ARTL crashes NRLC's party

Last year members of CO Right to Life openly challenged National Right to Life's support (among others) of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban by taking out newspaper ads and threatening a class action lawsuit.

The disagreement culminated in CRTL hosting a hostile hospitality suite at the 2007 NRLC convention and being ousted as an affiliate.

That led to the formation of American Right to Life, which is now focused on establishing personhood at conception through state and federal legislative efforts.

At the just held NRLC convention, ARTL surprised everyone by hosting a hospitality suite at the Crystal City Hyatt where NRLC was meeting. This info comes from ARTL, reporting about its 1st day, July 3. The controversy didn't make LifeNews.com. Also didn't see any MSM coverage, although MSM surely had no clue what was going on....

artl nrlc 4.jpg

Scores of NRTL conventioneers are streaming into the ARTL suites to enjoy good food and drink, and to consider the moral argument for the personhood strategy toward ending "legalized" child killing....

The Hyatt told ARTL that we could place a poster advertisement for our hospitality suite on a tripod in their lobby inviting folks to our Regency Suite to celebrate the "personhood amendment on CO's November ballot!" Four things happened immediately after Hyatt personnel placed our poster in their lobby....

First, pro-lifers immediately came to our suite. Second, NRTL officials insisted that the Hyatt remove our poster. Third, Hyatt removed our poster. Fourth, we held our first meeting with Hyatt officials.

Our ARTL hospitality suite was on the same floor as the John McCain's, although ours was twice as large and far nicer with flowers, red white and blue decorations, much better food and drink, shrimp cocktails, literature, DVDs, darkened theater, media center, better seating, etc.

However, after NRTL's complaint, the Hyatt officials maintained that even though ARTL is renting a significant section of the top floor of their hotel, and even though the Hyatt had posted our notice in their lobby, and even though they admitted that, "yes, we misrepresented that you could post your notice in our lobby," still, they would not restore our notice to its tripod.

Thumbnail image for artl nrlc.jpg

Attorney James Odom, representing ARTL, told the hotel's general manager that since the Hyatt would not post our small poster board notice in the lobby as had been promised, we would hold signs in front of the hotel with enlarged versions of the poster, blown up to a huge 48-square feet. The hotel called in the Arlington VA police, and told ARTL officials that if they stood on the sidewalk in front of the hotel, they would be arrested.

Businesses and police officers often claim that protests in front of businesses are illegal, falsely claiming that public sidewalks are private property (rarely are sidewalks actually on private property). So, veteran street activist and ARTL spokesman Bob Enyart surveyed the scene and decided not to challenge the hotel's claim.

Instead, the protesters organized across the street. The front of the Hyatt is all glass, hundreds of hotel rooms, glass elevators, enormous lobby windows spanning two floors, etc. By holding signs on the sidewalk directly in front of the hotel, only those entering and leaving the hotel would see them. Instead, by standing across the street, ARTL's massive protest signs were visible and readable to the entire hotel!

We had a team of ten people hosting our hospitality suite. Within a couple hours, it was evident to all that not only the NRTL conventioneers, but at least a couple thousand people were aware that our ARTL hospitality suite was on the 18th floor. And they started streaming in.

Thumbnail image for artl nrlc 2.jpg

Pro-life leaders. NEA teachers. Activists. Pro-life attorneys. Convention exhibitors. Pro-life teenagers. They just kept coming. We had lengthy talks with dozens of important people in the battle against abortion, from leaders in the anti-euthanasia movement, to reporters, to activists from Canada and Spain....

ARTL had set up a Lincoln Theater in their suite, equipped with a projector, and three PCs showing various DVDs: Focus on the Strategy, Romney Fairytale Ads, Forty Years in the Wilderness, and the Planned Parenthood racism YouTube video. When African American NEA teachers entered the suite, after they filled their plates with good food and sat around the living room, Leslie Hanks, longtime Denver pro-life leader, showed them the PP racism video to great effect!

Various regional pro-life leaders either came to our hospitality suite, or sent word wishing us well. We've been distributing the 600 copies of glossy and colorful ARTL literature and press releases we brought, as well as the 200 DVDs....


Comments:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand" - Jesus Christ, circa 30 - 33 A.D.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 10:53 AM


Of course, there must be factions among you to show which of you are genuine! 1 Cor 11:19

You can't regulate child killing. God does not give us the authority to do so.God did not tell the people who were throwing their children alive into burning fire as sacrifices to Molech that it was ok to do that as long as there is parental consent, the parents were informed the child would feel pain, the mother knew there were other options, etc...

Divisions are sometimes necessary.

Posted by: Lolita at July 7, 2008 11:23 AM


ARTL, please spend your time and money ending abortion. This needless dispute has more to do with a bloated sense of pride than actual pro-life conviction and is actually a wasted effort. NRLC will continue to do the work it needs to do.

Posted by: Andrew at July 7, 2008 11:33 AM


Which one of these organizations is going to hate me the most because I support contraceptives?

Posted by: xalisae at July 7, 2008 11:39 AM


As a sidewalk counselor who is on the last line of defense for the preborn child, I greatly appreciate the principled and practical stand of ARTL. All people are created in the image of God by His Hand and we have no God-given right to discriminate or regulate who gets to live and who gets to die; this is what the NRTL incremental strategy does.

Repent NRTL!

Posted by: Angela Wittman at July 7, 2008 12:02 PM


I agree with Whittman about the "principled and practical stand of ARTL". There is plenty of room in the prolife movement for two major national prolife organizations, and no reason to think that they cannot each do what they do best without getting in each other's way. Of course, the main reason the ARTL formed in the first place is that NRTL "got in the way of" other prolife organizations, anyway.

Posted by: Doyle at July 7, 2008 12:28 PM


I don't understand this. Can someone explain who these people are to me?

Posted by: Jess at July 7, 2008 12:35 PM


why exactly can't 2 courses of action be in place, incremental (NRTL) and full (ARTL).

Posted by: Jasper at July 7, 2008 12:36 PM


LOL, xalisae.

The thing is, ARTL is right about personhood -- it's the only legitimate foundation for legally preventing any woman from having an abortion. Unfortunately, ARTL consists of people who want to base the laws of the United States on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible (up to and including killing people for being gay).

The "personhood" position needs better champions.

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 12:57 PM


Right on Jen R.

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 1:20 PM


Good question, Jasper.

Posted by: Bethany at July 7, 2008 1:21 PM


Someone said this; "ARTL consists of people who want to base the laws of the United States on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible (up to and including killing people for being gay)."

Really? I'm not up to what these organizations stand for. I mean that's either an ignorant claim or something that needs to be dealt with. I know of no fundamentalist Christians that want to kill gay people, nor do I think true Christianity would condone such an atrocity. No, we just want gays to repent of their lifestyles so they won't go to hell - there's a big differnece between those two view.

PIP, you should know better than to concur with such nonsense.

Can someone tell me where to go to find in their founding charters where I could corroberate such claims that they want to kill gay people. That sounds like a NAZI organization to me not a pro-life organization.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 1:44 PM


Jill, why have you not posted anything about the late, great, typical RTL Senator Jesse Helms?

Posted by: SoMG at July 7, 2008 1:45 PM


HisMan:

ARTL's founders include several (Leslie Hanks, Flip Benham, Jo Scott, Patrick Johnston, Cal Zastrow, and Brian Rohrbough, at least) who supported the campaign of one Larry Kilgore for governor of Texas in 2006 and for the Senate this year. Kilgore advocates the death penalty for many things, including homosexual acts.

I called them on it in a previous thread at this blog and was told by someone who works with them at Colorado Right to Life (or possibly even one of the aforementioned people themselves; the poster went by the handle "The Graphite") that "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."

Not "we aren't for executing gays" but "this is why we're for executing them, and you should be too".

It's not an official position of ARTL, but it is a position held by a number of their founders.

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 1:59 PM


HisMan, a religious plea t end the divide. Comments?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/07/call_for_culture_war_truce.html

Posted by: Hal at July 7, 2008 2:07 PM


HisMan, I have a post in moderation that addresses your question.

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 2:10 PM


HisMan,

I'm not sure about the "killing gays' thing but it is true that ARTL is a fundamentalist organization. Just look at their website. "Evangelize" is part of their "strategy." But I also agree with the fact that personhood amendments are the way to go.

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 2:14 PM


The ridiculous charge against ARTL (which is neither cogent nor completely true) is based on an accusation against one member of ARTL (not the top people) made on one website which hasn't been updated, verified, etc. in many years. The website cites no evidence, trashes other respected Christians too, and is sloppy in its understanding of this person's religious convictions -- 2/3 of the charges made in the article are just plain wrong (and stupid).

This one member of ARTL (Enyart) has always maintained that homosexuality should be re-criminalized like it was in many places around the US until a decade or two ago. He's also mentioned that the Bible had a death penalty for such perversions. There's nothing extreme about citing the Bible. But we're talking about abortion here, not homosexuality, which is a distraction raised by someone who's obviously bitter about the personalities behind ARTL, who include many nationally respected individuals like Brian Rohrbough, Alan Keyes and Judie Brown.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2008 2:20 PM


Hi SoMG:

You're being silly again. Remember we always have Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Reid, Pelosi and of course, Oprah to zing you back with.

As far as your attempt at again diverting from the topic I will indulge you. It seems to me that people who are Liberal because of Jesse Helms don't have a clue as to what being a principled person is. Your quote of a statement seems wise on the surface, I mean, pointing to a caricature of the cause, however, it is riddled with Liberal holes. I would say that most people who are Liberals are that way because they simply can't be anything else. I mean the converse assumption of the quote would be that Liberals are Conservatives because of John McCain. You make no sense upon a more in-depth analysis of posting such a quote.

I am conservative because I believe in conservative principles and those principles are in line with fundamental Christian doctrines. If conservatism changed course I would find a new ism to line up with. My Christianity always comes first since my faith in Christ is essential to my eternal destiny. Conservatism never saved anyone and is only a political framework in which to express my walk. Political parties come and go, the Word of God endures forever.

If there's one person that is responsible for me being a conservative, I would say that person is Jesus Christ and not any mere mortal.

And let me also say this; if there's one reason I would never be pro-choice it would be because of you. I mean to admit that a baby in the womb is a person and then to say that it is OK to kill that person is, well, (excuse me Liz) psychopathic.

Think before you post SoMG, think.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 2:21 PM


Anonymous,

Hi there! We have a "no anonymous-posting" policy here, so just make up a name so we can call you something. It keeps things less confusing that way. Thanks, God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 7, 2008 2:28 PM


Anonymous, yours is the first comment to even mention Enyart (unless he is "The Graphite", of course).

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 2:30 PM


HisMan,

Bob Enyart, Flip Benham director of Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, Patricia McEwen of Life Coalition International, Coach Dave Daubenmire of Minutemen United, Cal Zastrow of Michigan Citizens for Life, Michael Marcavage of Repent America, Alan Keyes, State Representative Rick Jore of Montana and pro-life lobbyist Steve Lefemine of South Carolina have all endorsed Larry Kilgore.

Kilgore's main platform is to declare Texas an independent nation to be ruled under Biblical law. This means that homos and baby murderers would be executed. This is as it should be. The rest of America can and will continue on their path to Hell, and the righteous Bible believers will move to the great God fearing nation of Texas.

Posted by: Kate at July 7, 2008 2:39 PM


Kate,

Sounds like Texas will be a blast. Have fun over there!

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 2:46 PM


Kate,

You're kidding, right?

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 2:54 PM


mk:

Sadly, no. Check the links in my comment at 1:59. (I think I mixed up CRTL and ARTL in part of that, but the point that we are dealing with some really scary people still stands.)

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 3:00 PM


Kidding? Why?

You'd rather continue calling abortion murder while not punishing those who commit murder with their crime?

You'd rather continue calling homosexuality a sin while not punishing those who commit sodomy with their crime?

The compromise has certainly gotten us no where, and why is this shocking, when Jill Stanek has links posted to politicians and organizations whp support this truth on her website? This is a war against sin, not a popularity contest.

Posted by: Kate at July 7, 2008 3:10 PM


Jen R,

I get so confused. ARTL, NRTL, Steve Ertelt, Bob Enyart...

Who is who? Who wants what? Which one wants to kill Homosexuals (By the way, is it just the nutjob from Texas...or all of them? Is it that they supported him? Did the whole group support him or just folks like Kate?)

It sounds really creepy. I agree with Bethany (and Jasper)...why can't we work on all aspects? Personhood, stricter laws?

And Kate,

If you're for real,
You scare me almost as much as SoMG...
And that's saying a lot.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 3:10 PM


This is a war against sin, not a popularity contest.

Well thank goodness, cuz you'd lose.

What do we do with people that miss church on Sunday? Or wish they had their neighbors car?

You really think that Jesus came to give you the right to be the sin police???

With thinking like that, you'd be the first ones put to death. Loving your neighbor is the greatest commandment. Therefore, standing in judgment and putting your fellow man to death for sinning would be a sin...bummer.


And how many people did Jesus put to death? I can think of any number whose life He saved, but can't come up with one whom He killed because they were sinners...can you?

You're kinda scary...seriously.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 3:16 PM


Kate,

Lesson: Sin and Crime are two different things. Crimes are punished by man here on earth, sin is punished by God.

You tellin' me you and your cronies are completely sinless...

I realize I'm goin' on and on here, but honestly, I've never heard a real live person talk like this. In the movies (really scary ones that is) yes, but not in real life.

Are you on meds? Do you belong to a cult? Were you raised by wolves? Where do you get such ideas? Are you aware that this is 2008? Do they breathe air on your planet...

Honestly, I'm flabbergasted!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 3:21 PM


mk:

I know, it's confusing!

ARTL is, according to Jill's post announcing its formation, a subsidiary of CRTL.

Several founding members of ARTL endorsed the nutjob from Texas. Not the whole group, but several important members, including the president.

When I mentioned all this in a previous thread, someone from CRTL confirmed that "we" (and by "we", he referred to "Colorado Right to Life and those who work with us") support the death penalty for homosexuality.

NRTL and Steve Ertelt are not in any way involved in any of that; ARTL and their ilk hate them.

ARTL is for "personhood" amendments, declaring the unborn human being to be a legal person. NRTL has given up on that, at least for the foreseeable future, and lobbies for the repeal of Roe v. Wade via the appointment of "strict constructionist" judges who will argue that since the right to abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution, it's up to the states. They also lobby for incremental restrictions such as informed consent and parental notification/consent laws. The latter stance in particular has drawn C/ARTL's ire, since they view any regulation short of outright banning of abortion as legitimizing it.

I think that about sums it up.

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 3:31 PM


Loved Friends:

Please excuse my niavete on this ARTL/NRTL stuff. I am a member of nither and base my anti-abortion positions soley on a Biblical perspective.

While my only purpose in pleading with gay people to forsake their lifestyle is out of complete love for their eternal souls; killing, hurting, torturing or doing anything like that to gays is not only un-Christian, it is demonic and no different than abortion. This is Christianity 101. I would tell the same things to pro-aborts, practicing thieves, liars, murderers, gossipers, adulterers, and fornicators which I think would just about include everyone on this site, including me.

Besides Christianity does not require perfection for forgiveness, only a look towards the Christ of Calvary, a plea for mercy, a turning away from the sin and allowing God to change us.

Any group that says they are pro-life and advocates such unBiblically supported heresy is populated by the worse kind of people that need to be exposed for the frauds they are.

If the pro-life movement is being led by such people, no wonder it is failing and the murder of 50,000,000 babies falls on their heads as well. God would never bless such an organization or their goals, for to do such would be to blaspheme His Name. To cite Old Testament law as Christian doctrine is actually extremely dangerous and Paul, a former Pharisee of Pharisees and executioner of Christians, warns us very sternly about following such people in the Book of Acts. Specifically there were Jewish Christians that were advocating circumcision (an OT Law) as a condition of salvation. Paul condemned them without restraint.

Give me no association with such a group if it is true.

Is this the same nut job group that pickets soldiers' funerals and hold banners that say "God hates fags"? Well, while God hates the sin because it hurts his kids who He desires relationship with, God does not hate fags nor does he hate abortionists. He died for them all. However, He wants them to depart from their destructive ways and in His kindness waits patiently for their return.

Don't forget that the burden to end legalized abortion is on the church, not the world, and if God chooses to deal with the church sternly it will not be because of the world for they do not possess the oracles of God. God does not expect those who are ignorant to do the job of those who are in the light. And if you hate, you are not in the light.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 3:33 PM


Jen R,

Okay, I got most of that...but, I met Judy Brown, and I love Alan Keyes...and they are both Catholics. I cannot picture any Catholics backing up Kates insane views. So who are the "leaders" that feel as Kate does?

Or do I have it backwards and Judy Brown and Alan Keyes are NRTL...

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 3:38 PM


Hisman,

AMEN!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 3:40 PM


Ahhhhh, the plot thickens...Judy Brown is ALL not ARTL or NRTL...

Thank goodness, because I'm usually good at reading people and she seemed pretty down to earth to me...

