Hey AHA, like Rod Serling said…
Never make the mistake of assuming the audience is any less intelligent than you are. ROD SERLING #amwriting #writing pic.twitter.com/Bo1Wo4JebO
— Jon Winokur (@AdviceToWriters) January 8, 2015
… a risky assumption to begin with.
And brings us to the group Abolish Human Abortion, which, like Planned Parenthood, is opposing the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
Here’s AHA’s reasoning. Click to enlarge…
I have little patience for this debate. Incremental legislation is very real to me, since I physically held an abortion victim who AHA would casually shrug off in the morally superior position it fancies itself to take by opposing it.
And, as I’ve written before, there is actually no such thing as pure, unadulterated, non-incremental legislation. A state personhood initiative leaves out preborn babies marked for death in 49 other states, more than any rape exception does. Even a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution ignores all vulnerable preborn babies in the rest of the world.
Whatever, let’s analyze AHA’s rationale, as outlined in the above graphic, for opposing the 20-wk abortion ban.
I asked several pro-life leaders for comment.
Seth Drayer of Created Equal:
The most glaring problem is not a new one - the language of “allowing” some to be killed while preferring others. To illustrate, conductors on the Underground Railroad didn’t bring every slave to freedom. Does that mean those who perished under the whip of slavery did so with the permission or blessing of the conductors? Certainly not. They weren’t allowing other Blacks to be enslaved. They just didn’t have the means to save them all.
Similarly, they paint incrementalists as looking at the pool of preborn children and saving some while knowingly permitting the killing of others. That is disingenuous.
To correct their analogy, the proposed bill is more akin to driving that bus through a city where blacks are being lynched, opening the doors, and cramming as many as possible into the bus. Now, there are limitations. The bus can’t fit everyone in. So, yes, some will get left behind. But it’s not because you didn’t want to save them. It’s because there are limitations to your bus.
But you can fill your bus with as many of the victims as possible or pontificate on the sidelines of how it must be wrong until you can save them all. I choose the former.
Troy Newman of Operation Rescue:
Roe and Doe put every child under a death sentence, and the courts have upheld the murder. Therefore, ALL we can do is eat away at the law and save as many as we can. We do not prefer one baby to be killed over another one.
I like the Nazi analogy. All Jews were slated for death, but people did what they could to save as many as they could.
Exactly. To claim a pro-life incremental law marks those not covered in it for death is fraudulent. Every U.S. preborn baby is already, quite literally, on the chopping block.
An even more fitting example during the Nazi era would be Irena Sendler, who saved what children she could from death in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Eric Scheidler of Pro-Life Action League:
Another analogy to the era of slavery would be to fugitive slave laws in some northern states that sought to provide some legal protection of escaped slaves, or to laws banning slavery in a particular state (like Illinois, most famously, in the Dred Scott case).
These states could do nothing to end slavery (even for slaves residing in their states with masters from slave states, as SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott), so they did what they could to diminish its impact.
The Dred Scott example is interesting in light of AHA’s “Remember Dred, Abolish Roe” mantra. They call Dred Scott a horrible decision (as it was), but the Illinois law Scott was seeking to be protected by (which as I understand it said masters forfeited their ownership of slaves by living in Illinois) is one they would have denounced as “compromise,” according to the logic they apply to pro-life laws today.
When we find ourselves on the same side as our enemy, we have to ask: Has the enemy converted, or have I?
In this case pro-aborts have certainly not converted. They are fighting for the continued freedom to murder preborn babies 20 weeks and older.
So is AHA.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Every noble movement has it fringe element.
Islam has Al Qaida.
Christianity has Westboro Baptist.
Pro-Life has AHA.
We just have to live with them. They may even be helpful…. When the abortionist wing-nuts accuse pro-lifers of being extremists, we can point to AHA and remind the world of how reasonable and moderate the most of us are.
If this bill dies despite GOP majorities, it will be killed by unlikely teammates: eugenics fans who favor aborting children with anomalies “incompatible with life” (usually discovered late in pregnancy) and the folks making the AHA argument. The latter say “you’re not saving enough babies” while the former say “you have no business protecting ANY babies.” The only way to please both sides is to protect no babies at all.
AHA is basically refusing to enter the burning house until the fire department completely extinguishes the fire. Their stretegy seems to be whine-and-do-nothing-to-help-the-few-until-all-can-be-saved-at-once. Makes ZERO sense!
I have to admit I do agree with AHA on one point: a 20 week ban is not good enough! BUT it’s a good starting point to change the culture–let people get used to the idea that 20-week-old babies are valuable humans worthy of life, then bring up questions like “why should value be determined by age?”; “what’s the difference between 19 weeks and 20 weeks?”; “If much of Europe has bans at 12 weeks or earlier, why not us too?”
The advantage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is that it establishes the humanity and rights of children in the womb. We need for people to start thinking about this again.
The law only protects a small portion of children at risk. But its effect on the public perception and appreciation of pre-born children could be immense.
If a bill ever passed all the way through, it is bound to go through the court system – that is the only given.
So why not just ban abortions completely? I do agree with the AHA in that, it seems like conservatives are rushing to lock it in at 20 weeks and be done with the issue.
If not, what’s the next step?
Ex-GOP, the law won’t even make it to the courts unless it is either signed by the president or has had congress override a presidential veto. Pro-lifers made good strides in the last election but have zero chance of overriding a veto outlawing all abortion. Congress may have a chance (albeit a slim one) of getting enough Democrats voting to override a veto against a pain capable act. So until pro-lifers are able to win either the White House or a veto proof Congressional majority, they must work with the Democrats. If you see enough Dems supporting a complete abortion ban to override a presidential veto, I’d wonder what you’re smoking.
Jonathan –
Believe me, I understand the political components of this.
If the GOP is going to pass legislation that will go nowhere, why not just ban it? Or are their a lot of GOPers that wouldn’t support a full ban?
If the GOP controlled the White House, and it was bound for the courts anyways, why not go for a much lower number?
Again – after 20 weeks, what’s the next step?
Planned Parenthood estimates that their services avert 216,000 abortions every year. That is 198,000 more babies saved from abortion than that which a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks purports to save (18,000 children are aborted after 20 weeks annually).
Pro-lifers should therefore be supporting Planned Parenthood over and above their own pro-life politicians, for Planned Parenthood’s regulative and incrementalistic schemes purport to decrease the number of abortions far more significantly than those of the Republican controlled congress. Good job pro-lifers! Planned Parenthood is now the lesser evil/greater good.
If Oscar Schindler was asked to draft or support some legislation to help the Jews during the Nazi Holocaust, he would not have put together a bill to save 1.5% of them which also allowed the other 98.5% to be gased, burned, starved, or shot.
Schindler, like modern day abortion abolitionists sought to save as many Jews as he could through his day to day actions, but this did not mean that he was a proponent of incremental legislation, or compromising with the very evil he was seeking to combat in a political sense.
If Schindler (or a group of Schindlers) gained control of a large portion of the Third Reich, they would not have sought to liberate a fraction of the Jews from the death camps, but ALL of them.
Similarly, those working the Underground Railroad in antebellum America were themselves Immediatists (anti-incrementalists), even though they worked day in and day out to help as many runaway slaves as they could.
Seth Drayer’s comment above (and all those like it) are completely asinine.
To make that easier to understand…
Most of the people working the Underground Railroad were Immediatists and they opposed the incrementalists, regulationists, and ameliorationists of their time.
Go look it up.
TRH,
You will find that the struggle against slavery involved decades of setbacks, frustration, disappointments, stagnation, and finally victory.
Any great moral cause was not resolved overnight. It was battles won and lost. Its most important component was persistence. People dedicated their lives to end an evil such as slavery, only to never see it end. But someone else carried on the struggle. People would not give up. People did not throw their hands up in the air and say “well I tried”.
What other moral crusades match this criteria? Civil rights, a decades long struggle. Dr. King was but one of many who refused to give up.
Planned Parenthood estimates that their services avert 216,000 abortions every year.
So pro-lifers should be taking Planned Parenthood’s estimates at face value? Even when their formula evidently doesn’t make any sense?
Planned Parenthood estimates that their services avert 216,000 abortions every year. That is 198,000 more babies saved from abortion than that which a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks purports to save (18,000 children are aborted after 20 weeks annually).
1. Planned Parenthood doesn’t save babies from abortion, it prevents them from being conceived. A baby that’s never conceived won’t be killed by an abortionist, but she also won’t die of tuberculosis. Yet even Lena Dunham wouldn’t say that Planned Parenthood saves anyone from tuberculosis.
2. Planned Parenthood performs over 300000 abortions every year. If we take their own estimates at face value, the number of abortions would still go down if Planned Parenthood was wiped off the face of the Earth.
3. Planned Parenthood opposes every limitation on abortion, from human life amendments all the way to requiring clinics to report statutory rape. Urging legislators to put an end to late-term abortion doesn’t require me to support an organization that opposes every limitation on abortion.
Mary,
Yes. As a 19th century American historian I am well aware of the details of those decades of decades of setbacks, frustration, disappointments, stagnation, and finally victory. The abolitionists had to struggle long and hard as they called their culture to repent of the national sin of chattel slavery. They fought long and hard against the anti-slavery gradualists (incrementalists) and regulationists.
I am not talking about time scale. Abolitionists then and now are saying NO COMPROMISE with National evils like slavery and abortion. We are saying that you cannot abolish something while you simultaneously allow it.
The debate about incrementalism doesn’t have anything to do with abolition occurring “over night” or not-at-all (that is just the way that anti-abolitionists frame our position).
Thank you for your engagement with this important topic. Might I suggest you read some blog posts or articles about abolitionism instead of just these anti-AHA posts from Jill, Drayer, Troy, Kemper, Moore, Scheidler, et al.
Mary,
Of course those things didn’t happen overnight. But the people who made them happen took the uncompromising stance of an immediatist and opposed the incrementalists of their day. Like now, pragmatic opponents of slavery introduced incremental legislation and strategies that would have at best prolonged the practice far longer.
First point,
a personhood amendment if passed in a single state is not any more pragmatic or adulterated as is the singular repentance of one person. If a person, city, state, or nation disavows an evil practice in it’s entirety than that particular person, city, state, or nation has taken an immediatist or righteous stance against sin. It isn’t intellectually honest to say that it isn’t possible to put forth a truly immediatist proposition simply on the basis that the proposition does not protect the preborn babies of the entire galaxy. God doesn’t make repentance this unworkable thing. It is laid clear for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
For anyone who wants to hear the abolitionist position on bills like the pain capable bill, listen to this 27 minute podcast. It is also available in iTunes if that is easier for you. Just look up Abolitionist radio and the September 21 program:
http://abolitionistradio.com/Show_archive/Abolitionist_Radio_092114_Complete.mp3
I am on my phone and am having trouble reading the small print in the comments, but I would like to make this point.
The people who facilitated the Underground Railroad were against the incrementilization of their day. They were immediatists. Look it up.
