The moral bankruptcy of those who fervently defend the right to dismember baby humans in the sanctuary of their mother’s womb is well established.  But sometimes it can slip from the public consciousness how willing abortion apologists are to intellectually beclown themselves for the cause. 

That’s why it’s nice to have those like former TV host turned left-wing commentator John Fugelsang to remind us all. 

Engaging in a Twitter back-and-forth with Examiner and Red State contributor Kimberly Ross, Fugelsang dropped this intellectual dung pellet:

“If you succeed in your goal of criminalizing abortion, we both know women still have them.  And 1000s of new Gosnells will be created.  Who will you seek to incarcerate?  Because you won’t end abortions, just the safe & regulated ones.”

Fugelsang deserves credit for cramming that much witlessness into one small tweet. 

First, there’s no such thing as a “safe abortion.”  Any invasive procedure where half of the involved parties has their limbs ripped off and brains sucked out, and the other participant faces extraordinary health risks as well, cannot be considered “safe” by any sane individual.

Second, simply drop any other moral issue into this tweet and consider how it sounds. 

• Should we legalize sex trafficking so that it can be regulated and girls can be traded through safe channels?  Because having it illegal doesn’t stop it from happening, and having it done under the radar and unregulated leads to some horrific results.
• Should we legalize child molesting and offer large, publicly funded facilities where it can be done in a “safe environment?”  After all, making pedophilia illegal doesn’t prevent it from happening, and in extraordinarily unsafe circumstances.
• Should we legalize rape, but have health officials supervise it so that they can provide medical care to women who must endure it?  Because we know now that criminalizing rape hasn’t ended it, and 1000s of new rapists have emerged.  Making rape illegal hasn’t ended the act, so should we make it legal to keep it safe and regulated?

I understand that Fugelsang is known as an entertainer, not a thinker.  But putting something like this out for public consumption should bring with it a level of sincere humiliation for anyone. 

If something is morally repugnant, you have a law against it.  You don’t legalize the morally repugnant act simply so it can be done in a “safe” way.  If the kind of drivel Fugelsang spouts has become modern wisdom these days, America hasn’t just lost her moral compass, she’s lost her brains.