So ARTL is pretty much a bag of mixed nuts, some of whom aren't as bad as the others...but Kate gets the cashew award.

I'm gettin' it now...

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 3:47 PM


Kate:

What you say and believe is more distrurbig than anything SoMG, TR or Cameron ever wrote. And these are avid pro-aborts.

You need to sit down, have a heart to heart with God, reinsert the pages in the Bible you have torn out that don't agree with your psychopathy and then hope that God forgives you.

I know the Bible Kate...inside, forward, outside, backwards, and upside down and there is no way an honest follower of Christ can believe what you believe. I suggest you read the Book of Hebrews, specifically chapters 6 - 10 and repent before you are faced with a Holy God. He who says they are without sin is a liar and does not know God.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 3:48 PM


I haven't seen Alan Keyes or Judie Brown as listed among Kilgore's endorsers anywhere but in the comments above, so I can't speak to that.

The other "leaders" who endorsed him include ARTL founders Leslie Hanks, Flip Benham, Jo Scott, Patrick Johnston, Cal Zastrow, and president Brian Rohrbough. Endorsing someone certainly doesn't mean you share all their views (man, I ought to know!), but a commenter on this blog indicated to me that "Colorado Right to Life and those who work with us" do support Kilgore's views on who should be executed and why.

Judie Brown is American Life League. I should probably not get started on ALL. :) I have no idea which group Keyes would consider himself closest to in outlook, though I'd guess ALL. I'm not aware that they're involved in this fray.

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 3:48 PM


I am a member of Operation Save America, we have no affiliation with the Westboro Baptist Church and do not support the horrible things they do to our men in uniform. OSA has endorsed Larry Kilgore, and so has Alan Keyes. Nathan Sheets and Zeke, who also frequent this web site, also support that women who murder their babies should be charged with murder and punished. The leaders who support Larry Kilgore include Bob Enyart and others listed in the earlier post.

HisMan, if I'm getting what you are saying, then, you do not believe murderers and rapists should be executed for their crimes?

Posted by: Kate at July 7, 2008 3:52 PM


Kate,

We're not talking about abortion. We're talking about executing homosexuals...

While I don't agree with the death penalty under any circumstances, I understand why someone would want it for abortionists (IF abortion were illegal)...

But for sinners???? That's just crazy talk!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 3:59 PM


Kilgore seems to be a real sadist - lot's of flogging as punishment (no, not kidding - he specifies # of lashes, including for illegal immigration.


"This is a war against sin, not a popularity contest.

Well thank goodness, cuz you'd lose."

MK, I only hope you're right, but 18% of GOP voters in Texas voted for this (insult coming) nutjob (thankfully, he still lost to Conryn (sp?). Even though his position is self-contradictory - running for the US Senate while advocating the secession of Texas.

OH yeah, Ken and Jo Scott also support Kilgore, according to one of Kilgore's websites.

Posted by: phylosopher at July 7, 2008 4:05 PM


Yikes.
Operation Save America is on Jill's blog links.

Posted by: Carla at July 7, 2008 4:09 PM


You'd rather continue calling abortion murder while not punishing those who commit murder with their crime?
You'd rather continue calling homosexuality a sin while not punishing those who commit sodomy with their crime?

Posted by: Kate at July 7, 2008 3:10 PM

I wouldn't call either a sin, although I do have big ethical problems with the first one. I have another term for it, but it would violate proper blog language etiquette ;)

I'm with PIP and Jen R on this, though. I'm totally behind the personhood push, and have great respect for the groups that are working so hard to promote that idea. I just happen to differ when it comes to God/Jesus/Sunday morning activities, and don't care to live in a Bible-based society.

Posted by: pro-life atheist at July 7, 2008 4:12 PM


Yikes.
Operation Save America is on Jill's blog links.

wow. now my little tiny brain hurts...

There is NO WAY that Jill supports this Kilgore guy...

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:13 PM


I was just at his website...If I didn't know better, I'd swear it was a satire! It reads like a Saturday Night Live skit...

God Help Us!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:19 PM


Oh man, MK and HisMan...Thank GOD for you guys. I almost upchucked when I read Kate's posts.

I'm still kind of....shocked...and appalled. And a lot of other things.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 4:20 PM


E,

It must have shocked you...you just complimented Hisman! (LOL)

God works in mysrerious ways!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:23 PM


This is the site/blog which the search for "Larry Kilgore" bounces to. Read carefully, it does not say these are Kilgore's words. But mk, this stuff should give all of us nightmares - especially when you think that some Christians see Muslims as arch-villians because of the harshness Sharia law. This looks about 10x worse.

But you, O man of God... pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness. - 1 Timothy 6:11

Larry Kilgore is a godly man who believes in God's Word and who strives to live his life in obedience to God. Larry believes that for there to be law and order in Texas, returning to the LORD in repentance and submission to His Law is essential. We humbly submit as issues the commandments of God with Biblical proofs as the foundation of the Larry Kilgore for US Senate campaign.

* You shall not murder. 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 not convict for the use of force in defense of property and the innocent, in escalation to match the perceived threat up to lethal force; nor for purely accidental homicide (Deut. 19:4); will execute those guilty of negligent homicide (Ex. 21:28-30; Deut. 22:8); and flog those who could have avoided otherwise accidental homicide, and anyone committing revenge killing (Num. 35:26-27) of those guilty of capital crimes.
* You shall not commit adultery. 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). Judges will flog those convicted of fornication; of public use of vulgar sexual and excretory language; of sexually suggestive dress or behavior; of intoxication; and of possession of pornography. Judges will flog more severely those convicted of transvestism; of public nudity; and of distributing pornography. And judges will flog more severely still those convicted of prostitution; of producing pornography for any use; and of sexual acts in public places.
* You shall not steal. Judges will flog and require restitution for convicted thieves, negligent recipients of stolen goods, and those who violate contracts (Deut. 25:1‑3). Judges will impose double restitution for recovered goods, the return of the goods plus one-hundred percent value (Ex. 22:4, 7-9; 20:15); quadruple for destroyed or sold goods; quintuple for intellectual, irreplaceable and sentimental goods (Ex. 22:1); seven times for insignificant goods (Prov. 6:30-31); and twenty percent for voluntarily surrendered goods (Lev. 6:1-7). The judge shall impose corporal punishment and life for life penalties for collateral damage from any crime, including bodily injury resulting from the destruction of property which warrants greater than even restitution. A person or his resources causing unforeseeable or unavoidable property damage including by natural disaster without negligence shall pay no restitution, or with negligence shall pay even restitution. Persons taking shared risk shall pay mutual restitution (Ex. 21:32-36; Lev. 24:18). Avoidable accident without negligence, including the malfunction of a maintained resource requires even restitution but with negligence, including by a neglected resource demands double restitution. Gross negligence requires quadruple restitution and intentional destruction demands quintuple restitution. Excepting those executed, judges will sentence those who cannot pay restitution, to indentured servitude for up to seven years with the victim receiving all service or earnings.
* You shall not bear false witness. Judges will punish those convicted of perjury, false confession, credible threat, conspiracy, abetting, attempt, fully as though they had personally committed the crime (Deut. 19:16-21; 2 Sam. 1:15-16; Ex. 20:16). Judges will flog and impose restitution on those convicted of slander. Judges will flog those in contempt of court, and execute those guilty of treason and violators of court orders which protect victims (Deut. 17:12-13). A man is not innocent until proven guilty. He is guilty the moment he commits a crime, but presumed innocent (Deut. 22:22-27) in court until convicted. Convicting the innocent and acquitting the guilty are equally unjust (Pro. 17:15). A judge at his discretion, suspends the rights of liberty including the use of weapons, for the credibly accused, and mandatorily confines one facing a likely sentence of maiming or capital punishment, until the rendering of a verdict. Reasonable evidence from two or three witnesses, whether from eyewitnesses, physical, or strong circumstantial evidence, shall suffice for conviction; individual rights shall not supersede the judge's God-given right to impose punishment on the guilty. Judges shall not grant nor have special immunity from prosecution; shall not give more lenient punishment to minors; shall not give special recognition to lawyers or experts in the law; may observe and advise other judges during trial; shall not allow witnesses to swear or give an oath (James 5:12, Mat. 5:34-37; 2 Cor. 1:17); and shall question witnesses directly. Judges shall not accept no-contest pleas or bargains; shall punish criminals for all collateral damage; shall permit witnesses and victims to participate in punishment (Deut. 13:9; 17:7); and shall show no mercy to the guilty (Num. 35:31; Deut. 19:13, 21; Pro. 6:30-31).


[Credits: shadowgov.com]


Note: A vigilante should be prosecuted. Civil magistrates are God's ministers to execute wrath. Romans 13:4

* Eliminate TX budget for Prisons. $2B
* Eliminate TX budget for health & human services. $25.5B (2 Corinthians 9:6-14, 1 Timothy 5:3-16)
* Eliminate TX budget for government indoctrination of children. (public education). $23B
* Texans should become independent then stop paying US taxes. $123B
* Texas should secede because the US has sealed its doom.
* Immediate return of Texas National Guard troops from US conscription.

Source: http://www.larrykilgore.com/Issues.html

Posted by: phylosopher at July 7, 2008 4:23 PM


Honestly, Kate and Zeke seem like almost the same person.

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 4:29 PM


Seriously, MK, reading HisMan's posts today makes me want to HUG him!

Or maybe I have entered a parallel universe...but I don't think so.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 4:30 PM


Hisman,

Thank you for that post. Sometimes I feel that what you write is extreme, but I'm glad that on this issue you do take the sane Christian stance. I like this rational and calmer part of you, I wish you'd show it more often :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 4:32 PM


Oh man phylosopher,

To think, it takes something this twisted to unite you, me, Elizabeth, Hisman...

I bet even SoMG and Doug would be with us.

So basically this is a Charles Mansen/Branch Davidian/Jonestown thingy....this is a cult, and Kilgore is the guru?

It reads like a made for TV movie.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:33 PM


Kate:

What you advocate is ludicrous. Should abortions be made illegal, yes. Should someone who commits an abortion be sentenced to death, no, imprisoned (depends) and counseled and rehabilitated, yes. Why, because I don't think it is murder in the first degree. Should rape be punishable by death, no, by prison, yes. Why, the rape did not result in the death of the victim. Should someone who murders another person in the 1st degree be tried and executed, yes. Perhaps the only time I would advocate the execution of someone who committed an abortion would be if that person got intentionally pregnant just for the joy and pleasure of mudering their baby or if an abortionist did it for pleasure. Now how many times do you think that ever happens?

If you want to use the OT prescription properly remember that it says, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" in its context means that punishment must be meted out proportionally to the crime. You simply just want to execute everyone? That's insane.

The other extremem is to never deal with crimes by capital punishment. That's wrong as well. There are some poeple that simply don't deserve to live, i.e., Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, etc.

Look, we are all murderers and rapists to some degree in God's eyes. When, even as a Christian, I call soneone a fool and I have done this on this site, my Lord says I am guilty of murder. I repent, make amends, and am forgiven. You want to kill me for that? Go ahead, I'm going to heaven anyway.

My wife and I have used birth control prior to understanding that BC that have resulted in abortions. OK, I'll take a lethal injection.

In fact, I think even lusting after a woman in one's heart is considered adultery by the Lord of Hosts. Is this worse than raping a woman from at least a heart condition perspective? To be honest I am guilty of lusting as well, however, the Lord is teaching me a better way. You want to kill me for that?

In the Book of Romans it talks about the government bearing the sword, however, I think it is talking about people who vicioulsy murder other people in contempt and it is the government's job to protect us from such people. I don't think most woman who are in life distress over an unwanted pregnancy can be viewed as the same type of vicious killer. However, there needs to be a prohibition in place that limits abortions. The first step is to make them illegal. The concurrent step is to provide an environment where woman don't want to kill their children. The church can do this.

And if you kill a homosexual for being a homosexual, are you willing to answer to God for taking away someone's eventual opportunity to repent and be saved. Sorry, I'm not divine and don't possess all knowledge like you must possess.

The reality is, "the poor we will always have with us". We will never eliminate the death and destruction caused by Adam's sin here on this earth. We can battle it, we can fight it, however, to just want to kill everyone for doing something wrong is totally missig the message of the Gospel and I wouls say anyone that hold such a view is in spritual danger.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 4:33 PM


So why Texas? Why not Idaho, or Rhode Island??? What makes Texas due the honors?

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:34 PM


Don't drink the Kool-Aid!!!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 4:34 PM


mk,

Why not Texas?

Sorry, that was mean.

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 4:37 PM



What are the skeletons in your closet?

From age 16 to 24 I dated and did not treat these ladies with respect. Physically I was virgin when I married at age 25, but I did not guard my heart. Dating is not wise!

I have repented of watching pornography on the TV and computer.

I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes. Ps101:3

Updated 2.27.08 -

Wittman

So what, theres a special potion that tells you he really repented? Why does he get to repent and no one else does????


How many lashes did he receive? Is he getting the death penalty?

As someone somewhere pointed out, running for office is contradictory to someone who wants nothing to do with the country he is running for office for.

It just goes on and on...Does he get to wear a Jester's hat and carry a scepter?

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:39 PM


What are you talking about pip?

When I went to Texas I had a lovely time..except for the people asking me why I like to date n***ers..other than that, Texas is a FABULOUS place to beeee!

Lol, oh man.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 4:39 PM


Clarifications, for the record.

One thing I've noticed about American Right to Life (ARTL) is that they're willing to source and provide evidence for any charge they make (which they regularly do, in great detail -- something you should respect).

To the contrary, I've seen so many lies and misrepresentations (none of which are offered with sources or evidence) in these last several posts it's shameful. NRTL never offers evidence in their defense, either. Knowing who to trust often means knowing who can back up their statements. I've already said the one "source" which someone (Jen?) first used to attack ARTL is bunk, and mostly unfactual conjecture with no evidence provided.

No Christian should regard anti-homosexual activists as nutcase extremists or as non-Biblical. There's no society I'm aware of that didn't have criminal penalties for homosexuality, and that includes the United States until the last couple of decades.

The Bible is clear in its rules for what is sin. Hate the sin, not the sinner, which ARTL does. I've seen these men reach out in love one-on-one to gays to bring them to Christ. That's not an act of hate.

HisMan, Enyart quotes that passage from Acts 10 times more than you do. Contrary to the misinformation on the web about him, he acknowledges the separation of the Jewish laws from the teachings meant for the Body of Christ more than any other church I know, teaching on it regularly.

Enyart has always condemned Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist for heretical and non-Biblical teaching and behavior.

Not Enyart, nor any of the ARTL people, hates 1) gays, 2) NRTL, 3) abortionists -- they're all exhorted to repent for forsaking the Word of God. Repentance = forgiveness. Most just don't repent, which is sad. No hate is given toward these people, only righteous admonition.

Judie Brown IS in agreement with ARTL on just about everything I'm aware of with relation to the abortion issue. Everything else is separate.

Posted by: Greg (formerly anonymous) at July 7, 2008 4:42 PM


It's just that...haven't you noticed that tons of batsh*t crazy stories come out of Texas??

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 4:42 PM


PIP:

The bad side of me comes out when someone like SoMG seems to be so proud and flippant about doing abortions. My righteous indignation, sarcastic and macho dark self comes out wanting to defend and protect the innocent.

Liz taught me a great lesson over the weekend and she was right. I am much more useful when I don't hurl insults. Thank Jesus for His precious blood for we are more than conquereors through Him.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 4:43 PM


Well he only got 50,000 votes. So it's heartening to know that only a very small percentage of the population is insane...but still...

Pip,

That wasn't mean. I guess "Why not Texas?" is as good an answer as any. Boy, when Texas Red hears about this, she's gonna blow a gasket. Look out Mr. Kilgore, I feel your first civil war comin' on! The Texas Redcoats are coming! The Texas Redcoats are coming!

Kate,

I don't really know you, and I'm afraid I may have attacked you unfairly. You are probably a really nice girl, with a good heart. But seriously babe, run while you still can. You don't want to be mixed up in this. Really, you just don't!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:44 PM


Oh okay, Greg, they don't hate gays...they just want them to be executed.

That makes TOTAL sense.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 4:45 PM


MK,

Of course we all sin, and people shouldn't be killed just for sinning. However, some sins rise to the level of what we call crimes. God has established civil government to bear the sword and punish the wrongdoer. Thus, civil government must make laws and punish those who break them. One possible punishment (endorsed by God) is the death penalty.

Sodomy was a capital crime when America was founded. Whether that should be the case is perhaps debatable, but you shouldn't say someone isn't a Christian because they think it should be. I happen to agree with Kate on that point. Sodomy is a crime, should be illegal, and should be punished by death. My sincere hope is that would steer people away from a destructive lifestyle, teach them right from wrong, and hopefully lead them to saving knowledge of Christ.

Respectfully,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 4:46 PM


"Boy, when Texas Red hears about this, she's gonna blow a gasket."

Haha bring it on. I lived on a state bordering Texas, I know what I'm talking about. I can take 'em.

