Posted on 11/24/2007 8:34:51 PM PST by EternalVigilance
When I saw a column written by pro-life activist Jane Frantz in the Appleton Post-Crescent, it really took the wind out of my sails. She wrote about her epiphany in the pro-life movement following her own abortion, but she pointed out something that reminded me of the reasons why pro-lifers continue to tread water politically.
Frantz opined, "After three and a half decades, I wonder how much longer we can afford to do the same things, expecting different results."
Her observations about pro-lifers "authoring and defending woefully inadequate legislation" is but one of the problems we face on the political front, but I happen to think that it is precisely the politics of abortion that has drummed our message into oblivion.
As one evangelical preacher told the New York Times recently, "They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year, hearing about all this political stuff!" He was speaking about the deacons of his own church.
This minister is saying that the trained leaders of his congregation do not want to hear about or talk about the political aspects of abortion. How tragic; but at the same time, how revealing. It means there is something terribly wrong within the movement.
This troubles me a great deal. What this comment reveals is that in the 34 years since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the act of abortion has become the "abortion issue" in the minds of many Americans. From that mindset, it follows that the manner of fighting direct, cold-blooded murder — which is precisely what an act of procured abortion is — has become a question of party, compromise and incrementalism.
In other words, the "politics of abortion" has robbed the person who dies during an abortion of his identity as a human being.
One pro-life web site asked visitors: "Are you in favor of states introducing legislation to ban all abortions, even if legal advisors recommend waiting until there are more justices on the Supreme Court who will uphold such a ban?"
Though the vast majority of those who responded said "yes," one has to wonder why such a question would be asked in the first place. It is the goal of the pro-life movement is to end the slaughter, not regulate it. Why, then, isn't the pro-life movement waging battle in every state in America to end this scourge? Why isn't the pro-life movement striking at the heart of the abortion beast with proposed state constitutional amendments that would protect every preborn child? Isn't personhood our goal, after all?
And what of the pro-life legal "experts" who would tell us "the timing is not right?" What could this ridiculous statement possibly mean when we face a slaughter with numbers so mind numbing that nobody can even begin to imagine the piles of dead bodies about which we speak.
Jim Bopp, general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, told Frank Pastore in a Townhall.com interview that proposing a total abortion ban — and losing — could be "devastating" to the pro-life movement. That statement pinpoints precisely what I find so unbelievable. He is clearly satisfied for the moment. Bopp believes that because more Americans are pro-life today and regulations on abortion are said to be working, we should be celebrating.
But such thinking leaves out the most critical point: abortion is an act of murder.
Bopp opines, "There have been many battles lost, wars lost, countries lost, because battles have been fought prematurely and imprudently. Our job for the unborn is to use judgment and prudence to do what is possible, not to risk it all on some risky strategy in which the only prospect for success is for divine intervention."
Such comments smack of political posturing which has been the problem within the politically inspired pro-life movement for years. Of course the strategy we pursue requires divine intervention, as well as divine inspiration and perhaps most important, total trust in God's will.
If we were talking about any other class of citizens and the violent act of murder being perpetrated against them daily, would the public be happy with regulating how or when the murders took place? Would we merely want to make sure someone gave their permission before the murders took place?
Would Americans approve of the continued murders if they were assured that the government was not paying for them? Of course not! So what is so very different about the murder of the innocent preborn children? Why is the scenario for saving them so pragmatic? Where is the outrage?
Because so many have been busy politicizing the act of abortion, the vast majority of Americans no longer understand that abortion is an act that results in death. It seems that many prefer to accept the "political reality" of the situation and continue on their merry way, regulating here, defunding there, and politicking on the way towards a loft goal that never really appears on the horizon.
Perhaps that satisfies the politically correct, but it disgusts me.
The Thomas More Law Center's Robert Muise wrote, "After 34 years of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, it is time to rethink pro-life strategy." He added, "It would be a tragic mistake to be content with a strategy that makes ending abortion secondary to other regulatory efforts or worse yet, a strategy that avoids it altogether."
