Pro-abort hardliners aren't all who oppose the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Some pro-life hardliners do as well.
From Alan Keyes, April 28:
... I cannot join in, or even understand, the approbation which others have expressed for this decision. It is in fact an abominable affirmation of the Court's unconstitutional decisions in Roe and Casey. With grotesquely meticulous care, the man whose pivotal vote preserved so-called abortion rights in the Casey decision (Justice Kennedy) carves out an exception intended to prove and strengthen the rules set forth in Roe and Casey....
As my good friend Judie Brown put it recently... Kennedy played the part of a skillful gardener, cutting back the evil planted by Roe/Casey in order to strengthen and extend its roots, hoping no doubt to make it harder to overturn in any subsequent ruling. While allowing for a state interest in restricting one brutal way of murdering the nascent child, he makes it clear that this restriction is tolerable under Roe/Casey only because abortionists still have access to other equally brutal modes of killing.
At one point, with what seems like dogged satisfaction, Kennedy describes such an alternative in almost clinical detail....
This reminds me of the careful logic that I'm told is often characteristic of serial killers, psychopaths who follow arcane rituals in order to distinguish their killings from anything so profane as ordinary murder. In like fashion, Kennedy makes clear that the abortionists who rip the child limb from limb while it is still within the womb are doctors helping a woman to exercise her "right to choose" - while those who mangle the child when it has emerged past a certain point are violators, subject to the restrictive force of law. Though the child is in principle the same person in both situations, the Court's glassy-eyed observance of its own fanatically arcane and ritualistic logic is supposed to establish some invisible line of demarcation separating one act of murder from the next.
This decision is not a harbinger of hope for an end to the Court-imposed reign of terror in the womb. It is evidence of a legal elite gone mad, hopelessly lost in the maze of its own psychopathic logic.
From Pastor Bob Enyart, April 24:
Our Christian leaders have mislead millions into thinking this ban would prevent at least some abortions. In reality, pro-lifers volunteered, they made phone calls, and gave money, all to promote a ban that utterly lacked the authority to save even a single baby. Sadly, our leaders are not wiser than that. Rank-and-file pro-lifers were never told that this ban had no ability to actually save a child, and instead was a public relations event "to keep the issue in the news."
Even the justices themselves wrote... "The question is whether the Act... imposes a substantial obstacle to late-term... abortions. The Act does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle..."
The opinion... is repeatedly vulgar in its affirmation of the brutal tearing apart of living unborn children.... [F]or the purpose of this current opinion, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito ruled that, "the removal of a small portion [such as 'of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg,' first pulled outside of the mother, as far as up to the navel] of the fetus is not prohibited."
Here's another like-minded opinion.
Pro-life hardliners view any prohibition of abortion as sanctioning all else. I have many reasons for supporting the PBA ban, both ideological (incrementalism works) and actual (as I stated in a column, "We cannot overlook one human atrocity for fear of being outsmarted with another."). It also should be a red flag when pro-aborts and pro-lifers agree on the same abortion ruling.
But I have many good friends who disagree with me strongly on the topic of incrementalism. And I am concerned Alan Keyes' assertion that the PBA decision might actually have codified Roe.
Apparently, the aclu are frightened enough to put out this "fact and myths" page on their site:
True to the history of abortion proponents, sometimes a fact is fact, when other times fact is a myth. hm.Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2007 10:22 AM
Oh of course the abortion industry is lying about all of these PBA's being performed to "Save the life of the woman." Operation Rescue spotted a woman heading into George Tiller's clinic. She was at least 7 months pregnant. When side walk counselors approached her, and they asked her why she was aborting, she replied, "I can't afford it."Posted by: Heather4life at April 30, 2007 10:51 AM
Thank YOU Janet for getting the message out with those quotes from Alan Keyes and Bob Enyart (and Judie Brown). I've read this entire PBA ruling, it is atrocious. It made me physically ill. Not one word defends the personhood of the child, or his/her right to life; the ruling only affirms the 'right' to rip apart even late term babies, and re-use their old phrase "the fetus that may become a child." It's disgusting, and our leaders are celebrating it. Woe.Posted by: George Holdorf at April 30, 2007 11:35 AM
Thank you Jill! Keyes and Enyart are correct. The PBA ban will not save one baby. The only thing banned was a method for aborting a late term baby. This isn't incrementalism. There's currently about a dozen methods of aborting a late term baby, the most popular being dilation and extraction. Intact dilation and extraction, or it's more popular label, "partial birth abortion" was the least painful and quickest death for a late term baby. We have now banned that method, leaving dilation and extraction, or the ripping apart of the baby's legs, arms, and head inside the uterus, as the common method of choice. In fact, the PBA ban actually states it is still okay to pull the baby out to the navel, rip it's legs off, and then kill the baby. This is a wicked, evil, disgusting law.Posted by: Will D at April 30, 2007 11:35 AM
I agree, this opinion, and the PBA ban won't change anything. It's interesting how worked up people are getting about a very fringe area of the abortion debate. I take this to mean that there is really no chance of any significant change in the abortion on demand culture/law in the U.S.
Four justices would have struck down even this law, and five justices upholding the law acknowledge that many other types of late term abortion are completely legal.
Would there be five votes to end late term abortions if there were no alternatives? Would there be five votes to overturn Roe? If Roe is overturned, will the states outlaw abortion? I doubt it. Even South Dakota isn't willing to do that.
As the science of contraception and pharmacutical abortions improves, the whole debate will fade away.Posted by: Hal at April 30, 2007 11:55 AM
There is hope;
You can support Colorado Right to Life
They have an analysis of the ruling that will blow you away on thier site.
And you could sign the pledge at:
And you could help get the word out about this atrocity of justice at:
Thank you Jill for investigating this ruling to get to the truth!Posted by: James Craddock at April 30, 2007 12:30 PM
It's so sad that people are so hell bent on killing their children in this country. The greedy abortionists will find other ways to kill children.God tries to give us a gift. That gift is life.Tiny little defenseless babies being ripped to shreds.How do people live with themselves after committing such an act? God help us.Posted by: Heather4life at April 30, 2007 1:34 PM
I am thankful for people like Enyart and Keyes who are willing to stand up and speak the truth about what the PBA ban actually does:
Late term abortions are not stopped.
If a small portion of the baby comes out during the late-term abortion (like an arm or a leg) it is still legal to murder the child, as long as the baby's belly button has not come out of the mother.
If the baby does come out past the belly button due to "inadvertence," then the child can still be murdered by the abortionist. In other words, the abortionist can still perform a textbook partial-birth abortion as long as his "intent" was to stop the baby before the crucial point (the belly button).
The justices of the 5-to-4 majority (all of whom were appointed by Republican Presidents) rendered a ruling that has no moral component whatsoever and is merely regulatory. On page 30 at Section IV (A), these men optimistically suggest that, "The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand."
Even the justices themselves wrote, on page 26 at Section IV, that, "The question is whether the Act... imposes a substantial obstacle to late-term... abortions. The Act does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle..."
