On May 23, a group of pro-life purists distributed a press release entitled, "Rift opens in Christian Right unprecedented criticism of Dobson by major ministries," to announce they had placed a newspaper ad shaming Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family for supporting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
The title of the release revealed the group's intent: to cause public dissension in the pro-life ranks....
At issue is strategy. Purists believe supporting legislation with compromises or exceptions is supporting abortions of babies not covered by that legislation. Purists also oppose parental notification/consent laws, abortion informed consent laws, fetal pain laws, and abortion clinic regulations, because they say those condone abortion, too....
Three weeks ago an Oklahoma bill became law prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used for any abortions except in certain cases of rape and incest. Previously, Gov. Brad Henry vetoed an identical bill with no exceptions.
Purists would have to oppose this new law because of its exception, even though the pure bill failed. So if purists had their way, taxpayers would still be funding all abortions this law stops, instead of blocking 99%. This is fanatical thinking, to be blunt, the equivalent of saying one cannot pull any victims from a burning building if all cannot be pulled out.
Some purists may sense they are boxing themselves into a corner. One friend wrote she could indeed support certain incremental legislation, providing this example: "No baby shall be killed/aborted after the second trimester by any means or it shall be considered first-degree murder."
When I reminded her she couldn't support such a law because the purist position would be it condones first
trimester abortions, she had to concede my point....
Continue reading my column today, "Purely fanatical," on WorldNetDaily.com.
You are an idiot. Once you've legally accepted the notion that it is permissible to kill innocents in some cases, you've absolutely destroyed any possibility of defending the principle upon which the impermissibility of the act is based.Posted by: Frank B. at June 13, 2007 10:16 AM
Frank, The children you're speaking of are going to be killed whether or not I think it's permissable. As I stated in my column, you're saying the equivalent that if all people can't be pulled from a burning building, none can be pulled.Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 13, 2007 10:18 AM
Posted by: Shane
at June 13, 2007 10:20 AM
Great article, Jill!
This definitely needs to be talked about a lot more. Like you, I am an incrementalist. We are having the same issues in the pro-life movement here in Canada. The older pro-life campaigners don't seem to get the point you make. Change may take some time.
Thanks for all you do!Posted by: Keith R. at June 13, 2007 10:22 AM
Amen! Thanks for laying the situation out in such clear, concise terms.Posted by: Sue A. at June 13, 2007 10:23 AM
With all do respect, I find your column a mischaracterization of the people you so easily attribute evil motives. It's been sad to listen to the weak arguments of those who have become defenders of Dobson. The simple truth is this legislation will not save one baby. If you folks want to stop dissension, how about telling the truth.
It would be nice to just talk about the facts of the ruling instead of pulling out of your hat some ridicules example of fanatical thinking, then declare everyone else is the same.
Something came to my mind too, you quote Voltaire, who was anti-Christian. Here's another quote, "Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect" Matthew 5:48.
Just so you can't label me, I would have rejoiced greatly if this ruling would have saved just a handful of babies, unfortunately it won't. As for you being a incrementalist, wouldn't it be a good idea to get a increment once in awhile?
Ron, I did not attribute evil motives to purists whatsoever. Please show me where you think I have. On the contrary, I think the opposite is the case.
Studies show incrementalism has worked, Ron. Some of the details of the PBA ruling also offer wider pro-life applications as well.
Furthermore, we're dealing in the world of politics, which is not perfect.
How were my examples of purist fanatical thinking ridiculous, Ron?Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 13, 2007 10:28 AM
I'm with you in being an incrementalist. The right can learn from the left in matters such as this because the left has long known about the value of incrementalism.
People like Flip Benham are sincere, but they don't know how to win wars.
The left did make a mistake with Hillarycare in 1993 and 1994 when they abandoned incrementalism then and tried to take over one-seventh of the nation's economy in one swoop. They have since learned from that mistake, and some people on the right need to learn flexibility and patience as well.
The classic example of incrementalism and how it works is that the anti-smoking movement originally started with no smoking on air flights, and look how that has evolved now to the point where it is banned in many public places. Some people now even want to outlaw smoking in one's home.Posted by: Clay B. at June 13, 2007 10:31 AM
I always appreciate you columns defending the right to life. I am also a supporter of ALL.
However, I have only one concern with "incrementalists," i.e., they may become complacent in that they have achieved some degree of movement to diminishing the number of abortions. Otherwise, I, too, embrace whatever advantages can be gained in saving lives, even if only one at a time.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
Ron is correct that the recent legislation will not save a single baby. The pro life agenda typically fails to mention that even when legal, the IDX procedure contributed to 0.15% of abortions, and the wording of the ban clearly states that rather than NOT aborting, they just have to do it in a different way.
As a pro choicer, I was absolutely baffled at the reaction by BOTH sides - those calling it a victory AND those calling it a defeat to women's rights. Because in reality, it isnt either. Its the Supreme Court acknowledging that IDX is an unpleasant procedure. All the ban did was make the AMAs reccomendation that it be a last resort a law instead of a suggestion.
With all the hysteria on both sides, everyone seems to have forgotten that more than 99% of abortions are COMPLETLEY unaffected by this ban...so to let it cause a rift in a group with the same goal just seems silly and self defeating.Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2007 10:37 AM
I am reminded of the old Chinese proverb: "Every journey begins with the first step."
The facts of this matter and the moral and ethical dilemma we have in this country are they were broughrought to us incrementally.
Socialists know they cannot bring this nation to socialism by its name, so they have crafted socialist pieces of legislation they have been able to garner support for by using many different reasons to match each objection to their single little point.
We are here because the purists said it could never happen, yet they did little to stop it while it was being incrementally put into place.
If one looks at the abortion issue over time, it is easy to see how it was moved forward by incremental steps, much like, "If you want to cook a frog, put him in a pan of cold water, turn the burner on low, and by the time he realizes he's cooking, he has lost his legs to leap with."
Like most people who believe in the real value of life, I don't want any abortions being done, but I will accept starting with just those most heinous forms because they have power in their image.
Once we have stopped those, we have a moral precedent, which is the singular thing that the "all or nothing" crowd forgets.
People want to be "good," but they also want to do what they've always done. Sometimes the only way to bridge that is incrementally.
There is also the question: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time."
Thanks for keeping the good fight going.Posted by: John M. at June 13, 2007 10:38 AM
Jill--Excellent. These people, while I admire their hearts and ambition, can be the most irritating people on the planet. The most annoying thing is their insinuation of OUR motives and OUR devotion to babies, while they've done absolutely nothing legislatively for babies. If they are--for whatever bizarre reason--against legislation, then they should just say so.Posted by: Nathan at June 13, 2007 10:59 AM
How was slavery abolished in this country? With a civil war with how many lives lost?
Is that what purists want, a civil war, because the reality is that's the only way they will get what they want in one fell swoop.
Why didn't Jesus heal everyone when He was here on earth? He had the power to do it. Why aren't we whisked up to heaven the moment we are saved? Seems to me purists eliminate consideration of God's will from the picture. You do God's oracle great harm and grat harm to yourselves when you attack a godly man.
Of course we all want abortion to go away now. However, we do the casue great harm when we are divided. Remember a house divided against itself cannot stand. Purists play right into the devil's hand as he shrieks with laughter.
There's something to say about delayed gratification. I think the purist stance is totally misguided and very immanture when balanced against reality.
You want a war that will end abortion in one fell swoop? Start one, then put your lives and that of your children on the line, risking that you may lose the war and abortion will never be made illegal.
You want to end abortion? Eliminate the 501c3 muzzle on the churches and see what God can do with His word...."if my people who are called by my name".
It's not very manly to call a woman an idiot. I know Jill can take it because she takes it from all the pro-aborts on this site, however, must you act like a child? You should apologize to Jill.Posted by: HisMan at June 13, 2007 11:01 AM
As Justice Scalia said: The legal mansion of abortion has to be dismantled piece by piece. let's take what we can get, and it doesn't mean we condone other types of abortion.Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 11:20 AM
Jill, Im with you on this one. I can understand where the purists are coming from, but the chances of winning an all-or-nothing with abortion in America right now are about as high as finding a popsicle stand on the moon.Posted by: SamanthaT at June 13, 2007 11:26 AM
I really do find this argument a bit silly.
