"Pro-lifers sabotaging pro-life laws?"

Steve Waldman of the liberal Christian website Beliefnet.com has picked up on this serious situation in the pro-life movement outlined in my WND column this week.

Purist and incremental hardliners have taken theory to reality and directly sabotaged a ban that would have outlawed 97% of all abortions in 1 state, sentencing real - not theoretical - South Dakotan children to their deaths.

What I find most interesting is the purists' unwillingness now to accept responsibility for the SD ban's loss. Several times in the last 2 days, they've e-mailed me or written in the comments section on my WND post that the ban's defeat wasn't their fault, when it was. The ban lost by 5% and John McCain won by 8%.

I also now know SD Right to Life sent mailers to pro-lifers telling them to oppose the ban. I'm trying to get my hands on them.

Why don't purists want credit for their victory?

Steve Waldman.jpg


Comments:

Jill asks: "Why don't purists want credit for their victory?"

Good question. I can't think of any reason why they would not only accept, but even celebrate their "victory".

I thought only the proaborts were ashamed of that which they support.

Posted by: Doyle at November 21, 2008 1:43 PM


The ban lost by 5% and John McCain won by 8%.

Where are you getting this from? Everything I've seen says the results were 55% to 45%.

Posted by: reality at November 21, 2008 2:03 PM


Who's side are you on, lady??

Posted by: Lindsay at November 21, 2008 2:06 PM


Why don't purists want credit for their victory?

Jill, I did, didn't I?

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 2:09 PM


I thought only the proaborts were ashamed of that which they support.

Doyle, who knows? Who do you see that's pro-abortion?

Pro-Choicers aren't ashamed that they want women to retain the freedom they have.

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2008 2:33 PM


Will D. I don't get.If you were a fireman you would write a game plan for rescuing children from a burning school and if you couldn'twrite a plan that rescued them all then you wouldn't write a plan at all. Sounds stupid.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 21, 2008 2:42 PM


TS: "Sounds stupid."

Thats because it is stupid. Ive already called him on his faulty analogy earlier and he has yet to respond.

Posted by: Oliver at November 21, 2008 2:48 PM


Oliver - Thats because it is stupid. Ive already called him on his faulty analogy earlier and he has yet to respond.

Already did this morning.

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 2:55 PM


truthseeker - Will D. I don't get.If you were a fireman you would write a game plan for rescuing children from a burning school and if you couldn'twrite a plan that rescued them all then you wouldn't write a plan at all. Sounds stupid.

Your analogy is stupid. CAN I AT LEST GET CREDIT FOR CLAIMING VICTORY? I believe in saving as many as I can, when I can. I don't believe in doing evil that good may come of it. You and Jill and the rest can't even admit that! I wouldn't support numerous ways of saving kids. Here are a few:

-Kidnapping pregnant women so they give birth.
-Kidnapping all abortionists.
-Raising the price of abortions.
-Raising the tax on abortions.
-Limit women to one abortion in their lifetime.
-Put a quota on abortions that can be performed annually.
-End all abortion if one Christian would have one abortion.

All would save kids. All are disobedient to God. Therefore, all are wrong. Saving kids is good. God said, "Don't do evil that good may come from it." If someone kidnapped a pregnant woman, the saved baby is good, the kidnapping is evil.

Call me crazy, but I think supporting mass murderers is evil and I think advocating the death of some to save others is evil too. Try to explain to God that when you voted to allow abortions (that were already happening) you really didn't agree with that part. You can't vote partially. It's a Yeah or Nay.

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 3:03 PM


Jill - I have heard/seen nothing of a mailing from SDRTL unless you are referring to their newsletter which went out the first week of October. One the back of that newsletter was a bold statement of opposition. You can see a scan of that page of the newsletter here...

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/operation-rescue-condemns-sd-rtl-for.html

Minor math correction... a couple times I've seen you refer to 75 rape babies a year in SD but it's only 7.5 MAX - this makes your point even stronger and increases the number of babies getting killed because groups like SDRTL agressively opposed us.

Thanks for your continued coverage of our struggle here in SD.

Posted by: Steve Hickey at November 21, 2008 3:09 PM


...how do you have half a baby?

Posted by: Erin at November 21, 2008 3:19 PM


Who's side are you on, lady??
Posted by: Lindsay at November 21, 2008 2:06 PM

There is no question in my mind which side Jill is on...... life.

However I agree with her about this. Yes pro lifers would like to see all abortions banned.... that would be the ultimate goal, but we have to take it one step at a time.

Any measure that would save any unborn babies is worth it.

One of the most inspiring stories I read was Corrie Ten Boom, how she and her family hid Jews in their home during WW 2. Eventually they were caught and put into camps.

There were other people at that time that risked their lives in order to save even one Jew from the camps.

They couldnt possibly save everyone, but they did what they were capable of doing.

And I think as pro lifers we need to think this way.

Its shocking to me that any pro life people had voted against the SD ban only because the exception was made for the life of the mother? As Jill says, this could have saved most babies, at least in SD.

Posted by: Joanne at November 21, 2008 3:21 PM


...how do you have half a baby?
Posted by: Erin at November 21, 2008 3:19 PM
-----

Erin - that's literally possible.
Wanna see?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 21, 2008 3:34 PM


Will D.
You are saying that you couldb't support the restriction law cause God would hold you responsible for the lives of the ones that the law failed to protect. I am saying that God will hold you responsible for the ones you failed to protect by voting against the restriction.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 21, 2008 3:48 PM


Call me crazy, but I think supporting mass murderers is evil and I think advocating the death of some to save others is evil too. Try to explain to God that when you voted to allow abortions (that were already happening) you really didn't agree with that part. You can't vote partially. It's a Yeah or Nay.

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 3:03 PM

You fail to see that no pro-lifers are advocating the death of any babies.

Definition:
ad·vo·cate (dv-kt)
tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates

To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.

Will D: You fail to see that no pro-lifers are advocating the death of any babies.

I see you completely ignored reading Fr. Pavone's letter I posted for you on the other thread.
"And What I Have Failed To Do..." Although it relates to the election, it can easily relate to voting for pro-life legislation as well.
Here it is again:

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

What’s this I hear from some people that they might “sit out” the Presidential election because they aren’t comfortable with the likely choice of candidates?

Since when are elections supposed to make us “comfortable?” Since when do we exercise that right to vote, for which people fought and died, only when it’s easy and clear-cut, and our choices are just the way we want them to be?

At Mass we pray, “I confess to Almighty God…that I have sinned…in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…”

What we fail to do can make us just as guilty as what we do. A sin is a wrong choice, and to decide not to do something is just as much of a choice as to decide to do something.

A sin of omission is still a sin – and we are still responsible for the results.

What, then, makes us think that we are more responsible for the results of voting than for the results of not voting?

A vote is not a philosophical statement. It is a transfer of power. It is a pragmatic act to preserve, as much as possible under the circumstances, the common good, and to limit the evils that threaten it.

And in the pragmatic matter of elections, what matters is not how closely a candidate measures up to my preferences and convictions. Instead, it’s a question of who can and will actually get elected. It does little good if the person I felt most comfortable supporting doesn’t get to actually govern and implement those positions I like so much.....

excerpt from:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2008/08-02-25-what-i-have-failed-to-do.htm


Posted by: Janet at November 21, 2008 4:02 PM


Look, the South Dakota would-be law was poorly-written, and blatantly unconstitutional. Thinking people in South Dakota, pro-life as well as pro-choice, knew that their state would be faced with paying to defend it, and that is not a good thing.

If you're going to do something, do it right. Now people are pointing fingers at each other....

It was a bad deal from the beginning, so good riddance. It's not worth all this "anguish" now.

Posted by: Josh at November 21, 2008 4:04 PM


Will said - Call me crazy, but I think supporting mass murderers is evil and I think advocating the death of some to save others is evil too.
-----

So our armed forces are evil?
Chasing al-Qaeda is evil?
Any police officer who performs his duty in a forced situation and kills is evil?

Standing in Arlington are you surrounded by thousands of crosses of evil men?

Aren't you truly the product of evil?

We're all evil. Unimaginably so. The problem is, you truly believe you see the difference, indicating you believe you are good. None are good, except God, or haven't you heard? To me that looks like a huge log in your eye.

Will - you're forgetting the finer points of Christ, like mercy, compassion and lovingkindness. And your pride has overcome your reasoning.

With your logic you're complicit in all situations, and I suspect you're carrying some burden you really need to confess to the Lord.

What has been done is done.

God has already seen the end from the beginning. There's no need to explain to him at some future point. You need to understand achariet mut. (That's not a spelling error either - go find the Hebrew.)

Death seems unfair - we just had a close sister in Christ die today from cancer. My wife cared for her often over the last few months.

Death is the wage of sin we've been given. You Will, can't stop the death of anyone.

Christ has lifted that burden from me - why are you still carrying it?

My accountability to God is - did I love my neighbor as myself?

Now as the Love of many grows colder, what will you do?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 21, 2008 4:21 PM


South Dakota Strategy

When ban without exceptions loses by 10%, give them their exceptions! Compromise to win!

Result: Lose by 10% AGAIN.

Good Strategy

When ban without exceptions loses by 10%, educate the masses and change the minds of people and try again!

Result: Change hearts and minds and we will win.

What's next SD? Maybe the exceptions need to be more broad. Give a broad health exception, rape doesn't need to be reported, then you can win. Keep compromising until you win. Great plan!

(Where is compromise in the Bible?)

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 4:23 PM


Janet - that's a great post from Fr. Pavone. Thanks.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 21, 2008 4:25 PM


truthseeker - Will D.
You are saying that you couldb't support the restriction law cause God would hold you responsible for the lives of the ones that the law failed to protect. I am saying that God will hold you responsible for the ones you failed to protect by voting against the restriction.

Well, I couldn't vote on it, I don't live in South Dakota. Yikes, if we are held responsible for not moving to SD to vote on it, then we're all in trouble!

