AHA’s dangerous foray into cyberbullying
I’m writing today about the latest development in the Abolish Human Abortion saga, because I’m concerned someone may end up dead if this doesn’t stop.
Everyone who spends time online has heard the term “cyberbullying.” Defined, it is:
… bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites.
Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.
Particularly note, ”rumors… posted on social networking sites.”
Background first.
AHA’s communicative forté is social media, particularly Facebook, stemming from the fact it grew to prominence online.
Pro-lifers who have heard of AHA will say the group is known for attacking both the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church. (Interestingly, AHA has scrubbed several of its most flagrant attacks at the links provided.)
AHA may dispute these as its claim to fame, although it freely admits it seeks to “clash.”
I’ll not get into AHA’s problems with the Catholic Church other than to say it shuns the papal structure, which I think plays into the current situation.
As for the plm, AHA’s foremost complain is against its strategy to incrementally overturn abortion. AHA advocates “immediatism” and rejects any pro-life law with any exception whatsoever.
So, for instance, even if the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act had no rape/incest exception, AHA would oppose it because it only protects babies 20 weeks and older.
To be clear, the default position of the plm is immediatism, but given the fact that abortion is legal in the United States throughout all nine months of pregnancy, together with the judiciary and political climate, and we are at this point saving who we can when we can. This strategy is comparable to that undertaken by the Underground Railroad or Nazi resistors like Corrie ten Boom, Oskar Schindler, and Irena Sendler.
If you take AHA’s immediatism to its logical conclusion, it can only support a worldwide ban against abortion, IVF, and hormonal contraception. All other laws are incremental.
I gave that background to get to this.
In recent weeks, some AHA members have begun turning against fellow members and publicly outing many perceived sins and unrepentant sinners on Facebook. This includes accusing one person of having a mental illness. This includes posting a secretly recorded phone conversation. Some of the ”evidence” was received secondhand or even thirdhand.
Seems to me this is the natural flow of AHA’s legalism, now turning inward against its own people, although those making the accusations will say they are following Jesus’ mandate in Matthew 18 to try to turn fellow Christians from sin.
One difference is, of course, when Jesus said to “tell it to the church” after all private appeals had failed, He didn’t mean to tell it to millions of people on Facebook, both inside and outside the Church, which is how AHAers have been doing it.
In recent days, two of those “called to repentance” on Facebook were involved in a vehicle accident.
Their van was totalled, although thankfully neither they nor their children were hurt.
About this the AHA administrator who had publicly rebuked them responded, “wonder if it is divine discipline a wake up call to them.”
This is simply a heinous response.
The other problem is AHA leaders aren’t cleaning their own house by condemning these cyber witch hunters – who are posting on an AHA Facebook page or in their capacity as AHA members or administrators.
Those claiming not to be in charge say they can’t do anything because there is no hierarchal structure to AHA – because the Pope.
AHA leader Don Cooper brought up the Pope a couple times to explain why there is no one in authority to stop AHA inquisitioners in his YouTube video, “Open Rebuke on Facebook: Right or Wrong?,” in which he would not answer that question, by the way.
This denial of responsibility has become increasingly ludicrous, particularly since AHA now has many chapters, or “societies,” around the country and even in Australia, has trademarked its logo, has incorporated (in which “principals” had to be legally be named, see left) as the International Coalition of Abolitionist Societies, Inc., and has a for-profit “small business” side venture called The Basileian Group, through which it sells its wares.
In fact, it is opening the door to anarchy to deny anyone is in charge of a group.
Such as concept may work in hippy communes but not in real life, though Cooper tries (beginning at 18:56):
If indeed it was wrong what this person did in, you know, rebuking this person on Facebook, then that needs to be proven, that needs to be argued out, that needs to be, “Let’s show in the Scriptures where that’s wrong, or let’s show that the person” – you can’t just say it’s wrong, and you need to apologize for it. That’s not how it works.
Now if we were like a cult, if we were like an organization that was run by one person or maybe like this small board of people, then you could do that. The Pope of the organization could say, “Ah, you broke our rules you’re out of here. Ah, I declare that’s wrong. There’s no discussion, no debate. You can’t try and defend yourself. This is wrong, because I as the leader have decreed it wrong, and so be it. I interpret the Scriptures to say you are wrong, and that’s that. Now let’s move on.”
If the abolitionist movement or Abolish Human Abortion was that kind of entity, then that would work, right? But it’s not. The abolitionist movement is a body of believers, people who in – there’s no hierarchy of organization to say this person’s in charge except for Jesus Christ.
This is so mixed up. To even wonder whether posting a one-sided tome itemizing another person’s perceived sins on Facebook is right or wrong – is WRONG. That’s just WRONG, Don.
Some of those accusations were highly personal and embarrassing, dare I say earth-shattering to some, and the Internet never forgets. Google a person’s name, and AHA accusations pop up? (Will someone sue?)
Then to create a straw man, in this case the Pope, to rationalize why leaders of an organization can’t censure behavior that might go so far as to send a weak or unstable person over the bend to harm him or herself is also WRONG, Don.
So if AHA leadership can’t come out and say it, I will: STOP with the Facebook witch hunts before someone gets hurt, or worse.
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.
AHA IS a cult! I’ve long believed it. They are not saved. They are not redeemed. They are a bunch of fleshly pharisees hoping their works (fighting Catholics, fighting the pro-life movement) will earn them a place with God. They are sadly deceived.
But now that you’ve mentioned AHA they’ll be coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches to defend themselves.
“Now if we were like a cult, if we were like an organization that was run by one person or maybe like this small board of people, then you could do that. The Pope of the organization could say, “Ah, you broke our rules you’re out of here. Ah, I declare that’s wrong. There’s no discussion, no debate. You can’t try and defend yourself. This is wrong, because I as the leader have decreed it wrong, and so be it. I interpret the Scriptures to say you are wrong, and that’s that. Now let’s move on.””
That is…not how the Pope thing works. But okay, let’s pretend that it is. Who, if this organization is not “run by one person,” decided that “you can’t just say that it’s wrong”? Maybe everyone in this “body of believers” that makes up AHA decided that you CAN just say that it’s wrong, and who is this guy to say that they can’t? I mean, he’s certainly not THEIR LEADER so why does it matter what he says “can” or “can’t” be done?
I would have loved AHA so much, when I was pro-choice.
Alan Maricle is the person who posted multiple phone conversations in one thread. He’s a kook fringe type who is best ignored, but this particular offending post garnered 100+ responses. It is red meat to the radicals. Also of note is the church that Russell Hunter, Toby Harmon and others in the movement attend is an abolitionist only congregation. My conclusion is that their view of church apathy was an occasion to remove themselves from any mainstream ecclesial structure and sink farther into a Christian ghetto (they’ll be the “lone true dissidents” doncha know). It is too bad because they’ve alienated most all of their natural allies in this most worthy cause.
Many movements have been and are divided by tactics and temperament. In the American abolitionist movement against slavery in the 19th century William Lloyd Garrison was one of the important leaders of the no compromise movement in his outspoken attacks against slavery and also his attacks against abolitionists who he considered compromisers. Garrison and some of his devoted followers even thought that working through the channels of political parties was a compromise. I surmise that if I had been living in those times I would have been somewhere between the stance of William Lloyd Garrison and the anti-slavery moderates. And I suppose that has largely defined my general position through many years of the pro-life, anti-abortion struggle. I think some of the mainstream pro-life leaders and groups have been too moderate, just as I have thought that violence against abortionists has been too extreme. (Though there are times in history when wicked tyranny and destruction cannot be overcome by moderation.) May our Lord and Savior give us spiritual power, grace, wisdom and courage in our dealings against both our enemies and our friends. I would rather try to have and fight with the help of the Spirit of God rather than with the spirit of the flesh.
AHA had the appeal to me of tackling the pathetic apathy and two-faced nature of established churches stance towards abortion. While that, by definition, means that they were going to make enemies, I can live with making enemies with hypocrites.
