Pro-Lifers Must Change More Than The Law

Three decades after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade decision, the American people remain as deeply divided over abortion as ever. Rather than being removed from politics, abortion is as firmly entrenched in each year’s political debates as taxes and the federal budget. Instead of waning, this political conflict is spilling over into the debate over such cutting-edge issues as stem-cell research and human cloning.

On the one hand, those of us who disagree with Roe should be pleased that both the ruling and the abortion policy it mandated remain in serious dispute. Elsewhere, where the issue was decided less heavy-handedly by democratic institutions and with somewhat greater concessions to those who object to abortion, there is no longer much debate. This has allowed pro-lifers to make progress that seemed unthinkable ten years ago, much less thirty. On the other hand, since abortion has become a proxy for so many other battles – the so-called “culture wars,” partisan disputes between Democrats and Republicans, the moderate versus conservative debate among Republicans, presidential elections, judicial nominations – the politics often receive more consideration than the actual issue. First principles often take a backseat to political activism.

Several years ago, I participated in an abortion debate as a student panelist on the pro-life side. I was discussing the importance of cultural change to the pro-life cause when I made what I considered to be the perfectly innocuous comment that government could not “solve” or conclusively “end” the problem of abortion. While I did not, and do not, disavow the importance of legal protection for unborn children, one of the other panelists, a professional pro-life activist, practically ripped the microphone out from in front of me and spoke up to correct me. She thought I had made a fatal concession by suggesting that changing the law wasn’t enough.

Here's the letter I sent to Mr. Mantle, (who did a great job):
I agree that first principles must be stressed. It's so easy to be positive because true happiness, health and success, as well as a stable society and government result from those same principles. We have no reason to be shy, apologetic, or to hesitate when confronted with strawmen and circular logic.

It is vital that the pro-life advocate repeat that this is about the inalienable rights of each and every human, especially the right to life, and that the only legitimate function of government is to protect those inalienable rights, using as little force as necessary. Quite often, because most people are law-abiding, the prospect of breaking the law and threat of punishment is enough force.

As someone who studied and practices human medicine, I know that the life killed in abortion is a human life. There is no doubt about what kind of life, only whether it's **human enough.**

As to the problems of a ban on elective abortions (those which are not done to actually save life): those problems were not as great as imagined when thousands lost the right to own slaves and were deprived of what they considered their "right to own property." Those slave owners understood -really, they knew the truth: the slaves were human and the act of usurping the life or freedom of a human being is not only wrong, but harmful for the aggressor because, in the long run, it weakens any protection to life, liberty that we all have. Unfortunately, we still hear about violations of the laws against slavery (kidnappers, involuntary prostitution, and those who prey on immigrants), but no one would argue that these infringements on inalienable rights should be legal!

There is no longer shame attached to having a child out of wedlock in this country. Ironically, the proponents of abortion as birth control - the blatant or subtle eugenicists - are more likely to shame a woman or girl for completing an unplanned pregnancy than the straw man of the puritanical, religious, pro-life advocate.

No one on the prolife side should tolerate the idea that we do not support the mother and the child after birth. The Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the shelters and homes for mothers and their children, are run by pro-life (usually religious) institutions. And don't forget that we, too, pay taxes - just like the abortion advocates that fund Medicaid, WIC, and Welfare.

In the long run, we do need to stress that each child should be wanted, and that having children outside of a loving marriage is less than optimal. There is no need to accept accusations that we are imposing our values on others: the facts support this idea. Besides, who would deny that what everyone wants is one, unconditional, trusting love relationship for life and that the best way to find that love and life is to be sexually faithful to your mate, even before marriage (or even meeting him or her)? Children do better in school and later in life when their parents have an intact marriage. Marriages are more likely to avoid divorce if the partners do not live together before the wedding. Faithfulness (not celibacy, and not only abstinence before marriage) and monogamy for life is healthier. Especially for women, whose risk for HPV infection - which is the cause of 99+% of cervical cancer and virtually all those annual pap smears (That's right: the pap smear is an STD!) - is directly related to the number of sexual partners her partners have had.

One way to reduce the perceived "need" for abortion is to teach our children how to understand that how they live will affect how well they live and that it is vital to recognize what they really want: True love, and the security of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Beverly Nuckols

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.