You don't have to look too hard or search too long to find articles and commentaries that have started observing the civil war brewing within the acronym legion. A growing group of L's, G's, and even B's have had it with the T's, Q's, and all the rest.
Because of their antics, yes, but also because trans ideology undermines the entire identity of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. You can't be gay or lesbian or bisexual if there is no fixed gender binary of male/female, after all.
But what you won't find in plentiful supply are articles and commentaries detailing what appears to be an exploitable fissure that has developed within the legal abortion community.
Most of us who have defended the human rights of unborn humans have always understood the inconsistent premise behind the left's "safe, legal, and rare" mantra for abortion. Bill and Hillary Clinton popularized the phrase during Bill's two successful runs for president in the '90s. But there was always a lingering, unanswered – and because of the mainstream media's blatant bias, also unasked – question: If you want it legal, why does it need to be rare?
What's the logic behind wanting the practice rare? If it's morally upright, and a legitimate medical practice along the lines of tumor-removal, then why make "rare" part of your creed? Should we also want the removal of tumors to be rare? What a silly thing to say.
Calling for the practice to be rare has always seemed like a backhanded admission that there is something morally questionable about the act. But again, the media has largely been complicit in the Left's dedicated effort to ignore that capriciousness.
With as illogical as it may have always been, there exists a seeming moral canyon between that argument and where the legal abortion crowd is these days:
First of all, this is the literal, textbook definition of the phrase "killer smile." Ending the life of your offspring is "normal"? The act of abortion is a "moral" act and one that represents a "family value"? These are the positions that the legal-abortion Left is now embracing? While grotesque and macabre, maybe it's a good thing for the fight against this human-rights travesty.
After all, it sheds any pretense of hesitancy and reluctance, and makes the prospect of killing children for convenience a cause for celebration. How many "personally opposed to abortion but believe it should be a woman's choice" Democrats are going to associate with that position? Some already seem to be having second thoughts.
It reminds me of the viral GIF from the British sketch show The Mitchell and Webb Look, where two World War II-era German soldiers have an uncomfortable epiphany and ask, "Are we the baddies?"
For those who would deny the most fundamental human right to the most vulnerable and innocent humans, all for the sake of convenience… yes, you are. But it's never too late to defect.
