Politics is like a seesaw. The politician stands between competing positions, trying to balance the two. The positions are held by advocacy groups who each want the political figure to embrace their particular point of view. The politician tries to appease both groups by staying as close to the middle of the road as possible.
But there are some issues where the two positions are mutually exclusive.? In the end, only one group will prevail.
The abortion issue is in this category.
There is no middle ground. Either the entity in the womb is a human person or it is not. If it is a person, then it is always a person and therefore it is never okay to kill a person. If it is not a person, then it is never a person, and there is no reason to defend its non-existent rights.
Each side of this debate has advocates. They each profess to believe completely in their point of view. So a reasonable observer would expect equal, but opposing, standards of behavior from the two sides. This is not the case.
Let’s start with those who believe that the entity in the womb is not a person. They call themselves abortion rights proponents. They do not compromise their support standards with politicians ever. To receive support from these groups, a politician must adhere to a 100% level of support for abortion.
They openly state that they do not work to support and elect candidates who will be there for the easy votes, they want candidates who will be there for the hard ones. They make no allowances for any exceptions to their position to an absolute right to abortion because they know that if they allow even one entity in the womb to have rights, then every entity in the womb must have rights and their position is defeated.
Contrast that with the statements and behavior of those who believe that the entity in the womb IS a person. They are pro-life? They have a history of compromising their standards with politicians. They will give support to politicians who do not have a 100% level of support for protecting unborn life.
They have accepted and excused votes that are not pro-life, and they have allowed for exceptions to their stated position that every life is sacred.
The results of these differing standards are readily apparent. We have moved from debating the language of a Human Life Amendment to an inability to even stop federal dollars from being used to pay for abortion in America. We have abortion rights politicians who cross party lines to endorse other like-minded candidates, and pro-life politicians who feel comfortable endorsing abortion-supporting candidates within their party and still expecting pro-life support.
Even the language has changed.? Pro-life groups evaluate politicians against the 100% abortion rights standard set by groups like NARAL, instead of against a 100% pro-life bar.? But since the political line has moved so far to the abortion rights side, that bar is no longer measuring whether or not abortion should exist, but how well it should be funded.? So a politician who supports allowing abortion but not funding it could receive a 0% rating, but that would not make him pro-life.
Effective political action must begin by recognizing political reality.? And the reality is that a politician can no more be ?mostly pro-life? than a woman can be ?mostly pregnant.?? In both cases, only a 100% standard is acceptable.?