Also this is not a house in fire situation. We are at war with a culture that believes it is okay to kill people. Like seriously, just look at it for what it is. You are saying that it is okay to pass laws that allow people to legally kill people, in the name of saving some. Aren’t you disgusted with yourselves for that? I’m not trying to be condemning by saying that, I was disgusted with myself when I realized what I was doing.
By passing these laws we are also handing all of the pro-aborts weapons that they can use against us if and when we are able to put a stop to this evil. We will fight for months and maybe years to end the killing that the very laws we believed were good and just, and that we thought were bringing us closer to the ultimate goal of ending this terrible holocaust.
We can see from all facets of our government that we do by value babies as much as we do town adults. If we did, child murders would serve the same amount of time as the ones who murder adults. More of our tax money would be spent on our children and progams to help them.
We have blood on our hands. Stop playing games and get serious about it. We can’t compromise anymore. We shouldn’t have in the first place.
What a nightmare from the pit of hell that pro-lifers just can’t manage to see their own folly and how they’ve been trapped in an evil web of lies made by the devil. Why can’t they see their error in supporting a piece of legislation that legitimizes baby murder for all those babies who are under 20 weeks old? This is a nightmare.
And on top of that, they go out of their way to criticize abolitionists who are bringing the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ into bold conflict with the evil of abortion.
Legislators have been deliberately taking on the defensive position instead of the offensive position to abolish human abortion. You’ll never win a war if all you do is keep yourself in the defensive position. Repeatedly regulating baby murder never progresses to a point of abolishing it——never.
U.S. legislators need to go on the offense and put forth a Personhood Amendment. Why haven’t they done that already anyway? And why aren’t these professional pro-lifers promoting Personhood? Why?
Pro-lifers and abolitionists could be a unified powerful force if the pro-lifers would start demanding a 100% ban on ALL abortions with no exceptions (i.e. Personhood with NO exceptions.) But for some evil reason, the pro-lifers keep accepting the crumbs at Satan’s table.
Lord only knows when these anti-abolitionists will finally have the dark scales removed from their eyes to see the evil that they have been supporting for decades; then repent of it and start working to abolish human abortion with no exceptions and no apologies.
Also, here’s a quote from William Lloyd Garrison in his speech, “No Compromise With Slavery.” (This is one instance of proof that Garrison ultimately pushed for the immediate abolition of slavery; he denounced his past support for gradual abolition.)
“Not a solitary slaveholder will I allow to enjoy repose on any other condition than instantly ceasing to be one. Not a single slave will I leave in his chains, on any conditions, or under any circumstances. I will not try to make as good a bargain for the Lord as the Devil will let me, and plead the necessity of a compromise, and regret that I cannot do any better, and be thankful that I can do so much. The Scriptural injunction is to be obeyed: ‘Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.'”
This article really saddens me. A little over a year ago, I was highly involved in promoting the ABQ 20 week ban. I poured myself into it, and did everything I could to get the word out, collect signatures, and get my own church on board. You even posted a video of me at a city council meeting, giving those councilmembers a piece of my mind. I had just begun to interact with abolitionists on Facebook, and I was angered that they were saying what I was pouring myself so diligently into with that ban, was evil and wrong. Oh, I was angry. But I could not stop thinking about what several abolitionists had expressed to me, and how they had urged me to go to Scripture and back up what I was saying and doing by supporting the 20 week ban. I could not back it up. I still can’t. While in my heart, I was ‘taking a step’ toward ending all abortion, that is NOT what the ballot measure that I was supporting said. What it said was because babies at 20 weeks and beyond feel pain, abortion at that point in the pregnancy should be banned. That is not what I believe. I do not oppose abortion because it is painful for the child. I oppose it because it is MURDER and it is against God.
I have been urged to STAY AWAY from the ‘CRAZY’ abolitionists by many pro-life friends that I love and respect. I have been urged to stay away from anything with AHA on it. I have been unfriended many times because my view and perspective have changed. While all these things hurt, I refuse to shun a group of people that are boldly striving to end all abortion with the power of the Gospel. I took it upon myself to seek out some abolitionists in person. I went to a couple AHA society meetings in ABQ as soon as I heard there was a society in town. What I saw there was an amazing love of God and believers with an intense desire to get involved in the local community to bring others to Christ while fighting abortion with the Gospel. I also met some godly families…husbands and wives and children all coming together in homes to talk and encourage and challenge one another in Christ.
I agree with the 5 tenets of abolition. I love every single abolitionist I have met in person. I certainly do not think I am morally superior to anyone. And I would not casually sluff off saving ANY baby facing abortion. What I will NOT support is a measure that makes abortion ‘cleaner’ or ‘safer’ or a law that seeks to make some children a ‘protected group’ because they feel pain or they are older, while leaving the other unborn children to abortion. By signing or voting such a piece of legislation, I am agreeing to the wording on that bill. By voting for something that says ‘because the babies feel pain, abortion must be banned’ I am equally saying that the younger children who supposedly do not feel pain, are fair game for abortion. I cannot do that. That was not what my heart was striving to do while I supported the ABQ ban, but the general public did not know my heart. They only knew what the measure said.It said abortion at 20 weeks needed to be banned because the pain the babies felt.
I am all ears for a biblical defense of such incremental legislation. To date I have yet to hear a valid one.
Also, the comment that compares AHA with Westboro Baptist and ISIS is sickening and completely false, and I take personal offense to it. I agree with the 5 tenets of abolition and no one that has stood with me out on the sidewalk would say I act like Westboro Baptist folks or a terrorist. That comment should not be allowed to remain on the thread.
And to the comparison of incremental legislation and ‘running into a burning building’ to rescue people from the flames, I say this:
Would you vote for a law that said, if your neighbor’s house is on fire, you may only run in and rescue those neighbors who are over 1 year old?
Of course not. That is silly.
Would you chide those who refused to vote for such a law, as not at least taking a step in saving some from deadly house fires? Of course not. Because the law would enable you to save some but it would also prevent you from saving some.
The burning building comparison really is not a valid comparison at all, because our society does not recognize ‘the right’ to burn up one’s family or anyone else’s family in one’s home. A house fire is an accident or arson, and risking one’s life by running in to rescue folks is a heroic choice. Voting for a 20 week ban is not risking your life, and it is in fact preventing the rescue of younger human beings, by its very wording. Also, such a vote often is the only ‘action’ many folks take in this fight against abortion. Some think, “Well, I voted ‘for life’ so I have done ‘something’/’my part.'”
Ah, the rush of abolitionists is here, who refuse to acknowledge reality. What reality?
1) An absolute abortion ban will be struck down immediately by the courts. Period. Therefore, pass it, and how many lives do you save? Zero. But hey, progress, right!
2) The current law (as Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton have been interpreted over the years)- Abortion is more or less legal (aka legitimate) for all 40 weeks with few restrictions. Restrictions are only permitted to the degree there is some compelling reason that unfettered abortion is not to be permitted. Thus, waiting periods have been generally accepted as restrictions because women are often coerced into abortion and the courts have recognized that a decision such as abortion should be made with as clear of a head as possible. Waiting periods do not mean that if a woman still wants to have an abortion 24-72 hours later, that abortion is okay or legitimate. However, instead of zero lives saved with an absolute abortion ban that is struck down, a waiting period has now saved lives.
Lives saved: Abolitionists: 0 Incrementalists: >0
A post-20 week abortion ban does not state that abortion before 20 weeks is fine and legitimate. Instead, given the current court decisions, it is on the edge of what may be allowed as a “reasonable” restriction in the eyes of the court. If it passes court review, it will save additional lives (perhaps a few thousand per year).
Lives saved: Abolitionists: 0 Incrementalists: Thousands
Now, one day, do we hope to end abortion? Heck yes! But in the meantime, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
To use Laura Morrison’s analogy of the house fire: Right now, the law says you can’t run into a burning house to rescue anyone. So my question for her is: Is a law that permits you to rescue those older than one an improvement, though still far from ideal?
Hopefully Greg Cunningham won’t erect as many straw men against us as people like Troy Newman, Jill Stanek, Seth Drayer, and Eric Scheidler did here, in the debate between he and Russell (which none of the above mentioned were willing to take on). That would make for a really boring debate.
If Oscar Schindler was asked to draft or support some legislation to help the Jews during the Nazi Holocaust, he would not have put together a bill to save 1.5% of them which also allowed the other 98.5% to be gased, burned, starved, or shot.
Schindler, like modern day abortion abolitionists sought to save as many Jews as he could through his day to day actions, but this did not mean that he was a proponent of incremental legislation, or compromising with the very evil he was seeking to combat in a political sense.
If Schindler (or a group of Schindlers) gained control of a large portion of the Third Reich, they would not have sought to liberate a fraction of the Jews from the death camps, but ALL of them.
Similarly, those working the Underground Railroad in antebellum America were themselves Immediatists (anti-incrementalists), even though they worked day in and day out to help as many runaway slaves as they could.
To address Michael’s claim that “an absolute abortion ban would be struck down immediately by the courts,” if that’s the case, then why would the courts approve a 20-week abortion ban? Either ALL preborn babies are human beings / persons or they’re not.
Don’t you pro-lifers ever take a step back and think through what your next step is to abolishing abortion?
If the judges won’t approve of a 100% abortion ban, but they will approve of a 20-week abortion ban, what could the judges possibly have to say in their opinion that opposes a 100% abortion ban that they would judge differently in a 20-week abortion ban? Seriously. What’s the difference?
If you put some deep thought into answering that question, you pro-lifers may finally come to the realization that you are, in fact, discriminating against a group of human beings based solely on their age.
From what I understand, all prolifers want all children to have the right to life.
From what I understand, prolifers disagree on the ways that will save the most children’s lives until that time when all children have the right to life.
My goal is to see the end of legalized abortion in my lifetime but I don’t have all the answers on the best way to get there. I disagree with prolifers on many topics but hold all prolifers near and dear to my heart because they share in my horror and heartache that innocent children are being killed.
All I can do is the best I can do to work together with all prolifers and pray that together we will soon end legalized abortion.
My birthdays keep showing up so there’s no time to waste.
Westboro Baptist is not a “fringe element” of Christianity. Westboro Baptist is not Christian at all. Not long ago I read Banished, the autobiography of a daughter of Westboro’s founder (Fred Phelps), Lauren Drain.
Her book exposes the truth of WB. It’s a church in name only, and is primarily comprised of Phelps relatives. I recommend her book to everyone. It is encouraging to me that one of her brothers came out of WB, professes true Christian beliefs, and pastors a church in Arizona.
Christ Jesus said, “By their fruit you shall know them.” He said there would be wolves in sheep’s clothing, false prophets masquerading as true men of God. This is nothing new.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was a rabid proponent of abortion on demand who co-founded NARAL in the 1960s and worked tirelessly for the passage of Roe v. Wade. By his own account he committed at least 75,000 abortions, including at least one on his own child(ren).
