One of the most mind-boggling arguments I hear from people on the issue of abortion is, “I’m morally opposed to abortion but I cannot tell someone else what to do and it should remain legal.” Every time I hear this argument it makes my head want to explode.
I have often said to people that I’m sure many said that in the time of slavery. I ask them how they would react to someone saying, “I’m morally opposed to slavery but I would never tell anyone not to own a slave.” The reaction is always, “that’s not the same thing.”
Before I get into my response I wanted to look at history and find people actually using that argument. I was recently in Lancaster, PA at the Catholic Marketing Network working the Priests for Life booth. I looked up historical references to Lancaster and found a lot about our 15th President, James Buchanan.
One of the first things I read about Buchanan was that he was morally opposed to slavery but didn’t want to make it illegal. Not only had I found someone who used this contradictory argument, I found a US President who espoused this argument.
He went beyond saying that it should remain legal and even went so far as to proclaim interference in slavery was an evil. On Dec 19, 1859 in his third annual message to Congress he said, “”Had it been decided that either Congress or the territorial legislature possess the power to annul or impair the right to property in slaves, the evil would be intolerable.”
To him the attempt to stop slavery was more evil than slavery itself. I would argue that he couldn’t truly be morally opposed to an evil and yet support and defend the practice of that evil. He couldn’t call slavery evil if he believed and declared any attempts to interfere with slavery evil.
So how is this the same thing when it comes to abortion? The answer is quite simple, both slavery and abortion are evils that take a group of human persons and strip them of their rights. Both slavery and abortion allow one group to determine the worth and value of another group and decide their fate.
Buchanan in his writings and speeches proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he truly did not believe that black people were not truly equal humans.
“What would be your situation, fellow-citizens, if negroes were admitted to an equality of political and social rights with white men and white women? …. The subject is too disgusting, and I recoil from it.” (speech on August 18, 1838)
“Alas for the South! It is already ruined for years to come without immediate remedy. Negro equality & negro suffrage have already done their work.” (letter of November 2, 1867)
“The opposition to Negro Suffrage in the South, as well as in the North, has been the principal cause of our triumph everywhere. Abandon this, & we are gone.” (letter of November 9, 1867)
He could not in any believable way truly say that he was morally opposed to slavery when he did not believe that blacks were truly humans. In the same way I cannot believe someone who argues that they are morally opposed to abortion if they believe that pre-born humans are not human enough to protect with full human rights.
Anytime we as a society decide that other humans do not enjoy the same basic rights as us because of uncontrollable circumstances such as skin color, religion or age we are committing a great evil. When anyone disguises this belief as an attempt to protect the rights of one group of people over the rights of another group, this is one of the most ignoble mindsets and must be rejected.
Abortion like slavery does exactly this, it pits the rights of an one human over the rights of another human and strips them of personhood for the convenience of those with power. Both practices are evil and cannot be defended as a right ever.
Most people have heard the phrase, “History repeats itself” and that is exactly what happened when the preborn had their personhood stripped away and the abortion holocaust was unleashed on our nation. While this phrase is often used to point out evil events I believe it will be used again to describe the abolition of abortion.
When those who claim to be morally opposed to abortion truly embrace what that means and raise their voices and demand an end to this genocide, we will see history repeat itself. We will see our preborn brothers and sisters freed from the tyrannical Supreme Court decision that declared they are not human persons and see their rights restored.
One of the shirts I wear the most often reads, “I am the generation that will abolish abortion.” This is not just a saying on a shirt to me, it is a truth that I fight and dedicate my life to everyday. I urge everyone who has used this apathetic argument to not just be morally opposed to abortion, but be enraged by this evil and demand its abolition.
Pro-Life People Must Unite to Save as Many Babies as Possible and End Abortion – A Look at Immediate Abolition vs Incremental Approaches in the Fight to End Abortion.
I have never met anyone who fights for the end of the practice of child killing we call abortion ever say they want to simply regulate it so we can keep fighting it. That is just not a logical or believable position for anyone who is pro-life. In reality, the fact that I am writing this piece is exhausting but necessary.
There is an unfortunate divide in the pro-life world over compromise and when it is acceptable. There are actually many different levels of so called “no compromise” positions inside the very argument of whether a piece of legislation should be supported or not.
