Incremental approach to protecting the unborn?

[The_Reginator]

For a while now I have been receiving emailed newsletters and Facebook updates from a Canadian organization called “We Need A Law”.

I have been a little leery on supporting them of late as I don’t know what kind of law is desired. I queried them as to whether or not they want to allow abortions before X-many weeks. They responded with the following article. If ten people were drowning and you could save one, would you?

In that they link to another piece from Josh Brahm entitled Pro-Life Groups Were Wrong to Fight the Ban on Late-Term Abortions.

The basic idea here is that we can’t expect to change legislation overnight, so let’s begin incrementally – by perhaps allowing abortions in the case of rape or incest, if that’s what it takes to start the process.

From the latter article:

As long as the majority of our country continues to be morally confused about abortion, pro-life legislation will need to be incremental as we continue to educate our society about the humanity of the unborn, and we will attempt to save as many as we can every step of the way until every baby is safe in her mother’s womb.

I don’t think pro-choice people are at all confused by incremental legislation, because what’s implicit in these bills is that we want to save all, but we know we can’t right now, so we’re going to save the most we can, and go from there. We’re not going to give up after banning abortions after 20-weeks just like the abolitionists didn’t give up after passing the Foreign Slave Trade Bill of 1806.

Please give either one, or both of, these articles a read. I’d like to hear your varied and different responses.
I can understand the incremental approach but, somehow, it just doesn’t “feel” right.

May God give guidance and have mercy on our legislators and law makers, and upon all who are fighting for the right to life for the unborn.

• Reg.

Oops.
There was another link that was provided by “We Need A Law”:
The Overton Window and Canada’s Abortion Debate

*"Many who before regarded legislation on the subject as chimerical, will now fancy that it is only dangerous, or perhaps not more than difficult. And so in time it will come to be looked on as among the things possible, then among the things probable;–and so at last it will be ranged in the list of those few measures which the country requires as being absolutely needed. That is the way in which public opinion is made.” *

 

[RoseMary131]

You may want to contact your Diocese Respect Life Office.

You can ask them about the group.

You can also ask them how the Diocese works to help pass laws.

I know that some pro-life law makers, pro-life legislators, pro-life groups, and dioceses work to get passed the laws that they think can be passed.

Sometimes, while they do not like to add “exceptions”, they allow the “exceptions” to be added so that they can get the bill passed to law.

Your Diocese Respect Life Director can probably tell you how your diocese helps with pro-life laws.

Our Lady of Guadalupe ~ Patroness of the Unborn ~ pray for us.

 

[Mumbles140]

Personally, I do not believe a Catholic should support a law that allows for any abortions. I think a course of action that is acceptable is to educate people about abortions, and maybe focus on the wrongs of late-term abortions, as well as abortions because of sex, potential risks (i.e. downs syndrome), etc. That way, you can try and persuade people to start drawing a line, and then continue to move that line closer to the acceptance of the dignity and recognition of all human life from conception to natural death.

That being said, I do not think it is wrong to support legislation that bans abortion after certain times or under certain conditions so long as that support does not mean acceptance of it under other conditions.