My view of this ongoing struggle between political experts and those of us who understand the tragic price being paid by dead babies is that it is time to develop a different pro-life strategy — one that places the personhood of the child at the front of the struggle and builds toward that goal by taking solid steps that do not appear to approve the very act we know is murder. Avoiding personhood by suggesting that the time is not right or the number of justices on the Supreme Court is not yet sufficient is to repeat the arguments of the past 34 years.
I've heard it all before and the stench of compromise is incredible.
A new strategy is called for; and to my mind, those who resist talking about it are the root cause of the problem. To them I would say: Get off the fence and join the battle to end the murder of America's future. The troops are moving out — with you, or without you.
Judie Brown is president and co-founder of American Life League, the nation's largest grassroots pro-life educational organization.
She is currently serving her second five-year term as a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life in Rome. Daily Catholic cited her as one of the top 100 Catholics of the 20th century.
Ping to a great article, from one of the wisest individuals in America.
Very good article. I am reminded every time someone brings up the fact we haven’t had another 9/11 attack that we have the equivilant of that every day via abortions. Not by terrorists but by our own citizens and we sit idlely by allowing it to continue. Shame on all of us.
Yeah, this piece slipped by me earlier in the month. When someone brought it to my attention earlier, I thought it was definitely worthy of putting up on FR.
As to the continuing daily holocaust, amen. It’s horrendous.
As Lincoln said, this country will never be destroyed from without. If we’re going down, it will be from forces within.
...and below.
Says it all...
Plain truth:
cold-blooded murder — which is precisely what an act of procured abortion is
bump
You betcha.
Judie Brown is, in my estimation, one of the three most principled, dedicated and knowledgable leaders of the pro-life movement.
As an evangelical, it’s sad in a way that I have to admit that those three are all Catholics.
Judie Brown
Alan Keyes
Charles E. Rice
It doesn’t get much plainer than that.
The Catholics are staunch on life. I’m not an evangelical, but am a Protestant and a conservative in the Calvinist tradition. All of us, regardless of our beliefs seen as though through a glass darkly, must unite as co-belligerents in this greatest moral battle of our time. God will judge and have the last word, but we too will be called to account for the roles we played in the battle.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Piles of dead bodies? Where? Is there a mass grave somewhere? Oh, you must mean those piles of microscopic cells. A little hyperbole today? It is this kind of rhetoric that has so many mainstream Americans rolling their eyes the pro-life movement.
Most Americans disagree and thus... Strategy for success evades pro-lifers.
On what basis do you seek to draw artificial lines of valuation based on size or age, given that life is a continuous, dynamic, gradual, smooth process with a real beginning, having no spikes or jumps?
How many times have you seen an abortion on TV - the immediate physical results, the intermediate psychological results, the long-term pain suffered by millions of women? And why would women want to speak about such a deeply hurtful and personal matter? And lastly, why would you seek to condone a climate of tolerance for something so brutal in severity, pitting mother against child?
One murdered child is an abomination.
Fifty million is beyond human imagination.
And your attitude, translated into public policy, is why they have occurred.
I would think that most Americans would agree that there are no piles of dead bodies. This statement is pure hyperbole and is designed to appeal to emotion. Face it, most Americans don't view abortion as cold-blooded murder. Poll after poll after poll will attest to this. As such, they're not seeing any piles of dead bodies.
Polls are meaningless as public opinion is in constant flux on a phalanx of issues, and does not determine truth. Your statement "they're not seeing any piles of dead bodies" may have something to do with this public opinion. The question is, why are they not being shown it? Given that 47 million murders have taken place - more than were killed by Hitler and Stalin combined - on what moral basis can we condemn any genocide or evil in the world, given that none can approach those numbers? On what basis should anyone care, as long as this is taking place?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.