|
![]() |
www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\\Culture\\archive\\200212\\CUL20021224b.html Who
Determines the 'Official' Definition of 'Pro-Life?' Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Tennessee Republican Bill Frist hit only one small speed bump along his road of ascension to the post of Senate majority leader when questions were raised about his record on abortion. But the disagreement points to the larger question of, "Who determines the 'official' definition of 'pro-life?'" The most recent debate began after CNSNews.com reported Friday that one group had challenged Frist's claim to the "pro-life" label. "Bill Frist is not pro-life," said Judie Brown, president and co-founder of American Life League (ALL). "He's made all kinds of strange statements, and is a shareholder in a huge for-profit hospital company that does abortions." ALL is a predominantly Catholic organization, although the group claims supporters from a number of other faiths. ALL's website states that its mission is "to serve God by helping to build a society that respects and protects innocent human life from fertilization to natural death - without compromise, without exception, without apology. "The distinguishing mark of American Life League, by which we will be recognized," the statement continues, "is our absolute commitment to the sacredness of human life." After the publication of that story, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) issued a statement to the media characterizing Frist as "pro-life." "Senator Frist has a pro-life voting record," NRLC declared. The group scored several votes on issues it considers important to the sanctity of life - such as attempts to pass a law restricting partial-birth abortions, and a proposal to allow overseas military medical facilities to be used for abortions - to give Frist a 100 percent rating for the past six years. In its statement, NRLC quoted from a 1998 letter Frist sent to constituents. "As a physician, my professional ethics are grounded in preserving life, and I am opposed to abortion," the senator wrote. "I would make exceptions for instances of rape, incest, or to preserve the life of the mother." Darla St. Martin, associate executive director for NRLC, told CNSNews.com Monday that her organization is working toward the same goal as ALL, but in a different manner. "It's strategy we disagree with them on," she explained. "They wish to have perfection immediately. We're willing to seek the goal step-by-step." NRLC was founded, its website explains, in response to the 1973 Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision, which legalized the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. The group's mission statement declares that its "ultimate goal...is to restore legal protection to innocent human life." NRLC Criticized for 'Unbiblical' Position NRLC's support of Frist was almost immediately called into question by the group Columbia Christians for Life (CCFL) in an email to supporters and the media entitled "National Right to Life Violates the Word of God (again)." "The simple, clear statement of the Sixth Commandment is: 'You shall not murder,'" wrote Steve Lefemine, director of CCFL. "There are no 'exceptions' to God's Commandment in Exodus 20:13." Lefemine charged that NRLC had placed its own agenda for political power above a biblical mandate. "It is NOT Pro-Life to be against child-murder 'except' in cases where the innocent victim was conceived in an act of rape or incest," he wrote. "Nor is it necessary to intentionally destroy an unborn child's life by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." How Organizations Arrived at Their Pro-Life Positions Brown told CNSNews.com Monday that it was a "very simple" process for ALL to arrive at their definition of pro-life. "We know that a human being begins at conception/fertilization. We know that any direct act that takes the life of that human being before birth is an act of abortion, which is an act of killing," she said. "Therefore, logically, we would oppose all killing of innocent persons prior to birth, or afterwards for that matter." The foundation for that position is a combination of factors, Brown added. "I characterize it as logical, as realistic, and as moral," she explained. St. Martin said NRLC does not disagree with the other groups' definition of pro-life or their goal of ending abortion. "Our goal, our belief is not a rape and incest exception," she said. "But, we are willing to support candidates who will help us achieve our ultimate goals." Brown believes, however, that organizations that carve out exceptions to the pro-life position are doing more harm than good. "An exception says to the individual - to the mother or the legislator or to whoever - that, in this particular case, you can murder this child and it's alright with us," she declared. "In order to be a pro-life person, you cannot sanction the direct killing of any innocent human being." Not an 'All or Nothing' Philosophy Pro-life groups that do not allow for similar exceptions are frequently criticized as being unwilling to accept small victories in their efforts to protect life, preferring to focus on a total ban on all abortions or nothing at all. Brown disagrees. "If you can take one step after another and, in the process, curtail abortions, that's a very good strategy," she said emphatically. "But, if every time you take a step, you immediately condemn certain persons to death in order to take that step, you're walking backwards." Brown believes creating exceptions - such as for rape, incest and to allegedly protect the life of the mother - suggests that some unborn children are not worthy of protection. "What the exception does is confound the principle that the pro-life movement was established on, which is personhood," she explained. "To continue to embrace exceptions, or to continue to support people who embrace those exceptions is wrong. That's all there is to it." Lefemine told CNSNews.com that Brown has precisely described the flaw with the strategy of embracing "politically correct" exceptions in laws banning abortion. "This was the issue with slaves in the Dred Scott case, this was the issue with Jews in Nazi Germany," he explained. "Once a people group is denied legal personhood, then they can be treated as property; they can be denied due process [and] equal protection; they can be executed. "And," Lefemine concluded, "that's what's happening with the unborn." Flip
has written a short commentary concerning the battle for the lives of
unborn children in America, What
Does It Mean To Be Pro-Life In 2003. It was written in response
to this CNSNEWS.com article. *COPYRIGHT
NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted
work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
|
![]() |