Indeed, I sleep _better_ having called a spade who – by deeds and purposeful inaction – supports abortion a bloody-handed spade. Imagine if the allied powers in WW2 took the established churches’ position: we’d _still_ have death camps!
However, somewhere along the way, early in, they forgot that this isn’t a theoretical fight, but is very, very real, with individual humans that can be saved or killed on the altar of “perfection now”. And the vitriol spread out beyond those who well deserve bile, but to everyone in general.
I just find the situation to be very sad.
I have not seen any biblical basis to this article whatsoever. I am a member of AHA. I would agree that sometimes we can be a little too quick to discount anyone who says they are a believer. However we are constantly at the mill listening to “christian” people who are going to murder their children. We are not above reproach, but we are also not going to back down on the catholic paganism or the evilness of incrementalism. We are called to be salt and light to this world. The body of Christ needs to wake up, just as in the protestant reformation……… Also AHA is not an organization but an ideology. There are groups that are formed off of this ideology just as the conservative movement.
How exactly is one a member of an Ideology?
Those crazy abolitionists! Preaching the gospel and not the pragmatism of man! How dare they call murder murder! How dare they expose the unfruitful deeds of darkness! You are right. The cry Abolish human abortion is a cult! Battle Cries are always cults! The ones who encourage you to fellowship with other believers and do not put a heavy hand of strict leadership over you are cults! Not those ones who criticize you for preaching the truth no matter how harsh it is. Everyone should trust in the wisdom of man and not in the truth of the scripture! EVIL CULT! CALLING SIN SIN! We should call those who kill children victims. We should treat Abortion like the world and call it health care.. How dare these guys try to stand for righteousness! Religious hypocrite pharisees! How dare they defend themselves! Paul definitely never said do you hate me because I bring the truth? Jude 3 definitely does not tell us to contend for the faith. These heretical self righteous hypocrites! ARG! MAKES ME ANGRY! They are adopting babies, fostering children, Taking in homeless people and people just out of prison into their homes. How dare they practice pure undefiled religion and think other christians should honor the word as well! ARRRGGG! SO ANGRY!
Gosh, Jill, it seems like only yesterday that you were giving AHA verbal pats on the head and declaring that “They won’t get any condemnation from me for holding [blasphemers’] feet to the fire while there’s still time to repent.” What are you going to do with this website, now that you consider it inappropriate to post secretly recorded conversations, private medical information, secondhand information, and rumor on social media?
Michael, I think that was a bit of miscommunication. People toss out the word “member” too much. There are no members of AHA by a proper use of the word. I think Tyler was trying to communicate about being an abolitionist that adopts the AHA ideology, which I would just say is biblical, faithful Christianity. one purpose of the label “abolitionist” is to distinguish the teachings we’re trying to embrace that others are either apathetic toward or are ashamed of. The abolitionist societies tend to be more group oriented, where the word “member” becomes more appropriate, but you still have to be careful about what is meant when debating that in various contexts. For example, from my view, abolition is just vital Christianity (source: Wilberforce), and the only membership in Christianity is membership in Christ. A lot of churches add their own “membership” which is an extra-biblical covenant that I don’t personally believe in. That use of the word “membership” is comparable to what you are if you join some kind of club, cult, etc. I don’t know of any abolitionist societies (which according to Scripture, are local churches) that have official membership. The norm seems to be that there are Christians believing what Scripture says, seeing that others don’t, and so they take up a label of abolitionist to make that distinction known, and they meet with one another and follow Christ’s commands. If you want to use the word “member” for that, you can. Just kinda awkward. That’s like saying my friends are members of our friendship. It’s true, but it’s awkward. Anyway, consider these things when you hear this “member” stuff thrown around. I know abolitionist who don’t have AHA t-shirts or call themselves abolitionists. They just do what Christ commanded them to do and confront the culture about it’s evil, offering The Gospel, and trying to heal everything that is broken. If they put on an AHA t-shirt tomorrow, do they suddenly go from being the most faithful of believers to cult members? Anyway, just think about it. I’m just trying to follow the Scriptures fully… love God and neighbors with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. That’s why I’m an abolitionist. Just because people say things about us doesn’t make them true, even if way out of context evidence with no mercy about our imperfections makes it appear so.
“I would have loved AHA so much, when I was pro-choice.”
You people are all too much. You both accuse Pro-choice people of being in bed with the other side.They say I am supposed to love you guys because you are creating easy to follow ground rules that allow my personal holocaust to continue with great profitability for you and me.
The simple truth is that they are kooks, and you are jerks. I have no desire to see AHA grow, but they are more interesting to me than the pro-life movement in so far as they tend to be less cynical. Or they come across as more honest. It depends on who I am talking to I suppose. They sell hats and paper. You all seem to have your little abortion home businesses as well. All the pots and kettles are black.
I have been involved in a couple conversations regarding the AHA adherents in question with people on their Facebook page including Rhology, and it pains me to say your posting is gleefully inaccurate. Is it somehow surprising that people who believe themselves to be ideologically pure when compared with the likes of you, will be rigorous in policing themselves? The conversation I mentioned was disappointing to me because of what I perceive as an unwillingness to apply the same sort of pressure to guide one of their number who is not as committed to nonviolence as they pledge to be in one of their often shared links. An attempt was made to explain the dichotomy to me, but it ultimately did not mean much to me because of the vagaries of religion, but an attempt was made. Pro-lifers have a direct analogue of that person in their ranks, and I would not bother calling that person out, because they are celebrated, and their bad deeds have been whitewashed. I read their essays on yours sites.
This post reeks of page view mongering, and since it is not on Facebook, I guess you get page view revenue.
Michael Saint I misspoke when i said AHA. I am an active member of the JacksonAHA society. A group that aligns themselves with the AHA ideology.
Yep. There are real human beings that make real mistakes, who hold to the ideology of AHA. Surprise, surprise! lol
I’m thinking that those who make them will learn as they go, just like the rest of us.
However, online predators of young girls should be outed, IMO.
Be assured, it is all being discussed and correction is being given, between brothers and sisters, where it is needed.
“Let them be ashamed and brought to mutual confusion who seek to destroy my life; Let them be driven backward and brought to dishonor who wish me evil. Let them be confounded because of their shame, who say to me, “Aha, aha!’ Let all those who seek You rejoice and be glad in You; Let such as love Your salvation say continually, ‘The LORD be magnified!’ Ps. 40:14
People are not members of AHA, they are are members of their local autonomous abolitionist societies. Why is that SO hard to remember?
Just because one abolitionist posts some stuff on Facebook does not mean EVERY abolitionist across the globe agrees with him.
So stop referring to what one person or several persons did or will do as AHA.
AHA is a symbol that represents an ideology.
It sounds like you are cyber-bullying. Maybe you should take this down, we wouldn’t want any abolitionists killing themselves now would we?
If someone gets killed because of all this, it will most likely be by someone who is motivated by articles such as this one. That’s the way things usually work. Who ends up throwing Molotov cocktails and overturning police cars at anti-war rallies? The peace activists, of course. Same here. Who will end up doing violence? No doubt it will be someone who has been convinced by sensational and incendiary blog entries such as this that he is doing the world a favor.
Nobody expects the Stanek Inquisition!
“As for the plm, AHA’s foremost complain is against its strategy to incrementally overturn abortion.”
No, Abolitionists have 5 chief complaints. You’re just picking the one you most disagree with.
“To be clear, the default position of the plm is immediatism, but…”
That’s a pretty big “but”.
“If you take AHA’s immediatism to its logical conclusion, it can only support a worldwide ban against abortion, IVF, and hormonal contraception. All other laws are incremental.”
This simply isn’t true. One of the undergirding principles of immediatism is that it is wrong to tell the world abortion is wrong for reasons other than why it is actually wrong. This silly notion of “geographical immediatism” put forth by yourself and Andy is nonsense and has been shown to be wrong a number of times.
“the natural flow of AHA’s legalism,”
Define legalism. I usually find people to use this extra-biblical (or non-biblical, if you prefer) term in an ambiguous way in order to make it stick and sound bad. I imagine you don’t want to bully or slander people on the internet, so I would like to know the exact nature of this charge.
