Now that we know that pro-lifers are going to have the same old same old choice in the national presidential election: really really bad verging on communist candidate vs. disinterested in the whole pro-life thing candidate. Why don’t we focus our collective pro-life attention on at least talking about the right things during election time, like legal rights of the preborn babies.
Why do corporations get to enjoy the protections of legal personhood but not preborn babies?
Why are there laws protecting the bodies of dead people against desecration, but not the bodies of preborn people against mutilation?
Why did 1800’s Americans (you know the ones who actually ratified the 14th amendment that protects persons against crimes) also pass abortion laws that showed they believed the preborn to be persons and abortion an evil?
Go here to learn more about the Colorado for Equal Rights personhood campaign.
There are so many great questions, but we can’t ask them because a group of people and interest groups, which we call the incrementalists, don’t want us to divert our attention from partial birth abortion and parental consent.
I propose this pro-life manifesto.
It is agreed that:
Incrementalist pro-lifers seek to act upon the consensus that abortion is available much too widely and seek to pass laws to control under what circumstances an abortion is performed. Incerementalists don’t seek to do away with the motherly imposed death penalty on the preborn, they seek to be judges that can approve or dissaprove of the abortion based on societally acceptable norms.*
Principled pro-lifers seek to have our civil and criminal law reflect the belief that the life that God gave all of us at the moment of fertilization should not be taken from innocent people by anyone for any reason, no matter what the public thinks.
If we acknowledge those two maxims, then we should be fine. Incrementalisms want to bring a certain process to the killing, and principled pro-lifers want to end it.
Incrementalists shouldn’t attack principled pro-lifers for seeking to end abortion, and principled pro-lifers should not attack incrementalists for seeking to limit abortion. Intellectual honesty would be a very welcome thing to the pro-life community though. Incrementalists should acknowledge that the attainment of their goals will leave very large chunks of the population without rights. They should also acknowledge that their intellectual capital will run out and that they will not be able to mount a principled argument after having adopted the flawed logic that incrementalism requires.
Principled pro-lifers should admit that they are the mustard seed. Principled pro-lifers don’t stand a chance in a society that venerates the culture of death, but with the help of God, principled pro-lifers will be able to change the society, whereas incrementalists will only be able to cater to the ever lower common denominator. Right now principled pro-lifers couldn’t win a school board election, much less any legislative or executive change that would actually forbid abortion. Principled pro-lifers need a miracle and should pray for one, incrementalists would not know it even if the miracle came to them …
And finally one question for the incrementalists: how does incrementalism help the down syndrome babies, the children of rape and incest, and those who put their mom’s health in danger? Do they really think that picking the battles based on where the population is at is going to make the population change their views, or is it going to make the leaders change theirs?
Here are some cold facts: most Americans (even conservatives) won’t support a law that does not include exceptions, neither will pro-life politicians, nor the major pro-life organizations, including in many sad instances, the Catholic church whose teaching is opposed to all abortion. Do pro-lifers think that by not talking about rape and incest, this inmense majority of Americans is going to someday wake up and tell themselves that they suddenly support laws that force women to carry their rapist’s child? No, no, no. Incrementalism at best will get us to the point where abortion is banned after 24 weeks, or something like that, it has no chance of anything better, because it aspires to nothing better.
*Believing that incremental bills are the one and only way to go makes you an incrementalist, but supporting an incremental bill when it comes along does not.