Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, an "abortion rights supporter" in journalism parlance, has an interesting post on abortion and the "duty to rescue." In layman's terms, it's the concept that being a good Samaritan cannot be required of someone. I'm not going to address Glenn's position on abortion -- it's well-thought out and I'm not going to change his mind and he's not going to change mine.

What struck me though was this statement in Glenn's post:

At common law -- and still, pretty much, the law generally -- there's no duty to rescue. The classic example, in fact, involves a man walking down the sidewalk and observing a baby drowning in a half-inch of water. Even if the man could rescue the baby with no risk and minimal inconvenience to himself, he's under no duty to take any action at all, and can simply keep walking without facing any penalty beyond moral condemnation. [emphasis added]

The problem with the public debate on abortion -- aside from the often superheated rhetoric on both sides -- is that many pro-choicers seek to even bar pro-lifers from having a right to "moral condemnation." The typical attitude is: "It's the woman's choice, you have no right to criticize. Shut up!"

The closest that anyone on the left side of the political aisle is allowed to come to criticizing abortion is "safe, legal, and rare" with an implicit promise that nothing will be done with regard the first or third items.

Moral condemnation? The way the media, the universities and one major political party have outlined the terms of the debate, condemnation is not allowed -- "moral" is next.