No Compromise, No Exceptions, No Apology

By Mark Crutcher
Life Dynamics

No one can be an effective advocate for the unborn without a complete understanding of the fundamental principle guiding the pro-life position. The good news is, it's actually an easy concept to understand.

The term "Pro-Life" is an acknowledgment of the biological reality that (a) human life begins at the moment a woman's egg is fertilized by a man's sperm, and that (b) every human being is entitled to have his or her life protected by law from that moment forward.

Regrettably, the pro-life position is often compromised or watered-down for political expediency or in a misguided effort to appear "reasonable." You'll hear people say that they are pro-life but that there should be "exceptions" for certain circumstances. The most common exceptions being for pregnancies which threaten the mother's life or health, when the pregnancy resulted from either rape or incest, or when the unborn child is handicapped. Some people - especially politicians - will even claim to be pro-life while openly stating that abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

To see what a fraud these "exceptions" positions are, simply paraphrase them. For example, the statement, "I am pro-life, but I think there should be an exception when the pregnancy was the result of rape" should become, "I am pro-life, but it should be legal to butcher babies who were conceived in rape." Other paraphrased positions would be, "I am pro-life, but it should be legal to butcher babies with Down's syndrome" and "I am pro-life, but I think it is okay to butcher babies in their first trimester of life."

We Will Pray with You: Light Your Virtual Prayer Candle

Every exception can be paraphrased to more accurately reflect what is actually being said, and in doing so it becomes clear that there is no such position as "Pro-Life With Exceptions." By definition, it is impossible to accurately label someone pro-life who approves killing certain groups of children. It is as illogical as someone in 1860 saying, "I am an abolitionist but I believe slavery should be legal in some circumstances."

Remember, the only legitimate pro-life position is that a 10-week-old unborn child is morally equivalent to, and has the same right to life as, a five-year-old born child. When someone says they are pro-life but that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances, the question is whether they would support killing a five-year-old in those same circumstances. Since they are certainly not going to take that position, the only logical conclusion is that they don't see born and unborn children as morally equal. In other words, they are not pro-life.

The bottom line is, when someone takes the "Pro-Life With Exceptions" position, what they are saying is that they support the "choice" to kill some babies (conceived in rape, handicapped, etc.) but oppose the "choice" to kill other babies. In other words, the only honest way to define their position is "Pro-Choice With Exceptions."

That brings us to the issue of legislation.

Let me make it clear that I have never been a fan of the incremental approach to pro-life legislation. I continue to believe that if we had forced the American people to choose between absolute unrestricted abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy or no abortion under any circumstances at any time, we would have won by now. I am also concerned that the wording in some incremental legislation could be twisted by a future court to establish abortion as a right in state law when Roe is overturned.

Having said that, I am alarmed at the growing level of animosity between the so-called "purists" like me and those who believe in the incremental approach. I am also concerned that most of the acrimony seems to be coming from people on my side of the debate.

The controversy centers around the question of whether a pro-life individual or organization that supports legislation to prohibit some killings but allow others is a sell-out? For example, should the pro-life movement support a law that would prohibit abortions except in the cases of rape, incest and when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life? This is the kind of argument that has plagued our movement for years. It is also the main source of the infighting and turf-wars that have destroyed so many worthwhile pro-life initiatives.

The resolution of this conflict resides in understanding the distinction between support and advocacy. Any group or individual that advocates legislation that would permit the legal killing of even one unborn baby has no legitimate claim to the label "Pro-Life." If, in the legislative process, the choice is between a pure bill and a bill that allows exceptions, anyone who claims to be pro-life while preferring the exceptions bill is a fraud.

However, the choice we have to make is seldom between a pure bill and a bill with exceptions. In almost every case, the choice we are given is between a bill with exceptions and no bill at all. When that is the situation, pro-life support of that legislation is not the same as advocating it. The necessity is that we make it absolutely clear that the moment a bill is in place that saves some babies, we will not lose one minute in returning to the battlefield to save the others.