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 4:47 PM


I've already said the one "source" which someone (Jen?) first used to attack ARTL is bunk, and mostly unfactual conjecture with no evidence provided.

Greg, the sources (two, not one) I used to attack ARTL were: Larry Kilgore's website, and a commenter here who claimed to work with them. I provided links. The "one source" you alluded to in your comment had something to do with Bob Enyart, and frankly I still don't know what you were referring to.

Are you saying that several founders of ARTL do *not* endorse Larry Kilgore and/or his desire to execute gays? Or are you just saying we shouldn't talk about it?

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 4:48 PM


There seem to be a lot of new names popping up...and they all seem to be saying the same thing..makes me wonder if it's one person and just changing names.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 4:50 PM


Mr. Kilgore has apparently forgotten the Supreme Law, "to love thy neightbor as thyself". (Sometimes this requires calling a spade a spade).

I suppose Mr. Kilgore would like to kill himself every time he messes up?

Of course, the other option is that he is without sin, the confession of which would disqualify him from entering heaven.

I would say that if that is what this guy believes, he's pretty much cooked.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 4:52 PM


Greg,

Judie Brown IS in agreement with ARTL on just about everything I'm aware of with relation to the abortion issue. Everything else is separate.

But it's everything else that we are talking about.

I've gone to Kilgores site. It's nuts. And killing homosexuals is nuts.

Killing sinners is nuts.

I don't know anything about Bob Enyart or ARTL...I can only speak about what I've read on Kilgores site in his own words and what Kate said right here.

I wasn't even really connecting ARTL with OSA. It's really only Kilgores connection with OSA that is choking me on my own vomit.

If I have inadvertently offended folks that don't adhere to this flogging/hanging business, I'm sorry.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:52 PM


Hisman,

It is such a beautiful thing to see a grown man eat humble pie, apologize and sincerely make an effort to change. You are an amazing guy. It would be so much easier, I imagine, to slink off and lick your wounds, but you always stand up and eventually do the right thing.

Thanks for that.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:54 PM


I'm saying you're completely off topic in your attempt to tar and feather ARTL with meanderings. With one exception (SB 200 in Colorado, which prohibits distributing "discriminative material" against gays, including the Bible, in Colorado) ARTL has had nothing at all to say about homosexuality.

This is an argument about abortion strategy -- Personhood versus regulating child-killing.

Posted by: Greg at July 7, 2008 4:55 PM


Mk, 4:54 p.m.

I second that!

I'm glad I stayed to see this HisMan!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 4:57 PM


E,
There seem to be a lot of new names popping up...and they all seem to be saying the same thing..makes me wonder if it's one person and just changing names.

No, just like Jill gets notified if something about her is put on another blog, ARTL, NRTL and ALL get notified when they are being highlighted. I think these are just folks that belong to one or the other of these groups.

I'd sure like to hear from Judie Brown and Alan Keyes and their take on Kilgore tho...

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 4:57 PM


Greg,

If that's true, then I humbly apologize to ARTL. As I've said, I am mostly talking about Kate and OSA.

Kate is the one that claimed J Brown and A Keyes are supporters of Kilgore.

As far as the personhood thing goes, I think most prolifers on here agree that we should go for it. We just don't think we should give up other fights to do so.

Use ALL the weapons available...guns, knives, smoke bombs and yes, even the big one! (personhood)

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 5:00 PM


A lot of people who don't know what to think about an idea judge it by looking at the people who hold it. In a world in which everyone was well-informed and had great intellectual integrity (not to mention time to sit and think through all this stuff), ideas would stand solely on their own merits, but that's not the world we live in. So if the primary public proponents of fetal personhood (sorry about the alliteration) are NUTS, that's relevant to abortion strategy.

So, Greg, what's their position?

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 5:01 PM


Oh ok...I didn't know..I guess it's hard for me to believe that there are GROUPS of people who believe such craziness.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 5:02 PM


I've heard the argument that we wouldn't have fought for incremental rights in Nazi Germany...

But we did hide Jews, and smuggle them out of the country, and get them fake passports and identities, all while also trying to stop Hitler.

I liken the hiding, smuggling and faking to the incremental laws. Doing what we can, while waiting for the world to notice and come to our aid.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 5:04 PM


I liken the hiding, smuggling and faking to the incremental laws. Doing what we can, while waiting for the world to notice and come to our aid.

Underground Railroad anyone??

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 5:07 PM


"Oh okay, Greg, they don't hate gays...they just want them to be executed.
*
That makes TOTAL sense.

I think that's the point he is trying to make...that ARTL is NOT the group that feels this way and that it is unfair to lump them together.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 5:11 PM


"But we did hide Jews, and smuggle them out of the country, and get them fake passports and identities, all while also trying to stop Hitler.

I liken the hiding, smuggling and faking to the incremental laws. Doing what we can, while waiting for the world to notice and come to our aid."

That's a great analogy MK!

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 7, 2008 5:14 PM


HisMan,

Your reference to "to love thy neighbor as thyself" has nothing to do with criminal law. Are you saying we shouldn't punish criminals? (This is a different topic from whether sodomy should be a crime.)

Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 5:14 PM


So, Greg, what's their position?

Yes, I'm curious now too.

E,

I know, right? I was floored to find out ONE person (Kate) thought this way...havin' a really hard time wrapping my head around the idea that theres a whole group of them, with a leader, no less.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 5:15 PM


Jen, MK just said "I think most prolifers on here agree that we should go for it [personhood]", so now you're calling her and "most prolifers" nutcases and extremists!

You're tarring with far too wide a brush, Jen, and trying to turn us against each other with namecalling. I'm asking you to stop and concentrate on the issue, not on making others of us hate each other, and turning us against each other on non-abortion related arguments.

Posted by: Greg at July 7, 2008 5:16 PM


Greg is trying to deceive. Just look up "Bob Enyart" in Wikipedia, and you will learn his view of homosexuality and connection to Kilgore, whose views he supports and shares.

Yes, it does matter that the proponents of "personhood" are nuts.

Posted by: Walter at July 7, 2008 5:17 PM


Elizabeth,

If I say that I believe mass murderers should be executed, does that mean that I hate mass murderers? Of course not! It means that I think they should be punished for their crime.

Advocating for the re-criminalization of sodomy as a capital crime does not mean that someone "hates gays".

Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 5:20 PM


Josh,

Your reference to "to love thy neighbor as thyself" has nothing to do with criminal law. Are you saying we shouldn't punish criminals? (This is a different topic from whether sodomy should be a crime.)

Just jumpin' in here...

There is a difference between legal law and spiritual law.

The world punishes crime. God punishes sin.

Laws are made to protect people, and their rights, from themselves and others. There are consequences for breaking those laws.

Give unto Caesar...

But if we go around punishing people for sinning, we'll ALL be in jail, getting flogged or hanging from a noose.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 5:20 PM


I'm saying ARTL has never taken a position on it, and you're trying hard to pretend they have. And why would they? They are Biblical Christians, and follow the Bible and God's instructions in how to oppose abortion. Most everything else is beside the point.

Posted by: Greg at July 7, 2008 5:21 PM


MK,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that there is a difference between crime and sin. Not all sins are crimes. Coveting your neighbor's wristwatch is sin, but not a crime.

I did not say we should "go around punishing people for sinning." I believe you are misrepresenting my position in that regard. What I am saying is that certain acts should be considered crimes, and I happen to believe that sodomy is one of them.

I believe it is instructive to note that when God set up a criminal justice system for Israel, he also made sodomy a capital crime. Perhaps we can learn from His wisdom?

Respectfully,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 5:24 PM


Greg,

not on making others of us hate each other, and turning us against each other on non-abortion related arguments.

If a group is representing themselves as prolife and at the same time proposing to steal Texas and hang homosexuals, then I think it absolutely is relevant.

Are you saying that just because we are calling them out on their outrageous views and making sure that people know we don't feel the same way, means we hate them???

Look, I am pro life. I take a lot of flak for that, mostly because of the extremists that are out there. That same website talks about rounding up and getting rid of immigrants and muslims...

I want nothing to do with that type of thinking and I will shout it from the rooftops if need be.

I, and many of the prolifers here, DO think that personhood is a good way to go, but so is incrementalism. This in no way aligns itself with Kate, Kilgore or anyone that advocates capital punishment for sodomy or belonging to another faith.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 5:25 PM


MK and Liz:

My pastor Tommy Barnett gave a wonderful sermon yesterday on how we Christians sometimes do more to turn people away than draw them to Christ. He said first we have to get people to feel like they belong than to exclude them even if they don't believe, specifically he talked about what Jesus said, "Come follow me and I will make you fishers of men". He didn't condemn them and say, "be perfect first and then I will accept you."

I realized that my insults were doing just that, making people feel condemned. I was wrong. Isn't it amazing that God chose to be patient with me instead of zapping me. I mean He could have caused me to be sick, or have an accident, or just let me go.

I will still hold to my values, however, I will try to be a better fisher of people. Thanks for holding me accountable MK, Chris, and Liz. (Jill had a few choice words for me too).

"The blows of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy"

I think Kate needs to also see where her heart is at. She can still be an avid pro-lifer and not want to condemn everybody to death for their sin.

This is very hard for me but I've got to do it:

SoMG:

I know I have called you some pretty nasty things. My Lord does not approve of this because you are his as well. Please understand that what you do really hurts me and the only way I seem to have been able to deal with it was to demonize you. I am sorry for doing that to you and I really hope someday you can discover the joy and wonder of knowing Jesus Christ and His forgiveness.

Perhaps the pro-life movement needs to forgive each other as well. If we don't we will destroy each other and play right into satan's hands and who will suffer....the little children? Are we not for the same goal, giving the intent of God's will just a chance at life?

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 5:26 PM


MK,

In case it makes you think any better of me, I do not advocate capital punishment for belonging to another faith. That is a sin, but not a crime.

Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 5:28 PM


Josh,

I am not taking issue with whether or not sodomy should be criminalized, I am taking issue with the punishment being capital!

And I think punishment is a misnomer. I think God disciplines, not punishes. I believe He, like me with my kids, allows us to go through certain things to teach us and bring us closer to Him.

Killing someone leaves no room for improvement.

Punishment to me, sounds like you think you are better than someone, and that you have the right to cause them pain or harm. Discipline, is a teaching tool.

Some criminals, it's true, probably cannot be taught, but I look at St Paul or Bernard Nathanson and I realize that I am not qualified to determine who is hopeless and who is not. So I never advocate the death penalty.

Even if you were to criminalize sodomy, how could you enforce something like that?

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 5:31 PM


MK,

As I understanding it, you're not saying God was wrong for condemning homosexuality, you're saying you don't believe God supports death for criminals (or something like that).

I know there's a HUGE disagreement between one wing of the pro-life movement that believes the death penalty is wong, and another wing that believes the death penalty is demanded by God against guilty criminals. That's a different argument that we're never going to settle here, and I'm not trying to. Those of us on both sides of that divide should work together for personhood, as we've been doing just fine until Jen showed up!

I'm saying some of the individuals in ARTL oppose homosexuality as a Biblical abomination and believe there should be criminal penalties, but that's beside the point. So did God!

ARTL has never taken a position on it, which is why I'm saying it's irrelevant. Jen is trying to cause trouble, using a touchpoint that makes you think our side is insane. You should know we're not insane because you agree with us on personhood. Jen's just trying to make trouble for people she quite evidently hates, and trying to get us to hate each other ("well I don't want to associate with THOSE crazies!") while she's at it.

ARTL's disagreements with NRTL are on policy, and they provide ample arguments against NRTL policy. It's not hate. It's Christian confrontation on important issues, like HisMan noted happened between Peter and Paul in Acts.

The reason btw, that we can't just work on both strategies at once is that incrementalism always undermines the argument for personhood. NRTL is saying some unborn people are more important than other unborn people (it's more important to stop these abortions than those abortions), while saying there's a right to life at the same time. That's contradictory.

Posted by: Greg at July 7, 2008 5:38 PM


MK,

Thanks for your response. I see now that the larger issue is a disagreement on capital punishment in general.

I think the Biblical support for capital punishment is overwhelming - both in the Old and New Testaments. God authorizes three types of criminal punishment - monetary restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment.

In Ezekiel 13:19, God asks "will you profane Me, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live?"

In fact, the death penalty is at the heart of the Gospel. God requires death as a penalty for sin - how wonderful that Christ has paid that penalty for us! God ordains earthly government to bear the sword. When people understand that certain crimes are worthy of physical death, then they are open to the idea that they deserve eternal death for their sin - a key understanding in accepting Christ as Savior.

Respectfully,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 5:42 PM


Even if you were to criminalize sodomy, how could you enforce something like that?

And would it just be homosexual sodomy that gets enforced..or would heterosexual sodomy between a husband and wife fall into the same category?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 5:43 PM


I think it's insane that Jill's post was about ARTL's hospitality suite at the NRTL convention, and none of the responses have been about the hospitality suite!!!

Posted by: Greg at July 7, 2008 5:50 PM


mk, Elizabeth and HisMan,

Please check out this podcast:

"Church and State: How It Should Work"

http://www.kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20070116

Posted by: Brian at July 7, 2008 5:56 PM


Josh:

Give me a break. Please do not mischaracterize God's Word...there are unbeleivers that read this site.

If you're going to insitute a death penalty for homosexuality, then you'd better do the same for liars, adulterers, theives, fornicators, etc., etc. Heck, there'd be no Christians left in the world with such a law.

Posted by: HisMan at July 7, 2008 6:05 PM


Holy.
Mother.

Kind of ironic that I took a break because of all the gay bashing, and come back to see THIS of all things...

Anyways, since this is OBVIOUSLY something that I've been very concerned about (the pro life connection to gay haters), I'd like to take a break from my break and prove to you all that Greg is lying.

The following leaders of ARTL have endorsed Larry Kilgore:

Alan Keyes
Bob Enyart
Cal Zastrow
Flip Benham
Jo Scott

This can be verified by reading the names in the right hand margin of http://www.americanrighttolife.org/us

Then look up Larry Kilgore on Wikipedia, his endorsers are listed at the bottom. There's a citation, but the link is dead.

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 6:10 PM


In fact, the death penalty is at the heart of the Gospel. God requires death as a penalty for sin - how wonderful that Christ has paid that penalty for us! God ordains earthly government to bear the sword. When people understand that certain crimes are worthy of physical death, then they are open to the idea that they deserve eternal death for their sin - a key understanding in accepting Christ as Savior.

Respectfully,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 5:42 PM

Well Josh
I'm pretty appalled by this paragraph. I've been reading some of the posts here by Kate etc.
Perhaps I can give you a recent example from Canada, just in our news today Josh.
First you'd better be damn certain you've got the right man when you go to hang him for rape, sodomy or anything else wicked.
Scott Truscott was just a teen when his school mate Lynne Harper disappeared and later turned up raped and murdered - in 1959 a court convicted Mr. Truscott then 14 years old to hang!
AFter 4 months on death row, his sentence was commuted. After 10 years in prison, he was let out - there was never enough evidence to convict him. In fact, he was convicted because he was the last person who saw Lynne alive when he gave her a ride on his bike!
If you are always 100 percent certain that a person is proven guilty then maybe you have a case for the death penalty. But the Canadian experience demonstrates that even more recently -we sometimes don't. David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin are two more innocent men who could have been claimed by death row.
The other reason I am personally against the death penalty is that we have NO valid reason to kill criminals today as they can be safely incarcerated. Instead, we need to work on parole reform so that repeat offenders (esp sexual predators) are permanently removed from society.
As a Christian you have no business sending someone to their death - God works patiently and in time and this person may in their lifetime repent. Every soul deserves this.
Are you a Biblical scholar, that you can interpret the Bible with absolute authority and therefore justify your taking another's life.
Did Jesus stone the woman caught in adultery? No. He told her to go away and sin no more. And what about the woman at the well Josh? What about Matthew the tax collector?
What about Cain? How do you explain God sparing Cain's life and even protecting him, placing a mark on him so that no man would harm him?
God have mercy on you, Josh.

Posted by: Patricia at July 7, 2008 6:17 PM


Amanda,

I'm glad you came back! I hope you will take into account mine, MK's, and HISMAN's posts and others that I can't remember who are not condoning and flat out calling the people who support this WRONG!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 6:45 PM


Regarding the death penalty for homosexuality, Jen R thinks she's exposing a scandal in producing a Bible church pastor who teaches from Leviticus and the New Testament's Romans chapter one and 1st Timothy chapter one.

In the last forty years many countries have legalized homosexuality, and millions have since died tortured deaths. Millions.

Jen, have you recognized that your own public policy position on homosexuality is the same one that many godless governments have implemented and that has led to unprecedented human suffering and death?

As best I can tell, when America's states had capital punishment penalties for conviction on homosexuality, not only did no one ever get executed for violating those laws (did they work?), but there were no widespread homosexual movements that saw epidemic numbers of suicides, gang rapes, murders, child molestation, and disease spreading through such a morally and physically devastated community of hurting human beings.