A prominent hospital in NYC hired him to oversee the then-fledgling development of ultrasound. As he used ultrasound to guide him during abortions, his eyes were opened and he realized the little babies were living human beings.
About the personhood of babies in the womb, he made this statement:
AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence, which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.
This article makes some very important points. One which everyone needs to understand, which is a direct comparison between Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade, is that Dred Scott defined a slave as “2/3 of a person”.
This is so similar to the “incremental development” which is used to deny the personhood of the little babies in the womb. Like the terms of Dred Scott, this is also a huge lie.
Mrs. Stanek,
I appreciate your stand for the right to life of prenatal children, but I think that you have misunderstood the arguments against incremental legislation. The argument has never been that incrementation is itself immoral but rather that the type of incrementation being pursued by many pro-life leaders is immoral. Groups like AHA, Personhood USA and the Personhood Alliance recognize that state level personhood amendments are incremental. They simply do not view this type of incrementation as immoral.
The state level amendments allow are simply a way for each state to ban all abortions within its jurisdiction, and the local initiatives currently being pursued by the Personhood Alliance provide means for individual municipalities to ban all abortions within their jurisdictions. This is a moral form of incrementation, for its implementation would not involve a failure to defend the right to life of those to whom the leaders of the individual states or municipalities have a moral obligation.
Bills like the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, on the other hand, do involve a failure to defend the right to life of those to whom our leaders owe a moral obligation. I am certain that you agree that political leaders have such an obligation to uphold the right to life of every individual human being within their jurisdictions both because that obligation is dictated by God and because it is recognized in the Constitution. Given this fact, then, it naturally follows that any incremental bill which fails to meet this obligation is immoral. The question is not whether a given bill is incremental or not but rather whether the incrementation sought to be implemented by the bill is moral or immoral.
You made reference to a few different analogies in your article, but I think that the situation which currently exists in our nation can be better understood through a direct correlation. Instead of comparing abortion to the holocaust or slavery, let’s just take the current crisis and all of the efforts to fight it and simply change the age of the children involved. All of us in the pro-life community agree that their is no moral difference between a prenatal child and a child of any other age, so changing the ages of the children involved will not have any effect on moral arguments.
For the sake of argument, therefore, let’s change the legality of abortion at any time up to birth around 40 weeks to a law permitting the killing of children at any time up until their fourth birthday. Similarly, let’s change the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to a ban forbidding the killing of a child on their fourth birthday even if the fourth anniversary the actual minute of their birth has not yet arrived. We could also view the informed consent laws to laws requiring the parents of children under the age of four to be given information regarding the killing of their child before they make the decision to have their child killed, and we could even require them to wait 24 or 48 or 72 hours after receiving that information before they follow through with their decision. And since you mentioned the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in particular, let’s go ahead and view this act as a bill proposing that no child can be legally killed by his parents after the age of 2 instead of the age of 4.
Now, in this type of situation, would you say that changing the age at which it becomes illegal for a parent to kill his child from the age of 4 to the age of 2 constitutes an achievement of the government’s responsibility to meet its moral obligation to defend the right to life of all human beings within its jurisdiction?
The AHA and the personhood movement have answered this question with a resounding, No! But I am curious as to your thoughts on this correlation. Would you support a bill that changed the age for legally killing children from 4 to 2? Would you vote for a man seeking the presidency who said that he thinks parents should only be allowed to kill their children up until the age of 2? Would you consider someone pro-life if they defended such a bill as much as you have defended the Pain Capable Act?
Please understand. I am not saying that I do not consider you to be pro-life. I simply think that your passion has prevented you from understanding those with whom you disagree, and I think that if you would take a moment to consider how you would respond in the above correlation you may have a better understanding of why the AHA takes the position that it has taken.
By the way, I’ve posted my above response to my own blog at:
http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/jill-stanek
God is an incrementalist. He heals, teaches and reveals Himself incrementally. He created the world incrementally. It is appropriate that Christians model themselves on Him. But perhaps AHA are not really Christian?
Here’s a great illustration of my thought that AHA cares more about being right than saving actual people (which of course they do care about, I have no doubt!). Supposing they could see a future, where an incremental approach ended abortion quicker, and an immediate approach, that ended abortion but slower. The quicker, incremental method would achieve the same legal end, and save more lives. The immediate end offers a wonderful feeling that you are above the world, yet more people died as a result. Despite being able to see this future, AHA supporters would still say that incremental approach was an “evil web of lies made by the devil.”
We are not called to love the law, we are called to love our neighbor. Was the law made for people or the people for the law? I think AHA has clouded judgement, perhaps being unable to cope with the plain fact that life in this world will always be lived aside great injustices.
Slavery ended through incremental means. Yes, there were many loud abolitionist firebrands, but at best they inspired the incremental approach to take place, which they would say is an “evil web of lies made by the devil” right up to the point it worked. The best perspective on this is from Frederick Douglass, who broke with Garrison. Was Douglass happy at the pace at which Lincoln moved? No, never really in his heart, yet it worked, and freedom, however imperfect, achieved. “Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed… we were at times stunned, grieved, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled.”
Hi Michael,
But we CAN rush to the burning building….there are sidewalks all around these murder clinics. If everyone who SAID they were against abortion would GO to the sidewalks THAT would have a huge impact. If everyone who SAID they were against abortion would peacefully but boldly and truthfully TAKE TO THE STREETS with signs and voices, all over the country, THAT would have an impact. If all Bible believing churches would urge their members to go to the sidewalks, THAT would make an impact. If all Bible believing churches would preach against abortion consistently, THAT would make an impact. If everyone would unite and demand personhood for all unborn human beings with no exceptions, THAT would make an impact. If Christian parents refused to allow their children to be indoctrinated by pro-abortion sex-ed in schools, THAT would make an impact. If everyone of us with a mouth would purpose to talk with someone new every day about abortion, THAT would make an impact.
None of us do enough. And no one is laying their life down to save the unborn like we would if someone was trying to murder one of our own children. I’m not, are you? The answer is not in compromising incremental legislation, the answer is Jesus and changed hearts and believers who follow and obey God who point others to follow Him as well. Fighting abortion is a spiritual battle. We must stop calling evil good.
Scott Herndon posted a link in a comment above to a short radio segment. It explains much better than I could why such incremental legislation is not good at all. I’d encourage you to listen :)
It used to be amusing when prolifers attacked “AHA” and accused “us” of just making good internet memes and creating division within their already divided (though covered up) movement.
Of course, this dismissive tactic has lost a lot of its use or appeal as those memes are now being held, worn, passed out, and dropped by thousands of formerly apathetic and formerly prolife people on a day in day out basis all over the globe.
Our haters got it backwards when they claim that we are “all or nothing” and refuse to save as many as we can. We’re out there saving as many as we can in the way we integrate abolitionism into our daily lives. We go to the mills, schools, churches, and city streets. We take people into our homes, foster and adopt abandoned babies and older born children, and we are out there engaging non-pro-life and silent pro-life people every day.
Pro-lifers are the ones waiting for Washington to break another promise and supporting the creation of steps on a bridge to nowhere. We are the ones refusing to sell out 98% of the aborted children in our country so that we can feel like 43 years of compromise is finally getting somewhere.
Get off the treadmill. Become an Abolitionist.
A//?
Bill,
“Moral” vs “immoral” incrementalism? Who defines that?
Were the midwives immoral for lying to Pharaoh to save just some of the boys he had ordered killed?
Was Rahab immoral for lying to save the Israelite spies?
Were Jonathan and Michel immoral to lie to Saul, their father and king, to save just one guy, David?
Were the wise men immoral to disobey Herod, sealing the fate of up to thousands of baby boys?
Was Corrie ten Boom immoral for hiding just a few Jews?
Was Irena Sendler immoral for hiding children in coffins?
Is it moral to try to save babies at one abortion clinic and not all 739?
Why is the circle of children I am trying to save not as moral as the circle of children you’re trying to save? You can’t save them all either. The percentage of abortions committed in the U.S. is small compared to the percentage of abortions committed around the world. How immoral it is to let the babies in China, France, and Russia die.
What if you can stop abortion but not stop women from taking the Pill? Isn’t it immoral to let those babies die?
Playing God can get quite tricky, Bill. That’s why I let God be God and simply pursue justice where I can.
Jill,
Rahab, Jonathan, Michel, the wise men, Corrie ten Boom, Irena Sendler, and those pleading outside abortion mills are not the majority leaders of congress writing legislation.
Please tell me that you aren’t actually this stupid and that it is just pride that makes you miss the point.
“How has the slave system grown to its present enormous dimensions? Through compromise. How is it to be exterminated? Only by an uncompromising spirit. This is to be carried out in all the relations of life— social, political, religious.”
William Lloyd Garrison. No Compromise with Slavery An Address Delivered to the Broadway Tabernacle
I used to be pro-life. I am not anymore. The words above explain a big part of why.
For the record, I worked for almost 10 years in leadership in a pro-life organization called the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR). Before that I volunteered for years with my local Right to Life Chapter. I was moved to get into the fight against abortion because God convicted my heart that the unborn child was my neighbor and I was doing nothing to intervene on their behalf. I was pro-life to the core. But that changed. And this debate is a big part of the reason why I changed.
Some ask, “Why are we picking on the pro-life movement? Why not just be happy they are doing something. Let’s just work together on what we do agree on.”
But there is error in that thinking. Especially if some of what we are doing is wrong. What kind of Christians are we if we remain silent when a brother or sister is in serious error? And we certainly do want to work together and should be unified. But unified about what is right and true. Unified about Christ alone. Not unified on ideas that are anti-Christ.
So it is very much worth our time and in fact it is our duty before God to call out the error in any movement that is possibly if not definitely allowing a great injustice to grow stronger. This is especially true if that movement holds itself up as the movement to abolish abortion when they are in fact giving abortion fuel to continue to burn.
I will continue to plead with pro-life leaders (some of whom are my friends) to turn from these compromising ways. Jill, Troy, Seth and others I believe got into this fight for the right reason but have been deceived.
I too once held to incrementalism and thought it was the godly and rational position. Fortunately I had friends who loved me enough to repeatedly tell me I was wrong and eventually my thick skull took it in.
We must first acknowledge as we do this work that we must fight it on God’s terms and that our duty is to be obedient to Him first and to never compromise His precepts, judgments, laws or ways. We should NEVER even hint at a message that is in conflict with what God holds dear.
When we back incremental bills, we not only take on a compromising position that dishonors God, but we UNDERMINE the entire argument that abortion is murder because human beings are made in the image of God regardless of any circumstances they might be in.
For example, in the case of the 20-week ban bill: What is the message that is sent by this bill? Think about it. The message the culture hears is this: “Age matters”. The argument is not that human beings are made in the image of God and are therefore valuable at all ages and abortion is therefore murder and must be criminalized. This is VERY wrong. And not only inconsistent with God’s view on things, but is the same argument the pro-abortion crowd uses to justify all abortion. How often do you hear that abortion is fine as long as you do it before such and such of time? All the time. And here we are, the pro-life movement using EXACTLY the same argument as the pro-aborts to present a bill.
