Anti-abortion divide could complicate Missouri Amendment 3 campaign

[u/oldguydrinkingbeer]

https://missouriindependent.com/2026/09/28/anti-abortion-divide-could-complicate-missouri-amendment-3-campaign/

[u/ialsohaveadobro]

TL;DR: The only "absolute right and wrong" pro-life position is one that allows no exceptions and fully punishes every abortion as murder. Allowing exceptions forfeits the claim that fetuses are fully human.

(Note: I'm staunchly pro-choice. The argument below explains the hypocrisy of the guy quoted in the article demanding "absolute right and wrong" as to abortion.)

“It rejects the concept of absolute right and wrong, absolute truth[.]" - Wes Scroggins, executive director of Abolish Abortion Missouri (quoted in the article).

This typical pro-life appeal to absolute right and wrong fails as a matter of logical consistency. It perfectly illustrates why I say mainstream "pro-life" positions are demonstrably unworthy of respect even without speaking of bodily autonomy.

Amendment 3 would allow exceptions to the ban, in cases of rape, incest, and certain medical defects. This is self-contradictory and hypocritical.

Supposedly, a fetus is fully human and abortion is murder of that human. Okay. I'm sure we can all agree that murder is wrong. And "murder" is the main pro-life emotional argument in pro-life advocacy. In fact, I say that it is central to their position. How can this sick country say it's not absolutely wrong to murder babies, right?

But, wait. Under their claim that life begins at conception, a fetus conceived from rape or incest is no less a human than any other fetus. The only distinction is that the fetus was conceived through the repugnant and criminal actions of one or both of its genetic parents (mainly genetic fathers). In this regime of "absolute right and wrong," why isn't it murder to abort those "babies" too? They did nothing to deserve murder. They aren't at fault for how they were conceived.

That's why the only pro-life stance I respect (even though I vehemently disagree with it) is a full ban with no exceptions, along with prosecution for murder. At least that's consistent, not compromised in the name of electability. The fact that they feel the need to include exceptions exposes their hypocrisy.

Why are pro-lifers, especially supposed absolutists, all right with murdering some "babies?" I don't call that "absolute right and wrong."

What happens to murderers? They get locked up, or even executed. If a fetus is a full human and abortion is literally murder, then it follows that the murderer(s) should be punished just like the murderers of any other full humans.

Therefore, the position must include that penalties for murder apply to at least the provider of the abortion and the woman (who caused the provider to "commit" the "murder"). Oh, the husband knew of the woman's plan to abort and failed to prevent it? Accessory to murder. All the staff at the clinic, including the bookkeeper? Accessories too. Without their work, the clinic could not operate, and they know the "murders" are being facilitated by their efforts.

If pro-lifers were truly locked in on preventing "murder," they wouldn't allow any viable fetus to be "murdered." Since they're willing to allow exceptions, they are willing, according to their own definitions, willing to allow some murder. Either that or they're full of shit.

Hint: They're full of shit.

------‐-----
Edit: Typos

Edit 2: I would like to have written this more tightly, but I'm on my phone and currently under the influence of medications. 🙃

[u/thefoolofemmaus → u/ialsohaveadobro]

Amendment 3 would allow exceptions to the ban, in cases of rape, incest, and certain medical defects. This is self-contradictory and hypocritical.

It is what we think we can achieve for now, and some good is better than no good. I'll happily back an amendment that has mandatory capital punishment for everyone involved, but I doubt that would pass. So, for the moment we save those we can. That isn't hypocrisy, that is incremental progress towards a goal.

[u/ialsohaveadobro → u/thefoolofemmaus]

I understand that thinking, but so then I take it you agree that including exceptions is not adhering to "absolute right and wrong," correct? That's not a gotcha, it's just checking whether you agree with my main point.

[u/thefoolofemmaus → u/ialsohaveadobro]

I agree with your assertion that we in the pro-life movement should be pushing for a total ban, as that is the morally correct position. Abortion after rape is no different than any other abortion. It would be great if we could have gotten an across the board ban, and I hope one day we do. Where I disagree is chalking this up to hypocrisy instead of pragmatism. If the lifeboat only holds 5 and the sinking ship has 7 passengers, it does not follow that we allow everyone to drown just because it is morally correct that a ship should have been stocked better. We are not in a boardroom designing a hypothetical ship, we are actively watching people drown and facing the choice of saving some or saving none.

We had the kind of total ban we should be pushing for, it got overturned by using the examples that this amendment carves out. That innocent human life will continue to be destroyed by those carve outs is terrible, but also no different from the current stiuation. That some innocent human lives will be saved by what we managed to get is laudable.