Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Winter 2025 PDF
    • WINTER 2025 HTML
    • THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW HTML COLLECTION PAGE
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2025
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Your Cart: Shipping is ALWAYS Free!

BLOG

1 Comment

How Pro-Life Am I, Really?

Stephen Vincent
abortion, prolifers, SC decision on Dobbs
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

Following oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last December, the Supreme Court justices cast their votes, the decision was logged, and the opinion of the Court—along with any concurrences and dissents—is now being written. Experts say it will be handed down in June before the summer recess.

With the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned and the abortion issue going back to the people and their state legislatures, this is a good time to ask: How pro-life am I, really? Given that no state is likely to ban all abortions, how much—or little—abortion am I willing to allow in principle and work for in practice? After all, the Mississippi law that brought us to this juncture bans abortion after 15 weeks, and the Texas heartbeat law after six weeks. Even if a state moved to ban abortion outright, there would likely be exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother. A number of years ago, the theme of the March for Life was something like “Not Even a Little Bit of Abortion”—classic Nellie Gray. How will I, working within the pro-life movement, seek to bring about this goal?

Prolifers have, in a sense, had the cover of Roe these many years. It has been easy to throw our scholarly, legal, and rhetorical weight against the Court-ordered regime of abortion on demand. Most of us have not had to face the struggle, the give-and-take compromises necessary to get laws passed in state legislatures. Those who have sought to restrict abortion at the state level— as in Texas and Mississippi—have taken a measured approach. We may tout favorable public opinion surveys, such as the annual Marist poll, which shows a large majority of Americans, indeed 71 percent, favor significant restrictions on abortion. Yet only 12 percent actually want to ban abortion in all cases. Right now, we claim those who simply wish to restrict abortion as allies. But if Roe is overturned and abortion goes back to the states, how then will we see those who would allow even a little bit, or much more than a little bit, of abortion? Will they be political friends or foes? And what of those who take a scorched-earth approach, seeking to ban abortion at all costs with no exceptions or compromise? Will we seek to temper their zeal for the sake of an incremental legislative strategy; will we be offended when they call us hypocritical weaklings with the blood of babies on our hands because we advocate gradual methods?

No matter how things begin to work out post-Roe, it is clear that some ideological lines will shift and new political alliances will be forged. We may find we have some strange bedfellows. In addition, each one of us will have to revisit the question we thought once settled: How far will I go to achieve an abortion-free America, and how practical is that goal in the first place?

From polling, it would seem that the prudent approach would be to begin with the middle opinion, the 50 percent of Americans who said in the Marist poll that they would limit abortion to the first three months of pregnancy (22 percent), or to cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life (28 percent). Yet even if we work to move hearts and minds toward greater restrictions, wouldn’t this be a philosophically inconsistent stand for prolifers to take? As we say now to those who oppose us, the method of conception does not change the moral status of the child in the womb, and medical science today rarely faces the dilemma of having to choose between saving the mother or the unborn baby. Yet, from a practical, political standpoint, can prolifers afford to alienate Americans who would oppose Roe yet not go so far as to ban all abortions? After all, even if a state were to enact a total ban, many women would simply travel to a state where abortion was legal in some or all cases. (Then there is the case of ordering abortion pills through the mail: If we know what’s in our neighbor’s mailbox or lying on the front steps, would we be morally justified in removing the package?)

To put the matter plainly, do we—do I—compromise the principle of seeking to outlaw abortion in order to win the support of the 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 percent who would restrict but not ban all abortions? Can I in conscience say I am “personally opposed but . . .”?

I am far from an armchair prolifer, having spent years sidewalk counseling and seen mothers helped and babies born through such efforts. I have marched, written, advocated, persuaded, been spat upon and cursed, shoved and threatened with death. I am also feeling old and somewhat cynical. Lord, forgive me. My heart and mind have always favored the Operation Rescue approach—stop abortion here and now, in this place, with these bodies blocking the entrance. How many abortion clinics are there in America? How many rescuers would be needed to simultaneously shut them all down for one day? And then what? How long could such a monumental effort be sustained?

Yes, I confess that in my graying age, I am leaning toward the view that the activists—God bless them and increase their number—need to learn to work with and understand, or at least tolerate, the slow political process of moving hearts and minds and legislatures and laws toward the pro-life ideal. That is, no more abortion. No more abortion because it is unthinkable in a culture devoted to life and love. No more abortion because there are many thousands of pregnancy centers, maternity homes, and loving open arms waiting to provide a woman safe haven in her time of greatest need.

Please God, in my lifetime.

 

540 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
Stephen Vincent

Stephen Vincent writes from Connecticut.

Social Share

  • google-share

One Comment

  1. Kevin McLaughlin March 23, 2022 at 8:17 am Reply

    Dear Mr. Vincent – thank you for your years of service! And thank you for this forward looking piece. Recent discussions over contemporary medical research practice have given us a fore-taste of the difficulties to come, sooner rather than later, if (God-willing) the court really does hand down a decision which gives pro-lifers reason to rejoice. “(T)he slow political process of moving…toward the pro-life ideal” may indeed add an arrow to the enemy’s quiver, but I believe the living faith which has animated this struggle will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR
The-Human-Life-Foundation
DONATE TODAY!

Recent Posts

Israeli Supreme Court Minimizes Biological Parenthood

22 May 2025

Pro-life Groups Can’t be Forced to Accommodate Abortions, Federal Judge Rules

14 May 2025

Yonkers Woman Learns Abortion is Not the ‘Quick Fix’ She Thought 

12 May 2025

CURRENT ISSUE

Alexandra DeSanctis Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott Bernadette Patel Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke D. Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jacqueline O’Hara Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Marvin Olasky Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Matt Lamb Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Rev. W. Ross Blackburn Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro Wesley J. Smith William Murchison

Shop 7 Weeks Coffee--the Pro-Life Coffee Company!
Support 7 Weeks Coffee AND the Human Life Foundation!
  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • Annual Human Life Foundation Dinner

Follow Us On Twitter

Follow @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.