Stanek wkend Q: Is San Antonio’s new mega-abortion center the pro-life movement’s fault?
In response to my October 21 post, “Pro-life activists infiltrate Planned Parenthood mega-abortion center under construction,” Abolish Human Abortion has written a “we told you so”:
We are not bragging about this or simply saying we told you so. But the fact of the matter is this, these big state of the art killing centers that Planned Parenthood is building all over the country are the unintentional (yet iniquitous) fruit of the pro-life movement.
“Planned Parenthood of South Texas CEO Jeffrey Hons bragged to the San Antonio-Express News ’an outcome that backers of HB2 probably didn’t envision’ was Planned Parenthood’s expansion will enable it to commit late-term abortions. Currently, Planned Parenthood only kills babies in the first trimester. Hons also credited the new pro-life law with a bump in the number of abortions his affiliate will now commit, ‘about 2,800… a year – an increase of 1,000 over the number provided two years ago, before HB2.'”
Guess who was RIGHT all along…AHA!!! (AHA DID envision this…they called it and were discounted, disregarded, ridiculed, and mocked by many in the PLM!) The sad thing is, they still won’t admit the incrementalist / regulation strategy is making the abortion giant PP STRONGER and codifying abortion more deeply into law as “healthcare” and a “safe, legal option” for women. We gotta do SOMETHING!?!?! How’s that working out for ya?” –Julia Saxton Schoch
Mark Harrington of Created Equal responded:
Julie .. and you believe PP? Could it be that the comment was aimed at PLers who have the entire state of Texas’ abortion providers on the run. PP is saying this because that is what they want people to think. Of course, I know I was just there … PP has told other abortion providers that they want to be the only provider in the state. I am surprised that you of all people fell for this. This article in the SA paper is all about PP flexing their muscles against others in the industry and trying to spin the disastrous results of the law to their own advantage.
The fact remains there were 41 abortion clinics throughout the state of Texas in 2013, and now there are eight. Planned Parenthood’s graphic nicely demonstrates the 81% decline…
As an aside, Planned Parenthood CEO Jeffrey Hons stated the abortion giant “started to plan for the new building long before the new regulations,” because Planned Parenthood’s other abortion clinic was almost 40 years old. This clinic will replace that one as well as a feeder clinic, more consolidation, in actuality.
But what are your thoughts? Despite Planned Parenthood’s new mega-abortion clinic, do you view the outcome of Texas’s 2013 omnibus abortion law as a positive regarding the saving of lives, or a negative? Also take the poll…
[Top screen shot via Life News]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I unambiguously view the law as a positive. No one ever actually thought this law would reduce the number of clinics to all the way to zero. With that in mind, any decline in the total number of clinics should be viewed positively. It doesn’t really matter if new or more of the remaining clinics after the law is new, so long as there are less than there was before. Any decrease is a step in the right direction.
Those who wrote up and supported the law should be proud of this – this is exactly what they wanted if you looked at the bill – they wanted state of the art facilities that treated abortion more like a surgery.
Abortion, unfortunately, works like any other product or service in a capitalistic society. If there is a demand, then somebody will step up on the supply side. In this case, the demand remained constant, but the supply side went through changes because of the law. The law outlined exactly what the supporters of the law wanted – which was facilities like that.
So to answer the question directly – anybody who supported the law – voted for it, posted support, whatever – they should take pride in this building, because this is what they supported and wanted.
I think we’ll have to wait to see what happens to the number of abortions before we know for sure the effects of this law. And I hope we’re also able to look at surrounding states and determine if Texas women are just going elsewhere, particularly those on the west side of the state. But since PP has a giant abortion mill in Aurora, IL, one of the most abortion friendly states there is, I know this new abortion mill in TX isn’t due to the TX law, although perhaps some of the construction details resulted from it. PP is a business and looking for efficiency, greater market share, and higher profits is all part of their equation.