For 3,500 years, the Judeo-Christian legal tradition has agreed with Moses, Jesus and Paul and held homosexuality to be criminal, punishable by government severely. Of course today liberalized Christians have thrown out that history and have sided with Hillary, Hollywood, the Homosexuals and Humanists to decriminalize homosexuality. Further, you seem to want to mock the many Christians who advocate re-establishing sex as legal only within the bounds of marriage. Jen R, while you may be unaware of this, supporters of re-criminalizing homosexuality include countless fundamentalist Bible churches, reformed churches, thousands in the Constitution Party as founded by Howard Phillips in part to rebuild America foundation on biblical law. Also, countless conservative Roman Catholics seek to re-criminalize homosexuality. For evidence for this, see the June 5, 2008 full page ads in the New York Times, LA Times and Washington Times. Actually the ads were each two full pages facing each other, see Battling for America's Soul at TFP.org, Tradition, Family and Property, stating that Christian teaching and morality "clearly condemn homosexual acts. Thus, to deny the intrinsic evilness of the homosexual act, and, even more, to recognize it as worthy of practice or acceptance in the social order is to contradict expressly Divine Revelation (and the precepts of natural law)."

So Jen, the world's governments have adopted the position you seem to hold (tolerance, which could also be termed apathy, and of course, apathy is hatred) and those godless governments have thereby sentenced millions to tortured death. Of the 25 million victims of HIV who have died suffered and died since 1981, many contracted second-hand AIDS, but the primary infection method has been male-on-male homosexual acts. And in the last month the World Health Organization has vindicated the conservative Christians who actively opposed legalized homosexuality, in our teaching that there would never be a heterosexual HIV epidemic. Now, according to the WHO (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html), in reality there is no threat of a world AIDS pandemic and that the 25-year health campaign warning of such was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. "A quarter of a century after the outbreak of AIDS, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared. In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major AIDS organisations may have been misdirected... the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of AIDS in the heterosexual population..."

Jen R., think of one person dying a tortured death resulting from the tolerance of homosexuality, and then extrapolate that suffering to the millions who have died that way. And all that horror has come in a few short decades, whereas centuries, even millennia, of Judeo-Christian legal tradition which outlawed and severely punished homosexuals apparently had mercifully prevented suffering by untold hundreds of millions. And yet you mock those who hold the biblical, medically safe, traditional, historical, socially protective, and successful position on homosexuality that by law mercifully gives restraint to those who desperately need to avoid destroying themselves and their nations.

All this should give you pause to reconsider whether God through His Law is more wise and merciful than modern society has been in its so-called tolerance.

Millions did not die from homosexuality through the many centuries when governments around the world reflected God's law by maintaining homosexuality as a crime. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, yes, who created His own Jefferson Bible version of the New Testament rejecting Christ as Savior, but even he personally advocated severe corporal punishment for homosexuals and lesbians and when he was elected governor of Virginia the punishment for homosexuality, as in Massachusetts, etc., was capital punishment.

Jesus came to offer abundant life to all men, fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, liars, even to politicians, and to all of the World. But Christ warned, "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent" (Revelation 2:21). As a God fearing Christian myself, I hope to better understand God's view of public policy on homosexuality.

Jesus also said: "I have a few things against you, because you… teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality" (Revelation 2:20), and the Apostle Paul wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that "homosexuals" will not "inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9, New KJV). Hopefully, all Christians love homosexuals enough to share God's Word with them, and should realize that withholding such teachings is the exact opposite of love, namely, apathy.

It seems Jen that you want to associate Christians calling to recriminalize homosexuality with hatred. Why? Many Christians throughout the centuries and even well into our American history have agreed with the Bible's teaching of harsh civil punishments for adulterers and homosexuals. We only began decriminalizing adultery and homosexuality in the 1960s. God's Word calls for an unmarried couple having sex to get married, and for punishment for the man convicted of committing adultery with another man's wife. Some Christians teach we should discard this teaching, and turn marriage into the only contract that is not legally binding, and legalize pornography, fornication, sex between juveniles, homosexuality, and even adultery, even though there is strong New Testament argumentation against this, and demographic studies show that such behavior leads to widespread destruction of countless millions of families, individuals, and children.

Finally, someone here mentioned pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church, and I've long listened to his daily program. His church supports an orphanage in Cambodia for HIV positive children and those orphaned by AIDS, and one of their members has spent almost a year caring for the precious children at that ministry established by associates of Enyart's church. Also, even the secular media in Colorado has documented that homosexuals have become Christians through the outreach of DBC, and Bob even sells a DVD, Terry's Call, showing a homosexual that called into his talk program who had full-blown AIDS, and not only did Terry become a Christian over the span of two one-hour programs, but Bob and his wife Cheryl sent him money to move to Denver, but he died of complications from AIDS on the way. Having followed this ministry, I don't personally know another church that has led as many homosexuals to trust in Jesus Christ. Further, as demonstrated in Bob's DVD, Bob's Testimony, Why God Forbids Sexual Immorality, Enyart describes his own horrendous sexual immorality. It's really hard to accuse him of hatred, when he calls for the same public policy treatment of his own sin of adultery as he does for homosexuality, and views such laws as merciful toward those who would otherwise destroy themselves.

So Jen, the legalization you advocate is different from the Bible's teaching on law regarding sex outside of marriage, and that legalization has already slaughtered tens of millions of victims, while I have found no evidence that the Biblical position you condemn has ever lead to a single death in America. And you mock with such bravado.

Please reconsider.

Grant H

Posted by: George at July 7, 2008 6:53 PM


Josh and Greg,

The issue is NOT just about the death penalty. The issue is about punishing sin. Which sins are criminal and which sins are simply sins.

We are not, I repeat, NOT the sin police.

Speak out against sin? Yes.
Invite people to Christ? Yes.

Punish those that don't believe as we do? NO!

That is what extremem fundamentalist Islam does.

We are not and not meant to be a Theocracy. That is for later, after this life. For now we are to be beacons. We are to lead by example.

The only reason to put someone to death is to keep them from causing grave harm to anyone else.

As Patricia pointed out, that is no longer necessary in the year 2008.

Sodomy, while distasteful to me and God, is not harming anyone. There is no need to put someone to death for it. Doing so, is Barbaric. Please do not quote the Old Testament laws to me. They are called OLD for a reason.

I am not Jewish. I am Christian. I am a follower of the NEW testament. Mercy, not Justice. Justice is Gods.

If someone is sodomizing a 2 year old, we can talk. Otherwise, the behavior is sinful, but not criminal. If you can't see that, then you have a serious problem.

You believing in personhood does not prove your sanity.

Eric Rudolph believed that abortion is wrong and I share that belief. But that commonality does NOT prove his sanity, and I want nothing to do with him.

You yourself have pointed out that you distance yourself from the army of God. Why? They believe in the bible. You believe in the bible. Doesn't that prove that they are right?

I am not a bible protestant. I am a Catholic, and if you belong to Zekes group then I already know how you feel about Catholics.

As I have said, while I believe in fighting for personhood, I also believe in incrementalism. One child saved is one child saved.

I assume you read my analogy of the Jews being hidden? Did this undermine the efforts to usurp Hitler? Do you think that the Jews that were saved this way give a rats patootie HOW they were saved? Don't you think they are grateful to be alive no matter how that happened?

If one child is saved by parental notice laws, if one person is woken up to the horrors of abortion by being made of aware of 11 years getting abortions without their parents knowledge, then it was worth it.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 6:57 PM


*shudder*

Kate, George, Josh, et. all...

I really need to ask you... is sticking to this "OHNOEZZ NOT TEH GAYZ!!" crap (and it is CRAP - no other word for it I could use without getting deleted) truly worth it, when you must know how many people you alienate from even considering being pro life?

And for all of you who swore up and down that I was "insane" and "ridiculous" and "lying" for pointing out this connection between the big pro life groups and gay hating... I don't even need to comment on it again... its ALLLLL right here in black and white.

Elizabeth - of course that was noted. Not really a surprise from you and MK, but HisMan?! Humph! Who'd a thunk it?? =)

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 7:03 PM


ARTL = prideful pranksters and grandstanders.. ho hum.

Posted by: George at July 7, 2008 7:11 PM


Sodomy, while distasteful to me and God, is not harming anyone.

Sorry MK but I disagree with this statement. Sodomy is harmful to those who practice it - however, I still do not believe in the death penalty.

Posted by: Patricia at July 7, 2008 7:12 PM


"ARTL's founders include several (Leslie Hanks, Flip Benham, Jo Scott, Patrick Johnston, Cal Zastrow, and Brian Rohrbough, at least) who supported the campaign of one Larry Kilgore for governor of Texas"

Such a rogue's gallery should make things pretty clear.

Posted by: George at July 7, 2008 7:14 PM


And for all of you who swore up and down that I was "insane" and "ridiculous" and "lying" for pointing out this connection between the big pro life groups and gay hating... I don't even need to comment on it again... its ALLLLL right here in black and white.

Amanada: I think you are painting alot of people with a broad brush stroke here. There are many many prolife org's that do not "hate" people with same-sex attraction but who are vehemently against same-sex propaganda and the same-sex social agenda.

Posted by: Patricia at July 7, 2008 7:15 PM


MK,

I believe you have misrepresented my position again. I did not say we should "punish those that don't believe as we do." I said we should punish those who commit crimes.

For example, I believe rape is wrong. Some people might believe differently. Does that mean we should not punish rapists?

You are right when you stay that justice belongs to God. According to Romans 13, God delegates to the earthly government the task of punishing the wrongdoer. If we fail to do so, we are disobedient before God.

Respectfully,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 7:23 PM


HI Amanda!!
I am not Catholic. I don't feel alienated that many here that comment are Catholic and prolife.

Sorry but if others WANT to be prolife they will be. Alienation is just an excuse. I haven't heard one gay person come on here to whine that if we were more tolerant she would sign up. If someone wants to fight for the lives of the unborn than do it. It's not a club.

Are you speaking for ALL homosexuals?

Posted by: Carla at July 7, 2008 7:27 PM


Good point Carla.
I might add that there is a prolife same-sex organization called plagal (prolife alliance of gays and lesbians) who's motto is human rights start when human life begins.

Posted by: Patricia at July 7, 2008 7:31 PM


Patricia,

I agree that we need to use all diligence in being certain that we correctly identify those who are guilty for a crime, particularly in a capital case. That in no way diminishes my support for the death penalty, and I resent the implication that the status of my eternal soul is therefore in question.

I am not a Biblical scholar, but that does not mean I cannot read the Bible and apply what it plainly says to everyday life. The Bible speaks extensively to the topic of crime and punishment. As for Cain, he came before God commanded the death penalty after the flood in Genesis 9.

Secondly, I don't appreciate being lumped in with Kate. I don't know Kate, nor am I familiar with Larry Kilgore.

I simply made a few posts politely stating my position and respectfully challenging a few positions stated by others. I thought this was the essence of friendly debate. Instead, I find myself being attacked, judged, condemned, and sentenced to the lake of fire.

Respectfully,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 7:39 PM


I simply made a few posts politely stating my position and respectfully challenging a few positions stated by others. I thought this was the essence of friendly debate. Instead, I find myself being attacked, judged, condemned, and sentenced to the lake of fire.

Respectfully,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2008 7:39 PM

I haven't sentenced you to the lake of fire (at least not yet!).

"I am not a Biblical scholar, but that does not mean I cannot read the Bible and apply what it plainly says to everyday life. The Bible speaks extensively to the topic of crime and punishment."

That is fine and dandy but then it is still YOUR interpretation of scripture that you wish to have our laws based on.
What about the concept of mercy Josh? The bible is filled with God's signs and actions of mercy.

Your idea the " the death penalty is at the heart of the Gospel" is very wrong.

At the heart of the gospel is the mystery of sin and REDEMPTION and the fact that God came for the sick (of soul).
There is no doubt that there were many times in the Bible when man strayed, even individual men strayed and God punished them. We can certainly punish criminal acts but to routinely execute criminals - that I cannot accept.

BTW:If even one person is sent to the gallows by mistake that is one person too many for me.
Pax

Posted by: Patricia at July 7, 2008 7:49 PM


MK, 6:57 p.m.

Woo hoo! :cheers, claps, bows down to the master:

You said it much better than me!

As per usual.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 7:54 PM


I agree that we need to use all diligence in being certain that we correctly identify those who are guilty for a crime, particularly in a capital case. That in no way diminishes my support for the death penalty, and I resent the implication that the status of my eternal soul is therefore in question.

Josh: there will always be mistakes made. There has been another recent case in Canada of a pathologist whose work and court testimony has resulted in the wrongful convictions of dozens and dozens of people - men convicted of child molestation, murders etc.
We think we have a pretty good system based on science but there will always be human error and tests results open to reinterpretation.

My implication Josh was that if you expect mercy for yourself you should try to extend it to others as well.

Posted by: Patricia at July 7, 2008 8:02 PM


"Instead, I find myself being attacked, judged, condemned, and sentenced to the lake of fire. "


Are we being a teeeeeeeeeeeeeeency bit dramatic there Josh?? I don't see where anyone has "attacked" you. And as far as the condemning, it doesn't feel very good does it? Now you know how you make gay people feel when you're spewing all your nonsense about them.


Carla - so if a bunch of the major pro life organizations also advocated executing of Christians, would you still align yourself with them?

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 8:10 PM


Carla - so if a bunch of the major pro life organizations also advocated executing of Christians, would you still align yourself with them?

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 8:10 PM

Well that would sorta make them NOT prolife. Prolife groups IMO, should not get involved in issues like the death penalty. Their focus should be on protecting right to life issues such as abortion, euthanasia, human experimentation on embryos and other biomedical ethics concerns from birth to natural death.
I believe death penalty abolishment use to be or maybe still is the work of amnesty international.

Posted by: Patricia at July 7, 2008 8:21 PM


Well, no one can argue with ARTL's policies, because we all agree Personhood is the way to go. So instead you're attacking the people involved.

The Hospitality Suite was really cool, and there were alot of really good contacts we made!

Also some very important contacts, for the future of the movement. It's interesting that NRTL was really trying to keep it quiet that we've got Personhood on the ballot!

Shh! Don't talk about the success in Colorado! It will make us look bad.

People are starting to realize that National RTL is selling pipe dreams. Almost no one we talked to seemed to doubt that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was a waste of time that accomplished nothing. Not one person I talked to disagreed, like they certainly would have a year ago. I understand even the lady who came to argue and then walked out corrected her son when he seemed to think the PBA ban banned Partial Birth Abortion. She turned to him and explained that it only changed the procedure a little.

If even our angriest enemies (and she was angry!) will admit the futility of NRTL's #1 objective over 15 years, then the Personhood movement is really picking up steam!

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at July 7, 2008 8:25 PM


Greg:

I'm saying some of the individuals in ARTL oppose homosexuality as a Biblical abomination and believe there should be criminal penalties, but that's beside the point.

It's really, really not.

And by "criminal penalties", do you mean execution? If so, please be honest and say so. You can claim it doesn't matter, but I think you'll find that it matters to a lot of people.

George (are you George or Grant H.?):

For all your talk about how you're saving people from themselves, I notice that you don't propose to institute the death penalty for smoking, or eating too much saturated fat, or not exercising.

And what the heck is "second-hand AIDS"?

Further, you seem to want to mock the many Christians who advocate re-establishing sex as legal only within the bounds of marriage.

No, I want to make sure that people who hold your theocratic views never, ever have any power over the rest of us. Admittedly, I don't think you ever will. I think that your philosophy is going the way of the dodo, and I don't want you to take the pro-life cause down with you.

Amanda:

This can be verified by reading the names in the right hand margin of http://www.americanrighttolife.org/us

It's unclear, but I'm pretty sure that not everyone listed there is affiliated with ARTL.

Also, I don't know that it's accurate to call ARTL a "big pro-life group". They're a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than, say, NRLC.

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 8:28 PM


If you count the people and organizations who have thrown their support to ARTL, then ARTL is probably bigger than NRTL/NRLC. American Life League is the largest domestic anti-abortion group, and Human Life International the largest international one... Operation Save America is pretty big, too (the remnants of what used to be Operation Rescue).

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at July 7, 2008 8:44 PM


Thanks Patricia. :)

Amanda,
You didn't address what I said.

If I aligned myself with prolifers who execute Christians then I would be executed. Bummer.

I align myself with people(gay, straight, black, white, Christian, atheist, young, old, rich, poor, SAHM's, freaking smart college women) who speak for those that cannot speak for themselves.

Posted by: Carla at July 7, 2008 9:10 PM


National Right to Life has had their chance. Their strategy has come up woefully deficient. It is time for a changing of the pro-life guard. American Right to Life is poised to lead in this rebirth.

I am sure this will ruffle some feathers at NRLC. After all, they have cushy jobs, nice offices, a pension plan, etc. at stake.

Posted by: Bubba at July 7, 2008 9:36 PM


George/Grant:

How is apathy hatred? I cannot seem to remember Master Yoda's teaching on that.

And what are these societies that "legalized homosexuality" but then saw the torturous deaths of millions? The idea that a society is fine until they stop oppressing homosexuals is one that has been floated around without any definite proof.