Killing abortionists saves babies. Did you know that? If we eventually kill them all, we will stop 99% of abortions. Numerous pro-life groups preach, teach and participate in the killing of abortionists. When I fight against them, will God hold me accountable for the ones I've failed to protect by not advocating the killing of abortionists?

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 4:26 PM


So Will - how about a very, very simple strategy of trying to pass a personhood amendment simultaneously in every single state of the union?

We can advocate against FOCA at the same time as we educate the public on abortion, and why conception is the only acceptable event point for the thin bright line of human equality.

This is a very, very simple strategy everyone can grasp.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 21, 2008 4:31 PM


Chris @ 4:31,
Sounds like a plan to me.

Posted by: Janet at November 21, 2008 5:20 PM


Chris, I'm very sorry for your loss.

Death seems unfair - we just had a close sister in Christ die today from cancer. My wife cared for her often over the last few months.

Posted by: Janet at November 21, 2008 5:21 PM


Oliver stated: "TS: "Sounds stupid." Thats because it is stupid. Ive already called him on his faulty analogy earlier and he has yet to respond."

HEY OLIVER!!!! YOU WERE RESPONDED TO, BUT YOUR LUST TO BE RIGHT AND DEFEND THE RIGHT TO KILL BABIES, AMIDST YOUR SHALLOW NAME CALLING, DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO HEAR!

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at November 21, 2008 6:58 PM


When ban without exceptions loses by 10%, give them their exceptions! Compromise to win!

Result: Lose by 10% AGAIN.