Jill wants to claim, “AHA agrees with Planned Parenthood”. NO JILL YOU DO! You are the one advocating the same argument that age matters. You are the one attacking the people who oppose the idea that age matters. Please consider this. And forget the fact that some abolitionists are offensive in their speech to you and consider first and foremost what is true and honoring to God.
Let’s also consider a more classic pro-life position and behavior that is of the “rape and incest exception”. This is the position of most pro-life politicians and in fact when pro-life politician starts to talk about banning abortion in cases of rape or incest the rest of the pro-life movement distances themselves from such “radical” person. Consider that the PLM has backed, promoted, and aggressively defended guys like Mitt Romney or John McCain as their “pro-life candidate”. Now consider that each of these guys publicly and without shame includes the exception for rape and incest.
Some will say, “Well yeah, but Mitt is better than a guy like Barak Obama who thinks abortion is okay in all cases.” Now is this true?
Consider what message the PLM sends to the world when they back the rape incest exception. Think about this for a second. The world sees two things. 1. That abortion is actually justifiable in some cases. In particular difficult life circumstances, like rape. This is the same argument the pro-abortion crowd uses to justify abortion. OR 2. They see that the PLM, the very movement that holds itself up as the champion to save the unborn and change the culture, doesn’t actually take their view seriously. Because anyone with a rational mind sees right away that if you think abortion is justifiable in cases of rape that you really don’t believe abortion kills a baby. Both of these messages are detrimental to the cause of ending abortion. The very movement that is suppose to be ending abortion is actually spending millions of dollars, tons of resources, to teach the culture the VERY ideas that keep abortion legal. That is evil. That is wicked. That is ungodly. And that is very WRONG.
I used to be pro-life. I used to be an incrementalist. I invested my life into the PLM. But I was wrong. I sinned in many ways. I was deceived. I followed man’s ideas instead of what is true and biblical. No more.
To be clear, I am not a supporter of “AHA” as an organization. I have nothing to gain because AHA has nothing to offer as an organization. AHA is a name, label, of an ideology and movement of people who have adopted it. It is an ideology that I believe it consistent with Scripture and is true. So I am not siding with “AHA” but rather I am siding with what is true and pleasing to God. And the fact is people, compromising with the devil, instead of trusting God with an uncompromising position, is sin.
And maybe this is irrelevant, but in case it matters to some I end this post with this question: How many children have these bills, bans and incremental candidates actually saved? I will give you the answer: 0. ZERO! And in fact, because these ideas are anti-God and compromise with the devil, and teach the culture ideas that justify abortion, these political strategies of incrementalism have allowed abortion to remain in its place and have in fact killed children.
Not as if we needed any proof or perhaps it really doesn’t matter. But I am proof that pro-life leaders can recognize they are in error, accept correction and change course. I think in some sense I probably haven’t recognized the full magnitude of my sin in compromising. God is still growing me. But I ask God to forgive me, grant me repentance, and that I would walk in His ways and not the ways of the world.
How to draw AHA weirdos to your website.
1.) Mention AHA
Notice the pro-life movement in general does not use The Gospel as the weapon against child sacrifice or point out that abortion is child sacrifice and sin, and do not argue against child sacrifice from Scripture, calling it evil because God says so. Instead, they argue according to pragmatism, a philosophy formalized and popularized by atheistic Western Philosophers, on the grounds of humanism, giving credence to man’s authority to judge, as though morality is an invention of men rather than God. I was once taken captive by these philosophies and vain deceit of men and have repented. I fear for those who can be exposed to the truth and yet reject it. We are not your enemy, pro-lifer. We have been where you are. We have repented of the unfaithfulness you’re practicing. Please, join us in this service to our Lord. Abolish evil.
“Planned Parenthood estimates that their services avert 216,000 abortions every year.”
If this T Russell guy is an example of the abolitionist mind then the whole movement is a fantasy. Navi hit the nail on te head. If you follow that sort of twisted logic then you probably also have no trouble rationalizing that Charles Manson saved dozens of his victims from untold suffering. I hate to criticize the AHA but if kooks like T Russell are their leader then they need to look into getting medication for what ailes them.
“Notice the pro-life movement in general does not use The Gospel as the weapon against child sacrifice or point out that abortion is child sacrifice and sin, and do not argue against child sacrifice from Scripture, calling it evil because God says so.”
Huh? Johnny, I am not sure what pro-lifers you hang around but there is no shortage of Scripture or prayer as a weapon when I join pro-lifers outside abortion mills. Get real. Wake up oh sleeper!! Join the Children of the Light outside an abortion mill and then tell me it was a waste of your day.
Michael said…
Lives saved: Abolitionists – 0
Incrementalist – thousands
Correction,neither save lives. Lives are saved by the LORD. Give Him honor, no one else is worthy.
Ya know… I go to the mills, and everywhere else I can. I hope when you go, you teach people to obey God, and tell them that there is murder in their hearts that only Christ can atone for. What Scripture do you know of that can possibly make sense of investing time in making it illegal to murder some people? You get to that via pragmatism and humanism, not Scripture.
Johnny,
Read Mark Chapter 5. Even when Jesus walked the earth healing people he was unable to heal everybody but you certainly don’t hold that against Him.
As far as scripture I don’t see anywhere that Jesus gives counsel on any laws excepts the laws given to us by Father. IMO restricting what is the current law to save some babies is not passing a law that says it ok to kill some babies; i is amending current law to save the lives of some unborn babies that could otherwise be legally killed.
Okay so what I’m gathering from this debate is that it’s better to shut up and put up with abortion rather than trying to do ANYTHING at all. Pro-lifers should sit on their hands until we can save them all and not try to save any. How is that doing us any good?
I would LOVE an abortion ban on all abortions. I would love to see abortion gone from society. However, I also realize that we have to be willing to win many battles to win the war.
We have to do what we can because otherwise we do nothing and doing nothing is not an option for us prolifers. We have to continue working, praying, and getting through every little thing we can until we win the war.
That’s what those who abolished slavery, and those who worked against the Nazis did. They did everything they could until the war was won. Why chop off your nose to spite your face?
Theresa–I rebuke you in the name of Christ! How dare you!! You need to check YOUR pride. How dare you call anyone stupid? Especially a woman like Jill who has sacrificed her career and her safety to advocate for the preborn?
I would point out to the AHA folks that the original abolitionists actually SUPPORTED the nullification of the fugitive slave act. Even though nullifying that act did NOT say that all blacks were now persons. Even though it did not outlaw slavery. Even though it did not save ALL slaves.
That was incrementalism. The original abolitionists were sane folks with reasoning skills. Not cult members like AHA people who are so hell bent on being RIGHT that they don’t care how many people die. The original abolitionists wanted slavery abolished. But they took their victories where they could and saved blacks where they could. Abolishing slavery did not happen legislatively overnight and if you actually STUDIED the laws and acts that led up to the outlawing of slavery you’d KNOW THIS. You claim to be historians but I think not.
I won’t be back to argue. I wasted enough time on facebook doing so. AHA people wag their fingers in our faces and tell us to “repent” and pat themselves on the back for their extreme righteousness and then step over their brother in the dirt. They are pharisees and nothing more. I have no time for them.
I guess I’ll take this time to announce to my friends on here that I just found out I am expecting again!! I am only 3 1/2 weeks pregnant so very early but it was neat to think that my baby’s heartbeat started this week. I am beyond thrilled at the gift of this new little life!
Truthseeker–your post reminds me of the pharisees who reprimanded Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath etc…the pharisees were the original AHA folks I guess.
Sydney, I think you’re referring to me. truthseeker was quoting me. I’m trying to avoid responding here, but I didn’t want anyone to be falsely accused on my behalf.
Congratulations, Sydney M.!
Truth Seeker,
The comment about PP’s claims to be saving lives was a satirical comment. Of course PP doesn’t actually save any lives. But that is also the case with these 20 week fetal pain bills. I live in a state that passed that years ago and as someone who goes out to the mills to rescue babies from destruction and present the gospel of Jesus Christ to their parents… I tell you one thing, that law isn’t keeping people from aborting their babies.
In fact, we hear things like, “My baby is only 6 weeks! They won’t feel any pain!” from women on their way into the child sacrifice centers in this pro-life state.
Thank you, Jill, for exposing the AHA lies, and giving them another opportunity to expose themselves as the cult that they are. I pray it will save some who might otherwise have been sucked into their lair.
I am deeply proud of the incremental laws passed in my state that have dropped the number of abortions to below 7,500 while the neighboring states counts are in the tens of thousands. Lives are saved each day in my state, praise God!
THR,
And may I suggest you do not patronize me by suggesting I only read and get my information from what certain people write. I am an avid student of history, and have been my entire life, which may well be longer than yours. I do not need you to advise me what to read. Also, I am a regular on this blog and do not appreciate you benevolently thanking me for joining this discussion.
For or against incrementalism, it was what it was. Evils were not abolished overnight. They are not now. This included slavery and segregation. Does anyone think Dr. King was only too happy to take it one step at a time, to suffer setbacks? To struggle? Not all people considered slavery and segregation evil. The law was on their side. Those who struggled to end the evils of slavery and segregation lived it. They saw the slave auctions and “colored only” signs. Abolitionists and the civil rights movement all too often had to settle for a success here or a law there in the long course of their struggles. It does not mean these people were any less dedicated or determined to end these evils.
“I guess I’ll take this time to announce to my friends on here that I just found out I am expecting again!!”
Yay! Congrats to you and your family, Sydney!
Congratulations Sydney. I can feel your excitement even through the bits and bytes of the blog.
Congratulations Sydney!! My best to you and your family.
Mary,
Dr. King had to fight against the incrementalists of his day who told him that he needed to take steps and stop demanding equal rights full on. His mantra was, “The time for justice is Now!”
Go read his letter from the Birmingham Jail. he was writing it to people who argued for incrementalism and against what he and the activists who followed him were seeking.
Again. We are not talking about the time it takes for something to be accomplished… we are talking about what is being called for. We call for abolition. You guys are calling for regulation.
Please just think about it and consider what we have to say.
T Russell,
I didn’t catch the satire and I am not a fan of sarcasm. Your 9:45 post yesterday made you sound crazy.
“In fact, we hear things like, “My baby is only 6 weeks! They won’t feel any pain!” from women on their way into the child sacrifice centers in this pro-life state.”
Sounds like they recognize the child in their womb and at least are showing concern. It should be a great place to start educating mother about the baby already having a heartbeat twice the rate of hers and in two more weeks will have fingers, eyes and a nose etc.
In any case, I have no resentment and I am glad to hear the AHA are doing the yeoman’s work outside the abortion mills praying for an end to abortion. May God bless you and strengthen you with the Holy Spirit as you wage your battle to end abortion.
