The open letter to Dr. Dobson, which I signed, and the ensuing ad campaign have really brought out the most interesting comments I have ever seen. As you know, there is a struggle between those who do not believe exceptions will actually save the babies and those who like to call this tactic of permitting some babies to die by supporting exceptions incrementalism.
One such article reported philosophical differences are all that separate the two camps. Citing comments by Focus on the Family's Carrie Earl, the article said that "instead of complaining about anything less than total victory, Focus on the Family and similar organizations adopted an incremental approach in the pro-life fight."
So what this must mean is that incrementalism entitles human beings to decide which children will die and which children will not because when a group, individual politician or whoever supports an exception, then the language is contradicting the pro-life position that all life is sacred.
Come on! Even Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the Roe v. Wade decision ,understood that. The Texas law upon which Roe v. Wade was based contained the very same "life of the mother" exception that the recent partial birth abortion law contained. And Blackmun wrote, in Roe v. Wade:"If the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law," he asked rhetorically, "and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"
In other words, the discrepancy between personhood for all children and a life of the mother exception in the same law brought about Roe v. Wade.
You cannot have it both ways. If the goal of the pro-life movement is to regulate the murder of innocent preborn babies in order to eliminate as many murders as possible, then incrementalists are correct. Some killing is acceptable.
If the goal of the pro-life movement is protect preborn chlldren as persons, and to do so by never supporting a piece of legislation that contains an exception permitting abortion, then striving to protect the rights of innocent preborn babies without excluding some of them in the process is the correct approach.
A perfect example of this would be a partial birth abortion ban that did not permit what it claims to ban.
One approach accepts what the other abhors. Some may call this "seeking a total victory", but I call it common sense.