This is a NAZIesque ruling that will do nothing to stop the slaughter of the unborn. It is shameful that our pro-life/conservative leaders are supportive of the ruling and praise the justices for "upholding the personhood of the unborn."Posted by: Josh at April 30, 2007 1:41 PM
Does anybody know if these clinics will be monitoed by anyone to make sure that PBA's aren't performed?Posted by: Heather4life at April 30, 2007 1:56 PM
May I suggest that you go to Colorado Right to Life's web site and read the full analysis of the PBA ruling by Pastor Bob Enyart. ColoradoRightToLife.org
I agree that incrementalism can be a good thing, but only when used without compromising the life of one unborn child. No laws that implement regulations and end with "then you can kill the baby" can further the cause of the unborn.Posted by: Jo Scott at April 30, 2007 1:57 PM
PBA is evil just like all abortion, it's important that we keep chipping away at it. The next step is to get the dates pushed back (any baby aborted past 18 weeks should be illegal). Then we take the next step, etc.Posted by: jasper at April 30, 2007 1:57 PM
Heather4life, that's a good point. I hadn't thought abuot it before, but how will this be enforced?
It really will be unenforcable unless someone in the room complains (and can prove it).Posted by: Hal at April 30, 2007 2:05 PM
Enyart is correct in that the wording used to ban this particular procedure does actually codify the legality of earlier abortions, and other methods of abortion. Which is why only the extremists on the pro choice side are upset about this ban. For anyone rational, its actually a good thing for a handful of reasons, mainly that Pro Lifers lost their biggest appeal to emotion to the ambivalent public, and as Cameron said, the ban is toothless and largely uninforceable - and all the while, the wording used in the decision reflects a high regard for the precedent of Roe.Posted by: Amanda at April 30, 2007 2:22 PM
"PBA is evil just like all abortion, it's important that we keep chipping away at it. The next step is to get the dates pushed back (any baby aborted past 18 weeks should be illegal). Then we take the next step, etc."
If the law ends with, "and then you can kill the baby," it's a bad law. Nothing was "chipped away" with the PBA ban. In fact, the PBA ban added a new method of killing a late term baby. The law specifically states you can pull a baby out to its navel, and rip off its legs before you kill it. That method was never practiced, until put forth in this ban. Any baby aborted after conception should be illegal. A law stating it's okay to kill a baby before the 3rd trimester is not good incrementalism, but bad compromise. When we overturn Roe, the pro-aborts will come back and say to us, "But you supported a law that said it was okay to kill a baby in the first or second trimester!" If Roe is overturned, we WILL have to fight to overturn our own incrementalist laws, parental consent, waiting period, etc. We have sadly compromised by supporting laws that end with "and then you can kill the baby." We are in big trouble, EVEN if Roe is overturned.Posted by: Will D at April 30, 2007 2:37 PM
James, George, Will, etc.: You're welcome for posting the dissenting pro-life views on the PBA ban, but I don't agree with them.
I have a hard time expending energy battling fellow pro-lifers, but I'll make two points.
The PBA ban debate did more to change American minds against legalized abortion than anyting else. Most Americans didn't know 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions were legal before the debate began. Now they do, and they're mostly against most 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.
And I don't agree with the philosophy that instituting prohibitions against certain abortion procedures or plans sanctions other parts. So to oppose PBA is not to support D&C, D&E, etc., as hardliners say.
You stop what you can when you can. You don't throw your hands up and say, "Well, they'll just think of a way around this, so forget it."
And I don't believe the Supremes introduced a new way to abort. Abortionists have considered every conceivable way to abort, I'm sure. This is what they do, over a million times a year in the US alone.
I do appreciate hardliners as standard bearers and have many as friends. I just disagree. In fact, incrementalism has proven to work. Studies show it cuts abortion #s.Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 30, 2007 3:15 PM
"This is a NAZIesque ruling that will do nothing to stop the slaughter of the unborn."
It's fascinating that some of you are finding fault with the Supremes... WHO UPHELD YOU'RE FRICKEN LAW. Is suspect everyone here was fully behind the PBA when congress passed it.
This is just a suggestion, but may you all should be a little more thoughtful about your political endeavors.Posted by: Cameron at April 30, 2007 5:18 PM
As a Canadian - non-lawyer it is difficult to understand the enforcement rulings of the US Supreme Court. Would the status of abortion change if relegated to individual States? Would PBA and all its kin be annihilated if Rope vs Wade was overturned? What would be required to overturn Roe, if the Supreme court seems unwilling to do so? Most often laws follow the mores/desires of people and very rarely is a moral leader. Why isn't pro-life strategy directed to changing society, rather than going through a legal process that follows instead of leads?
It might prove interesting if a mini civil war broke out, and abortion places become fortresses and killings of abortion personnel escalated by 1,000 times .... would SoMG and Cameron change their minds, fast? Can media be intimidated into changing its style if the news personnel are threatened with immediate death? How long would laws now governing abortion last? How would people react to shouts of 'Death to SoMG!' He wants to kill kids ... why not kill SoMG instead? Would real threat shift this outlook?
Maybe we should do the numbers:: 1 million dead each year through surgical abortions done by @1000people ... 10 to 1 ...SoMG you'd better start praying, eh?Posted by: John McDonell at April 30, 2007 5:24 PM
Jill, John's comment must be deleted.
'Death to SoMG!' He wants to kill kids ... why not kill SoMG instead? Would real threat shift this outlook?
Maybe we should do the numbers:: 1 million dead each year through surgical abortions done by @1000people ... 10 to 1 ...SoMG you'd better start praying, eh
Posted by: Hal
at April 30, 2007 5:31 PM
" Would the status of abortion change if relegated to individual States?"
thats up to the voting population of each state if Roe were overturned
"Would PBA and all its kin be annihilated if Rope vs Wade was overturned?"
Most likely not
"What would be required to overturn Roe, if the Supreme court seems unwilling to do so?"
The court, so if they dont do it, there is only an amendment left, which would never pass.
Somg, I'm still waiting for your proof that childbirth is harder on the cervix than abortion. Where are you hiding?Posted by: Heather4life at April 30, 2007 5:39 PM
I appreciate you putting alternative voices on your blog to
get folks thinking. You might find it really disheartening to
see how the Heritage Foundation has tricked pro-lifers with
a bar graph showing supposedly great results from
incremental laws. I'll send you the graphic and perhaps
you might post it on your blog.
In a few weeks Bob Enyart's Focus on the Strategy II will be
ready for distribution. It was part of our 40th Anniversary
commemoration of the first in the nation abortion law -
sadly signed in Colorado, April 25, 1967.
We were so very blessed to have Dr. Keyes, Judie Brown
and Rev Flip Benham join us. Dr. Keyes' speech was a real barn burner!! Rev Benham did an Emancipation Proclamation
for the Pre-born ceremony. Judie Brown encouraged us all
to keep fighting for all the babies, even those whose
father's are criminals.
Bob Enyart's Focus on the Strategy II showed beautifully how
the pro-life movement has been completely betrayed by
Republicans and Democrates alike and how we spent 15 years
of time and money fighting PBA only to see a result like Hitler's Germany switching from Zyklon A to Zyklon B to kill Jews.
Sadly, the incremental efforts have greatly undermined the
personhood of the baby.
Dont bring the holocaust into this, it has no bearing on the abortion debate.Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 5:50 PM
Jill, thanks for giving us "hardliners" a place to interact. A couple replies to your comment:
JS: "to oppose PBA is not to support D&C, D&E, etc., as hardliners say."
If I could speak for us HLs as a group:
HLs: We're not saying that YOU PERSONALLY support D&E, etc., but this RULING sure does, enshrining it in further jurisprudence. And it is these laws and rulings we need to overturn, not our good intentions.
JS: "You don't throw your hands up and say, 'Well, they'll just think of a way around this, so forget it.'"
HLs: I know of no HLer who would say such a thing, so it will help the dialogue if you address our actual strategy concerns and suggestions.
