It is dismaying to hear some pro-life politicians calling for a "truce" on social issues like abortion - possible White House contenders Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour among them. Their suggestion is that it's more important to do whatever is necessary to get elected than to worry about issues that appear to be intractable.Read the rest here.
This tactic is akin to the pro-life and pro-abortion movements agreeing to disagree, an option often considered a reasonable one. It does not require that either side change its views, but simply agrees to allow the different views, and the practices that flow from them.
Sorry, but this is a proposal we in the pro-life movement can't accept. There can be no truce.
First of all, to ask us to "agree to disagree" about abortion is to ask us to change our position on it. Why do we disagree in the first place? When we oppose abortion, we disagree with the notion that it is even negotiable. We do not only claim that we cannot practice abortion, but that nobody can practice it, precisely because it violates the most fundamental human right, the right to life. To "agree to disagree" means that we no longer see abortion for what it is - a violation of a right so fundamental that disagreement cannot be allowed to tamper with it.
To "agree to disagree" is to foster the notion that the baby is a baby only if the mother thinks it is, that the child has value only if the mother says it does and that we have responsibility only for those we choose to have responsibility for.
There can't be a truce on the abortion issue, because there are no grounds for compromise. Just as a woman can't be "a little bit pregnant," so too a baby can't be "a little bit dead." Compromising on the abortion issue always translates to "Hey, pro-life Americans, shut up about all of those 3,700 dead American babies per day, 25,900 dead American babies per week, approximately 1.3 million dead American babies per year killed by abortion. They don't really count or matter. What matters is winning elections!"
Well, no. Not if the cost is 1.3 million dead unborn children every year.