Trump is labeled as a “pro-life moderate” while Harris is deemed the extremist

When it comes to the abortion debate, there are two uncompromising sides, and then there’s the middle ground where most Americans stand.

Donald Trump is positioned in this middle ground as a pro-life moderate, as evident in his stance.

On the opposite end are Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, neither of whom align with pro-life or moderate views.

The Democratic ticket seeks to enforce a national policy allowing abortion up until the point of birth.

Most ordinary Americans believe that when they see a pregnant woman, there is a baby inside her.

Ultrasound images further reinforce this perception, showing the development of the baby even in the early stages of pregnancy that may not be visibly apparent.

Late-term abortions, particularly when it’s clear a baby’s life is being terminated, deeply trouble voters.

Voters are open to exceptions in cases where the mother’s life is at risk or the baby is unable to survive outside the womb, but they generally support restrictions on these procedures.

The difficulty lies in determining how late is considered “late-term” when it comes to abortion.

Lawmakers and the public grapple with the question of at what point in a pregnancy should a child be recognized and protected.

For Kamala Harris, the answer is clear, as she opposes any limits on abortion regardless of how late-term it is.

Pro-life activists who are critical of Trump for opposing a ban on abortions after six weeks should focus more on where Harris stands on abortions after six months.

While Democrats like Harris often reference reverting to the policies set by Roe v. Wade, the reality is that these policies have resulted in a broad interpretation that allows late-term abortions for various reasons, not just to save the mother’s life.

Under Roe, some Democrats defended the controversial practice of “partial-birth abortion,” where abortions are performed as the baby is being delivered.

Harris advocates for unrestricted access to abortion throughout the country, disregarding the state-to-state variations in opinions on when a baby becomes a baby.

Roe v. Wade failed to resolve America’s abortion issues, instead deepening the divide and taking the decision-making power out of state hands and making it a national debate.

Trump favors a federalist approach that would bring decision-making back to local communities, allowing neighbors to discuss and agree on their differences at a smaller scale.

However, this middle ground is unsatisfactory for both ardent pro-lifers and abortion advocates like Harris.

While some abortion opponents believe personhood begins at conception, it’s challenging to persuade others of this view, especially considering the complexities of fertilization treatments like IVF.

Democrats often challenge the pro-life argument by questioning the impact of limiting IVF on family planning and overall birth rates.

Trump has voiced support for IVF treatment coverage, despite facing criticism from both conservatives and liberals for his stance.

On the political front, there have been instances of misinformation spread by candidates like Tim Walz regarding IVF, further emphasizing the divide on abortion views.

Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance, face criticism from both ends of the spectrum, while radical abortion supporters like Harris and Walz go unchallenged.

Ultimately, the upcoming election presents a choice between Trump’s compromise stance and the extreme abortion views of candidates like Harris and Walz.

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.