To my way of thinking abortion is merely a symptom of a malaise. Thinking that ending abortion means very much .... will pale when killing unwanted humans will shift to the disabled [Terri Shiavo is just one of the first. Please note how all mainstream media supported her death!] And it will shift to the elderly who will have to pass an annual exam to maintain rights/civil-protection. The new term will be euthanasia = abortion of post-born humans. We decry the 50 million killed via abortion ... in the not-too-far future we will euthanize that number each year.
Why do we perceive any kind of killing of people as beneficial? Are we so morally disordered that killing someone is seen as a positive ... as the ending of an inconvenience? "He's not a burden, he's my brother ...." or will the courts become our foe ... and the police hired gunmen?
Maybe we should all re-dedicate our lives to believe once more in human significance. Incrimentalism toward what end?Posted by: John McDonell at June 13, 2007 11:42 AM
Don't think I gain any satisfaction from that. I simply want the two-front war to stop. Noting our rift, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards commented, "Whenever your opponents squabble among themselves, it's a good thing,"
"Divide and conquer" has long been a proven battle strategy. When we as pro-lifers divide ourselves, then...well, you know what happens next.
We ought to be fighting abortion, not each other.
Posted by: John Jansen at June 13, 2007 11:47 AM
BTW, Jill, the link to your WND article is apparently broken.Posted by: John Jansen at June 13, 2007 11:50 AM
If only Jill were so reasonable and proportional with other things... like March of Dimes for example.Posted by: Cameron at June 13, 2007 11:51 AM
I'm scared. Cameron thinks I'm being reasonable.Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 13, 2007 12:05 PM
I'm so sick of people telling me I should be happy about that pathetic ruling. The ruling was nothing but an attempt to get pro-lifers to be quiet for a while. The purist way of thinking will never work because unfortunately not enough people think that way. I guess the slaves were just way more important.Posted by: Rosie at June 13, 2007 12:47 PM
If you look at any great movement to end an injustice, you will see incrementalism, not one fell swoop.
Wilberforce of England began his war against the transatlantic slave trade by passing legislation that limited the number of slaves a ship could transport.
The struggle to end slavery in our own country didn't begin and end with the Civil War. It involved decades of struggle, setbacks, stagnation, disappointments, battles won and battles lost. I suppose purists would have argued against the Underground Railroad since it didn't enable ALL slaves to escape and did not end slavery.
The struggle for civil rights didn't begin and end with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This legislation came about because of decades of struggle By the way, it was Republicans who struggled for equality for the newly freed black slaves, while Democrats were determined to keep them "in their places". The KKK was formed as the terrorist arm of Southern Democrats. The once all powerful Klan is now a shadow of its former self, again, something that took decades to accomplish.
Ending any injustice has never been an overnight occurence.
Demanding all or nothing is totally unrealistic
"It's not very manly to call a woman an idiot. I know Jill can take it because she takes it from all the pro-aborts on this site, however, must you act like a child? You should apologize to Jill."
"ALL of the pro aborts on this site" have called Jill an idiot? Really???
....I must have missed that, somewhere between you and Jasper calling all of us names...
Do you normally hold grudges like this?Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 1:33 PM
heh...Nah. No grudges, I just think that comment was kinda funny coming from HisMan, plus I dont appreciate being lumped in the category of having called Jill an idiot.
you know, the whole "he who lives in a glass house..." thing?Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2007 1:40 PM
I'm so confused. It seems the incrementalist position involves taking the good with the bad, that is, being happy with a ruling that might be viewed as a step back by some, and didn't really do all that much to advance the pro-life cause (it's agenda, perhaps, but not it's stated purpose).
I'm all for that. I am well aware that not everything is black and white, and that something might still be good even though it's not everything you would want it to be, or comes with a few things you don't like. I'm just shocked that it's okay to accept the good with the bad in this situation, but not, as Cameron noted, with the March of Dimes, or PP, or Sanger, or... Is the world all or nothing, black or white only when *you* want it to be?Posted by: Diana at June 13, 2007 1:46 PM
Oops. Silly "its"/"it's" distinction. When will I learn? - "Its agenda" and "its stated purpose".Posted by: Diana at June 13, 2007 1:50 PM
Oh, and while I'm around - MK, you have a very beautiful family (and some incredibly handsome sons).Posted by: Diana at June 13, 2007 1:52 PM
Look, please stick to the conversation or just go away.
Your enending victim mentaility get tiresome.Posted by: HisMan at June 13, 2007 3:52 PM
You ask me where you attributed evil motives to the purists. You state in your article, "The title of the release revealed the group's intent: to cause public dissension in the pro-life ranks." So they weren't concerned, misinformed or desiring the truth be known about the ruling, their intent was to cause dissension. I would say that's a evil motive, but I'm a simple man.
Your second question, what ridicules example? Your friend you used who wrote to you, as an example of a purist. I don't know anyone like that. Maybe I'm just out of the loop? All of my pro-life friends would have rejoiced at a second trimester ruling. Anyway this seems to me this is smoke and mirrors, we're talking about this ruling. I would sincerely like to hear your specifics on this ruling that promotes the pro-life agenda.
You say that this is politics, your correct. This is my concern, the Republican party will now use this to fool the pro-life community that they actually did something for us, when they haven't. They've been giving lip service to our cause for decades, it's time for a reality check. Lower taxes and small government is all very nice, but until this horror is removed from our land the rest doesn't matter. It might be time to rethink the vehicle we're using.
Now I read on your blog, Bob is considering a law suit? There goes another Biblical directive. How sad. It sounds like a good dose of repentance all round might be a good idea. Jill, I do commend you for your work and hope the Lord blesses it in the future.
Ron HonishPosted by: Ron Honish at June 13, 2007 4:38 PM
"There's something to say about delayed gratification."
I think that's the naughtiest thing HisMan's ever said.
;-DPosted by: Cameron at June 13, 2007 4:40 PM
"Do you normally hold grudges like this?"
You just shouldn't be on the internet at all if you can't figure out what she meant.Posted by: Cameron at June 13, 2007 4:42 PM
"Look, please stick to the conversation or just go away."
This is just too much fun today. God forbid someone qualify anything here.Posted by: Cameron at June 13, 2007 4:45 PM
"Look, please stick to the conversation or just go away."
Translation: "You pointed out that I was completely incorrect in stating that ALL of the pro choice members of this forum have called Jill an idiot, and I can't think of anything snarky to say in response without making myself look like a hypocrite, so I'm just going to tell you to go away....which is funny, considering I was just calling someone else childish for similar behavior, but whatever!"Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2007 4:49 PM
"I would sincerely like to hear your specifics on this ruling that promotes the pro-life agenda."
Basicaly, the Supremes have said... Hmmm MAYBE we CAN decide when we can DECIDE in place of doctor and patient.
It's the closest thing y'all have gotten, and will likely ever get, to a reconsideration of Roe v. Wade.
Luv the translation!
*winks blows kisses.Posted by: Cameron at June 13, 2007 4:52 PM
Amen, Jill. Preach it! Great article. Very well said.Posted by: Diane Pietrzak at June 13, 2007 5:22 PM
I think that the abortion debate in this country has been going on for so long and is so incredibly divisive to Americans in general that they simply don't speak of it in public anymore.
If this decision did nothing else it woke up a lot of Americans to the fact that children were being killed this way for years. That alone is a step forward.
As for the bickering between the prolife side and the prolife side...how ironic that the article came up on the same day that civil war broke out in Israel. Have we sunk as low as Hezbollah?
Don't know much about history, don't know much about geography...but I do know, that a house divided will fall.
Even if we are disagreeing, I would think that we would do it in a less combative manner as the issue of abortion is once again getting swept under the rug while the infighting is in the news.