If anyone thinks the proponents of the bill thought the new legislation alone, would end all abortions in Texas, they didn’t really understand. Of course everyone realizes the new law wasn’t the end all, be all. But what it is accomplishing is reducing the number of abortion clinics we have to fight against. Women who had clinics in their hometowns will have to think a little bit more abut traveling across the state for an abortion. Will some still do so? Of course. But others will inevitably decide not to. Prolifers also can now focus their efforts around a few rather than 40 abortion clinics. It makes our efforts in that state a whole lot more focused and unified for better effectiveness.
I want to make elective abortion illegal worldwide without exception. This of course means elective, not treating ectopic pregnancies, etc.
In the meantime, while I work toward that goal, I don’t want women to get hurt. I don’t believe that pro-choice women or women who are (coerced) deserve a Kermit Gosnell. Pro-choicers who fight against safety regulations bear the guilt of the deaths of women from die in or as a result of abortion.
I meant to enclose the whole phrase in parenthesis but the edit or my keyboard couldn’t correct it.
One other thing I note, I think it is sad that aha, in their rush to condemn other pro-life advocates, can’t see the forest for the trees.
I don’t agree with all of AHA’s tactics and points of view. But I respect the fact that they put feet to their beliefs and actually stand outside the abortion facilities trying to change the minds of those going in.
But let’s think about this for a second. There are X number of AHA and other pro-life people who stand out in front of abortion clinics. Now X number of people spread between 40 clinics are able to more/less effectively stand outside all of the clinics during the times they are open than spread between 8 clinics?
But does AHA see that as a golden opportunity for them or are they so focused on condemning other prolifers who don’t think like them on every issue that they are blind to that opportunity?
I agree with Jonathan’s comment; this consolidation strategy (which PP was already implementing before HB2) will make protesting/counseling easier for local TX pro-lifers. It may also be easier to intervene with service groups to stop deliveries and other such things (bio “waste” disposal? Janitorial? etc) this mega mill will need to remain functioning. Bring it on, PP! You will NOT succeed!
Something eerie occurred to me during Obama’s speech about ISIS. At first he committed to defeating this evil, then, later in the speech turned the language into making the evil manageable. I guess that is the disappointment regarding pro-life laws, they only seem directed at managing abortion, not defeating the evil.
The strategy of the National Democrat Socialist Party has always been to socialize health care, and make everyone’s “health” the business of the Socialist State. If The Party has to pour millions of “tax” dollars into the project of creating a Potemkin Village of Mega Abortion Mills to satisfy low-information voters’ curiosity about Socialized Medicine, this is a very simple and cost-effective way to do so. You can’t control an economy if you don’t control the 25% of the economy that goes into health care.
Socialism is like the floozy that wants the married man to sleep with her so bad that she will do anything to get him into her bed. In the end, the floozy has everything, but only for a short time, and the married man ends up with no family and a case of crabs.
The Pro Life movement is basically advocating for keeping dad out of the floozy’s bed before he loses everything and gets the crabs. Anything anyone does to prevent the man from sleeping with the floozy is doing God’s work, as far as I’m concerned. Anyone in the pro life family that blames dad for sleeping with the floozy is being short-sighted and divisive, in my humble opinion.
Building Socialist Medicine from the ground up has to start with seducing people into believing sleeping around is a good thing. To do this, the Socialists have to build the Perfect Answer to “unplanned pregnancy” (i.e. “sleeping around”). Once the Socialists take control, there will only be sleeping around among the “High-born Elite Few.” The rest will have to get a license to have babies. Margaret Sanger’s Dream come true. Kantsaywhere.
“they only seem directed at managing abortion, not defeating the evil”
True for some pro-life laws, not all. I think personhood amendments and heartbeat bills could be pretty effective at defeating the evil of abortion.
When a person consolidates their debts, it doesn’t make any of their debts go down or go away; it just helps them manage their budget a little better and possibly reduce their interest expenses. Likewise, when the abortion industry consolidates their abortion centers, it’s not making their abortion numbers go down; it’s simply helping them manage their budget better. Please wake up PLM to the mistakes you are making.
Well, once Planned Parenthood gets kicked off public funding, how will their mega-mill fare then?