Good Strategy

~~~

No, the good strategy would be to try and write a good law in the first place.

Posted by: Therence at November 21, 2008 7:09 PM


The troubling reality in this debate stems from people who are convinced they are pro-life and are not. While "incrementalists" are busy penning a new analogy to try and outwit the "purists" who are beating their heads against the wall, precious babies are being pulled apart in the womb.

Will somebody STOP this insanity and decide the foundation upon which this debate stands?

1. Do you believe your right to life comes from God, your Creator?

2. Do you believe your right to life comes from the laws of your government?

(before choosing option 2, please re-read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States and then be prepeared to defend where the "right to privacy" and "separation of Church and State" are written in either of those founding documents).

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at November 21, 2008 7:12 PM


Will, just a quick question. How can you support the use of computers? More specifically, how can you support the use of the internet?

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2008 7:30 PM


Killing abortionists saves babies. Did you know that? If we eventually kill them all, we will stop 99% of abortions. Numerous pro-life groups preach, teach and participate in the killing of abortionists. When I fight against them, will God hold me accountable for the ones I've failed to protect by not advocating the killing of abortionists?

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 4:26 PM
Maybe Will D. I think Paul Hill will be judged kindly by God. His motives were likely purer than yours or mine. But the big flaw in your analogy though is that you do not need to kill anybody to vote for restrictions on abortion so your spiel about killing people is irrelevant to the discussion.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 21, 2008 7:43 PM


NowhereMan,
The right to life comes from God. How do you get from there to deciding that laws to protect most of God's children are worse then no laws at all?

Posted by: truthseeker at November 21, 2008 7:46 PM


Chris,

sorry for your loss.

Posted by: Jasper at November 21, 2008 8:15 PM


I'll use Robert instead of Bob, since another Bob might drop in.

I've said this over and over again, but I'll say it again.

The "pro-life" laws many sincere pro-lifers back (i.e. you may not kill your baby unless you see this ultrasound, then you may kill your baby, or you may not kill an innocent person, unless that innocent person was created in the commission of a crime she's innocent of, then you can kill that person) condemn some babies to death even as they save others. It is not our role, as pro-lifers, to condemn any babies to death. The killing will go on, yes, but it's not something we've campaigned in favor of, or given our good names to!

I know you don't mean to support laws which inherently support a "right to abortion" or inherently normalize the killing of some babies, but YOU ARE!

And worse than this (I don't know if God will hold someone responsible for unknowingly supporting an evil law, but I think the chances are higher if that person was warned by someone like me!), these "pro-life regulations" undermine the Right to Life.

If the government can decide which innocent people live and which innocent people die, then under that government there is no respect for a Right to Life -- it's only a privilege to life, which can be granted or taken away by the government.

Every time a pro-lifer supports a law which undermines the Right to Life -- affirming the "right" of the government to take the lives of any innocent persons -- you are destroying the concept of a Right to Life in the minds of society.

The ONLY WAY we will ultimately succeed is if pro-lifers stop fighting on ground chosen by our enemy, and starts fighting on firm principles according to God's wisdom, not Man's logic!

The ONLY WAY we will ultimately succeed is if pro-lifers consistently and unwaveringly maintain before the public that there is a Right to Life which may not be abridged, and therefore ALL abortions are evil!

I am in no way convinced that it will take longer to achieve that goal -- to educate the public about the Right to Life -- than it will take you guys to pass an ultrasound bill to save 30% of the babies. My experience, speaking to "on the fence" people while circulating petitions, is that a properly phrased approach is very convincing to most people.

Posted by: Robert Kyffin at November 21, 2008 8:36 PM


Robert,
How can you be for an education agenda and against a law that insists women make an educated choice like an ultrasound law. I fail to see the logic? I can assure you God does not consider that 30% that would be saved as "disposable" and sees them as worthy of our efforts to save them. Your collateral damage and the harm done to them is an evil that I will not have to stand before God and explain why I stood as obfuscation in their rescue. You'll say, Lord I was unwilling to vote for a law that allowed any to die, and I'll say Lord, I saved as many as I could.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 21, 2008 10:02 PM


Because an Ultrasound law only educates some women, and it teaches other women that they can go ahead and kill their child, even after they learn that she's a living, moving human being! Isn't that tragic? It is by my logic and morality.

In any case, an Ultrasound law (or any similar law) inherently teaches society that "we approve of some forms of abortion" AND it teaches that women have at least a limited "right to choose".

Neither is true, but every single time a pro-lifer supports laws that do those things, we reinforce in the minds of society that some abortions are always okay.

Ultrasound laws (and others like them) undermine the concept of a Right to Life, so that you've just made it harder for me to convince them such a right does or should exist! All they have to say was "Even these pro-lifers say a woman has a right to choose, once she's seen an ultrasound."

By saving 10% or 20% or 30% of babies, by passing a regulation, the unintended consequence you've just achieved may very well be the PERMANENCE of abortion as a right, and the continued murder of babies by society -- 70% this year, 70% next year, 70% forever. Therefore, it ends up costing more lives in the long run, because we NEVER were able to convince the public that Abortion Is Always Wrong!

I know that's not what you intend. But I'm convinced that's exactly what you're doing!

Posted by: Robert Kyffin at November 21, 2008 10:08 PM


Robert,
Anybody who sees an ultrasound of their baby and decides to kil that baby anyway, you could have never convinced them to vote for your a law banning all abortions. And a law forcing them to see an ultrasound is NOT the reason a person like that would think abortion is o.k. So your logic is flawed.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 21, 2008 11:08 PM


I think you just misunderstand my point.

I know anyone who sees an ultrasound and still kills is evil and lost. I'm not counting on their vote.

But when pro-lifers pass a bill which genuflects to the idea that a woman CAN still choose to kill her baby even after seeing an ultrasound is one which reinforces the idea of a "right to abortion" and undermines the idea of a Right to LIfe.

The public, when they know pro-lifers argued in favor of such a bill concludes that "even pro-lifers believe in a woman's right to choose" or else they'd be arguing that there IS no such right. Right?

So why don't we?

Posted by: Robert Kyffin at November 21, 2008 11:23 PM


Replace the word abortion with murder (which it is, right?).

Say there's a law which says this:
"A person may not murder an innocent human being unless they first sign a paper acknowledging that he KNOWS the other person is an innocent human being."

How evil is that law? It's a one-for-one comparison with an Ultrasound law.

Posted by: Robert Kyffin at November 21, 2008 11:28 PM


Chris @4:21pm

Killing and murder are two WAY different things.

Chris @4:31pm

That would be the best I think.

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 11:52 PM


truthseeker - Maybe Will D.

Wow, first Janet says she would be okay with ending all abortion as long as one Christian would volunteer to kill their child (child sacrifice), now truthseeker says that maybe God will hold me accountable for not killing abortionists!

Do you not see this Jill? Bethany? Chris?

truthseeker - But the big flaw in your analogy though is that you do not need to kill anybody to vote for restrictions on abortion so your spiel about killing people is irrelevant to the discussion.

I never said that. Here's the "compromised incrementalist" position. (Jill's position) It's already legal to kill babies, babies are already dying, we need to save as many as we possibly can, at all costs. Great, let's think that through. At what point would Jill and Co. no longer apply that line of reasoning? Killing abortionists? I sure hope so...

Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 11:58 PM


Therence - No, the good strategy would be to try and write a good law in the first place.

I agree and I think I said that. The South Dakota strategy was bad and the good strategy was below.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 22, 2008 12:00 AM


Therence - No, the good strategy would be to try and write a good law in the first place.

I agree and I think I said that. The South Dakota strategy was bad and the good strategy was below.

Posted by: Will D at November 22, 2008 12:02 AM


Say there's a law which says this:
"A person may not murder an innocent human being unless they first sign a paper acknowledging that he KNOWS the other person is an innocent human being."

How evil is that law? It's a one-for-one comparison with an Ultrasound law.
Posted by: Robert Kyffin at Nov 21, 2008 11:28 PM

Not the same because in our society babies don't have personhood. If they dod then the ultrasound law would be a mute point. But today a law like that would be useful in our society with regard to abortion because it would deter those people who would commit abortion only do so because they are ignorant to the fact that they are killing a person at all.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 12:08 AM


truthseeker says that maybe God will hold me accountable for not killing abortionists!
Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 11:58 PM

Will D. if somebody were coming over to your house every day and killing one member of your family and getting away with it, would you kill them in order to stop them?

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 12:25 AM


Will D.
If an abortionist ever commited an abomination like that on my daughter then I would likely kill them. Do you think I would be wrong to do so?

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 12:27 AM


Here's the "compromised incrementalist" position. (Jill's position) It's already legal to kill babies, babies are already dying, we need to save as many as we possibly can, at all costs. Great, let's think that through. At what point would Jill and Co. no longer apply that line of reasoning? Killing abortionists? I sure hope so...
Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 11:58 PM

Why do you keep going back to that killing abortionists thing when talking about Jill. I have never once heard her say she would condone such an action. Her problem is with your your position to vote against laws restricting abortion and that really has nothing to do with killing anybody.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 12:34 AM


I know anyone who sees an ultrasound and still kills is evil and lost. I'm not counting on their vote.
Posted by: Robert Kyffin at Nov 21, 2008 11:23 PM

What about the ones who see the ultrasound and change their mind, that's another vote for personhood every time it happens.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 12:37 AM


truthseeker says that maybe God will hold me accountable for not killing abortionists!
Posted by: truthseeker at Nov 22, 2008 12:25 AM

Will, I feel it should tell you this because though I would kill an abortionist who commited such an abomination on my daughter, in the end I would have to admit that it would be a weakness in my faith in God. So I would be lying if I said that he would judge me positively for killing. Jesus teaches us not to kill anybody, even a murderer. He would want us to put our faith in the resurrection and accept death rather than kill. So, as far as judgement by God goes, I think killing an abortionist would be a weakness in my faith in God.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 1:46 AM


Will and Robert. I also understand that we are each in our place in the fight for life and God is watching over each of us. I would like to join you some time in prayer and protest outside an abortuary if I am ever in the Denver area. May God bless you with success in sidewalk counseling.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 2:27 AM


Steve, 3:09p, wrote: "Minor math correction... a couple times I've seen you refer to 75 rape babies a year in SD but it's only 7.5 MAX - this makes your point even stronger and increases the number of babies getting killed because groups like SDRTL agressively opposed us."

Steve, you're right! I realized that 2 days ago. I'm no good at math.

And I've been told SD RTL put out mailers, plural. I'm trying hard to get my hands on them.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 22, 2008 7:21 AM


truthseeker at 11/21 7:46 pm stated "The right to life comes from God. How do you get from there to deciding that laws to protect most of God's children are worse then no laws at all?"

If you truly seek the truth you would not ask such a question. Where does God's Word teach what you claim?

How do you know the right to life comes from God?

God also says do not steal. If caught stealing, who then punishes you?

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at November 22, 2008 9:54 AM


The wicked prowl on every side, when vileness is exalted among the sons of men. Psalm 12:8

