Getting specific on pro-abortion

IF you want to see political and moral absurdities, fill in the details when someone uses a euphemism to make a pro-abortion argument.

Nevada has been awash in Democrats proclaiming their love of abortion. But even adamant abortion supporters shy away from talking too much about the specifics of abortion. That’s because grappling with what abortion actually entails makes the arguments supporting it much less convincing.

Here are some examples:

“My opponent says he wants his ‘children and grandchildren to grow up with the same freedoms and opportunities that we had.’ I guess reproductive freedom, which was in place for decades, isn’t included,” Rep. Dina Titus tweeted recently.

Notice how nonsensical this statement is once you add in the details: “My opponent wants his children and grandchildren to grow up with the same freedoms we had. I guess the ability of his children to kill his grandchildren isn’t included.”

Correct. If someone wants his granddaughter to grow up, she won’t be murdered in the womb.

“I’m a mother, a lifelong advocate for children, and defender of a woman’s right to choose,” Rep. Susie Lee tweeted in June.

Add specifics and the Orwellian nature of this statement is obvious. “I’m a mother, a lifelong advocate for children and defender of abortionists ripping preborn babies apart limb by limb.”

“Adam Laxalt thinks it’s okay for politicians to take away a woman’s freedom to make her own health care decisions,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto tweeted days ago.

Translated: “Laxalt thinks it’s okay for politicians to take away a woman’s freedom to have an abortionist puncture a baby’s skull and vacuum out his brains.” It doesn’t seem as objectionable when it’s put that way.

An aside: Today’s left believes — or at least pretends to — that men can get pregnant. Yet the outrage mob isn’t attacking Cortez Masto and other Democrats for implicitly acknowledging that only women get pregnant. Note the hypocrisy next time they claim to be deeply offended at a conservative doing the same.

Then there’s the argument that abortion limitations are bad because Black and Hispanic women have a disproportionate number of them.

“Abortion bans are inherently racist, inherently classist and fundamentally part of the white supremacy agenda,” Bhavik Kumar, a medical director for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, told a congressional committee late last month.

This claim is laughable once you connect the dots. “Policies that lead to the birth of more Black and Hispanic babies are racist and fundamentally part of the white supremacy agenda.”

What? In reality, the reverse is much closer to the mark. Around 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority communities. Black women are five times as likely as white women to have an abortion. Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was racist. She even wrote about wanting to “exterminate the Negro population.”

It would be nice if Republican candidates in Nevada pointed out some of these things. Instead, they’ve mostly hidden behind the fact that Nevada’s abortion law can’t change without a popular vote.

There are two political reasons they avoid these issues. First, the majority of Nevadans support some legalized abortion. I’d guess it’s closer to 13 weeks than the status quo of 24 weeks with a massive loophole beyond that. The second is message discipline. Voters’ top priority is the economy. There are concerns about rising crime and the open border. These issues are so good for Republican candidates that they don’t want to talk about something else.

Here’s the happy medium. When asked, tell voters why you are prolife before acknowledging that you’ll abide by the will of Nevada voters. Because the absolute last things abortion advocates want is to move from talking points into the details of what they support.