Did we save any babies? No. But for the first time the LIFE side scored. The game is in overtime and anything, anything at all that moves us closer to a win is something. People are talking. People are believing that this goes on.
Maybe enough people will no longer be satisfied with talking and start acting.
Morale is half of the battle. If this boosts the morale of the soldiers and gets the battle going again, it can't be all bad.
In the beginning of the movement there were hundreds of people praying at clinics, marches all the time. Now, we're lucky if we get 3 or 4 at a clinic.
Rah, Rah, Rah, here's the message we must send.
We all must stick together if abortion's going to end!
Go Team Go!Posted by: MK at June 13, 2007 5:51 PM
Oh, and while I'm around - MK, you have a very beautiful family (and some incredibly handsome sons).
The one is blue is up for auction to the lowest bidder...cuz I'm paying someone to take him...
We're up to $30.00. $60.00 if you take the dog too?
Interested?Posted by: MK at June 13, 2007 5:53 PM
MK...how about a swap? My 16-year old brother for your son? As long as he likes to mow the lawn, I'll take him. My brother is good at....well...we have yet to figure it out. I just figure you could straighten his act out. LOL.Posted by: Lyssie at June 13, 2007 6:21 PM
I might be able to persuade my sister to take your son, but he should be warned that she is extremely high maintenence.Posted by: JK at June 13, 2007 6:33 PM
As one of those purists in need of a reality check ... maybe we should take a lesson of history. Mary quite rightly talked of the Civil Rights Movement ... but as one of the few who actually lived it, there was no-where to be found an incrementalist. Moral alternatives may indeed take centuries to accomplish, but it is the 'fanatical' element that moves the moral compass anywhere.
If we understand that God's Life does not allow incrementalism because for Him there is no time ... when Jesus said 'Be for or against me!' ... He wasn't kidding. 'The lukewarm (read incrementalists) I will spit out!' He also said: 'Whatever you do to the least of these you do to Me ... whatever you fail to do to the least of these, you fail to do it to Me!' Jesus was and is one tough cookie ... we are very much complacent fools if ever we believe we have succeeded.
We need a much better strategy than the ones we now have. It's something like choosing between Republicans and Democrats, when neither party represents your wishes.Posted by: John McDonell at June 13, 2007 6:48 PM
Oooh, MK, don't tempt me. I'm a sucker for the tall, dark and handsome type, and he's a real looker. And I love animals! Think he'd mind a super independent and sometime overly intellectual woman?Posted by: Diana at June 13, 2007 9:35 PM
"It's something like choosing between Republicans and Democrats, when neither party represents your wishes."
Here, here to that, John.Posted by: Diana at June 13, 2007 9:39 PM
""It's something like choosing between Republicans and Democrats, when neither party represents your wishes."
I kind of disagree John, if it were'nt for the republicans abortion would be legal up until birth.Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 9:43 PM
@Jasper: You know that's not true...Posted by: Rae at June 13, 2007 9:47 PM
Ok Rae, legal up until the 8th month.Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 9:52 PM
@Jasper: *sigh* You know that's not true either...Posted by: Rae at June 13, 2007 9:55 PM
@Rae, actually, I just did a little research, there are some pro-life democrats (especially in south dakota). There's also the democrats for life org, but Im not sure how many members there are....still looking...Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 10:03 PM
@Jasper: Good for you. ^_^ See? Not all democrats are "evil". I applaud you for being reasonable Jasper, it's a welcome change, so thank you, I really do appreciate it.Posted by: Rae at June 13, 2007 10:05 PM
@Rae, do I sense a little pro-lifeness is you ??Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 10:10 PM
@Jasper: No, I'm just glad you aren't being as confrontational this evening and are willing to acknowledge that not all liberals/democrats are "evil" and that only the republicans are "saintly". It's quite pleasant how civil we've been towards each other and I think it's the step in the right direction. ^_^Posted by: Rae at June 13, 2007 10:13 PM
@Rae, just to get an update, I believe you think abortion should be illegal after 13 weeks, correct?Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 10:20 PM
@Jasper: 12 weeks, actually. Illegal with exceptions, for example the mother's health is seriously at risk (ie cancer...not depression), or there is a fatal fetal deformity or serious genetic defect (Tay-Sachs is *not* a pleasant way to die, and fatal chromosomal abnormalities like Trisomy 13).Posted by: Rae at June 13, 2007 10:22 PM
Rae, whats the reasoning behind the 12 weeks. how about 11 week old fetus, how come they don't get the same rights as a 12 week-old.Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 10:26 PM
@Jasper: I picked 12 weeks arbitrarily because it's the end of the first trimester and even hard-core Catholic countries like Portugal allow for abortions up until that point.
There is no reasoning behind it other than the fact a 12 week old fetus cannot live outside of the womb (though nor can a 13 week fetus...but as I said, the 12 week mark is something I arbitrarily chose), and the fact that I honestly don't see much *there* when I look at a 12 week old fetus. Yes, I know it's a human being, but I honestly don't see it as a "baby" or a "person".
And there are many developmental differences between an 11-week old fetus and a 12-week old fetus making an 11-week fetus "less" than a 12-week old fetus.
Yup, crap reasoning in your opinion, but that's just how I see things and you are free to disagree.Posted by: Rae at June 13, 2007 10:33 PM
"and the fact that I honestly don't see much *there* when I look at a 12 week old fetus"
11 week old:
# Nearly all structures and organs are formed and beginning to function.
# Fingers and toes have separated - Take a glimpse at how incredibly precious the child's tiny feet are at this point.
@Jasper: *sigh* I have seen pictures Jasper...I have studied fetal development, I know what is there and what isn't there. To me, feet and toes do not a fully formed human make.Posted by: Rae at June 13, 2007 10:52 PM
"To me, feet and toes do not a fully formed human make."
@Rae, they can also swallow and urinate...at 11 weeks, all organs are begining to function.
Do they have to be able to jump up and down to be worthy of life?Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 10:58 PM
@Jasper: No. But I already told you, I chose 12 weeks arbitrarily. And I know this conversation is *not* going to get us anywhere and I was up stupidly late last night with insomnia, so I'm afraid I'll have to bid adieu to work on some NMR homework before going to sleep.
Have a pleasant evening. ^_^Posted by: Rae at June 13, 2007 11:00 PM
now, I had some bouts with insomnia too.
1. if you don't fall asleep within 20minutes after going to bed, get up don't stay in bed and toss and turn.
2. don't try to put yourself to sleep. Try to stay up, then you'll find yourself getting very tired (-- reverse phyc)Posted by: jasper at June 13, 2007 11:06 PM
Dear Jill and all Incrementalists,
How do you know a law that is not compromised would fail? Maybe it would the first ten times we introduce it but, the 11th time it might pass. Where does the Bible say do some evil that good may come? How and when did God give any person the authority to decide who can live and who can die?
Your analogy of the burning building is more similar to sidewalk counselors which includes myself trying to save babies as their moms walk into the abortion clinic. That is an emergency situation and you may only save one that day. I don't attempt to legislate that we can only talk to one woman everyday as she walks in. Or how about the Holocaust that would also be an emergency situation. You hide as many Jews as you can. If you are a judge in Nazi Germany you refuse to follow the law and sentence an innocent Jewish man to death. We tried judges for doing just that and found them guilty. But, you do not legislate that you can kill Jews Monday through Friday and take the weekends off, after all that will save some Jews won't it because you can't save them all? That is immoral.
The midwives during the time of baby Moses were told to kill all the baby boys, they lied instead (which is acceptable to save a life) and told Pharaoh that the moms gave birth prior to their arrival.
This incrementalist strategy came about 25 years ago per John Archibald, a founding board member of CRTL, AUL and NRTL. He quit when he found out AUL and NRTL would adopt the strategy of condoning abortion in legislation.
Remember in our society when we legalize something it becomes moral in the minds of most people. We have to retrain the way people think, keep hammering away at incremental legislation that does not end with "and then you can kill the baby" and eventually you will win. People will look back in horror at what happened in this country to the unborn.Posted by: Lolita at June 13, 2007 11:58 PM
Lolita, 11:58p, said: "How do you know a law that is not compromised would fail? Maybe it would the first ten times we introduce it but, the 11th time it might pass."