Posted by: Jenna R. at November 22, 2008 10:32 AM


Truthseeker,

Thank you, I would welcome your help with this, and your prayers.

But I'm still frustrated that you don't see what I see -- naturally, and you're probably frustrated I don't see what you see.

Practically, we don't necessarily gain a vote for personhood when a woman chooses not to kill her baby because she saw an ultrasound.

What too many people in our society do, is they see it's life, and they choose not to abort, and she's proud for not having aborted her baby, and she might even think badly about other people who abort.

But because the law says it's okay to kill people, if you do these things first, she may still (probably does) think it's a "woman's right to choose", and while she's glad for her choice, she doesn't think it's her place to keep others from making a different choice.

That's what's killing kids today -- a feeling that there's a right to choose. We faced this in slavery days, too -- I personally wouldn't keep a slave, but I have no right to tell my neighbor, or that other state, they can't keep slaves.

Law is a teacher of morality. And, for that matter, the laws we propose also teach.

A law which says "do this, and then you can choose to kill your baby" may save some babies, but it also reinforces the idea that we can choose to kill babies.

Until we stop confusing people with the laws we propose, and push for a Right to Life which will be respected in law, people will always believe there's a right to choose death over life.

Posted by: Robert Kyffin at November 22, 2008 12:34 PM


This is the strangest website I've seen in a while.
Makes me wish for the good ole' days of the Bush/Cheney juggernaut. The Bushies are tame compared to this nonsense.

Posted by: michael at November 22, 2008 12:36 PM


"What law do you propose?"

"I want a law which says a woman must see an ultrasound before she has an abortion."

"And what would that accomplish?"

"Many women would choose not to abort, because they see their baby is a little, living human being!"

"But do you believe it's a little, living human being?"

"Of course I do!"

"Then why, in your law, is it then allowable to kill that baby, if the woman chooses?"

"Well... Because it's already legal to kill that baby."

"Do you believe it shouldn't be legal to kill any of these babies?"

"Of course not. They're human beings."

"What about a woman's right to choose? Do you propose to prohibit all abortions?"

"Well... Yes, eventually. A woman shouldn't have a right to choose to kill an innocent child."

"But in your own law, you allow for that choice. Why is that?"

"Because society's not ready to outlaw all abortion. I could never pass a law to outlaw all abortion."

"Of course, that's true. Most people do believe in a right to choose, even if they're not really for abortion. Take me, for instance."

"So we have to stop as many abortions as we can, until the point when people understand there is no right to choose."

"But that's silly. In your own law, you respect a woman's right to choose, within certain limitations. Even you concede that right."

"I do not!"

"Your law does."

"No, it's just... It's a way of getting part of what I want until I have the opportunity to get all of what I want."

"So you're trying to trick us?!"

"No... I'm giving you what you'll accept."

"And then what?"

"And then, once I've taught you there's a Right to Life, you'll support an end to all abortion."

"No. That will never happen. Because you're not doing anything to convince me there's a Right to Life that supersedes a right to choose. Because your law doesn't defend the Right to Life -- your law only defends the right to choose."

Posted by: Robert Kyffin at November 22, 2008 12:47 PM


Will Duffy's suggestion that abortionists be murdered seems a bit bold for someone who needs Bob Enyart's permission (and $) to buy a Big Mac.

Posted by: Bystander at November 22, 2008 1:06 PM


truthseeker at 11/21 7:46 pm stated "The right to life comes from God. How do you get from there to deciding that laws to protect most of God's children are worse then no laws at all?"

If you truly seek the truth you would not ask such a question. Where does God's Word teach what you claim?

How do you know the right to life comes from God?

God also says do not steal. If caught stealing, who then punishes you?
Posted by: NOWHEREMAN at Nov 22, 2008 9:54 AM

Nowhereman, All life comes from God through the Holy Spirit and God's commandment and Jesus' teaching is thou shalt not kill.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 2:03 PM


Practically, we don't necessarily gain a vote for personhood when a woman chooses not to kill her baby because she saw an ultrasound.
Posted by: Robert Kyffin at Nov 22, 2008 12:34 PM

We just disagree here. I see a lives saved and votes gained every time this happens.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 2:09 PM


A law which says "do this, and then you can choose to kill your baby" may save some babies, but it also reinforces the idea that we can choose to kill babies.
Posted by: Robert Kyffin at Nov 22, 2008 12:34 PM

I hear what you are saying, and I understand your misgivings about how passing laws that do not grant life to all could be give a message that it is "morally" o.k. to kill the ones that the law does not protect. A point well taken because to many in America, silly as it may sound, they look to the law as a moral guide. Just how many of the abortions commited today can be attributed to people who would not have had abortions if there were no laws restricting abortion? Do you know anybody personally who would not have chosen abortion if the restriction laws were not in place or are you just speaking in generalizations about people who look to the law for morality?

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 2:30 PM


"Will Duffy's suggestion that abortionists be murdered seems a bit bold for someone who needs Bob Enyart's permission (and $) to buy a Big Mac."

LOLOL

Posted by: Trevor at November 22, 2008 3:23 PM


"Will Duffy's suggestion that abortionists be murdered seems a bit bold for someone who needs Bob Enyart's permission (and $) to buy a Big Mac."

What is this comment in reference to?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 22, 2008 3:37 PM


Bobby,
Just more liberal word-twisting from a bs mahine named Bystander.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 22, 2008 5:34 PM


Janet at November 21, 2008 5:21 PM Thanks.

Jasper at November 21, 2008 8:15 PM Thanks.

She was very firm in her faith, and such an inspiration both in building up the faithful, and showing the hope she had in Christ to those who don't call Him Lord. Her memorial should be doubly memorable as lots of Gospel seed had been spread during her fight.

While many talk about euthanasia as being a dignified way to go, this sister demolished that lie by showing true dignity, humility and yet a vibrancy for life right up to the end.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 22, 2008 7:06 PM


Will,

Wow, first Janet says she would be okay with ending all abortion as long as one Christian would volunteer to kill their child (child sacrifice), .....


No, Will. "volunteering to kill a child" was not part of the original law.
I answered from an incrementalist perspective that your proposed law (as written below) would reduce abortions if that law were in effect. I did not advocate such a law, nor did I advocate child sacrifice. I'm seriously offended that you imply that.

"-A law making it illegal to kill any unborn children as long as one Christian would have one abortion."

Posted by: Janet at November 22, 2008 7:41 PM


Killing and murder are two WAY different things.
Posted by: Will D at November 21, 2008 11:52 PM
----

How so?

If you pass legislation saying you cannot flush an ectopic pregnancy (salpingostomy) or emergency removal, which kills a human being, then aren't you complicit in the murder of a woman, because you know beforehand that such a pregnancy will kill both?

More succinctly - do you believe in the moral principle of double effect?

Logically, the argument for a life threatening medical crisis is a time restricted EXCLUSIVE OR situation with only one possibility for life:

baby OR mom
-----------
1. alive or alive = both dead (murder by omission)
2. alive or kill = both dead (if you kill mom, baby will die)
3. kill or alive = alive mom (if you kill baby, mom will live)
4. kill or kill = both dead (murder by commission)

Please don't hand-wave on this, Will. If you want to make voters personally culpable for a choice some pregnant woman makes to kill her own child via rape or incest, then the same culpability holds true in this case, also with a law (the human personhood amendment).

You need to convince me that a foreknown ectopic is not a condemnation of death by omission via enacted law which prevents alleviating the life threatening condition.

In other words, in a no-win situation, is there an exception for the life (and life alone) of the mother?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 22, 2008 7:53 PM


Chris, I have been hopefully anticipating the answer to your 7:53 post since last night. I would really like to see the answer from someone.

Posted by: Bethany at November 23, 2008 6:07 PM


truthseeker - Will D. if somebody were coming over to your house every day and killing one member of your family and getting away with it, would you kill them in order to stop them?

Good question. Not really relevant though. Abortionists aren't killing my kids. I'm sure you want an answer though. Biblically, God seemed to have some sort of allowance for killing others in defense of harm to ones own family. Re: Dinah. Again, this is not a defense of killing abortionists. I'm shocked you think it's okay to kill abortionists.

Posted by: Will D at November 23, 2008 7:03 PM


truthseeker - Will D.
If an abortionist ever commited an abomination like that on my daughter then I would likely kill them. Do you think I would be wrong to do so?

See above. You've successfully obfuscated my original point.

Posted by: Will D at November 23, 2008 7:03 PM


Chris,

I'm sure Will is busy, or fighting the pro-life fight elsewhere. That's what he does.

But I'd be glad to provide what I understand to be CRTL's official position on this. Unless I'm remembering wrong, you're more or less on the no-compromise side of this yourself, yes? So I assume you know the answer to this, and are just asking for clarification of where we stand.

CRTL's position is that we never TRY to kill a baby (i.e. murder -- murder requires trying), but there are circumstances where killing is the unfortunate consequence of a necessary medical intervention (i.e. killing, not murder).

The intervention here would be little different from medical intervention with Siamese twins who will both die without being separated. Obviously, both the baby and mother will die if no intervention is made (and this is one of a very select few situations where this is EVER true -- the "life of the mother" argument in favor of abortion is exceptionally rare, and it's usually a "possible health of the mother" issue blown out of proportion when these things are invoked).

So, you attempt to save the mother's life, taking the necessary steps to do so, you are almost certainly going to end the life of the developing embryo. But that is not the INTENT of the procedure -- the INTENT would always naturally be to save both if at all possible. Sadly, in ectopic pregnancies it's (almost) never possible to save both.

(There was actually a situation just in the past couple of months where an ectopic pregnancy was brought to term -- I don't know the details, or even understand how it's possible, but it was in the Internet news for a day or two)

This makes the unintentional (but nevertheless inevitable) killing of the child different from murder, just as it's not considered murder when a Siamese twin surgery at 2 or 5 years old is not intended to kill either or both patients, but sometimes (often) does. This makes these things distinct from abortion because abortion is ALWAYS the intentional killing of a baby (i.e. that IS the INTENT).

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 23, 2008 7:06 PM


Will D - Here's the "compromised incrementalist" position. (Jill's position) It's already legal to kill babies, babies are already dying, we need to save as many as we possibly can, at all costs. Great, let's think that through. At what point would Jill and Co. no longer apply that line of reasoning? Killing abortionists? I sure hope so...

truthseeker - Why do you keep going back to that killing abortionists thing when talking about Jill. I have never once heard her say she would condone such an action. Her problem is with your your position to vote against laws restricting abortion and that really has nothing to do with killing anybody.

Am I just a bad communicator or what? Jill and Co. say we should have supported the SD abortion regulation, because A. abortion is already legal, B. the babies will die anyway if we don't do something, and C. we need to save as many of them as we can, at all costs. If these 3 points are true, and if killing abortionists would save some babies, then according to A, B, and C, Jill and Co. should advocate or participate in the killing of abortionists.

You see, I've been trying to show that incrementalism is not always right, even if it saves babies. It's been like pulling teeth to get anyone to admit this. Not one has. Janet said child sacrifice was an okay way to end abortion, and you said God will hold me accountable for not killing abortionists. Wow...

Posted by: Will D at November 23, 2008 7:08 PM


truthseeker - Will, I feel it should tell you this because though I would kill an abortionist who commited such an abomination on my daughter, in the end I would have to admit that it would be a weakness in my faith in God. So I would be lying if I said that he would judge me positively for killing. Jesus teaches us not to kill anybody, even a murderer. He would want us to put our faith in the resurrection and accept death rather than kill. So, as far as judgement by God goes, I think killing an abortionist would be a weakness in my faith in God.

