This news story on pro-life protests in Grand Rapids, MI, really got me thinking.
https://wng.org/podcasts/protesting-abortion-1657769684
All these things can be true at once:
These pro-life protesters are doing everything they can to save
life and persuade women not to abort their babies. Many kudos to them.
It is a populist error to knowingly act contrary to the
ruling of state judges, which these protesters did.
It is good to appeal to lesser magistrates, in this case county
prosecutors, who express a willingness to prosecute abortionists, contrary to
the judge’s order.
It is good to appeal to the police to enforce the law
according to that county prosecutor’s willingness.
It is quixotic (tilting at windmills, foolish to pursue a purpose
that has no chance of success) to call 911 or continue blocking the sidewalk,
when the police have given their decision and specific orders to you.
This is an excellent case study in civil disobedience.
The appeals were good, but getting arrested after the police
tell you what to do appears to me either self-righteous or foolish.
Or is it akin to MLK getting arrested, to make a point, that
the judge and the police are in the wrong?
I am firmly in the incrementalist camp, contra the abolitionist
camp, when it comes to pro-life differences.
Wilberforce’s tactics were right: patient persuasion via the populace
and the politicians. The opposing abolitionist
view is held by many in my circles, including zealous post-millennialists: not
taking no for an answer from the decided policy of the state. This makes you feel righteous in your defiance,
but gets nowhere, and usually detracts from your cause. Though I just poked at the other side, I don’t
think we should fight with each other, but stay focused on persuading the
culture of the pro-life position.
Pro-lifers should be making their case before state legislators
and state judges right now, as well as continuing to persuade women –
respectfully - to preserve life at abortion mills.
No comments:
Post a Comment