By the illogic of the dogmatists, then, nobody should have done anything to help any of the Jews escape during WWII, because their methods could not enable them all to escape?
I understand that if we deal with something once in the Legislative Branch, there will be twice the resistance if we go back and try to address that same issue again anytime soon, and I understand that creates an intense desire to take as much ground on an issue in the first effort.
But, I marvel that people fail to see that even a 10% victory on abortion would save 400 unborn lives every single day in America, and are — by all indications — willing to continue sacrificing all 4000 lives every day until they find a way to save them all in one sweeping change.
How much blood do pro-life dogmatists have on their own heads owing to their stubborn refusal to stand up and support every opportunity to gain partial victories on this issue?
I will, however, caution that this line of reasoning is not applicable to those who catagorically refuse to ever vote for anyone who is not demonstrably pro-life. Imaintain that there is a difference between rejecting a given piece of compromise legislation that represents a real shot at a partial win, and rejecting a compromising candidate. In the first case, the possibility of victory is imminent; the legislation is in play, and support could effect its passage, which would actually save lives. In the second case, there is no immediate, life-saving benefit that is being rejected; only a philosophy that is willing to negotiate the absolute right to life.
What sort of leader — and what moral vacuity — is embodied in a candidate who has an easier time speaking in absolute terms about economic policy than in absolute terms about the transcendant right to life?? I fault no man for withholding his vote from such a candidate; the candidate is a moral cripple, and unfit for office in our Constitutional Republic; founded, as it is, upon the idea that men possess certain, unalienable rights that devolve to him from a transcendant, immutable source of moral certitude.
Or would we have men of uncertain convictions attempting to uphold that which our Constitution deems certain?? Indeed, this is exactly what we have had, and we see where it has taken us; how near to ruin we have come. So, as it is a moral failure to reject legislation that really would save lives, so it is also a moral failure to support a candidate who holds man’s right to life in such low regard as to be willing to compromise it.
So, if we would restore the Right to Life to its plce of Primacy (and we must, lest we be irrecoverably lost), then we must elect absolutists, forcing all moral compromise to arise from the other side of the aisle; and we must make the most of every partial legislative victory, taking ground at every crevice of opportunity to do so.
Very little, I should imagine, since practically every "partial victory" is immediately overturned by the Death Eater courts. I'd like to know of a specific instance in which a law was defeated by "pro-life dogmatists" in one jurisdiction, while being passed and upheld by courts in another.
Greetings HKMk23:
Well said.
The left is giddy with each and every fiber hacked from the tree of liberty; mindful that even the mightiest tree, when given enough hatchet blows, eventually falls.
We ought to celebrate this minor pro-life victory. And remind ourselves that we are merely resting at a milestone. We’re upon the moral clarity path, restoring the sanctity of life in Ohio is the endpoint.
Cheers,
OLA
- No abortions for convenience or birth control.
- First trimester abortions for rape, incest, or terminal birth defects (i.e. anencphaly) are permitted.
- The morning-after pill is OK.
The question is, is this acceptable, as an intermediate objective, while we pursue the eventual goal of not killing any of the unborn?
To me the answer is a conclusive "yes", because achieving a total ban on abortion will require the one-to-one changing of tens of millions of American hearts and minds, and I prefer to allow the killing of as few babies as possible while that process is underway.