The two extremes would be to embrace any legislation that can possible save some lives as we fight for more on our way to the total abolition or reject all legislation that is not 100 percent immediate abolition. In between that you have those who might accept only the least restrictive legislation because it might not get blocked by courts or those who will take an incremental law as long as there are zero compromises such as rape or incest.
I normally don’t like to write about this publicly but I do believe it needs to be addressed as so many everyday people don’t know which camp to pitch their tent in and who to support in this battle.
I think the last of word of my last paragraph is the key word, battle. Every time we see a new piece of legislation it is but a battle in a larger war. Every time we argue a new way to end some abortions we are picking a battle to chip away at the enemy, which is the pro-abortion industry.
Of course we would want to have that one tactic, that one battle plan that could end the war on the sanctity of life in one fell swoop. I did not want to spend the past 30 years waking up every day thinking about all the children who will be killed today, I would love to move on to other endeavors in life. However I am also one who understands that sometimes things take time, they take planning, they take strategy and they take a faithful resilience to run the race and cross the finish line.
Let’s looks at the military for a minute. We have several branches of military for a reason. There are many lines of defense and offense when it comes to war. For instance, if a certain piece of land needs to be taken you will have cooperation from the different branches to fight a particular battle. The Air Force may fly over and drop bombs to clear the way for the Army or Marines to advance while the Navy is offshore firing missiles. The fact is many things have to happen that in and of themselves will not win the battle.
So what if you are on a ship in the ocean and several people fall overboard; what is the best way to save their lives? Would it make sense to argue over the best way to save them? If one person said “I’m going to jump in and grab as many people as I can,” would you tell them not to because they won’t be able to save everyone so they are compromising and sentencing some to death? Would you stop someone from throwing a life preserver to someone because you believe they should use a more comprehensive method like taking the time to lower a life boat and trying to save more people?
In reality there are many things that can be done by many people. Maybe there is a strong swimmer on board who can jump in and start saving as many as he can. At the same time another person with good aim and strong arms starts to throw a life preserver over and pull as many people as he can into the boat. While that is happening others lower the lifeboats and begin to go out and pull people out of the water.
The fact is that all of those things can save lives and should be done by those who are taking those actions. If instead we stood by and argued about whose method worked better or even worse tried to stop others from acting because you don’t agree with their method, everyone would die.
I was once asked on the show “Politically Incorrect” with Bill Maher what I would do if I came upon a burning building and saw two people inside. One was a baby and the other was then President Bill Clinton, who would I save first. Two of other panelist said they would save the baby while I said I would save whoever I could reach first.
Bill Maher was surprised by my answer thinking as pro-lifer I would obviously go for the baby first. I explained to him that I couldn’t put one person’s value over the others. I could not choose to save the baby because the baby is more important or vice versa, could not choose the President because he was more important. The simple truth is that every single human person is of equal value and I would be obliged to save whoever I can. This is honestly the whole reason I am a full time pro-life advocate: The protection of every single human person as an equal person with a right to live.
In a perfect world we would of course end this holocaust in one fell swoop, just pass a law and immediately shut down every single abortion mill and cease all abortions. In a perfect world we would never have even gotten to this point where thousands of babies are murdered every day. We do not live in a perfect world.
We can complain about a piece of legislation all day. We can point out the faults and imperfections that would not protect every single American child from abortion because it’s not perfect. However the children a particular law can save are the ones right in front of us so we can grab them and save them right now. To tell them you won’t support saving them because you cannot, in the same action, save all children is a disingenuous and self-righteous position.
I have the upmost respect for those who have vocalized so loudly the fact that every single abortion no matter the circumstance of conception of the baby is an act of homicide. Even in the most heartbreaking and emotionally difficult situations, every single pregnant woman is carrying a human person with a full and equal right to life. Every single human from the very moment the sperm and ovum unite deserves protection and I will fight for that protection.
However if I have a chance to save as many other humans on the path to establishing that protection, I will take all of those opportunities. This does not make me a compromiser; this makes me someone who recognizes that I must fight many battles on the way to winning the war. Let’s be resolute to fight abortion, not abortion fighters.
Bryan Kemper
Follow me on Twitter @BryanKemper
Originally posted on LifeNews.com