I agree, Lolita, to keep hammering away, but in the meantime take what we can get... save the babies we can when we can?
Lolita said: "Where does the Bible say do some evil that good may come? How and when did God give any person the authority to decide who can live and who can die?"
We're mixing apples and oranges here. Too much for me to dissect. I'll just say that in the case of abortion, we're dealing with lawmakers and judges who are controlling the situation. They have actually assumed authority to sanction killing innocent children. We have no choice at times but to compromise and save the babies we can rather than save no babies at all. You say I then sanction the deaths of the babies we can't save, so you'll have no part of it. My response is you're sanctioning the deaths of the babies we could save.
"Your analogy of the burning building is more similar to sidewalk counselors which includes myself trying to save babies as their moms walk into the abortion clinic. That is an emergency situation and you may only save one that day."
Lolita, I so appreciate sidewalk counselors. I appreciate your dedication in this way. I'll just say we disagree on the parameters of the word "emergency."
You see mothers literally walk into a mill to kill children, which you and I both consider an emergency.
Additionally, I see legislative emergencies, where if a law isn't passed saving some - even a few - children, they will all die.
You say the greater good is served by not passing any weak law, only strong laws. I can't let the moment pass when I could have saved some children, particularly for an unproven greater good.Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 14, 2007 5:14 AM
Ron, 4:38p, said: "You ask me where you attributed evil motives to the purists. You state in your article, 'The title of the release revealed the group's intent: to cause public dissension in the pro-life ranks.' So they weren't concerned, misinformed or desiring the truth be known about the ruling, their intent was to cause dissension. I would say that's a evil motive, but I'm a simple man."
Ron, again, here was the title THEY GAVE their press release: "Rift opens in Christian Right unprecedented criticism of Dobson by major ministries."
Clearly that title was to cause dissension. It's not even a debatable point.
"Your second question, what ridicules example? Your friend you used who wrote to you, as an example of a purist. I don't know anyone like that. Maybe I'm just out of the loop? All of my pro-life friends would have rejoiced at a second trimester ruling."
Read previous posts on my blog. Type "incrementalists" or "purists" in the search and see the posts. I lifted the example from my blog, Ron.
You said, "You say that this is politics, your correct. This is my concern, the Republican party will now use this to fool the pro-life community that they actually did something for us, when they haven't. They've been giving lip service to our cause for decades, it's time for a reality check. Lower taxes and small government is all very nice, but until this horror is removed from our land the rest doesn't matter. It might be time to rethink the vehicle we're using."
Ron, are you saying you are simply against the ruling because you fear the motives of the politicians supporting the ban?Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 14, 2007 5:25 AM
This is not mixing apples and oranges. A person's Christianity does not stop at the public policy door. We are to be influencing the culture not be influenced by it. You are using man's wisdom and pragmatism to get what you see as victories instead of relying on God's wisdom. How many have died using this failed strategy? There is more abortion now than in 1967 isn't there?
The culture will follow where it is led, if you and other leaders lead down the Biblical path people will eventually follow. But, if you lead them down the humanist legal positivist path they will follow, oh they already have.
Does not matter what the law or judges say, if we say innocent people can be "legally" killed we are a lawless nation.Posted by: Lolita at June 14, 2007 8:21 AM
I am not an incrementalist, as 34 years of such has brought the deaths of 50 million, a bit too much for me.
Incrementalists lie. PP, GWB, and the RINO abortion supporters say, "We must educate every citizen to the pro-life cause" to save babes. Well, this could be about 500 or more years.
Incrementalists are not active to end abortion in our lifetimes, lukewarm, one would say.
I am sorry you have brought the PP plan. Please take me off your incrementalist list, kindly.
I think applying the process of incrementalism to other threats to life
and liberty, under God, is fraught with cowardice.
Lolita, no pro-life leader "led" us down the path we're on. Your state politicians did that in 1967. The Supreme Court did that nationally in 1973. How can you say it doesn't matter what the law or judges say? We abort 1.3 million babies a year because of what they have said. We have to work within the legal/political confines, unless you want to declare a civil war.Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 14, 2007 8:33 AM
Parental notification/consent laws, abortion informed consent laws, fetal pain laws, abortion clinic regulations… exactly what makes these “incremental legislation”?
They all would allow abortion.Posted by: Aethril at June 14, 2007 9:36 AM
"I am an incrementalist, because studies show incrementalism is working."
Studies? I guess I'm out of the loop, as I haven't heard about any formal studies that show an incremental approach has helped the pro-life cause. But then, I don't NEED any such studies to know it works. Read Sun Tzu or any of the great military strategists. Read the Scriptures about the conquest of Canaan! You don't win wars in one fell swoop. You take the ground one inch at a time. Sometimes you get pushed back, so you make the enemy advance as slowly as you can, inflicting as many losses as you can, while you try to grind him to a halt. You try to weaken him as you try to first conserve, then build, your strength. You attack when you can, retreat when you must, never losing sight of the goal. An all-or-nothing approach in war is a sure path to total defeat.
Studies? No, I don't need them. I've watched the enemies of God and our country use incrementalism very effectively in their war. It IS how they've gotten where they are. It IS their strategy. Just read the Communist and Humanist manifestos - they've written enough about it.
They've written about it, they've implemented it, and they've proven it's very effective. Had they taken an all or nothing approach like our pro-life purists, they'd still have nothing.
The all-or-nothing pro-life purists will have nothing, too.
We can only pray they won't do too much damage to the cause while they prance around in their misguided "purity."Posted by: Mark V. at June 14, 2007 10:03 AM
Mark, 10:03a, you said you didn?t need to see any studies, but fyi:
Aethril, 9:36a, on the topic of fetal pain relief, even the Roman soldiers offered Jesus pain relief as they were killing him. Did they have more compassion than you?Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 14, 2007 10:06 AM
33 years, 49,000,000 dead, sorry but I can understand why people seem to think it doesn't work and more needs to be done...Posted by: Rosie at June 14, 2007 10:31 AM
You wrote: Ron, again, here was the title THEY GAVE their press release: "Rift opens in Christian Right unprecedented criticism of Dobson by major ministries."
Clearly that title was to cause dissension. It's not even a debatable point.
Jill you want to declare yourself the winner, I'm not convinced. The title of the press release seems to be stating a fact, not a cause for it. Where can I find this press release, I couldn't find it with that title. I'd like to see it in context.
You maybe right that there are more purists then I thought out there. Although I do think your exaggerating and painting everyone with the same brush.
Jill you wrote: Ron, are you saying you are simply against the ruling because you fear the motives of the politicians supporting the ban?
Jill if you read my previous postings you know I'm not saying that.. I was adding this as just another problem with all of this. I made very clear I object to declaring victory a ruling that does nothing to save one baby's life. I have to question your motives now. You seem to want to talk about everything, but the ruling itself.
For the second time, please tell me what you think this ruling does to promote the pro-life movement?
The open letter to Dobson had little to do with incrementalism versus purist but rather Dobson misleading his supporters on the merits of the PBA ban and the Supreme Court decision.
In light of this, please explain further your criticism.
Now I got it!
It's the hobnobbing with big shots like President Bush (and Christian celebrities) that motivated you to disemble the Dobson letter.
Do you think that God will be fooled by a liar like you?
You soil the world.
P.S. More people than you think already know what you are (your website stupdily reveals it).
But your piece about the "Fanatics" nicely spreads the word.Posted by: Ron Remo'te at June 14, 2007 10:53 AM
Jill said in her WND column, "Purists promote the solution to abortion as a human life amendment to the Constitution, giving full personhood rights to all preborn humans from the moment of fertilization."
Do you have a quote or link showing this to be true for any of the groups you mentioned in your piece?Posted by: Will D at June 14, 2007 11:18 AM
Jill, would you go along with a law that allows a woman to have a maximum of three abortions? That law would save the fourth, fifth and, possibly sixth child.Posted by: mark b at June 14, 2007 12:03 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Jill Stanek pulls fast one over pro-lifers
Jill Stanek said, "As I stated in my column, you're saying the equivalent that if all people can't be pulled from a burning building, none can be pulled."
