Breaking news: New group challenges National Right to Life

breaking.jpgI was given this news tip yesterday, but actually Time magazine broke the story November 21, which no one apparently picked up on, perhaps because it was only posted online:

[B]ut what's clear is that the anti-abortion movement is fractured. Colorado Right to Life has a mailing list of 10,000 and a $100,000 budget but is no longer affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee - "kicked out," says [CRTL spokesman and Denver Christian radio talk show host Bob] Enyart. He explains that the NRLC has refused to back "personhood" for decades, citing the unlikelihood that it would pass muster with the U.S. Supreme Court....

And this week in Washington, the same coalition, with representatives from 12 states, plans to announce a new national splinter group - American Right to Life - which will be headed by Brian Rohrbough, whose son Daniel died in the Columbine shootings and who has been an outspoken critic of the American "culture of death."

Here's more of the scoop, provided by Leslie Hanks of CRTL and ARTL, who I called after getting the tip....

The foundational group met in mid-November to formally organize. It includes heavy hitters in the pro-life movement:

John Archibold, co-founder of Americans United for Life and NRLC
Flip Benham of Operation Save America
Judie Brown of American Life League
Bob Dornan, 20-year U.S. Congressman
Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International
Dr. Alan Keyes
Judge Roy Moore
Matt Trewhella, Missionaries to the Preborn

Read more names of charter members on ARTL's website.

As Time stated, Rohrbough is president. Vice president is Steve Curtis, former CO Republican state chairman and co-owner of Lifecommercials.com.

ARTL will be a subsidiary of CRTL and therefore have 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status. Legal paperwork is being finalized. ARTL is not affiliated with the former ARTL of the late 90s. This group received permission from that group to take the name.

artl%20logo2.jpg

ARTL is taking on NRLC for 2 principle reasons. According to ARTL:

  • NRLC has deemphasized personhood as the focal point of the pro-life movement, i.e., the Human Life Amendment, guaranteeing constitutional protect from the moment of fertilization.

    and

  • "For a quarter century, NRTL and others have dictated a strategy of child-killing regulations (consent; waiting, consent, PBA, etc., 'and then you can kill the baby')," as quoted from ARTL's website.
  • Two noteworthy points, from ARTL's website:

    ARTL Timeframe: Our charter gives the founding leaders (directors and officers) twelve years in which to end abortion in America. At that time, if they have not, they are required to turn over ARTL to an entirely new slate of leaders, their leadership coming to an end, either because they have succeeded, or failed. In the fall of 2008, ARTL will host a conference on ending abortion, titled 11 Years Till D Day, and the year after that, 10 Years, then 9 Years, etc., instead of the never-ending, perpetual conventions of NRTL (so far at 35th Annual and counting).
    ARTL Salary & Benefits: ARTL's board members, officers, and spokesmen serve without salary. Ministry workers have every right to receive salaries, but that model has not well served the fight to end "legal" abortion and euthanasia. The pro-life industry has become too comfortable as it receives millions of dollars a month in salaries. As a result, ARTL has broken the mold, with no salary for its leaders, and no retirement benefits.

    Read ARTL's principles here.


    Comments:

    YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    A NEW DAY HAS DAWNED!!!!


    Don't forget to check out the website

    http://www.AmericanRightToLife.org

    Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 4, 2007 5:01 AM


    Zeke, I don't need a rooster - the sound of you hammering on that exclamation point key woke me up.

    Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 8:17 AM


    Ah Doug, you never cease to humor me :)

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at December 4, 2007 8:43 AM


    ^5, Bobby.

    I see divergences between idealism and practicality among the different "factions" of the anti-abortionites, if you will. Let me channel yllas here a moment - as opposed to us fire-breathing abortionados.

    Same for choosing between Presidential candidates.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 9:12 AM


    Flip and Judie...

    That's a little scary.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 4, 2007 9:16 AM


    I appreciate the energy, but really, all of this because they disagree with NRLC? There is this unhealthy obsession with NRLC that I have never understood especially in the light of the extreme amount of good they have done for the past 35 years.

    There are so many problems with the principals that it's hard to know where to begin.

    And I really do not appreciate the blanket condemnation of everyone who has struggled to advance the pro-life issue for years. "Dictated a strategy of child-killing regulations (consent; waiting, consent, PBA, etc., "and then you can kill the baby"). Sorry what sanctimonious BS!

    No salaries? No full-time workers? Almost guaranteed to fail.

    Posted by: Andrew at December 4, 2007 9:40 AM


    No salaries? No full-time workers? Almost guaranteed to fail.'

    Oh I don't know...I spend 4 to 5 hours a day here on Jill's and I couldn't by an ice cream cone with my "salary"...Neither could Jill. And Father Tom? Don't think he's going to require cash to stay on board...

    Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 10:05 AM


    And I really do not appreciate the blanket condemnation of everyone who has struggled to advance the pro-life issue for years. "Dictated a strategy of child-killing regulations (consent; waiting, consent, PBA, etc., "and then you can kill the baby"). Sorry what sanctimonious BS!

    Once again, that's precisely my point, only you articulated it better. From now on, I'm going to tell you how I feel, and you can translate it into poignancy. :)

    My issue with these people that damn incrementalism is their self-righteousness at the expense of human life. Incrementalism has saved babies. Sure, it hasn't saved all babies, but it's saved some. Should we allow those children to be murdered just because we can't save them all? Would we approach a sinking ship, see that there wasn't enough room on the lifeboat, exclaim, "Sorry, guys- There's not enough room for everybody, so we can't take anybody." and leave them all to drown? That's what Judie Brown and company suggest, rather than saving who we can and going back for the rest.

    No compromise. It's all or nothing- They cut off their nose to spite the babies. This is my issue with Judie and friends.

    It's like Father Frank and the bishops say about limiting evil. We're not supporting evil by enacting what laws we can to save what lives we can, we're limiting evil that would have been done regardless.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 4, 2007 10:06 AM


    MK, I know there are great volunteers who can give lots of time to this effort, but by and large, that is not how great success is achieved.

    Besides, planning and running a yearly conference, presuming they want a lot of people to come, is a HUGE effort that requires the work of many, many people.

    I don't see how it can be done. I think eventually they'll start paying people to work for them.

    Posted by: Andrew at December 4, 2007 10:40 AM


    Yeah, you could be right Andrew...I was just pluggin' for a raise.

    Posted by: mk at December 4, 2007 11:04 AM


    Go ahead MK. I approve it for you...

    Posted by: Andrew at December 4, 2007 11:43 AM


    These are the (non-literal) babies of the pro-life movement. They will be yesterday's news quite soon.

    Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at December 4, 2007 12:13 PM


    Jaqueline, you seem to be comfortable with 1.3 million dead babies a year so long as your doctrine of "incrementalism" is preserved. Andrew seems to want to surrender before the new strategy has an opportunity to work, and Nathan is operating under the illusion that the people behind ARTL are the "babies" of the pro life movement. How very sad for all of you.

    Posted by: Steve at December 4, 2007 2:16 PM


    Steve,
    I hear you, my friend, I hear you.

    I'm at a loss at how the splintering of the pro-life movement will strengthen us. Isn't it crucial that we stick together?

    United we stand, divided we fall, that sort of thing?

    Posted by: carder at December 4, 2007 2:33 PM


    I haven't trusted Colorado Right to Life since they endorsed a candidate in Texas (running for governor, I think) who was in favor of the death penalty for gays. It was right there on his web site.

    Posted by: Jen R at December 4, 2007 2:34 PM


    Twelve years to end abortion in America.

    Mighty ambitious. Let's do it!

    Posted by: carder at December 4, 2007 2:34 PM


    Steve: how many pieces of legislation do you think ARTL will pass with their doctrine of never compromising? We'll let that speak for itself.

    Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at December 4, 2007 2:37 PM


    Carder,
    In response to: [I'm at a loss at how the splintering of the pro-life movement will strengthen us. Isn't it crucial that we stick together?

    United we stand, divided we fall, that sort of thing?], I offer this;

    It is not important that the pro life movement stick together if we are united by the wrong things.

    I would submit to you that laws that end with..."and then you can kill the baby" are the wrong things. We are called to unity of spirit and faith (Eph. 4). Unity around a political tactic, whether it be "incrementalism" or "all or nothing" can only be measured by how that tactic measures up to the calling of the spirit.

    I do not see a positive correlation between any law that specifially allows for the killing of a child as long as a certain amount of time has passed, a certain pamphlet has been read, or a certain proceedure has been followed.

    Thanks to the NRLC model, we've all been lead to believe that those scenarios are acceptable, and equate to a pro life victory. They are not and they do not.

    The only answer, I believe, is to unify around the doctrine that mirrors God's law...that shall not murder. Anything less, i.e. "incrementalism" that leads to death, is partaking in the very sin we say we're trying to stop.

    Why would a pro-life believer endorse anything that ends with a baby being killed? NRLC & AUL model legislation almost always ends with the ability to kill a child once you've jumped through a few hoops.

    So, regardless of what Jaqueline thinks, or how much Nathan wants to defend compromise, incrementalism has never, and will never, save a single baby.

