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 â€œno compromiseâ€ 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 â€œI'm going to jump in and grab as many people as I can,â€ 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 â€œPolitically Incorrectâ€ 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.
Follow me on Twitter @BryanKemper
Originally posted on LifeNews.com