| |
 |
|
Morrow cites George W. Bush and Elizabeth Dole in this regard with the former assuring pro-lifers that he supports a ban on abortion while promising pro-aborts that he will do nothing to pass one ("since the country isn't ready"). Mrs. Dole says she shares Mr. Bush's abhorrence of abortion but urges the GOP to stop even discussing it (because it diverts attention from more "relevant" issues). She adds that "good and honorable people disagree" over the issue. But how could a "good and honorable" person support abortion unless they didn't know it tortures babies to death? In which case, they need to be educated. Might it not be reasonable to expect political leaders to play a leading role in the teaching? And if abortion supporters do understand what they're supporting, by what civilized standard could they be either "good" or "honorable?"
What if Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson had believed that African Americans were entitled to equal justice but decided to betray the cause of civil rights because the country "wasn't ready?" Notwithstanding the bloody riots which confirmed how "unready" the country really was, would presidential hypocrisy on racism have been "good and honorable?" Then how can it be "good and honorable" on abortion? Getting a reluctant country "ready" to do justice is the very essence of leadership. Meekly acquiescing in a status quo which both GOP candidates admit to be unjust is the very essence of betrayal. A group which likes to think of itself as the most influential pro-life organization in the country has actually endorsed George W. Bush's "position" as acceptable. This is leadership?
This sort of political double-talk seems to work because voters also want it both ways on abortion. If we can't push the electorate out of the "middle" and force people to take a stand, then we don't stand a chance of turning this thing around. "Pro-life moderates" base their opposition to pictures on their belief that many "neutrals" who view shocking photos are so angered that they become pro-aborts. Ridiculous.
WHAT WE MUST DO TO WIN
Many Americans who say they are in the "middle" on abortion simply don't know the facts. If the sight of those facts, as horrifying as they are, motivates them to declare themselves pro-aborts, then they were pro-aborts all along. For those on whom the pictures have no effect at all, the question is begged: What practical difference is there between a "neutral" who straddles the fence and someone who calls themselves "pro-choice?" Anyone who has no position on baby-killing is supporting the status quo; legalized baby-killing. Therefore, how could the circumstances of the pro-life movement be worsened even if every self-proclaimed "neutral" were hypothetically pushed into the pro-abort camp?
But we know experientially that large numbers of "neutrals" and even pro-aborts are converted to our side when we change their understanding of the facts - which is usually only achievable when the new information is presented irrefutably.
Therefore, pushing some "non-committeds" into the pro-abort camp would be a small price to pay for the creation of the political majority required to out-law abortion. It should also be borne in mind that many "neutrals" who are angered when first confronted by pictures of aborted babies ultimately embrace the pro-life point of view. We see this delayed reaction (we call it the "sink-in" factor) all the time.
Beyond ridiculous is the "pro-life moderate" suggestion that pregnant women who see pictures of aborted babies may, as a result, actually be more likely to kill their children. No one decides to end a pregnancy because they were shown an abortion and liked what they saw. Many people, however, kill their baby because they weren't shown an abortion whose display would have made it impossible to continue deluding themselves about the viciousness of the procedure. Almost everywhere we go, post-abortive women and men confide to us that they might have made a different "choice" had they been shown an abortion before they "chose" it, instead of after.
And as for the loopy argument that pictures drive away pregnant women who might have been converted by a "gentler" approach, any mother who can look at what abortion will do to her baby and "choose" it anyway, is a mother who has placed herself beyond the reach of any approach, "gentle" or otherwise.
"Pro-life" defenders of this "abortion cover-up" also argue that there are many possible approaches to pro-life activism and each should be respected for its own life saving value. That most non-violent pro-life projects have life-saving potential may be true but it is also beside the point. Not all programmatic alternatives are equally effective. And the choice of less effective options permits the slaughter of babies whose lives could have been saved had more effective alternatives been employed. Not to mention that advocates of "cover-up" are arguing in defense of ignorance. Most Americans really don't understand the magnitude of the evil abortion represents. We see this constantly in the looks of stunned disbelief on the faces of the tens of thousands of people who stumble past our exhibit - in community after community. We need to show a greater sense of urgency about saving babies. Our choice of tactics shouldn't be based on our needs but on the needs of the children.
But laying aside every tactical and strategic consideration, the pro-life movement has a spiritual obligation to be a witness against this evil by proclaiming the terrible truth as vividly as humanly possible. Ephesians 5:11 commands us to "expose" the "deeds of darkness;" not to cover them up.
Abortion is inexpressibly evil. There are no words adequate to describe it. If you haven't seen it, you can't possibly comprehend it. The pro-life movement's reluctance to use graphic pictures guarantees that we will never make our case to a majority of the population. We can't win with words alone. The culture is simply too hostile to our point of view.
HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS/ ANIMALISTIC TREATMENT OF HUMANS
It is hostile because it's killing 4,500 babies a day in this country, with about 15,000 per year being slaughtered so far along in pregnancy that they could survive outside the womb on the day of their abortions. This is a culture which does not want to be reminded of what it knows or informed about what it doesn't. Who cares anyway? But abuse an animal and the anthropomorphic outrage becomes almost pathological.
Associated Press, December 31, 1998: [Headline] State mourns loss of wild horses, rallies with rewards
The local [Nevada] townsfolk are counting on a reward fund - $35,000 and growing - to help nab the killers of 34 wild horses ....
* * *
It has rocked the region and attracted interest overseas. 'We're handling it just as we would a murder,' Storey County Sheriff's Sgt. Bill Petty said.
'We said from the beginning we wanted to treat it like there were humans lying out there,' he said as he mapped locations and helped conduct autopsies on the string of horse carcasses this week.
* * *
Many of the wounded suffered for days before dying.
* * *
Media outlets in London, Germany and Japan have been following the story.
* * *
'We're getting donations from all over the country,' said Bobbi Royle of Wild Horse Spirit ....
|
 |