Everyone else:

There are LBGT individuals in the pro-life movement. There are liberals in the pro-life movement. There are even *gasp* a lot of atheists in the pro-life movement! As the movement ages, you're going to see more and more of these individuals joining up and taking prominent roles, and the conservative/religious attitude that has dominated will lose its grip.

Don't get me wrong, I feel great admiration and solidarity with conservative and religious pro-lifers. It just needs to be known that a lot of people don't want to join up with others who view them with a critical/judgmental eye. I remember going to one meeting where a joke was made about atheists...had they known an atheist was present, would that have been done? If I had thin skin, I would've left and shaken the dust from my sandals.

Jen R's statement about many people taking into account the individuals behind the organizations is valid. While I totally support ARTL's pro-life goal (and method), I really cannot say how disheartened I am to hear this about some of the leaders.

Posted by: pro-life atheist at July 7, 2008 9:43 PM


"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (God, Genesis 9:6)

Posted by: God at July 7, 2008 9:48 PM


LOL, so not only did the post bring over all of the CRAZIES from ARTL, it also caught the attention of God.

Jill...no one can dispute the relevance of your blog now that God has posted here (and he even knows how to format text...whoahhhh)

Carla, if you'd be that blase about being executed for being Christian, than I guess that explains our difference of opinion. I wouldn't be able to just say "bummer" while a dozen of my friends and family members were executed or punished in any way for being who they are.

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 9:59 PM


Carla, if you'd be that blase about being executed for being Christian, than I guess that explains our difference of opinion. I wouldn't be able to just say "bummer" while a dozen of my friends and family members were executed or punished in any way for being who they are.


Come on now, Amanda..I don't think that's what Carla is implying by saying "bummer." I think she was just trying to be funny.

I've got to admit though that I don't really see how wanting to execute gay people falls in line with the whole pro-life mantra. And if we are making SODOMY the crime here, and not homosexuality, then what happens to all the women? They don't engage in sodomy which is what these people want to criminalize. Or do we just want to get rid of the men because being a gay man is worse than being a lesbian woman?

So many questions..

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 10:14 PM


"I wouldn't be able to just say "bummer" while a dozen of my friends and family members were executed or punished in any way for being who they are."

why? you just say "bummer" when millions of unborn babies are killed, as your vote for Obama will prove.

Still, in order for Amanda to be pro-life, deals have to be done. Amanda, join another pro-life group if you don't like ARTL. Why do you bargain with chidrens lives?

Posted by: Jasper at July 7, 2008 10:23 PM


Amanda, join another pro-life group if you don't like ARTL.

I sure as hell will with her. I won't align myself with people who would save the very babies that they might want to execute when they get older.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 10:26 PM



"Come on now, Amanda..I don't think that's what Carla is implying by saying "bummer." I think she was just trying to be funny."

I know... I was being mostly silly back. I guess I can't expect anyone to understand, but I've already HAD a friend be executed for being gay. I KNOW what it feels like, so its easier for me to feel strongly about the prolife/antigay connection than others do. Everyone has issues that mean more to them than others. For me, as someone who would never have an abortion or someone who has never needed to talk someone out of it either, I can be personally opposed to abortion all I want - but when I'd actually have to put my money where my mouth is, or my vote, I can't. Because regardless of my opinion about abortion, I could NEVER donate money to one of these organizations or vote for a politician who has these backwards views - so basically its meaningless for me to say I'm pro life if I can't back it up with my vote or my wallet.

"I've got to admit though that I don't really see how wanting to execute gay people falls in line with the whole pro-life mantra."

It doesn't. Not at all. And thats my biggest problem. "Im pro life except for homos" is NOT pro life.

"And if we are making SODOMY the crime here, and not homosexuality, then what happens to all the women? They don't engage in sodomy which is what these people want to criminalize. Or do we just want to get rid of the men because being a gay man is worse than being a lesbian woman?"

Because there is no decent argument against homosexuality that doesn't invoke religion, and the Bible makes no mention of lesbians. People get all grossed out and worked up when you mention butt sex - its in the bible, its a visual image that grosses a lot of people out - but there isn't the same association with lesbians, and since they can't have butt sex, you don't have that immediate "eww gross!!!!" reaction either. Its all completely ridiculous - but I've heard plenty of this nonsense to know how many people actually buy it. Uhhhg.

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 10:48 PM


I see where you're coming from Amanda, and I can understand the apprehension you feel because of having a friend killed by a hate crime for being gay.

But I mean, I don't think you'll ever really be able to find exactly what it is you're looking for in a GROUP of people for the sheer fact that groups have extremists in them of all sorts.

I'm repulsed by the idea that people think executing homosexuals is somehow just, but I'm equally repulsed by people who think killing babies inside of their mothers wombs is just. I guess I just look at it as who can really fight back here. The homosexuals who are alive and kicking can fight back and stand up against these people, but who stands up for the unborn babies? I guess that's how I am able to still be a part of a group even though I don't agree with the extremism SOME of its members engage in. I also speak out about the extremism whenever possible, but I totally support standing up for those who can not stand up for themselves, which in this case is the unborn.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 10:58 PM


Josh, Bubba, MK, and God,

So much for "Respectfully, Josh"

Look, I'm sorry I lumped you in with Kate et al.

I was still in shock over her statements.

Yes, some sins are so awful they are called crimes.
Sodomy, imo, is not one of them. As Patricia points out, it hurts those practicing it, but ALL sin hurts those practicing it.

The difference is that both parties are consenting to it.

Laws against PUBLIC displays, okay, I'll go with you there. I think the Folsom Street Fair is about the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. It most definitely should be a crime. But the death penalty for sodomy? That is the issue I was addressing with Kate and Mr. Kilgore.

You just got caught in the crossfire.

It is really rare that I am stunned like that.

And Catholics have not ripped the Old Testament out of the bible. They just understand that it was replaced by the new and they keep it in perspective. As a foreshadowing it's imperative, but a new covenant and a new law were put into place that day on Calvary.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:07 PM


Yeah, the Folsom Street Fair is pretty gross.

But I'd think that too if it were held for straight people too.

People of any sexual orientation getting it on in public is just icky to me.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 11:11 PM


Amanda,

That's why we keep encouraging you to find a group that is more like minded across the board. I'm prolife, but I don't align myself with any particular group. Maybe Joe Schiedler, but as far as I can tell, he and I are on the same page and he's never mentioned anything about executing gay folks.

But there's atheists for life, gays for life, Jews for life, Feminists for life, and it goes on and on...just find a group that is both pro life and okay with some of the other stuff...

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:12 PM


E,


Yeah, the Folsom Street Fair is pretty gross.
*
But I'd think that too if it were held for straight people too.
*
People of any sexual orientation getting it on in public is just icky to me.

EXACTLY!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:14 PM


Dear God,

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (God, Genesis 9:6)

I'm confused. When did homosexuals start shedding blood???

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:16 PM


When did homosexuals start shedding blood???


When they had all those unplanned pregnancies and made the abortion rate go up...

Wait, wait..no, no that wasn't them.

tehehe.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 11:19 PM


Because there is no decent argument against homosexuality that doesn't invoke religion, and the Bible makes no mention of lesbians. People get all grossed out and worked up when you mention butt sex - its in the bible, its a visual image that grosses a lot of people out - but there isn't the same association with lesbians, and since they can't have butt sex, you don't have that immediate "eww gross!!!!" reaction either. Its all completely ridiculous - but I've heard plenty of this nonsense to know how many people actually buy it. Uhhhg.

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 10:48 PM

ROTFLWTIME... Amanda, your stomping off and saying the lives of 50 million unborn babies means less to you then your friends right to sodomy. That makes you not such a good friend to the unborn. And there are lots of reasons other than religion to be against sodomy. You are correct that many of those "health" reasons do not apply equally to lesbians, but there are still many reasons to discourage lesbian "sex".
Just look at Eileen's MORE THAN DECENT reasons she gives us on the "Pregnant man gives birth" blogline.
P.S. I knew you weren't really gone for good

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2008 11:22 PM


You know- we never had these sorts of tiffs back on Gallifrey. There were no arguments over topics like abortion or homosexuality- hell I've been around nearly a millennia and never once did I hear either topic mentioned or even *thought* by anybody.

You see- on Gallifrey we did not partake in sexual reproduction- in fact we eventually "bred" sexual reproduction out of our society- including sexual attraction. The goal in all that was to continue our species via artificial wombs and to get rid of any and all distractions (ie sexual attraction and child-rearing) in our duty to protect space and time.

Sometimes, I wonder if that would be a good plan for Earth? It would certainly cut down on all the bickering and fighting- perhaps allow for peace?

Posted by: The Doctor at July 7, 2008 11:27 PM


Yeah, until the Daleks show up.

Posted by: Jen R at July 7, 2008 11:29 PM


Bugger off Truthseeker, or I'll take my sonic screwdriver to your computer so that you aren't able to use it anymore.

Posted by: The Doctor at July 7, 2008 11:31 PM


Jen R, don't you know? Donna Noble saved the Universe- she destroyed all the Daleks.

Posted by: The Doctor at July 7, 2008 11:34 PM


Amanda,

That's why we keep encouraging you to find a group that is more like minded across the board. I'm prolife, but I don't align myself with any particular group. Maybe Joe Schiedler, but as far as I can tell, he and I are on the same page and he's never mentioned anything about executing gay folks.

But there's atheists for life, gays for life, Jews for life, Feminists for life, and it goes on and on...just find a group that is both pro life and okay with some of the other stuff...

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:12 PM

MK, Amanda is just being dramatic about the killing homosexuals stuff. She is for gay rights and considers supporting traditional family values to be gay bashing. BTW, I am also happy to affiliate myself with Joe Schiedler and the pro-life action league. BTW, Joe Schiedler , like myself, is a staunch supporter of traditional family values. We both boycott organizations that support the gay marriage agenda. I have included McDonalds and Target in my boycot and it is bringing them to their knees since my family of eight have quit sponsoring their businesses.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2008 11:34 PM


Hmmm, the Doctor...you sound like somebody else I knoww...

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 11:34 PM


MK, Amanda is just being dramatic about the killing homosexuals stuff.

Oh really? Considering people have come on here and said they SUPPORT that idea..and Amanda's friend was murdered for being gay, so unless you know what you're talking about TS, maybe you should hush.

And that's cool you boycotted Target and McD's..I bet they're real broken up about it. Oh well, more for meee!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 11:37 PM


Truth,

I too am for traditional family values...I just don't advocate executing gays! lol

Joe is great, right?

And actually, Amanda did have a friend that was killed for being gay, so I give her some wiggle room.

Target? Say it isn't so!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:38 PM


Bugger off Truthseeker, or I'll take my sonic screwdriver to your computer so that you aren't able to use it anymore.

Posted by: The Doctor at July 7, 2008 11:31 PM

The truth transcends time and it won't be stopped by a quack who calls himself a Time Lord and carries a sonic screwdriver. Go back to playing in your mind, it's safer for you.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2008 11:38 PM


TS

I can speak for myself...thanks. And MK knows me well enough to listen to MY comments about my beliefs and not your twisted interpretation of them. She also doesn't need your help having a discussion with me, she's certainly a lot better at getting me to think about things than the likes of you.

" I have included McDonalds and Target in my boycot and it is bringing them to their knees since my family of eight have quit sponsoring their businesses."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Thats a good one!

Yes, Target and McDonalds are just WEEPING to get your business back. I'm SURE of it. *pats your head*

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 11:40 PM


Doctor,

Put the screwdriver down and step awaaaaay from the computer...

we must continue to reproduce. You guys should try it. Those little tiny antennae would be so cute. And all those teeny, weeny arms...how many do you guys have anyway?

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:41 PM


MK, Amanda is just being dramatic about the killing homosexuals stuff.

Oh really? Considering people have come on here and said they SUPPORT that idea..and Amanda's friend was murdered for being gay, so unless you know what you're talking about TS, maybe you should hush.

And that's cool you boycotted Target and McD's..I bet they're real broken up about it. Oh well, more for meee!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 11:37 PM

G'sMom,
I have nothing but empathy for Amanda or anybody else who loses a friend to murder. You and Amanda would find you have a lot more people on your side if you wouldn't lump everybody who supports traditional family values into the gay bashing killer crowd.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2008 11:44 PM


you wouldn't lump everybody who supports traditional family values into the gay bashing killer crowd.


NEVER did that, but okay.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 11:45 PM


Oh, Miss MK, we Gallifreyans do not have antennae nor do we have multiple arms. In fact, we look exactly like humans on the outside, however on the inside we have two hearts and a respiratory bypass system as well as the ability to regenerate.

It's quite lovely.

Posted by: The Doctor at July 7, 2008 11:46 PM


" I have included McDonalds and Target in my boycot and it is bringing them to their knees since my family of eight have quit sponsoring their businesses."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Thats a good one!

Yes, Target and McDonalds are just WEEPING to get your business back. I'm SURE of it. *pats your head*

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 11:40 PM

I am rarely sarcastic, but it was worth it just to see you laugh.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2008 11:46 PM


above post was ts

Posted by: ts at July 7, 2008 11:47 PM


Oh and by the way MK- we do still reproduce, just not the feral manner that humans do. Our population was doing quite well until the Time War.

Posted by: The Doctor at July 7, 2008 11:48 PM


Ohhhh yes, your empathy was just OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR when you just said 5 freaking minutes ago I was "just being dramatic".

Nice try though.


And what.... you mean... people are hesitant to take sides on issues based on the behavior of people supporting that side?? Well... geee.... whoulda thunk??

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 11:49 PM


Doctor,

Ohhhhh how fun. You do reproduce, just not offspring...but how fun would it be to cut off their little fingies just to watch 'em grow back...unless of course you feel pain? Then nix that idea.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:50 PM


you wouldn't lump everybody who supports traditional family values into the gay bashing killer crowd.

NEVER did that, but okay.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 11:45 PM

OK G'sMom, but you seemed to have no problem calling me a gay basher ever since I had the "nerve" to say that male sperm could be an integral component to the genesis of HIV.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2008 11:53 PM


Amanda and TS,

Play nice now. Mom has to go nite-nite and can't referee.

Doctor, it's been fun. I'd love to see pics of the kids sometime.

E, you know I love you.

God,
I'll look for your answer in the morning.

Nite all.

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:53 PM


"God,
I look for your answer in the morning."


Don't we all, MK?

=)

Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 11:54 PM


MK,

you up late tonight.


"I won't align myself with people who would save the very babies that they might want to execute when they get older."

Me too Elizabeth, that stuff is crazy.


Posted by: Jasper at July 7, 2008 11:55 PM


No MK, we do have offspring by donating genetic samples which are then recombined with another individual's sample to produce offspring.

By regenerating, I mean we heal ourselves when we are dying- so we're not *exactly* like flat worms or salamanders.

Posted by: The Doctor at July 7, 2008 11:57 PM


Ohhhh yes, your empathy was just OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR when you just said 5 freaking minutes ago I was "just being dramatic".

Nice try though.
Posted by: Amanda at July 7, 2008 11:49 PM

Amanda,
When I used the word "dramatic" I was unaware (until about 30 minutes ago) that you had a gay friend who was murdered due to sexual orientation. For that reason I better understand your mindset for storming off this board the other night in defense of homosexuals and I am going to excuse your personal attack on me.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2008 12:00 AM


TS,

I never said you persay were a gay basher. I said spreading misconceptions/stereotypes about gay people is a form of gay-bashing. If you wish to continue to engage in that behavior, well, I can't stop you.

Man, you seriously can't let ANYTHING go can you? GET OVER IT ALREADY. This is a NEW and DIFFERENT topic. I'm sorry you're so offended that I don't happen to buy into your "HIV transmission" idea, but I just don't buy it. No need to get your panties in a bunch forEVER.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 8, 2008 12:01 AM


http://totallytennant.blogspot.com/2008/02/ditto-wants-to-meet-david-tennant.html

Well The Doctor, you might sound a little crazy, but good LORD are you sexy. Daaayummm.
Though I have to admit, its mostly the Scottish accent - which, I've gotta say, I'm quite pleased still exists in the distant future.

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 12:02 AM


"When I used the word "dramatic" I was unaware (until about 30 minutes ago) that you had a gay friend who was murdered due to sexual orientation. "

Even though I mentioned it in the post you were responding to in this thread, and Elizabeth mentioned it in a post directed to you in your bat guano posting spree about HIV. Riiiiiiiiight.

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 12:07 AM


Well of course the Scottish accent continues- it just so happens to be the best one out there- many aliens chose to use it in order seem more friendly or jovial when conversing with humans during "first encounters". Makes things a lot less tense.

Posted by: The Doctor at July 8, 2008 12:08 AM


"When I used the word "dramatic" I was unaware (until about 30 minutes ago) that you had a gay friend who was murdered due to sexual orientation. "

Even though I mentioned it in the post you were responding to in this thread, and Elizabeth mentioned it in a post directed to you in your bat guano posting spree about HIV. Riiiiiiiiight.