“there is no hierarchal structure to AHA – because the Pope.”
Take note, Jill. This is what a strawman looks like. The cry against a top-down approach is not because of the existence of the Pope. No, abolitionists would argue against this with things like the priesthood of believers, injunctions against partiality, etc. Likening hierarchies to the Roman Catholic Magisterium might be used as a device to illustrate differences by overstatement or metaphor. No, you’re statement is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation.
Perhaps you should use some sort of Scripture or ethical argumentation in your article rather than throwing around words like ‘cyberbullying’, ‘legalism’ and ‘witch hunts’.
PS. Don used the Pope as a metaphor, it was not a strawman.
AHA,the Westboro Baptists of the pro-life movement.
They know NOTHING of the Catholic Church,are hateful to others, and know less than zero of humility.
AHAers miss the entire point of my post, which was, to recap: Leaders now risk dangerous ramifications because 1) their people are turning their legalism against themselves; 2) leaders have become trapped by their own rhetoric, thus emasculating themselves from stopping aberrant members from doing crazy stuff.
This thread is so typical of every thread I can recall involving AHA. I want to defend them. I have tried to understand and defend their position. I have not met one willing admit to having made a mistake. I have walked away to wonder what could they know of Christ? He came for sinners. If you would actually check out the Catholic Church, you may learn about that. After all, we are full of sinners, from the Pope all the way down to me. Please come back home. Time flies, Eternity waits.
Ah yes…the typical response of those with the “AHA ideology”. Self-righteously castigate those who call attention to your bad behavior, don’t actually castigate those engaging in the bad behavior.
Chase,
What does that even mean “they are members of an Abolitionist only church?”
Where do you get your information?
AHA’s central problem—if it has no authority over its societies, and no authority of the behavior of its believers, then it has no authority to make any declarations at all.
“Abolitionism is biblical ….” Says who? Who has the authority to say Abolitionism is biblical? Who in AHA says what is and isn’t biblical?
You see why the idea of AHA falls on its face? They’re self-contradicting.
This is the word I’ve come to mostly associate with this group.
dog·ma·tism
?dô?m??tiz?m/
noun
noun: dogmatism
the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.
“a culture of dogmatism and fanaticism”
dog·ma·tism
\?d?g-m?-?ti-z?m, ?däg-\
noun
1 :positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 :a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises
“This strategy is comparable to that undertaken by the Underground Railroad or Nazi resistors like Corrie ten Boom, Oskar Schindler, and Irena Sendler.”
Well no it’s not because AHA does seek to save babies at abortion mills and what the Nazi resisters did was not legislative reform of killing. A fairer comparison would be supporting a Nazi law that lessened the number of Jews that could be killed each year. The law would be both immoral and a waste of time. It is BETTER to work to change the culture and work in individual saves than to spend time and money on compromised laws. We can argue about which are moral and immoral, compromised and uncompromising. I have some disagreements with AHA proponents on this, but it’s obvious this regulation strategy has failed to end abortion. Let’s set the axe to the root.
Jay Rogers,
You stated, “It is BETTER to work to change the culture …”
I agree that changing the culture is important, but I believe that is part of the issue … AHA alienates allies in this endeavor with anti-Catholic rhetoric. Is changing the culture important? Then work with allies to change the culture rather than using terms like “catholic paganism.” How exactly does this term change the culture other than make AHA look like Westboro Baptist?
Cranky Catholic,
Who says Abolitionism is biblical?
Historical Abolitionism does. Historical reform movements do.
The nature of Abolitionism itself does.
Abolitionists of today, read history books on Abolitionism, and saw the common thread that the principles they adhered to and promoted were biblical.
“their people are turning their legalism against themselves;”
Still waiting on that definition of legalism.
Brian: I think of Phariseeism, “the behavior of a sanctimonious and self-righteous person; hypocritical observance of the letter of religious or moral law without regard for the spirit; sanctimoniousness.”
Russell Kirk, in “The Errors of Ideology,” wrote:
“Ideology makes political compromise impossible: the ideologue will accept no deviation from the Absolute Truth of his secular revelation. This narrow vision brings about civil war, extirpation of ‘reactionaries.’ and the destruction of beneficial functioning social institutions. Ideologues vie one with another in fancied fidelity to their Absolute Truth; and they are quick to denounce deviationists or defectors from their party orthodoxy. Thus fierce factions are raised up among the ideologues themselves, and they war mercilessly and endlessly upon one another…”
Cranky Catholic,
“Who in AHA says what is and isn’t biblical?”
That’s not how truth claims about what is and isn’t in the Bible work…
“AHA alienates allies in this endeavor with anti-Catholic rhetoric.”
That is possible. However, most evangelicals who see Roman Catholics as co-belligerents in the fight against abortion do so on an individual basis. We don’t ally with the Roman Catholic church or Catholic doctrines that we see as aberrant or heretical.
I am of the opinion that these anti-Roman diatribes and debates ought to occur outside the arena of fighting abortion, that is, when we are at the mill, lobbying, etc. The enemy is the child killer and those who support child killing, not pro-life Catholics. But no one can control evangelicals who want to debate doctrine with pro-life Catholics on-line. They should watch their spirit when they do so, but such discussion can be healthy.
This thread is like a lot of other threads I’ve seen about the AHA ideology.
Angry anti-AHA person: “AHA people are mean, nasty, unforgiving, arrogant, self-righteous, and have zero humility. Oh yeah, and they are so judgmental.”
AHA person: “The church should repent of its complacency about the murder of our neighbors. And the Gospel, not human wisdom, is the only answer.”
Angry anti-AHA person: “There, see what I mean!”
Looks like we’ve got two “Eric”s commenting now.
I have to say that I am more offended at the anti-Puritan “Scarlet Letter” graphics in this article. Witches and adulterers good. Puritans mean and intolerant. It shows a complete ignorance of the fact that liberal historians have handed us a revisionist crock of beans on the Puritans. I suppose it is consistent though because abolitionists would be more in line with the historical Puritans than the average pro-life ministry. Ironically, I wear your Puritan slur as a badge of honor.
“The enemy is the child killer and those who support child killing, not pro-life Catholics”
Nicely said Jay Rogers.
“Looks like we’ve got two “Eric”s commenting now.”
Yeah, I was just about to ask about that.
It’s fairly accurate to portray the abolitionists as Puritans – that would be a huge compliment.
Puritanism, a religious reform movement in the late 16th and 17th centuries that sought to “purify” the Church of England of remnants of the Roman Catholic “popery” that the Puritans claimed had been retained after the religious settlement reached early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Puritans became noted in the 17th century for a spirit of moral and religious earnestness that informed their whole way of life, and they sought through church reform to make their lifestyle the pattern for the whole nation. Their efforts to transform the nation contributed both to civil war in England and to the founding of colonies in America as working models of the Puritan way of life. – Encyclopedia Britannica
The witches must rightly be seen as pro-abortionists and those who compromise with them.
Witchcraft, the exercise or invocation of alleged supernatural powers to control people or events, practices typically involving sorcery or magic. Although defined differently in disparate historical and cultural contexts, witchcraft has often been seen, especially in the West, as the work of crones who meet secretly at night, indulge in cannibalism and orgiastic rites with the Devil, and perform black magic. Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world. The intensity of these beliefs is best represented by the European witch-hunts of the 14th to 18th century, but witchcraft and its associated ideas are never far from the surface of popular consciousness and—sustained by folk tales—find explicit focus from time to time in popular television and films and in fiction. – Encyclopedia Britannica
“Cyberbullying” is the wrong term here. This is what occurs in schools. Exposing sin on the internet is not cyberbullying. It could be considered “cyberstalking” if the behavior is frequent and orchestrated against a single person or a group of persons.
Cyberbullying — Refers specifically to cyberstalking and harassment committed by minors and directed at other minors using the Internet to threaten or humiliate another person with words, photos, or videos. The problem received particular attention in 2010 when a male Rutgers University student committed suicide after two acquaintances reportedly streamed a video over the Internet of the student having a sexual encounter with a man. – Encyclopedia Britannica
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s book, “The Scarlet Letter,” is about a woman who is forced to publicly wear her sin of adultery for all the world to see, while others who judge her go about freely with their secret sins.