    I would love to be unified with Nathan, and Jaqueline in the calling of the spirit as it pertains to God's gift of life. The problem is; if we insist on starting from a position of compromise and defeat, we'll never get there. Never.

    Posted by: Steve at December 4, 2007 3:32 PM


    Once again a small fringe minority in the pro-life movement do the work of Planned Parenthood and divide us. Heaven forbid anyone take on Hillary and NARAL anymore when we can just shoot each other. This is just the latest blather from the "We'd rather make a point than make a difference" crowd - the ones who can't seem to justify their own arguments without trashing everyone else. These folks ignore the fact that we're one vote away from overturing Roe, seeing abortions decline to their lowest point since 1973, and winning pretty much every unbiased opinion poll on the subject. Victory is already near (unless they blow the 2008 elections for us), but these people can't see past their hatred of the 99% of the pro-life movement that doesn't feed off of making headlines.

    Posted by: Steven Ertelt at December 4, 2007 4:46 PM


    I couldn't by an ice cream cone with my "salary".

    MK, in the spirit of the Christmas season, I'm going to petition Jill to double your salary.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at December 4, 2007 6:36 PM


    Jacqueline said:

    "It's like Father Frank and the bishops say about limiting evil. We're not supporting evil by enacting what laws we can to save what lives we can, we're limiting evil that would have been done regardless."

    So, according to Frank and the bishops, if Germans pushed to pass laws regulating the killing of innocent Jews they wouldn't have been "supporting evil" they would just be doing what they could to "limit evil that would have been done regardless"?

    Its pretty clear that your thinking and the bishops (who put out that horrendous statement on voting guidelines a few weeks ago that supports voting for the lesser of two or more evils) is Godless, immoral and even minimalistic.

    If your and the bishops thinking was put into practice in Nazi Germany decades ago they would still be killing innocent Jews - only doing it with a few more restrictions.

    Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 4, 2007 6:43 PM


    LOL!! Steve Ertelt is just upset at Bob Enyart for Bob pointing out that Steve has put out bad stuff with outright lies in them. And also because Enyart obliterated Steve in the debate on the fetal pain law.

    Listen to and read the facts here
    http://www.kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20070628

    Bob Enyart Interviews John Lofton

    Bob Enyart interviews John Lofton of TheAmericanView.com. John Lofton reported two years ago on the false reporting of Life News and Wyoming Right to Life President STEVEN ERTELT, which was repeated in an act of very poor journalism by World magazine's Lynn Vincent.

    For those who have followed our coverage on the Partial-Birth abortion ruling, you're aware that Lynn Vincent's false Jayson-Blair report on the PBA ruling remains one of the poor examples of journalism that has kept Christians in the dark about what this ruling actually does.

    Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 4, 2007 7:00 PM


    Steve, you ask me how I can support something that will lead to a baby being killed. Parental consent laws with a rape and incest exception do not kill babies. Those babies are going to be killed if I do nothing. How can you NOT support something that will save perhaps 70% of the babies? Why do you insist on not doing anything and letting 100% of the children die? That sounds pretty screwed up to me.

    Steve E.: thank you! I'm quite surprised you wrote your opinion on this! I look forward to getting my LifeNews e-mail tomorrow! :)

    Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at December 4, 2007 7:42 PM


    Nathan, Nathan, Nathan, you wrote;
    [Steve, you ask me how I can support something that will lead to a baby being killed. Parental consent laws with a rape and incest exception do not kill babies.]

    What? Consent doesn't equal killing babies? What does consent mean? Are they consenting to eating ice cream? Running barefoot in a park? Tell me Nathan, what does consent mean in a parental consent law?

    That's right, it means consenting to killing the baby. By the way, killing a baby because of the actions of the father is especially evil--but then I guess that doesn't matter as long as you preserve your precious doctrines of unity and incrementalism.

    You continued:

    [Those babies are going to be killed if I do nothing.]

    Why would you do nothing, Nathan? If you're pro life you should work to end all child killing, not sanction some because of the nature of the event leading to the pregnancy.

    Then you said;

    [How can you NOT support something that will save perhaps 70% of the babies?]

    Tell me Nathan, how does consenting to the killing of babies save 70% of the babies? Please explain that fuzzy logic.

    Your next assertion;

    [Why do you insist on not doing anything and letting 100% of the children die? That sounds pretty screwed up to me]

    Again Nathan, you're really not paying attention. While Steven Ertelt & NRLC continue to make up fake news stories about being 1 vote away from overturning Roe, the truth is that we're 7 votes away..or haven't you been following the votes, the writings of the Supreme Court Justices. Please Nathan, wake up!

    If Roe were overturned, state laws allowing abortion would ensure the killing would continue. Most of those laws were put on the books with the support of child killing regulators like NRLC and AUL.

    Until pro life people everywhere insist on every innocent baby being protected the killing will continue unabated.

    All the regulation in the world can't erase that sin. It's time for NRLC to go away--FOREVER. Only then can true pro life people expect to make the clear case that ABORTION IS ALWAYS WRONG.

    Posted by: Steve at December 4, 2007 11:57 PM


    Doug,

    MK, in the spirit of the Christmas season, I'm going to petition Jill to double your salary.

    Will I have to pay taxes on the salary increase?

    Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 6:13 AM


    Why can't we fight with ALL our weapons. Why does it have to be either or? Why not slowly erode Roe V Wade over here, while dropping a bomb on it over there? If the bomb misses, we are still taking out the enemy one at a time?

    In a war (and this is one) we have one on one combat as well as massive attacks like "the bomb"...both reduce the enemy...

    Posted by: mk at December 5, 2007 6:20 AM


    Steve-

    I'm at a loss at how the splintering of the pro-life movement will strengthen us. Isn't it crucial that we stick together?

    You are the one dividing us. Your self-righteous, venomous attacks on those that share your goals (such as your attacks on me) prove that you are the source of the dissention. What does God hate?

    "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

    You refuse to save the lives you can because you can't save them all and somehow you think that your moral high-road at the expense of babies makes you superior to the rest of us.

    Steve, hear this: We are supporting all-out bans on abortion, too. Incrimentalism is not our entire battle plan. It's a tool in our arsenal to save what lives we can while we attempt to save them all.

    I would submit to you that laws that end with..."and then you can kill the baby" are the wrong things.

    These laws we support don't allow people to kill their babies. They can already kill their babies. These laws we support make is harder to kill babies and they absolutely do save the lives of some. If we give up on rescuing those we can while you work your magic and overturn Roe, there are countless unborn children that will die that could have been spared. It may not mean much to you, but it means a lot to those kids.

    I do not see a positive correlation between any law that specifially allows for the killing of a child as long as a certain amount of time has passed, a certain pamphlet has been read, or a certain proceedure has been followed.

    You see- IT DOESN'T! It doesn't allow for the killing of a child. Killing of children is already allowed. We're not passing laws to kill children, but to protect children in a society where killing them is already completely allowed.

    Thanks to the NRLC model, we've all been lead to believe that those scenarios are acceptable, and equate to a pro life victory. They are not and they do not.

    There are many babies that are alive now because of waiting periods, clinic regulations and parental consent. Ask them if that's not a victory.

    Steve, we're not content with saving some babies- We are intent on saving ALL babies, but we must do what we can. Even if we can't save them all, we save who we can and go back for the others.

    Anything less, i.e. "incrementalism" that leads to death,

    It doesn't lead to death. Death is already there. It impedes death.

    is partaking in the very sin we say we're trying to stop.

    Absolutely not! I am not a baby killer because I support laws that make a woman wait 24 hours longer before her abortion with the hopes that she will change her mind or be impeded. I would be morally deficient if I didn't do everything I could to save that baby.

    Why would a pro-life believer endorse anything that ends with a baby being killed?

    Because those babies are going to be killed regardless, but what we endorse rescues SOME babies.

    NRLC & AUL model legislation almost always ends with the ability to kill a child once you've jumped through a few hoops.

    It doesn't "end" in that. It already exists.

    So, regardless of what Jaqueline thinks, or how much Nathan wants to defend compromise, incrementalism has never, and will never, save a single baby.

    I can show you abortion rates in Texas that have plummeted due to our law changes. And I ask you, Steve, how many babies has your all-out prohibition attempt saved?

    I would love to be unified with Nathan, and Jaqueline in the calling of the spirit as it pertains to God's gift of life.

    Then grow up, get off your high-horse and stop calling those of us who've dedicated our lives to the protection of human life guilty of killing babies.

    The problem is; if we insist on starting from a position of compromise and defeat, we'll never get there. Never.

    That's not were we're starting. But our all-out prohibition attempts have failed 48 million babies over the course 35 years. We have to do SOMETHING.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 9:35 AM


    Zeke,

    So, according to Frank and the bishops, if Germans pushed to pass laws regulating the killing of innocent Jews they wouldn't have been "supporting evil" they would just be doing what they could to "limit evil that would have been done regardless"?

    Yes! Doesn't this mean that we wouldn't have gone in guns blazing and eventually won? Absolutely not! We're still fighting a war. But if 5 million Jews died before the end of the war vs. the 6 million, that's a victory for that 1 million who lived.