JS: "I don't believe the Supremes introduced a new way to abort."
HLs: On page 30 of the ruling, the justices optimistically suggest that, “The medical profession [abortionists], may find different and less shocking methods to abort the [late term] fetus.”
And they repeatedly declare that the baby could be stopped at the navel (that's 4 inches short of a typical PBA) and killed there. That is a new abortion method, which abortionists may try per the repeated suggestion of this ruling.
JS: "incrementalism has proven to work. Studies show it cuts abortion #s."
HLs: Jill, you may want to call Alan Keyes, who was in Denver at the capitol for the CRTL 40 Years event, and saw an analysis of the Heritage Foundation Feb 2007 study which showed how badly they twist the statistics to tell us what we want to hear. It was a devastating presentation, titled Focus on the Strategy II.Posted by: George Holdorf at April 30, 2007 5:55 PM
Jill said: "And I don't believe the Supremes introduced a new way to abort. Abortionists have considered every conceivable way to abort, I'm sure. This is what they do, over a million times a year in the US alone."
Here's what the ruling says on p. 17 III (A)
"...the Act's definition of partial-birth abortion requires the fetus to be delivered "until... in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
This could produce gruesome new abortion techniques, such as delivery to the naval, then killing the baby by stabbing him from belly to heart, or cutting off his legs for him to bleed to death, prior to final "extraction."
Not only that, the 5 republican-appointed "pro-life" justices said on page 30 at Section IV (A), "The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand."
They optimistically suggest that abortinists could do more abortions earlier, with "less shocking" methods.
Jill said, "I do appreciate hardliners as standard bearers and have many as friends. I just disagree. In fact, incrementalism has proven to work. Studies show it cuts abortion #s."
Jo Scott already responded to this when she said, "I agree that incrementalism can be a good thing, but only when used without compromising the life of one unborn child. No laws that implement regulations and end with "then you can kill the baby" can further the cause of the unborn."
Dan said, "Dont bring the holocaust into this, it has no bearing on the abortion debate."
Why not, Dan? Today, we are facing a holocaust of our own; a holocaust of the pre-born. The analogy is perfectly acceptable.
The comparison is this: Let's say the pro-life community then had worked for 15 years to outlaw the use of Zyklon A (except if it was accidentally used) when the NAZIs massacred the Jews with Zyklon B. The justices outlawing Zyklon A then wrote in their ruling that Zyklon B should be used as a less shocking method to kill Jews. Then we hailed the victory and praised God that the justices had upheld the personhood of Jews.
That's what the conservatives are doing here in America and it is sickening.
Show how this analogy has no bearing on abortion. I challenge you.Posted by: Josh at April 30, 2007 6:06 PM
Hal, 5:31p: John was making a rhetorical comparison. He wasn't advocating killing SOMG, for heaven sakes. One problem with debating liberals is your hypersensitivity, most often displayed in political correctness.Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 30, 2007 6:17 PM
Leslie, 5:48p, said: "I appreciate you putting alternative voices on your blog to
get folks thinking."
George, 5:55p, said: "Jill, thanks for giving us "hardliners" a place to interact."
You're both welcome. All, Leslie, is one of the hardliners I mentioned in my original post as someone who disagrees with me on this topic but is a very good friend.Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 30, 2007 6:20 PM
"Today, we are facing a holocaust of our own; a holocaust of the pre-born."
"The comparison is this:"
So trite, no further discussion with you is necessary.Posted by: Cameron at April 30, 2007 6:22 PM
Josh, 6:00p, said: "Here's what the ruling says on p. 17 III (A) '...the Act's definition of partial-birth abortion requires the fetus to be delivered "until... in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.'
This could produce gruesome new abortion techniques, such as delivery to the naval, then killing the baby by stabbing him from belly to heart, or cutting off his legs for him to bleed to death, prior to final 'extraction.'"
Josh, the point of my post was to say I'm sure abortionists have already considered this and perfected it. Remember, we're talking about the people who devised PBA. Did anyone else wonder when they first heard about PBA what sort of mind could conjure such a fantastically disgusting procedure? The same minds have thought of the other(s), believe me. The Supremes didn't come up with an abortion technique of which the abortion industry already were not aware.Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 30, 2007 6:26 PM
Jill, I'm the least oversenstive person you can imagine. This is the only inappropriate comment I have objected to. (I think--I might have raised some objection to the slapping the wife in the Godfather).
Look at that post closely. Would SoMG change his mind if threated with death? He "better start praying?"
He's saying we could save a million babies if we killed 1,000 providers. ["Maybe we should do the numbers:: 1 million dead each year through surgical abortions done by @1000people ... 10 to 1"].
"He wants to kill kids ... why not kill SoMG instead? Would real threat shift this outlook?"
That is not a rhetorical comparison. It is over the top. If you don't see that, we really have no ability to talk to each other.
(By the way, I'm not saying he should be banned. We all say things at times that are a bit much. The comment, however, cannot stand at your website if you are going to have any moral authority ever again.)Posted by: Hal at April 30, 2007 6:27 PM
Hardliners, I've gone over all this with various friends a hundred times.
I think we're like the Catholics and the Protestants. Both are Christian faiths, but there will never be a meeting of the minds on major points such as works and grace, communion, Mary, etc., until Jesus returns.
For the record I'll state to those not in the know the incrementalist strategy. I'll let you explain the purist strategy (or whatever term you prefer).
This is in the area of politics and law. Incrementalists believe attempts to pass a Human Rights Amendment in the 1980s failed because neither the politicians nor the people were prepared to overturn Roe. They developed a strategy to take back legal turf bit by bit. While my hardliners friends disagree this has worked, citing a faulty Heritage study, I'll cite Michael New, who wrote an article on the pba ban decision and has also authored studies on incrementalism: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTZlYzNmY2M4OTFhMjAzNWI4OGYwMDAyMjViZGI5NjA=
One other point. History shows incrementalism works. The best comparison is to Wilberforce's efforts to stop slavery in the UK.
Well, one other point. George, 5:55p, quoted me: "JS: "You don't throw your hands up and say, 'Well, they'll just think of a way around this, so forget it.'" and then responded: "HLs: I know of no HLer who would say such a thing, so it will help the dialogue if you address our actual strategy concerns and suggestions."
George, you're doing it now.
Jill Stanek said,
"You stop what you can when you can."
What have we stopped with this? Jill, does the PBA ban have the legal ability to stop even ONE scheduled abortion?
Jill, my great friend in the pro-life movement, you will NEED to realize that these supposed "pro-life" laws will keep abortion legal EVEN if Roe is overturned. This is the reason to not support them. This has been verified by Dr. Charles Rice, Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame law school. (Video interview of this coming soon on [i]Focus on the Strategy II[/i] DVD.
Jill, we are here to defend and fight for the personhood of the child, something the PBA ban does not. Please join me in never supporting a law that gives the legal right to kill even one innocent child.Posted by: Will D at April 30, 2007 7:04 PM
Is Jo Scott related to the terrorist Ken Scott?
Just wondering.Posted by: SoMG at April 30, 2007 7:06 PM
ok, well, this was a blog I wrote on the holocaust topic a few weeks back Josh, and its been posted here before, so take a look.
I was surfing the web today, and happened to come across a bit of pro-life propaganda. Not only was it untrue - it was truly offending. Now, here it comes:
I’m fairly sure you all throw up in your mouth a bit whenever you see this: a comparison of abortion to genocide and the Holocaust. What’s even worse is that this is a T-shirt.