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 12:07 AM

Yes, thats Riiiiiiiiight Amanda. I was still commenting based on the fact that you had stormed off the blog a few days ago. I had only browsed the comments on this (todays) blogline.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2008 12:13 AM


"Bugger off Truthseeker"

Hi Rae-Rae! LOL..

Posted by: Jasper at July 8, 2008 12:34 AM


No need to get your panties in a bunch forEVER.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 8, 2008 12:01 AM

G'sMom, I never wore panties.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2008 12:38 AM


"why exactly can't 2 courses of action be in place, incremental (NRTL) and full (ARTL).

Posted by: Jasper at July 7, 2008 12:36 PM"

Jasper, Jasper, Jasper! NRTL is THE PRO-LIFE INDUSTRY. Abortion regulation perpetuates their existance and purpose. This "industry" sold out to ending baby killing for incrementalism. They celebrated Gonzales v. Carhart as a victory. HUH? Read it and weep. That victory for NRTL generated fundraising to the tune of $250,000,000.00 and every dollar was wasted on politicians and court appointees that don't understand that killing a baby is wrong. Regulation only offers a delay...AND THEN YOU CAN KILL THE BABY! $250,000,000.00 from loving, caring, duped donors only got the babies 6 inches. If you don't get it, read G v. C and grab some tissues and a vomit bucket. God Bless ARTL!

Posted by: theonlything2fear at July 8, 2008 1:19 AM


Jill:

This was a controversial blog to say the least.

Maybe tomorrow you can post on Michell Obama's cookie recipe?

Just kidding, just kidding......

Posted by: HisMan at July 8, 2008 1:19 AM


Although I support incrementalism with a view towards personhood, I do get the uneasy feeling that the pro-life industry itself is invested in the abortion business. If abortion were to become illegal, what would happen to the pro-life industry? These people's paychecks depend on abortion's legality. Though I think that concern applies to everyone involved not just NRTL or all that.

I do find it ironic how someone was lecturing the pro-gay rights movement on not alienating people while claiming that the pro-life movement shouldn't worry about it.
Mind you often extremists are a small faction but get the most publicity. But there shouldn't be such a resistance to non-conservative, non-religious people joining because of other views they might hold. While I feel very welcomed and loved by the board, the hostility towards liberals and non-believers gets evident at times. Though, I realize some of the aims at "liberals" is referring to "pro-abort liberals" often they attack liberals on several levels like anti-death penalty, pro-gay rights, anti-unjust war that applies to both.

I don't want to hurl accusations, I just think that if some attention is paid to that, the others would be more likely to LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS which is what will often be the persuading factor, as it was for me. I felt more willing to listen to those who appeal to reason calmly than otherwise- and I'm glad to see HisMan opening up to that. :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 8, 2008 3:51 AM


Amanda,
I am sorry about your friend. Gay or not, that is horrible.
I was kidding about "bummer". I didn't understand your connection to Christians and I should have just gone to bed.
Please know that most of us here are not "on the fringe" and you can address those directly that yak about execution. Or not. Many of the comments you can ignore. I know that is hard.(Can't remember who used to ask me how I should be executed for having an abortion??)Sometimes comments are not worth responding to. They shame themselves. Also, try not to comment in anger. It never comes out the way you want it to.
I didn't mean to make this Carla's Commenting Tips.....

You can be prolife and love your gay friends. I am prolife and love my gay cousins.

Peace.

Posted by: Carla at July 8, 2008 6:41 AM


BUT...
if my cousins give my daughter the book, Heather Has Two Mommies, we've got problems.

Posted by: Carla at July 8, 2008 7:19 AM


Carla,

if my cousins give my daughter the book, Heather Has Two Mommies, we've got problems.

heehee.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 7:29 AM


MK,

The scripture was in reference to the death penalty argument. We've got too many separate debates going on here. :)

Posted by: josh at July 8, 2008 7:42 AM


Yes Josh,

I got that. There really was only one conversation going on when you jumped on board. The one confronting Kate about her statement that Homosexuals should be executed.

That led to the revelation that someone named Kilgore was running for office and wants to secede from the nation, flogging and executing people for the same types of activity that Kate mentioned.

Everyone assumed your were with her as you have never been here before and showed up along with Greg and Kate and started defending the death penalty.

As far as personhood is concerned, no one here disagrees that we should go after it, but many of us feel that incrementalism has it's place also.

Now, which of those topics would you like to continue debating?

Death for homosexuals.
The death penalty in general.
Catholicism vs Sola Scriptura.
Personhood vs the Death Penalty.

Cuz I'm up for any or all of the above...

and by the way, a belated welcome.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 8:06 AM


MY actual intent was to talk about Jill's post!

Is that still in order? Or was that never the purpose of the comments thread? :)

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 8:49 AM


Greg,

Of course that's in order. The whole thing got confusing because I was unsure who stood for what and which names went with what group and why there was a problem.

How do you respond to my comment that in Germany people hid the Jews and "incrementally" saved them one by one, while waiting for the big guns to come?

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 8:52 AM


Oh, that one's easy.

The people who held Jews in their basements, or behind walls, never condoned the killing of Jews. The underground railroad in slavery times was never run by people who said some slavery was okay. What they did was right, and they never argued some Jews should be saved, and others should be killed.

Almost every incremental law (regardless of the noble intent of the drafter) contains language which in legal terms means that a woman has a right to an abortion unless certain conditions are met.

That's why CRTL/ARTL make the distinction between "incrementalism" which is not necessarily bad, and "compromised incrementalism" which is basically a deal made with the devil. Their line is "any law that ends with 'and then you can kill the baby' is an evil law." Such laws basically condone government control over child killing, they just save some babies, and the debate becomes over which babies to save, not over whether the government can order the killing of an innocent person.

That's why compromised incrementalism undermines Personhood -- because it argues from secular-humanist legal theories which ignore God and acknowledge government control over who lives and dies.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 9:07 AM


I think hiding individual Jews is different than pushing for legislation saying that Jews could only be killed after a 24-hour waiting period, or only if the poison used was from an approved list, etc.

The former is a good thing. The latter amounts to supporting evil in the hopes that good might come of it.

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 9:08 AM


Target? Say it isn't so!

Posted by: mk at July 7, 2008 11:38 PM

Afraid so mk. They donate money to fund the legalization of gay marriage.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2008 9:29 AM


I LOOOOOOVE Target. I would probably never spend money on clothes if it weren't for Target.

:)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 8, 2008 9:34 AM


I see where you're coming from Amanda, and I can understand the apprehension you feel because of having a friend killed by a hate crime for being gay.

But I mean, I don't think you'll ever really be able to find exactly what it is you're looking for in a GROUP of people for the sheer fact that groups have extremists in them of all sorts....

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 7, 2008 10:58 PM

There's an important difference though, Elizabeth between " extremist in them" (members) and the leaders of a given group. The leaders can set policy or strategy or publicly give the group's support (or seem to) to that which you disagree with. A member can't. The leader speaks for the group, and if a leader (officer, founder, CEO) voices personal support, without making it very clear that they are speaking only as an individual, then the appearance of support is there (just like problems with the "appearance of conflict of interest."

Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 9:40 AM


Phylo,

This is exactly why we get freaked by Obama and his pastor. His pastor FORMED that church. He is their leader.

This is different than the Catholic Church, where members might be nuts, but the leaders, the tenets, the 'rules" do not condone the nutcases.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 9:55 AM


(excerpted from Change of Subject - Eric Zorn archives:
Finally, here is a lengthy, 1985 Tribune profile of Joseph Scheidler:

MAN WITH A MISSION--JOE SCHEIDLER PULLS NO PUNCHES IN HIS CRUSADE AGAINST ABORTION
by Linda Witt.

....
Three years ago Joe Scheidler heard of a pregnant 11-year-old girl whose mother had scheduled her for an abortion at a large hospital. He located the child's residence through a private detective and then, unannounced, went to an apartment balcony next to that of the girl's family, and using his long-time companion, a Radio Shack bullhorn, harangued her mother, demanding to see the child alone.

The mother refused.

"She was almost hysterical," Scheidler says. "We couldn't reason with her."

On the day of the scheduled abortion, he and a group of volunteers from his Pro-Life Action League gathered at the hospital and formed a picket line but gave up after an hour when they did not see the mother and child entering the building.

Later they made a futile but well-publicized attempt to remove the child from her mother's custody.

"What would Mr. Scheidler and his colleagues have said if the mother had let them talk to the girl?" the New York Times wondered in a sharply critical editorial. "Would they have told her that 11-year-olds make good parents because they are in touch with the needs of babies? Would they have attempted to convince her, despite considerable medical evidence to the contrary, that it is safer for a child to have a baby than an abortion?

'Abortion,' explains Mr. Scheidler, 'could have a terrible psychological as well as physical effect.' How very touching."

Scheidler recalls that incident with pride and even boasts of that critical editorial in the New York Times. "Talking a woman out of having an abortion is not news," he writes in Chapter 11 ("Get Your Story in the Press") of his new book, "Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion."

"But tracking her down by using a private detective is. It was that angle we played up to the media. They were critical of our action, but it worked. An editorial written against us appeared in the New York Times. We did more than 30 radio interviews from Dallas to Detroit. . . The media were interested. . . . "We think it is important to use public relations techniques, even gimmicks. . . Someone has to create the image of the abortion fighter as a tireless, aggressive, imaginative, daring, cocksure and optimistic individual who carefully plans his strategy and accomplishes what he sets out to do."

He also recommends using a bullhorn: "It has a chilling effect."

MK: Did you know this about Scheidler? I find it almost as disturbing as the Kilgore site. And it's not just the action, it is the smug boasting about it afterward. IMO, this is nothing short of terrorizism. Imagine how frightened that poor eleven year old child must have been.

Your take?


Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 10:00 AM


Josh and Greg,

I understand what you are saying...

But I can tell you that if I lived in Nazi Germany and a law came up for vote, that any Jews over 6 feet tall would be spared, I'd have voted for it.

I would also have fought tooth and nail to get all Jews free and change ALL the laws, but I would take whatever I could get if it meant saving even one life.

You look at it as voting for evil hoping that some good would come out of it, and I look at it as voting for good, albeit small good. If parental notification wakes up one person to the reality that there young daughter could be having sex and aborting their grandchild without their knowledge then I view that as a "good".

While the PBA law may not have directly saved any unborn children, indirectly it might have had a great effect. Many people had no clue up to that point that PBA was even a reality. It brought it to the forefront, made MSM, and informed a whole lot of uninformed folks.

I view this as a small good.

I don't look at it so much as "ending" the legality of abortion, as informing an ignorant public as to the horrors of what abortion really is, how many are done, what reasons for them are and that it is virtually on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 10:02 AM


That's why compromised incrementalism undermines Personhood -- because it argues from secular-humanist legal theories which ignore God and acknowledge government control over who lives and dies.

But we're fighting human secularists. To use God or the bible as a reason to ban abortion is simply not going to work with them. Just as if Muslims tried to use the Koran to prove that some law in the US was wrong.

We don't live in a theocracy, so using religious arguments on people that don't believe in religion won't get you very far.

Do you really think that saying "Because God said so" to Christopher Hitchens is going to have any effect???

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 10:08 AM


Phylo,

This is exactly why we get freaked by Obama and his pastor. His pastor FORMED that church. He is their leader.

This is different than the Catholic Church, where members might be nuts, but the leaders, the tenets, the 'rules" do not condone the nutcases.
Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 9:55 AM

Remembering that many religions don't require weekly attendance, does Obama's resignation from Trinity satisfy you on that count, then?

Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 10:11 AM


Pssst mk, it's secular humanist. If not I'll start calling you a Catholic Roman ;-)

Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 10:14 AM


Phylo,

I didn't know that, but I don't really have a problem with it. In a way, that's what I've been saying about incrementalism...Sometimes you have to do things that get you noticed, even if they seem gimmicky. Whatever it takes to get the interview, the radio spot, the newspaper headline, because then you can rationally speak your peace.

Were these particular tactics a bit over the top? Well, if you look at it from Joe's perspective, he really does believe (as do I) that the damage done to an 11 year old that is "coerced" or talked into aborting her child, could be irreparable. I have a girlfriend that had serious mental problems, all stemming back to an abortion her father forced her to have when she was 15. She died due to complications of this illness at age 40.

Also, this incident took place in 1985. It was a different game then. It was all new, and no one knew what would work, how far to go. We've learned sooooo much since then.

While I wouldn't condone Joe doing this ONLY to get the publicity, I don't really have a problem that he did it for the right reasons, with the ADDED benefit of getting publicity.

It's not something I would have done, that's just not my way. But I don't fault him, especially since we were all green back then.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 10:16 AM


Phylo,

That's what happens when you think faster than you can type...I didn't even realize I done had that...I mean had done that...lol.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 10:20 AM


"He located the child's residence through a private detective and then, unannounced, went to an apartment balcony next to that of the girl's family, and using his long-time companion, a Radio Shack bullhorn, harangued her mother, demanding to see the child alone.

The mother refused.

"She was almost hysterical," Scheidler says. "We couldn't reason with her." "


WELL GEEEEEEE you freaking GENIUS. A strange man shows up at her house who has knowledge of a private medical matter and starts screaming at her via bullhorn to see her ELEVEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER alone? And she gets "hysterical"?? What a shocking reaction!!

The people that do this stuff are insane. No other way to put it. And in this case, as in thousands of other similar events, no abortion was prevented, no baby was saved, and another pro life zealot made a fool of himself in the public eye, just adding fuel to PP's fire, and money to their wallets from people disgusted by this sort of behavior.


Thank you for posting that Phylo. I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt - its a natural tendency of mine, but sorry MK, this guy is just another nut who obviously gets a self righteous high on harassment and humiliation.

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 10:23 AM


Phylo,

Remembering that many religions don't require weekly attendance, does Obama's resignation from Trinity satisfy you on that count, then?
Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 10:11 AM

It didn't hurt. My reasons for not liking Obama didn't really have anything to do with that church tho. I would just get upset when people would compare it to the CC.

I do have a hard time however, with someone belonging to any church, when they don't know what the church stands for. Unfortunately, a lot of Catholics don't have the first clue what Catholicism means.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 10:25 AM


MK,

A law which says "any Jews over 6 feet tall will be spared" also says "any Jews under 6 feet tall will be killed". You're authorizing their death, and signing your name to it.

Looking at it that way, does it help you understand where we're coming from?

And I'm not necessarily saying invoke God. Simply invoke right and wrong. The fact that someone in Germany didn't believe in God doesn't mean that they didn't know killing Jews was wrong, no matter what the law said.

Legal positivism is where you think whatever the law says is right, whether it's right by conventional morality or not. That's why thousands of Germans claimed "I was just following orders" or "I was just following the law" and were found guilty for their crimes anyway, because they knew in their hearts it was wrong and they did it anyway.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 10:33 AM


Also, this incident took place in 1985. It was a different game then. It was all new, and no one knew what would work, how far to go. We've learned sooooo much since then.

While I wouldn't condone Joe doing this ONLY to get the publicity, I don't really have a problem that he did it for the right reasons, with the ADDED benefit of getting publicity.

It's not something I would have done, that's just not my way. But I don't fault him, especially since we were all green back then.
Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 10:16 AM

Sorry mk, one about your friend (did you ever think it could be that it was the applied Catholic guilt layed on by her friends that pushed her into insanity?) but also sorry in the not good enough. Gimmisky? that's a badly worded bumpersticker mistake - like Obama's podium seal. What Scheidler did shows he lacked a moral compass or compassion.

If it was "greenness" then why doesn't he offer a public apology to that girl and her mom? Instead, he keeps making money and promoting it in his book(s). Wonder if that now middle-aged woman has mental problems or nightmares of bogeymen with bullhorns - if she's committed suicide would you say it was because of the abortion or Scheidler's actions in making it so much more traumatic?

I think Amanda's assessment of him is spot on.

Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 10:34 AM


Amanda,

As I said, this was 1985. We were really pretty new at the whole thing. I highly doubt that he would do something like that now.

If he would, I'd be surprised. But you were like, 3 then. Seriously, so much has changed and we have learned so much over that time. Abortion being legal at all was still pretty knew. Most of us hadn't quite wrapped our heads around it yet.

You were born into a world where it's the norm. But Joe and I? It basically turned everything we knew to be right, upside down. It was a really scary time for us. It's no wonder we were over exuberant.

Imagine if tomorrow they passed a law that you could kill all 2 year olds on demand for any reason...You'd be freaked, and feel helpless to stop it. You'd probably (knowing how big your heart is) be the first one grabbing a bullhorn and trying to stop people from killing their toddlers.

To us, Roe V Wade was just as shocking. We see no difference between 2 year olds and children in the womb. This was unheard of. It was like the whole world had gone nuts. Anything could happen.

Then in twenty years, your childrens children would be blase about the entire thing, as they were born into a world where this was perfectly acceptable. They too, might point to some extreme reactions that people had in your generation...

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 10:46 AM


Greg,

A law which says "any Jews over 6 feet tall will be spared" also says "any Jews under 6 feet tall will be killed". You're authorizing their death, and signing your name to it.