    I concur with Steve Ertelt: You'd rather make a point than make a difference. It's not about saving lives to you, it's about being morally superior.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 9:39 AM


    I've got news for all of you:

    Had the South Dakota Ref. 6 included a rape/incest exception, it would have passed.

    Do I agree with abortion in those cases? NO! Abortion is wrong in every circumstance, but that law would have saved thousands of babies and presented a challenge to Roe. We could always go back for those fewer than 1% of babies after we saved the 99%, but Judie Brown, Zeke and Steve's ideology just allowed the murder of thousand of babies we could have saved. Not to mention the impact of the court challenge.

    Those that would have voted for an abortion ban didn't because of the rape/incest issue. Everybody knows this. But you'd much rather make a point than save babies.

    South Dakota is proof that your all or nothing, no compromise tactic is a failure that does enormous damage.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 9:44 AM


    Jacqueline,
    the lack of exceptions did not cause the SD ban to fail. NRLC, President Bush, and other child killing regulators failed to support the measure. Writing 'exceptions' into the law says that pro lifer's believe in killing some in order to save others. We do not. You might, but we do not. The all or nothing standard is God's standard, therefore it is ours. Who's being proud here? Those of us that submit to His standard, or those of you that believe you're smarter than God? If those of us that uphold His standard are dividing the pro life movement than Glory be to God, let there be more divisiveness. Your sinful pride is standing in the way of real battle here. Move aside, this battle will take more guts, more adhereance to the word of God than you can muster. Finally, it's comical how you try to blame 35 years of NRLC failure on a group that started less than a month ago. You are dishonest.

    Posted by: Steve at December 5, 2007 11:00 AM


    Ladies and gentlemen, the pro-life movement has lost the ability to think. This battle is not about making the pro-abortion side mad and it's not about saving babies at all costs, it's about honoring God in everything that we do. My good friend Alan Keyes said, "Satan is willing to give up all abortion in America, as long as one Christian is willing to have one abortion each year. That's because all Satan wants us to do is get us to disobey God." He's right. And guess what? The pro-life movement has forgotten about God and disobey Him in many ways.

    There's countless ways to save babies incrementally, but that doesn't make it right. Killing abortionists would save babies, but is disobedient to God. Passing a law that limited women to only one abortion in their lifetime would save thousands, maybe millions of children's lives, but how many "incrementalists" would approve of that law? The answer is none. Why? Why?! Will the incrementalists please stand up and explain why they oppose that incremental progress?

    We disobey God when we condone the killing of the innocent for incremental gain. We disobey God when we support men or women who are willing to kill some innocent children.

    American Right to Life is an answer to pray and finally, we have a national organization who is willing to obey God in this fight. Amen!

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 11:15 AM


    Steven Ertelt, was the apostle Paul wrong to march into Jerusalem and tell the 12 disciples that they were wrong?

    Divisiveness is necessary as long as people are disobedient to God. Paul is our example, who commanded us to, "Imitate me."

    I hope NRLC follows the 12 disciples example, and repents!

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 11:19 AM


    Everyone:

    This kind of "moral superiority" is EXACTLY what our Lord Jesus was referring to in His passages about hypocrisy. Shame on you who have sown discord among the pro-life ranks. Your tactics have shown your true colors!

    Be it known that the instigator of all of this dissension and, in fact, the entire chasm currently in the pro-life movement is the proud and hypocritical, "I'm out to make a buck" Bob Enyart. Would-be brother Bob is the minister of a rebellious gang north of Denver known as Denver Bible Church.

    Enyart and his misfit sidekicks have done exactly what they set out to do. Initially they attack Christian stalwarts like Dr. James Dobson (but not without selling a few DVD's first), then he covertly commandeers the oldest pro-life organization in the country in Colorado Right to Life. Then, after chasing away much of their financial backing and supportive base and ostracizing many others, they get booted from NRLC. Wow, what to do next... Oh, let's start our own national pro-life organization.

    Bob Enyart, Brian Rohrbough, Steve Curtis, Leslie Hanks... you should ALL be ashamed of yourselves. You call yourselves Christian, yet you all have so self-righteously denigrated others who simply have different perspectives on how to win this war. You are no smarter, no better, no superior morally or otherwise! You violate the very tenets of Christianity, the very words of Christ, that you accuse of others.

    This war and these battles are bigger than all of you. Stop stepping on others in order to promote yourselves! Stop sowing discord.

    Posted by: Pro-Life Grunt at December 5, 2007 11:28 AM


    Why can't both sides do their own thing without insulting one another? The absolutists and the incrementalists can each work on their own strategies. Just because someone is an incrementalist doesn't mean that the absolutist next to them can't follow his/her heart and visa-versa.

    Posted by: Carrie at December 5, 2007 11:38 AM


    the lack of exceptions did not cause the SD ban to fail.

    Yes, they did. Those polled showed they would have voted for the ban had their been exceptions- and Planned Parenthood exploited this lack of an exception for their entire ad campaign, "This just goes too far." They knew choicers would vote against the ban, so they brilliantly got pro-lifers to vote against it also by saying that no exceptions is too much.

    NRLC, President Bush, and other child killing regulators failed to support the measure.

    I fully supported it. I am for ending all abortion, no exceptions. I just knew it would fail because of the lack of exceptions.

    Writing 'exceptions' into the law says that pro lifer's believe in killing some in order to save others.

    NO! It doesn't. We're not saying, "Here- kill disabled kids in exchange for healthy kids." or "Here, kill kids conceived in rape in exchange for kids conceived in consentual sex." We ARE saying, "Here, let's save as many kids as possible. If all we can save at the moment are fractions of the whole of children, we have a moral obligation to save those we can." We aren't allowing people to kill kids to save other kids. They were killing all kids, we're saving who we can.

    Look at it this way: There are 10 kids. 1 concieved in rape. That 1 child is every bit as valuable as any other child. However, we can rescue the 9, not the 10th. We're not saying, "Kill the 10th in exchange for the 9." They were going to kill all 10. We just saved 9 babies and are going back for the 10th. However, your attitude kills all 10 kids.

    The all or nothing standard is God's standard, therefore it is ours.

    God's standard is not to withhold good when it is in our power to act. We have the power to get those 9 children. You would let them be murdered rather than saving who you can.

    Who's being proud here?

    You are. And notice how venomous you come at your brethren?

    Those of us that submit to His standard, or those of you that believe you're smarter than God?

    Sacrificing lives that you could save because you can't save all of them is not God's standard.

    If those of us that uphold His standard are dividing the pro life movement than Glory be to God, let there be more divisiveness.

    I say this lovingly: You are deceived. Listen to yourself.

    Your sinful pride is standing in the way of real battle here.

    I am doing what I can for life. This is not prideful. I want what you want. Only I see a moral obligation to limit evil.

    Move aside, this battle will take more guts, more adhereance to the word of God than you can muster.

    Your hatefulness and self-righteousness aren't saving anyone.

    Finally, it's comical how you try to blame 35 years of NRLC failure on a group that started less than a month ago. You are dishonest.

    No, I gave an example of how your ideology cost thousands of lives.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 11:39 AM


    Jacqueline, you wrote;
    [They knew choicers would vote against the ban, so they brilliantly got pro-lifers to vote against it also by saying that no exceptions is too much.]

    Pro-lifers voted against it because it didn't allow for killing babies because of the actions of others? That's the NRLC's problem in a nutshell. The have convinced people that banning all abortions is too much. How shameful.

    Posted by: Steve at December 5, 2007 12:20 PM


    This conversation needs to end.

    We have the same goal, only different ways of achieving that goal. Fighting amongst ourselves on whether to use the machine gun or the grenade to win the war only gives the enemy time to kill us all.

    There doesn't need to be any dissent. Your ideology can work exclusively on a Human Life Amendment if you so please. My ideology can continue to pass regulations and work on a Human Life Amendment and trigger bans.

    It's when you attack us, split from us, call us baby killers, and insist that everything be done your way that causes this split. You are causing disunity.

    If you feel like the battle is best fought your way- go fight it. We support your attempts at total prohibition! We will support your efforts! In fact, you cut off your nose to spite your face in splitting with us (at the expense of the unborn). It's we that have always financed your abolition efforts.

    Attacking your brethren, implying that we're happy with abortions in some circumstances, that we're prideful, that we're sinful, that we're cowards who can't muster the guts and faith to fight---What exactly do you think this accomplishes?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 12:31 PM


    Will D

    You can follow Paul if you wish, the rest of us Christian pro-lifers choose to follow Christ.

    Woe to you hypocrites!

    Suzanne

    Posted by: Suzanne at December 5, 2007 12:32 PM


    Pro-lifers voted against it because it didn't allow for killing babies because of the actions of others? That's the NRLC's problem in a nutshell. The have convinced people that banning all abortions is too much. How shameful.

    NRLC opposes all abortions. They have NOT convinced people that banning all abortions is too much. Popular opinion is that even those that oppose abortion on demand support it in those cases. So Planned Parenthood exploited popular opinion and got those that oppose abortion on demand to vote against the ban because of the lack of exceptions.

    Why are you all trash-talking the NRLC? They are our ALLIES.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 12:34 PM


    Well stated, Jacqueline. And thank you for your passionate defense of the unborn.