You read that right, it’s a T-shirt. Not just some online graphic that someone may come across, but something that a pro-lifer may wear to a clinic, berating a pregnant woman for making her choice, one that is already hard enough to make as it is without a swastika staring you in the face while being accused of helping support a “genocide”. This shock tactic is not new, but is incredibly offensive, though it appears to follow the “fetus first” campaign of most pro-lifers. Now to look at the T-shirt’s claim.
“Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”
I’ve got no qualms with deliberate, as abortion in itself is generally an elective procedure: as for the rest, it is completely false. Fetuses are not being systematically exterminated. I think I speak for all pro-choicers when I say we want the human race to continue. We don’t support abortion for all pregnancies all the time, for obvious reasons. The opinions of pro-choicers vary, but we all agree on one thing - it is the woman’s choice, no one else’s. It is up to her whether she wants to give birth to a child, or if she chooses to have an abortion and terminates the pregnancy.
As for the rest, fetuses do not belong to a single national, political, or cultural group, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Fetuses do not fall under any one of these categories. It can NOT fall under the term genocide, and I am personally horrified that it is said to fall under such a loaded term so often.
As for the swastika, I assume the intent was to relate it to the Holocaust. Now once again, this betrays ignorance and disrespect. Fetuses are not being forced to work with little food or water. They are not being beaten and abused for absolutely no reason. They are not being attacked simply because of what religion they believe in. They are not being forced to watch their heritage and people be destroyed in front of their eyes as the rest of the world watches idly for years.
No, abortion simply cannot be compared to the holocaust in any sense. I feel ashamed for anyone who thinks they can be considered nearly one and the same. If you were to say that they are the same to a holocaust survivor or a relative of a survivor, even just some Joe Shmoe on the street, I would hope that you would get some sense knocked into you. The suffering of millions of sentient, feeling people because of their beliefs cannot be related to the ending of a pregnancy.
Abortion and the Holocaust are not one in the same, but two separate, distinct things that cannot be compared to each other. One is a woman electing to end a pregnancy: the other was an attempt to wipe out a whole people - their art, their culture, their way of life.
So remember pro-lifers, if you’re out there reading this, try and THINK before you say things or wear mindless propaganda. Know what is truly being represented, and what has happened in the past. Realize, that with shirts like this, you are not only re-opening old wounds, but are reminding a whole people of the suffering they endured at the hands of a radical political group for no other reason than their faith. What if you were in their position and saw this shirt? What would you think of it?
Thanks Jill, and I'll keep going a bit more...
JS: "...citing a faulty Heritage study, I'll cite Michael New, who wrote an article on the pba ban decision and has also authored studies on incrementalism:"
HLs: Jill, it was Michael New's study that was exposed as startlingly misusing statistics at the 40 Years event at the capitol. Like I said, you could call Alan Keyes to ask if the distortion exposed in New's study was valid. It was. Because New is telling the movement what they want to hear, he's gotten away with a whopper.
Jill, in defending our old pro-life incremental strategy, have you *ever* written about the concern of our own pro-life laws keeping abortion legal after Roe is simply overturned? With the new momentum coming out of CRTL (& ALL, & Keyes, and OSA, etc.), you'll have to adddress this soon. For ex, Indiana Code, Title 16, Section 34, Chapter 2, subsection 1. (a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except... (1) [when] (B) the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent..."
That law, with a hundred other pro-life laws, will nail open the abortion clinic door in Indiana once Roe is simply overturned.
Jill, please estimate how long it will take, and how many kids will die in Indiana, while we overturn our own laws there.
In love (really), -George HPosted by: George Holdorf at April 30, 2007 7:13 PM
Dont bring the holocaust into this, it has no bearing on the abortion debate.
Why? Because you said so? I don't like having other peoples views forced down my throat. I have mental autonomy and you can't compromise it!
Hey you're arguments work goooood! Now if I can only figure out a way to argue the holocaust using the words fetii, leech and parasite!
mkPosted by: MK at April 30, 2007 7:25 PM
no, because it really has nothing at all to do with abortion, not because I said so, but simply because there is no valid reason to do so in a debate.
You can try and relate the two all your like, that is your right, there is free speech afterall, (least in the U.S.) And I then have every right to state my opinion why I believe otherwise and why i think it is completely wrong to do so and how I believe the point/comparison to be invalid.Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 7:27 PM
I'm not sure what planet Dan lives on that allows him
to make such a naive statment:
"Fetuses are not being systematically exterminated."Posted by: Leslie Hanks at April 30, 2007 7:34 PM
Leslie, are all fetuses being exterminated or attempted to be exterminated?
Posted by: Dan
at April 30, 2007 7:35 PM
Right, didnt think so.
and I am personally horrified that it is said to fall under such a loaded term so often.
So let me get this right? Comparing abortion to genocide horrifies you?
Killing babies does not horrify you? Is that correct?
emphasis on the ALL in that last postPosted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 7:36 PM
ah and here comes the nit picking, which I must admit I expected.
Posted by: Dan
at April 30, 2007 7:38 PM
I wouldnt say horrify so much as sadden.
You're post read: " Dont bring the holocaust into this, it has no bearing on the abortion debate."
This is not giving an opinion...This is giving an order.
I don't think the holocaust has any place in this debate.
That was an opinion...
savvy?Posted by: MK at April 30, 2007 7:39 PM
George, I've heard Michael New give his presentation a couple times and seen his statistics. In brief, he found:
Between 1973-1990, the number of abortions increased consistently. But between 1990-99 the number of abortions declined by 18.4%
Abortion stats did not go then because of Clinton. They went down in part due to the strong economy. But more, states passed pro-life laws.
New found the most effective law to reduce abortions was to cut off of public funding. #2: informed consent. He found waiting periods had least impact.
George, I agree a Human Life Amendment is the ultimate solution. We just disagree on how to get America to that point. How do you propose to pass a HLA? I'm not asking sarcastically. I'd like to know what CRTL/OSA/ALL are thinking.
And love back to you, George, seriously.Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 30, 2007 7:40 PM
Sometimes when you answer back on the fly, the truth comes out.
Perhaps you mean it when you say you are horrified.
Perhaps you mean it when you say you are not.
Let me ask you this then.
You are saddened when we compare the holocaust to abortion? Are you saddened when a baby dies at her mother and fathers hands?Posted by: MK at April 30, 2007 7:41 PM
MK, I did say it in command form, perhaps I should have clarified, and Ill take that fault, but if one does think about it, it really has nothing to do with abortion, at least that is my belief, and the belief of various others ive talked to.
I told a friend of mine about this (who happens to be pro life, for the record) and they proceeded to say "People actually do that? thats ****ed up and is going WAY to far"Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 7:44 PM
No, I am out right pissed off when abortion is compared to the holocaust, I simply tried to make it more presentable rather than going on a massive tirade about it.
As for the second part, yeah, its sad. Makes no difference on my thoughts on abortion though.Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 7:46 PM
MK, I kindly ask you to choose not to use the terminology of the All Mighty Jack Sparrow...who is portrayed by my personal savior, Johnny Depp who is not only a shameless liberal, but he is in fact...pro-choice.Posted by: Rae at April 30, 2007 7:54 PM
Now we can talk...
I understand your reservations, but you must understand that these are equally horrifying acts to us, and they are done on the most innocent people by bullies who believe they and their lives are more important than another group of human beings lives.