This is very faulty reasoning. (Even Dobson disagrees with Jill Stanek and now admits the ban won't save a single human life, as well at countless other pro-lie ministries.) Of course you save as many as you can, but you don't pass a law in the process of saving them that says, "You can legally burn people alive."
Jill Stanek is a fool. The two examples she cites are the PBA ban and this Oklahoma bill for tax funded abortions. Neither one give legal protection to save one innocent life! Her analogy is flawed.
Jill, would you support a law that says 1 scheduled abortion will be canceled, as long as abortion remains legal for the next 30 years? Don't forget, "As I stated in my column, you're saying the equivalent that if all people can't be pulled from a burning building, none can be pulled."
*Typo fixed, please delete post made at 11:43am.Posted by: Will D at June 14, 2007 1:15 PM
Jill Stanek is a fool.
WillD, was that really necessary? Maybe you feel that her strategy is not as good as yours, but does that really make her a fool?
Maybe you feel that her strategy is foolish, but don't you think it is just a little bit mean to call someone who is absolutely defending the same babies that you are fighting to protect, a fool for doing so in the best way she knows...and a way that may just be the way that abortion eventually is done away with?? All of us, purists and incrementalists (which I didn't even realize there were two camps of pro-lifers at all till last week), we ALL shed tears over the lives that are being killed each day, we ALL desperately want to see abortion done away with. We ALL want it to be illegal, and we ALL want to see mothers cherish their children.
How do you think that dividing yourself against others, and naming people who are doing the best they can to stop abortion, within the bounds of the law FOOLS? How do you expect people to want to listen to you when you act like this?
The rest of your post, I could accept. I understand your point of view. However, there is absolutely no reason that you should be calling a sister in Christ a fool.Posted by: Bethany at June 14, 2007 1:32 PM
Will, sure I'll be happy to delete your 11:43a comment calling me a fool for your corrected 1:15p version calling me a fool. Thanks for saying please.
And Mark and Will, I don't deal in hypotheticals. How is it you have the time?Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 14, 2007 1:34 PM
Okay, Jill, hypotheticals are off the table. Let me ask you this; Was the content of the Colorado Right to Life press release true or false? Will one baby will be saved by this ban? Dr. Dobson, now says, not one baby will be saved. So, is it wrong to inform pro-lifers of that fact? Many of whom believed that this 15 year effort would, indeed save some babies. Another question; Do you,like other pro-life leaders, thank GOD for the pba ruling? Jill, incrementalism is fine. Close down Planned Parenthood..End abortion in Colorado...Save one mother and baby from going into the clinic. The incrementalism we object to pertains to legitimizing the killing of some babies. We do not have that right. I was saddened by your refernce to Voltaire. There is only ONE, Who is perfect. And, HE commands us not to kill the innocent. In Christ, mbPosted by: Mark b at June 14, 2007 5:15 PM
Seriously, Will D, et al,
These people are on YOUR SIDE. What does belittling and attacking them and calling them fools do? It makes you look like a jackass, and makes your cause look like a joke to pro choicers. Its people like you that cause us to negatively and unfairly stereotype the majority of pro lifers.Posted by: JK at June 14, 2007 5:40 PM
Bethany, I was just following Christ's biblical example. Should Christ not have called people "fools" either?
Jill Stanek is not on the pro-life side. According to Mark Crutcher, Jill is "pro-choice with exceptions." She actually said in her WND piece (I couldn't believe it) that abortion is okay if the life of the mother is in danger. ABORTION IS ALWAYS WRONG. You don't murder a child if the mother's life is in danger. You try to save both the mother and child.
Jill admitted in another thread that partial birth abortion is still legal, with only a minor variation as to the procedure. She rejoices in this, even though the babies will now experience even more gruesome torturous deaths, thanks to the PBA ruling.
Yes, I'm upset.Posted by: Will D at June 14, 2007 6:14 PM
Jill, you don't deal in hypotheticals because you can't. Shall we rip out all of Christ's parables from the Bible because you don't deal in hypotheticals? Of course not. We learn from hypotheticals. Your fire analogy which you grossly misrepresented, was also a hypothetical.Posted by: Will D at June 14, 2007 6:18 PM
JK, these people are on my side like those who want to murder abortionists. The apostle Paul confronted the apostle Peter to his face in Gal. 2, even though they were both Christians. These laws are evil, and if pro-lifers support evil laws, I hope they are looked at negatively.Posted by: Will D at June 14, 2007 6:21 PM
Haha...I've never seen someone fanatical enough to call Jill Stanek pro choice....until today.
The perspective must be a little warped up there on the high horse, Will.Posted by: JK at June 14, 2007 6:23 PM
I don't see how your reference to Galatians fits this situation. Could you please explain?Posted by: JK at June 14, 2007 6:31 PM
I can't believe I am debating this with a fellow pro-lifer.
WillD, you know that calling people fools is not Biblicly justified. You know.
Come on, we are on the same side of this situation! We should not be fighting at all. Please stop this nonsense.
I want to be your friend and ally in this, and I know Jill does too. We need to work TOGETHER! We want to connect with you and fight alongside you in this battle against abortion, and anything other thing that threatens any innocent human's right to live.
Where has Mark Crutcher ever said that about Jill?
His stance is the exact same as hers!
Therefore, in recognition of the biological reality that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, the unborn child is entitled to the protection of the law under all circumstances and at every stage of pregnancy. In those extraordinarily rare instances in which a pregnancy poses an immediate and life threatening risk to the mother, she should be allowed to direct her physician to perform any medical procedure that is necessary to save her life. In that effort, however, the physician must always do whatever is possible to save the life of both mother and baby. If as an unintended consequence of saving the mother's life, her unborn child loses its life, that should be viewed as a profoundly regrettable but lawful outcome.
And where did Jill say that it was okay to kill the child and not treat both as patients?
Please substanciate these claims.
Bethany, you know a lot about the Bible, right?
Can you explain Will's reference to Galatians? I don't see how it fits his arguments.Posted by: JK at June 14, 2007 6:49 PM
Jk, you're right.
It has no relevance to this situation...I think what he's trying to say is that basically Christians are supposed to rebuke each other.
Yes, I agree with that. Christians should rebuke each other in love and should not be afraid to tell each other if there's something the other is doing that is not right.
However, calling another Christian a "fool" is unBiblical...
...and filing a lawsuit against fellow believers is unBiblical.
Posted by: Bethany
at June 14, 2007 7:01 PM
Jk, I appreciate your comments here, by the way. Just thought i'd let you know that.
It seems as if he is Peter in this situation.Posted by: JK at June 14, 2007 7:05 PM
You do make every effort to save both mother and child, and in the perfect world we could always save both. That's not the world we live in. In this modern day and age it rarely comes down to the life of the mother versus that of the unborn child. But it does happen where a mother's life is in danger, ectopic pregnancy being an example, and in such a very tragic situation an abortion, premature induction, or c-section may be necessary to save the mother's life, resulting in the death of the unborn child.
I have seen these situations and to say this situation never occurs only shows your medical ignorance.
You oppose killing another human being, but should you not have the right to defend your life if confronted by an intruder in your home or you're attacked on the street? What would be your response Will to any threat to your life and why should any pregnant woman do any different?
Thanks, any time! :-)Posted by: JK at June 14, 2007 7:07 PM
Will, I'm absolutely DISGUSTED that you would ever yell at Jill for saying something that almost everyone, prochoicers and prolifers alike, would agree on...allowing a woman to abort to save her own life. That's not pro-choice with exceptions, that's pro-reason and pro-sanity. Will your life ever possibly be in danger from a problem pregnancy? Get over your self-righteous, sanctimonious, pseudo-Christlike power trip and quit ragging on Jill already. SHE IS ON YOUR SIDE.
