the woman’s privacy?”
The fact is, the court of public opinion is destroying personhood since those in leadership positions in most of the pro-life movement see exceptions, which condemn certain preborn children to death, as incrementally acceptable. In other words, murder is sometimes a good idea if the public happens to agree.