That was the point I assumed the graphic was making, and if so, I would say the graphic fits here, since it seems to reference the novel – not Puritans in general.
I don’t care much about all the personal stuff involved in all of this.
But I do care greatly about ending the abortion holocaust in America, before any more innocents are killed, and before God runs out of patience with us and destroys our country.
That’s why I think the misunderstandings expressed in the following two paragraphs MUST be addressed:
“So, for instance, even if the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act had no rape/incest exception, AHA would oppose it because it only protects babies 20 weeks and older. To be clear, the default position of the plm is immediatism, but given the fact that abortion is legal in the United States throughout all nine months of pregnancy, together with the judiciary and political climate, and we are at this point saving who we can when we can. This strategy is comparable to that undertaken by the Underground Railroad or Nazi resistors like Corrie ten Boom, Oskar Schindler, and Irena Sendler.”
The moral, constitutional and legal problems with the so-called “Pain Capable” legislation exist whether a rape and incest exception is included or not. Why? Because these statutes are intrinsically flawed. They abandon the principle of God-given, unalienable, individual rights and the equal protection requirement of our Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land.
We shouldn’t oppose these bills because, as the author says, “it only protects babies 20 weeks and older.” We should oppose them because, like many other reputedly “pro-life” bills, they codify, they grant explicit license, or permission, in the laws to kill babies, ALL of the babies, as long as those babies are killed on schedule and by an arbitrary set of man-made rules.
This is immoral and unconstitutional, and amounts to the surrendering of the only two real moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion on demand, right up front.
How would you feel about a “law” that granted “legal” permission to kill YOU, as long as it was done on time, before Christmas let’s say? How moral or constitutional would you believe a “law” to be if it granted a license to kill Grandma, as long as you gave her enough morphine first? How about a license to kill a paraplegic by shooting them in the heart? Hey, they wouldn’t feel a thing, right?
Sounds crazy. But the fact is, there is no qualitative difference between what I describe above and the “pro-life” legislation in question.
Then there’s this:
“…given the fact that abortion is legal in the United States throughout all nine months of pregnancy…”
The only way you can logically posit this is if you have accepted the primary assertion of Roe, which is that the child in the womb is not a human person.
But the fact is that the child in utero IS a human person, and therefore, abortion is most definitely NOT legal.
Even Blackmun and his majority colleagues in Roe readily admitted this in their written opinion. They said that if the “fetus” is a person “OF COURSE” they are protected by the explicit provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
To accept the main premise of the pro-aborts is, once again, to surrender the entire battle right up front, every time.
The author references “the judiciary [sic] and political climate…” as an excuse for obviously flawed legislation. Did you ever stop and think why such a climate exists? Could it be because “our side” has for too long sacrificed the only real weapons/arguments against abortion, in the courts, and in the court of public/political opinion?
The writer then asserts the usual Utilitarian canard in defense of these lawless laws: “we are at this point saving who we can when we can.” But sadly, that isn’t true, in principle or in practice. By sacrificing the Christian argument, the biblical argument, the moral argument, the constitutional argument, the legal argument, the PRINCIPLED argument, and replacing it with a very poor Utilitarian substitute, you are in fact assuring the continuation of abortion on demand.
This strategy has utterly and completely failed, unsurprisingly. Would anyone be shocked that an army failed to reach a stated objective when, before going into battle, all the soldiers stripped buck naked and threw down every bit of ammunition and weaponry that they possessed?
And finally, the oft-repeated assertion is made that: “This strategy is comparable to that undertaken by the Underground Railroad or Nazi resistors like Corrie ten Boom, Oskar Schindler, and Irena Sendler.”
This is simply untrue. The “pro-life movement,” along with the “pro-life” legislators and chief executives allied with it, is not in the governmental position of any those heroes. They are in the power position, governmentally-speaking, that the Nazi Party was in in Germany in the Twenties, Thirties and Forties. They are the ones making and enforcing the laws, are they not?
If you have the governmental power to regulate mass murder, you have the power to end it completely, in keeping with God’s imperative command, and in line with the stated purposes and absolute equal protection requirement of the supreme law of our land, the Constitution, as every single elected official has sworn a sacred oath to God Himself to do.
I pray that those reading this will not simply reject what I’m saying based on some personal bias.
I’m telling you the truth. Please listen.
If we will simply stand together in unity around self-evident truth, eternal principle, and the requirements of our Constitutions, and STOP COMPROMISING WHAT SHOULD NEVER BE COMPROMISED, we will end this holocaust so fast it will make your head spin.
Because if we will finally, simply, humbly do what is right, and give no place to the child-killing evil-doers, God will be on our side in the fight.
I am so sick of AHA people copying and pasting anything and everything! It’s like they don’t have a brain in their own head, and they have to use the umbrella’s ideas. Oh, wait! There is no umbrella organization, according to the peons.
The peons can say what they want, but the truth is they pay for ideas, they pay for signs, they pay for t-shirts, they pay for those awful drop cards. They pay to go get told, by the un-umbrella people, that the AHA way is the only way to get rid of abortion, and hey! Here’s a new t-shirt and new signs for this month’s meeting!!
And, I get the impression this is just a PHD project for T Russell Hunter.
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
Romans 12:2
“I urge you, then, be imitators of me.”
1 Corinthians 4:16
“Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”
1 Corinthians 11:1
Thanks for the encouragement, Frannie. Peons for Christ!
EXCEPT Tom Hoefling and all other AHA people–these bills do NOT “give license.” Roe and Doe ALREADY GAVE LICENSE! Do you not see this? How can you not? They were “given license” January 22 1973 and these bills take away parts of that license. But you’re perfectly fine letting babies die as long as you get points for feeling morally superior. I understand your point that these bills are not enough and no pro-lifer is saying they are. We’re saying it is a START. We didn’t say ‘hey! Now that this pain capable bill is passed we’re gonna stop and go home.”
Our ultimate goal is ending ALL abortion throughout the WORLD but as Jill pointed out, until that day, according to you (if you were consistent) any pro-life measure is a compromise and can’t be supported because it doesn’t end ALL abortion immediately.
AHA Eric– except you AHA folks didn’t say “The church should repent of its complacency about the murder of our neighbors. And the Gospel, not human wisdom, is the only answer.”
You named SPECIFIC people to “repent” citing no Scripture, only your own vain opinions and join the ranks of the abortionists fighting any pro-life legislation. Strange bedfellows and all that. The WAY you express yourselves is also vain, prideful, lacking true concern for others and fleshly.
I probably agree with quite a few things AHA believes and I’m a born again Christian but I cannot tolerate the absolute HATEFUL and LEGALISTIC way that AHA people conduct themselves. And then when you’re called on it your defense is “But we’re just like, an ideology, man!” WHATEVER. You’re a HATEFUL ideology then, like communism.
Well… I’ll say that when I still had a Facebook, and I was a non-Christian, I had multiple people from the AHA group (just random followers, not the leaders or anything) send me messages telling me I was going to hell, that I was damaging the “abolition” cause by… existing maybe?. Idk they never really explained how fighting against abortion was damaging the fight against abortion. Among other things. I didn’t consider it “bullying” but it was really not either an effective way to minister or an effective way to abolish abortion, chasing off allies is not good. And it was annoying.
And I think when you’re finding yourself working with people who have a vested financial interest in keeping abortion legal (like PP) to keep laws that would protect some babies safe from passing, you should really consider re-examining your priorities.
And not to mention how incredibly grating it is that AHA groups bash Catholicism all the time, when it’s been Catholics first and foremost that have led the pro-life movement for decades. It’s just a bigoted, nasty ideology. Some good people subscribe to it, but I think they are blind.
“You people are all too much. You both accuse Pro-choice people of being in bed with the other side.They say I am supposed to love you guys because you are creating easy to follow ground rules that allow my personal holocaust to continue with great profitability for you and me.