No, all "fetuses" are not being targeted. Give it time and they might be. Hitler did not get to all the Jews either. Or the Catholics.
But let's look at the down's syndrome babies. 80 - 90% killed simply for being "down syndrome"? Sounds like genocide to me.
I think the SOMGS of the world would be quite happy to abort ALL the fetuses given the chance. Unless of course they were SOMG clones.
And in all fairness, I must say that while I would feel no loss to find that a piano had dropped out of the sky and smashed SOMG to smithereens, I do recognize the dangers of saying you want to kill him on Jill's site. Not because I think that John actually meant it, I'm sure he was just making a point, but for legal reasons.
I have learned the hard way that the pro-choice side has no problem making up lies to get the pro-life side in trouble. I am going through a legal battle right now that involves "deathscorts" swearing in court that we did things that we simply did not do. It is too long to go into, but I can illustrate unequivocally that not only did we NOT do these things, even if we had the deathscorts were nowhere in the vicinity at the time of the alleged transgression.
So, for Johns sake, not SOMG, I urge caution when spewing things in writing with the likes of people like Cameron and SOMG who would like nothing better than to take his words and use them against him at a later date.
In short, I don't trust you guys.
mkPosted by: MK at April 30, 2007 7:55 PM
While I respect your request, I refuse to indulge you.
If you have been privy to our conversations of yesterday afternoon, you would know that I called "dibs" on Johnny first. You can have Brad. But you'll either have to give up Johnny, or share him.
MKPosted by: MK at April 30, 2007 7:57 PM
"It is too long to go into, but I can illustrate unequivocally"
Cept it's too long to go into
"...that not only did we NOT do these things, even if we had the deathscorts were nowhere in the vicinity at the time of the alleged transgression."
LMAO... spoken like the genuinely morally bankrupt.Posted by: Cameron at April 30, 2007 7:59 PM
Yes, but hitler WAS TRYING TO exterminate them all. Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.
Pro Choice doesnt want the human race exterminated, nor will it most likely ever get to that point, extreme examples dont advance the point for either side.
Its ok MK, we dont trust you either to be frank. Plenty has happened to people on each side, and neither side truly trusts the other, and I doubt that they truly ever will.Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 7:59 PM
The Down Syndrome example is not extreme. It is happening. And if down syndrome children were the only babies being aborted I would be just as outraged as I am that all kinds of babies are dying.
But if it were only down syndrome babies being aborted you too could clearly see the connection between genocide and abortion.Posted by: MK at April 30, 2007 8:06 PM
That's fine. I am not a fan of Brad Pitt, so I'll have to kindly refuse him.
I'll have myself some Alexander Siddig and Darren Hayes. :)Posted by: Rae at April 30, 2007 8:07 PM
This reminds me of the white-supremacist groups trying to make an immigration issue out of VTPosted by: Cameron at April 30, 2007 8:09 PM
Yeah, but you dont see clinics advertising "ABORT YOUR DOWN SYNDROME INFECTED NOW!". It isnt like theres a secret meeting to INTENTIONALLY rid the world with people who have downs, they arent being TARGETED, its just been an occurence within the abortions performed.
If it were only THAT GROUP of ill, then I could see a PLAUSIBLE connection, but as that isnt the case their is no true link to genocidePosted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 8:10 PM
wow, was way too caps lock happy in that last post.Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 8:11 PM
ooops .. wrong threadPosted by: Cameron at April 30, 2007 8:14 PM
DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THIS SITE I TRIED TO SEPARATE WHO I WAS RESPONDING TO FROM MY RESPONSE BY PUTTING THE OTHER PERSON'S QUOTES IN CAPS.
NEEDLESS TO SAY EVERYONE THOUGHT I WAS YELLING AT THEM.
THEN JILL SHOWED ME HOW TO USE ITALICS. THANK YOU JILL...I FIGURED OUT HOW TO USE THE BOLD ALL BY MYSELF. I'M SO PROUD...
where were we? Oh yes, but the fact remains that Down Syndrome children are singled out precisely because they are down syndrome.
And they are targeted because Doctors have women do amnio to find out if they are having one of these children and they are then encouraged to abort them.
This is genocide to me. Or enough like it to be a fair comparison.Posted by: MK at April 30, 2007 8:34 PM
If you were to face God today how would you say to Him that His Commandment, "Thou shal not murder" was too difficult to defend? Do you think God would understand that the game of politics that christians are trying to play? 40 years and not one baby has been saved. The PBA ruling won't save one baby tomorrow. They will kill the babies a different way. Do you think they won't? How much money has been spent for the politicans to past PBA? Was the compromise worth it? I say do what's right and stand with God and don't play politics!!! Ken Scott
"Leslie, are all fetuses being exterminated or attempted to be exterminated?
Right, didnt think so."
Not all Jews were exterminated... but 6 million were... compared to 50 million unborn babies... so far.
By the way "fetus" is not just a medical term. It's a Latin word meaning "young one" or "offspring".Posted by: Darrell B at April 30, 2007 9:07 PM
No, but there is a fundamental difference, he was targeting ALL jews as an eventuality, with abortion that is not even close to the truth, no one wants them all exterminated, nice try though
I take latin, and have heard that said often, but as you said, it can mean offspring, which one could take to be used at any stage, but in the medical field it is used to describe a part of development, nothing more nothing less.Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2007 9:09 PM
I can't for the life of me figure out why people who have been in the battle to save the lives of innocent unborn children cannot understand why the recent partial birth abortion ban is evil. The ruling says a child can be delivered to the belly button and then his legs can be ripped off. In what world is that not evil?????
Is it in the political realm? Okay, if you have a political world view it might work. If you believe that opening the door to discussion on the subject of abortion can be wrought on the backs of slaughtered babies it works. The political world view allows for collateral damage and that is evil in God's book. Tiny innocent baby boys and girls suffer under this gruesome ruling that some pro-lifers are celebrating.
Please, someone explain to me why it's okay to rip the legs off an innocent child to open a discussion in the courts? Would Jesus approve of this barbaric attempt to move a few Supreme Court justices a tiny bit to the right? I think not.
MK, how DO you use bold and italics?
Okay, guys, Im new to this whole pro-life thing, but Ive gotta say....what do you want? PBA is the poster child of the pro-life movement depicting the horror of abortion, and rightfully so, but Im not understanding what it is that you want to accomplish. The "most horrific" form of baby murder has been illegalized, and now you have found fault with the wording of the SC ruling. It sounds a lot like some people just want something to whine about.Posted by: SamanthaT at April 30, 2007 10:06 PM
Hi Hal & Jill, MK and Dan,
It's really weird attempting to post after the last one. Many moons ago Dan and I sparred a wee bit about this being a debate. Both sides slinging proofs at each other .... and feeling righteous and SAFE at our own computers. All this while babies are being slaughtered. Hell, this is not a debate as much as it is a war. I lost sight of this and won't again .... move over HisMan ... I promise to be in SoMG's and Cameron's faces as often as possible. Hal believes in political correctness and politeness ... sorry killing kids is not eased by euphemisms.
There are events taking place right now, that threaten human existence - particularly American existence. These people are death merchants on a massive scale.
Your not-believing-this nor my believing-this both, will not alter what will happen. I want to know, if these 'liars & cowards' will be my fox-hole mates? Baby killers are trustworthy ... right.
My 'strange' post was meant to over-reach the putrid stench of civility .... "oh, I'm fine ... just insist on my right to kill my children!"... it really is puke! And I've been offensive because I get angry ... very angry. If SoMG & Cameron feel a wee bit unsafer tonite, I've done good!