    She and the above poster, Pro-Life Grunt, have it right. It is you, Bob, Brian, Steve and Leslie (and others) who have created this mess. Are you all proud? While you speak of unity of the spirit, you continually sow discord and create disunity. Please, stop.

    I know you have convinced yourselves that you are doing what is right and best, but you are deceived. And you are deceiving others with your venomous lies. Your pride and hypocrisy will be your downfall. Christ will see to that.

    Don't you understand, like Jacqueline said, the war CAN be fought on two fronts! So, why do you feel the need to attack others who are also doing what they believe is right and best?

    Yes, woe to you hypocrites!

    Posted by: Mark at December 5, 2007 12:50 PM


    This war will be won only when we Christians can behave as one unified body, acting in the spirit, and with the blessings of God. Anything or anyone acting to the contrary will cause us to fail. Refrain from this infighting and keep your eyes on the prize.

    Posted by: Chantal at December 5, 2007 12:59 PM


    Thanks for your encouragement, Mark.

    This reminds me of heroic work of sidewalk counselors. Most days that they go to the clinics, they don't save one child from death. We try with everything we have, but don't succeed. But around 500 times a year in Dallas, a girl will talk to them and change her mind. This is 1% or so of the babies that were killed in our city, but they are precious nonetheless and worth all the effort it took to spare them.

    Since we can't save them all, should we not go to the clinic?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 1:02 PM


    Dear Prolife Grunt and Mr.Ertelt,

    We are not morally superior, we are just examining what needs to be changed. To continue the same strategy after 40 years without evaluating the outcome does not make any logical sense. We are looking for a way to end this atrocity. God will not allow this to go on forever, it has to end.

    When we compromise we tell people that we don't believe that a baby is a person because in some instances the baby can be killed.

    WE need to honor God, follow Do Not Murder and let God fight to battle. We are called to be faithful to Him not NRL or any man's philosophy that tells us how to fight this battle.

    Posted by: Lolita at December 5, 2007 2:48 PM


    Suzanne said, "Will D

    You can follow Paul if you wish, the rest of us Christian pro-lifers choose to follow Christ.

    Woe to you hypocrites!"

    Suzanne, I was quoting the Bible. By imitating Paul, I am imitating Christ.

    1 Cor. 11:1 "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ."

    Suzanne, can we have a rational discussion about this?

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 3:01 PM


    Carrie said, "Why can't both sides do their own thing without insulting one another? The absolutists and the incrementalists can each work on their own strategies. Just because someone is an incrementalist doesn't mean that the absolutist next to them can't follow his/her heart and visa-versa."

    Hey Carrie. I would like to discuss this with you. Would you say the same thing to a Paul Hill follower? Probably not. There are ways to stop abortion that honor God and are righteous, and there are ways to stop abortion that dishonor God and are inherently immoral. Would you as an incrementalist support legislation limiting a woman to only one abortion in her lifetime? That would save millions of children and women from abortion.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 3:05 PM


    Would you as an incrementalist support legislation limiting a woman to only one abortion in her lifetime? That would save millions of children and women from abortion.

    YES! And then I would continue to fight to ban abortion outright. But with 47% of abortions as repeats, we could save almost one million babies a year while we went for total prohibition.

    Yes, I would wholeheatedly support this.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 3:30 PM


    Jacqueline,

    You said, "This conversation needs to end.

    We have the same goal, only different ways of achieving that goal."

    I don't agree. I think we need to discuss this. Again, Paul had no problem confronting the 12 on what they were doing wrong. This attitude of "we have the same goal" is not good. Paul Hill shared our goal of ending abortion, right?

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 3:31 PM


    I just saw this:

    Passing a law that limited women to only one abortion in their lifetime would save thousands, maybe millions of children's lives, but how many "incrementalists" would approve of that law? The answer is none. Why? Why?! Will the incrementalists please stand up and explain why they oppose that incremental progress?

    I would approve of that law. And I would continue my fight for complete abolition.

    Will- abolition and regulation are not mutually exclusive! They are linear. We fight for abolition, but until we win that fight, we regulate to save what lives we can. Pro-lifers are not either incrementalists or abolitionists. All prolifers are abolitionists or they are not pro-life! However, while we work to abolish abortion, we chip away at it's foundation with regulations and save the children we can in the meantime.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 3:34 PM


    Jacqueline said,

    "YES! And then I would continue to fight to ban abortion outright. But with 47% of abortions as repeats, we could save almost one million babies a year while we went for total prohibition.

    Yes, I would wholeheatedly support this."

    Yikes! This is exactly what I'm talking about. Does supporting a law that says you can kill one of your children a good thing or bad thing in the sight of God?

    It's evil Jacqueline. I hope Jill will speak out and say you are wrong about this as well.

    Let's move on, do you support the killing of abortionists as an incremental method of saving babies? If we killed them all at once, and scared everybody from wanting to perform abortions, that might be as successful as an outright ban.

    Posted by: Anonymous at December 5, 2007 3:35 PM


    Oops, I'm the "anonymous" poster above...

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 3:36 PM


    This attitude of "we have the same goal" is not good. Paul Hill shared our goal of ending abortion, right?

    Paul Hill killed to accomplish the goal. Although you accuse us of killing babies, we do not. Neither do you.

    This attitude of "all or nothing at the expense of human lives" is not good.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 3:38 PM


    Jacqueline, remember that Satan's goal is to get you to disobey God. Paul Hill disobeyed God in his pursuit to save the unborn, and you are too. The Bible says that you shouldn't do evil that good may come of it. Supporting a law that says it's okay to kill one of your children is evil.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 3:41 PM


    Jacqueline, when did I accuse you of killing babies? These accusations are simply not true. Where are you getting them?

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 3:43 PM


    Hi Will D. I don't understand why prolifers can't pursue two different strategies. The absolutists can work on outright bans and the incrementalist can work on regulations that save as many babies as possible while we wait for the outright ban to pass. I don't agree with the incrementalists taking sides against absolute bans which is what apparently happened in some states(SD and CO). I think they were wrong to do so just I think it would be wrong for an absolutist to take a stand against the regulations that the incrementalist might pass.

    Posted by: Carrie at December 5, 2007 3:44 PM


    Yikes! This is exactly what I'm talking about. Does supporting a law that says you can kill one of your children a good thing or bad thing in the sight of God?

    Laws that allow killing are a bad thing. Laws that prohibit the killing of your children are a good thing. This law doesn't legalize the killing of one of your children. That's already legal. This law prohibits the killing of your additional children.

    The only way your position makes any rational sense is if child killing were illegal and we legalize the killing of one child.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 3:45 PM


    Carrie, maybe Paul Hill was waiting for an outright ban and was trying to save as many babies as possible in the process? At one point is it sinning to allow evil that good may come of it?

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 3:50 PM


    Jacqueline, remember that Satan's goal is to get you to disobey God. Paul Hill disobeyed God in his pursuit to save the unborn, and you are too.

    No, I'm not. I'm saving what children I can. Your blowing off some children because you can save them all is evil. How would you feel if you were in a burning building with 3 others, the firefighter can't reach anyone but you, and yet he leaves you to die because he can't save everyone? That's what you're doing.

    The Bible says that you shouldn't do evil that good may come of it.

    I'm not doing evil. I'm doing what I can to stop evil. I'm not doing evil for the sake of a good outcome. I'm not doing evil-period.

    Supporting a law that says it's okay to kill one of your children is evil.

    Absolutely! I'd never support such an evil law. I would however support a law that bans killing your second, third and additional children. These children, whom you would let be dismembered simply because you can't save their sibling, would be grateful to me that I protected them at the very least.

    I don't support laws that ALLOW for the killing of anyone. I support laws that inhibit the killing of people.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 3:51 PM


    Will, I definitely see the point you are making. I think Jacque had a good point about sidewalk counselors. They may stand there for several days and save "only" one baby. Should they not be there because they can't save all the babies? In my case, there is no opportunity for sidewalk counseling because of the buffer zone and because the mill is in a complex with other buildings which is set way back from the road. Should I stop witnessing and praying because I am unable to stop the babies there from being killed?

    Posted by: Carrie at December 5, 2007 3:52 PM


    Carrie- you articulated my point exactly.

    Jacqueline, when did I accuse you of killing babies? These accusations are simply not true. Where are you getting them?

    You're saying that I support killing babies by enacting laws to inhibit baby killing but don't actually stop the killing.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 3:53 PM


    Jacqueline,

    Regulating sin does not make it right. God did not say "Do Not Murder, except..." If rape was totally legal, would you support a law that said rape is only okay on the weekends? That's absurd, but it's the very thing you're doing here. To support a law that says "You can kill one of your children, as long as you limit the killing to only one" is evil. You will be hard=pressed to find anyone to agree with you, even the child-killing regulators of this site and others.

    Killing the innocent is wrong, no matter what. You seem to be a moral relativist. Whether killing children is legal or not, it's wrong! Agree? So to say that my position (which is that supporting a law that says you can kill your child is wrong) is wrong if abortion is legal and right if abortion is illegal, makes you a moral relativist. Am I making sense?