Diana…AHA’ers…okay. So what is your plan to eradicate abortion completely? I always hear you folks condemning us wicked pro-lifers but I never actually hear what your plan is that we’re supposed to get behind? What is your plan??? How are you going to end abortion completely? And when will this happen? If we all get behind you AHA folks and do things your way all the way-will Roe end tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Next year? Please explain.
Regulating the abortion industry is like pruning a tree. You don’t kill a tree by pruning off the ugly branches (which is what the PLM has been doing to make abortion “safer” for women with these laws). In order to kill the tree you go for the roots Abolitionists use the Gospel as the only answer to combat the sin of abortion. If we want to abolish abortion, we should support legislation that does not compromise with child sacrifice (the heartbeat bill compromises by implying children younger than a certain age are not as valuable as those old enough to have a functioning heart), be obedient to God’s command to love your neighbors as yourself and rely on God’s providence rather than man’s pragmatism.
So what is your plan? You didn’t answer my question. What legislation are we supposed to be supporting–I’m asking for specific bills you AHA folks have in the works. How long until Roe will be overturned. Every day abortion is legal is blamed on us wicked pro-lifers so…how long till Roe is overturned if we all fall in line with you AHA folks?
Sadly, Abolitionists have also long been saying that this sort of pruning would lead to fewer abortion clinics (but that they would be huge, well funded and staffed, state of the art, and meet both the pro life lobby’s killing requirements and the needs of those who want to kill their children) and more chemical abortions (which has already happened with over the counter abortion pills).
For those persisting in repeating the whole dumb straw-man “you guys want abortion abolished overnight or nothing,” please go spend some time reading the blog at the abolishhumanabortion DOT com website. You might also want to track down the seven stage strategy proposed by abolitionists that is being implemented by abolitionist societies all over the country. Its not an overnight process… its just that we are not focusing on increments, carrying out strategies which go no where or run in circles. Yes. The pro life movement has been taking steps against abortion for the past Four Decades. We’ve just decided to get off the treadmill.
A//?
Yes, and insulting and alienating us is so useful. Because you couldn’t just do your own thing without the belittling and disparaging remarks, could you? Set an example? We’re supposed to be on the same team; but I see your division has some mighty high horses.
The outcome of the vote is surprising. Even though the question was presented in a manner that sought to bias readers to see it the PLM’s way, most people are seeing through that. Thankfully, people are beginning to see why incrementalism is the fruit of purely human wisdom and is thereby the Devil’s tool.
*long post warning* Here’s the problem I see with these things: it shows a serious disconnect with history and human nature. Abolitionists were working tirelessly in the U.S. since before it *was* the U.S.A. to abolish slavery-and while they pushed and pushed for complete abolition and the outlaw of slavery, they *also* pushed for every incremental law they could, they worked within the system, in the grey areas of the system, and wholly without the system. In the 1700’s a Quaker abolitionists would help a slave escape (illegal), help him get into a state/territory with better slavery laws (illegal), help him get set up within that territory (grey area), and then, if he was found out or caught, would argue before the court (legal), buy him outright (legal), judge shop for sympathetic jurisdictions (grey area), stall, bribe, anything and everything necessary. Some of them were repeatedly fined or sanctioned by the court for doing things like posting bail for a run away and then helping them disappear before their court date. They fought hard for incremental laws, especially in the Northern U.S., that allowed slaves to be freed with more ease, allowed them to remain free with less fear, and allowed runaways to argue and obtain their legal freedom, avoid recapture, or buy their families out of slavery. Meanwhile many abolitionists societies actually *owned* slaves, not because they were hypocritical but because it was easier to work within the law and own someone ‘on paper’ to avoid the legal entanglements of freeing a slave, the constant fear an ex-slave lived in of being captured and resold, etc. In many jurisdictions a slave had more legal protection and freedoms than did a freed slave, so it was better for the people they were trying to serve to keep them slaves on paper, even while they lived as free men. It all, the incremental and