Different Means to an End - or - Different End?
Pro-lifers for the past 33 years have dug the graves of millions of innocent children through their own “Pro-Life” legislation. We are in a state of continually shooting ourselves in the foot. Time and again, we have actively pushed so called “Pro-Life” laws that always end with “and then you can kill the baby.” Literally hundreds of laws have been fought for, and passed by the pro-life community nationwide that were well intended, yet ended with the allowance for the murder of children.
Do pro-lifers have a varied means to the same end, from the absolute non-compromising pro-lifer to the compromised incrementalist pro-lifer? Do we have the same goal line?
I for one would not be satisfied with Congress coming on-board and simply copycatting the state level abortion bans. Why not? Because these bans, with their allowance clauses, would go into affect in those states should Roe vs. Wade be overturned. So, a national abortion ban would fail because it would still allow for all the various state level allowance clauses resulting in the continuance of abortion. They would still allow the murder of innocent children. It would not absolutely protect the sanctity of life.
Pro-lifers differ in our means to the goal of protecting the life of the unborn, but this difference is such that it translates into compromise, resulting in the killing of children. Thus, a different goal in sight altogether.
Why would I be happy with a parental consent allowance clause? Such law ends with the murder of a child. I do not believe that this clause protects life at all. It just includes another party in the allowance of murder. I cannot be in agreement with such a clause or those who create and celebrate the passing of these allowances since they still ultimately result in murder. Any and all compromises introduced into abortion bans are in fact allowances for murder. Legislation that allows murder, under even the smallest clause, is in fact legalizing murder. Again, a different goal in sight. The non-compromiser always stands on God's enduring command of “Thou shall not murder”!
In a recent statement by Rev. Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, he cited the example of parental-consent laws. “Are we saying when the parent consents, abortion is OK?” He said, “We're not. But, we certainly are introducing an obstacle there to the abortion.” An obstacle? Perhaps. But it still ends with “and then you can kill the baby.”
He added, “There's a difference between choosing the lesser evil and choosing to lessen evil.” Wrong. Choosing to “lessen” evil is void of eliminating evil. That makes room for the allowance of some evil. In this case, it's making allowance for abortion to continue after following the prescribed legal garbage which we pro-lifers have fought so hard to establish for so many years. Rom. 3:8….' And why not say, “Why not do evil that good may come”? '
The path of compromising incrementalism that the pro-life community is taking today will end simply with the continuance of abortion. Colorado Right to Life's stance is to end abortion altogether without compromise. We will stand firmly and always on God's command of “Do not murder,” and against any law that ends with “and then you can kill the baby.”