(This is coming from a pro-choicer....how fitting, Will.)Posted by: Lyssie at June 14, 2007 7:36 PM
I'm with Lyssie and JK, as a pro-choicer, I'm quite revolted with the way people are treating Jill as of late. Yes, I may not agree with Jill most of the time, yet it is still absolutely preposterous to me that you are insulting and rebuking people on your own side! I'm with JK on this one, this is really making pro-lifers look petty and extremely fanatical as well as making them look weak, when I know some delightful pro-lifers who are exactly the opposite of that.Posted by: Rae at June 14, 2007 8:02 PM
An excellent post. Amen and thank you.Posted by: Mary at June 14, 2007 8:30 PM
JK, Bethany, Lyssie, Mary, Rae.... well, well, we're on the same team tonight?! You've made my day. Thanks.Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 14, 2007 9:06 PM
When I said, "Does not matter what the law or judges say, if we say innocent people can be "legally" killed we are a lawless nation." I am pointing out to you that our "pro-life" judges are not to follow laws that allow the death of an innocent human being. God's law is higher than man's. When the two conflict, God's law comes first in this case it is do not murder. They may lose their job or law license but, they should refuse to uphold laws that allow the innocent to be killed. That excuse of I was just following the law did not fly at Nuremberg and someday will not be recognized as an acceptable defense as to why they sentenced innocent, defenseless children to death. Our nation is currently lawless.
Didn't you get fired for not going along with the majority? I did.
Posted by: Lolita
at June 14, 2007 9:38 PM
Mary you said, "Butit does happen where a mother's life is in danger, ectopic pregnancy being an example, and in such a very tragic situation an abortion, premature induction, or c-section may be necessary to save the mother's life, resulting in the death of the unborn child.
I have seen these situations and to say this situation never occurs only shows your medical ignorance."
As a nurse practitioner an ectopic is the only time a mother's life is in danger and the baby cannot be saved or even have the ability to survive on its own. Medical technology has not allowed us to help in this situation. Other conditions such as HELP syndrome, cancers, heart problems, etc... it is morally permissible to deliver a baby even though it may not survive. We don't have to even make a law to try to save both, which in the past is what the medical profession always tried to do. You do have to legislate that you will kill one to save another.
A baby cannot be compared to an intruder that you would kill in self-defense. Tell me since you are claiming that Will is so medically deficient, why one who has a life threatening condition would endure a procedure that takes 3 days to complete and kill their baby to supposedly save their own life? A C-section can be done in less than 10 minutes, I have seen it done in 5 minutes. A pregnant woman will have to get the baby out dead or alive, why do we have to kill the baby to save a life?
One of my good friends has had this situation and almost lost his wife but, they chose to deliver the baby with a C-section and spend some time with him even though he could not survive. They are heroes not murderers.
Like you I am a medical professional as well. I have seen situations other than ectopic pregnancy where inducing abortion or an early c-section was necessary to save the life of the mother. I am well aware of the fact that doctors have always been legally able to do whatever is necessary to save the life of the mother, and hopefully the infant as well.
I know of a young woman who had such severe fetal and placental anamolies that a full term delivery would only be possible by c-section, and even this could pose a grave danger for her. I know of another situation where a woman developed a very atypical toxemia of pregnancy in her first trimester and her out of control blood pressure was life threatening, despite consultation with experts and every effort being made to bring it under control. Both these women were aborted, one in a Catholic hospital, the other in another local hospital. Thankfully situations like these are rare and certainly tragic, but they can and do occur. I was also referring to the situation where a woman hemorrhages in her second and third trimester and must be sectioned to save her life. The baby likely will be lost, especially if it is the second trimester, but this was necessary to save the mother's life.
I did not compare a baby the an intruder. I compared the situation where one's life is endangered and one has the right to take the necessary action to protect it. While Will, like myself and I'm certain you as well, would not murder another human being, we may feel very differently about taking another life when our own lives are endangered. That was the point I was trying to get across to Will.
If you're questioning me about PBA, which I assume is the 3 day procedure you refer to, I in no way support this barbarity and have stated many times on this blog that there is no medical justification for this procedure and that there are far more humane ways, i.e. c-section, to handle a truly life threatening situation. Like you, I've also seen my share of emergency sections done in less than 5 minutes, with a surgeon howling like a banshee at me to get the patient asleep asap or sooner. Absolute nightmares, also fortunately rare.
The situation with your friends is very heartbreaking and my heart goes out to them. They are an example of what I have maintained all along, that there are life threatening situations, that everything necessary must be done to save both mother and infant, and if it is not possible to save the infant, then the situation must handled in the most humane way possible, as was the situation with your friends.
I dont think I've ever been so revolted in my life.
Are these people serious?
How pathetic is it that the people who are supposedly fighting for the same thing Jill is (albeit with a different method) are more venomous, angry, and rude than the people who completely disagree with almost everything she says (like me)?
Lolita and Will, what is it exactly you think you're accomplishing? And if you're truly pro life, how is letting a mother die for the sake of a fetus "pro life"? How is it pro life if you allow someone to die?Posted by: Amanda at June 15, 2007 1:53 AM
Oh and Jill - when you encounter people like this, does it not make you think twice before you doubt some of the run-ins I had during my internship? THESE are the type of people who stand outside yelling and screaming in a similar fashion they are in this thread - fingers in their ears, screaming insults left and right with no facts to support their statements, and if you ask them to explain themselves, rather than answer you, they just yell more. Or when you ignore them, they go slash your tires. Before you question my experiences, think how you'd feel if you told someone that a bunch of people on your own side came on to your forum and called you an idiot and said you were a liar and actually pro choice - and they said "no, no pro lifer would do that!"
Im not trying to be snarky... just sayin...Posted by: Amanda at June 15, 2007 2:07 AM
Incrementalist, who I call the "Limited Abortion" coalition because they focus on only limiting abortion, HAVE truley gotten off focus. The silver bullet to end abortion once and for all has always been a Human Life Amendment. I can understand how they've gotten discouraged. A State Human Life Amendment now being pushed in 7 states may just overturn Roe v. Wade also. But they are too blind to recognize and too proud to change focus to something that will end abortion.
www.HumanLifeAmendment.info is a history of the Human Life Amendments and discusses the 'failed' strategies of both the Federal level Human Life Amendment and Incrementalists strategies.Posted by: Pro-Life Dave at June 15, 2007 6:06 AM
try putting a sock in it, eh? [Your self-righteous attitude is a wee bit too much!] Rather than fly off the handle, read what Will wrote word for word .... Mary, Lolita, and Will all say exactly the same thing. Both mother and baby are patients and all effort is made to preserve the life of BOTH.
It is the twisted pro-abort mentality that pits a woman's convenience against the life of her child. [It is even more ingenuous to consider that even a rare procedure performed by a modern-day abortionist is in any way equivalent.]Posted by: John McDonell at June 15, 2007 6:42 AM
try putting a sock in it, eh? [Your self-righteous attitude is a wee bit too much!] Rather than fly off the handle, read what Will wrote word for word"
Awww... thats mature AND intelligent John! I must have wandered in to a 5th grade recess by accident - here I was thinking this was a DISCUSSION board.
Trust me....I can read. I did read. And I was disgusted.
And self righteous? Hahahaha.....whatever you say my friend - Im not the one who needs to call people names to get my point across.Posted by: Amanda at June 15, 2007 9:09 AM
Jill Stanek is a liar. She claims the groups who signed the letter, more specifically Bob Enyart and Colorado Right to Life, are purists who "promote the solution to abortion as a human life amendment to the Constitution." Jill, please back up your claim with a shred of evidence. I work with Bob Enyart and Colorado Right to Life and have NEVER heard them say this. Did you just make it up?
FYI, a human life amendment to the Constitution is incrementalism.Posted by: Will D at June 15, 2007 10:18 AM
JK said, "Haha...I've never seen someone fanatical enough to call Jill Stanek pro choice....until today."
JK, Jill Stanek said in her WND piece, and I quote, "That said, incrementalists and purists share the same goal: to make abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother."