TRH,
I well remember the civil rights struggle. A mantra is one thing…reality quite another. Dr. King still had to struggle against the laws and the mentalities that supported them.
Of course Dr. King did not want incrementalism. Who would? Its what he got. Also, Dr. King was not the first in the struggle for civil rights. It was a long and difficult struggle. Is this fair or just? No. Its what it was and is. Also did passing civil rights laws always change hearts? Not necessarily.
People don’t “settle” for incrementalism, they use it as a means to an end. Yes we want abolition of abortion as much as you do. We understand struggles are won by persistence, by those who refuse to give up. We also understand evil does not end overnight, as much as we wish it did.
“We call for abolition. You guys are calling for regulation.”
T Russell,
Many in the pro-life movement are struggling for an end to abortion with all their hearts and all their minds and our efforts are righteous as the so called abolitionists. But I harbor no resentment because I understand you are being true to yourself and that is important. I welcome the efforts of all who struggle for an end to abortion and see them as good people even if they don’t necessarily follow the path I would lead them on. The end to abortion will not come when so-called incrementalists and so-called pro-lifers unite. The end to abortion will come when each of us is guided by the Holy Spirit.
In fact, we hear things like, “My baby is only 6 weeks! They won’t feel any pain!” from women on their way into the child sacrifice centers in this pro-life state.
Trust me, abortion clinics were telling women their babies can’t feel pain long before we started passing 20-week bans.
Congratulations, Sydney!
T Russell–What’s this you and us business? We prolifers need to be united. The pro-choicers will THRIVE on any division in the prolife community. They’ll play it up. Trust me. And we don’t need that distraction. Anybody who is truly prolife (and the prolifers on here are) want an END to abortion–to see it GONE, but we also know things take time. We take what we can get and keep working towards the end goal. Rome wasn’t built in a day. To build up a culture of life, we have to work with what we’ve got, not sit on our hands and figure it’s not worth it unless we get the whole pie right now. It isn’t possible to get the whole pie right this second. Let’s take what we can get, and keep moving forward. That’s what is being said not that a small piece is satisfactory. A piece is just the beginning. THAT is what is being said.
T. Russell, Don, Toby, AHAers,
It all comes down to this: I see a baby in front of me destined for abortion who could be saved but who AHA not only won’t save but inexplicably fights to keep from saving.
Just read the US House bill on this –
So it firms up that all abortions up to 20 weeks are permissible, and after 20 weeks, abortion is fine if the pregnancy resulted from rape, or the mother’s life is in danger.
Asked the question earlier, but then a poopstorm of controversy and fighting erupted – but still wondering –
– if any sort of law passed by the house and senate is going to be vetoed – and even if there was a GOP president, it is going to end up in the courts – why not just pass a total ban?
This seems like it should be called the “Get pro-lifers off our back without really doing much” bill.
Jill,
Please read the comments from various abolitionists above.
You either do not see or understand our position and its application or you are choosing to perpetuate a straw man version of it in order to stand against the growth and spread of abolition.
We too see that there are babies in front of us destined for abortion who could be saved that prolifers are choosing not to save. That is the very form that this bill takes and you are guilty of exactly what you are charging us with.
Again, read the comments above. We work daily to save as many babies as we can and we are not choosing to abandon any babies. We simply do not undermine what we do in a day to day sense with what we support legislatively.
Please Please Please read the comment about Schindler, and the Underground Railroad workers which I wrote above. I am seeking to explain to you that Immediatism does not entail abandoning anyone or choosing not to save anyone that can be saved.
I pray that you just take the time to actually read about, study, understand, and then some day experience the truth of what we are saying. We hope to be unified with you in the cause of abolition and to stand with the majority of anti-abortion people in this country who are no longer focused on regulating abortion but abolishing it. We long for the day that people no longer choose the abandon a million babies and call it pro-life.
You have more power than that. You just have to use it.
Russell
I see the followers of aha and little rusty can spend countless hours on the Internet attacking people they hate. But they can’t seem to take to the streets and do anything productive to save even one baby. This is the height of hypocrisy. It was the good Samaritan who actually did something to help a fellow person but it was the religious elite who couldn’t bother themselves with getting their hands dirty. So once again we have the holier than Thou Pharisees condemning everyone who is doing something. I’m sure the hypocritical Pharisees did the same thing to that poor Samaritan unwashed unclean nonjewish. We will endure your false attacks and slander like we always have. And we will continue to save babies until every abortion mill is closed and every baby is safe from the abortionist knife. I’m sure at that point you will stand in the front of a microphone and Take credit for all the hard work the pro-life movement has done. But at the end of the day God knows God sees God hears the cries of every baby destined for death. I will leave this conversation with one last comment, I like what I’m doing better than what you are not doing aha
So it firms up that all abortions up to 20 weeks are permissible, and after 20 weeks, abortion is fine if the pregnancy resulted from rape, or the mother’s life is in danger.
No, it says that abortions up to 20 weeks are outside the scope of the bill. If a state wants to ban it without exceptions for rape, or after 6 weeks instead of 20, it can go right ahead.
if any sort of law passed by the house and senate is going to be vetoed – and even if there was a GOP president, it is going to end up in the courts – why not just pass a total ban?
Because the courts might actually uphold a 20-week ban.
Navi –
You are one of the smarter ones around here… what’s the basis of the legal argument? From what I can tell in Arizona the question presented was is viability the only thing that matters – and thus then introduced pain as an option – which, again as I read it – was rejected in the Arizona case.
It almost seems to me that a 20 week bill is saying “okay, we give up – we agree with viability decisions, but we think there’s one questionable loophole to consider”.
By a lot of measures – this is the most conservative supreme court in the history of the supreme court – why not just send them a bill that completely throws out RvWade and the viability argument and see what happens?
It almost seems to me like this is saying – Okay pro-lifers, you got what you want – we’ve done our part – here is the middle ground.
Troy,
The pregnant meth addict that is getting cleaned up and coming to stay in the extra room in my house so that she does not endanger the baby she was planning to abort last thursday would beg to differ with your claim that we abolitionists don’t take our work to the streets.
C’mon man. Get on Facebook and look through the pictures and videos of the work being done by the 70 or so abolitionist societies out there. We aren’t the ones taking the stage or getting up in front of people and talking about how great we are. We are not the ones marking out which babies we will and will not save. Stop projecting yourselves on us and claiming that we are the self-righteous ones. All we are doing when we engage incrementalists online is seeking to open up the negative effects and false promises of compromising legislation. We are trying to unify people around abolition so that we do have more workers in the field going to the front and final lines to save as many babies as we can and hopefully someday very soon we will also have abolitionists in congress and in the courts who fight to save children from child sacrifice by bringing all human beings under the protection of the law against murder. We’re not trying to cost you your jobs, we’re trying to recruit you and your followers to the cause of abolition. Get off the stages and stop writing your fundraising letters for just one minute and actually think about what we are saying.
If you reject it, at lest reject it without straw-manning it. I have not seen you or Jill or any other pro-lifer actually address the ideology and application of abolitionist principles anywhere online, in person, or over the phone.
Please do not spend the last decade of your professional pro-life career working against the abolition of human abortion. We need guys like you to be like Don Cooper (read his comment above) and lead us. As it is, you are only kicking and screaming and throwing a little fit because you see regular people getting out there all over the country standing together, without pay and without applause, and fighting abortion every day. Gone are the days of hero prolifers and their supporters. We must work together to abolish human abortion and stop supporting those few seeking (intentionally or inadvertently) to keep it legal and chip away at it for the next 40 years. We are not opposed to saving any child and we are not in the game of regulating which babies will be saved, which will be abandoned to destruction.
If we can just get all the followers of regulation to become workers of abolition, we will truly see the movement, energy, and change that you once wanted to see.
Russell
I’ll say it as clearly as possible for the benefit of those of the abolitionist mindset.
Current law already allows babies over 20 weeks in age to be killed. Amending current law to outlaw the killing of babies over 20 weeks does not legalize the killing of any additional babies. It makes it illegal to kill babies that could otherwise have been legally killed.”
Let me ask a question to each of the abolitionists on this blog. Would you have voted against legislation to ban partial birth abortion or born-alive infants from botched abortions?
I would leave the passing of laws that compromise with evil and fail to conform to God’s law to evil men. As for me, I will only put my hand to Jesus’ plow.
T Russell and Johnny,
Fortunately, even with abolitionists siding with the pro-aborts like Barack Obama we were able to outlaw the practice of delivering babies to the head and stabbing them in the skull with scissors. You can answer to the Lord for that on judgement day. Though T Russell would judge my heart and say I ‘once’ wanted the abolition of abortion; I won’t judge you and say you ‘once’ would not have stood for such an atrocity being legal.
Johnny, a twenty week abortion ban or a 12 week abortion or a complete abortion ban is ok with me because my God tells me even if I cannot wipe out evil I can make a difference by fighting to reduce evil in any ways possible. If it is already legal to kill babies over 20 weeks old then I will vote to make it illegal to kill babies over 20 weeks old. If it already illegal to kill babies over 20 weeks old then I will vote for legislation to make it illegal to kill babies over 16 weeks old. If it already illegal to kill babies over 16 weeks old then I will vote for legislation to make it illegal to kill babies over 12 weeks old. If it already illegal to kill babies over 12 weeks old then I will vote for legislation to make it illegal to kill babies over 8 weeks old. If it already illegal to kill babies over 8 weeks old then I will vote for legislation to make it illegal to kill babies over 6 weeks old. And if it already illegal to kill babies over 6 weeks old then I will vote for legislation to grant personhood to the unborn. But understand that I would vote for personhood today if it were on any ballot box. I just can’t in good conscience wait until society agrees with personhood before I try and make a difference by ‘reducing’ the evil of abortion in our society.
Johnny,
Thank you for your honest answer to my question. I feel very comfortable with you as an abolitionist. Non-participation in the society of evil that does not confirm completely conform to God’s laws is your perogative and I understand where you are coming from. IMO you have not been judgemental like some comments I read from people on both sides of the issue (I won’t name any names but both monikers start with T) as being divisive and I think they should check their egos at the door.
truthseeker, if you would call out the evil you’re currently voting for, perhaps Personhood Laws WOULD be on the ballot box. What kind of governing authority puts forth a law to protect some of its citizens? A governing authority in the servitude of Satan!
Look at every case of unjust law and action in Scripture. God is not pleased by any compromise. God demands conformity to His ways.
The AHA ideology embraces all that Scripture teaches us to do in service to our Lord, and opposes everything else. Please study into it, brother!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUbJ22w8xqvrX82OxCWnab8sqrzGHZiFY
Johnny, IMO the best chance at resolution to this plague on our society is ‘personhood’ for the unborn. I know there are many incremenatalist pro-life people who have signed onto personhood amendments. Justified or not, the abolotionist movement seems to carry a lot of divisiveness with it. Perhaps you could have better success if you take on a more positive image. I MO the best way to achieve your goal of abolishing abortion is through legislation that grants personhood to the unborn and think all pro-lifers could unite easily in a fight to grant personhood to the unborn.