the complete, go hand in hand. They are not opposites, they are two sides of the same coin, and both must be carefully pursued to achieve a future without that-which-you-oppose. Incremental laws like the one in Texas *will* help the abortion powerhouses like PP consolidate and ‘serve’ more people. It will *also* lower the overall number of abortions because, for those who aren’t next to the mega clinics, there will be less push to obtain an abortion. It will *also* help focus protestors into less area so they can be more effective. it will *also* help PP play the pr victim as they pretend-with all the help of the media-to be prayed upon by those mean anti-choicers while they are just trying to offer ‘women’s health care’. It will *also* give anti-abortionists a long-term simple goal to take down *that one* abortion clinic. We know people can not actually keep an abortion clinic up to code, it doesn’t happen. Human nature being human nature if you have a group of professionals and semi-professionals focused on killing, they WILL NOT stay within the law. So instead of getting public officials wholly uninterested in following through with abortion regulations for 80 clinics, they’ll only have to twist the political arm to get 1 clinic inspected and prosecuted for the horrific abuses we all know WILL HAPPEN. That, long term, gives us more ammunition to abolish abortion entirely. Whose side is right is the wrong question, both sides are right, because both sides are intricately linked. Infighting, however isn’t helping at all, nor is the general lack of historic knowledge. Incremental laws are a historic necessity to obtaining full abolition.
The abortion industry is going to react to our progress.
– If we outlaw nasty, incompetent clinics, then the industry will build shiny clean clinics.
– If we outlaw abortion outright, then the industry will go underground and sell illegal abortions. They will be much harder to regulate and control this way.
We will not win until there is a Culture of Life is restored. We win, when abortion becomes unthinkable — the option that no woman will choose, whether legal or illegal, freely desired or coerced.
The only way to defeat abortion is to break the silence. We need more people talking about abortion and life. And we need to encourage the voice for life to grow.
Every lawsuit, every election, every legislative debate is an opportunity to speak out. Wendy Davis’s filibuster was a pro-life event — hundreds of thousands of voices across the nation joined the conversation, and life won.
Let’s keep speaking out!
I am not worried about PP’s new clinic. Yes, it is tragic and we can’t stop its construction. We can prevent women from wanting to go there. Let’s use the new federal power to regulate everyone’s healthcare insurance.
Let’s work toward a law that defines elective abortion as an unnecessary procedure that cannot be covered by any insurance plan. Abortion should be considered as equivalent to getting a tattoo — it’s permanent, it’s not a good idea, buy it if you want to, but don’t expect anyone else to pay for it.
The incremental law is only as good as the integrity of the inspector. In the case regarding the abolition of slavery, we had the natural law in our corner. We do so now, however, we do not have an understanding among our representatives or among the people that the end of the natural law is the end of our country as it was known. Since the dawning of the age in which contraception was embraced and promoted as a “right to privacy”, the increasing demand of “rights” and “freedom” in our country has been to do away with every vestige of the natural law. What was promoted as a “right to privacy” has blown up as a demand for publicity. Does it not strike anyone as odd that while demanding the government stay out of the bedroom, the activities once associated with the bedroom have come out as parades in the public square? Nature abhors a vacuum, and, even the natural law places public demands on the sphere of religious freedom. Without the natural law to contain it, religious freedom becomes a human creation where one may simply invent a religion based on ones desire to murder and enslave others. Is it any wonder that satanic activity is openly promoted in, of all places, civic centers? Sheesh, when I was growing up, satanic activity cried out for police investigations. Anyways, I guess incrementalism is ok when it is not you being slated to be extinguished. Do we realize that we live in a world where, even in our own country the extermination of human life is being promoted on a grand scale? Do we really think somehow that we can incrementally propose protection against this mentality? When the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker are forced into participation in that which is to be abhorred, in our own country, how, exactly, do we incrementally free ourselves? Legalized slavery in the US did not end incrementally, it ended in civil war. God help us!
