This article about Nat Hentoff is very interesting.
(Nat Hentoff) loudly and constantly defended the most radical possible version of civil rights, becoming famous—or notorious, depending on your point of view—for defending the rights of neo-Nazis to march in a heavily Jewish town.
Then, in the 1980s, he perceived for the first time that the unborn child had the right to live.
(Hentoff) quotes Mary Meehan, writing in The Progressive. She had had the same experience. “The traditional mark of the left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor,” Meehan noted. “The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even in more need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient. The basic instinct of the left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves.”
Why was (the Left), why is it still, so committed to the thorough outworking of the sexual revolution?
I would have thought the commitment to protecting the weak and the poor would be the fundamental one by which all other commitments would be judged. The conclusion should have been obvious: We protect the helpless; the unborn child is helpless; therefore we protect the unborn.
If the sexual revolution requires the killing of defenseless children, then by its own principles the left should have rejected the sexual revolution. That it required abortion should have been in itself a sign that the revolution was fundamentally wrong about man and the world.
Had those on the left subjected it to a leftist analysis they would have reached the obvious conclusion that abortion was an expression of the capitalist system they rejected. (As G. K. Chesterton had argued about the sexual revolution of his day.)
They should have demanded not that women have the right to abortion, but that they have the right to bear their children and raise them without fear of poverty. That would have been the principled leftist commitment. But instead, the left chose abortion.
All we can expect from the left today is rhetoric, it’s all about feelings. There is no analysis.