Editor’s note. The following is the conclusion to the opening essay, “An Insatiable Thirst for Killing,” which appeared in “To Rescue the Future: the Pro-Life Movement in the 1980s,” a collection of first-rate essays compiled by NRLC. Although written many years ago, I believe the insights and applications are as relevant today as when they were first written.
This brief essay attempts to contextualize a few of the numerous changes that have occurred in the politics of abortion. A great deal more could be said about the organisational maturity of the movement and the socio-political context in which we fight for life. The authors of this volume will expand upon the topics I have only briefly touched upon, as well as many others.
But the bottom line is you. We can only contribute what ideas, insights, and energy we possess. It remains in your hands, the readers of this book, and the millions of other pro-life Americans to re-establish the protection of law for all God’s children.
It is important to note that the media’s portrayal of the debate surrounding abortion is not entirely accurate. Rather than representing a conflict between pro-life and pro-abortion individuals, the issue can be more accurately described as a clash between those who advocate for justice and those who oppose it. Those with opposing views and their allies in the media are aware of this, which is why they express such vehement opposition.
The fundamental issue is whether life is a universal right or is subject to the discretion of those in positions of power. The issue of abortion represents a microcosm of a larger, more fundamental conflict: the struggle between two irreconcilable principles. Ultimately, one of these principles will prevail, either in the context of abortion or in other areas of contention.
Should the proponents of “choice” prevail, the remaining elements of our tattered sanctity of life ethic will be dismantled, one by one, in a bloody process. The pro-abortion position is at odds with the fundamental principles of our nation, as it is predicated on the notion that the more powerful have the right to oppress the less powerful.
Those who espouse this rhetoric are so blinded by their own rhetoric that they hold “choice” to their bosoms as if it represented a kind of philosopher’s stone that magically converts cruelty into kindness, selfishness into altruism.
However, the use of a smiling face to disguise barbarism does not negate its inherent nature.
Those who espouse the pro-life approach to problem pregnancies fail to appreciate that if this approach were to prevail, then all parties would be the beneficiaries. There would be no loss of life. Those who espouse the pro-life position are, by definition, pro-life. We will endeavour to provide assistance to women who find themselves in the position of facing an unplanned pregnancy, or to parents who are confronted with the birth of a child with disabilities.
It is important to note that no definitive solution to the human condition will be provided. This is the domain of those who advocate for abortion rights. As adept simplifiers, they promise what we cannot and would never promise: twenty-minute solutions to complex human problems. We are unable to provide a definitive solution; however, we can offer love, compassion, and a life-sustaining choice.
As advocates of the pro-life movement, we strive to advance a cause that is morally just. It is evident that the expenditure of considerable sums of money, the publication of full-page advertisements in the New York Times, and the dissemination of a plethora of editorials espousing a vitriolic and hate-filled rhetoric will never result in the termination of the slaughter of innocent children being regarded as a just act.
In a 1982 address to pro-life activists at the National Right to Life Convention, Fr. Richard Neuhaus observed that the pro-life movement is radical not in its scope but in its depth and centrality. The question thus arises: who is my neighbour?
Fr. Neuhaus posited that the abortion issue represents one of the most significant challenges to the American experiment in its entire history. He posited that those engaged in the struggle should not be discouraged if their anticipated triumph is delayed. He asserted that those who have been recruited for the duration must remain steadfast in their commitment, even when the outcome of the struggle seems distant.
We will persevere; this is, of course, a position that you are already aware of.
It is important to recall that the local neighborhood abortion clinic did not emerge from nowhere. It had a long and disreputable history. Its genesis can be traced back to a mindset that is devoid of compassion and that places a high value on the exercise of power. It represents a view of life that limits the quality of humanness to those who are powerful enough to throw off the chains of their oppressors.
Finally, it is worth considering the following point. Upon reflection, it becomes evident that the struggle to save the children is inherently ironic. It is the pro-life movement, which has been subjected to derision and ridicule by the media as a “reactionary” force, that is the principal defender of the most revolutionary idea of the American experiment – the idea that all men and all women and all children, born and unborn, are created equal.
It is our responsibility and privilege to maintain the beacon of hope in the face of overwhelming adversity. When the inevitable discouragement sets in, it is important to remember that, as someone once wrote, in the long sweep of history, truly human victories are always unexpected.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