Del, let’s work towards a law that defines abortion as murder, not only that it not be covered by insurance companies, but that the purveyors of this evil be held accountable under the law. No woman in her right mind does this, but, we have forgotten the responsibility of civilization and culture is to protect the innocent from those not in their right mind. Our current national administration is a great example. Unfortunately we no longer have statesmen, simply politicians fishing for votes, or this administration would be held accountable for its failures in the bodies of government held to check and balance the office of the president.
Absolutely, we need laws to protect the innocent from harm and murder.
But the laws will not be effective as long as the culture insists that killing is a suitable solution to any sort of problem.
AHA believes that laws abolishing abortion will end abortion. That is a noble passion; keep working toward it. God speed your work.
I believe that laws are tools for changing the culture, just one more tool in the toolbox. Incremental laws are just as useful as abolition laws… perhaps more useful because they are more obtainable. Incremental laws are useful, even when they fail to pass the legislature or the courts. The debate educates the public and changes hearts.
So I will continue to take small steps until we can take the large strides.
I recall the slavery abolition movement…. There was a great improvement in the culture of freedom when Congress passed the incremental step of outlawing the importation of new slaves from Africa.
There was another great movement in the culture of freedom when the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott decision, demanding that slavery must be permitted in every state.
The culture of freedom won by increments and setbacks, until slavery was abolished. And all the while, the abolitionists insisted on abolishing slavery.
So it will be with abortion. We shall win the Culture of Life by increments and setbacks, until abortion is abolished and effectively discarded by the culture. The incrementalists and the abolitionists must work together toward this goal. We need both.
I agree with Del we need a law that defines abortion as an unnecessary choice that cannot be covered by insurance. I also think we need to start holding people accountable who are breaking laws at the mills. No slaps on the wrist.
Move some of the March for Life numbers to protest at these mega crime scenes. Protesters need to take all food and supplies along so as not to spend one dime in their area.
The Texas law dropped abortions 13% and saved over 10,000 babies from abortion. See http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/24/texas-abortions-drop-13-saving-9200-babies-as-pro-life-law-closes-abortion-clinics/
Some abortion clinics are still closed or stopped doing abortions because of it and, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the law, those abortion clinics will remain closed and babies will be saved.
How is saving babies from abortion a bad thing?
-Steven
“The Texas law dropped abortions 13% and saved over 10,000 babies from abortion.”
Uh Steven, just a little nit pick. Your link says 9,200 which is actually less than 10,000. Other than that, I fully agree with your point.
Anybody claiming that sort of number (Steven) needs to do some more research.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-measure-the-effects-of-abortion-restrictions-in-texas/
To make abortion unthinkable in the USA would require a complete shift in the way our culture does practically everything. There are millions of very active and very deadly people working to do just that, right now, within and without our borders. These people have their own set of laws based on “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
Today is the Feast Day of Christ the King. I pray that God’s Laws will prevail over our land and that God’s Justice and Mercy will bring us to a place of national repentance.
If there’s an item on the ballot calling abortion murder, heck, yes, I’ll vote. But if there’s an item on the ballot demanding abortionists have admitting privileges and wider hallways, heck, yes, I’ll vote.
And if you want me to work with you, hint hint: don’t call me a tool.
In Missouri, we had those requirements (e.g. hospital privileges, ambulatory surgical standards) before Texas. The Columbia Planned Parenthood borrowed $750,000 from the bank to upgrade their building. Their abortionist quit two years ago, and they have not been able to replace her. Then, they lost their license to perform abortions. To get that license back, they cannot rely on the waivers they had before. It is a whole new process. Now, do you think the bank cares about that or do they still want their loan repaid? Planned Parenthood owes the money whether they perform abortions or not. How much longer they can manage without the cash cow of abortion is anyone’s guess. They could very well close in bankruptcy.
MoJoanne, that is good news indeed. Whether its through laws or finances or whathaveyou, it’s always good news when abortion clinics stop doing abortions and/or close down!
JDC, that article is from July. Abortion clinics affected by the law have been closed or stopped abortions since that time, so more babies have been saved by abortion since then.