This is wildly pro-choice! Abortion is murder. This is the same as saying it's okay to murder a baby if the life of the mother is at risk. You don't murder the baby JK, you deliver it prematurely and try to save the baby as well.Posted by: Will D at June 15, 2007 10:23 AM
That is really all I have to say.
And I thought some of the pro-lifers who post on here were a bit off their rockers, now I *know* that they are the sane ones as there are people out here that value fetal life over a born woman's and to me, that's just crazy.Posted by: Rae at June 15, 2007 10:29 AM
Bethany said, "And where did Jill say that it was okay to kill the child and not treat both as patients?
Please substanciate these claims."
Do you want Jill to substantiate her claims as well?
Jill Stanek, WND article, "That said, incrementalists and purists share the same goal: to make abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother."
This means Jill wants abortion to be legal EXCEPT when the mother's life is at risk, which includes a 2nd or 3rd trimester baby. Jill wants that baby murdered, aka an abortion, as opposed to delivering that baby, attempting to save its life. These are her own words. She's pro-choice with exceptions.Posted by: Will D at June 15, 2007 10:30 AM
This means Jill wants abortion to be legal EXCEPT when the mother's life is at risk, which includes a 2nd or 3rd trimester baby. Jill wants that baby murdered, aka an abortion, as opposed to delivering that baby, attempting to save its life. These are her own words. She's pro-choice with exceptions.
Will, are you recently escaped from some state institution, perhaps? Or maybe you just forgot to take your medication? If you truly value the life of a fetus over the life of its living, breathing mother, you are not only a mysogynist bigot, but you are incredibly deluded. You dont have the right to murder your wife, not even for a precious little baby. Sorry, tiger.Posted by: SamanthaT at June 15, 2007 11:28 AM
Honest to God - the hair on my arms is standing up after reading these posts from Will.
Forcing a woman who's life is in jeopardy to carry a fetus to the point of viability, with no regard to whether or not she dies in the meantime is far more sick, twisted, and barbaric than pretty much anything else I can think of.
It is people like you, Will, who fly in the face of logic, common sense, compassion, and compromise. I take solace in the fact that people like you will NEVER accomplish your goals. A true compromise is a situation where both sides leave the table unhappy, but have still accomplished something. I believe that will happen with the abortion issue at some point in my life. But with people like you leading the movement, that will never happen - with people more like Jill, theres actually a chance something could be hammered out that would actually prevent a significant amount of abortions - a goal most pro lifers AND pro choicers share... but for you, with your "my way or the highway" attitude, you can stand there with your fingers in your ears and stubbornly insist that compromise = murder...and not a damn thing will actually be done to stop it.Posted by: Amanda at June 15, 2007 11:50 AM
Well, one nice outcome of Will's posts is my pro-abortion friends now think I'm the voice of reason... :)
Will, you said, "This means Jill wants abortion to be legal EXCEPT when the mother's life is at risk, which includes a 2nd or 3rd trimester baby. Jill wants that baby murdered, aka an abortion, as opposed to delivering that baby, attempting to save its life. These are her own words. She's pro-choice with exceptions."
Tsk. Tsk. You put words in my mouth. It is moot to argue for abortions to save a mother's life post viability. There is no such reason. In that event, babies can be delivered.
IMO, the only valid reason abortion for life of mom is ectopic pregnancies. I haven't heard any others in this modern day of medicine.Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 15, 2007 12:04 PM
Will, what is your opinion on ectopic pregnancies?
SamanthaT, you're out to lunch. Where did I say anything about a pregnant woman dying?Posted by: Will D at June 15, 2007 1:11 PM
Amanda, you're out to lunch. Where did I say anything about a pregnant woman dying?Posted by: W at June 15, 2007 1:12 PM
Amanda, you're out to lunch. Where did I say anything about a pregnant woman dying?Posted by: Will D at June 15, 2007 1:13 PM
Jill, you said, and I quote, "Incrementalists and purists share the same goal: to make abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother."
That is evil Jill. You never mentioned WHEN. You said that abortion should be legal to save the life of the mother. That is murder. If a woman's life is at risk, say in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, you claim we should legally abort! NO! You deliver the baby, saving the life of the mother, and attempt to save the baby. You don't murder a baby Jill to save the life of the mother. You didn't say ectopic pregnancies in your piece. The implication of your statement was all instances in which a mother's life is at risk. You're misleading the pro-life movement. ABORTION IS ALWAYS WRONG.Posted by: Will D at June 15, 2007 1:20 PM
A quick note to everyone: Our open letter to Dr. Dobson has produced more news, more media, more talk about abortion than the PBA ban itself. And it was a lot cheaper than a quarter of a billion dollars, and didn't take 15 years.Posted by: Will D at June 15, 2007 1:23 PM
Yeah and guess what? It's making pro-aborts happy cause it's making the pro-life movement appear divided. You are NOT doing anything to help us, you are hurting us!
What do you think about ectopic pregnancies, Will? The baby will most certainly die no matter what and the mother will most certainly die if the baby is not removed...is this not a case that you would make an exception, really? Is a mother who has an ectopic pregnancy not also a precious life deserving of the right to live? I do not understand where you are coming from when you go to such an extreme. There is nothing that anyone can do to save the life of a baby who is ectopic. Do you prefer that both the mother and child die together?
That is evil Jill. You never mentioned WHEN. You said that abortion should be legal to save the life of the mother. That is murder.
You know, instead of calling her statement evil, you could have said something like, "Hey Jill, you know, maybe you could edit your articles to make it a little clearer for others who don't understand what you mean when you say Life of the mother. Some people see it a little differently and might get the mistaken idea that you support all abortions in which the mother's life or health is in any way risked. "
But no, you come right out and tell her she's a "FOOL" and that she's EVIL and that everything she says is a LIE.
If a woman's life is at risk, say in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, you claim we should legally abort! NO! You deliver the baby, saving the life of the mother, and attempt to save the baby.
YES, we agree with you, abortion is always wrong!
Good grief, Will. Why aren't you seeing this. We agree with you. Abortion is wrong.Abortion is wrong. Abortion is wrong. Abortion in the first trimester is wrong, abortion in the second trimester is wrong, abortion in the third trimester is wrong, etc.
Everything you said in this paragraph...you're preaching to the choir! Why aren't you getting this?
@Jill: There actually are cases in which a late-term abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. I know it *doesn't* happen in America, but if you look at Lassa Fever in Sierra Leone and the mortality rate of the disease in pregnant women and the mortality rate of the fetus/baby (it always dies even if prematurely birthed, it is too weak from distress caused by the mother's infection and often infected itself) it shows that by prematurely birthing/aborting the baby, the mother has a significantly higher chance at survival because the placenta (which carries a high viral load) is removed.
But like I said, this doesn't happen in America (yet) as Lassa fever is only found in western Africa at this time, but with the emergence of new illnesses, there is no doubt in my mind that similar hemorrhagic fevers with similar effects could appear in the United States.
Anyway, just my two cents about that. :)Posted by: Rae at June 15, 2007 1:49 PM
Bethany, one thing Bob Enyart has taught me is to think very hard on issues regarding abortion. It's too important an issue. I'm sure I'll get some factual issues wrong in this analogy, but please bear with me. Let's say you and I were debating this 100 years ago. Obviously technology was nowhere near where we're at today. And you're trying to convince me that we are trying to make abortion illegal except for the life of the mother. Do you see the danger there? Babies that can be prematurely delivered today and kept alive through medical help would surely have died 100 years ago. But you were so set on your ways that you helped overturn Roe v Wade by making it illegal to have an abortion EXCEPT for the life of the mother. Now fast forward 100 years today. Let's say that law is still on the books, and what would us pro-lifers be fighting today? Our own law! Technology has made it possible for babies to survive younger and younger, yet our own pro-life law is now keeping abortion legal, and we'd have to fight our own law, to change it. I think that's a pretty fair analogy. We can't underestimate where medical advancements may take us. Hence, all I ask is that we never say it's okay to abort or murder a baby, NEVER. Not even when the mother's life is at risk. I value life, and so obviously you attempt to save both lives. To save the mother's life, you remove the LIVING baby. You don't kill it first and then remove it. You remove a living baby, no matter how far along that baby is, and attempt to save its life as well. Remember, 100 years ago, you would never thought it possible to save a 21 week old baby, but it's happening! Praise God Bethany! If any law says it's okay to kill the baby before removing it, we may have to fight our own law as technology moves forward. A good law, for example, would be to make abortion illegal in all instances, and when the mother's life is at risk, you remove the living baby, and do whatever you can to save the life of the baby as well.
