In conversing with pro-lifers, I notice a stubborn strain of gradualism in their thinking. Not gradualism with legislation, but with recognizing the equal dignity of all human beings. A hypothetical test-example: Two candidates are running for president, one promising to outlaw abortion only from five months post-conception to birth and the other promises to outlaw it only from conception to five months. If there were no viable third-party candidate, which would you vote for as the lesser of two evils?

The only proper response would be that if the vote is based solely on these positions, it wouldn’t matter, especially if an anesthetic is applied. That’s because the pro-life position is based on principle, not emotion, and the fundamental principle is that all human beings possess equal dignity with an inalienable right to life. (Science proves each person’s life begins at conception, all human beings are equal, therefore…..)

It reminds me a little of the poll question I used to ask to my college students each semester: “If both a stranger and your dog were drowning at the same time on a secluded beach and you could only save one (and there are no witnesses), which would you save?”  Almost always the significant majority chose their dog.

While imagination moves the emotions, principle corresponds to the mind. We should never choose our emotions when it contradicts what the mind knows to be right.

Are you guilty of doing this?