Johnny,
Personally I submit myself to God’s will and personally I recognize that I would be lost without HIM. But we do not live in a theocracy and the goal here is to effect a change on a secular society. We cannot dictate society live under our God’s laws any more than ISIS can dictate society must live under Sharia law. However, I do see where society could unite under personhood for the unborn.
I’m glad to be thought of negatively by people that spend time promoting laws that don’t conform to the will of God. What prophet of God ever spent any amount of time asking people to do less evil? I will not “take what I can get” when “what I can get” is unjust. How will we abolish evil by practicing it?! If a law does not conform to God’s law, it is evil. If you vote for that law, you are practicing evil. Is any part of this truly debatable? God says murder is an abomination. If the laws says some murder is an abomination, it is in disagreement with God. It is evil. Voting for that law is voting for evil. Voting for evil is evil. Please, see the plain truth and turn away. We’ve been on the other side and our eyes have been opened.
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
Brother, you’ve called The Gospel as weak as ISIS and are speaking directly against the words of our Lord. I can’t continue this conversation. I’m heartbroken. Don’t try to justify this. Please.. turn away and see the truth.
Johnny
I’m no fan of truthseeker, but he didn’t say that. He didn’t say that at all.
He simply said America isn’t about to become a theocracy anytime soon – and I hope you don’t want a theocracy either.
In a lot of ways, I agree with your basic premise – I believe that pro-lifers have gotten content with trivial gains – the right gives them their small token just to get votes and fundraising from the pro-life side. But I think for your side to get more credibility, you’re going to have to fight this war differently and gain some critical mass. At least that’s my take from the little bit I’ve seen…and that’s part of the point – it is a pretty small movement that you folks have got going on.
Johnny,
You can speak of only partaking in laws that comply to God’s commands but you cannot back it up so you are bailing. And nobody else from your movement would even answer questions and dialogue. Unless you are a hermit living on an as-of-yet undiscovered island then you pay taxes and your taxes are being used to fund abortion. Declaring that you live in a panacea does not make it so.
Turn and run then – you are here on your own free will and can jump on at any point.
Jesus could have become king over law – He didn’t – he became king over death. The thought that Jesus came to put together a theocratic society simply doesn’t have much support.
Again though – the AHA has some good tenants – but it reminds me of Occupy Wall Street – a bunch of mad people with really little vision, little plans, little mass – I know that you guys seemingly are a bunch of Christians, and that’s great – though the little bit from this conversation makes me scared of the type of Christianity that you seem to promote – which seems less about saving people, and more about taking over a country and making people abide by Biblical tenants.
Ex-RINO, wow. Where did all that logic and clearness of thought come from? One more comment like those and I am going to be forced to like your comments.
Ex-GOP,
I am sorry that you think we are a small, theocratic, visionless, occupy Wall Street type of group. Perhaps you might stumble on to some videos, plans, declarations, and strategy documents written or delivered by abolitionists sometime and take a closer look at what we are actually about. I hope that what you think about AHA is not simply a result of what you’ve been told to think by writers like Jill Stanek and Troy Newman. There is a lot more to abolitionism than what they present. And there is a lot written about abolitionism by abolitionist out there on the internet if you ever want to look into it for real. We sure could use you.
Russell
http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
Yes Johnny. Until Jesus comes again we have the Holy Spirit to guide us and help us. And the Holy Spirit tells me that if you can outlaw barbaric acts of murder incrementally then by all means do so. If you lived when slavery was legal would you have voted against any laws making murder illegal because they did not cover blacks. And you would have done so in the name of Jesus while thousands got legally murdered. It makes no sense.
T Russell Hunter, I have seen your dog and pony show a couple of times now and it appears to me that you avoid responding to questions when people try to engage in genuine dialogue to figure out what you are about and instead you respond by continually posting links.
Tell me, would you have voted against the BAIPA to protect infants born alive in botched abortions?
T Russell –
Let me further explain myself and the comparison to OWS.
OWS was big into educating people and saying things that were structurally wrong, but the movement didn’t seem to have any leaders, directions, goals, hopes, and path to a better place.
I’ve been to the AHA website, and it seems like the goal is to simply to get all Americans to understand Christ and all of the sudden eliminate abortion. Now, that’s a great goal – love it – but even you’ve got to admit that it’s a bit of a stretch – the Bible is pretty clear that we live in a wicked world, we’ll have enemies around us always – the thought that America is all of the sudden going to be 100% willing Christians just isn’t much of a plan to work off of (if I’m not understanding the AHA plan – that might be clue number 2 that your movement has an issue).
So then you folks waltz in and criticize people that have a plan.
Protest is good – alternatives are better.
The pro-life plan drives me nuts to – believe me – but if I measured the faulty, yet existence plan of the pro-lifers up against the seemingly non-existent plan of the AHA…well, I’m just saying that I don’t think the AHA has a lot of rights going anywhere and throwing stones.
So where am I wrong? Feel free to lay out the plan. I’m here.
Yes, T Russell Hunter, there is more to AHA than you present. There is also the fact that you call post abortive women murderers, whores, sluts and unforgiven. I don’t need Jill to tell me that. I experienced it and witnessed it.
Troy Newman said,
“I see the followers of aha and little rusty can spend countless hours on the Internet attacking people they hate. But they can’t seem to take to the streets and do anything productive to save even one baby. This is the height of hypocrisy.”
That’s all you’ve got? Slander? Lies? Meanness?
Yep. Evidently, that’s all you’ve got.
If you say “AHA, like Planned Parenthood, opposes the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” is it fair to say “GOP lawmakers, like National Abortion Federation Frances Kissling, support the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”?
Kissling: “We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases. … Abortions in the second trimester, especially after 20 weeks, need to be considered differently from those that happen early in pregnancy. … If we don’t suggest sensible balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies – and, eventually, no choices at all.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021802434.html
Truth Seeker,
You said “even with abolitionists siding with the pro-aborts like Barack Obama we were able to outlaw the practice of delivering babies to the head and stabbing them in the skull with scissors.” I guess you are referring to the partial birth abortion ban. That was actually passed by Bush right? Also, maybe you can tell me how many millions of dollars were spent on passing that and then tell me how many babies it actually saved? The answer is zero. That pro-life court decision encouraged doctors to find less offensive ways to kill the baby. Way to go Pro-Life community!
If this bill fails will the pro-lifers posting here advocate like NRTL did in 2006 with HR6099? This legislation would have required that the abortionist inform the woman that the child may feel pain and required that they offer anesthesia for the child! I cannot understand how brothers and sisters in Christ can be so blind. Read HR6099 for a great example of the incremental legislation that pro-lifers have spent millions to pass. It is wrong to do evil that good may come of it. (Romans 3:8)
Laura,
Post-abortive women can have forgiveness through Christ. However, they are guilty of murder thus they are murders. They can either be repentant murderer or an unrepentant murderer. But also consider this. If we lived in a Just society, women who had killed their child would be prosecuted for murder. Justice would be the death penalty or at least life in prison.
Mark, the abortionist is the murderer. The mother is the person who paid the murderer. Except when it’s the father who paid the murderer. And except when it’s the father who paid the mother who paid the murderer.
Does this makes sense?
Praxedes, In a court of law, when a person pays someone else to murder a person, then the person who did the hiring is also charged as a 1st degree murderer. Are you not aware of how this justice works?
There’s going to be an awful lot of abortionists and post-abortive fathers executed or in prison for life with your idea of justice, Diana.
I oppose the death penalty but I’m real good with putting fathers in jail who coerce/threaten/abuse/pay women and girls to get them to go to the abortionist’s lair.
I hope you can handle this concept.
Just to be clear I do not favor retroactive punishment of abortion conspirators. It would be hypocritical of the govt to prosecute for what it once said was legal. That being said, if justice was executed swiftly and decisively whenever innocent blood was shed and specifically if the death penalty was applied, there would be a marked decrease in bloodshed.
“there would be a marked decrease in bloodshed.”
Not necessarily.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies
Mark, it’s interesting how you sidestepped around whore, slut and unforgiven. No response for that?
Laura,
I believe anyone involved in child sacrifice who has not repented is unforgiven. Generally, the other words I could not see myself using although if those labels fit based on my knowledge of the situation I would not sugar coat my condemnation of sexual immorality. Do you agree that someone who willingly hires a surgical hit man to kill a child is guilty of murder? Don’t you think the most loving thing you could for her is to tell her as much and then deliver the gospel? Or do you believe she is always a victim?
There’s going to be an awful lot of abortionists and post-abortive fathers executed or in prison for life with your idea of justice, Diana.
Think how many innocent, helpless babies have been executed for no other reason than that they were an inconvenience.
All those who have been complicit in this bloodshed may not have justice meted out to them in this life, but they will stand before the only Righteous Judge and give an account for their lives.
I pray they will repent before then and work as hard against abortion – to save the lives of babies – as they did in support of it, as did Dr. Bernard Nathanson.
I’m not sure who spoke of women hiring “surgical hit men”, but, WOW, that phrase is so accurate.
“although if those labels fit based on my knowledge of the situation I would not sugar coat my condemnation of sexual immorality”
I do not believe women are always victims in the case of abortion by any means. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t — many times it is both parents. Some men beg to save their child to no avail.
However, I never hear men with loose sexual morals being referred to as “sluts” and “whores” or even “murderer” in the case of threatening/paying for abortion.
What names do you think these sexually immoral men should be referred to as, Mark?
“That was actually passed by Bush right?”
Mark Flaherty, It was signed into law by Bush but Obama voted against the PBA ban and Barack and Michelle worked tirelessly to try and prevent it from passing.
“Also, maybe you can tell me how many millions of dollars were spent on passing that and then tell me how many babies it actually saved?”
Mark, I am not sure of the dollars invested but if making it illegal stopped one woman or one late-term abortionist from delivering babies to the shoulders and stabbing them in the head with a scissors then it was money well spent.
Claire, It’s not my law; it’s God’s law that says, “You shall not murder.” And it’s His justice that needs to be mirrored in any nation.
It’s actually very unloving to be passive and legislatively incremental in outlawing abortion and administering proper justice to the murderers.
King David said it best when he said, “The law of the Lord is perfect, CONVERTING the soul. . .” (Psalm 19:7) (emphasis mine.)
The law is there to help people see their need for the Savior. If you keep leaving abortion as just another “choice,” that’s endlessly being regulated, then you’re not really being sincere when you say that you pray for the abortionists to repent of their baby murder as Nathanson did.
“Post-abortive women can have forgiveness through Christ. However, they are guilty of murder thus they are murders”
I have to call you on your ignorance here Mark. You obviously have had little to know interaction with repentant post-abortive mothers. Many are no more guilty of murder than you would be if you fell asleep at the wheel of a car and killed somebody. The whole reason many regret their abortions is because they knew not what they doing.
