Sunday, 10 March 2013

Arkansas & Incrementalism - by JD Ellis [Abortion Abolitionist]



It's not incremental victory, per se, that we're opposed to. It's COMPROMISING on or NEGOTIATING with the lives of children. Incremental VICTORIES, won through a refusal to compromise, are good; a COMPROMISED incremental APPROACH is not. 



To use the recent Arkansas legislation as an example, it compromises on the facts that the unborn are human and abortion is murder by effectively saying that if you make sure you do it before 12 weeks, you can murder your baby. 
Or if you were raped, you can murder your baby.
 Or if your pregnancy is threatening your life, you can murder your baby. 
Or if your baby has a disorder, you can murder him. 
That's not the way we treat human beings. 
It's not wrong to kill someone based on how old they are, but because they are FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS, CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.
The circumstances of their conception are also irrelevant. 
Their health or their mother's health are also irrelevant. 



The Arkansas law puts abortion in terms of all of these meaningless CIRCUMSTANCES and INCIDENTALS, and loses sight of the fundamental reason that abortion is wrong in the first place--because it constitutes the murder of an innocent person. It seeks to win a partial victory, but at the expense of the only principles that can eventually give total victory, thus ensuring that abortion continues (however strictly regulated) in perpetuity. (And that millions more will die tomorrow, next year, next decade--because we wanted to "save the ones we could" today. This isn't practical or pragmatic--it's just short-sighted.)




This is not EQUAL protection. (Could you murder a 5-year-old for any of the reasons the Arkansas bill allows you to murder an unborn baby?) This is only pro-life for SOME--which is not really pro-life at all. This bill actually writes into the law code the exact circumstances under which PRO-LIFERS will allow innocent children to be murdered. That's not only immoral, but counter-productive, since it fails to treat the unborn as human beings with UNALIENABLE rights equal to those of any other human being. And if they're not human beings--then what's wrong with abortion in the first place? (In their attempts to "save the ones we can", pro-life "victories" like this are eroding the only rational or moral basis on which to ever save ANY.)




I understand and share the desire to save children. But I believe that in some ways, this "pro-life" legislation is actually worse than Roe. Roe denied equal protection on the basis that the fetus is NOT a person. 

With this bill, pro-lifers acknowledge that they ARE persons--but then deny them equal protection anyway. That's not "a step in the right direction", as these bills are sometimes said to be, which compromise on the lives of the innocent. 
It's a step away from seeing abortion for what it is--murder. You don't REGULATE murder--you STOP it (even when the victim is less than 12 weeks old).

No comments: