Posted on | January 28, 2014 | 14 Comments
Kludt wrote a Talking Points Memo blog with this headline:
We could get bogged down by asking why Tom Kludt is stirring up a fight between Erickson and Van Susteren, or ask why this argument is being treated like a popularity contest, as if Erickson and Van Sustern were rival candidates for sophomore class president. But that would be a distraction from the actual public policy issue involved, and such a distraction is exactly what Kludt is trying to create.
Is abortion a good thing or a bad thing?
If you think abortion is a good thing, you are simply wicked. Even most people who are in favor of keeping abortion legal will admit that the act itself is morally repugnant, an evil that they would prefer to avoid but do not believe can be or should be effectively outlawed. With such people, it is possible to have civil and reasonable disagreements. Not so those who are consciously pro-abortion, e.g., NARAL and Planned Parenthood and other abortion industry lobbying groups.
They and their supporters actively encourage abortion, because they are heartless bloodthirsty monsters who love evil. And the Texas Democrat candidate for governor, Wendy Davis, has welcomed the embrace of these ghoulish Death Merchants. Davis filibustered Texas legislation to restrict late-term abortion.
So when Erickson defends his criticism of Davis by describing late-term abortion in vivid terms, he is trying to place the focus where it belongs — on these gruesome atrocities, and on Democrats like Wendy Davis who advocate these atrocities. “Abortion Barbie” is not the worst thing she could be called. Perhaps Tom Kludt can explain why “slaughtering children on the altar of Moloch” is a good thing. But nobody ever asks liberals for such explanations.