The simple truth is that they are kooks, and you are jerks. I have no desire to see AHA grow, but they are more interesting to me than the pro-life movement in so far as they tend to be less cynical. Or they come across as more honest. It depends on who I am talking to I suppose. They sell hats and paper. You all seem to have your little abortion home businesses as well. All the pots and kettles are black.”
Okay, this is directed at me, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Could you elaborate? When I say “I would have loved AHA back when I was pro-choice” I am 100% honest. I would have loved it the way atheists “love” the Westboro Baptist Church, and the way that…basically all reasonable people “love” PETA. ie, I would have loved it because it offered a distraction from considering the actual issues at hand. If someone tries to rationally explain, say, a Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, and you don’t really know how to respond because it doesn’t sound all that hateful, you’re just like “but THOSE people carry signs literally saying that God hates gay people” and then you can walk away feeling like you won. If someone tries to engage you in a discussion on the stark and bleak realities of factory farming you can just be like “Well PETA is nuts and also demeaning to women” and totally just walk away without considering the more rational points at hand. Is it intellectually dishonest? Absolutely. Is it also an easy out that allows people to hide their own ignorance behind the outrageous behavior of others? Yup.
So yes, I would have LOVED AHA once upon a time, back when I would sometimes cast about for the easy out. I especially would have loved its insistence on an extremely narrow biblical focus. I mean, nothing made me happier as a pro-choicer than somebody telling me that being pro-life was a religious issue, not a human rights issue or even a mere political issue.
What do you mean by “abortion home businesses” that “we all” have?
“The abolitionist movement is a body of believers, people who in – there’s no hierarchy of organization to say this person’s in charge except for Jesus Christ.”
Well, good, Jesus is a great person to have in charge. Let’s see what he might have had to say about the way AHA people are treating people and posting itemized lists of people’s personal failings on a public website. Let’s see what is in the book that AHA members claim to follow:
“Matthew 6:14-15 ESV
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
“John 8:7 ESV
And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.””
“1 Peter 4:8
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”
“1 Corinthians 13:4-6
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.”
Straight from God’s word. I just don’t see Jesus jumping for joy at this stuff coming from the AHA movement.
As an abolitionist, if I saw any believer, abolitionist or not, failing to do those things, I would correct them in accordance with Matthew 18, and expect the same done to me. Can you point to specific instances from specific people you’re referring to? These accusations usually occur because people reject certain passages of Scripture when defining what is meant by “love”. For example, the prophet Moses spoke that loving your neighbor involves speaking openly with him about his sin. If you are relying on the full counsel of Scripture for your accusation, then we certainly have a responsibility to reprove the offending party.
Where does it say you humiliate your fellow believers with their sins in public?
There are many instances of public reproof in the Scriptures, but I’m not spending anymore typed keys answering your strawman. I’d be glad to continue discussing if you’re interested in responding maturely (no humiliation intended).
I am responding maturely. I just don’t believe there’s anything loving about publicly listing someone’s personal failings on a Facebook page that has thousands of readers, possibly affecting their future as well (schools and employers will search online before they admit or hire someone, sometimes). Do you think that would actually bring someone to repent of wrongdoing, or would it drive them away? It seems to violate the “kind” and “keep no record of wrongs” part of what love is supposed to be.
Facebook has privacy settings for such reasons. The immaturity is found in changing the argument from public reproof to humiliating people. If a Christian is humiliated by being reproved in a Scriptural fashion, I’m nearly positive that person is no Christian at all, as ours is a life of reproof.
// Do you think that would actually bring someone to repent of wrongdoing, or would it drive them away? //
That’s pragmatism, and I wouldn’t dare dishonor The Lord with it. I just do what God has spoken and taught through His Word.
// It seems to violate the “kind” and “keep no record of wrongs” part of what love is supposed to be. //
Most of the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, which is a public book, is God or His followers reproving people, almost always publicly in some sense. Was Paul being unloving when he wrote to The Church at Corinth? Was Jesus being unloving when He rebuked Peter?
Yeah…. Paul wrote the church in Corinth. He didn’t copy his recriminations down on thousands of scrolls or whatever and distribute them to the general public. Neither did Jesus go and tell a whole bunch of people about Peter’s failings, so everyone could know how Peter screwed up.
“The immaturity is found in changing the argument from public reproof to humiliating people. If a Christian is humiliated by being reproved in a Scriptural fashion, I’m nearly positive that person is no Christian at all, as ours is a life of reproof.”
Okay. So if I knew an embarrassing sin of yours, you’d be fine being “rebuked” in public, in front of whoever? I am sorry, I see nothing in the Bible supporting that.
“That’s pragmatism, and I wouldn’t dare dishonor The Lord with it. I just do what God has spoken and taught through His Word.”
Yes, God gave us reason and discernment for no particular reason. He didn’t actually want us to use those skills.
Are you familiar with Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5? Jesus rebuked Peter, Peter stopped sinning. Either the sexually immoral man spoken of in 1 Cor. 5 had already been approached, or was expected to be approached about his sin, and then removed from fellowship with the believers. There is no option but that this information was presented to all of the believers associated with this person so that they could all cease to fellowship with him. Paul could have written a scroll to each believer at Corinth to accomplish the same, but why? It’s the same result. All of the believers came to a knowledge of his sin as Paul instructed.
All sin is equally embarrassing or not embarrassing depending on what you mean. Sin is a shameful thing, but I’m free in Christ and its by His grace that I am anything greater than the worm. If you come to knowledge that I have sinned against The Lord and have not repented, please, rebuke me in front of the world so that I may repent and the world know Christ’s strength and mercy.
Reason and discernment begin with the Fear of The Lord. What He has spoken, I do not question.
You don’t see the difference between bringing things up within a church or a group of believers and just randomly rebuking people in public? Ok then. I guess we don’t have much to discuss. I will say that public censure even within a congregation is a very, very powerful thing and when people claim it’s “necessary”… it usually isn’t. I grew up in a church where people were occasionally dragged up in front of the church to confess their failings in front of everybody. It caused major damage to people who were treated that way. Happened to me, and I can tell you it isn’t something Jesus would want.
You’ve been rebuking abolitionists and me directly, with sarcasm at that, in public. You don’t seem to agree with yourself.
You and AHA are putting yourselves in public and asking for disagreement. Public actions can meet public condemnation (though it should be tempered with love and discernment, of course). It’s like… all over your literature. It’s a far cry from bringing up your personal lives and sins and plastering them all over.
I am really sarcastic, I’ll give you that one. It’s a personality problem.
Say, for example, I found out some sin in your personal life that had nothing to do with your public AHA advocacy. I wouldn’t bring that up on this blog or on Facebook or anywhere else on the internet, it wouldn’t be kind or Christ-like.
Of course it wouldn’t! You haven’t heard my points at all, if you think I’ve said anything like that. In fact, disregard anything I’m saying. I’m just trying to tell you what Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 teach us, and asking for the offenses you’re referring to that fall outside of that.
What I learn from Scripture is that being in the immediate presence of sin warrants an immediate present rebuke of that sin. In other circumstances, it is better to go privately to that person. If they remain unrepentant, you approach them more publicly – this is with other people, and finally as they remain unrepentant, you must communicate to all the believers local to them to break fellowship.
If you knew I was sinning and would not repent after all of that, I really hope you would get on facebook and let people know what I was doing so that they all could be protected from me and add to those hoping to see me turn to Christ. After all, that seems to be what you and many others are doing here “Stay away from those hateful abolitionists!”.
Honestly, what part of Matthew 18 tells you that public condemnation and such is a Christian thing to do? I don’t see it at all. The only thing that is similar is verses 15-20, and that’s specifically for someone sinning against YOU, not someone’s sins in general. And again, it’s keeping it in the church, with no spelled out requirement for anything public.
A good half the chapter is about how you should never stop forgiving those who sin against you, I don’t really see where you’re getting everything else.
