top of page
  • Writer's pictureJG .

Defending the Indefensible


With the recent Supreme Court decision, Dobbs v Jackson which overturned both the 1973 Roe v. Wade and 1992 Casey decisions and turned the question of the legality of abortion back to the states which is consistent with the United States Constitution, pro-abortion activists are now forced to defend their indefensible position on abortion. They can no longer hide behind the two ill-conceived unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions passed by activist judges who wanted to legislate abortion from the bench.

Sometimes, when you know your opponent holds an indefensible position, it is best to allow them to talk, and they will expose themselves or reveal the truth that they have been fighting so hard to hide. Former President Bill Clinton’s position on abortion was that it should be “safe, legal and rare”. It makes sense for a pro-abortion advocate to want abortion to be safe and legal, but why “rare”? If the fetus is not a human life, if what is being aborted is simply a blob of cells, then it should not matter how often the procedure is performed. Yet, he said it should be “rare”. What was he admitting without admitting it?

Georgia, gubernatorial candidate and far-left activist, Stacie Abrams who believes that abortion should be legal all the way up to birth said, “it[abortion] is a medical decision. I don't know of a single woman who reaches the stage where this decision is easy." Again, why isn’t this decision easy? If abortion is not the taking of human life, if it is the equivalent of removing benign cells, then why would it be a difficult decision? The decision should be very easy. There should not be a moral dilemma. When I had a precancerous mole removed from my hand, there was zero moral contemplation on my part. It was the removal of a blob of cells for medical reasons. There was nothing hard about that decision.

What they are tacitly admitting when they say abortion is not an easy decision and that it should be rare is that they know abortion is not an innocuous act, and the fetus is not a blob of cells. It is a living human being. And that is the revealing part. They know in their heart that abortion is the taking of human life, but they advocate for it anyway. Their minds refuse to admit what they know deep down because it would upset their worldview too much, it would reveal too much about who they are that they do not want to face. They live in denial of the truth as they are incrementally revealing the truth as they struggle to defend their untruthful positions.

These people cling to their stance on abortion, defending the indefensible because it would be too hard to admit that the position that they currently hold, is in fact advocating for the murder of babies. They cannot even consider the other side because seeing the truth would be too revealing about themselves. They have painted themselves into this moral corner, and they cannot take that final step to admit that not only is their position wrong, but it is evil, because in their worldview, that would mean they are evil, too. But what they do not understand is that they are not evil for being wrong or mistaken on abortion, they only become evil when they know their position is evil but refuse to admit it because they are trying to save face.

More sinister are the people who openly admit that abortion is evil but promote it anyway. In 2016, as she was running for President, Hillary Clinton defended the practice of abortion by saying, "The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," and that we shouldn’t “sacrifice a woman's right to make decisions" for the life of the unborn “child”. In the interview, she referred to the unborn baby as a “person” and a “child”, yet she is still in favor of the practice of killing that “person” or that “child”. Even if, as Hillary claimed, the unborn child or person does not have constitutional rights, by her own admission, an abortion is still the killing of a “person” or “child” which is an unquestionable immoral act, but she still defends. These are the twists and turns that are required to defend the indefensible.

In the Roe v. Wade decision, the court referred to the unborn baby as “potential life”, trying to make the point that it was more than a blob of cells, but less than an actual person, thus assigning unborn babies fractions of personhood akin to the 1857 Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court ruled that black people were less than human, only 3/5 a person, and not protected by the Constitution, and they did so, because the Court was also trying to defend the indefensible – the institution of slavery.

And our younger generations have become completely unhinged, contorting themselves into the most precarious moral positions that even the slightest breeze of incongruity will knock them over. Abortion activist Mary Elizabeth Williams defended abortion in an article for Salon back in 2013 when she wrote, “So what if abortion ends life? I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.” She added that the unborn baby is “a life worth sacrificing.”

26-year-old, model Ireland Baldwin, daughter of actor Alec Baldwin, defended her decision to have an abortion by saying, “I chose me, and I would choose me again. It’s your life, it’s your choice.” There is not even the slightest consideration for what is right or what is moral. It is solely about what is best for me. This is where we end up as a society that has embraced moral relativism, that talks in terms of “speaking our own truth”, which allows people to conform a lie into a truth for their own benefit or convenience.