Jesus was actually pro-death penalty.

Jesus affirmed the Mosaic Law even to the keeping of the "least of these commandments" (Mat. 5:17-19). He blasted the Pharisees for giving their own ideas precedence over God's commands:

* "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mat. 15:3-4
* "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." [Jesus] said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother; and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mark 7:8-11

Jesus reaffirmed the capital statutes of God's law. Not only the murderer (Rev. 13:10; 1 Tim. 1:8-9; Rom. 13:4), but even the one who curses a parent must be put to death (Ex. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9) just as God commanded. God's commands to execute the one who strikes or curses a parent are the death penalty statutes that liberal Christians are the most embarrassed over. However, Christ was not at all embarrassed over His Fathers commands. Jesus repeated these commands without caveat or reservation.

Posted by: Will D at November 23, 2008 7:10 PM


Chris - How so?

Murder and killing are VERY different. God said to "kill" someone guilty of "murder." I think you know and agree on this.

If you pass legislation saying you cannot flush an ectopic pregnancy (salpingostomy) or emergency removal, which kills a human being, then aren't you complicit in the murder of a woman, because you know beforehand that such a pregnancy will kill both?

It's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby. With an ectopic pregnancy, you should do the same as any other pregnancy threatening the woman's life, try to save both. How do you save the woman? You remove the baby. You don't have to kill the baby to save the mother's life. You remove the living baby and let it die a natural death. We all die. I was born and will die a natural death. A premature baby may be removed and live for a mere 24 hours and die naturally. That baby wasn't murdered. One day, I think technology will be able to help implant to deal with an ectopic pregnancy. Until then, these babies need to be removed and will die naturally.

Please don't hand-wave on this, Will. If you want to make voters personally culpable for a choice some pregnant woman makes to kill her own child via rape or incest, then the same culpability holds true in this case, also with a law (the human personhood amendment).

I think you misunderstood my point. When I said "support a mass-murderer" I was speaking about George W. Bush. Can you agree that Bush is a mass-murderer for funding the deaths of countless little boys and girls through grisly medical research on them. Please don't hand-wave on this. If Hitler funded the dissection of living girls and boys for medical advancements, that's no different than what Bush did.

In other words, in a no-win situation, is there an exception for the life (and life alone) of the mother?

There is no "no-win" situations. Just listen to yourself. First, Jill and Co. say that if there were two people dying and we couldn't save both, we would save neither. (Obvious untruth.) Now, in this situation, you're saying KILL ONE to save the other. Nonsense. I'm a purist and I'm advocating trying to save both. (Is that possible Jill?) There are no exceptions for the babies, Chris. If a woman's life is threatened at 37 weeks of pregnancy, what would you do? A PBA? No, you remove the baby, alive, to save the mother and then you do whatever you can medically to save the baby. I don't look at an ectopic pregnancy any differently. Don't kill your child with a chemical (Methotrexate), but surgically remove it, just like any other pregnancy threatening the woman's life.

Posted by: Will D at November 23, 2008 7:26 PM


Bethany - Chris, I have been hopefully anticipating the answer to your 7:53 post since last night. I would really like to see the answer from someone.

Done. See above.

Posted by: Will D at November 23, 2008 7:27 PM


Will, I haven't read the entire post yet, but I read this part and needed to respond (don't have much time tonight but hopefully will have more time tomorrow):

It's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby. With an ectopic pregnancy, you should do the same as any other pregnancy threatening the woman's life, try to save both. How do you save the woman? You remove the baby. You don't have to kill the baby to save the mother's life. You remove the living baby and let it die a natural death. We all die. I was born and will die a natural death. A premature baby may be removed and live for a mere 24 hours and die naturally. That baby wasn't murdered. One day, I think technology will be able to help implant to deal with an ectopic pregnancy. Until then, these babies need to be removed and will die naturally.


Will....there are a few things that I need to say here...I just don't know where to start and can't seem to organize my thoughts fast enough.

Do you know what a suction abortion does? It doesn't always kill the baby immediately. You are making a distinction between removal of a baby through ectopic pregnancy, and removal of a baby through an on demand suction abortion, that doesn't always exist. A suction abortion doesn't always kill the baby immediately...sometimes it pulls the baby out in tact, and the baby therefore ends up dying a (as you put it) "natural death".

Abortionists have described seeing a beating heart after having performed a 1st trimester abortion...in fact, didn't SOMG once talk about seeing the heart beat after having aborted a baby (I may be wrong ...it may have been someone else)?

Any abortion rights activist could use your very statement here as an excuse to say that they are allowing the baby to die "naturally". In fact, one pro-abortionist on this blog told me exactly that only months ago: that abortion is not murder because they only remove the baby and the baby dies a "natural" death!

Will, make no mistake about this: there is nothing "natural" about being pulled out of your living environment and being left to die.

Pulling the baby out before it is ready to live on it's own is killing the baby.

Face it, please.

No matter how you go around the issue, in ectopic pregnancy, a baby is KILLED.

Will, answer this...If I threw my child into the ocean and left him be, when he was unable to swim...when he died, would it be a "natural death"? I think you know that the answer is no, that was killing.

The word "killing" does not describe intent.

A premature baby may be removed and live for a mere 24 hours and die naturally. That baby wasn't murdered.

What about live birth abortion, Will? Is a baby murdered then? The baby "naturally" dies within 24 hours.

Please, get this...there is a child killed in ectopic pregnancy. Can you please admit this? I think you need to carefully think over this and then I think you need to respond to Chris's question again.

I'm sorry if my rambling makes little sense...like I said before, I just don't have much time tonight.

Posted by: Bethany at November 23, 2008 9:08 PM


Thanks for answering, Will (@ 7:27 post) :-)

Posted by: Bethany at November 23, 2008 9:09 PM


Bob Kyffin at November 23, 2008 7:06 PM

Thanks Bob.

I agree. It falls under the moral principle of double effect. There is no intent to kill the child per-se, but to save the life of the mother. My use of the word "kill" in the truth table above indicates outcome, not intent.

If you've seen a news item indicating a new procedure that moves the embryo from fallopian tube into the uterus - Praise God!

I know ectopic situations represent something like 1 in 18,000 pregnancies, so it is quite rare, but also is quite a fatal condition. I also know this from discussions with our MPAC Medical Director.

Will D at November 23, 2008 7:26 PM

Will D - I wasn't sure you accepted the moral principle of double effect. It seems you do. We're in agreement regarding the morality of it being better to save one life than to lose both.

I think we suffer from clarity in communications, because in no way was I suggesting that the intent was to kill the baby, but as a side effect the baby would be killed. One can play semantic games and say, "the baby died a natural death", but that's not true unless both mother and child died from a natural non-intervention.

With intervention, such as a salpingostomy, the baby is killed by commission, but not with the intent of it's death, but the saving of the mother. Also, removing the baby, even with a salpingostomy (go do the research) is similar to a premature induced labor abortion, where the child is allowed to "naturally expire".

With a salpingostomy, the immediate cause of death for the child is removal from a viable environment to a hostile environment. That's killing, but again without the intent of murder. The same procedure is also used during an induced labor abortion - moving the child to a hostile environment. In both, the result is the child is "born", but expires.

Will - you need to seek clarity with other people, because you're making false assumptions. In the meantime, you're not following through with your own thinking with regard to real world analogies, such as the similarities with induced labor abortions.

You clearly have a passion for the pre-born and that's great, but there are also others who also have that passion as well, and we've put an awful lot of consideration and research into our understanding of this area. In any dialogue there is always at least a 50% possibility of miscommunication, at language or conceptual level. Humility and respect tend to move the conversation further along.

Let me explain why I wrote what I did in my earlier post - some people believe in complete non-intervention - meaning that an ectopic is the "will of God" and that both mother and child should naturally die. That's the real purist's position. I didn't know if that was your view, so I asked.

In such cases I was pointing out the establishing of dichotomous laws such as a purists need for absolutely no exceptions, even for the life of the mother, or exceptions for the life of the mother (which we both agree with).

Semantic gamesmanship doesn't change the outcome or the moral basis of an action, it just makes the players appear to need recognition to win non-existent arguments.

As for Bush and embryonic research - I'll need citations, because right now, I'm unaware of what you're referring to. As I said before, I try to keep up on issues, but it's a rather huge field of events. However, my ignorance should not be construed by you to be a moral approval by me of such matters.

And if it moves the argument along - I'm not in agreement with any ESCR, nor do I support IVF in any form, or for any reason.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 23, 2008 9:52 PM


Chris,

Thank you -- interesting, though I didn't catch everything since I was reading too quickly. What was ESCR (what's it stand for)?

To my knowledge, there isn't any major organization that does not hold to the position which I described, and so I'm unaware of any who would hold the position that a policy of non-intervention must be used when a mother's life is in danger.

To the best of my knowledge (and I don't know -- Will was there, I was only briefly) these specifics were discussed at the Nov 2007 Personhood Summit in Denver which ARTL held (at its founding). American Life League, Operation Save America, Colorado Right to Life, Missionaries to the Preborn, and many other groups were represented -- if there's anyone who holds a more "purist" (I dislike the term, because of its connotations) or hard line (I prefer the word no-compromise) position than these groups, I sure don't know who it would be!

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 23, 2008 10:36 PM


Bob Enyart has responded to Jill Stanek's article blaming him and ARTL and SDRTL and the rest of us "purists" as she refers to us (as a pejorative).

Listen to that show here.

http://www.kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20081120

Stanek doesn't have the guts to go on air and talk about this in real time apparently. Good news is that someone from Americans United for Life did a lengthy interview with Enyart and that will air soon covering 2 shows.

Here is the info on the KGOV broadcast available at the above link:

Nov 20, 2008

* Bob Enyart Replies to Jill: Regarding Jill Stanek's Nov. 19, 2008 WND column, "Pro-life movement: Both ends against the middle," I'd like to present here something indisputable about the divide between "purists" and incrementalists:

The incrementalists have long opposed significant pro-life groups, legislation, and leaders for tactical reasons (wrong timing, wrong approach, too militant, etc.). The "purists" oppose incrementalists for moral reasons (we have no right to recognize permission to kill some kids in order to try to save others).

That's an indisputable observation. God gives us enormous tactical latitude, and no moral latitude. As succinctly as possible, the list below shows why groups like American RTL oppose regulations. And then I'll apply these ideas to even the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Jill Stanek championed. This may be hard for her to read.

Jill Stanek is incorrect to report that the purists oppose incrementalism. As American Right To Life's widely reported full-page open letters have always stated, "Incrementalism is fine; compromised incrementalism violates God's enduring command, Do not murder. When you compromise on this fundamental law, you undermine the goal of re-establishing the personhood of the child, and you cannot possibly foresee all the negative consequences."

So ARTL opposes every law that regulates the killing of unborn children because, regardless of the intention, such laws:
- make abortion seem more palatable to the public and politicians, and so they
- merely prune the abortion weed and strengthen its root, while they
- violate God's enduring command, Do not murder by re-authorizing abortion, and
- on the surface undermine the very concept of the right to life of the unborn, and
- call upon judges to uphold laws that regulate killing the innocent, and thus
- turn conservative judges increasingly against the Right to Life of the unborn, and