Either you’re not trying to hear me, or you’re not very accustomed to study. I honestly don’t know which is the case, but I’m telling you this in hopes you’ll honor my patience in stating my case by investigating it. As I’ve said, the basis for my claims is Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, and the plethora of examples in Scripture of public, immediate reproof (the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul). Why you’re distinguishing “the church” from “public” is confusing to me. Unbelievers are around Christians quite often. Paul suggested it’s good for unbelievers to see Christianity practiced properly. Should a new convert be surprised that there are expectations of a Christian life and reproof? We should promote reproof as a merit of the faith and not be ashamed of it. If people hate God and don’t want to be sanctified, then we really don’t want to be appealing to them. I’m all for forgiving sinners. I’m also for removing them from fellowship if they refuse to repent.
I don’t why, after I’ve said all of that previously, you suggested that I take my views from Matthew 18 alone.
Toby, I think you know what I mean. Is it true or not that all regular adult attenders of your church adhere to the abolitionist movement?
Sydney M., you make two errors in your response to me. One is to assume that I am “an AHA person.” I realize it’s convenient for you to try to sweep everyone into one basket, but you’re mistaken. I was working to abolish abortion for decades before AHA ever existed. But I have no role in their organization. You have blinders on if you think everyone who opposes the failed, immoral incrementalist strategy of NRTL and their associates is AHA.
Secondly, you’re wrong about whether or not these bills give license to do abortions. You’ve obviously never read them.
The courts are to be blamed, there is no doubt. But folks need to begin to take responsibility for their own actions. Because if they won’t, the situation with the courts will never change.
“Okay, this is directed at me, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Could you elaborate? When I say “I would have loved AHA back when I was pro-choice” I am 100% honest. I would have loved it the way atheists “love” the Westboro Baptist Church, and the way that…basically all reasonable people “love” PETA. ie, I would have loved it because it offered a distraction from considering the actual issues at hand. If someone tries to rationally explain, say, a Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, and you don’t really know how to respond because it doesn’t sound all that hateful, you’re just like “but THOSE people carry signs literally saying that God hates gay people” and then you can walk away feeling like you won.”
Your post was the impetus that got me started, but I was mostly responding to the essay. I don’t believe what you imagine is realistic. I don’t know the feeling you describe, because the presence of people looking to do wrong does not feel like victory of any sort. I can think of several places where pro-choicers rail against AHA and pro-lifers, and nowhere where they revel in the supposed black eye they give your cause. From the outside, you all don’t look all that different. They have weird religious beliefs, you guys are a mixed bag, including weird religious beliefs. They think we love you, you think we love them. We are not part of your internal struggle for purity, and we think it would be better if no one had to do with either of you.
“What do you mean by “abortion home businesses” that “we all” have? ”
I was casting a pretty wide net, and not talking directly to you at that point. Were abortion to go away for whatever reason, there are a lot of recognizable names that will have to get jobs. I have seen them say they would love to do so, but for the moment things seem pretty sweet for them. Don’t forget to send a check to help win the fight! Jets, hotels, dinners and plastic handcuffs cost money.
Sydney M., you said:
“…according to you (if you were consistent) any pro-life measure is a compromise and can’t be supported because it doesn’t end ALL abortion immediately.”
But I’ve never said any such thing.
Incrementalism is not immoral, per se. But granting permission in the laws to kill babies, and violating the equal protection requirement of the supreme law of our land, is immoral and counterproductive, because to do so surrenders the only real legal arguments against the heinous practice of killing babies.
It’s very informative. It’s a confirmation of what I’ve noticed. Thanks for writing about this issue. Jill Stanek, I always admire you for speaking on time, thinking ahead, and total commitment to the “Cause of Life”.
Reading this thread, I regret to point out to AHA that AHA does indeed give the impression that they are like the Pharisee who tells the Lord how awesome he is while the tax collector humbly beseeches the Lord to have mercy on him. Dodging responsibility for how snarky you can be IS NOT SAVING A SINGLE BABY. It is not necessary to berate your allies. It saves neither lives nor souls.
Who cares about saving babies? It’s all about the Biblical principles. You need to make sure the woman going into that abortion clinic knows she’s a whore and a murderer.
“Unbelievers are around Christians quite often. Paul suggested it’s good for unbelievers to see Christianity practiced properly.”
I agree that if Christians consistently and publicly single out the sins of other Christians, unbelievers will see this and imitate it.
But since they are still unbelievers, they may not even know the Ten Commandments yet. Therefore, the unbelievers may just pick and choose what to publicly point out to others based on what they currently think and believe and the choices they are currently making.
Maybe this is how things that our country previously knew to be evil are now seen as good and vice-versa. And why it seems so Loud.
I once had a teacher who pitted classmates against each other in a math class, publicly singling out those of us who were not as quick to answer, learn our facts or finish a problem. The “smarter” students became even faster and the “slower” students made more mistakes and became more anxious about math class. I sometimes still get anxious to this day when I work with numbers.
“Were abortion to go away for whatever reason, there are a lot of recognizable names that will have to get jobs. I have seen them say they would love to do so, but for the moment things seem pretty sweet for them. Don’t forget to send a check to help win the fight! Jets, hotels, dinners and plastic handcuffs cost money.”
I wonder if you realize that there are people who have lost jobs for speaking up for the preborn? I guess I have never heard people who travel for their jobs saying, “Oh I love the jet flying part and the sleeping in strange beds part away from loved ones! And that warmed-up hotel food part was better than any home-cooked meal!”
Doing something other than full-time pro-life work would also make that “so whaddya do for a living?” conversation much less awkward.
Tom– of course you have no role in the AHA organization. They’re an IDEOLOGY we’ve been told, not an actual organization. And you support their ideology. If someone was supporting the communist ideology on a thread I’d rightly call them a communist. Why don’t you want to be lumped in with AHA people? Is it because you recognize they’re tainted?
I’ve actually read the bills. And I repeat my point–the bills do NOT GIVE LICENSE. License to abort babies was handed to America with Roe and Doe.
If someone passed a bill restricting some handguns we wouldn’t say those bills were giving us license to carry guns. The second amendment already gives us license to carry guns. We’d say those bills are RESTRICTING our right to carry guns. Same with these pro-life bills–they are RESTRICTING unfettered abortion. They’re not enough, but they’re a start.
Oh Sydney… It’s embarrassing you have to tell you this – communism isn’t an organization.
You’re commanded to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, MIND, soul and strength. Knowledge, wisdom, and understanding begin with Him. Repent, and he’ll give you a sound mind. Then, please, think about the things you’re saying.
I mean no offense by any of this. I truly desire to see image bearers of God thriving in that capacity rather than smearing that image with insanity. Please, repent and trust in Christ.
Sydney, I would like to apologize for Johnny whose perception and reading ability is encumbered by the giant log in his eye.
LOL…nice reply 9ek. Although I’ve read to quickly before so I’ll give Johnny another shot. Hey Johnny–re-read what I wrote, buddy. There is some serious lack of reading comprehension going on. Nice sermon though.
Sydney, I recognize you were making several other points, but I didn’t respond to those because it came across as though you were sarcastically insinuating that AHA should be called an organization. I deeply apologize for misunderstanding you and my therefore unwarranted response.
I had no idea what this was about until I looked into it just now. I initially wanted to defend my friends in AHA, but now it turns out it has nothing to do with AHA.
What is really goofy about this is that it’s between two sisters who are estranged from each other over some Facebook comments. It involves one blocking the other on Facebook and then a mutual friend writing about it on his Facebook page with a lot of scripture references. It’s a weird millennial drama. And it’s got nothing to do with AHA except that two of the people are AHA society members.
Then Jill Stank blogs about it, calls it cyber-bullying, and ties it to the entire AHA movement.
What is this, the 8th grade? Time to grow up, people. If you have any decency Jill, you’ll take this post down and apologize to the three people involved. You are just perpetuating lies and slander.
Wow. I don’t remember the last time I saw so many panties in such big knots.
This is crazy interesting. How bizzarre. What has struck me as fasciniating about the PLM is the fact that its similar to deliverance ministry in that you can HAVE NO PRIDE. NADA-NONE-It doesn’t work, you get burned HARD, the second you turn in against God.
