The battle for civil rights is universal and timeless. Any time there is injustice, where the majority oppresses the minority (and that can even include a minority oppressing a majority), where “might makes right” is used to justify oppression, the fight for civil rights and liberties must be pursued.
Equal rights means that: equal rights. In regards to a pregnant mother and her preborn child, equal rights means we treat them equally and do everything to secure and protect those rights for both. One doesn’t supersede another’s rights. Abortion advocates only advocate for one over the other. The abortion abolitionist advocates for all.
Now for the EXCEPTIONS TRAP
Some of the oft-cited exceptions that many will embrace, such as rape and incest, must be addressed, and we must not fall into a trap that would deny equal protection based on tragic and tempting circumstances.
While it is unfortunate and tragic that a rapist can put a woman into a situation not of her own choosing, and it is understandable that a woman would not want to bear the pregnancy and birth of a child from that scenario, it is wrong to terminate the life of the innocent child, who is guilty of nothing. If anybody is to be terminated, that would be the rapist. Ironically and hypocritically, the pro-abortion/anti-death penalty person would spare the life of the rapist and look the other way for the termination of the innocent child. Terminating the child will not erase the memory of the rape. What will happen is now she will have to bear for the rest of her life two tragedies, one of the rape and one of the dead baby. That's the dirty little secret the pro-abortion advocates don't want women to know.
The incest exception: if it was non-consensual, it falls under the rape category; if it was consensual, then it was a choice of the couple. Again, the baby is an innocent victim here. Throwing "incest" into the arguments only serve to pad the excuses and play on peoples' prejudices. The sins of the father and/or mother are not justification for killing the child.
Then the last oft-cited exception is the "health/life of the mother" clause. Civil rights dictates that we work hard to protect both lives in good faith. If for some reason the preborn baby needs to be removed to save a mother's life, and we cannot save the baby after removal, then so be it, as long as it was done in good faith for the sake of both lives.
But a vast majority of the reasons for abortion are because of "inconvenience." How convenient. I'm sure the slave-owners were inconvenienced when the slaves were freed and they lost a lot of free labor to exploit. Like slaves, preborn babies are more than property, to be used or abused by those with power. They are human beings deserving of the civil rights and liberties of all. Anything less would be uncivilized.