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 3:55 PM


    Carrie, maybe Paul Hill was waiting for an outright ban and was trying to save as many babies as possible in the process?

    Don't be facetious. The ends don't justify the means.

    My incrementalism isn't an evil I'm doing to bring about a good end. It's not evil. It's good in and of itself. I am inhibiting abortion and protecting babies where I can while I fight for abolition.

    Paul Hill's actions were objectively evil. My parental consent bill is objectively good.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 3:55 PM


    Will, why sacrifice the little ones that can be saved by these laws?

    Posted by: Carrie at December 5, 2007 3:58 PM


    Jacqueline, I'm not blowing off anyone. Can someone please draw the line for me on what is right and what is wrong on saving children? Paul Hill was an incrementalist and saved some kids. Why is that not okay in your book?

    You're obfuscating Jacqueline. A law that inhibited the killing of some of your kids would also prohibit the killing of one of them. Anybody knows that.

    All of these child-killing regulations deny the personhood of the child. If the unborn baby is a person, it's not okay to say you can kill it. Would God support a law that prohibited the killing of your 2nd child? No way.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:00 PM


    Will, do you think that some little ones have been saved by these laws? Also, did you see that I made the point that I don't think it is right for the NRTL and other such incrementalists to fight outright bans when they come up(SD and CO)?

    Posted by: Carrie at December 5, 2007 4:03 PM


    Carrie, you don't understand my position, so please bear with me.

    Why sacrifice the little ones that were saved by the actions of Paul Hill? I believe Satan would give up all abortion in America as long as one Christian killed one innocent child. You and Jacqueline would follow Satan and say "Yes!" I will follow you Satan. Saving all but one is great incremental progress. Satan's goal is to get Christians to disobey God and I think I can show that supporting a law that says "You can kill your child if you get your parents permission" is evil.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:04 PM


    Regulating sin does not make it right.

    You're right! I never said it did. I am trying to stop it altogether and rescuing babies in the meantime. The underground railroad continued throughout the Civil War, Will.

    God did not say "Do Not Murder, except..."

    Right. I'm not proposing that abortion should be legal with exceptions...I'm proposing it be completely banned. But right now- it's completely legal, and I'll invoke any options I have to stop what evil I can until it's completely illegal once again.

    If rape was totally legal, would you support a law that said rape is only okay on the weekends?

    Yes. I would. I would support limiting rape until I could ban it outright. But rape is never okay, not on weekends or anytime. Same with abortion. We're talking flesh and blood victims here, Will. If I can save some from rape and murder, I have no choice. I can't let principle trump people.

    To support a law that says "You can kill one of your children, as long as you limit the killing to only one" is evil.

    The existing law that allows for the killing of any children is evil. My law that would save the secondborn and other children is good. I'm not allowing for the firstborn to be killed- that's already allowed. I'm protecting children that would otherwise have been killed. I'm sure if you were a secondborn child in this scenario, you'd agree with me.

    You will be hard=pressed to find anyone to agree with you, even the child-killing regulators of this site and others.

    Apparently not. And I don't base my opinions on market research. They can disagree with me all day long.

    Killing the innocent is wrong, no matter what.

    Amen!

    You seem to be a moral relativist.

    I'm a moral absolutist. When have I defended abortion in any scenario? I oppose it completely.

    Whether killing children is legal or not, it's wrong! Agree?

    Yes.

    So to say that my position (which is that supporting a law that says you can kill your child is wrong) is wrong if abortion is legal and right if abortion is illegal, makes you a moral relativist. Am I making sense?

    NO! Because abortion is wrong all the time, regardless of legality. That's why we must stop it completely. While we fight the fire, we still rescue the victims, do we not? I will continue to pull as many babies from the flames as I can until we succeed and put the fire out. You'll let them die while you battle the blaze. Your ideology trumps human lives and does evil- which is what Satan wants.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:06 PM


    Jacqueline said, "Paul Hill's actions were objectively evil. My parental consent bill is objectively good."

    Paul Hill didn't think so and neither do you. Your parental consent bill is evil. Your bill says, "If you get your parents permission, you can kill all of your children." That's evil Jacqueline, why can't you see that?

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:07 PM


    Jacqueline said, "When have I defended abortion in any scenario? I oppose it completely."

    You defend abortion when you say "It's okay to have an abortion if you get your parent's permission." That's defending abortion Jacqueline!

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:09 PM


    I do see your point Will. What would you have us do in the meantime while we wait for a ban? Should we give up all prolife activities and devote all our time and attention to a ban? Should I give up my activities as a prolifer because I haven't been able to save any children? What would you have us do in the meantime? Should the Truth Truck stop? Should education about fetal development stop? Should sidewalk counseling stop? These activities are not done with the purpose of killing(like Paul Hill). These activities are for the purpose of preventing killing. I appreciate the discussion and I can honestly say that I have never been accused of following Satan before. I guess there is a first time for everything. Call me misguided if you will, but please don't call me evil.

    Posted by: Carrie at December 5, 2007 4:13 PM


    You're absolutely infuriating, Will. We are not passing laws allowing the killing of anyone. We are simply inhibiting the killing that is already allowed.

    Imagine you're the unborn child of a scared underage girl that wants to abort. Those Satan-following incrementalists have just passed a law making that little girl get her parents permission before she can abort you. Parents say no. You're born and adopted. Now, before the law, you were guarenteed to be aborted. After the law, you are alive and warm. As that baby, would you have sacrificed your life and limbs waiting for an all out ban, or be grateful that you escaped while people fought for an all-out ban?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:17 PM


    Carrie, you're not evil and I haven't said that you are. You are also not a follower of Satan. I wish it were easier on a blog to explain my position. Incrementalism is not bad or evil, compromised incrementalism is bad and evil. I'm a sidewalk counselor, I drive a truth car, I'm currently trying to stop Planned Parenthood in Denver, KeePPout.com, and I'm all for pro-life activities, just as long as we don't disobey God in the process. I think Paul Hill saved babies, but disobeyed God in the process. He did evil that good may come of it. Supporting a presidential candidate that's willing to kill some innocent children is wrong and disobeys God. Support a piece of legislation that explicitly says "You can kill all your children if you get your parents permission" also disobeys God and is wrong. I appreciate your time and discussing this with me.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:20 PM


    Paul Hill didn't think so and neither do you. Your parental consent bill is evil. Your bill says, "If you get your parents permission, you can kill all of your children." That's evil Jacqueline, why can't you see that?

    Why can't you see that before my bill, it was "You can kill your children and there's nothing your parent's can do to save their granchild." ? I passed a pill to fetter previously unfettered child-killing, not to legalize child killing in a certain scenario.

    You defend abortion when you say "It's okay to have an abortion if you get your parent's permission." That's defending abortion Jacqueline!

    No- abortion is never okay. I don't say, nor IMPLY that it is. I don't defend it at all. I see that allowing grandparents to protect their unborn grandchildren when before they could not, that many babies that would have been killed would now live, as a MORAL OBLIGATION. We must save what babies we can.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:09 PM

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:21 PM


    Jacqueline, imagine you're the unborn child of a scared underage girl that wants to abort. Right before she goes to abort you, Paul Hill murders her abortionist and she's scared for her own life, so you're born and adopted. As that baby, would you have sacrificed your life and limbs waiting for an all out ban, or be grateful that you escaped while people fought for an all-out ban?

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:22 PM


    I'm a sidewalk counselor

    So am I.

    So aren't you saying, "You can kill your baby as long as you talk with me first?"

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:23 PM


    Will- Paul Hill killed someone. The ends don't justify the means.

    I don't kill anyone or support the killing of anyone. Comparing Paul Hill to incrementalism is erroneous.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:24 PM


    Also- way to dodge the question, Will.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:25 PM


    I concur with Carrie, "Should all attempts to save babies other than an outright ban cease immeadiately?"

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:27 PM


    Jacqueline, your bills will be responsible for the slaughter of thousands, maybe millions of children. Let me explain:

    If Roe is simply overturned, abortion goes back to the states. Any state laws in effect will now be used in that particular state to either allow or prohibit abortion. If a state has no child-killing regulations, abortion will be illegal in that state. If a state has your bill, "If you get your parents permission, you can kill all your children" then abortion will remain legal, even though Roe was overturned. How many children will die by your law Jacqueline. How many?

    (BTW, how do you plan on overturning your own law if Roe is overturned? Are you going to say to America, "Oops, I changed my mind."?)

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:28 PM


    Jacqueline said, "So aren't you saying, "You can kill your baby as long as you talk with me first?"

    No, I've never said that and would never support a law that said that either.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:30 PM


    I'm working on a trigger ban in my state.

    Furthermore, the legislatures that passed regulations because Roe kept them from outlawing abortions will be quick to implement trigger bans.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:33 PM


    No, I've never said that and would never support a law that said that either.

    Suppose a law was passed that made the women who walk by you anyway stop and get information about abortion alternatives. You'd oppose that and lose an opportunity to save that baby, would you?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:34 PM


    How many children will die by your law Jacqueline. How many?

    How many children currently are dying by your absence of law, Will? How many?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:35 PM


    Jacqueline said, "Will- Paul Hill killed someone. The ends don't justify the means."

