ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, December 20, 1995 TAG: 9512200030
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-17 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Cal Thomas
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
AS A GOOD portion of the world prepares to observe the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, Republicans are again arguing over abortion.
The Weekly Standard magazine, subsidized by Rupert Murdoch's money and William Kristol's intellect, has a cover story this week that tries again to offer a compromise it thinks ought to be acceptable to the party: Get rid of the call for a human-life amendment in the platform and replace it with a pledge to reduce abortions ``through aggressive, though voluntary, and non-coercive, means.'' Writer Noemie Emery believes Republicans should state, ``We intend to address abortion not as one issue only, but as a symptom and cause of a social disorder, a sign of a frayed and decaying cultural context, in which the value of life is at risk.''
Emery is right about that. Yet abortion, like drugs and crime, didn't cause our decadence. It reflects it. Still, there is no other area in which we seek to manage a great evil. Do we say that the murder of the already born is a reflection of social disorder and so, rather than attempting to stop it (by either incarcerating or executing those who commit murder), we seek only to discourage it?
This latest attempt to dilute a principle comes at a time when the number of abortions has leveled off and, in some states, is declining. And it comes when pro-life candidates are winning elections. The real reason behind this push is that some political ``leaders'' are uncomfortable with abortion. It hurts their social batting average to be identified with ``religious fanatics'' and those deemed less educated by the intellectual elites.
Why must there be a procedural choice? Why not continue to press for a human-life amendment, no matter how long it takes, and work all the harder to reduce the number of abortions through the aggressive means called for by Emery? Will women have fewer abortions because they know pro-lifers are no longer calling for a constitutional amendment? It is a silly argument. Most women have abortions because they have not been fully informed of the procedure or alternatives to it. Many have abortions because husbands or boyfriends or parents pressure them, often against their will.
Those who would compromise a principle must know that once you've lost it, you can never get it back. Besides, why seek to limit the number of abortions if what is being destroyed is not human life? No one is appealing for fewer appendectomies. What is needed is an aggressive campaign to provide more information to the public and to women with unplanned pregnancies about what happens during an abortion, and about the loving and free alternatives to the financially and emotionally expensive procedure. Why not a campaign to tell the truth instead of a retreat to supposedly ``safe'' and ``more acceptable'' territory?
The angel Gabriel told Mary, ``Fear not.'' And Mary had a lot to fear. She lived in an era in which Jewish law allowed a woman found pregnant out of wedlock to be stoned to death. And her betrothed, Joseph, would have been justified before the law not to marry her and to cast the first stone. But the same angel told Joseph he also had nothing to fear because the child's Father was God himself. As people of great faith, they accepted what they had been told, and the result of their faith turned the world upside down.
That's the kind of faith and strength needed now. When America's social fabric is eventually repaired, those who held fast to principle will be the ones honored for standing firm. The compromisers, if they are remembered, will be reviled.
Consider those we honor in marble and bronze in our national and state capitals. Are they compromisers? No, they are those who refused to be intimidated and who believed that leadership meant leading people where they ought to go, not taking polls and following the followers.
- Los Angeles Times Syndicate
LENGTH: Medium: 72 linesby CNB