But saying NO, I WON'T VOTE FOR THAT says that any Jews, over 6 feet OR under will now be killed. You are authorizing their deaths!

In my scenario some Jews will be saved. In yours, all Jews will be killed.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 10:51 AM


But he has never apologized or said what he did was wrong - sorry, no passes, mk. The "man" uses and condones tactics that terrorize, and he has used and bragged that he used it, on a child. And he has urged others to do so by example at best, by word if it is actually still in said books, without caveats not to use such tactics because he regrets using them as they terrorize.

Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 10:53 AM


MK,

But Jesus asks us to stand up for righteousness.

If the Germans are killing Jews, you are asked to do whatever you can to help, but without involving yourself in the killing.

It's never our role to authorize and enable the evil by participating in it. You should be working against the evil -- all of it -- not trying to save some lives by taking ownership of the murders by singing your name to the order.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 10:55 AM


mk:

But we're fighting human secularists.

I must object. There are pro-life secular humanists (hi!) and there are also many, many, *many* religious believers who are pro-choice.

Posted by: Jen R at July 8, 2008 11:00 AM


Phylo,

As I said, it isn't my way...Joe is like 80 years old now. He was/is fighting a war. Mistakes are made. Some are recognized, some are not. I know Joe personally. He is the most decent, sweet, strong, caring man I have ever met. He took on this battle and gave up his life. He does not make money off of it. It ALL goes back into the kitty.

I've been to his home. Believe me, it's not Belle Aire. It's a modest home in a modest neighborhood. His wife is also amazing. If some of their tactics, and I emphasize some, were a bit extreme, I'm willing to let that go as part of the learning curve.

You're right, the whole incident could have been traumatic for that girl and her mom, but to our way of thinking it would not be nearly as traumatic as the abortion was.

I admit, that's our opinion.

As for my friend, her folks weren't practicing Catholics. I don't think that had anything to do with the guilt. I just think she was young, didn't process it well as her brain was too immature, and it came out in other ways.

But even if the guilt did come from the Church, that doesn't mean that the Church was wrong. Having an abortion was wrong. The church recognizes that. It teaches that. If people do it anyway, it isn't the churches fault for pointing out that it's wrong.

That's like saying it's the legal systems fault that murderers feel guilty for murdering...

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 11:00 AM


Yes, Jen,

But the reason that you are pro life is not religious. That's my point. If we want to reach secular humanists, like you, we can't very well be quoting the bible.

Are you prolife because the bible says so?

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 11:03 AM


Greg,

If 10 people in a burning building have to be saved, would you attempt to save as many as you can? Or do you only attempt to save them only if all can be saved?

Posted by: Jasper at July 8, 2008 11:04 AM


Greg,

It's never our role to authorize and enable the evil by participating in it. You should be working against the evil -- all of it -- not trying to save some lives by taking ownership of the murders by singing your name to the order.

But you ARE participating in the killing if you refuse to help the Jews that could be saved by the 6 foot law.

By refusing to sign that law, you are sentencing all the 6 footers to death.

I am not signing something that says it is okay to kill under footers, I am signing something that says it's NOT okay to kill over 6 footers.

Granted it's a Sophies Choice. It's a horrible position to be put in. It makes me sick.

But it's the starfish thing. It made a difference to "THAT" one.

I'm not even asking you to agree with me. I think you should continue to fight the way you are fighting. I'm just explaining why I choose to fight both ways. I don't think you're wrong.

It would have been just as legitimate of a choice if Sophie chose NOT to choose.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 11:08 AM


mk, I think your general point, that pro-lifers need to use non-religious arguments, is correct for many reasons. I just didn't want this to be cast as a struggle between pro-life religious believers on one hand, and pro-choice secular humanists on the other. The reality is much more complicated.

I think that when arguing about what the law should be, we need to use arguments that are not dependent on religion, because the law is supposed to be neutral on religion. I think that it's fine for, say, pro-life Catholics to try to convince other Catholics not to have or participate in abortions using arguments from Catholicism.

Does that make sense?

Posted by: Jen R at July 8, 2008 11:11 AM


Jasper,

That's always the argument used, but it's not a relevant or equivalent argument.

Of course, I would try to save as many as I could.

But supporting a law which advocates a right to abortion for the first 2 trimesters is like saving 3 of the 10 people and then starting the fire to kill the rest, then claiming to be a hero because you saved 3 before the fire started.

By advocating in favor of laws which support an abortion right, we are supporting murder by the state, even if we favor fewer murders than someone else. We become guilty of those murders. If we only do things which save lives without condemning others, then we remain innocent.

I know there's a heart-tug that says "save all you can". But you have to consider the unintended consequences. Satan wants you to sign a law that says you get to keep 9 babies if he gets to torture just one, because then he can blame you for his act. You're authorizing him. Don't play that game - tell him he can't kill any babies, and if he does it anyway, that's his fault, not yours.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 11:15 AM


Jen R,

Yes, exactly. But Greg (or was it Josh?) was saying that we need to use God's law to show the rightness wrongness of abortion, and I was pointing out that Christians already know the rightness/wrongness of it, and we are trying to reach secular humanists...which we can't do using the bible. For the reasons you stated.

Of course we can and should use scripture when arguing with our own.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 11:16 AM


Jasper,

If 10 people in a burning building have to be saved, would you attempt to save as many as you can? Or do you only attempt to save them only if all can be saved?

Perfect!

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 11:17 AM


I think we vehemently agree. :)

Posted by: Jen R at July 8, 2008 11:18 AM


Oh... except for this:

Christians already know the rightness/wrongness of it

There are a lot of Christians who don't think abortion is wrong.

Posted by: Jen R at July 8, 2008 11:19 AM


But supporting a law which advocates a right to abortion for the first 2 trimesters is like saving 3 of the 10 people and then starting the fire to kill the rest, then claiming to be a hero because you saved 3 before the fire started..

that would only be true if WE started the fire to begin with. We are only trying to control it. It's already blazing out of control.

Again, it may appear, and I emphasize appear, that we are advocating abortion in the first 2 trimesters, but the 3rd trimester children whose lives are saved won't really care much.

Again, Sophies Choice.

If that fire is burning and the fire department has rules that certain past a certain point you can no longer enter the building, they aren't saying that past a certain point you must set x amount of children on fire. They are saying that past a certain point, there is nothing else we can do. So we do what we can. But the fire men are NEVER responsible for the fire, or the casulaties.

They ARE heroes for saving whom they could. They are not monsters for not saving everyone.

But Jasper is right. Your way, means that NO ONE enters the building. Everyone dies.

You have to remember that the FIRE is the enemy. Not the firemen. Not the victims. The firemen are not responsible, nor can they be blamed no matter what the outcome. They have to work withing the rules of the FIRE. It's not something they can control. Any more than we can control the law of the land. We can only keep aiming our hoses and little by little put out one room at a time...

Sometimes, with a miracle, we can put the whole thing out at once, but that's really rare.


Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 11:25 AM


JEN R,

There are a lot of Christians who don't think abortion is wrong.

To be sure, but then they aren't really acting very Christianlike are they? And them, you can hit up with the bible. Or hit with the bible, as in upside the head...lol.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 11:28 AM


I stay right out of discussions over who is and is not a good Christian. I'm not qualified. :)

Posted by: Jen R at July 8, 2008 11:33 AM


If so many people here are in favor of working both angles (i.e. personhood and abortion regulation), then why isn't National RTL supporting personhood efforts? They say it's "not the right time", and they actively work against personhood efforts.

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 11:35 AM


MK,

Satan is asking you to sign a paper saying you get to save 9 babies as long as you authorize him to torture and kill the one.

Do you sign the paper?

It's all about saving as many babies as you can, remember?

I 100% reject the relevance of the "burning building" argument. It's a bad analogy. We're talking about legislation which authorizes abortion, and you're signing your name to it.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 11:47 AM


Greg,

Satan is asking YOU to sign a paper saying you can save one baby, even tho 9 will die. Do YOU sign the paper?

It is not my responsibility what Satan does after I sign that paper. I have no control over him. Just like I have no control over that fire. But I can make a difference to one life. That's enough for me.

Hand me a pen.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 12:19 PM


"I 100% reject the relevance of the "burning building" argument. It's a bad analogy."


Cop out.

It's actually a perfect analogy, which is why you reject it. Even most pro choicers admit there are a lot of people who mis use the legality of abortion. Add to that a large number of pro choicers/ on the fencers who are opposed to late term abortions when a C section or induction could produce a much more positive result. Add to that the large numbers of people who support abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or medical concerns.

What I'm getting at, is that I'd say there is a MAJORITY of Americans who would vote to make abortion more restricted than it is now. Myself included. The end result, no matter how you try to infuse it with Satanic imagery, is fewer abortions, and fewer people profiting from abortion.

With a combination of more restrictions legislated by the pro life side, and more assistance and education programs legislated by the pro choice side, you will have a gradual but consistent change of the perception of abortion.

With a bunch of reactionaries advocating harassment of patients and employees, the death penalty, and calling compromise "the work of the devil", you will continue to alienate people, turn people away from your cause, and attract only extremists. Fine, if thats how you want to live, go sign up for Kilgore's new country and move to Texas.

You do realize despite restrictions, some kids under 21 still get their hands on alcohol. Based on your strategy to eliminate abortion, do you think we should eliminate the age restriction all together until we find a way to prevent ALL teenagers from drinking? Or how about eliminate speed limits all together until we put speed governors in every single car? Because you know, having things like age restrictions and speed limits are just saying its OKAY to drink and speed!

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 12:33 PM


Here's a twist we haven't touched on yet:

We pro-lifers go around passing various laws that say things like "In the State of XXX, abortion shall be legal only if ". That is the form of many of the state laws we have passed.

Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned someday. Now, in State XXX, abortion remains LEGAL due to a law passed by pro-lifers. We will then be forced into the awkward position of fighting to overturn all the laws that we got passed in the first place.

Does that seem like a reasonable concern?

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 12:44 PM


"Does that seem like a reasonable concern?"

No, it's actually not reasonable, because like a lot of people, you seem to be a little confused about what Roe V Wade means.

Overturning Roe V. Wade will NOT make abortion illegal.

It will make it a state decision, and most of the state laws restricting abortion are "trigger laws", meaning they'll go in to effect the moment they are given the authority to legislate abortion in their own state. So restrictions passed UNDER Roe V Wade would become irrelevent. Abortion wouldn't be legal in that state BECAUSE of restrictive laws, it would be legal because there would be no law making it illegal.

The North Dakota debacle was concrete proof that Americans, even in one of the most conservative states in the country, will not vote for an abortion ban that encompasses victims of rape and incest. However, if the ban included exceptions for rape and incest, it would have passed.

Then consider states like NY, MA, CA, OR, etc, where something like 75% of voters consider themselves pro choice. If Roe V Wade is over turned, guess what - abortion is still going to be very much legal in those states. You'd honestly rather have ZERO restrictions in those states than work at legislature that COULD pass (like banning late term abortions or enforcing waiting periods)?

That sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 1:01 PM


Do you mean South Dakota?

Posted by: Carla at July 8, 2008 1:18 PM


"I, mk, hereby authorize and allow Satan to torture and kill one human baby for the greater good. Signed by me, this 8th day of July, 2008. mk"

Sad. What book do you use for your values, again?

I'll pray for you!

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 1:26 PM


mk:
I don't care if Joe is 120 and lives in a damn tent. The man used an inhumane terrorist tactic against an already frightened child. He has not apologized publicly for that action. He revels in it. Your acting as an apologist for him does no good. Do you ever think that his actions in the '80's set examples for the likes of Kilgore?

Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 1:31 PM


Does that seem like a reasonable concern?

Sure it's a reasonable concern...but it's not significant enough to offset the fact that in those states a number of babies are ALIVE because those laws were past.

If we hadn't fought for THOSE laws, most of America wouldn't even realize how widespread abortion is.

And lets not forget, that some of those laws, while definitely allowing for abortions, have saved many women from unsafe circumstances.

Which is not to say that abortion should be made cozy, but I am not so heartless that I would condone filthy clinics or incompetent doctors.

It IS still legal, and I don't want women hurt any more than I want babies killed. I don't hate these women. I don't even want them punished. I just want abortions to stop.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 1:32 PM


Phylo,

I'm not apologizing for Joe, I simply understand his mindset. I have already said that I wouldn't use those tactics. I'm also saying that while they might not have been the best, they weren't as radical as you're making them out to be. He didn't shoot an abortionist, he didn't run down an old lady, he doesn't advocate executing homosexuals and from everything I know about him, his good far outweighs this isolated incident...

Surely the murdering of an unborn child should horrify you more than harassing this young girl.

After all, both acts are/were legal.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 1:38 PM


"I, mk, hereby authorize and allow Satan to torture and kill one human baby for the greater good. Signed by me, this 8th day of July, 2008. mk"
*
Sad. What book do you use for your values, again?
*
I'll pray for you!

Thank you Greg. Prayer is always good. I will pray for you also. I hope the personhood thing works. It would be awesome if that would solve this issue once and for all.

What will you do however, if personhood fails? Will you give up?

And I would change that to "I, "I, mk, hereby allow Satan to torture and kill one human baby even at the cost of others, but do not condone his actions. I realize that he and he alone is responsible for the deaths of the remaining children, and I pray that they too will be saved. As for the one that will live, I hope that he too will join the fight against this evil and make life for ALL the norm. To the other nine, God bless you, and I hope I see you in heaven. I wish I could have done more. mk"

But that probably wouldn't suit your purposes.

Signed by me, this 8th day of July, 2008. mk"

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 1:46 PM


Why is National RTL opposed to personhood efforts?

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 1:54 PM


MK,

I think this proves my point - you didn't like the letter as I wrote it (which was meant as an apt metaphor for compromised incrementalism). I hope you wouldn't actually sign it, if that's what it said, and you'd allow Satan to retain responsibility for all the killings, not taking responsibility upon yourself for one murder to save the other babies. If Satan kills all 10, that blood is on his hands, not yours. If Satan only kills 1, that blood is on your hands.

I'd be happy if you could re-write Satan's letter to reflect what you just wrote. But you can't. It's his letter. Besides, you can't say "it's all his fault" when your name is on the authorization letter. It's your fault too, or your name wouldn't be there. That's the point of signing a contract, legally and practically.

And I'd also be glad if you could re-write compromised incremental legislation to not overtly support a right to abortion. But you can't -- that's a fact of the way it's written.

As pro-lifers, we need to re-write compromised incremental legislation so that it's not compromised. And we must refuse to support legislation that overtly or indirectly authorizes the government to kill innocent people!

Why not pass a law that says "all facilities where surgical medical procedures are performed must meet these standards" rather than trying to pass laws regulating abortion centers? One is a moral law which does not condone abortion. The other regulates a facility for killing unborn children, which is another way of endorsing that practice - you can't regulate something that is not a legal practice, and so there would be no regulations unless you were acknowledging the legality and appropriateness of the practice.

Amanda, you misunderstood Josh -- he was saying that in states where there is no other law saying yes or no on abortion, our "pro-life" laws would become the enabling legislation -- the law which says "if you do this, then you can kill the baby." If Roe v. Wade were overturned, and there was no other law on the books, our ultrasound bill would be the law that tells a judge abortion is legal. In the absence of any laws whatsoever, everything would revert to commonlaw, where abortion has always been considered murder for centuries.

MK, please consider the propriety of participating (authorizing) in the murder of the unborn through our well-meaning actions! It's not our place to help murder some babies, even if we save others. You should never place your signature on a death warrant for an innocent person.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 2:01 PM


"If Roe v. Wade were overturned, and there was no other law on the books, our ultrasound bill would be the law that tells a judge abortion is legal. "


LOL. No. That's not how laws work.

Abortion would be legal, regardless of the ultrasound bills, until the state voted to make it illegal, which would immediately nullify a bill written under the premise of it being legal. Hence the states setting up trigger laws.

But that's beside the point, Roe V Wade is not going to be turned over any time soon, and you're okay with keeping the flood gates open in the OFF chance that MAYBE it will get overturned EVENTUALLY. "My way or the highway" as they say. Well in my experience, that doesn't get you very far. In the meantime, plenty of pro lifers AND many pro choicers will be working to reduce abortions in any way they can, while you stomp your foot and pout until you get your way. Good luck with that.

Also, you were the poster who chimed in yesterday in agreement with Kate about executing gay people, correct? That pretty much makes anything else you say hard to take seriously.

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 2:31 PM


Amanda,

In the last paragraph of your argument to Greg, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". The form of your argument is this: Because Greg believes Thing X which we don't like or agree with, everything else Greg says is therefore fallacious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 2:55 PM


Um...why was that post deleted?

I'll repeat, unless someone cares to explain to me how it was offensive:


Josh/Greg/Kate/etc,

Let me get something straight here:

If the Supreme Court was to pass a decision saying that at the federal level, all abortions at any point in pregnancy were illegal unless the pregnant woman did not consent to the pregnancy (rape/incest) or her life was in danger

...you would be opposed to this ruling, yes or no?

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 2:55 PM


No Josh, I commited the "fallacy" of calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a nut job a nut job.