    Your ends don't justify the means, and your bill may one day be ultimately responsible for killing someone. We need to really think hard about what we do in this fight.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:35 PM


    Reverse that...the ends don't justify your means.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:37 PM


    Jacqueline, I think you're very confused and I hope you can see the truth in this from someone you respect. The trigger law answer won't work either. The pro-abortion side can do the exact same thing, and I'm sure they will.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:39 PM


    Jacqueline, I think you're very confused

    Thanks. I think you're very deceived. Limiting evil is a moral obligation. Letting evil go unchecked is not an option.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:41 PM


    . The trigger law answer won't work either. The pro-abortion side can do the exact same thing, and I'm sure they will.

    The Human Life Amendment is the answer. Making sure a right to life (personhood from conception to natural death) is the only way to fix this mess. But that's not happening, so trigger bans and regulations are the next best thing.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:43 PM


    Jacqueline said, "We are not passing laws allowing the killing of anyone."

    Yes you are. If Roe is overturned, your law will allow the killing of innocent children. You must face this fact. You don't know if all 50 states, or your state will have a trigger law. It sounds like you've put the cart before the horse and now lives are at stake.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:45 PM


    Your ends don't justify the means, and your bill may one day be ultimately responsible for killing someone.

    And your absence of bills are currently killing people that we could save.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:47 PM


    Jacqueline said, "The Human Life Amendment is the answer...But that's not happening, so trigger bans and regulations are the next best thing."

    It is happening right now in multiple states, but you're so caught up in child-killing regulations that you missed it. It will probably fail because everyone's efforts are tied up in the child-killing regulation process. How sad.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:48 PM


    Jacqueline said, "And your absence of bills are currently killing people that we could save."

    And the absence of Paul Hills is killing people that we could save.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:50 PM


    If Roe is overturned, your law will allow the killing of innocent children.

    If Roe is overturned, Texas will be prepared via trigger ban.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:52 PM


    Stop comparing me to Paul Hill, Will.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:53 PM


    Jacqueline said, "If Roe is overturned, Texas will be prepared via trigger ban."

    How do you know? You put the cart before the horse. You messed up big time.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 4:54 PM


    And the absence of Paul Hills is killing people that we could save.

    The second your magic wand overturns Roe, you can tell me I messed up. Currently my laws are saving laws and you are allowing Roe to continue unfettered.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 4:58 PM


    I meant to cut and paste:

    How do you know? You put the cart before the horse. You messed up big time.

    My laws are saving lives. How is your attempt at a Human Life Amendment going? No such luck in 35 years. Have you nothing to show for your activism?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 5, 2007 5:01 PM


    Will, thanks for explaining. Do you acknowledge that some of the regulatory laws have saved lives? Or is your position that in the long run they will cost more lives then they save? Evil can't be stopped 100% so should we just stop trying to eliminate evil where we can? If evil still exists, should we just give up because we can't stop it all together? I am talking about all forms of evil.

    Posted by: Carrie at December 5, 2007 5:44 PM


    I don't agree with the fact that Paul Hill committed murder. However, Paul Hill killed a killer.

    Posted by: heather at December 5, 2007 6:11 PM


    Will, I support state abortion bans. However, couldn't I say that state abortion bans say that it is not ok to kill unborns in one state, but that it is ok to kill unborns in other states? Maybe an ultra-absolutist would say that unless the abortion ban is a federal ban than it is an evil law. I live in a very liberal state so the only way to save babies in my state is through regulations and an eventual federal abortion ban. (Please note that I support state abortion bans. I was just trying to make a point. I am trying to take an absolutist's view to what I see as the logical endpoint.)

    Posted by: Carrie at December 5, 2007 6:30 PM


    Jacqueline said,"You're right! I never said it did. I am trying to stop it altogether and rescuing babies in the meantime. The underground railroad continued throughout the Civil War, Will."

    Using emergency scenarios is not equivalent. The underground railroad, saving Jews from death camps and sidewalk counselors are needed and are addressing the current evil while trying to save as many as possible. That is different than making laws that say, you can kill Jews every day except Sunday, this would save some Jews wouldn't it? How about if antislavery proponents made laws saying you can only have one slave? It would keep some blacks from being slaves, right?

    Dealing with the emergent situation and doing what you can is much different than making the law permitting some evil to save others. That is wrong.

    Some of these compromised laws of course have saved some kids but, some have sentenced many to death. Grandparents do not have the authority from God (can't be granted by government) to give permission to kill their grandchild (parental consent). This just causes abortion to be further entrenched in our society, making more people complicit in the act and abortion becomes much harder to get rid of. The fetal pain act will make some women feel better about the baby getting pain medicine of course, and some will change their mind, you bet. How about 24 hour waiting period? Still wrong because the mother does not have God's authority to kill her child. Some women will just ride out another 24 hours. The born alive act may save some babies who live through the abortion and it also may make abortionists more determined to deliver a dead child and find more effective killing methods.

    We can admit that some of these laws may and can save some kids but, the unintended consequences of pro-lifers trying to out think right and wrong is never admitted to by the other side.

    Dr Charles Rice, Notre Dame law professor has pointed out that current pro-life laws will keep abortion legal if Roe were overturned. How many years will we spend trying to undo our own laws?

    Posted by: Lolita at December 5, 2007 6:39 PM


    "MK, in the spirit of the Christmas season, I'm going to petition Jill to double your salary."

    Will I have to pay taxes on the salary increase?

    Upon consultation with IRS officials, it does look like you will be required to do so. Rather like the assumption of income on the part of waiters, whether said income actually accrues or not.

    Posted by: Doug at December 5, 2007 11:07 PM


    Carrie said, "Will, thanks for explaining. Do you acknowledge that some of the regulatory laws have saved lives?"

    Your welcome. Yes, the regulations can and probably have saved lives. I also believe Paul Hill saved lives by what he did. The Fetal Pain Act would have convinced some women to not have an abortion. The buck doesn't stop there though. The Fetal Pain Act offered anesthetic to the baby, which would have convinced some women to kill their baby.

    "Or is your position that in the long run they will cost more lives then they save?"

    They very may well cost more lives than they will save, but that is really irrelevant. For me, I want to obey God in everything that I do. I can honestly say that if I was approached by Satan and he offered to end abortion as long as one Christian, me, was willing to kill one innocent child, I would decline. I would not disobey my God, no matter how many lives I would save. After speaking with Jacqueline, I don't think she can answer that way. Based on her ideology that she has expressed to me here, she would take Satan's deal.

    "Evil can't be stopped 100% so should we just stop trying to eliminate evil where we can? If evil still exists, should we just give up because we can't stop it all together? I am talking about all forms of evil."

    No, of course not. We must not do evil that good may come of it. I'm trying to eliminate evil about 60 hours a week, but I'm not compromising my faith in the process. I sidewalk counsel, educate, debate, drive a truth car around town, and spend most of my efforts trying to stop Planned Parenthood. I've never said that a human life amendment is the only answer. It's not. While people are fighting for a HLA, women are killing their children. Of all my involvements in the pro-life movement, I feel most called to be on the sidewalk outside the mill. That's where I feel the most babies are being saved, so that's where I'm at.

    "However, couldn't I say that state abortion bans say that it is not ok to kill unborns in one state, but that it is ok to kill unborns in other states?"

    Great question! I've thought this through very much. Ending abortion in America with a human life amendment does not end abortion in this world. It's still legal in virtually every country. So in reality, ending abortion in America is incrementalism. Again, I'm not against incrementalism. Onto your question. If a law that ended abortion in a state said, "Abortion is illegal in Colorado, but if you travel to another state, then you can kill the baby," that is a bad law and I would not support it. If you can end abortion statewide, nationwide, whatever, without condoning the legal slaughter of innocent blood, then go for it!

    Why can't we pass a law that says a child needs their parents permission to undergo ANY legal medical procedure? Then, when abortion is overturned, that law won't keep abortion legal or allow the shedding of innocent blood.

    Posted by: Will D at December 5, 2007 11:58 PM


    Jacqueline said:

    "Yes! Doesn't this mean that we wouldn't have gone in guns blazing and eventually won? Absolutely not! We're still fighting a war. But if 5 million Jews died before the end of the war vs. the 6 million, that's a victory for that 1 million who lived."

    Which army is going to come in and stop the abortion holocaust in America that has claimed 8 times as many lives as the Nazi holocaust? Without a federal human life amendment the killing will continue and look more reasonable with the restrictions in place that stop a very small amount of abortions form occuring so that the abortion holocaust continues indefinitely.

    Jacqueline said:

    "I concur with Steve Ertelt: You'd rather make a point than make a difference. It's not about saving lives to you, it's about being morally superior."

    Well, it is good to be morally superior to the person who promotes evil laws that say its OK to kill the baby because of rape and incest or because the teen mom got a judicial bypass or had a parent (or someone claiming to be her parent) sign their consent saying its OK to murder the baby. So, yes, you are correct when you state that the position held by ARTL and myself is morally superior to yours and that liar Steve Ertelt.

    Because we have a CHRISTIAN PRO-LIFE strategy we obey God's command You shall not murder and we accept the principle that Machiavellian tactics where the end justifies the means are not acceptable (its wrong to do evil that good may come Rom 3:8).