The little to no interest part comes when it’s about self. God doesn’t care. He doesn’t give a sh!t. HE’s on a cross right now. Not His Son. He is. He has to watch this every second of every day. You want to see the demons of hell? Get serious about your pro-life calling. God’s given it to every one to some extent. Don’t think you have power over the devil. You only have the armor of God, what is that, Ephesians? E 6:10-18, when they talk about the buckle of truth… the entire Roman armor was cinched at the waist, to tell the truth is critical to the rest of the garment. And then there is no armor on the back? Well Roman soldiers watched each other’s backs. Who’s back are you watching? We are not looking out for each other brethren! This is why we are losing. I had to stop following AHA because too much of it was not about ending abortion.
Alot of pro-life groups get super close to winning this battle, but without recognizing the enemy, they are turned inward on themselves. And we do it again and again, I have noticed. The enemy is the devil. There are legions of demons roaming these groups, doing EVERYTHING in their ability to influence human free will away from the truth. All we have to do is have aggressive virtue against demons. I believe that is the only time aggression is a christian virtue, is when it is used to oppose the demonic.
God is very deliberate when He tells us that humility is truth, to be humble you are close to God, and there’s the catch-22. How can you be humble and close to God and not get proud? Its a miracle, that’s how. If you are weak and you are being used to humble the strong, you can rejoice, but there’s no finger, lol pointing because you didn’t DO anything. Your like the kitten that scared off the dog, and got proud, only to realize that a lion was standing behind you!!! I liked the AHA BRAND STRATEGY. However… one must realize, there is a goal in mind, and to deviate from that at all… brothers and sisters, don’t do it. The path to hell is wide, but the path to heaven is narrow, and you have to know what is inspired from God and what is inspired from the devil when we speak. I was hoping to see a good apology on this thread… and I got to the bottom and I was like, wow! LOL-now there’s a saying for my business card: “I deeply apologize for misunderstanding you and my therefore unwarranted response.” If I ever get it right, my job is done, and I can stop handing them out. Until then, Godbless me please, have mercy I’m just a doG looking in mirror. When I got involved in this ministry, I had no idea what I was getting into. Now I know, this is the front of the line, literally sisters and brothers. We’re going up against the gates of hell. We have to be formed and ready. And we HAVE to watch eachothers backs. God willing we can start a steady forward thrust, and start taking strongholds and domains back, rebuking… not against the flesh, but what did Paul say” … principalities and powers in heavenly places, Again Ephesians… and people, mind you, abortion was rampant in ancient rome, and Ephesis was a front line in the battle, because it was a seaport and dedicated to Venus… prostitution was their way of life. So you can imaging the abortion rate in ancient Ephesis…there we go: “against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”. So when we we claim even our bodies and our tongues for God, we have to guard those too as heavenly places, because the spiritual forces of evil are looking for a doorway. They want us to think we can never escape. With God, we can, but only if we are truthful about our powerlessness against these things, and the fact that any power we have against them came from Christs death on the Cross. I’m a big believer of HolyLove because it preaches this, and it talks about the elemental spirits, which is what witchcraft worships.
Again, Sydney. The bills in question do grant explicit permission for abortionists to kill babies, as long as those babies are killed on schedule, and by the rules. You have to be willfully blind to miss it. It’s explicit.
You’re of course projecting your own hostile bias’ on why I’m not directly involved with AHA. Actually, you know absolutely nothing about it, and I have no interest in telling you. It’s none of your business. As I said in my original post, I have no interest in the personal, junior high school level nonsense involved in any of this. My only interest is in stopping the abortion holocaust before any more innocents are slaughtered, or before God finally loses patience with us and destroys our country.
Deluded Lib Prolifer!!!
Nice to see you again!
God bless you!! :)
For those of us that have personal interactions with AHAers on facebook it was more than a difference of opinion. Outright nasty, rude comments directed at Catholics and post abortive women(me included)and the “holier than thou” attitude. Blatant.
I unfriended and blocked all of you that could not seem to carry on a conversation without the personal attacks.
I think I am down to one AHAer that seems civil. One.
Good luck.
Whatever Tom. Then be quiet. Don’t come here and wag your finger at people if you can’t defend your position. Buh-bye.
I am here to dialogue. I am here to explain and defend my position. If you’re agreeing with AHA then I find it ironic you wanted to make sure I knew you weren’t one of them. Weird. But whatevs.
Again–the bills do NOT GRANT PERMISSION. You do realize that permission to abort for ANY reason at ANY time was granted by Doe and Roe? I keep repeating this but you’re just not getting it. Permission was ALREADY granted. It can’t be “re-granted”. The thing the bills would have done is restrict some of that permission.
You can say others are engaging in junior high level nonsense–but you’re the one here with your fingers in your ears going “LA LA LA LA! I can’t hear you!”
Defend your position…or don’t.
“You have to be willfully blind…”
“You’re of course projecting your own hostile bias…”
“Actually, you know absolutely nothing about it…”
“I have no interest in telling you…”
“It’s none of your business…”
Tom Hoefing, you have the audacity to lecture Sydney on junior-high school level nonsense? If you are interested in ending the abortion holocaust, then recognize:
1) your own rudeness
2) the enemies are the abortionists, not pro-lifers with whom you disagree
Tom H: You say you aren’t AHA, but aren’t you scheduled to be a speaker at an AHA conference up in Idaho? Or, are you like Steve Scalise, and not owning up to actions?
BTW, the two sisters problem is not the first time these AHA members have gone after a fellow AHA member. Only last month, there was a male that was not living an AHA lifestyle, and had backslid into old habits. The AHA members started to harass this guy, and even showed up at his work! The entire situation was posted on Facebook then, also. The AHA inner circle seems to feel they can harass other members all they want, put it up on Facebook, and expect other AHA members to fawn over them. Very juvenile, and very much bullying!
No Frannie. I have no idea where you got that. I’ve never attended one of their meetings, or spoken to any of their events, and have none on my schedule.
I don’t care about back and forth between anybody. The personal stuff is nothing but a juvenile distraction.
Many AHA members are doing yoeman’s work in several important areas, and for that I applaud them. But like any large and growing group of people, they’re bound to have some who act unwisely.
Eric, the first and most important obstacle to ending the abortion holocaust is not pro-aborts. It’s pro-lifers who refuse to understand that they’re surrendering the only moral, constitutional and legal arguments against abortion with much of the legislation they support.
You can call that rude if you like, but it’s the truth.
Sydney M.:
Here is one recent example of the permission/license to abort babies that is being codified in the statutes being passed by pro-lifers.
It’s the well known recent “20 week” bill that stalled out in the U.S. House.
Section three spells out explicit permission to kill the child, and in fact all of the children, as long as they are killed on schedule, and by the arbitrary rules. It also absolutely precludes prosecution of the one who is hiring the hit man to murder the child.
I’ll be happy to go dig up more examples exactly like it if you like. There are hundreds of examples that are readily available by doing a simple google search.
H.R.36 – Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/36/text
SEC. 3. PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION.
(a) In General.–Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:
“Sec. 1532. Pain-capable unborn child protection
“(a) Unlawful Conduct.–Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, it shall be unlawful for any person to perform an abortion or
attempt to do so, unless in conformity with the requirements set forth
in subsection (b).
“(b) Requirements for Abortions.–
“(1) The physician performing or attempting the abortion
shall first make a determination of the probable post-
fertilization age of the unborn child or reasonably rely upon
such a determination made by another physician. In making such
a determination, the physician shall make such inquiries of the
pregnant woman and perform or cause to be performed such
medical examinations and tests as a reasonably prudent
physician, knowledgeable about the case and the medical
conditions involved, would consider necessary to make an
accurate determination of post-fertilization age.
“(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
abortion shall not be performed or attempted, if the probable
post-fertilization age, as determined under paragraph (1), of
the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater.