- could end up authorizing a hundred million abortions of all kinds post Roe, for they
- will keep abortion legal if Roe v. Wade is merely overturned, and because they
- end with the meaning, "and then you can kill the baby."

Now to contrast the goals and practical results of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the goals were to:
- save kids
- harm the political career of politicians who would oppose it.

Barack Obama, the most visible opponent of the Born Alive act, was elected president.

The Practical Results of the Born-Alive Act: and six of these bullets are also indisputable, are that:
- the abortionist now makes absolutely certain that he kills the baby
- it cleans up the image of the abortion industry
- it enabled pro-abortion politicians to vote Yes to improve the abortionist's reputation
- it provides cover for liberal politicians who support it to show they are not extreme
- NARAL gives no opposition because this pro-life action improves abortion's survivability
- it squandered the blood of children killed after birth by passing a law that saves no kids
- distracts from the essential effort to recognize the God-given right to life of the unborn
- the baby's death now is quicker and likely more violent
- fewer kids live with BAIPA because those who would survive now have no chance

A number of slave holders actually advocated regulating slavery to make it more tolerable for the public. That's of course why NARAL went neutral on the Born Alive Act, and why so many pro-abortion politicians voted Yes, not only to make themselves look humane to the gullible masses, but also to remove the second greatest vulnerability to legalized abortion. The single greatest vulnerability to legalized child killing was the brutality of partial-birth abortion, which opportunity was squandered wasting 15 years on a PBA ban that never had the authority to stop even a single abortion, but did raise a quarter of a billion dollars for the pro-life industry.

Jill Stanek's website has this text from the Born Alive Act: "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive.'"

Any statement that equivocates on a fundamental truth (there is a God; He made us; our rights come from our Creator; etc.) will likely be counterproductive despite any perceived tactical advantage. The 'purists' support saving one of a hundred when only one can be saved; we support parental consent for surgery on all minors (but not laws that regulate abortion that end with, 'and then you can kill the baby;' we support laws that defund abortion providers; we support laws that end abortion here or there; but not compromised incrementalism, because it is immoral and counterproductive.

Posted by: Ezek13:19 at November 24, 2008 1:03 AM


What was ESCR (what's it stand for)?
Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 23, 2008 10:36 PM

ESCR = Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The definitive book on the human personhood argument for embryos - from conception on is by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen: Embryo: A defense of Human Life.

See the Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Embryo-Defense-Robert-P-George/dp/0385522827

I highly recommend all pro-life advocates make it part of their libraries.

Bob - Given your other discussion, am I correct in stating that the no-compromise position of those attending the Nov 2007 Personhood Summit in Denver is that an exception to the killing of a per-born person is only made on the grounds of unintended efforts to save the life of the mother?

(Again invoking the moral principle of double effect).

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 24, 2008 6:27 AM


Bethany at November 23, 2008 9:08 PM

Excellent observations - apparently we were responding at the same time, because I came to a similar conclusion.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 24, 2008 6:39 AM


but not compromised incrementalism, because it is immoral and counterproductive.

Posted by: Ezek13:19 at November 24, 2008 1:03 AM
------

Nice strawman you have there. You also need to read more carefully.

Let us know when you want to have a productive dialogue, which would focus every single person who values life at any and every stage of life to back that conviction with commitment, action and steadfast determination to move the rest of the nation.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 24, 2008 6:50 AM


Excellent observations - apparently we were responding at the same time, because I came to a similar conclusion.

Thanks Chris....you say it so much more eloquently than I do though! :)

Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 8:42 AM


Thank you -- interesting, though I didn't catch everything since I was reading too quickly. What was ESCR (what's it stand for)?

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 9:01 AM


Ezek,

A little bit of charity goes a long way. Your lack of respect for Jill and her site is alarming.

Posted by: Janet at November 24, 2008 9:52 AM


Janet, Jill came out swinging at the "purists" in two separate columns. I'm not defending Ezek, but I don't find his tone any more offensive than others here who agree with Jill (John, and Hisman, for example) It seems to an outsider to be a legitmate debate, and very interesting. Jill can take it, I'm sure.

Although, obviously, I don't agree with Zeke's goals or methods, I must admit his analysis of the Born Alive bill makes some good points.

Posted by: hal at November 24, 2008 10:06 AM


If we're continuing the discussion here,

Hi Bob (Kyffin),

The 93% is not all I care about. But I do care about them, and your way they die, my way they live.

That they are protected is not saying that the remaining 7% will be killed - Bethany is correct about wanting to save them too. But realizing that in the real world some of the 7% may die doesn't constitute a valid reason for accepting the death of the 93%.

You seem to be seeing what I advocate as "authorizing" the killing of the 7%, but that's not true, "Nathan's Law" would not be addressing the 7%. At the worst, they would all die, yes, but same for your position. So, worst case with my way is that 7% die, and with your way it's 100% that die.

Or, best case my way is that none die, while with your way 93% are dying.

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2008 11:43 AM


Oops! If we're moving, I'll move my response too:

Nathan,

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying that YOUR law would HAVE TO authorize the killing of the 7% in order to set them aside from those it protects -- the 93%.

MOST pro-life legislation does this, and ALL of them which select some to protect MUST ALSO select those (by implication) who are NOT protected.

Witness the S.Dakota law -- This cannot be construed, it said, as authorization for abortion "UNLESS..." (in which case it DOES authorize THOSE abortions).

Your law would be no different.

And, so, knowing that, WOULD YOU SIGN NATHAN'S LAW, knowing it would authorize the killing of just 7%, and also knowing it would "save" 93%?

It's an IMPORTANT ethical question, and I wish you would just answer me yes or no, so we can establish where you stand.

The different between you and I and Bethany is that I understand that we're asked to make this choice every time we're asked to sign onto a compromised incrementalist initiative, like the one in S.Dakota. You apparently still don't.

((and for context, here's Nathan's Law which I'm asking if he would sign:
I'm asking Nathan if he would sign "Nathan's Law" which would authorize the killing of 7 already condemned Jews for every 93 condemned Jews he saves. Seemingly, it's the net gain he's concerned about, not whether he actually must sign their death warrants himself by passing his own law which says 7% should be killed (in return for saving the 93%).
))

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 12:19 PM


I'm saying that YOUR law would HAVE TO authorize the killing of the 7% in order to set them aside from those it protects -- the 93%.

The law doesn't do that..it simply doesn't CHANGE the other law for that particular group yet. We are not sacrificing any babies, because those babies are already dead. We are effectively saving those that are dead, not killing those that are alive, like I said before.

Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 12:28 PM


Look, Bob...the authority has already been given. Those babies are authorized to die RIGHT NOW.
Our law would not be authorizing permission to kill them, as permission is ALREADY GRANTED. You're not grant permission for something when it is already authorized.


Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 12:31 PM


Bethany,

Did you READ section 17 of the S. Dakota law?

Does it NOT say "does not authorize abortion unless..." (or words to that effect, USING the words "authorize" and "abortion" and "unless" together in the same sentence? Does it or does it not? Please STOP avoiding the question.

And even if you accept your contention (and I don't) that it "doesn't authorize" because "it's already authorized", then will you AT LEAST accept my statement that IF Roe v. Wade were overturned, THEN the S. Dakota law would THEN be the ONLY state law AUTHORIZING ABORTION for purposes of rape/incest?

Read that again: YOUR state law (the S.Dakota law you and Jill condemn me for not supporting, would BE THE STATE LAW that AUTHORIZES abortionists to kill rape/incest kids foreverafter until this "pro-life" law was repealed!

Do you understand enough of how the law works to realize that?

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 12:46 PM


Bethany - Look, Bob...the authority has already been given. Those babies are authorized to die RIGHT NOW.
Our law would not be authorizing permission to kill them, as permission is ALREADY GRANTED. You're not grant permission for something when it is already authorized.

Wrong. First off, it's already legal to kill babies right? So then what about FOCA? Is supporting FOCA evil in God's eyes? I think yes, you would be forced to say no, because it's already legal to kill the babies.

Second, if Roe was simply overturned, than accordin to pro-life hereo and law professor Charles Rice, that law would extend the authority to women to kill their children, which authority would not have existed otherwise.

Posted by: Will D at November 24, 2008 3:05 PM


Read that again: YOUR state law (the S.Dakota law you and Jill condemn me for not supporting, would BE THE STATE LAW that AUTHORIZES abortionists to kill rape/incest kids foreverafter until this "pro-life" law was repealed!

Do you understand enough of how the law works to realize that?
Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 12:46 PM
*****************************************

But this won't be the case if there is success (and I hope there IS) in establishing the personhood of the unborn. If personhood is established, then the rape and incest provisions should fall under that, too, shouldn't they?

And in the meantime, until personhood is established, why can we not place as many possible restrictions on abortion, regulate it to death (if you'll pardon the expression) to cause mothers to take a second look and "doctors" to have a second thought, and prevent many, many abortions from ever occurring. If we can restrict abortion extensively while in the meantime we continue to fight for personhood, I don't see how this is a bad thing. We are using the law to save the 93% now while we work to establish the personhood of 100%.

FOCA is evil because even MORE babies will die when the state laws are overturned. There will be zero restrictions on abortion, zero "informed consent" laws, zero lives saved. Whether you like it or not, incremental laws DO save lives in the meantime while we push for personhood to be established.

While you've all been preaching at us for supposedly supporting a law that says "And then you can kill the baby," you have effectively lent your support to the killing of ALL the babies that might have been saved today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year. ALL of them. At least, can you understand, that is how it appears to us?

I am not against what you are doing. I do not think that you are evil for wanting a total eradication of so-called "abortion rights." I AGREE with you. The problem is that while some of us are working in different ways and trying to save as many dying children as we can, we are told by you that we are "evil" and that God is not happy with us. Frankly, I don't know what to say when faced with such hateful, condemnatory legalism.

I hope that if you think we are so awful and evil that you will pray for those of us who disagree with you, as we will be praying for you. We are all equally frustrated, it seems, when trying to understand each other. Putting words in our mouths and misinterpreting what we're saying is just getting very tiresome and it isn't helping us to have an honest discussion here.

I pray that everyone fighting the good fight for the unborn will be strengthened by the Lord and encouraged, regardless of any circumstance.

Posted by: Kel at November 24, 2008 3:27 PM


Bob,

Bethany,
Did you READ section 17 of the S. Dakota law?
Does it NOT say "does not authorize abortion unless..." (or words to that effect, USING the words "authorize" and "abortion" and "unless" together in the same sentence? Does it or does it not? Please STOP avoiding the question.
And even if you accept your contention (and I don't) that it "doesn't authorize" because "it's already authorized", then will you AT LEAST accept my statement that IF Roe v. Wade were overturned, THEN the S. Dakota law would THEN be the ONLY state law AUTHORIZING ABORTION for purposes of rape/incest?
Read that again: YOUR state law (the S.Dakota law you and Jill condemn me for not supporting, would BE THE STATE LAW that AUTHORIZES abortionists to kill rape/incest kids foreverafter until this "pro-life" law was repealed!
Do you understand enough of how the law works to realize that?

Couldn't the SD laws be amended after that time to include rape and incest babies?

What about the babies in the meantime? You keep forgetting that they are dying while we wait.