I know this is long, but one more thing. Stanek mentioned viability which makes me cringe. Let me tell you the short version of Brian Rohrbough's story. (President of Colorado Right to Life) His son Danny was killed at Columbine by Dylan Klebold. As tragic as that is, later on his wife got pregnant, and her life was at risk, so they told her she would need to kill the baby to survive. The baby was 18 weeks. They suggested they induce labor and let the birth canal crush the baby's head. Being pro-life, they obviously said NO to this advice. They removed the LIVING baby Bethany. Did it die as soon as they removed it? NO! They named it, they held it, they loved it, and spent every second of it's life with him, their baby boy. As I recall, it lived less than a day. It died naturally, but they had a living baby and loved that baby, and bonded with that baby, and best of all, they didn't have to murder it. Don't buy into this viability garbage Bethany. That baby lived Bethany! It lived! Isn't that incredible?Posted by: Will D at June 16, 2007 11:28 AM
"The children you're speaking of are going to be killed whether or not I think it's permissable. As I stated in my column, you're saying the equivalent that if all people can't be pulled from a burning building, none can be pulled"
That's not a fitting analogy. For that to work you would have to have people running into a burning building for the purpose of being inside it while it burns.
Here is a much better analogy for you Jill:
Its immoral, evil and vile to promote any law that says "and then you can kill the baby" the same way its immoral, evil and vile to promote a law that says "and then you can rape the girl".
Promoting laws that put easily sidestepped restrictions (like parental consent laws with their judicial bypass) on slaughtering babies makes as much sense as promoting laws that have minor restrictions on rape.
See it now?
AND MURDER IS WORSE THAN RAPE!!Posted by: Quinn at June 19, 2007 4:30 AM
John M said
"If one looks at the abortion issue over time, it is easy to see how it was moved forward by incremental steps, much like, "If you want to cook a frog, put him in a pan of cold water, turn the burner on low, and by the time he realizes he's cooking, he has lost his legs to leap with.""
John, we are WORSE OFF today then we were back in 1973 when abortion was de-criminalized! A much greater percentage of the population now believes that life doesn't begin at conception than did back in 73 as a result of pro-abortion propaganda in the public schools and media. More believe that abortion is a "right" today than in 73.
The passing of a pro-abortion law which denies the humanity of the preborn is not an incremental step FORWARD, but an incremental step BACKWARD.
"Seems to me purists eliminate consideration of God's will from the picture."
God's will when it comes to murder is very clearly laid out multiple times: 1) Murder is a crime 2) The only just unishment for a convicted murderer is a sure, swift, painful and public execution 3) It profanes God to kill people who should not die and to keep people alive who should not live [Ezek 13:19]
"Of course we all want abortion to go away now. However, we do the casue great harm when we are divided."
So, what you're telling us is if some pro-life groups lie to those who support them and to the public about a Supreme Court decision that never had the possibility of saving one baby from being slaughtered, then those of us who realize that must just shut up and not do or say anything that might make it look like we disagree publicly in any way. Right?
Go to WWW.KGOV.COM and you'll see the history and correspondence between CRTL and Dobson from the previous years. The open letter to Dobson placed in these newspapers came AFTER the previous attempts to reach him.
"There's something to say about delayed gratification. I think the purist stance is totally misguided and very immanture when balanced against reality."
That's not the first time that God's absolute moral law You Shall Not Murder has been called "misguided" and "immature". We don't balance things against "reality" whatever the hell that is - we "balance" things with God's enduring commands such as You Shall Not Murder.
"As Justice Scalia said: The legal mansion of abortion has to be dismantled piece by piece."
Forget Scalia. Obey God (who is a "purist" by the way). God is better and wiser than Scalia. Scalia automatically excommunicated himself with this last ruling where he endorsed abortion through "less shocking methods".
Scalia was asked by one of the students he was addressing at Pepperdine Law School a while back about his judicial philosophy and how similar it seemed to the Nazi judges judicial philosophy where the lower court judges had to obey the rulings of the Supreme Judge of Germany. Scalia responded that if he had served in Germany's lower courts at the time then he would have ended up being tried at Nuremburg.
We currently have 0 pro-life judges on the Supreme Court!
"I suppose purists would have argued against the Underground Railroad since it didn't enable ALL slaves to escape and did not end slavery."
That's a horrible analogy. The Underground Railroad was not legislation that gave legal protection to murderers.
John McDonell claimed:
"If we understand that God's Life does not allow incrementalism because for Him there is no time"
This is COMPLETELY false! God does experience time or duration or sequence along with the rest of His creation. There has always been "time" because God has always existed. God did not begin living or experiencing in the past. There is no such thing as "a time before time". God lives and responds to His creation throughout the entire bible and often He repents of what He said He would do (Jonah 3:10; Jer 18:7-10; 26:3; 1 Sam 2:28-30; 1 Sam 13:13-14).
John McDonell also said:
"We need a much better strategy than the ones we now have. It's something like choosing between Republicans and Democrats, when neither party represents your wishes."
Another horrible analogy. Its nothing at all like choosing between Republicans and Democrats. God's purist attitude and strategy based on His absolute morality You Shall Not Murder is revealed for us to obey and share with others so they can obey that command as well.
Thank you Rae for demonstrating for us all that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Mark V said:
"The all-or-nothing pro-life purists will have nothing, too.
We can only pray they won't do too much damage to the cause while they prance around in their misguided "purity.""
We almost succeeded in Dakota! Did you forget!?
Jill Stanek said:
"even the Roman soldiers offered Jesus pain relief as they were killing him. Did they have more compassion than you?"
You have got to be kidding me Jill!! Making the slaughter of babies less painful and more humane would make it easier for women to murder their babies. We know this because one of the top reasons given over and over again by pro-aborts justifying killing babies is they believe that if they are killed young enough that they don't feel any pain. The thinking is "Its OK if I kill my baby because he/she won't feel any pain."Posted by: Quinn at June 19, 2007 6:02 AM
Jill said, "Well, one nice outcome of Will's posts is my pro-abortion friends now think I'm the voice of reason... :)"
Is that important? It only matters what God thinks, right? He is who we will answer to someday.Posted by: Lolita at June 19, 2007 7:45 PM
You said,"Like you I am a medical professional as well. I have seen situations other than ectopic pregnancy where inducing abortion or an early c-section was necessary to save the life of the mother. I am well aware of the fact that doctors have always been legally able to do whatever is necessary to save the life of the mother, and hopefully the infant as well."
I think we can agree that an ectopic pregnancy cannot be saved because the techonology does not exist at this time. We can only save the mother. But, in other instances I think we can also agree that an early C-section is the most humane for the baby and mother. If the baby cannot survive on its own then it can be loved by its parents until it dies a natural death. There is no reason to kill the baby.
That's right lolita. Who gives a rip what those vile, lost, blind pro-aborts think about ANYTHING!?!?
To hell with what they think!
Let's focus on what God thinks!Posted by: Quinn at June 20, 2007 2:45 AM
dbrvmpi gkfwhtx dcqjmzn xveg itzebqn vasfjgcq wncmqbegPosted by: tfuqbnos ciyjle at June 20, 2007 11:40 AM
Jill said, "on the topic of fetal pain relief, even the Roman soldiers offered Jesus pain relief as they were killing him. Did they have more compassion than you?"
Nice dodge. Is it unreasonable to expect an answer?
Notification/Consent/Fetal Pain... what is incremental about these laws? They all would allow abortion.Posted by: Aethril at June 21, 2007 12:11 PM