And for you to post such harsh comments and call them murderers is not just wrong it is callous and abusive and shows me how closed minded you are on this whole topic. If you are not callous and abusive and closed-minded then you start your next post with an apology to every repentant post-abortive woman who has ever had the misfortune to hear you speak.
Same goes to you Diana
“That pro-life court decision encouraged doctors to find less offensive ways to kill the baby”
Wrong again Mark. It made it illegal to partially deliver them to kill them. Injecting the womb with saline and burning them alive is just as offensive but you wouldn’t vote to stop that either.
What names do you think these sexually immoral men should be referred to as, Diana?
Words of Diana Kline’s at her blog, “Over the past forty-two years in the war to abolish human abortion, the Christian community, as a whole, has put all of their allocated time, money and resources into para-church ministries known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPC’s) as their sole means of trying to end abortion. Sadly, with this defensive approach as their only strategy, the war to ending abortion will never be won”
How can CPC’s be the Christian communities only strategy when you are here complaining about the strategy of Christian incrementalists, Diana? Confusing.
Praxedes, I said the Christian communities, as a whole,[as in: NOT a 100%] are using CPC’s as their only strategy to ending abortion. Sorry I confused you. If you don’t believe me, just go to any evangelical church and ask them what they are doing to end abortion and you will discover that they will tell you that donating and volunteering at a CPC is, in fact, the only thing (if anything) that they are doing to end abortion.
And, BTW, I believe that the majority of people who are involved in legislative incrementalism are NOT Christians.
NARAL HATES the work CPCs do too. Imagine that.
CPCs existed under different names before abortion was ever legal so they have never been coming from a standpoint of a defensive approach. They are just really being noticed now by the proaborts who are feeling threatened.
“just go to any evangelical church and ask them”
You’d have to actually ask individual church members. A church might be vocal that it takes up collections/support for a CPC but that doesn’t mean that is all that prolifers in that church do. Did you ever think that not all prolifers volunteer to AHA folks specifically what they are doing to fight abortion? Why do you think that might be?
BTW, What names do you think these sexually immoral men should be referred to as, Diana? What names do you think Mark thinks sexually immoral men should be referred to as?
I hope these questions don’t confuse you and that is that is the reason you choose not to answer them. If you are confused, it’s okay, just admit it.
“And, BTW, I believe that the majority of people who are involved in legislative incrementalism are NOT Christians.”
And BTW Diana, I believe most people who vote against laws that would make abortions illegal are accountable for death of each and every baby that gets legally killed. That makes you accountable for more baby killing then me; cause you are misguided sinner who is responsible for the killing suffering and brutal death of every unborn child killed by late abortion; I am not cause I fight to end it.
Right ts. Dead is dead.
I heard a song by Kenny Wayne Shepherd today that made me think of this thread:
“Hey
Blue on black
Tears on a river
Push on a shove
It don’t mean much
Joker on jack
Match on a fire
Cold on ice
A dead man’s touch
Whisper on a scream
Doesn’t change a thing
Don’t bring you back
Blue on black
Oh yeah, blue on black
Blind, oh, now I see
Truth, lies, and in between
Wrong, can’t be undone
Oh slipped, from the tip of
Your tongue”
Truthseeker, All I’ve got to say to you is that I pray you find the truth that you seek because you have definitely believed the lies from Satan if you think this legislative incrementalism has or is doing anything to save any babies. You’re the ones who are responsible for allowing preborn babies under 20 weeks old to remain open game for those who profit from their killing. You have deliberately left them out of being equally protected under the law. You have blood on YOUR hands.
As to Praxedes, I HAVE ask many, many individual church people what they do to end abortion and the vast majority of answers I get from them (IF they do anything at all) is that they volunteer at or donate money to a CPC. Got it??
And finally, the reason people don’t get involved in actually ABOLISHING HUMAN ABORTION is because they can’t take the heat of being out on the front lines of our culture exposing the evil of abortion.
“can’t take the heat”
I don’t like to use LOL too often but in this case I’m gonna LOL you, Diana. More than a couple times.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Blue on black.
“What names do you think these sexually immoral men should be referred to as, Diana? What names do you think Mark thinks sexually immoral men should be referred to as?”
I don’t think I’m going to get an answer to this.
I’ll make up my own name for these guys and maybe it will take off:
AHAboys. Not the quite the same ring to it as “slut” but it’ll have to do.
The AHAgirls will have to settle for remaining sluts and whores.
Why do you keep asking that question? It’s mighty obnoxious. If a person’s name is Jennifer, I think you should call them Jennifer. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
“You’re the ones who are responsible for allowing preborn babies under 20 weeks old to remain open game for those who profit from their killing.”
Diana,
Neither of us would ever vote for a law that changed the status of any unborn child from protected to unprotected. So the difference I see between you and me is that when I see a law that would change the status of any unborn child from unprotected to protected then I will vote to save (grant protected legal status) to as many unborn children as I can. You are willing to work against laws to protect many of the unborn babies that I work to protect.
Diana,
May you be continually blessed with fortitude from the Holy Spirit as you answer God’s calling and work in fighting for the personhood of all His unborn children.
Just read the piece of legislation for yourself (link below) and you will discover that it’s all about treating preborn babies like a piece of property that you can legally destroy prior to 20 weeks old. And if a baby killer violates the Act then all he/she will be penalized with is a fine or up to five years of imprisonment or maybe both. Wow! Only five years of prison if you murder a preborn baby older than 19 weeks. But you’re free to murder babies under that age. And if you’re the mother who hired a baby killer to murder your 20+ week old preborn baby, then you won’t be charged with any criminal charges at all. How’s THAT for a so-called “pro-life” piece of legislation. Wake up people! This legislation won’t save any babies! Read the evil piece of legislation for yourself at this link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1797/text
“Just read the piece of legislation for yourself (link below) and you will discover that it’s all about treating preborn babies like a piece of property that you can legally destroy prior to 20 weeks old.”
Diana,
I don’t like that babies are considered non-persons and the property of the mother but current law already allows a mother to treat her unborn child as her property. I say pass this one and then follow it with one that save all babies over 16 months, and then 12 months and keep saving as many as possible till the unborn have personhood.
Truthseeker,
Here’s your quote: “current law already allows a mother to treat her unborn child as her property.”
My response to you: Passing this bill will SOLIDIFY and AFFIRM to women that they can unashamedly without any punishment CONTINUE to FREELY treat their unborn children like a piece of property as long as their children are under 20 weeks preborn.
Like I said before, you and those with your damaged thinking are the ones with blood on your hands because these pieces of legislation are NOT SAVING ANY BABIES. You are living an illusion!
There is no such transition from affirming preborn babies are a piece of property to all of the sudden now they are persons.
The only way that the transition from property to person can happen is when the culture has their eyes opened to the truth of what abortion does to a preborn baby after he/she has been in the hands of a baby killer.
Tragically, when you continue to affirm (via this legislation) that preborn babies at a certain age ARE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, then the culture will NEVER transition from seeing babies as a piece of property to all-of-the-sudden seeing them as persons.
If you want the culture to transition from seeing babies as a piece of property to a place of seeing the preborn as persons, then you MUST be ACTIVELY out in the front lines of the culture NOW (every week) showing and telling people what abortion does to a preborn baby and letting the people know that the only way to legally protect these babies is to establish Personhood for ALL of them without any exceptions. And part of this process includes TOTALLY REJECTING any and all legislation that continues to affirm that the preborn (at a certain age) are a piece of property. And you must be recruiting others to think, say and do the same. Which is the ONLY reason why I’m STILL on this thread communicating with you.
If you can’t see the flaws in your thinking, then I’m done with this conversation. You need to take some time in prayer and truly reflect on everything that I and other abolitionists have communicated on this thread. And you need to study that piece of legislation and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the TRUTH to you. Here’s the link again: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1797/text
My work is done on this thread.
“Like I said before, you and those with your damaged thinking are the ones with blood on your hands because these pieces of legislation are NOT SAVING ANY BABIES. You are living an illusion”
Diana,
You can work towards ending abortion in your own way but if you want to be truthful to yourself then you must admit that voting against legislation that makes it illegal to kill certain babies DOES result in the killing of what would be otherwise legally protected babies. Ask yourself why you have to lie to yourself about that?
“And if a baby killer violates the Act then all he/she will be penalized with is a fine or up to five years of imprisonment or maybe both.”
What are they being penalized with now?
Someone asked about names for immoral men and women.
In the Bible, immoral men are called whoremongers and immoral women are called whores.
Diana, the great majority of your comments to me did not address anything I’ve said. It seems you may have confused my comment(s) with someone else’s.
In my view (based on the scriptures of the Holy Bible), abortion is wrong at any time, period.
Mark Faherty,
Of the hundreds and hundreds of post-abortive women I know personally, not a single one has a story that includes “then someone called me a murderer so I repented”.
Please tell me where in the Bible Jesus called a sinner a name, aside from the ruling Jews whom He knew would remain unrepentant. If Jesus didn’t call names, why is it so very important to you to do it?
Truth Seeker- I made the following statement about Gonzales vs. Carhart which upheld the partial birth abortion ban. “That pro-life court decision encouraged doctors to find less offensive ways to kill the baby.” In response you said “Wrong again Mark. It made it illegal to partially deliver them to kill them.” Now I am going to give you a chance to rescind that statement as it is demonstrably false as you can read in this verbatim quote from Gonzales vs. Carhart which upheld the ban [see page 30 IV (A) .]
However I do not want to assume you support this court decision as the following groups do so I will ask you whether this decision was a good pro-life decision.
These groups supported the decision, did you?
National Right to Life: “applauds… ruling”
Americans United for Life: “praises ruling”
Family Research Council: “Court no longer endorses… killing of innocent, partially-born babies”
Priests for Life: “we are grateful”
Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America: “Court votes to protect babies from painful abortion”
Paul Schenck of D.C.’s National Pro-Life Action Center: “the Court… has begun to right a terrible wrong”
Troy Newman of Operation Rescue: “celebrates the… ruling… and hails the victory”
The Christian Coalition: “commends the five justices”
American Family Association Gregory Rummo article: “reason has prevailed”
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “welcomes [the] decision”
Beverly LaHaye, founder CWA: “justice was served”
D. James Kennedy’s Center for Reclaiming America: “good news for unborn children… enormously good news”
Jay Sekulow of American Center for Law & Justice: “happy to report… a significant victory”
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family: “We thank God for this victory that affirms the value of human life”
After reading this decision one can only wonder if any of the pro-lifers who praised this ruling actually read the decision? Or is it because after donors gave them millions of dollars they had to have an accomplishment to tout in their next fundraising letter? Or maybe it is because we have set our sights so low that we settle for any little bone that is thrown to us instead of trusting in Him and doing what is right no matter how much pragmatism tells us to compromise!