    You don't see an example of a great man in the bible following you and Ertelt's Godless strategy. You do, however, find examples of Godly men following the strategy that ARTL and myself follow and promote (Daniel is a good example of that strategy).

    Your strategy and thinking is MACHIAVELLIAN in its nature. Ours is GODLY because it is according to what God has commanded of us.

    Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 6, 2007 2:59 AM


    Jacqueline said:

    "I've got news for all of you:

    Had the South Dakota Ref. 6 included a rape/incest exception, it would have passed.

    Do I agree with abortion in those cases? NO! Abortion is wrong in every circumstance"

    YES YOU DO!! When you support the passing of a law that says its OK to murder a baby because they were conceived through rape or incest that is A SPECIFIC ACTION YOU HAVE DONE that shows that you do in fact agree with abortion in those cases.

    Oh yeah, you might not agree with aborting babies for those reasons in theory and in some sort of fairytale view of the world, but when it comes to the real world and what sort of world you will help to actualize you definitely approve and agree with killing innocent babies because one of their parents is a criminal.

    ********NEWSFLASH********

    Victory can never be attained by consistently compromising your values. It can only be attained by coonsistently upholding the values that are based on absolute truth i.e. its always wrong to intentionally kill the innocent.

    Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 6, 2007 3:08 AM


    Suzanne said demonstrating her biblical illiteracy:

    "You can follow Paul if you wish, the rest of us Christian pro-lifers choose to follow Christ.

    Woe to you hypocrites!"

    Will D was simply referencing 1 Cor 11:1 when he said we should imitate Paul.

    1 Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also [imitate] Christ.

    And Paul also mentions that he is our pattern. Do you have a problem with this statement of his also?

    Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.

    1 Timothy 1:16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

    Check out this excellent article that deals with 1 Timothy 1:16
    http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/ohair/GRACE%20WORKS%20IN%20ADOBE/WAS%20PAUL%20THE%20CHIEF%20OF%20SINNERS.pdf

    Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 6, 2007 3:32 AM


    I've read through allof the comments between Will D and Jacqueline and the winner of that debate by a wide margin is

    ~~drum roll~~

    WILL D!

    He came out on top not just because of his arguments, but because he was able to show that Jacqueline does not understand that promoting the legalizing of killing the innocent (such as a parental consent law) is much much worse than actually going out and murdering one baby with your own bare hands.

    Why is this? Its really simple!

    If someone goes out and kills an innocent baby or two the police will hunt them down and bring them to trial to be convicted for murder. Or perhaps the police will find them and shoot them dead in a standoff (which is actually much better than a lengthy, expensive trial and the miscarriage of justice that follows in their being sent to prison where taxpayers pay for their food, shelter and entertainment).

    But, if your support of an evil law that says its OK to kill a baby is passed, then that evil act of murder is given the authority of law and protected by the police and the rest of the government.

    I know that Jacqueline is objecting saying "Its already premitted by law to kill innocent babies!!" That's true. But, with each knew law the ESTABLISHMENT of legalized abortion grows stronger. Enyart calls it the abortion weed. Each new law with its minor restrictions makes abortion seem more reasonable to the youth and young adults in our nation and eats away at the reality of the personhood of the preborn in their minds and hearts.

    And that's why the gang at ARTL and myself can't be OK with working our Godly strategy while those like Jacqueline promote their Godless strategy (where did Jesus Christ or any other saint ever say "do what you can to limit evil"?) - because their strategy UNDERMINES the personhood of the unborn. And the personhood of the unborn is exactly what we must establish in order to bring an end to the abortion holocaust in the USA and abroad.

    Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 6, 2007 4:11 AM


    our Godly strategy while those like Jacqueline promote their Godless strategy

    Oh good grief, Zeke, as decidedly "Un-Christian" as you are at times, it's pretty ludicrous for you to be calling what Jacqueline wants or approves of "Godless."

    I think much of this is really just about you having a need to try and prove to yourself just how "holy" you are.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at December 6, 2007 7:23 AM


    I agree with you, Doug!

    Posted by: Bethany at December 6, 2007 10:24 AM


    Doug, I think Zeke need his tinfoil hat adjusted. Maybe we could chip in and buy him one in a holiday color so he can pick-up the signals coming from the mother ship?

    Posted by: Carrie at December 6, 2007 10:42 AM


    Will, hello. I really appreciate all the time you put into saving unborns. What advice would you have for prolifers who live in states that will never pass a statewide abortion ban? This is also a state with a very restrictive buffer zone that impacts our ability to sidewalk counsel.

    Posted by: Carrie at December 6, 2007 10:48 AM


    He came out on top not just because of his arguments, but because he was able to show that Jacqueline does not understand that promoting the legalizing of killing the innocent (such as a parental consent law) is much much worse than actually going out and murdering one baby with your own bare hands.

    What country do you live in? It's already legalized! I oppose legal killing of the innocent and propose protections for the innocent.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 6, 2007 11:37 AM


    I agree with you, Doug!

    Bethany, you always do....

    Posted by: Doug at December 6, 2007 12:17 PM


    Or perhaps the police will find them and shoot them dead in a standoff (which is actually much better than a lengthy, expensive trial and the miscarriage of justice that follows in their being sent to prison where taxpayers pay for their food, shelter and entertainment).


    You're a merciless bastard, you know that?

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 6, 2007 12:38 PM


    my 10:42 post should read*needs his tinfoil hat adjusted*

    Posted by: Carrie at December 6, 2007 12:50 PM


    Will, hello. I really appreciate all the time you put into saving unborns. What advice would you have for prolifers who live in states that will never pass a statewide abortion ban? This is also a state with a very restrictive buffer zone that impacts our ability to sidewalk counsel.

    Posted by: Carrie at December 6, 2007 10:48 AM
    .........................................

    Perhaps move to a state that cares more about the contents of a woman's uterus than women themselves?

    Posted by: Sally at December 6, 2007 1:13 PM


    Shhh Sally, don't tell. My secret plan is to make every state like that. Let's keep it between us, ok?

    Posted by: Carrie at December 6, 2007 1:49 PM


    Jaqueline, you seem to be comfortable with 1.3 million dead babies a year so long as your doctrine of "incrementalism" is preserved.

    You seem to be comfortable with 1.3 million dead babies a year. I'm trying to save as many as I can.

    I don't have a doctrine. I don't care about pro-life strategy as long as it's not immoral and it's effective. Not rescuing what children we can as we twittle our thumbs waiting for a Supreme Court turnover ain't working.

    I have no fondness for incrementalism. I just save what lives I can save.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 6, 2007 4:37 PM


    If Roe is simply overturned, abortion goes back to the states. Any state laws in effect will now be used in that particular state to either allow or prohibit abortion. If a state has no child-killing regulations, abortion will be illegal in that state.

    Wait, why would it be? If there are no state laws on abortion, it would be completely legal and unrestricted.

    Posted by: Jen R at December 6, 2007 8:21 PM


    MK, there's nothing sanctimonious about it. Nat'l RTL has for decades been *opposing* establishing the personhood of the unborn, thwarting any chance of ending abortion in our lifetime. Along with Bush, they opposed the abortion ban in S. Dakota for this reason, and this is no surprise, since both Bush and NRTL are pro-choice, and advocate keeping abortion legal, but simply limited and regulated. (If your father is a rapist, we should be able to tear you limb from limb with impunity.) Anyone who advocates keeping abortion legal (exceptions of rape/incest/health) are NOT pro-life by any reasonable definition. Colorado RTL was kicked out because we advocate establishing the personhood of the unborn. NRTL actually said this year that not only is it not the "right time" to fight for personhood, but that they actually intend to wait until their org's 70th anniversary before even considering it... 35 years from now! Meanwhile, a million babies a year are slaughtered while they focus on creating regulations on *how* to legally kill babies. No one's a better expert on regulating how to legally kill babies, than NRTL. If you ____, you can kill the baby. But we in the personhood side of the pro-life movement have had enough. 40 years since abortion was legalized here in Colorado (signed into law by a Republican governor John Love), and 50 million dead. The first pro-life organization in America is Colorado Right to Life. Accordingly, the first legal abortion clinic in America is also right here in Denver, still open at 20th and Vine. It started here, and by God, we in Colorado intend to finish it. Even the founders of NRTL quit them because they became pro-choice. Is that not enough to get you to reconsider?