I am also less than keen about present pro-life strategies to work through the courts and legislatures, that do not lead anywhere. These groups follow - not lead. I want a full life ... not the death wish that it is now! And like HisMan, I'll not settle for more bs.Posted by: John McDonell at April 30, 2007 10:13 PM
OK, ALL kids won't perish via abortion ... only about 30% ... that's close to 1 in 3. So let's reduce your own family by 1/3 ... those times you shared, just do not exist - this is only a mental exercise.
That is our world now thanks heaps! Abortion is about fairness and justice ... right!Posted by: John McDonell at April 30, 2007 10:40 PM
The "ban" is a farce!
The supposed "ban" is a joke. It should be called the "Partial Birth Abortion Manual"
Please read this whole anlysis.
Then tell me we are just looking for something to whine about. Do you care if babies have the bodies ripped apart? And your supreme court encourages it? And then lies and calls it a ban? There is no ban! Our leaders who foisted this upon us are EVIL!Posted by: CRASH at April 30, 2007 11:47 PM
All we pro-lifers have got to remember that in this world legal DOES NOT mean moral.
Pro-lifers would do well to understand that and the sooner the better.Posted by: His Man at May 1, 2007 12:56 AM
Hello Jill, thanks for quoting Alan and me. Here are brief excerpts of the ruling. Jill, could you tell us if this is all good... or evil?
Section IV(A): "The medical profession [abortionists], may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester."
The justices upheld a "regulatory" law "under the Commerce Clause" (IV, B), sort of like a dialysis guideline. They actually suggest other ways for abortionists to kill the fully intact, late-term child to comply with their ruling, such as "a prior injection to kill the fetus" (IV, B).
Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito concur throughout and specifically in Section III that the PBA ban and their ruling allow the abortionist to deliver a late-term baby all the way up to the navel before killing him. To actually violate this regulation, section III(A) "requires the fetus to be delivered 'until... any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.'"
In III(C)(1) Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, regarding a still living unborn child, ruled that, "the removal of a small portion ['say, an arm or leg,' first pulled outside of the mother, as far as up to the navel] of the fetus is not prohibited."
Section III(A): "If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence [and the abortionist then performs a textbook PBA] no crime has occurred," which could happen if for ex. the mother is over "dilate[d]," III(C)(2).
This ruling provides no authority to save even one child, and instead prefers "reasonable alternative procedures" IV,(B), for killing "late-term" children that include, Section I(A), "a leg might be ripped off the fetus," "friction causes the fetus to tear apart," "evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues," "10 to 15 passes with the forceps," "ripping it apart," "dismemberment."
No wonder so many pro-life ministries are beginning to condemn the ruling (including now TheologyOnline.com which is Google 8 of 30,100,000 for: theology).
Jill, what you've just read, that's all repeated ad nauseum throughout the ruling, and that's also the overall thrust of the whole ruling. So, is this good? Or evil? -Bob EnyartPosted by: Bob Enyart at May 1, 2007 3:38 AM
Jo, 9:47p, said: "The ruling says a child can be delivered to the belly button and then his legs can be ripped off. In what world is that not evil?????"
Jo, the ban is saying a child cannot be delivered past the navel or the head and be killed. That is good, and that's a start.Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 1, 2007 4:34 AM
Bob, thanks for posting. Am honored.
Pro-lifers differing on the concepts of purism vs. incrementalism are never going to see eye-to-eye. I understand your arguments and respect them. I disagree, but I believe your position in the pro-life movement is valuable.
I think to limit abortion practices does just that. It cuts down on abortions. You think to limit abortion practices condones all the rest.
It cannot be disputed that lives have certainly been saved by these limits. I've seen stats. Show me stats that say otherwise.
How is it that hardliners and pro-aborts agree on limitations?Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 1, 2007 4:40 AM
PS to Bob: I've commented a few times that the Supremes certainly did not teach the abortion industry anything it had not conjured and perfected already.
By explaining what sort of abortions could not be committed by the PBA ban, the Supremes explained what abortions could still be committed. One of two abortion industry's primary arguments was that this ban was vague. It was not.
Again, just b/c we believe someone may find ways around the law does not mean we don't institute laws.Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 1, 2007 4:44 AM
John, 10:13p, said: "I am also less than keen about present pro-life strategies to work through the courts and legislatures, that do not lead anywhere. These groups follow - not lead."
John, the pro-life battle is multi-faceted. One area to fight is via politics. Other areas involve crisis pregnancy centers, sidewalk counseling, education, etc. Every component is valuable but not complete.Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 1, 2007 4:47 AM
Ken, 9:03p, said: "If you were to face God today how would you say to Him that His Commandment, 'Thou shal not murder" was too difficult to defend?'"
Ken, I love you, brother, but that was a cheap shot. I could say the same to hardliners of the children I think they let slip by. But I do not question that you hate abortion, love the Lord, and are performing a valuable service. I believe working toward a HLA is the endgame, and you're working full time on that, which is great. Please give incrementalists the same respect. It would be best if we all do what we think God has passioned and gifted us to do and support one another.Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 1, 2007 4:51 AM
Cameron, because of your threatening and obscene posts last night, you are now banned from this site.Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 1, 2007 6:45 AM
Thanks you for being willing to re-consider the insanity of rejoicing at this ruling.
I don't think anyone here is against incrementalism. A ruling that said it is criminal to kill a baby in the 9th month of pregnancy would be an acceptable fabulous law on which to build a foundation of life. And it would be incremental and we would all applaud it!
BUT, if it continued, and codified into law that killing babies in the first 8 months of pregnancy is lawful and oh, if your intent wasn't to kill a 9 month baby, or you inadvertently kill a 9th month baby, its okay and lawful and BTW here are some great ways to accomplish the death of the innocent that are less than 9 months, then that would be a bad law.
I am still trying to see the incrementalism in the supposed PBA ban. Are you saying a 4 inch change in location (which intent can be easily lied about) on where the baby can be murdered while partially birthed is incrementalism?
Finally, whether abortion doctors have figured out all the ways to murder a baby already is a side issue. The assertion was that they will now have to use more gruesome painful and time consuming methods. The real issue is that your “pro-life” judges are obviously all for these gruesome techniques or they would not have laid out all of the guidelines on how to do it.
Now that you have the so called “ban” what is the next step for the Soft Liners? Will you spend 15 years, while 20 million more lives are snuffed out, trying to pass a law against pulling the baby out past the hips before you kill it?
Your friend In Christ,
We could have used the energy, money, time and effort expended over the last fifteen years to completely end abortion. Exposing partial birth abortion could have been a valid way to do that but the "anti-hardliners" chose to use the procedure to gain a toothless, unenforceable regulatory law.
We've wasted all of our resources on a bill that does not even stop a PBA as long as the abortionist says that is was unintentional. I wouldn't call that a start. I'd call it bad strategy.
We've got to be able to look at ourselves, take stock and move forward in a way that we will save babies and honor God. I understand that some believe that we've gained a dialogue with courts as a result of this ruling, but the fact remains that the dialogue is bought with the blood of innocent children. It is too high a price to pay, when if we move with wisdom and honor God at the same time we can win with the personhood argument.
Every time that we pass a law that allows a child to be brutally put to death to gain favor with man we chip away at the personhood argument. That in turn validates the pro abortion industry. They can point to us and say that we believe a child is expendable.
