Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton decisions, abortion has been the focal point of a broader culture war where two mutually exclusive worldviews contend for dominance. By classifying an entire segment of our human family as "non-persons," Roe and Doe secured the ascendancy of a new culture-of-death ethic that denies moral absolutes and embraces moral relativism. This new atheistic ethic recognizes no restraints outside the arbitrary will of man. In other words, human rights are no longer recognized as being invested in man by the benevolence of a loving Creator. These rights are now subjected to the whims of those in political power.

The goal of the pro-life movement is to provide protection for all human persons from the moment of conception/fertilization. This is the cornerstone in building a culture of life. We, therefore, must counter the atheistic lies of Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton with a culture-of-life ethic founded on one scientific and philosophical principle: "All human beings are human persons from conception/fertilization and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights - first and foremost, the right to life." We call this the "personhood principle."

Though virtually all pro-life groups share the goal of reestablishing personhood, debates arise regarding how to pursue it. The merits and kinds of incremental approaches are the main points of contention.

In his 1995 encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II acknowledges the value and morally licit nature of certain forms of incremental measures that don't violate fundamental moral standards. Those Incremental measures include legislative proposals that do not permit abortion in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. The advancement of these measures is called pure incrementalism.

Pure incrementalism works toward full protection of the preborn human person. Such legislative proposals work first to protect all innocent human life from the moment of conception. If this objective cannot be achieved, other advances that never contradict or detract from the foundational truth of personhood may be accepted. Examples include total bans on third trimester abortions, embryonic experimentation, and human cloning.

Such proposals strive to limit abortions and build genuine momentum toward the reestablishment of a culture-of-life ethic. They educate the public on the proper distinctions between truth and falsehood, personhood and non-personhood, pro-life and pro-death, without conceding that there could be any reasons for killing a preborn child.

Unfortunately, over the last 28 years, many pro-life organizations have abandoned the personhood principle in their legislative and political efforts and have employed flawed incrementalism. Such efforts stray into the culture-of-death mentality. Though they may be well intentioned, such measures explicitly sacrifice the truth and affirm the errors of moral relativism.

If innocent preborn children can be legally killed in "exceptional" circumstances, then certainly they cannot be considered persons in the legal sense. This flawed approach therefore affirms Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton and relegates preborn children to a false "non-person" status.

When pro-life organizations support candidates or legislation favoring exceptions, their leaders are forced to capitulate on the fundamental principle that all human life is sacred, because they explicitly endorse the direct killing of certain innocent human persons. The specific acceptance of aborting persons in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother affirms the relativistic culture of death dogma that the right to life is not after all, "inalienable," but rather, very negotiable.

Since flawed incremental approaches have become the dominant strategy in much of the pro-life movement, public acceptance of legal abortion has increased. National and regional polls demonstrate that when "exceptions" candidates are allowed to run for public office under a bogus "pro-life" banner provided by certain right-to-life political action committees, perceptions in the electorate shift toward a greater public acceptance of legal abortion.

These "right-to-life" PACs defend their actions by promising to advance better candidates and stronger legislation when the political climate is "friendlier to our cause." But is it reasonable to anticipate a friendlier political climate in the future when such grave compromises have consistently sowed confusion and hostility in the past? Can we expect a public that is more accepting of legal abortion to elect representatives who will be "friendlier to our cause"? Indeed, the politician who takes a position in conformity with the simple truth of personhood has become an endangered species. Since a few major "pro-life" PACs have classified the tolerance of some legal child killing to be an acceptable "pro-life" position, these courageous candidates have been characterized as "extremists" by their more moderate opponents. Quite often, such statesmen receive little or no assistance from these pro-life PACs due to their annoyingly "divisive" public image.

For the last 28 years, the deadly cycle of compromise has fostered a cultural and political environment evermore hostile to the protection of the preborn. The debate over abortion has consistently deteriorated over time from whether it is ethical to kill preborn children, to when such a murder can take place, and how.

It is therefore only reasonable to if such an "exceptions" strategy that: 1) denies personhood, 2) affirms the moral relativism secured by Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton, 3) confuses the public, and 4) engenders greater acceptance of legal abortion can ever be successful at achieving total protection for every human being as a person from the moment of conception. Can promulgating lies ever help our culture to establish truth? It seems only logical to conclude: no, never.

Our movement must return to a strategy of promoting only those candidates and measures that embody the fullness of truth and uphold objective moral principles. When it is clear to an elected official who is totally opposed to procured abortion that full protection is legislatively impossible, he may work to save children and advance our cause through pure incrementalism; but we are never allowed to propose, promote or advocate even one abortion.

When we consistently witness to the simple truth of personhood and the culture-of-life ethic, we wield a power exponentially greater than mere diplomatic skills could ever hope to achieve. Indeed, we become conduits for the grace of Jesus Christ who states, "I am the Truth," and "without Me you can do nothing."

Patrick Delaney works with American Life League's public policy team. For more on the concept of personhood, see the Declaration on Truth and Life.