In the last few years, pro-lifers have made more progress than probably in the twenty years that came before it. And the reason that that pro-life forces failed to make significant progress over those years is because many pro-lifers were not in interested in progress.
Progress, by its nature, is an iterative thing. You make a small imperfect gain, a step in the right direction. Then you get a good night’s sleep and try to make another small and imperfect step in the right direction. You do this enough times and you make real significant progress. In the case of the pro-life cause, progress means less dead babies.
And the reason pro-lifers are succeeding now is because of tactics. Groups like the SBA list and Live Action are every day trying to make small imperfect gains anywhere and everywhere they can. A sonogram law here, a fetal pain bill there, and a video discrediting the sainted abortion industry. These things all add up, they all chip away at abortion on demand.
These small battles and victories are called tactics. Tactics are how you win the war.
But there remains a segment of pro-lifers who disdain tactics in favor of some false sense of purity. You know them, they are the folks who refuse to vote for imperfect candidates who promote imperfect policies.
Just today, I see some Catholic bloggers decrying Paul Ryan’s statement on abortion last night in the debate. “See, I told you he was not really pro-life like me!” They say this because while Ryan stated that he is pro-life and believes that all life begins at conception, the Romney administration policy would be to pursue legislation with the exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. Cue the vapors.
What these people pretend not to understand is that legislation (aka policy) without those exceptions has 0% chance of getting approved while legislation (aka policy) with those exceptions is much more acceptable to the voting public and thus has a greater chance of enactment. That may be a shame, but it is also reality.
So the pro-lifers who understand that if today you settle for just a piece of the pie and then tomorrow you can come back for more, they understand this tactic. Save as many babies as you can today and tomorrow come back and try to save the rest.
But there are those who will claim that you lose any claim to pro-life if you dirty yourself with such tactics. If we can’t save all the babies at once, we won’t save any. Yeah, that’ll show them.
Listen, if today all we can do is try to save 99% of the babies, we do it. Tomorrow we try to save the rest. But you can’t win a war in one decisive battle, you win it with tactical legislative victories even if they are not perfect. Liberals and secularists have been eating our lunch for generations because they understand this. It took them a century to get to Obamacare. It took Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to get to Obamacare. And they are not satisfied yet, but they take the victory and keep moving on.
Now that some pro-lifers have learned this lesson, we are beginning to see some real progress. But there are still those who must remain perfect and unsullied, even if babies continue to die. These people are moral masturbators, sure it feels good but accomplishes nothing.
October 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm
While I tend to agree with you on most of what you said. I think the reason pro-lifers fail is twofold: lack of organization and lack of prayer.
Many people are pro-life, but they do not coordinate their efforts with each other. 40 days for life is a great step in the right direction. The march for life is another great example. There needs to be more of that. There are dozens of pro-life groups. Why not consolidate and unify the message?
Then there is prayer. Are we praying for this everyday? Some of us are, but not everyone. Are we fasting for it? Do we make uncomfortable personal sacrifices for it? 50 million children have been killed in our country. It is the largest genocide in history. Why are we not more engaged with this evil?
October 12, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Sorry, but your attempt to pigeonhole me has failed, and I doubt that I am alone in this.
On the one hand, I am 100% in favor of incremental steps to end abortion. I am in favor of laws that outlaw abortions after a certain gestational time based on fetal pain, laws that require parental consent or notification, laws that require waiting periods, laws that require that a woman be shown an ultrasound, and so on.
But Paul Ryan's answer last night disappointed me deeply, because it contains such a contradiction. On the one hand, he says he is pro-life because of his Catholic faith as well as reason and science. But on the other hand, he says that he will not oppose abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother.
The problem here is that he knows the truth — he knows that the Catholic faith, reason, and science all show that pre-born babies conceived in rape or incest are every bit as much human as any other pre-born babies. And yet he is not even willing to try to fight for the truth — to fight for the lives of unborn children — in those cases.
I could understand if he said that he will fight to protect the lives of the unborn, but then in practice he compromises in order to do at least some good. That I can understand and support — just as if he promised to fight for a 10% spending cut and then actually settled for a 3% cut because that's the best he could get. What I can't understand is how he can know the truth about the life and dignity of the pre-born, and yet say to a small segment of them that he will not even try to fight for their life and dignity.
You can characterize it however you want, but I was severely disappointed by that part of Paul Ryan's response in last night's debate. I'll probably still vote for Romney/Ryan as the lesser of two evils, but I am even less enthusiastic about voting for them than I was before the VP debate.
