![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Recently
« previous entry | next entry »
Dec. 4th, 2007 | 01:53 pm
Recently I was talking with my "connection" at National Right to Life (by "connection", I mean an old-coworker) and that got me to thinking about the current branches of the pro-life movement, about which I blogged just one entry ago.
If you look at the American Right to Life website, you will see that their goal is to end abortion in 12 years. And if they don't, they say, their entire leadership board will step down and replace it with new leadership. I wish they would have made this commitment in 1973 when Roe vs. Wade went through, because then they might have a little bit more of an appreciation for the road blocks ahead. I fail to find one way in which you can blame the NRLC for abortion still being legal. I defy anyone to produce a decent hypothesis.
But I was reminded about what former Oregon Right to Life president Dr. Ken Wilson said about abortion a few years ago in a promotional video. To paraphrase: Jeremiah went 30 years without a single convert.
American Right to Life apparently wants abortion to end now. But then again, who doesn't? The problem is there is a big difference between wanting something and attaining something. You can't just stick the abortion issue in the microwave and have it be done in 6 minutes. Abortion is a complex issue (though it shouldn't be) and abortion rights have been ingrained into the lives of Americans. You can't just take it away without resistance. And our resistance is strong: the pro-choice movement has the money. They have a lot of political power. They have the colleges and universities. All we really have is the truth and some great organizations like...National Right to Life.
I really can't stress enough that I am a total "on principle" pro-lifer. I never agree with abortion. This is why I'm a blogger and don't work for Right to Life—because as a Right to Life employee you have to be gracious with the "other side" in order to save babies. That's not my cup of tea. So I choose to blog and help Right to Life out any way I can as a volunteer. But I choose to save as many babies as possible as opposed to saving a principle. Making an exception for rape and incest doesn't approve of abortions in cases of rape and incest: it is saying "Fine, we'll give you this for the time being." Once we can save 90% of the babies we'll be able to work on the hearts of the mothers who want to abort a rapist's child.
If you look at the American Right to Life website, you will see that their goal is to end abortion in 12 years. And if they don't, they say, their entire leadership board will step down and replace it with new leadership. I wish they would have made this commitment in 1973 when Roe vs. Wade went through, because then they might have a little bit more of an appreciation for the road blocks ahead. I fail to find one way in which you can blame the NRLC for abortion still being legal. I defy anyone to produce a decent hypothesis.
But I was reminded about what former Oregon Right to Life president Dr. Ken Wilson said about abortion a few years ago in a promotional video. To paraphrase: Jeremiah went 30 years without a single convert.
American Right to Life apparently wants abortion to end now. But then again, who doesn't? The problem is there is a big difference between wanting something and attaining something. You can't just stick the abortion issue in the microwave and have it be done in 6 minutes. Abortion is a complex issue (though it shouldn't be) and abortion rights have been ingrained into the lives of Americans. You can't just take it away without resistance. And our resistance is strong: the pro-choice movement has the money. They have a lot of political power. They have the colleges and universities. All we really have is the truth and some great organizations like...National Right to Life.
I really can't stress enough that I am a total "on principle" pro-lifer. I never agree with abortion. This is why I'm a blogger and don't work for Right to Life—because as a Right to Life employee you have to be gracious with the "other side" in order to save babies. That's not my cup of tea. So I choose to blog and help Right to Life out any way I can as a volunteer. But I choose to save as many babies as possible as opposed to saving a principle. Making an exception for rape and incest doesn't approve of abortions in cases of rape and incest: it is saying "Fine, we'll give you this for the time being." Once we can save 90% of the babies we'll be able to work on the hearts of the mothers who want to abort a rapist's child.