I think a good analogy is seen in the legislative efforts to end America's epidemic of drunk driving. When those who fight this battle lobby for legislation to reduce the legal blood/alcohol level from .1 to .08, they are not advocating that people should be allowed to drive with a blood/alcohol level of .08. Their principle and their goal is the same as it has always been. That is, people should not be allowed to drive with any amount of alcohol in their system. They support the .08 legislation because they feel that is the most they can get at the time. As soon as it is signed into law, they will be back at work trying to take the next step. That defines the distinction between support and advocacy.

Several years ago, there was a movie about a wealthy Catholic businessman who helped save Jews from being sent to the Nazi death camps. His name was Oskar Schindler and the movie was called Schindler's List. The title came from the fact that Mr. Schindler kept a list of people he thought it would be possible for him to help. In the end, he was able to rescue about 1,100 people. But until his death in 1974, he was constantly haunted by the fact that he had to choose between those he could save and those he could not. The lesson in this for us is that when Schindler left someone's name off his list he was not saying that they should be killed. He was simply saying that he couldn't save them.

In a sense, the pro-life movement already understands and accepts the concept that the perfect should not become the enemy of the good. Those who work at a pro-life crisis pregnancy center or do sidewalk counseling in front of an abortion clinic, know that they will not be able to save every baby. In fact, these people must accept that in the environments in which they operate their success rate will be small. But their inability to save all the babies does not prevent them from trying to save the babies they can. And no one in the pro-life movement criticizes them or questions their integrity over the ones they had no choice but to leave behind.

For pro-life political operatives who are attacked for proposing incremental legislation, this seems like a double standard. They will tell you that they want to protect all the babies, but until that is possible they will protect the ones they can. So how is that different than the crisis pregnancy center or sidewalk counselor?

The answer is: it probably isn't different. Although I am firmly in the "purist" camp, I don't believe that supporting legislation to protect some babies until you can do better automatically makes one a sell-out to the pro-life principle.

I think the reason this conflict has festered for so long is the same reason pro-lifers get involved in the first place: we care. We also understand how high the stakes are. This is not some ivory-tower debating club where adversaries wear smoking jackets with elbow patches. This is a street fight against people who kill helpless children for money. If we did not care so deeply, and if we did not know what the consequences of losing are, the often bitter conflict between those who say, "all or nothing" and those who say, "all or something" would not exist.

However, just because this tension is understandable, perhaps even natural, we cannot afford to ignore it. In fact, we are coming to a point where it is destined to become exponentially more dangerous than it has been in the past. Ironically, it is our success that will cause this conflict to take on this new and more ominous potential.

Today, the momentum is clearly on the side of the pro-life movement. It is so indisputable that even many of our enemies are now predicting that Roe vs. Wade will soon be history. However, as it stands now, we have not yet passed one piece of legislation in one state that returns legal protection to even one baby. Statutes related to parental notification, clinic regulations, waiting periods, partial-birth abortion, and etcetera do not legally prohibit the killing of the unborn; they simply define the circumstances under which the killings can take place. This is not due to any failed political strategy, but to a Supreme Court that will not allow us to do any more than that.

Because the Court has made it clear, up until now, that they would throw out any legislation we pass whether it prohibits every abortion or almost none, the dispute between purists and incrementalists has been mostly a philosophical one. However, when Roe falls that will no longer be the case. At the moment it becomes possible for us to start proposing meaningful legislation to protect the unborn, this dispute stops being philosophical. It also takes on the possibility of destroying everything we've worked for since the day this battle began.

The stakes are simply too high for us to let that happen. This is a problem that must be solved now so the wounds can heal before the great post-Roe battles begin. Those confrontations are going to be viscous and costly and our potential for success will not exceed our ability to focus on the real enemy.

To those who, like me, have profound misgivings about the incremental approach to legislation, let us never challenge the motives or commitment of those who embrace it. As long as their ultimate mission is to provide legal protection for every child from the moment of fertilization, and as long as they are joining us in the sacrifices necessary to see that job done, they are our brothers and sisters in the battle.

