It has been 33 years since Roe v. Wade, and abortion on demand is as legal as it was three decades ago, with over a million victims each year. While some progress has been made in curbing the number of abortions, and individual states have had varying success in passing legislation, perhaps it is time to ask, Why haven't we done more?
It's easy point to the opposition: a non-profit running on taxpayer dollars promoting the very abortions that help fuel their propaganda machine; a major political party with a platform dedicated to keeping abortion legal. However, there is a competitive and managerial strategy called “playing your own game,” in which a team's own efforts are considered, instead of reacting to or blaming the competition for failure. Are we, as pro-life advocates, at the top of our game?
A quick glance at the landscape tells us no. Victory could have been as simple as every professed Catholic voting pro-life. Considering how many non-Catholic pro-life advocates there are, it becomes painfully obvious we can do better.
Perhaps we should examine our attitudes. At the March for Life earlier this month, I noticed the variety of the signs. One sign had the phrases “Save a Whale” and “Save a Seal” crossed out, with “Save the Humans” written below. How do you imagine such a sign is received by the animal rights lobby, among whom there are also many pro-lifers? Doesn't being “pro-life” mean supporting good stewardship of our world? Why shouldn't the pro-life movement be pro-environment?
Another sign read: “Save a baby, krush [sic] a Liberal.” How does this build allies or welcome pro-life advocates from, say, Democrats for Life of America? As it would happen, representatives of DFLA were marching in the same throng, just a few yards from the sign.
I am personally aware of a few cases in which political opponents of the "Religious Right," even ACLU members, have made common cause with the pro-life movement. Consider, for example, the upcoming book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion by animal rights activist Vasu Murti.
Also at the March for Life, I was astounded when I overheard one of the marchers shout to a professional photographer on the sidelines: “You're not going to print it anyway! Why doesn't your paper print the truth for once?”
The photographer called back, “I'm with Columbia magazine — for the Knights of Columbus.”
What if the photographer had been from the mainstream press? Did that outburst give a good impression of the pro-life movement? It isn't any better that the photographer was from a sympathetic periodical. What kind of brotherly love was he shown?
While the marcher who shouted at the photographer was ignorant of the media outlet he represented, there is a great deal of biting criticism and outright sabotage among pro-life organizations. I have seen pro-life groups, even Catholic pro-life groups, wasting time and money on press releases bashing other pro-life groups because they used a different strategy — or worse, because of ego or for political reasons.
Not only were the resources that had been donated for the cause to save lives wasted, but a spectacle was created that the media could have a field day with, while undecided bystanders wagged their heads at “those anti-abortionists.” Aren't we the ones who should know better than to let the hand criticize the foot? Shouldn't we be ashamed of the fact that the pro-abortion movement is more unified and civil to one another than the predominantly Christian pro-life movement?
Among the crimes pro-lifers are known to commit against one another is piracy. While the recording industry has the money to pay lawyers to go after those who violate copyright law, small pro-life groups do not. I have heard from several groups that are struggling as their copyrighted content is copied and re-used without attribution or license.
For those who are not already aware, when an individual or group creates a document, article, or image, the creator is granted copyright protection under US law for the creation, and it may not be used by another without permission. Copyrighted work cannot be scanned, photocopied, cut and pasted, or otherwise reproduced without the originator's OK. Unfortunately, enforcement of the copyright is left to the creator of the work, and most pro-life groups can't spend time or money prosecuting their brethren who are stealing from them.
Because they cannot sue, these groups are forced to lay off employees, reduce their output, or fade away altogether. How does that ultimately aid the movement? Does running a pro-life website, blog, or non-profit justify theft?
Great strides have been made in the past three decades, but perhaps we can save more lives sooner if we check our egos and political differences at the door, and work together to bring abortion to an end before the next thirty years pass us by.
© Copyright 2006 Catholic Exchange
Paul Nowak is the author of Guerrilla Apologetics for Catholics, and has written for LifeNews.com. His new book, Guerrilla Apologetics: Pro-Life will be available in November at www.gapologetics.com.