October 12, 2012 at 5:27 pm
I think the true iterative process starts happening when the liars who say they are pro-life stop getting pro-life votes.
I also think, if anything, the emphasis on prayer has been part of the problem. Pray, but don't stop them. Much like finding someone dying of starvation and then just praying for them. Wet kitten Christianity. We can't even rise to the level were we turn off the power, probably firstly because we can't trust even each other enough to be able to present any real threat to the system.
So the pro-life 'movement' turned into a 'pro-life' lobbying industry, which now sells us 'progress.'
You really think that's where the solution is going to come from?
October 12, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Option 1: Do not vote. Vote for a 3rd party candidate. Vote for a Write-In candidate. I present these 3 approaches as one option with the assumption that those choosing any of these 3 approaches would likely see voting for Romney/Ryan as the only feasible alternative (which is Option 2). I am also including these 3 approaches as Option 1 because the likely POLITICAL outcome is the same. So let’s look at the historical precedence: One of the most direct examples of this would be William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison was an immediatist – an abolitionist absolutely opposed to the idea of political compromise. In fact, Garrison’s position was to avoid the political sphere. Here is Garrison’s view on Lincoln, which one could replace with Romney in effort to hypothetically see what his position of Romney would be (I assume those reading understand that Lincoln was not a clear abolitionist and was not running on the idea that he would abolish slavery upon becoming President): “William Lloyd Garrison, indefatigable enemy of slavery and advocate for racial equality in America, was not an early booster of Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln ran for president in 1860, Garrison saw him, at best, as a politician with compromised antislavery credentials and, at worst, a garden-variety bigot full of ‘white-man-ism’ in his speeches. After emancipation, however, Garrison's stance towards Lincoln softened considerably. He met with the president• in 1864 and told friends he believed Lincoln would work to ‘uproot slavery, and give fair-play to the emancipated.’ After Lincoln's death and subsequent martyrdom, the old abolitionist was as effusive as anyone in his praise of the ‘Great Emancipator’.” – Brian Dirck. Option 1-ers would be Garrison-like here and Lincoln would be Romney. Garrison changed his view of Lincoln approaching/following the Emancipation, one could assume that those choosing Option 1 would change their view of Romney if he was to abolish abortion (we will not debate the likelihood of Romney doing this as we are not prophets and we clearly see that Garrison would have argued Lincoln wouldn’t do it).
Option 2: Vote for Romney. Since I have provided most of the historical context above the picture here needs less explanation. The historical precedence for this would be an anti-slavery voter that voted for Lincoln because they did not accept the Garrison approach. While the anti-slavery voter wanted the ultimate abolition of slavery they were more willing to compromise politically in hopes that the “better of two candidates” would bring progress to their cause: “To this demand for ‘moral suasion,’ Garrison added an insistence on equal rights for women within the movement and a studious avoidance of ‘corrupt’ political parties and churches. To Garrison's opponents, such ideas seemed wholly at odds with Christian values and the imperative to influence the political and ecclesiastical systems…” – James Stewart. These anti-slavery voters would have voted for Lincoln (the guy not wholly committed to the abolition of slavery) and continued to pressure Lincoln along-side those like Garrison until he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. In hindsight they would be able to give themselves the proverbial “pat on the back” for electing the man who led the the immediate abolition of slavery – but they did have to “compromise” in their voting and risk having to say they voted for another “do-nothing” politician who perpetuated the pro-slavery agenda.
I won’t tell you what option to choose. I personally will choose Option 2 because I am willing to accept the risk of having to admit I voted for another “do-nothing politician” with the hopes that my God can lead Romney in the right direction. Further, I am too opposed to the other possible outcome: The re-election of a Pro-Abortion Administration (Obama) that will surely have the opportunity to further the Pro-Abortion agenda and appoint Pro-Abortion Justices.
October 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm
I'm going to vote for the 2R ticket, because Ryan said he wanted to turn the abortion issue back to the states. This is, IMO, a very good idea. The establishment in DC is totally pro-abortion. The states are not.
October 12, 2012 at 7:10 pm
. But on the other hand, he says that he will not oppose abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother.
No, he doesn't. I mean is it really that hard to listen to what a person says? Ryan has maintained his 100 percent pro-life position. What he said is that he will support the legislative policy of the man at the top of the ticket, and it's a position that allows for exceptions. Do you really expect the Vice Presidential nominee to openly oppose the policy of the man at the top of the ticket?