“(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), subparagraph (A) does
not apply if–
“(i) in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion
is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose
life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical
illness, or physical injury, including a life-
endangering physical condition caused by or arising
from the pregnancy itself, but not including
psychological or emotional conditions; or
“(ii) the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the
result of incest against a minor, if the rape has been
reported at any time prior to the abortion to an
appropriate law enforcement agency, or if the incest
against a minor has been reported at any time prior to
the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency
or to a government agency legally authorized to act on
reports of child abuse or neglect.
“(C) Notwithstanding the definitions of `abortion’ and
`attempt an abortion’ in this section, a physician terminating
or attempting to terminate a pregnancy under an exception
provided by subparagraph (B) may do so only in the manner
which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the best
opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in
reasonable medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in
that manner would pose a greater risk of–
“(i) the death of the pregnant woman; or
“(ii) the substantial and irreversible physical
impairment of a major bodily function, not including
psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant
woman;
than would other available methods.
“(c) Criminal Penalty.–Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or
both.
“(d) Bar to Prosecution.–A woman upon whom an abortion in
violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not be
prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, subsection (a), or
for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on such a
violation.
The AHA members started to harass this guy, and even showed up at his work!
And as we all know, prolifers oppose workplace harassment, in a principled stand that they have held dating all the way back to never.
If only AHA had prefaced its harassment with “No justice, no peace.” In Jill’s world, that makes it okay.
LisaC: Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I would love to see someone put together a graphic with this text:
AHA: Immature, quarrelsome, defamatory, lacking in discernment, with a low view of the church, and sloppy exegesis. What’s not to like?
(Oh snap, what that too harsh?)
Tom Hoefing said
“the first and most important obstacle to ending the abortion holocaust is not pro-aborts. It’s pro-lifers who refuse to understand that they’re surrendering the only moral, constitutional and legal arguments against abortion with much of the legislation they support. You can call that rude if you like, but it’s the truth.”
It isn’t what you say that is rude; it is your hypocritical and immature way of communicating, especially in your post to Sydney M.
The most important obstacle to ending the abortion holocaust is people aborting babies. Period.
Another significant obstacle is logs in people’s eyes pointing out specks in others, refusing to recognize other Brethren in Christ or their points of view, and totally lacking in Scriptural maturity or understanding of humility, even after Scriptural reproof.
Emil Lafayette: “Immature, quarrelsome, defamatory, lacking in discernment, with a low view of the church, and sloppy exegesis. What’s not to like?”
Well I can say the same about your post. Have you spent a lot of time one-on-one with an AHA society? I have and my perception is that they are spiritually mature, scholarly and have a high view of the church — in fact, it’s the high view of the church that causes them to hold churches accountable.
You may also be confusing “quarrelsome” with their mode of agitation that is directed at compromisers in the pro-life movement. I don’t always agree with their conclusions, but the tactic of holding pro-lifers feet to the fire is not wrong.
You may also be confusing “defamatory” with the same. It’s not wrong to call people out for sin and compromise. If pro-lifers are uncompromising and are not doing anything wrong, then they should be able to defend their positions.
LisaC: Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Indeed they don’t. But they do make a hilarious example of the comedic potential of hypocrisy. Jill simply adores cyberbullying and workplace harassment, and has given AHA the limelight on this very site for doing it. I’m not defending the AHA people, because they are nasty people doing nasty things, but they’re merely engaging in behavior that this site exists to promote. Denouncing their cyberbullying now is like swatting a puppy for chewing your good shoes after praising and petting him for bringing you your slippers.
“It’s not wrong to call people out for sin”
I agree Jay Rogers, that is what a lot of the people on this thread are doing: calling out some of the AHA apologists for the sin of pride and the sin of lacking humility. Holding the position of non-compromise is one thing, the belittling of people and their faith is quite another. Phrases like, “catholic paganism”, “You’re of course projecting your own hostile bias…” “Actually, you know absolutely nothing about it…” are simply expressions of pride, not Scripturally holding someone’s feet to the fire for sin.
Please note, I find your posts, even if I do not share the same view, appear to be well reasoned. Others defending the AHA ideology, not so much.
Eric,
Thank you for the compliment.
The way I look at it is like this. In the general population, about 3 percent of all Americans are psychotic sometime in their lifetime — and 1 to 2 percent at any given time. This statistic has been growing dramatically in recent years. Among people who go to abortion clinics, the percentage is much higher than that — and this even includes the sidewalk ministries who are fighting abortion. That’s not surprising given the stressful nature of this ministry. So it’s not unusual to have a small percentage of an organization (or a movement with a name) give the whole thing a bad name because of unbalanced or crazy behavior by a few individuals.
In general, the leaders of AHA are not full of pride. They are one of the few younger groups I know that has submitted to older leadership and have asked veterans of the pro-life ministry to come in and give them counsel on how to deal with problems. There are always going to be problems — actual demonic traps and pitfalls — in this type of ministry. A few good people are going to do crazy things.
If you could go back 25 years, you would see a lot of the same syndrome with Operation Rescue. Although a portion of the OR movement was truly psychotic, most were humble servants of God. The few that did crazy things gave the whole movement a bad name at times.
There are two solutions to that problem. The first is to become overly controlling and give people a list of things they cannot do. Bound4Life and 40 Days for Life excels at that — people cannot have graphic signs, cannot preach at the abortion mills, and so on. But it’s to a level that is unbiblical. The second solution is to call in seasoned ministers to train those younger evangelists who have a lot of zeal, but not enough wisdom. That is what AHA is doing.
Most of the things I’ve read on the Internet about AHA are simply not true in real life. But fewer and fewer young people understand that the Internet is not reality. It’s hyper-reality.
I have to go and meet a person in the flesh and spend time with them before I will make judgments calls. I spent a week in a timeshare at an event with several of the AHA founders last year. It was with a little trepidation because I thought that I’d either enjoy them immensely — or hate them if everything I heard was true. Thankfully, I had a great time with them.
I didn’t care much for Jill Stanek when I first read her blog, but when I met her in person and found her to be a delightful person. So hopefully, we can disagree about this article in that atmosphere of mutual respect.
Oh indeed, Mr. Rogers, is there is sin in the world they will sniff it out. If there is questionable fruit being peddled they will thoroughly inspect it, to be sure. All free of charge. If anyone doubts the veracity of my claims I recommend following the AHA Facebook page and blog regularly for a month, and for bonus material keep an eye on Messrs. Maricle (Rhology) and Bullis for the same duration. Unless they are otherwise detained with muckraking or aggressive and poorly spelled sectarianism, those chaps will not disappoint.
“Here is one recent example of the permission/license to abort babies that is being codified in the statutes being passed by pro-lifers.”
People of the anti-life persuasion were already legally licensed to kill those babies by Roe V. Wade. The only thing being newly ‘codified’ in these laws is the protection of some babies that were previously unprotected.
Food for thought:
What impact would the fetal pain bill have on abortion law if Roe V Wade were overturned.
“What impact would the fetal pain bill have on abortion law if Roe V Wade were overturned.”
Those saved by the fetal pain bill will be able to dance and celebrate on the Capitol steps with the rest of us when Roe V Wade is overturned.
“What impact would the fetal pain bill have on abortion law if Roe V Wade were overturned.”
Abortion would be legal before 20 weeks and illegal after 20 weeks until it is replaced by a new law. We must remember that with or without incremental laws, we will still have to pass abortion bans in the future. That is to say that overturning Roe V Wade does not automatically ban abortion, but this is true with or without a fetal pain bill.
What impact would the fetal pain bill have on abortion law if Roe V Wade were overturned.
Abortion would be illegal everywhere after 20 weeks, and illegal before 20 weeks or in other cases in states that have pre-Roe or trigger laws on the books. Same as it is now, except the states can’t enforce their trigger laws with Roe still in effect.
You have good points Jay Rogers, thanks for the dialogue.
I note that Toby did not come back to clarify the “membership” of the church he attends.
I haven’t read any of the comments here for weeks. I just happened to read the email notification today surprised to see it was still going on. What is your question about my church membership?
Toby, how about you stop being so goddam lazy and go look up the question. Did you post a question here, sign up to follow comments, and then ignore them?