Pro-life and Pro-abortion, no conflict there (lol)

Michelle Malkin blogs about an editorial by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Nicholas Kristof. Specifically, Ms. Malkin's point is that Mr. Nicholas says “abortions have increased significantly” during President Bush’s presidency. Ms. Malkin rightly points out that there are no statistics to support this claim.

But further reading of Mr. Nicholas’ editorial reveals even more problems. Here is the full text of the paragraph discussing the ficticious “significant increase in abortions”.

“That (being both pro-abortion and pro-life) is potentially a winning position for Democrats. Abortions fell steadily under Bill Clinton, who espoused that position, and have increased significantly during President Bush's presidency. (One theory is that economic difficulties have left more pregnant women feeling that they cannot afford a baby.)”

First, I am not sure how one can be “pro-abortion” and “pro-life” all at the same time. That seems to me to be the ultimate fence straddle. Of course, when you are as liberal as Mrs. Clinton, one would have to live on the fence to try to appeal even remotely to centrist Democrats.

But I digress. Mr. Nicholas’ attempts to find a “cause” for these fictitious "increases" by blaming the fictitious increases on “economic difficulties”. I guess the labored logic is that somehow the recession that started under Bill Clinton suddenly turned otherwise loving mothers into child killing monsters because of “economic difficulties”. Mr. Nicholas’ also seems to imply that there are many other “theories”, but he picked the best one out of the bunch.

Please oh please, Mr. Nicholas, tell us how a short lived recession, that started under Clinton is somehow the fault of Mr. Bush. Additionally, please tell us the pathology that would cause a mother to blame her abortion on the economy. It just doesn’t make sense.

Finally, I always love the circular logic of the anti-abortion crowd. It is displayed very well in the following statement from the editorial.

“Many people are deeply uncomfortable with abortions, but they also don't want women or doctors going to prison, and they don't want teenage girls dying because of coat-hanger abortions.”

So if I get this right, to keep a teenage girl from dying, we must allow the killing of an innocent child? Is that what the anti-life group is saying? Why doesn’t the teenager “chose” to have the child, then nobody dies. Oh but there is that “inconvenience” of pregnancy. That is certainly reason to kill. God help us.