We've got to realize who we are. We were bought with the blood of Christ, we can succeed in Christ. Politics cannot change the hearts and minds of the people, we can, only with Christ.
Ken Scott 9:02: "Jill, If you were to face God today how would you say to Him that His Commandment, "Thou shal not murder" was too difficult to defend? Do you think God would understand that the game of politics that christians are trying to play? 40 years and not one baby has been saved."
Obviously coming from a man who does not know his ass from his elbow. Do you even know what Jill did at Christ hospital? Do you even know the time and energy she has put in to ending abortion and informing people on the topic? Please do your research before you make an ignorant comment such as this.
On a side note, no one is saying that we STOP with the PBA, but it's a start to changing public opinion (which is where the real war needs to be waged).Posted by: Tim at May 1, 2007 10:44 AM
Ok, John M is "very angry," and "If SoMG & Cameron feel a wee bit unsafer tonite, I've done good!"
I'm sorry Jill, it's not PC or "politeness" that compels me to object in the strongest possible terms to this threatening thread of posts from John.
How is wanting someone to feel "unsafe" not a threat?
I understand this is an emotional subject, and prolife individuals think we're child murderers. It's because emotions run so high that we have to guard against threats of violence.
People do get killed in this struggle. (I know, babies die every day) I don't know John McDonell. I would like to believe he would not kill SoMG or me. He might incite someone else to do so, with posts like: "How would people react to shouts of 'Death to SoMG!' He wants to kill kids ... why not kill SoMG instead? Would real threat shift this outlook?. . . Maybe we should do the numbers:: 1 million dead each year through surgical abortions done by @1000 people ... 10 to 1 ...SoMG you'd better start praying, eh?"Posted by: Hal at May 1, 2007 11:04 AM
I am soooooo glad that Cameron is gone for good. He/she was obnoxious!Posted by: Heather4life at May 1, 2007 11:07 AM
Heather, agreed about Cameron.
But at least he didn't suggest killing anyone.
I wonder what a pro-life commentor would have to say to get booted.
Posted by: Hal
at May 1, 2007 12:31 PM
Convert to pro-choice, Hal.Posted by: HumanAbstract at May 1, 2007 12:52 PM
John did not make a threat. Hal,you are defending the murder of innocent children. That is pitiful,and it makes some people angry.Posted by: Heather4life at May 1, 2007 12:58 PM
Hal is pro-death. No need to convert.Posted by: Heather4life at May 1, 2007 1:02 PM
Huh, I must have missed the part where Hal was advocating that everyone should go die, as the term "pro-death" implies. And my post, Heather, as your reading comprehension seems to be damanged this morning, was stating that to be ejected from the site, a pro-life person would have to convert to pro-choice.Posted by: HumanAbstract at May 1, 2007 1:04 PM
Hal has told us the story about his wife and their decision to abort 2 of their children. He claims to be okay with that. I don't believe him.Posted by: Heather4life at May 1, 2007 1:09 PM
I really don't think that Hal needs you to believe him: frankly, I can't see how your opinion would matter. If you're not Hal, and you're not Hal's wife, you have no say in the matter.Posted by: HumanAbstract at May 1, 2007 1:10 PM
Well, at least Hal and I agree that Cameron is not missed.Posted by: Heather4life at May 1, 2007 1:12 PM
Jill Stanek said
"How is it that hardliners and pro-aborts agree on limitations?"
Oh, OK, so you wanna play the 'guilt by association game' eh Jill? Allright, let's play that game.
You, Jill Stanek, wrote an article where you asserted that God is bringing about the violent murder of babies for the sake of having their mother's come to salvation in Christ. Remember that article? Here's the link to it.
You know who else thinks God kills the good and innocent in order to bring about some good? Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church congregants who protest outside of soldiers funerals. They believe that US soldiers die because God specificly wanted them to die.
How is it that Jill Stanek and Fred Phelps agree on how God exercises providence in the world?
Seriously though Jill, where was there any positive incrementalism in the Supreme Court's decision? I find none anywhere! The only perceived benefit I am seeing is in the pro-life groups lying about this decision in order to gain momentum for their ministries.
I do find some incrementalism in the Supreme Court's decision - for the pro-aborts in further codifying the previous pro-abortion rulings (i.e. the "right to an abortion").
In my dealings with the youth I will NEVER EVER EVER tell them that its OK to support a law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby". Just as I would NEVER tell them that its OK to support a law that ends with "and then you can rape the woman".
Parental notification laws and any other law that entrenches the alleged "right" to kill innocent babies are bad laws and must be opposed. Members of Christ's Body have no leeway to compromise when it comes to absolute morality (You shall not murder, You shall not kidnap, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness).Posted by: Quinn - Director Northern Indiana Chapter Survivors at May 1, 2007 2:13 PM
Heather, we aborted two pregnancies. not children. That makes some people angry. Some people also get very angry when others attempt to restrict their right to abortion. I understand the anger. Your position is as "evil" to the pro-choice crowd as their position is to you. I am very okay with the abortions in my family. You can't imagine that to be true. I may not be able to convince you, and I don't need to.
You guys think you have the only moral high ground. Fine. Some people believe very differently. Everyone has the right to try to convert others. John McD., however, thinks it's acceptable to contemplate killing the 1,000 or so abortion providers to save a million babies a year. He wants SoMG to live in a little fear each day that someone will kill him on the way to work. Jill doesn't care about such comments, but will censor those that mock god or are profane. Ok, it's her site.
Just doesn't seem so pro-life around here anymore. Not with John's threats.
Posted by: Hal
at May 1, 2007 2:42 PM
Hal,Aborted babies are aborted children.Posted by: Heather4life at May 1, 2007 3:03 PM
You meant to say "aborted pregnancies are aborted children"
But, of course, that's where our views differ.
Posted by: Hal
at May 1, 2007 3:16 PM
Thank you, Heather. Was just going to say that.
I would also like to say that I don't agree with the threats to others blogging, pro-whatever. I am totally, way passionate about saving lives, but we aren't gonna do it by slinging garbage. If truth does in indeed set one free, let us get to it. I hope it'll set many young ones free.
All you Lifers, I love that you put your efforts in for babies everywhere. Thanks for the encouragement that I've gotten from the less than 24 hrs I've been here.
Pro-abortioners, used to be just like ya, know where you are coming from. Hope you find what you are looking for. You may not want to hear this, but I think I love y'all too. I don't expect it back. :)
Will try to be more succinct in the future.
Janet,good point. I am trying to keep it clean tonight.Posted by: Heather4life at May 1, 2007 4:22 PM
Janet, love you too.
You've been a great addition to the site in the last 24 hours.
Sorry if I exploited you yesterday by not allowing you to mourn. I was actually only trying to be nice.
HalPosted by: Hal at May 1, 2007 4:37 PM
Since I'm new here, just wondering what your background is. If I may, why did you and your wife choose to abort? I couldn't find where you mentioned it on the site.
Thanks for trying to cheer me up with your comment. Actually, I did take it the "nice" way. I know with what you believe, you did think they were both good choices.
Thanks. I know I sound hokey and nicey, I'm really no good at being mean. I'm hoping that won't get used against me...
just wanted you self-righteous pro-whatevers to experience a reality that wasn't so 'safe'. Glad it worked! My threats are only words - inflammatory words ... but unlike abortion, these are not deadly - only a perhaps, but abortion is always deadly to a child.
