“…abortion is unfortunate.”

Apparently, that’s the deepest intellectual and philosophical assessment of abortion that we’re going to get from the current editorial board of the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Unfortunate.

Over 55 million abortions are unfortunate. 

In its latest iteration on the taking of unborn lives, the RTD editors do take the Democrat Party to task for its extremism on the issue.  What was once the party of “safe, legal and rare” has become the party, in the RTD’s words, of seeing abortion as “a wonderful thing” that you have to “like” to be accepted into the fold.  Oh, and society should pay for it as well, since it’s a “force for social good.” 

But while dismissing Democrats as extreme on the issue (they have of course said the same thing about Republicans), the editors attempt to stake the moral high ground by dismissing everyone else as extreme without explaining their own position, proving once again that they simply aren’t in the same intellectual league as their predecessors. 

The editorialists make the passing claim that abortion is unfortunate without actually saying why.  Such analysis would, one would assume, require the omniscient (they do, after all, reading this piece, know the motives of people without ever asking them) writers to ask and answer tough questions that their social media depth analysis simply can’t handle.

The bottom line is, either an unborn child is a human being with intrinsic value or it isn’t.  If they aren’t, then abortion isn’t “unfortunate,” it’s irrelevant. 

But if the unborn child is a human being with intrinsic value, abortion is far more than simply unfortunate.  It isn’t just the taking of a human life.  It’s the elevation of the value of one human life over another.   

In other words, on whichever side you sit, abortion is anything but unfortunate. 

Perhaps the editors would take the cowardly approach of Tim Kaine, saying they personally oppose abortion (why if it isn’t taking a human life?) but “it’s the law of the land” or whatever.  Or worse, claim that determining the value of an unborn life is “above their pay grade.” 

Whatever the case, RTD’s editors either don’t have the guts to take on the debate or the intellectual fire power to make a strong case. 

That, is unfortunate.