Let’s examine a little closer this “victory that affirms the value of human life” as Dobson said. These are just a few of the excerpts but nothing in this ruling even comes close to recognizing the right to life of the unborn. The irony is that the only thing this bill ended was one of the LESS painful ways the child can be killed. (Text in brackets is commentary)
p. 18 III (A)
If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence, the Act is inapplicable. …no crime has occurred.
[The abortionist can still perform a text-book PBA if he was attempting to remove the baby only to the navel, but it unintentionally slipped out farther, as Planned Parenthood testimony claims occurs occasionally when dilation is greater than expected. Of course an abortionist would have few witnesses to this, and could claim any intent, and possibly continue to perform PBAs as desired. As a bad law goes, this PBA ban never had even the possibility of preventing a single abortion, and further, it’s not even a very effective prohibition of the procedure itself.]
p. 20, III (C) (1)
The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact.
[Late-term abortion remains legal. Throughout the 15 years that millions of Christian pro-lifers supported this effort, many, if not most, were led to believe that this PBA ban was going to outlaw all late-term abortions. The responsibility for that flow of misinformation and the wasted years, money, and blood, lies squarely with our local and national pro-life ministries, our “conservative” media personalities, and our Christian and pro-life leaders.]
p. 23, III (C) (1)
The fatal overt act must occur after delivery to an anatomical landmark [the navel]…
[As long as the abortionist delivers the baby only to his navel, killing him at that point remains absolutely legal, and according to the justices, it is that very fact that leads them to uphold this PBA ban.]
p. 30, IV (A)
The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.
Laura,
Some of you folks are fixated on name calling. I’m not sure if you have done any ministering with abolitionists but the one’s I have been with don’t verbally assault people. I don’t stand at the clinic and yell MURDERER! But I may say, in a normal tone used in ordinary conversation that you if you go in that child sacrifice center and kill your child you will be a murderer. Or I might say God hates hands that shed innocent blood and if you kill your child you will be at enmity with God. I think it is important that people understand the gravity of what they are about to do or what they have done. Does this make more sense?
TruthSeeker
“I have to call you on your ignorance here Mark. You obviously have had little to know interaction with repentant post-abortive mothers. Many are no more guilty of murder than you would be if you fell asleep at the wheel of a car and killed somebody. The whole reason many regret their abortions is because they knew not what they doing.”
I believe in this statement lies your problem. You assume women who deny their culpability in the murder of their child are repentant. I would suggest that they are obviously not since they deny responsibility. I mean what are you suggesting? That they didn’t know that abortions kill a growing baby? I have no idea of how much experience with post abortive mothers that you have. You may well have more experience than me. However, I have about 15 years of law enforcement experience and it appears to me that you are gullible and naďve. While I think that in many situations, this would be harmless, in this case it appears you may be leading women who need to hear the truth astray by enabling them to feel like victims. Regret does not equal repentance.
“I mean what are you suggesting? That they didn’t know that abortions kill a growing baby?”
Mark,
The truth is that there is a history of pregnant women being fed lies that the life inside them is no more than a fertilized egg or a clump of cells.
And yes, not just the babies but both the babies and the mothers women who have abortion committed on them are victims of abortion. And you give a bad name to all law enforcement officers when you continue the abuse of these post abortive women with your one-size-fits-all labeling of them as murderers.
“whoremongers”
I don’t think this has caught on like “whore” and “slut” has for women.
But maybe I’m being naive.
Prax,
probably because so many men would where it as a badge of honor.
I am an abolitionist. I do not support legislation that discriminates against most babies in order to pretend to save some babies. I do not make deals with the devil because I know he is a liar.
I can honestly say that I have never called any woman a slut or a whore. I call abortion murder and talk about it being a grave and serious sin. But I don’t yell “Murderer!” at women entering abortion mills and I always tell people about the forgiveness of the sin of abortion and all other sins when I speak to them about such things.
Russell
“I do not support legislation that discriminates against most babies in order to pretend to save some babies.”
Russell, no one is asking you to pretend to save babies. Abolitionists and incrementalists can still all join together in prayer and asking for the Lord’s help to end abortion and to save our nation. Peace be with you and with your spirit.
“I can honestly say that I have never called any woman a slut or a whore.”
This is good to hear, but I haven’t seen you jump in the arena and defend women who have been called such names.
You are one of the smarter ones around here…
Well, this is an AHA thread so that’s a pretty low benchmark. But I’ll take it ;)
what’s the basis of the legal argument? From what I can tell in Arizona the question presented was is viability the only thing that matters – and thus then introduced pain as an option – which, again as I read it – was rejected in the Arizona case.
The precedent set in Roe v. Wade is that states cannot ban abortion prior to viability, and that post-viability there has to be an extremely broad exception for the “life or health” of the woman. Later rulings (following a change in the judiciary) effectively overturned parts of Roe by allowing states to restrict abortion at all stages provided the law doesn’t impose an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion, and that some forms of abortion are so barbaric that they can be banned without exception for health of the woman.
So introducing a new standard (fetal pain) does directly go against the precedent set in Roe v. Wade. Presumably, some courts would uphold the legislation and others would strike it down (thus the Supreme Court would eventually issue a definitive ruling). Supporters of “heartbeat bills” (which would ban abortions after six weeks on the grounds that the baby’s heart has started to beat by then) often point this out, noting that a 20-week fetal pain bill is no more constitutional than a 6-week heartbeat bill. So it really comes down to a judgment call as to which we think is most likely to survive judicial review under the likes of Justice Anthony Kennedy – a total ban on all abortion, or a ban on a practice two-thirds of Americans consider barbaric. His opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart should give us a good idea of what to expect.
It almost seems to me that a 20 week bill is saying “okay, we give up – we agree with viability decisions, but we think there’s one questionable loophole to consider”.
How does passing a law that directly challenges the viability criterion say “we agree with viability decisions”?
By a lot of measures – this is the most conservative supreme court in the history of the supreme court
“Conservative” is not a very well defined term. More specific and more relevant is whether this is the most anti-Roe Supreme Court (which is quite different – Justice Byron White was very anti-Roe, but he was not considered a conservative justice by any means). As it is right now, there are only two justices that are definitely against Roe v. Wade. However, there are three others that have upheld restrictions on abortion (ie the landmark Gonzales v. Carhart ruling).
why not just send them a bill that completely throws out RvWade and the viability argument and see what happens?
Simple explanation is that you pay your opponents’ legal fees if they defeat you in court. That alone is a pretty big disincentive against throwing around bills that don’t have a really good chance of being upheld (especially when they have way more money than we do). Then there’s also the question of whether it’s a better strategy to put the other side on the defence by framing the debate on the area where they’re the weakest, or to open ourselves up to attack on rape, criminal punishment (including the death penalty) for women who have abortions, birth control, and IVF – things even self-described pro-lifers evidently balk at (and get total abortion bans defeated in even the most pro-life states).
It almost seems to me like this is saying – Okay pro-lifers, you got what you want – we’ve done our part – here is the middle ground.
No, it’s part of a work-in-progress. The partial-birth abortion ban said that you can’t kill an unborn child by delivering part-way and evacuating the brains out. This one goes a step further by making other procedures done on pain-capable babies (ie dismemberment in-utero, or inducing a heart attack before delivery) illegal. The next stage could be to ask why it’s acceptable to kill a fully-formed human that can’t feel pain, but not one who can. And so on.
To draw an analogy, the gay-rights movement didn’t win right away by passing a massive constitutional amendment declaring same-sex couples equal to opposite-sex couples. It instead started off with more benign legislation like repealing sodomy bans, letting closeted gay people to serve in the military, allowing civil unions, hate-crime laws, and letting openly gay people serve in the military. They could then raise the question “So, what’s the difference between gay couples and different gendered ones?” Same-sex marriage is now recognized in 37 states. Just ten years ago, it was possible to win a presidential election by opposing gay marriage and attacking your opponent on it. Now, it’s an issue a presidential candidate would want to avoid unless he has a strong record of supporting gay rights. A gay-rights advocate would tell you that repealing the sodomy law was an important victory for human rights, not a matter of “Okay LGBT, you got what you want – we’ve done our part – here is the middle ground”. Likewise, rational pro-life advocates consider the 20-week ban an important victory for human rights and a step in the right direction, not a matter of “Okay pro-lifers, you got what you want – we’ve done our part – here is the middle ground”.
If you say “AHA, like Planned Parenthood, opposes the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” is it fair to say “GOP lawmakers, like National Abortion Federation Frances Kissling, support the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”?
If you read the quote in context, Kissling’s thesis is that pro-lifers are actually winning through the incremental strategy and will end abortion if pro-choicers continue to alienate themselves from the mainstream by attacking every proposed abortion restriction (including late-term abortion bans) because it leaves us in control of the conversation and allows us to frame the debate on our terms. She does suggest that accepting some abortion restrictions would be a better strategy for pro-choicers, though this is purely speculative (and leaves the abortion lobby with the unenviable task of determining which unborn human beings deserve legal protection and which ones don’t). Not that anyone really expected much intellectual honesty from the Bob Enyart crowd.
Also, Frances Kissling hasn’t been with the NAF since 1980. She’s no more representative of NAF’s position than Bernard Nathanson was of NARAL’s. NAF itself is very much opposed to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
Please tell me where in the Bible Jesus called a sinner a name, aside from the ruling Jews whom He knew would remain unrepentant.
Yes, Jesus called sinners (the Pharisees) names. It did not matter what their positions were – He saw their hearts and called them what they were. One clear example was that He said they were actually children of the devil, not children of God.
He also called them assorted appropriately evil names – I believe, not to condemn (as He stated in John 3:17), but to shock them out of their complacency.
It should also be noted that not all Pharisees remained unrepentant. One, Nicodemus, sought Him out for explanation and teaching. Another, Joseph of Arimathea, gave (actually, loaned) his unused tomb for Jesus’ burial.
My comment here is not to condone anyone calling anyone names. It is only to answer the comment about Jesus. I do think it noteworthy that the Lord condemns immoral men equally with immoral women in His Word. No double standard there.
Del said: “The advantage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is that it establishes the humanity and rights of children in the womb. We need for people to start thinking about this again. The law only protects a small portion of children at risk. But its effect on the public perception and appreciation of pre-born children could be immense.”
This isn’t true Del. The unintended consequence of legislation designed to regulate abortion has the exact opposite effect of what you are talking about. It undermines the very concept of the right to life. The public, politicians, and judges are taught through PRO-LIFE legislation that the uborn has no right to life. If they did then you couldn’t kill the child based on how old she is.
Here is a link which makes a very persuasive argument against incrementalism.
http://americanrtl.org/abortion-purists-burning-buildings-and-half-a-loaf
http://americanrtl.org/abortion-regulations
Just glanced at the actual text of HR 36 and now I am even more appalled as it includes “exceptions” for rape and incest. So apparently pro-life is really just a synonym for pro-choice since those behind this legislation support, in there own pro-life legislation, the right to choose to kill a child conceived in rape and the right to kill a child under 20 weeks.