But this has become mainstream in America. Recently, Senate Democrats introduced a bill that would make it Federal Law to protect a woman’s right to abortion up to the moment of birth, which would include the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion which kills a fully formed baby seconds before birth. And 49 Senators – 49% of the Senate – voted for the measure.

In response to the Dobbs ruling, pro-abortion women made it abundantly clear what abortion has really always been about by calling for abstinence in retaliation against men for the Dobbs decision. Trending on Twitter days after the decision came down, pro-abortion women called for a Sex Strike.

A 24-year-old pro-abortion woman protesting on Saturday said, “If you’re a man who won’t get a vasectomy, even though it’s reversible, and you’re not out in the streets fighting for my rights, you do not deserve to have sex with me.” What she doesn’t understand is that pro-life advocates are fighting for rights, but not for her right to kill her baby; we are fighting for the rights of her baby not to be killed by her.

But now they have shown their cards. They are admitting that abortion was only tangentially about rape, incest or saving the life of the mother. It was first and foremost always about free sex, always about sex without responsibility, and always about wanting to use abortion as birth control. That was their mindset, and that is why there was so many unintended pregnancies even with the advancements of birth control because they were using abortion as their primary method of birth control.

People on the right who promote abstinence, do so because they believe it is the right and moral way to live their life. It sanctifies the sexual act as an expression of love within a marriage instead of diminishing it into a game played with strangers. While people on the left promote abstinence as a form of manipulation, a power play, a tool to bully their partner into doing and believing what they want them to do and believe.

Half of the women who are having an abortion have already had one. And recently, a trend through social media among many pro-abortion women has been the "Shout your abortion" movement? Many women are now proud of the multiple abortions they have had. So, pro-abortionists have always been using rape, incest and the life of the mother exceptions, which makes up less than 2% of all abortions as the trojan horse to keep abortion legal so they can use it as birth control.

This is what you get when you are forced to defend the indefensible, you get no moral or philosophical consistency or grounding. When a life and death decision hinges on personal convenience and not moral truths, or a firm grasp of right or wrong, you get a wide array of incoherent, self-contradictory statements that twist the truth to conform to a wished-for reality.

I wish that abortion was not the taking of a human life. I wish that abortion was an innocuous act, but it is not, and saying that it is over and over again does not make it so no matter how much you want it to be, and all the euphemisms in the world, and all the wishful thinking cannot change the reality and true nature of the horror of abortion. We cannot pretend that abortion is something it is not simply to placate our conscience, so we can sleep soundly at night as we defend the indefensible act of killing the innocent.


Judd Garrett is a graduate from Princeton University, and a former NFL player, coach, and executive. He has been a contributor to the website Real Clear Politics. He has recently published his first novel, No Wind.

219 views3 comments

Recent Posts

See All



Adler Pfingsten
Adler Pfingsten
Jun 29, 2022

Excellent article as usual…even though it only touches on the true scale of the danger posed by neo-Marxist postmodernist rationalizations justifying the termination of unwanted human beings. Marxism and its close cousin Nazism claimed the lives of well over 100 million in the last 100 years. Humanity is now on same road leading to the same graveyard, but the stakes are much higher; terminated life in the hundreds of millions should Americans fail to take Marxians at their word. To wit:

Watermelon environmentalists, green on the outside but red on the inside, tout a “sustainable world” of 3-4 billion people which begs the question ‘How do we get to that number if AOC is right as to just 12 years…


Jack Hiller
Jack Hiller
Jun 29, 2022

JG, Thanks for an excellent review of abortion. It may be added that the word itself does not conjure its true meaning. If we tossed "abortion" from the dictionarr forcing use of "baby murder," that would come closer to the truith, but even then fail conjure its full meaning. In truth, abortions are either chemical torture or a physical horror that the public does not see or understand. Video images of the baby being destroyed get at the true meaning, and I would hope that normal people seeing the attack on a liviong being, and the tortured reaction would stop the wordy, vacuous debates. This video illustrates the point about the reality of abortiion being an unimaginally horrible crime (…


Jun 29, 2022

Thanks for this well-reasoned case on the evil of abortion. At the end of the day it is all about personal convenience and refusal to take responsibility.


Judd Garrett is a former NFL player, coach and executive. He is a frequent contributer to the website Real Clear Politics, and has recently published his first novel, No Wind

bottom of page