Why must they ALL die just because we can't save the 7 percent right now?

It could be decades before we see Roe overturned.

It is not necessary for 100 percent to continue dying while we wait.

By the way, there are other states with laws that say abortion will be available on demand if Roe is overturned, so in answer to your question, no,
I cannot agree... SD ban would have provided much better protection than those abortion on demand laws.

Wrong. First off, it's already legal to kill babies right? So then what about FOCA? Is supporting FOCA evil in God's eyes? I think yes, you would be forced to say no, because it's already legal to kill the babies.

FOCA is wrong for a multiplicity of reasons, Will. One of them is that it would reverse all of the incremental laws that we have right now (which are actually saving lives). Another thing is that it takes away our ability to change the laws in the future, ever.

Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 3:34 PM


Thank you, Kel.

Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 3:37 PM


Bethany, great post to me in response to my feelings on ectopic pregnancy. I definitely need to clarify and better explain myself because of your great points.

It's always wrong to intentionally kill a person, to murder them. Can you agree? If someone says to you, "If you kill this innocent person, I won't kill these other innocent people" it's still wrong to kill that innocent person. I think with ANY pregnancy that would kill the mother there are 2 wrongs:
1. It's wrong to kill the baby to save the mother
AND
2. It's wrong to kill the mother to save the baby (if the mother wanted to give her life for her baby, that's fine)

I think you should treat an ectopic pregnancy no different than a late-term pregnancy threatening the mother's life. You don't intentionally kill your child with a chemical in an ectopic pregnancy and you don't intentionally kill your child with a partial birth abortion in a late term pregnancy. In both cases, you surgically remove the living baby and don't intentionally kill one person to save another.

If a woman, whose life is not threatened, intentionally removes her baby, she's doing so to kill it. That's her intent, murder. Technology has enabled us to save younger and younger babies than ever before. If you say that it's okay to kill a baby in an ectopic pregnancy, and then one day, medical advancements enable us to save that baby, you just extended the authority to kill that child. 50 years ago, you would be saying that "we can't save a child only 18 weeks old, they HAVE to die. Admit it Will." Now we can save some of them. Imagine if you said it was okay to kill these 18 week old babies because we can't save them. We can't save the ectopic babies right now, but that doesn't mean we have the right to kill them with a chemical. In fact, a baby was just born from an ectopic pregnancy, after the embryo implanted in the abdomen. Right now, the baby will die from an ectopic pregnancy, but if done right, will not be murdered. Example:

Brian Rohrbough, President of ARTL, and his wife Lisa had a baby around 20 weeks that was going to kill Lisa. They told her she had to "induce labor." She refused because she knew the birth canal would kill her child. They did the right thing. They didn't intentionally kill their child to save her, they surgically removed little Joshua and he lived for less than 24 hours. If she would have consented to induce labor, she would be guilty of murder. She did not. In his short life, Joshua grabbed onto Brian and Lisa's fingernails and played with his EKG wires. That's something he couldn't have done if he were crushed to death.

Posted by: Will D at November 24, 2008 3:38 PM


We are using the law to save the 93% now while we work to establish the personhood of 100%.

Exactly!

Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 3:42 PM


Bethany - FOCA is wrong for a multiplicity of reasons, Will. One of them is that it would reverse all of the incremental laws that we have right now (which are actually saving lives). Another thing is that it takes away our ability to change the laws in the future, ever.

You're missing the point I was trying to make. If it's legal to kill 100% of kids, then you say it's not wrong to vote for a law that says you can kill 100% of kids, because it's already legal to kill them.

Posted by: Will D at November 24, 2008 3:46 PM


Bethany - Couldn't the SD laws be amended after that time to include rape and incest babies?

How many babies would die in the time it would take to "amend" your own law? Once you can admit that your law would authorize the slaughter of children if Roe were overturned, then you'd have to fight the overturn of Roe to not be held guilty for the babies that would die if it were overturned.

I know you and Jill think so, but I still think God doesn't want us to consent to killing the innocent even though it's already legal.

Posted by: Will D at November 24, 2008 3:54 PM


Bethany, great post to me in response to my feelings on ectopic pregnancy. I definitely need to clarify and better explain myself because of your great points.

Wow, Will...thank you for understanding my point.

I am going to try to get some rest and respond to your other points tonight or tomorrow. I just have been on the computer way too long today.


Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 3:57 PM


Kel - And in the meantime, until personhood is established, why can we not place as many possible restrictions on abortion, regulate it to death (if you'll pardon the expression) to cause mothers to take a second look and "doctors" to have a second thought, and prevent many, many abortions from ever occurring.

Because nobody cares how many babies will die by these incremental laws if Roe were overturned. We have Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe, we don't have any Supreme Court judges who believe in Personhood. There's a far greater chance to overturn Roe than return personhood to the unborn. With those facts, nobody here cares about the babies they will help authorize to kill with their incremental laws if Roe is overturned by SCOTUS.

Posted by: Will D at November 24, 2008 4:01 PM


I know you and Jill think so, but I still think God doesn't want us to consent to killing the innocent even though it's already legal.

I have to respond to this though, Will. You are putting words in our mouth. We do NOT consent to killing the innocent. Not one of them.

Ugh. Why can't you just understand. :-(

Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 4:07 PM


I've decided I'm bowing out of this discussion.

There's just nothing else I can say that won't make me sound like a broken record, and frankly I'm tired of being told that I don't care about babies or that I would sacrifice babies when I would never do such a thing.

This is just not a discussion I want to have any more. No hard feelings to anyone.

Posted by: Bethany at November 24, 2008 4:48 PM


Bethany - I have to respond to this though, Will. You are putting words in our mouth. We do NOT consent to killing the innocent. Not one of them.

Ugh. Why can't you just understand. :-(

How is voting for a law that says, "You can kill these babies" not consenting to it?

According to Webster:

Consent - compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another

I'm saying that you're consenting to it under the circumstances, and to save kids.

Posted by: Will D at November 24, 2008 5:55 PM


Bethany or Kel,

Please post what it says in Section 17 of the S. Dakota law. That will prove to me that you've actually read it, and it will also make you type out the word "authorize" in your own words, so you can either see, or prove yourself willfully ignorant for "not seeing" it.

Kel, you will never achieve Personhood will you're trying to pass compromised incremental laws, because these compromised laws ALWAYS undermine the concept of a Right to Life. You're working at cross purposes to us, destroying our work, while still claiming to support it!

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 7:32 PM


Bob: "Nathan, You're not understanding what I'm saying."

"I'm saying that YOUR law would HAVE TO authorize the killing of the 7% in order to set them aside from those it protects -- the 93%.

"MOST pro-life legislation does this, and ALL of them which select some to protect MUST ALSO select those (by implication) who are NOT protected."

**

Bob, I do understand - you want me to say that it's worth the 7% in order to save the 93%. However, you are neglecting the fact, as Bethany noted, that "authorization" is already in place, if you want to look at it like that, and your approach, which has 100% dying, would do the same thing for the 7%. What I advocate wouldn't change anything there, and it doesn't address the 7%.

Will makes the same argument you do: "How is voting for a law that says, "You can kill these babies" not consenting to it?"

My point is that the law doesn't say that, any more than it says you can kill born babies, 50 year olds, or baboons.

Saving the 93% leaves it open to try and save the 7%. The 7% is no worse off my way than it is under your way. Meanwhile, your way the 93% die, while my way, they live.

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2008 7:49 PM


Nathan,

The 7% ARE worse off, because not only have you convinced the PUBLIC that it's a good compromise, and you've just improved the public perception of abortion, but also because our enemies have gotten YOU to sign on to the compromised thinking!

These compromised laws DO NOT make the public more pro-life, all they do is make them (and pro-lifers) more comfortable with the killing of some children.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 8:07 PM


You're working at cross purposes to us, destroying our work, while still claiming to support it!
Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 7:32 PM
******************************************

Ok, Bob. We're not destroying anything. Your work has not saved one single life. Not ONE. I pray that one day it will. I'm not saying it's the wrong work, I'm saying I agree with it. You keep telling me that I DON'T agree with it, while I am telling you that I DO. It's like trying to convince someone that you really DO love them, but something inside them just won't allow them to see it.

I agree with Nathan's post at 7:49. Though I looked for a link to the SD law, I have not found it. If you'd like to post a link for me, that would be great. If indeed it says "authorize" then I would say that the law is flawed and appropriately failed.

I have been speaking generally about incremental laws, which I do not believe "authorize" or "give approval to" the killing of anyone. Their purpose is to save lives. They may not save EVERY life yet, but they DO save lives.

I'm with Bethany. I just don't see how repeating myself is going to help. I do support you in your work, but obviously you feel that the pro-life battle can only be fought in one way. I just don't see it that way, and you continue to tell us that we are "evil" for trying to save babies--babies that your future law is allowing to be presently killed. I guess I just have difficulty listening to people speaking about Biblical principles while they are purposely NOT rescuing those being led away to death...they are busy trying to defeat others who are on the front lines because they don't see everything their way.

For the record, I have been on the front lines of the pro-life movement and it is where I feel passionately called. I don't know what to say other than I will pray for you all, for your success in your efforts to pass a personhood law.

Posted by: Kel at November 24, 2008 8:09 PM


These compromised laws DO NOT make the public more pro-life, all they do is make them (and pro-lifers) more comfortable with the killing of some children.
Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 8:07 PM
********************************************

Pro-lifers are not comfortable with the killing of ANY children. I'm starting to feel like you believe only those who think exactly the way you do are pro-life. Is that the case?

The 7% aren't worse off, Bob. They're still dead. And the 93% are dead, too. But hey, that's ok, because if that's what it takes to change public perception...huh?

Posted by: Kel at November 24, 2008 8:21 PM


Kel, I KNOW you agree with us. What I'm saying is that, despite your agreeing with us, your support for compromise DESTROYS the work we're doing because even though you think it is, it is NOT supportive of a Right to Life -- compromise makes people more comfortable with the compromise, which means they are more comfortable with the remaining abortions. I'm saying you don't MEAN to, but you ARE working against us by supporting laws which don't support a Right to Life (which means a right for everyone -- if it doesn't apply to everyone, then it's NOT a right!).

Here's a link to the SD Law (read Section 17, and realize there's a corrollary which says the opposite is also true -- if it doesn't authorize THESE abortions, then it DOES authorize THOSE abortions): http://www.sdsos.gov/electionsvoteregistration/electvoterpdfs/2008/2008regulateperformanceofabortions.pdf

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 8:49 PM


"The 7% ARE worse off, because not only have you convinced the PUBLIC that it's a good compromise, and you've just improved the public perception of abortion, but also because our enemies have gotten YOU to sign on to the compromised thinking!"

Bob, I disagree. The 7% is the same your way or mine, and I am leaving the door open to try and save them, rather then giving up on the entire 100% by following an unachievable thing as you are.

The main compromise here is you standing on stubborn and prideful principle in exchange for having the 93% die.

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2008 8:58 PM


Kel,

I also think you're confusing my posts with Will's. We are on the same side, he and I, but we have different arguing styles and approaches.