As much as I'm sure Hitler said some things some people may have agreed with, the whole executing Jews thing kinda got in the way of anything even remotely accurate he might have had to say, didn't it.

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 2:59 PM


I did not take a position on executions. I support the death penalty for violent crimes. I was just pointing out that the Bible does have a death penalty for gays, and that everywhere in the world has treated homosexuality as a crime for millenia.

And no, you misunderstand how the law works. In the absence of a law which says if something is legal or not legal, then commonlaw prevails. Commonlaw has always said abortion is murder. In the 1920s there were no laws against abortion, and certainly no laws allowing abortion. Nevertheless, the law would prosecute an abortion as a murder.

And you also misunderstand trigger laws. A trigger law is written to repeal all pro-abortion legislation if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Its establishing the new rules.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 3:00 PM


"Um...why was that post deleted?"

Oops, I think that may have been my fault, Amanda. There is so much spam mixed in with normal posts that I'm constantly deleting, and I may have accidentally checked your post and deleted it. Sorry about that :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 8, 2008 3:01 PM


Greg, you're living in a fantasy law land.

Based on what you're saying, slavery would still be legal in any states that had laws regarding slave trade (which many states did) once slavery was abolished at the federal level.

Obviously we all know thats not how it happened.

And, no, I don't misunderstand trigger laws, thats what I'm trying to explain to you - if a state wants to ban abortion, they're going to set up a trigger law that makes it ILLEGAL as soon as the state is permitted to make that decision. That would nullify any previous restrictions that were made based on abortion being legal. So Josh's "concern" is not a valid one, because the trigger laws can be set up regardless of the current restrictive legislation so that the very second Roe V Wade is overturned, abortion becomes illegal in that state, making his point about current legislation making abortion illegal incorrect.

If a state doesn't pass a trigger law, they're obviously the voters and/or the legislature are not that concerned about abortion being legal - and thats what happens in a democracy - you don't always get your way. If you'd prefer a dictatorship, by all means...

FTR, this information comes from a lecture I attended in college from an NYC judge who discussed the legal ramifications at the state and federal level of overturning Roe.

Posted by: Amanda at July 8, 2008 3:15 PM


A trigger law does not enact any new law. If it did, it wouldn't be a trigger law.

A trigger law may do either or both of two things - repeal pro-abortion legislation, or reinstate old anti-abortion laws.

And you're not understanding what I'm saying about commonlaw. Slavery is illegal everywhere because of a Constitutional amendment (13 & 14 I think), not because the Supreme Court ruled it illegal (actually, they never overturned Dred Scott). That Constitutional Amendment(s) trumped any and all state laws, just as Roe v. Wade trumps state laws on abortion.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, things go back to the states and state law. To overturn the anti-slavery statutes you'd have to actually modify the US Constitution by getting 2/3 of the states to pass a request through their legislatures.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 3:34 PM


So, when do we get to vote on the legality of abortion on a state by state basis?

Posted by: Carla at July 8, 2008 3:35 PM


From a discussion about such a trigger law in Texas, which proves both my points (i.e. on triggers, plus on incremental legislation):

While Texas had an anti-abortion law before the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional in 1973, Mr. Patrick said there is some dispute about whether that law would go into effect if Roe vs. Wade were reversed. He noted that Texas has passed parental notification and parental consent laws in recent years that imply a woman's right to an abortion.

"Without a trigger bill, there would be a fight over whether we are a pro-life or a pro-choice state," he said. "Some might view us as a pro-choice state because we have laws for parental notification and parental consent where if you get a parent's approval, you can have an abortion."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/DN-abortion_11tex.ART.State.Edition1.3d411b0.html

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 3:37 PM


Amanda,

My apologies - I must have the wrong logical fallacy. Perhaps you meant to commit the "ad hominem" fallacy in which an attack upon another person is supposed to serve as evidence that their position is incorrect.

Understanding logical fallacies is important in fostering effective debate and exchange of ideas. Simply dismissing someone as a "nut job" because they have honestly held beliefs that you consider to be "extreme" is not.

Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 3:39 PM


Simply dismissing someone as a "nut job" because they have honestly held beliefs that you consider to be "extreme" is not.

Is there no belief so extreme and horrible that you would consider the person holding it to be a nutjob? It doesn't mean they're wrong about everything -- even Hitler loved animals, and all that.

Posted by: Jen R at July 8, 2008 3:43 PM


Two non-believers calling God a "nutjob" because he invoked the death penalty for homosexuality. Any Christians who believe God was right, too, for that matter.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 3:50 PM


Jen,

Oh yes, there are many beliefs that would qualify a person for "nut job" status in my mind. My point was simply that we might have a more effective debate and a better chance of learning something from one another if we kept that to ourselves and assumed good faith on the part of the other party.

Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 4:00 PM


Amanda - glad to see you're back! (I agree - what happened to the thread???!)

I'll back Bobby up - @ 3:01 - we've lately been seriously flooded with comment spam (which you all don't see, but it's a problem) and it's really hard tagging and getting rid of it.

I'm working on a solution to eliminate spam - and hopefully it will also stop people posing as God or other people on the blog (which actually is now considered a prosecutable felony!)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 8, 2008 4:03 PM


Chris:

(which actually is now considered a prosecutable felony!)

Wait, what?

Posted by: Jen R at July 8, 2008 4:24 PM


Chris,

Since all usernames are freely available and no password is required, how can it be a felony to use whatever username one likes?

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 4:27 PM


Greg,

If Satan kills all 10, that blood is on his hands, not yours. If Satan only kills 1, that blood is on your hands.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. If satan kills all 10, that blood is on his hands, not mine. If satan only kills 1, that blood is on his hands, not mine.

I am ONLY responsible for what I can control. I am never responsible for anothers actions. I know, and God knows that I did NOT sign that bill it condone murder, but to save lives. It doesn't really matter to me if YOU know it. It is enough that I do.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 4:40 PM


Greg,

That's the point of signing a contract, legally and

That's why we have lawyers. To tweak and rewrite a contract until all parties are satisfied.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 4:44 PM


Greg,

Two non-believers calling God a "nutjob" because he invoked the death penalty for homosexuality. Any Christians who believe God was right, too, for that matter.

That was unfair. No one hear called God a nutjob.

They called the belief for the death penalty for homosexuals nuts and referred to Kate and Kilgore as nutjobs (something with which I concur).

If you want to interpret the bible to say that God wants all homosexuals executed, go for it. But that is NOT mainstream Christianity, and it IS the beliefs of what I consider lunatics.

As a Christian, I do not want people thinking that I believe the same things.

Everyone here knows that I believe homosexual behavior is sinful, but that is a far cry from wanting to execute gay people...

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 4:52 PM


Josh,

Found this at Slashdot:

http://www.secureworks.com/research/falsepositive.php

It's my understanding that if you knowingly violate a Terms of Service agreement, basically misrepresenting your intentions, that's actionable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

You have to remember - a lot of people do a lot of financial transactions and other serious business on the internet every day - so setting up an alternate identity with the intent to defraud is not only possible - it happens. Further, there's a host of issues related to posting of which most people are completely unaware.

We've had several cases of people posting under other's handles/usernames. Besides being discourteous and deceptive, did you know that you're legally responsible for what you write? Many people forget that - they also forget that there's a way to track down the actual person because there's always a record back to their specific machine, even if they run through a proxy.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 8, 2008 4:55 PM


MK,

You are correct that, whether he calls all 10, or just the one baby, their blood is on Satan's hands.

However, you are tragically incorrect in thinking that, even if you "authorized" something you have no power to authorize (the execution of an innocent person), you remain blameless.

Satan WANTS you to participate. He wants your buy-in. By agreeing to his terms, you became a conspirator in his murders.

As the Texas legislator noted, a law which regulates abortion basically acknowledges a right to abortion. Pro-lifers lose every time one of us does that! Babies lose, too, in the long run, because if you save 100,000 babies by regulating abortion, you may eventually condemn 100,000 babies by acknowledging a "right" to abortion.

I would rather stand righteous for what God asks than become a participant in the slaughter. Call it murder, and don't compromise with the murderers, and people will sooner acknowledge that abortion is murder, and will stop it, saving 100,000 and 1,000,000 and more babies from destruction, rather than reaching an accomodation that ends most abortions but allows others to continue forever.

I know incrementalists dream that they will end all abortion just as soon as they save 99% of the babies, but it'll never happen that way. Once most remaining abortions seem clean, proper and defensible, people will accept it as what needs to be. The more regulated abortion is, the cleaner it seems, and the less interested people will be in seeing it end.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 5:04 PM


Chris,

Thanks for your reply. I understand your point and agree completely. My question has to do with this specific site. How can it be said that any particular username belongs to anyone in particular?

I started using the name Josh because it suited me. There's no password - anyone could use it. If someone else shows up and it suits them to use it, why shouldn't they? In fact, for all I know there have been other people who have used the username Josh on this site in the past. Am I then in violation for using the same name?

Do the terms of service for this site say that you can't use the name "God", "Satan", "Dick Cheney", or any other particular name?

Thanks,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at July 8, 2008 5:31 PM


Greg,

Do you think that God knows MK's intentions and what is in her heart? I think He does, and that is why God knows MK is not compromising with the devil.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 8, 2008 5:50 PM


Josh @ 5:31 PM

Josh - on any particular thread it's fine to use a single handle - my preference is for people to use their real name, although some like to remain anonymous (which we are discouraging). It's a way to get to know each other.

The use of "God" borders on blasphemy, although I think the person who did that was attributing that particular verse to God, so while it was an unusual "naming", it didn't really bother us. If it did we would have pulled it. (I'm not encouraging the one who did that here...we know who you are.) If you hit the preview button when you reply, you'll see a list of posting guidelines. If someone posted as Dick Cheney or Satan, the post would be pulled.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 8, 2008 5:52 PM


...that everywhere in the world has treated homosexuality as a crime for millenia.

Posted by: Greg at July 8, 2008 3:00 PM

Hey Greg, we'll make it real easy for you. Here's something on the history of homosexuality. Yes, it's wiki, but it does have citations. So, please stop posting from your own incorrect and homophobic mindset and then claiming it as fact.

The lives of many historical figures, including Socrates, Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo DaVinci, and Christopher Marlowe included or were centered upon love and sexual relationships with people of their own sex. Terms such as gay or bisexual have been often applied to them; some, such as Michel Foucault, regard this as risking the anachronistic introduction of a contemporary construction of sexuality foreign to their times,[24] though others challenge this.[25]

A common thread of constructionist argument is that no one in antiquity or the Middle Ages experienced homosexuality as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality. John Boswell has countered this argument by citing ancient Greek writings by Plato,[26] which he says indicate a knowledge of exclusive homosexuality.

Africa

Though often ignored or suppressed by European explorers and colonialists, homosexual expression in native Africa was also present and took a variety of forms. Anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe reported that women in Lesotho engaged in socially sanctioned "long term, erotic relationships," named motsoalle.[27] E. E. Evans-Pritchard also recorded that male Azande warriors (in the northern Congo) routinely took on boy-wives between the ages of twelve and twenty, who helped with household tasks and participated in intercrural sex with their older husbands. The practice had died out by the early 20th century, after Europeans had gained control of African countries, but was recounted to Evans-Pritchard by the elders he spoke to.[28]

Americas
Dance to the BerdacheSac and Fox Nation ceremonial dance to celebrate the two-spirit person. George Catlin (1796-1872); Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Dance to the Berdache
Sac and Fox Nation ceremonial dance to celebrate the two-spirit person. George Catlin (1796-1872); Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

In North American Native Society, the most common form of same-sex sexuality seems to center around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Such people seem to have been recognized by the majority of tribes, each of which had its particular term for the role. Typically the two-spirit individual was recognized early in life, was given a choice by the parents to follow the path, and if the child accepted the role then the child was raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life would be with the ordinary tribe members of the same sex. Male two-spirit people were prized as wives because of their greater strength and ability to work.
Balboa setting his war dogs upon Indian practitioners of male love in 1513; New York Public Library
Balboa setting his war dogs upon Indian practitioners of male love in 1513; New York Public Library

Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil.[29][30]

The Spanish conquerors were horrified to discover "sodomy" openly practiced among native peoples, and attempted to crush it out by subjecting the berdaches (as the Spanish called them) under their rule to severe penalties, including public execution and burning. In a famous example of cruelty against homosexuals, in 1513 the conquistador Vasco Núñez de Balboa

discovered that the village of Quarequa [in modern-day Panama] was stained by the foulest vice. The king’s brother and a number of other courtiers were dressed as women, and according to the accounts of the neighbours shared the same passion. Vasco ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs. The Spaniards commonly used their dogs in fighting against these naked people, and the dogs threw themselves upon them as though they were wild boars on timid deer.[31]

East Asia
A woman spying on a pair of male lovers, Qing Dynasty. Chinese Sexual Culture Museum in Shanghai.
A woman spying on a pair of male lovers, Qing Dynasty. Chinese Sexual Culture Museum in Shanghai.

In East Asia, same-sex love has been referred to since the earliest recorded history. Early European travelers were taken aback by its widespread acceptance and open display. None of the East Asian countries today have specific legal prohibitions against homosexuality or homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality in China, known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, the cut sleeve, or the southern custom, has been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. These euphemistic terms were used to describe behaviors, but not identities (recently Chinese society has adapted the term "brokeback," 斷背 duanbei, from the success of Taiwanese director Ang Lee's film Brokeback Mountain).[32] The relationships were marked by differences in age and social position. However, the instances of same-sex affection and sexual interactions described in the Hong Lou Meng (Dream of the Red Chamber, or Story of the Stone) seem as familiar to observers in the present as do equivalent stories of romances between heterosexuals during the same period.

This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships.

Similarly, in Thailand, Kathoey, or "ladyboys," have been a feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers. While Kathoey may encompass simple effeminacy or transvestism, it most commonly is treated in Thai culture as a third gender. They are generally accepted by society, and Thailand has never had legal prohibitions against homosexuality or homosexual behavior.

Posted by: phylosopher at July 8, 2008 6:41 PM


Greg,

As the Texas legislator noted, a law which regulates abortion basically acknowledges a right to abortion. Pro-lifers lose every time one of us does that! Babies lose, too, in the long run, because if you save 100,000 babies by regulating abortion, you may eventually condemn 100,000 babies by acknowledging a "right" to abortion.

I live in America. America is not a dictatorship. We enact laws. Then we are beholden to them. The law, not me, says that abortion is a "right"...it's already a done deal. The house is ALREADY ON FIRE! I did not start the fire. I could not do anything to stop the fire. I am not responsible for the fire.

If abortion was illegal, and THEN I signed a contract saying that it would be alright to make it legal so that you can kill 9 kids...I would be complicit.

I am just working within the law, no matter how insane that law is. It's how our country works. It's why killing abortionist is not right. That might work in Iran, but not here. Here we work within the law.

I have the same problem with Luther. Instead of working within the church, he chose to fracture the church. Had he work incrementally, we might still all be one church.

Sometimes you use the cannons, sometimes you use dagger. You man the cannons, I'll cheer you on, and I'll also cheer on anyone using the small weapons. This is a war. Everything counts. Every single battle. Sometimes a nuke is all that will work, but you try everything else first.

Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 6:45 PM


and more assistance and education programs legislated by the pro choice side...

Gag, choke, cough, gasp, choke

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2008 12:26 AM


I don't condone the execution of homosexuals, but I don't condone homosexuality either.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2008 12:29 AM


Homos nos eros

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2008 12:30 AM


I can see both sides of the incrementalism vs personhood only arguments. Question for Greg and mk. If you could save the lives of nine people by killing a terrorist would you do it, even if it meant killing an innocent child who happened to be standing next to the terrorist who was about to detonate a bomb?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2008 12:35 AM


Posted by: mk at July 8, 2008 6:45 PM..

true MK.

Greg, it's nice to your passion though...

Posted by: Jasper at July 9, 2008 12:37 AM


Need I remind everyone that sodomy also refers to oral sex. Looks like most of us here would need to turn ourselves in for that one.

What what's this about not having enough money to build new prisons?

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 9, 2008 1:32 AM


Greg, God, as described in the Old Testament, is a nutjob. Or else a vicious sadist.

Posted by: SoMG at July 9, 2008 5:13 AM


SoMG @ 5:13 AM

Are you omnipotent?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 9, 2008 6:15 AM


Chris, no, I'm not omnipotent, but I do know how to read.

Posted by: SoMG at July 9, 2008 9:52 AM


Greg, God, as described in the Old Testament, is a nutjob. Or else a vicious sadist.

Posted by: SoMG at July 9, 2008 5:13 AM

SoMG, you are ignorant about God. You sound like Edyt. Did you not follow any of my discussions on this with her. I can see you will need the same talking to soon.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2008 11:09 PM


How sad. Hundreds of posts about a small group of pro-life people wasting thousands of dollars protesting a pro-life event while millions of babies die in abortions annualy. When will we learn?

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at July 31, 2008 10:46 AM


I agree, Steven. It is sad.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2008 11:34 AM