THE EXCEPTION
By Judie Brown, All About Issues, March-April, 1992
Judie Brown, Pres. American Life LeagueWhenever I give a speech or do an interview, someone always says to me: "Judie Brown, doesn’t American Life League hold the position that there are absolutely no exceptions to abortion?" When I say, "Yes, that is correct," the retort is either "that’s ridiculous" or "that’s unrealistic." At that point I have to smile (sometimes quietly and reflectively) and wonder how often Christ might have heard those words as he walked the dusty roads and ministered to the poor, the blind, the diseased and the lonely on His way to the cross.
Then I politely explain the value of the person as an individual. I talk about the reality of conception, the union of sperm and egg, and the scientific fact that everything you or I have become as persons was already in place at that moment when our lives began.
However, in the world of politics and legislation, these facts seem to have taken a back seat to "pragmatism," "moderate proposals" and the like. Well, what does Webster’s Dictionary tell us an "exception" is anyway?
Webster’s defines the word "exception" as simply the "act of excepting." Well, then we must look to the root and find out what that means. "Except" means "with the exclusion of," or "excluding."
Now, if a human being, a person, exists from the moment of fertilization, and if every single human being is of equal value, then the question is: can the pro-life movement "exclude" even one of these persons when crafting legislative proposals that will ultimately stop the killing of these very people?
This is the basic challenge we face when we talk about laws and proposals of law that drive many of us toward the goal of protecting the innocent preborn, the ill, the disabled and the elderly.
Can we propose or support language which excludes certain babies and still claim that our goal is to protect all innocent human beings from the moment of fertilization? No, we cannot.
Let me illustrate this point by referring to certain logical and moral authorities.
MORALLY
Professor Charles Rice1 says that over the past two decades the establishment pro-life movement has so emphasized abortion as a merely constitutional issue of civil rights that it has obscured the reality that the real question on legalized abortion is religious: Who is God, the real God or the State? He then goes onto state that this "establishment" has urged an "incremental approach" to legislation. This approach endorses the enactment of laws that would permit abortion for various reasons, or with the consent of the grandparents of the preborn child, or because of polling results indicating what the public will accept. The consequence of such proposals is simply that the "establishment" is suggesting that certain human beings’s lives are negotiable, certain human beings can be excluded.
He asks: is this why we are having such a hard time fighting euthanasia?
POLITICALLY
Veteran pro-life leader Marie Dietz2 says that the proposals of those who accept exceptions are deemed by many to be "smart politics." It is claimed that such proposals will save "some lives now" and we can then "go back later and save some more." This appeals to politicians because it basically allows them to dodge the truth and hide behind the veil of exceptions for rape, incest, health, life, and fetal deformity, to name a few. Marie quotes William F. Buckley [National Review, 11/22/ 89]: "The positions of such as Mario Cuomo, Patrick Moynihan and Edward Kennedy remind us that the temptation to be guided by political considerations not only shapes our public declarations, but tends to calcify our consciences."
She further declares: "I submit that ours is not a political movement. It is a moral movement brought into the political arena trough no fault of our own."
This means that we cannot sacrifice truth in order to enable certain elected officials to feel "cozy and warm" with a so-called pro-life position that excludes some babies from the struggle for reasons of "political correctness."
LEGALLY
Attorneys Robert Cetrulo and Amy Dougherty3 note that, "While many people oppose abortion on religious grounds, there are equally compelling non-religious reasons to oppose the destruction of lives of preborn babies. One’s physical existence is a mater of biology, not theology. The abortionists’ definitional dehumanization is unsupported in any documented work of law, medicine or biology - until the regressive and recidivist decision of Roe v. Wade and its progeny. The real issue should be stated more candidly: ‘To what extent should we afford legal protection against homicide to all members of the human race?"’
SCIENTIFICALLY
When six pro-life physicians responded to the outrageous claims of pro-death obstetricians/gynecologists in 1990,4 they cited many scientific facts concerning the existence of the individual at the moment of fertilization, including:
A: Researcher Erich Bleschschmidt: "The evidence no longer allows a discussion as to if and when and in what month of ontogenesis (pregnancy) a human being is formed. To be a human being is decided for an organism at the moment of fertilisation of the ovum."
B: Professor Landrum Shuttles, a test-tube experimentalist, in a letter to the New York Times shortly after Roe v. Wade: "To deny a truth should not be made the basis for legalizing abortion."
Scientists, when truthful about biology, make it clear that humankind cannot exclude certain of its fellow humans simply for convenience or political gain, let alone morally.
LOGICALLY
How can something be residing inside a woman’s womb, possessing its own body, genetic code, metabolism and destiny, growing, developing and thriving in its natural environment, and be anything but alive?5 If preborn babies are not biologically alive, an abortion to halt their physical development and remove them from their mother's body would never be necessary. If a preborn baby’s existence was not as biologically definitive as any other human being’s, killing (i.e. abortion) would not be necessary!
Logically, we may not exclude even one of these individuals if we desire credibility. How could one baby conceived through rape be different from another conceived in marriage? How could one baby conceived out of wedlock and in poverty be different from another baby conceived in Beverly Hills?
FINALLY...
It is clear that pro-life leaders, pro-life workers, and pro-life America cannot ignore or exclude even one human person if we arc to achieve ultimate restoration of respect for the dignity and value of each and every human being.
So, how then should the battle be waged By remembering at all times that the ultimate goal is not passing legislation, but changing hearts and minds. If respect for human life is restored to society, laws protecting all persons will naturally follow.
This does not mean, though, that pro-lifers should wait for popular culture to recognize the personhood of preborn babies before working in the state legislatures.
The law is a tremendous moral teacher. What is written into a government’s code is inherently a statement of "right and wrong," what some like to call an "imposition of morality." As such, the legislative process serves as a forum that not only educates and persuades lawmakers and the public, but also shapes values and beliefs.
Legislation, then, is the pro-life movement’s banner, its statement of policy. It tells elected officials and potential candidates what right-to-lifers expect of them. It also delivers a message to the public.
And that message must not exclude any person. It is absolutely imperative that pro-life groups, when offering legislation to protect the innocent, act consistently with two simple truths:
ALL preborn babies are persons, and ALL persons have the right to life!
Footnotes:
(1) Rice, Professor Charles "Pro-Life is Religious Question," Eternal Life, Vol. 1, #2,pp. 1-3.
(2) Dietz, Marie, "Exceptions Break the Rule," A.L.L. brochure 1991.
(3) Cetrulo and Dougherty, "The Right to Life: The Most Fundamental Right," A.L.L. brochure, 1990.
(4) Drs. Colliton, Hillabrand, Murphy, Nathanson, Ratner and Stanton, "A Pro-Life Medical Response to ACOG’s January 1990 Publication: Public Health Policy Implications of Abortion," A.L.L. brochure 1990.
(5) Brown and Evangelisto, "The Moral and Logical Arguments Against Abortion," A.L.L. brochure, 1990.
(6) Brown and Young, "Exceptions: Abandoning the Least of These My Brethren," A.L.L. brochure, 1990.