Tomorrow, January 22, 2015 marks the 42nd anniversary of United States Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade. I was just a little over two years old when that decision came down so I am glad that I was born before this Herodian ruling came into being. After January 22, 1973 the lives of young children in the womb were very much in jeopardy.
For the past 42 years the Pro Life movement in America has
championed the cause of the unborn. I was happy and proud to consider myself a
part of that movement. I believed compromise and incremental approaches to
winning at the Pro Life movement were the way to see ultimate victory in ending
abortion in America.
That is, until I began to think through my position and
seriously question the tactics of the Pro Life movement. You see, we have had
42 years of unfettered access to abortion on demand. 42 years of the Pro Life
movement telling us that we have to be patient and take what we can when we
can.
So, when we were able to see a partial-birth abortion ban
passed in Congress in 2003 (only 30 years after abortion was made legal) this
was hailed as a major victory for “the cause.” But I began to think about that.
So, killing a child out of the womb is bad…but it isn’t as bad if it is still
in the womb?
The Pro Life supporters would say, “Even if one life is
saved, it is worth it.” That sounds so noble and altruistic. But the problem is
how can we say ANY child should not be saved? I found myself beginning to
reject the idea that incrementalism and compromise were the proper approach.
Now that we’ve had 42 years of that approach and philosophy leading the charge,
we can truly measure the results.
It has done nothing to stem the tide of the slaughter of
innocents. It has merely equipped and empowered those who want abortion on
demand to continue and it has gravely softened our position and resolve.
I now consider myself a supporter of the Personhood
movement. What the Personhood movement is attempting to do is to frame the
debate of life without compromising the life of any child. If a baby in the
womb is indeed a person, then that person is afforded all the protection of the
laws of our land.
 |
| Justice Potter Stewart |
Justice Potter Stewart (one of the ruling Justices on Roe v
Wade) said during arguments for Roe v Wade, “The basic constitutional question,
initially is, whether or not the unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it? That’s
critical to this case is it not?” He continued to say, “If it were established
that an unborn fetus is a person within the protections of the 14th
amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?”
Since I have embraced the idea that an unborn child is
indeed a person, what I have found is criticism and harsh treatment from the unlikeliest
of sources…those in the Pro Life movement. Because they reject this
uncompromising position, what usually results is ad hominem and invective being
injected into any discussion on the topic.
I feel their arguments for compromise and incrementalism are
no different than those who would argue against abstinence. The line of
reasoning goes, “Teens are going to have sex anyway, so let’s make sure they
are safe…and maybe we’ll cut down the numbers of teen pregnancies in the process.”
But the fact is, abstinence, when practiced has been shown to be 100% effective
in preventing pregnancy.
I can no longer stomach the incrementalist’s idea of
compromising and saving “some” lives over others. For me, this is an all-out,
no compromise issue. No child deserves death for any reason. And the moment we
justify one child dying, we have lost a 42 year battle.
If you want to know more about Personhood in the state of
Iowa, follow this LINK:
1 comment:
Excellent piece, and one I whole-heartedly agree with. Thanks!!
Post a Comment