When I'm arguing with someone who I think is well-meaning, I don't generally call them evil. I may say that the results of your work, or the laws that you support, are evil. If you knowingly support a law you know is evil, then you're evil. You (and Bethany too, for that matter) seem to be horrified to think these laws might possibly authorize abortion, so I don't doubt that you're well-meaning. I'm heartened by your horror, because when someone showed me the actual language in many of these laws which I'd previously supported (just like you) and I saw that they DID authorize abortion, I was horrified too.

That's how I came to be here, believing as I do.

I should say, and maybe this means nothing to you, but if you know who Judge Roy Moore is, then you'll know that 1) he's someone who understands the law, and 2) he was fully supportive of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and happy with the Supreme Court's ruling until a CRTL member and an OSA member both spoke to him and asked him to read the text of the PBA Ban ruling (he hadn't actually read it before). After reading it, Judge Roy Moore was horrified, and announced that it was one of the most appalling things he'd ever read. He agreed it was more damaging to the pro-life cause than anything it did to support us.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 8:58 PM


Oh, how horrible that is, Nathan, that -I- should stand on principle, rather than compromising on principle like YOU do.

How sad.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 24, 2008 9:01 PM


Bob, standing on principle isn't bad, by itself, but in this case you're choosing to have the 100% die for the sake of what you want.

**

"These compromised laws DO NOT make the public more pro-life, all they do is make them (and pro-lifers) more comfortable with the killing of some children."

I think you have it backwards, there. Your way makes the public more comfortable with killing the unborn (less pro-life), because it is seen that your way is unacceptable. If you are the face of "pro-life" then the public becomes more pro-choice.

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2008 9:13 PM


Bob, I disagree. The 7% is the same your way or mine, and I am leaving the door open to try and save them, rather then giving up on the entire 100% by following an unachievable thing as you are.
*******************************************

I don't believe that a personhood amendment is unachievable, for the record. It is the ultimate goal.

Bob, I read the text. I believe in section 17, a more proper word choice would have been "allow" rather than "authorize." It was poorly worded, no doubt. The law cannot re-authorize what is currently authorized. I also noticed a very stringent requirement regarding the rape and incest statutes. While my heart breaks to think of any child being aborted, I know that realistically, at this point in society, the exceptions for rape and incest must be there in order to "protect" the victims of sexual assault. Otherwise, pro-lifers appear to be less than humane, dismissing the trauma that the woman has been through (please understand I am speaking of society's view, not my own). Personally, I believe that aborting a pregnancy that is the result of rape/incest further victimizes the woman, making her not only the victim of a crime, but the author of one as well. Unfortunately, society does not (and may NEVER) hold my view. :(
I feel that for the time being, we must grudgingly accept those provisions and try to save as many children as we are able, all the while working toward establishing personhood, which will then hopefully overturn the rape and incest provisions.

And what if personhood is established, but somehow rape and incest are continued provisions? All I can say to that is I will praise God for the ones who have been saved through our efforts, and I will grieve with Him over the ones who were not, and will work to change the views of society, one heart at a time. This battle, you understand, requires a change in worldview for many people...no easy task.

Posted by: Kel at November 24, 2008 9:19 PM


I see an evil in the 93% dying.

I see an evil in the 7% dying.

It is not bad to fight one evil, even though others exist.

Posted by: Nathan at November 24, 2008 9:28 PM


That is funny Will : You started "shocked" that I would condone killing an abortionist. Then you said I had successfully obfuscated your opposition. Then I said I would do it but knowing that I would consider it to be a weakness in my faith. Then you said that God would allow for me to kill said abortionist who committed such an abomination on my daughter. Talk about coming full circle. We went form you being shocked I could kill an abortionist to you correcting me that killing said abortion would be o.k. with Jesus. lol ohhhhh

Posted by: truthseeker at November 24, 2008 11:34 PM


Dang, Truthseeker, you tryin' to get me on your side? ; )

If I were you, I'd have written it that way too.

Posted by: Doug at November 25, 2008 12:10 PM


truthseeker - That is funny Will : You started "shocked" that I would condone killing an abortionist. Then you said I had successfully obfuscated your opposition. Then I said I would do it but knowing that I would consider it to be a weakness in my faith. Then you said that God would allow for me to kill said abortionist who committed such an abomination on my daughter. Talk about coming full circle. We went form you being shocked I could kill an abortionist to you correcting me that killing said abortion would be o.k. with Jesus. lol ohhhhh

Nice try. The profession of whoever killed your daughter is irrelevant. It's the fact that they killed your daughter that's relevant. Duh. You said God would hold me accountable for not killing abortionists, who are not killing my children. You're wrong and a fool. You condoning killing abortionists, who are not killing your children, should be enough to get you banned from this site.

Posted by: Will D at November 25, 2008 11:57 PM


Will D, I am not condoning killing abortionists because I think the law should take care of that... but on the other hand...if someone saw a man raping a girl who was not their daughter, I could certainly understand if they wanted to shoot him to protect her. What are your thoughts on this?

Posted by: Bethany at November 26, 2008 9:33 AM


Also, I don't get it.

You are actually saying that if a man knows that his wife is about to have an abortion with his child, that he could go in and kill the abortionist and he would be doing a moral good, while other people who kill abortionists-- because they see other pregnant women going in, knowing their children are to be killed-- would be doing a moral wrong?

Posted by: Bethany at November 26, 2008 9:47 AM


So are our own children worth more than the children of other people?

Posted by: Bethany at November 26, 2008 9:49 AM


You said God would hold me accountable for not killing abortionists, who are not killing my children. You're wrong and a fool. You condoning killing abortionists, who are not killing your children, should be enough to get you banned from this site.

Posted by: Will D at November 25, 2008 11:57 PM

Will, where did I say God would hold you accountable for not klling abortionists. You need to read a little closer before calling people fools. I said God would hold you accountable for for your vote against laws restricting abortion wen babies get killed by abortionists because of your vote. And where did I say I advocate "killing abortionists". I am taking your opinion seriously, you should show the same respect by speaking the truth about what I said.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 26, 2008 9:30 PM


Be a man. When you are wrong and somebody successfully "obfuscates" your point don't resort to wild accusations and name calling. You'll never grow your mind or be secure about your positons if you do. Peace be with you Will

Posted by: truthseeker at November 27, 2008 12:40 PM


Bethany - Will D, I am not condoning killing abortionists because I think the law should take care of that... but on the other hand...if someone saw a man raping a girl who was not their daughter, I could certainly understand if they wanted to shoot him to protect her. What are your thoughts on this?

We are not given the right to kill someone in the act of any crime. If lesser means are available, then they should be used. You can stop a man from raping a girl without killing him. The government should put that man to death.

Posted by: Will D at November 28, 2008 2:01 PM


Bethany - Also, I don't get it.
You are actually saying that if a man knows that his wife is about to have an abortion with his child, that he could go in and kill the abortionist and he would be doing a moral good, while other people who kill abortionists-- because they see other pregnant women going in, knowing their children are to be killed-- would be doing a moral wrong?

No. No one followed this entire topic to have any idea what is being said. See post above: A man cannot go into an abortion clinic and kill the abortionist because he is about to abort his child.

Posted by: Will D at November 28, 2008 2:03 PM


Bethany So are our own children worth more than the children of other people?

Bethany, you're right, you don't get it.

Take it up with God. God seemed to have more allowances when it came to seeking justice on a criminal, when it involved your own family. Did you see I mentioned Dinah as an example? She was raped and her brothers killed all the men in the city for raping her. I'm not talking about stopping someone in the act of a crime. If you read the posts, you'd know that.

Posted by: Will D at November 28, 2008 2:05 PM


truthseeker - Will, where did I say God would hold you accountable for not klling abortionists. You need to read a little closer before calling people fools. I said God would hold you accountable for for your vote against laws restricting abortion wen babies get killed by abortionists because of your vote. And where did I say I advocate "killing abortionists". I am taking your opinion seriously, you should show the same respect by speaking the truth about what I said.

Anybody can read it, it's above. Here's the exact quote...

Will D said - Killing abortionists saves babies. Did you know that? If we eventually kill them all, we will stop 99% of abortions. Numerous pro-life groups preach, teach and participate in the killing of abortionists. When I fight against them, will God hold me accountable for the ones I've failed to protect by not advocating the killing of abortionists?

truthseeker responded - Maybe Will D.

Posted by: Will D at November 28, 2008 2:09 PM


Will, please. That was not the same as Truthseeker saying that you are responsible for not killing abortionists. He responded to a hypothetical with a 'maybe'. You are putting words in his mouth, my friend.

Posted by: Bethany at November 28, 2008 6:52 PM


Posted by: Robert Kyffin at Nov 22, 2008 12:34 PM

I'll try to contact you through Jill if I make it out to the Denver area. Thanks for the discourse. Yours in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
truthseeker

Posted by: truthseeker at November 29, 2008 2:18 AM


Bob,
Your success counseling to abortion-bound woomen will be included in my special intentions when I pray my daily rosary.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 29, 2008 2:36 AM


How did I miss all these posts? That's strange.
They seem to be in a different order than when I was here last.
Oh well...

We are not given the right to kill someone in the act of any crime. If lesser means are available, then they should be used. You can stop a man from raping a girl without killing him. The government should put that man to death.

Well, I didn't really say that the shooting would be putting him to death, I just said "shoot him". But what if I unintentionally kill him as a result of my shooting? Have I murdered if I shoot a rapist and he dies, when my intent was trying to protect a child from being raped? How would you discern these differences and judge if we were to have a strict monarchy as you desire?

By the way, how else am I supposed to stop a rapist who is in the act of harming someone? I am not a man, and I am not that strong.

No. No one followed this entire topic to have any idea what is being said. See post above: A man cannot go into an abortion clinic and kill the abortionist because he is about to abort his child

Why not? Does the child already have to be killed before you can do anything? I'm responding to a hypothetical here.

Bethany, you're right, you don't get it.
Take it up with God. God seemed to have more allowances when it came to seeking justice on a criminal, when it involved your own family. Did you see I mentioned Dinah as an example? She was raped and her brothers killed all the men in the city for raping her. I'm not talking about stopping someone in the act of a crime. If you read the posts, you'd know that.

Yes, I saw your reference to Dinah. You said you are not talking about stopping someone in the act of a crime- but what do you think abortionists are doing inside the clinic? Standing around being innocent? No, they are actually in the act of a crime every day. I am on topic.

Posted by: Bethany at November 29, 2008 7:10 AM


Truthseeker, Thank you, and Bless You! Easiest contact is robertkyffin@yahoo.com - we can get more detailed from there. Also on Facebook for easy contact.

Kel- Sorry, I've mostly dropped out of this conversation because it seems useless. The main reason why you can't both achieve Personhood and rape and incest exceptions is because they're mutually exclusive tracks. If you're arguing that most lives should be saved, but not all (even if you MEAN to save all eventually), then you're arguing for a limited right to choose. If you were arguing for a Right to Life, then you could not suggest saving some, but not all, under any law that you propose, because such argument ONLY undermine the Right to Life.

It's like arguing that slaves have an God-given right to be free, and so therefore they should only be forced to work on Tuesdays. It sounds silly to me, as well as to the world at large, and so we never make any progress in convincing anyone that there's a Right to Life (or a right to freedom) because our own legislation denies such a right.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at November 29, 2008 1:35 PM