October 12, 2012 at 7:57 pm
A little harsh. I come from a very active pro-life family that has both incrementalist and hard-liners. Both get things done in there own ways and there's a need for both schools of thought. We're all on the same team. It's a good tension.
October 12, 2012 at 8:00 pm
That being said, I thought Ryan was great and he was careful with his language. Are there a lot of pro-lifers upset at him? Our problem here is all that yahoo "social justice" catholics who are worried that Ryan's going to eat their grandmothers and throw poor children on the street with nothing to eat but their state-sponsored iphones.
October 12, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Hi Paul Z.,
"I mean is it really that hard to listen to what a person says?"
No, I don't think it is. However, you seem to make two contradictory statements:
(1) "Ryan has maintained his 100 percent pro-life position."
(2) "What he said is that he will support the legislative policy of the man at the top of the ticket, and it's a position that allows for exceptions."
I agree with point #2. But to me point #2 means that point #1 is NOT true — i.e., that Ryan has NOT maintained his 100% pro-life position. And I find that fact to be deeply disappointing, because he knows that pre-born babies conceived in rape and incest have the same right to life as other pre-born babies, and yet he goes out of his way to say that he and Romney would not seek to protect them.
"Do you really expect the Vice Presidential nominee to openly oppose the policy of the man at the top of the ticket?"
No, I don't expect him to openly oppose it. But I don't see why he has to promote it either. I think that at least he should maintain silence on the topic of exceptions (especially when not asked), and not actively PROMOTE that point of view. The debate moderator never asked about exceptions, and yet he mentioned them twice, even though he did not need to.
October 12, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Hi Paul Z.,
I don't mean to sound too argumentative. But here's a question that I would pose, and I would be interested in your answer:
If the Republican presidential nominee were openly pro-choice, and if he appointed pro-life Paul Ryan as his VP candidate, would you expect Ryan to give his full support to the presidential candidate's pro-choice position?
October 12, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Paul (Not Zummo)
You are proving my point by saying #2 negates #1.
October 12, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Hi Patrick,
Thanks for letting me voice my opinion in your combox.
Would you care to explain why you think that #2 doesn't negate #1? To me, it seems like a matter of simple logic that these two statements contradict one another. But I know that we are on the same side of this issue for the most part, so perhaps you are seeing something that I'm not.
It seems to me that a candidate cannot be 100% pro-life if he says that there are certain abortions that he simply will not oppose, period. In other words, if there are certain human lives that he says he will not even make an effort to protect.
But this is in no way a rejection of incrementalism. A candidate can have 100% protection of ALL pre-born life as his ultimate goal, while still pursuing incremental steps that are all that can realistically be achieved at present, and which are FAR better than making no progress at all. (In fact, as you pointed out, incremental steps are precisely how progress is typically made in politics, and I agree with that completely.)
October 13, 2012 at 1:48 am
Paul,
Ryan isn't saying that he supports certain abortions. He's saying that he supports a policy that will place severe limits where no limits currently exist.
That the limits aren't as complete as we (and he) might like doesn't invalidate the pro-life position.
A frequent phrase used now starts with the words "Don't let the perfect…" Reread the original blog post here, and instead of seeing Ryan as supporting certain abortions, see his action as what it is…a tactical step towards a goal.
October 13, 2012 at 2:41 am
Hi Matthew,
I am not saying that Ryan supports certain abortions. I am saying that he refuses to oppose certain abortions, based on his own words in the debate. A small difference perhaps, but I just want to clarify because there is a difference.
And sure, I completely agree that Romney/Ryan is a MUCH better option on the life issue than Obama/Biden. I didn't think I needed to say that, because the difference between the two tickets is clear (and huge).
But that doesn't change the fact that I am very disappointed in Paul Ryan. As a Catholic who acknowledges that life (and human rights) begins at conception, Ryan ought to know better. And he ought to stand up for all pre-born life, even if the best he can realistically achieve is a little incremental progress here and there.
October 13, 2012 at 5:56 am
I'm reminded of a line in the anime and manga Pumpkin Scissors, which is about post-war reconstruction in an imaginary, quasi-1920s world. Namely, "No, we can't save everyone. Are you going to tell the people we can save that therefore their lives don't count?"
