More Thoughts on Roemer and the Politics of Abortion

As I continued to ponder Tim Roemer's endorsment of Obama, I was struck by the significance of this quote:

Roemer told MSNBC that :

Despite his opposition to abortion, ... he has come to believe that the all-or-nothing approach that both parties have advocated over the years has created gridlock across the policy spectrum, from health care to international policy.

My point in this post is that Roemer believes abortion is not an all or nothing issue. He sees room for compromise.  Somehow, he thinks this makes him part of the solution to America's political gridlock.

People like me are the problem, he thinks. We keep on acting as if we think it's not okay to kill ANY babies. Roemer rightly sees that those who refuse to compromise on this question, who refuse to consent to the murder of at a least a few babies are part of what creates this country's political polarization.

He's right too that the polarized political environment creates gridlock. The issue of abortion makes the typical give and take of politics impossible for many, many people. Our nation's political life then becomes forever suspended between two poles populated by crowds unable to work together. Meanwhile, everything in the middle falls apart or is manipulated by those without scruples for their own ends.

Roemer is wrong, however, when he implies pro-lifers ought to be willing to compromise, ought to be willing to approve the murder of some children for the sake of easing political tensions. It is precisely these political tensions we in the pro-life movement ought to be seeking to increase. We ought to increase them to a point where they are unbearable. Let everything else fall apart. Maybe then our government will act.

Such tension and unrest is the natural consequence of making murder official national policy. Political gridlock, indeed, decay of our entire political life is to be expected.  No nation can commit itself to this kind of evil and expect to thrive. The only way out is to change the policy causing the conflict.

For Roemer to suggest otherwise is shallow and self-serving at best and, at worst, a betrayal of the pro-life movement and the children it seeks to defend.