You go first, Mitch

Here's the Oracle of St. Paul talking about Steve Chapman's weekend op-ed piece about abortion:

Abortion is one of those tugs of war [in politics]. When I was a kid, in 1973, the ribbon got a huge pull to the left with Roe Vs. Wade [sic]. In the past 35 years, many - from conservative evangelicals to liberal Catholics - have grabbed onto the rope from the right and pulled with all their might. And for some of us, the hope for a compromise - knowing that a complete ban was not going to happen in our lifetimes - was the hope that just one more tug would pull the ribbon just far enough so that people - maybe a majority - would see that while abortion was legal, that aborting a fetus was an act imbued with much more moral gravity than excising a wart or clipping a toenail.

In other words, the first step to an acceptable a less vile compromise would be for abortion’s supporters to realize that there is a moral dimension to abortion. It’s a realization that abortion’s most sacramentalist zealots resist, because it’d be the first step in gutting the notion that a fetus is nothing but a mass of tissue until you get a diaper on it.

If Mitch had an irony-warning meter in his head, it would have been pegged while he wrote that. But Mitch is, of course, dead to irony.

So pro-choice supporters have to realize that there is a "moral dimension" to abortion? And then a "compromise" would be possible? Does Mitch sound like he wants to compromise, boys and girls?

Well, he does wrote about "an acceptable a less vile compromise," Spotty.

Grasshopper, would Mitch accept half a loaf if offered to him?

No, I guess not.

Mitch sees compromise as just a step in the incremental banning of abortion until it is entirely illegal.

Tell you what Mitch, come back after you're willing to concede that there is a privacy and civil liberties dimension to abortion. Then maybe we can talk.

But you go first.

Technorati Tags: Mitch Berg, abortion, privacy, civil liberties, Roe v. Wade