By Emily Geiger
While I’m sympathetic to those in the Iowa conservative movement who don’t want to compromise on issues like abortion and gay marriage (and by compromise, I mean support things like parental consent and waiting periods for abortion and residency requirements for gay marriage), I just don’t see the wisdom of those people who don’t support these things using valuable time and energy to discredit those who do.
The other thing that bothers me about this whole situation is that I don’t think standards are being equally applied.
Some people are upset with Rep. Steve King because they view his support of a residency requirement as a compromise (despite the fact that King also wholeheartedly supports a marriage amendment).
Some of those same people are upset with people like Tom Minnery and Jim Dobson because they think people like these have been too busy “compromising” by supporting things like parental consent laws and partial birth abortion bans, and yet after 30 years of fighting the abortion fight, we’ve lost 50 million little lives. If you want to be ticked off at Minnery for the Mitt Romney debacle, that’s understandable, but I digress…
But why aren’t those same people calling out groups like Iowa Right to Life Committee? I mean, they support lots of laws that fall far short of an amendment that would actually make truth law (and they’ve supported their fair share of less-than-pure candidates, too). This past legislative session, this group was pushing for a law that required better reporting of abortions to state health officials. What’s that going to do to stop abortions? Nothing. Yet I haven’t heard anyone bashing them over it.
Some defend this “no compromise” position by asking how many babies is it okay to kill (because that’s what happens when you focus on pushing for restrictive laws that still allow for some abortions rather than amendments that stop all of them).
But I’ve yet to hear anyone answer my question, which is, how many babies is it okay for these purists to stop me from saving, which is what would happen if we had more restrictive laws like waiting periods and true informed consent?
I heard someone make a very good analogy last night. He asked if we should not bother trying to feed starving children in Africa because we know we won’t be able to save them all.
Our situation is similar to one in which some people want to address African starvation problem by coming up with some scientific formula that would make deserts fertile and solve this problem once and for all, but that isn’t going to happen for a long time. Others support those working toward that ultimate goal, but they also want to take what action they can right now. They sponsor a few children at a time because they feel it’s important to save every life they can, even though some see that at throwing a glass of water on a raging house fire.
Both sides share the common goal of eradicating this problem once and for all as soon as possible.
Shouldn’t they be able to respect each other enough to get along and not work against each other?
One would think so.
blog comments powered by Disqus