And that is how they deserve to be treated.

_______________

Mark Crutcher is the president of Life Dynamics Incorporated in Denton, Texas.

Contact

Life Dynamics
http://www.lifedynamics.com TX, US
Mark Crutcher - President, 940 380-8800

Email

danny@lifedynamics.com

Keywords

Abortion

Light Your Virtual Prayer Candle For a Loved One

More Catholic PRWire

Showing 1 - 50 of 4,716

• « Prev
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next »

A Recession Antidote
Randy Hain

Monaco & The Vatican: Monaco's Grace Kelly Exhibit to Rome--A Review of Monegasque-Holy See Diplomatic History
Dna. Maria St. Catherine Sharpe, t.o.s.m., T.O.SS.T.

The Why of Jesus' Death: A Pauline Perspective
Jerom Paul

A Royal Betrayal: Catholic Monaco Liberalizes Abortion
Dna. Maria St.Catherine De Grace Sharpe, t.o.s.m., T.O.SS.T.

Embrace every moment as sacred time
Mary Regina Morrell

My Dad
JoMarie Grinkiewicz

Letting go is simple wisdom with divine potential
Mary Regina Morrell

Father Lombardi's Address on Catholic Media
Catholic Online

Pope's Words to Pontifical Latin American College
Catholic Online

Prelate: Genetics Needs a Conscience
Catholic Online

State Aid for Catholic Schools: Help or Hindrance?
Catholic Online

Scorsese Planning Movie on Japanese Martyrs
Catholic Online

2 Nuns Kidnapped in Kenya Set Free
Catholic Online

Holy See-Israel Negotiation Moves Forward
Catholic Online

Franchising to Evangelize
Catholic Online

Catholics Decry Anti-Christianity in Israel
Catholic Online

Pope and Gordon Brown Meet About Development Aid
Catholic Online

Pontiff Backs Latin America's Continental Mission
Catholic Online

Cardinal Warns Against Anti-Catholic Education
Catholic Online

Full Circle
Robert Gieb

Shop Timeless Catholic Gifts

Three words to a deeper faith
Paul Sposite

Relections for Lent 2009
chris anthony

Wisdom lies beyond the surface of life
Mary Regina Morrell

World Food Program Director on Lent
Catholic Online

Moral Clarity
DAN SHEA

Pope's Lenten Message for 2009
Catholic Online

A Prayer for Monaco: Remembering the Faith Legacy of Prince Rainier III & Princess Grace and Contemplating the Moral Challenges of Prince Albert II
Dna. Maria St. Catherine Sharpe

Keeping a Lid on Permissiveness
Sally Connolly

Glimpse of Me
Sarah Reinhard

The 3 stages of life
Michele Szekely

Sex and the Married Woman
Cheryl Dickow

A Catholic Woman Returns to the Church
Cheryl Dickow

Modernity & Morality
Dan Shea

Just a Minute
Sarah Reinhard

Catholic identity ... triumphant reemergence!
Hugh McNichol

Edging God Out
Paul Sposite

Burying a St. Joseph Statue
Cheryl Dickow

George Bush Speaks on Papal Visit
Catholic Online

Sometimes moving forward means moving the canoe
Mary Regina Morrell

Action Changes Things: Teaching our Kids about Community Service
Lisa Hendey

Free Catholic PDF's - Home / Parish / School / Bulletin Inserts

Easter... A Way of Life
Paul Spoisite

Papal initiative...peace and harmony!
Hugh McNichol

Proclaim the mysteries of the Resurrection!
Hugh McNichol

Jerusalem Patriarch's Easter Message
Catholic Online

Good Friday Sermon of Father Cantalamessa
Catholic Online

Papal Address at the End of the Way of the Cross
Catholic Online

Cardinal Zen's Meditations for Via Crucis
Catholic Online

Interview With Vatican Aide on Jewish-Catholic Relations
Catholic Online

Pope Benedict XVI On the Easter Triduum
Catholic Online

Holy Saturday...anticipation!
Hugh McNichol

• « Prev
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next »