Replies

“A) It’s not morally right to pass laws that say you can kill some innocent persons.”

But the law right now allows the murder of *any and all* innocent persons before their deaths. How many additional babies are you willing to sacrifice in the name of waiting for a perfect law, which certainly won’t come without winning some battles along the way? I’m with Father Frank Pavone on this one.

“B) It’s not constitutional.”

I agree with you. And if we had an enlightened majority in the Supreme Court and the Arkansas law was struck down because it violates the inalienable right to life of innocent human beings, then we would get exactly what we want, thatnks to that law. Unfortunately, if the law was struck down, it would be for not permitting abortion in enough circumstances. The law that you and I would pass would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional, and would set back the pro-life cause for years.

“C) We have forty years of experience that tells us it doesn’t work, because you’re giving up the principles that argue against the practice of human abortion every time you pass one of these bills.”

I would posit that we have much more than 40 years experience that tells us that it is counterproductive to make the perfect the enemy of the good. We need to tear down Roe v. Wade brick by brick, and then, when states finally are able to ban abortion, fight for the right to life in all 50 states (passing the most pro-life law possible in each state—if you can’t ban abortion in New Jersey without an exception for rape or incest, then do that, and try for a full ban later. Or perhaps get Congress to use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to ban abortion nationwide as a violation of a state abridging the right to life without due process of law; and then we can then try to elect large enough pro-life majorities so that Congress can propose a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and then fight for ratification by 3/4 of the states. But we won’t win the war if we insist on losing every battle.

“Wilberforce went through the same thing in the effort to end slavery in the British Empire. For decades he and his cohort in Parliament tried the compromise, incremental approach, until finally they figured out that it wasn’t right, and that it DID NOT WORK. So, they changed to a no-compromise equal protection approach, which very quickly prevailed.”

Actually, you are absolutely wrong about this. Wilberforce did not insist that the only acceptable outcome of legislation was banning slavery throughout the British Empire, and he did not oppose laws that fell short of that. He fought for emancipation for 26 years, and in 1807 finally convinced Parliament to ban the slave trade. He did not oppose the Slave Trade Act of 1807 because it didn’t ban slavery; he accepted it as a necessary first step towards emancipation.

Wilberforce then fought until his death for emancipation, and died a few days after hearing confirmation that slavery would finally be banned in the British Empire. And even then, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 did not prohibit slavery on certain parts of the British Empire (such as what are now India and Sri Lanka, and the island of St. Helena); that came 10 years later, with a law that passed thanks to the prior passage of the imperfect emencipation act of 1833.

So the lesson we should learn from Wilberforce’s fight to end slavery is not to compromise on your principles, but accept partial victories instead of total defeats.

There is no such thing as a “partial victory” when it comes to life. Not for the person being murdered. There’s no in between. When you’re dead you’re dead.

And there is nothing “perfect” or “good” about legislation that violates the most important explicit, imperative requirements of the supreme law of the land.

If you have sufficient power to pass lawless “laws” that fail to provide equal protection, as the Constitution requires, you have the power to save all.

If you support creating a class of human beings that can be murdered “legally,” based solely on the belief that they cannot feel pain, surely you would have no problem with a “law” that said it was okay to put a bullet through the heart of a paraplegic, right? Or one that said you could snuff out Grandma if you’ve given her enough morphine? I mean, after all, they won’t feel a thing!

That’s what I call this legislation: The “Don’t Worry, They Won’t Feel A Thing” laws.

“We are too young to realize that certain things are impossible... So we will do them anyway.”
-- William Wilberforce