October 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm
The problem is that "health" exceptions essentially render any pro-life bill meaningless. All one would have to do to procure an abortion under such a law is find a Planned Parenthood doctor who was willing to lie on the form. There would be no way to police such statements, and even if there was the notion of "health" is so nebulous that anything from depression to weight gain could be seen as qualifying. Worse still, it gives liberals a way to say that we beat them without actually having to lose anything. It's like the "accomodation" on the HHS mandate, the Obama administration claimed that it gave us what we wanted and that we should stop arguing against the law when in reality it changed nothing and we were still in the same situation as before. Allowing such exceptions isn't incrementalism, it's maintaining the status quo while creating token "wins" to keep the devotion of your base.
Baker: Slavery ultimately wasn't eliminated by incrementalism. It was destroyed in the end through a long and bloody war plus an executive order and a constitutional amendment. The equivalent to incrementalism in the context of slavery would be the law preventing international slave trade in 1808 and the Missouri Compromise in 1820, neither of which did anything to eliminate the institution of slavery. The solution is to get rid of abortion once and for all, in spite of the number of people opposing such a move, and letting the people catch up later. If the government of the 19th century had waited to abolish slavery until the majority of the population opposed it, there might still be slavery today. That's something that liberals understand, which is why they didn't wait for public opinion to be on their side before they went to the courts over abortion and homosexuality. Public opinion was against both before they were taken to the courts, and if opinion is for them now it's only because people have resigned themselves to the fact that the courts will make both things untouchable and they might as well get behind them before they have no choice but to do so.
October 13, 2012 at 3:46 pm
When Biden said: "I am personally opposed to abortion but I will not impose my (immorality) on people" Biden was saying that abortion is all go. Now, if Biden voted for Ryan that would prove his pro-life position. When Ryan says he is pro-life that means he will do battle to change the government's free for all policy on abortion. The battle has just begun. The same cultural bullying and militantcy that took God out of the public square and brought abortion and SS unions is fighting harder than ever. The battle is always going to be fought. Our job is to prepare our posterity to do battle to preserve the union and America. Paul Ryan is on our side. Biden, unfortunately for him, is not. Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. Everyone heard Biden's slip and his saying "Planned Parenthooo." Yes, there you have it Biden and Planned Parenthood perfect together. Ryan promises a battle royal against abortion and I am in his army. Do not think that voting pro-life is all there is to being pro-life. Get out there and vote pro-life and do battle with the breath of your life and know that God is on our side. These children belong to God first and to man only as a gift. Viva Cristo Rey.
October 13, 2012 at 3:57 pm
and for those of you who would vote for a third party candidate or write in or stay at home in protest and pave the way for Obama to win by default, you will have exercised your suffrage to the detriment of everything pro-life AND DO NOT DESERVE YOUR CITIZENSHIP FOR ALLOWING THE ONE CHILD WE MIGHT HAVE SAVED, TO PERISH THROUGH ABORTION.
October 13, 2012 at 4:04 pm
When Paul Ryan repeated our founding principles in our unalienable right to LIFE, Paul Ryan said all that needs to be said. When Paul Ryan does battle for our unalienable right to LIFE, PAUL RYAN IS DOING BATTLE FOR AMERICA.
October 13, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Paul, you are correct that slavery was ended by a bloody war, an executive order, and a constitutional amendment. What you don't point out is the bloody war was unnecessary, the executive order was political expediency, and the amendment was voted on only by the Union states not the Southern ones. IOWS, it was rammed down the throats of the American public, especially the South. How well has that really helped race relations in the last 150 years?
"Because people have resigned themselves". I don't see it that way. There is a slow but sure counter-reaction building up in America against the corrupt establishment that has ruined this country. The American people are tired and angry about being told they haven't done 'enough' for minorities, sexual or racial. We are tired of sending or troops overseas to fight wars that have no end. We are tired of the government letting illegal aliens in without kicking them back to where they belong. We are tired of paying out so-called welfare to multi-generational moochers who have never held down a job in their lives.
"No choice"? Wrong, we have several choices. One, try to use our electoral process to overturn over 100 years worth of folly. Two, if the federal government won't respond to our wishes for freedom, the states and individuals can just start ignoring laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Remember prohibition? the resistance to that idiotic law worked out just fine! Three, if we still don't get any results, we can do what we did in 1776 and 1860-61. What is interesting is that the most conservative, pro-life states in the US today are the same ones that formed the old Confederacy. Most of of the liberal states are, you guessed it, Northern. So, the split is already here, it will become official if the Federal government continues to push immoral laws and twisted interpretations of the constitution down our throats until we finally snap and say no more.