    Posted by: The Graphite at December 6, 2007 8:35 PM


    Jacqueline, where did you get this falacious idea that the personhood side of the pro-life movement is opposed to incrementalism? I'm sorry, but that's preposterous. We are very much in favor of saving even one baby at a time. If my friend, sidewalk counselor Jo Scott, saves one baby at the clinic here, we rejoice! We don't say, "Oh no, we didnt' save every baby." What do you take us for? And if we close one clinic, we don't bewail the fact that hundreds of other clinics remain open in America... We rejoice! And if we ended abortion in America, we wouldn't criticize ourselves because another 49 million babies are killed around the rest of the world each year... We'd praise God! Incrementalism is fine. What we have a problem with is regulating *how* to kill babies, and this is what NRTL and many others are doing. If you don't cross the state border, you can kill your baby. If you sign this paper, you can kill your baby. If you notify your spouse, you can kill your baby. If you claim to be raped (but never even filed a police report), you can get a taxpayer-funded abortion (a ruling from Samuel Alito, what a great guy). We've established that even according to pro-life law professors, these regulations will keep abortion legal after Roe v. Wade is overturned. Pro-aborts will look at the law and observe that "if I _____, I can have an abortion. That's what your law says." And they'll laugh as we spend another half a century repealing the regulations we worked so hard to put into effect. Not to mention we have spent 15 years and tens of millions of dollars fighting for a partial-birth abortion ban, only to learn now that it doesn't save even one single baby's life. No, not one. (Even Dr. Dobson has finally admitted it, although reluctantly.) Instead, that Supreme Court ruling is nothing more than a PBA manual, giving graphic and barbaric descriptions on how to legally perform partial-birth abortions, describing ripping the baby's limbs off while they're still alive, etc., and telling doctors they may find "more gruesome methods" to abort babies. And pro-lifers celebrate that atrocity of a decision? This is the compromised position that people like Bush and NRTL have led us to. We need to stop obsessing about creating rules for how to legally kill babies, and establish the personhood of the unborn. If NRTL won't help, they need to get out of the way and let us do it. We are motivated, we are committed, and we will save actual lives, whether one at a time, or all at once.

    Posted by: The Graphite at December 6, 2007 8:48 PM


    Oh, hey, I found that endorsement I mentioned upthread. It was Leslie Hanks of Colorado Right to Life who endorsed Larry Kilgore for governor of Texas in 2006. And look, Flip Benham, Jo Scott, Patrick Johnston, Cal Zastrow, and Brian Rohrbough of ARTL did too! Kilgore advocates, well, a whole lot of killing:

    "Judges will execute those convicted of murder (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14; 20:13; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16-21, 31; Deut. 19:11-13; 1Ki. 18:22, 39-40; 1 Tim. 1:8-10) including those euthanizing, starving, or aborting (Ex. 21:22-23) human beings from the moment of fertilization to natural death. Judges will flog those guilty of assault and impose restitution for lost income and medical expenses (Ex. 21:18-19), and for permanent injury also require an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, life for life (Lev. 24:19-20). Judges will carry out all corporal and capital punishments swiftly and painfully, within twenty-four hours of conviction; and limit floggings to forty blows (Deut. 25:1-3; Lev. 24:19-20; 19:16-21; 1 Pet. 2:20)."

    "Judges will execute those convicted of bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16); those convicted of incest including with in-laws (Lev. 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21); of homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13); of child molestation; of kidnapping or rape (Ex. 21:15-16; Deut. 22:25-27; 24:7); and of adultery with a married woman (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14).

    (Some of Kilgore's page is still intact at larrykilgore dot com. I grabbed the above from the Wayback Machine, from Nov 4 2006.)

    American Right to Life also has at least one advocate of the murder of abortionists on board. Lovely group. Kind of in love with death, it seems to me.

    Posted by: Jen R at December 6, 2007 9:08 PM


    Sorry, some of those endorsements are for Kilgore for Senate 2008, not Kilgore for Governor 2006.

    Posted by: Jen R at December 6, 2007 9:10 PM


    Jen, Colorado Right to Life and those who work with us categorically oppose the murder of abortionists, homosexuals, adulterers, etc. Taking the law into one's own hands makes you guilty of murder, yourself, and we have been very vocal that we would want the death penalty for anyone who murders an abortionist. At least one of the leaders you mentioned has even worked with police to help expose pseudo-pro-lifers who advocate murdering abortionists! (Anyone who advocates murdering abortionists is not pro-life!)

    However, God makes it very clear He believes it is appropriate for the government to be a terror to the wicked, particularly to "bring the sword" to murderers, adulterers, homosexuals and kidnappers. Which of those divinely-inspired scriptures you cited do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with God regarding all of those scriptures?

    We advocate the death penalty for these things because 1) God has expressed He believes this is right, and 2) it is the loving and merciful thing to do, in order to dissuade people from ever becoming murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. Millions of men have died slow, torturous death from AIDS and other diseases because our western culture has condoned the abomination of homosexuality. It isn't supernatural divine wrath. It's simply the natural consequence of a lifestyle of death (which is exactly what homosexuality is). We are pro-death penalty precisely because we are pro-life to the core.

    But, perhaps you seek to be nicer than God...

    How dare you say we are "in love with death." Are you unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments? Bearing false witness is found therein, and according to God's word, someone who bears false witness against someone else should be punished with the punishment the other person *would* have received.

    If you want someone associated with death, you should look to those who are obsessed with creating regulations on how to legally kill unborn children -- National Right to Life, George Bush, Hugh Hewitt, Jay Sekulow, etc. People who cheer a Supreme Court decision that actually instructs doctors on how to carry out legal partial-birth abortion procedurs and encourages them to find even more gruesome ways to do it. My, how far we have come in the pro-life movement, when people can look at that violently barbaric decision and cheer for it, even claiming it is God's answer to prayer.

    It is a sad time we live in. But a new movement is underway, one which will refuse to compromise on "Thou shalt not murder." So, like I said, the more the merrier, but either hop on or get out of the way.

    Posted by: The Graphite at December 6, 2007 9:54 PM


    You're talking to the wrong atheist if you want somebody to agree that "God says we should kill them!" is a good reason.

    Colorado Right to Life and those who work with us categorically oppose the murder of abortionists, homosexuals, adulterers, etc.

    Matthew Trewhella didn't sign the statement claiming that Michael Griffin's murder of David Gunn was "justifiable homicide"? He never spoke at the "White Rose" banquet honoring murderers?

    Posted by: Jen R at December 6, 2007 10:07 PM


    The Graphite,

    I totally agree with EVERYTHING you said. WOW!! I like you...you should come 'round here more often!

    One baby saved is truly a rejoicing moment!

    I, for one, will not budge on my anti-abortion stance. No abortion, for any reason, is a justifiable reason.

    God bless you & keep standing like a rock!

    Posted by: AB Laura at December 6, 2007 10:35 PM


    Thanks for the welcome, Laura. I'm a friend of Will D, but didn't even realize he had posted here until I'd posted twice. LOL I'm already quite blessed, so God bless ya right back!

    Posted by: The Graphite at December 6, 2007 11:06 PM


    Jen R is an atheist? Guess that explains her inability to distinguish between mass murderer's and innocent babies. It also sheds light on her indifference to the fact that child-killing regualators like NRLC don't save babies lives. Then there's her disregard for God's law and...

    Posted by: Steve at December 8, 2007 7:16 PM


    Jen...

    Matt Trewhella is not a member of American Right to Life. He doesn't work with American Right to Life. He is on a list someone compiled of people who condemn the Partial Birth Abortion ruling, and that list was posted at American Right to Life, as a whole, to show the degree of concensus on that disgusting, barbaric ruling. Someone compiled that list before ARTL ever even existed. ARTL is categorically opposed to vigilante murder (or assault) of abortionists or clinic workers. The fact that he (rightly) condemns that terrible ruling doesn't mean he represents ARTL, or that we are associated with him. Let's be clear on that.

    Posted by: The Graphite at December 8, 2007 10:56 PM


    To Jacqueline
    I AM a sidewalk counseler and I do not support
    laws that end with, and then you can kill the baby
    Please be careful who you are speaking for.

    Posted by: Michael W at December 9, 2007 9:07 PM


    The Graphite:

    I just saw your comment. If you're still reading this, thank you for the clarification. It's good to know that Matthew Trewhella doesn't work with ARTL. (You might want to let Jill know as well; the post lists him as a charter member. I take it from your comment that he did not attend the meeting in November; is that correct?) Still, listing his name prominently on the front page makes it look like ARTL considers him a legitimate "pro-life" leader.

    Steve:

    You needn't talk about me as though I'm not here. :) Yes, I'm an atheist. We're still allowed to exist and express our opinions in this country. Want to try discussing my positions instead of lying about them?

    Posted by: Jen R at December 10, 2007 2:28 PM


    Jen R,
    I spoke about you as if you weren't here, because you're not. I'm here and don't see you anywhere. As for your positions, I don't really care to hear anymore of your boorish rancor.

    Posted by: Steve at December 10, 2007 8:39 PM


    Noted!

    Posted by: Jen R at December 11, 2007 12:06 PM



    It sounds to me like there IS much self-righteousness and moral superiority going on here. Several of you, in fact, sound eerily similar to Bob Enyart, who portends anyone who doesn't agree with him to be "evil."

    Does the hand not need the foot? Abolition and incrementalism as philosophies or methodologies are NOT mutually exclusive. This is particularly so with abortion and the war to end it. So, you that act as if you are superior, like you know God better than the rest of us... your claim indicates that you do not.

    No, I'm not going to quote scripture to you on this, because I'm sure you're all bright enough to look it up. But, I will repeat one line from the great text. Woe to you hypocrites! And, remember, judgment begins with the Church and, perhaps, in this case, with Denver Bible Church.

    Posted by: Rev Peters at December 13, 2007 12:04 PM