SoMG's stats that pregnancy is 12 times more deadly than abortion ... according to the Guttermaker synopsis. Except, that the rates for maternal death for full-term delivery were those prior to modern technology ... from what I understand. Can we have truer representative stats of women's deaths with modern abortion methods vs maternal deaths if a baby is born in modern circumstances with modern expertise? Maybe abortion maternal death vs hospital maternal deaths related to the birth of her child ... post 2000AD.
I love Hal's argument that we did not stop a child from living (murder), we only stopped a pregnancy. Guess you have not understood what abortion means ... ending a process. So, when a space craft blows up and there is an abortion ... the deaths of the crew were incidental to what 'really - scientifically - occurred'. Another way to look at this: say five people were driving quickly along on a winding road. Someone fired a bullet at the car. I can just hear the defence... 'I did not kill those people, the car did. All that I did was shoot out one tire!
Pregnancy means 'to be with child'. If you terminate a child-in-the-womb you terminate a pregnancy and vice verso. It means exactly the same thing: Abortion is murder (of a child) and abortion is murder of a pregnancy (even if such words as these are not often used together).
I was wondering how could a self-professed atheist ever claim to feel unsafe and further profess that this is bad. If there is no life after death, then death "where is thy sting"?Posted by: John McDonell at May 1, 2007 7:52 PM
John, you are aware that, even if they are only words, it is a chargable crime? It doesn't matter how little or how much you meant it: the fact that you said it means that, under various state laws, Cameron or SOMG could charge you.Posted by: HumanAbstract at May 1, 2007 8:18 PM
The benefit of the PBA ban was the press that it got.
I understand that 1 in 9 Americans that saw what a partial birth abortion is as a result of all the publicity during the recent PBA ruling were horrified and switched to pro-life.
Eventually, the will of the people will be heard and abortion will be made illegal again or severly restricted.
We must all think of ways to affect the abortion industry. Go to lifedynamics.com and you can enter suggestions on ways to fight abortion. One way I suggest is to determine if your insurance company in any way provides medical malpractice insurance to abortion doctors and clinis and cancel your auto, home policies if they do. Call your waste management company (city, private, your employers) to determine if they dispose of human waster either from abortion clinics or stem cell research facilities and pressure them to stop disposing of these precious unborn children. Remember these are human beings that are not given a funeral or service of any kind or even a grave marker. It is absolutely heinous.
We must not give up, we must work harder, we must press on, we must keep the faith and face the giants in the land. The battle is the Lord's.Posted by: His Man at May 1, 2007 9:23 PM
Your post to Jill was weak in trying to associate her with that apostate Baptist church group. Good try. You failed. People know how to read and think for themselves.
Jill was simply trying to explain why, maybe why, does God allow abortions and proposing a theory. After all, God loves even those who support the death of children but not without regard. Loving and merciful and full of grace He is, but I understand there is a point where even He says, "OK, have it your way". Iniquity, who can understand it?
Who in their right mind can support the innocent murder of children in the womb? It's unconscionable and if our country continues with this practice we will not have a country. If 9/11 and all of the atrocities being commited here in our backyards at an unprecedented level aren't a wake up call, I don't know what else would be. We shouldn't be afraid of the terrorists but rather of a Holy God in heaven who may someday just say, enough of this holocasut, it's over, they refuse to listen! I really, really hope not.
You pro-deathers just can't imagine how heinous abortion is to us pro-lifers and how it hurts us to the core. To stand by and just watch all this happen wrenches the hearts out of us. You can't even begin to understand this can you?Posted by: His Man at May 1, 2007 9:39 PM
Free speech my friend. Many died for it. Don't be intimdated by these anti-lifers.Posted by: His Man at May 1, 2007 9:42 PM
I think I'm pretty safe ... #1 - I'm Canadian and much too poor and physically disabled to travel to any part of the USA ... maybe after I die and MK pounds on my grave ... then proceeds to dig-me-up! Hey, I may even get charged! Oh, happy day >>>>
Oh Less, are you threatenng moi .... sounds like a threat!Posted by: John McDonell at May 1, 2007 9:53 PM
John, if I was threatening you, you would know it. I tend to be quite graphic in my depictions of physical violence, being a writer and all. Frankly, as none of your opinions really affect me, I don't think any of this is something to get worked up about. The internet isn't serious business, but I don't want to see anyone get arrested over these arguments.Posted by: HumanAbstract at May 1, 2007 10:04 PM
John writes: "I was wondering how could a self-professed atheist ever claim to feel unsafe and further profess that this is bad. If there is no life after death, then death "where is thy sting"?"
That's insane my friend. A self-professed atheist (is there any other kind?) does not welcome death because it is the end of our existance. We're not afraid of meeting jesus or going to hell, we just don't want to die. Especially at the hands of someone like you. My kids need my support, I enjoy my life, and it would indeed "sting" to be snuffed out.
Posted by: Hal
at May 3, 2007 12:57 PM
Janet, you seem like a great person. I thought (before coming here) that more of the pro-life crowd would be like you, instead of crazy (see above) Anyway, I'd rather not post too much of my personal life on this site. Suffice to say, our abortions were probably pretty typical. The first one was when we were young, just starting our careers and were not "ready" for a child. The second one, after our children were born, is more complicated and personal. We felt (and still feel) it was the right thing to do.
Abortions aren't complicated. They're simple. The choice to kill the unborn is complicated by the chooser's life situation, to be sure. I suspect anyone who takes a human life has complicated volitional circumstance.Posted by: rasqual at May 4, 2007 9:28 AM
I know you are busy but I was still hoping to get a response to my post of May 1st or at least an acknowledgment that you agreed.
Here is the latest from www.kgov.com
* Dr. Dobson Staffer, "3rd trimester abortion outlawed!": after we learned that Focus on the Family's staff and call center were giving out false information about what the PBA ban actually does, Bob Enyart asked his general manager Will Duffy, to place just one call to 1-800-A-Family (Dr. Dobson's ministry phone number), to record the call, and to request no one in particular, but just ask the question, "What does the partial-birth abortion ban actually do?" On this show, you can hear Susan from the Focus on the Family correspondence department answer, "The U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal for women to have an abortion in the last trimester." Later in the call, Will asks for a clarification: "Okay, so that'd be the seventh, eighth, and ninth months?" "Yes." Bob Enyart also re-aired a clip from another pro-life ministry which provides totally false information about the ruling. Rob Schenck (pronounced shank) is president of Faith and Action and works also with the National Pro-Life Action Center which his twin brother Paul founded, both groups operating in Washington D.C. just across the street from the Supreme Court. The brothers have close ties to Pat Robertson and his American Center for Law and Justice, and Paul has worked for Jay Sekulow as executive vice president of the ACLJ. Bob re-aired the clip of Rob Schenck grossly misinforming Christians about the brutally wicked Gonzales v. Carhart ruling. Because the authority written into this law by pro-lifers never had even the possibility of saving a single child's life, it is probably impossible to justify the 15 years and tens of millions of dollars wasted on this PBA ban by actually quoting what the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling actually holds. And as a result, pro-life ministries continue the long misinformation campaign about what the "ban" actually does, for in fact, it doesn't even prohibit an abortionist from partially delivering a late-term fetus, and then killing the baby. The ruling is more of a PBA Manual, explaining in some detail exactly how an abortionist can legally perform a text-book partial-birth abortion, or how he can perform a four-inch variation on traditional PBA. The new procedure can be called a "Navel PBA."
Will Duffy's complete call to Focus is six minutes and 36 seconds long. You can download the one minute and 19 second excerpt that Bob aired, and the entire call.