See http://www.lifenews.com/2014/10/21/texas-pro-life-law-still-closes-five-abortion-clinics-after-supreme-court-puts-it-on-hold/
“JDC, that article is from July. Abortion clinics affected by the law have been closed or stopped abortions since that time, so more babies have been saved by abortion since then.”
Ah, I see. Point withdrawn.
Only to the progressives who also believe the US is responsible for the Boston marathon bombing and ISIS beheading people.
T Russell, What has your movement done to reduce the # of abortions in the US? Hard numbers with dates that show you are making progress please.
We are not pragmatists and we don’t count up the number of babies we see saved so that we can report them in fundraising letters. We don’t gauge success on those sorts of things anyways. We are attempting to transform the culture and destroy the ideas and worldview which demands and allows abortion in the first place. If you want to know about our successes as a “movement,” go troll around the internet and look around at abortion mills, high schools, city streets and churches. There are thousands of formerly apathetic and inactive pro life people out there doing the work of abolition on a very regular basis.
Please. Do not ask us to brag or compete with the pro life movement. Our success is measured with its decrease. The more people who move on from opinion and support to action and involvement, the better. We seek a critical mass and that is why pro life leaders who rely on being the ones who are fighting (supported by those who are behind Them) spend so much time straw-manning us.
Feel free to screencap or grab portions of this comment and spread them around for the purpose of keeping your people in the dark.
Again, if anyone is interested in looking into abolitionism, check out the abolishhumanabortion DOT com page and Facebook page by that name. Or search out any of the local websites or Facebook pages created by the 70 or so autonomously founded and run Abolitionist Societies.
“Do not ask us to brag or compete with the pro life movement”
T-Russell, My question was not meant to be a competitive. I wish you nothing but success. You could forward your cause with people like me though if you presented me with goals and consistent measures of success. When people can see their efforts quantitatively moving them towards the goal it generates enthusiasm towards pursuing the goal.
Well, it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that some “separated brethren” have been hobnobbing with each other and talking smack about who they consider the “PLM” and what they consider our motives to be. Ah, well. Let’s hope they save a few babies, too. I’m glad other people want to work to save lives, but not so glad for the level of snark. I expect it from our real enemies, so I admit it stings to be straw-manned by people fighting the same fight.
I can’t believe I’m going to quote one of my favorite teen’s favorite movies:
“Remember, when you’re in the arena, who the real enemy is.”
I repeat: The Pro-Life Movement needs both abolitionists and incrementalists. We will not succeed with just one lung working.
We have no reason to fight against each other. We have a clear and common enemy, and a clear and common goal.
Del has a great point. The two movements do end up working together in the grand scheme of things. Just as Abraham Lincoln (a pro lifer/incrementalist in his thinking) credited the Abolitionists (immediatists) with changing the moral climate of the country and bringing the culture to a place where slavery had to be abolished, it was the interaction of the call for immediate repentance and the battle against gradualism and ameliorationism only that created the climate and stir that led to the constant burning of the issue and the incremental effect of abolition.
No abolitionist today thinks that abortion will be abolished over night and we all know that there will be increments to it. What abolitionists do not believe is that calling for incremental change or compromising for steps produces actual lasting change. We do believe that calling for an immediate and total abolition does have an effect on all the increments taken.
Just read any history of the abolition of slavery in America and you will see that this is the standard historiographical framework for understanding the relationship between the anti-slavery measures sponsored and focused on from the founding of the country until the 1830s when the abolitionists arose.
Russ
“Yes. The pro life movement has been taking steps against abortion for the past Four Decades. We’ve just decided to get off the treadmill.” T. Russell Hunter
Mr. Hunter–You say you’ve decided to get off the treadmill, but yet you are basically doing what others have been doing for 40 years. Many of your ideas are nothing new, but yet AHA is quick to condemn those who have sacrificed great deals of their lives to see an end to abortion.
You say AHA wants to transform the moral climate while you/AHA publically speak evil against other Christians because AHA doesn’t think they are doing things the way AHA thinks it should be done. Well, speaking of transforming and witnessing in this lost and dying world, this certainly is not a good witness to the world at all. In fact this is exactly what the devil wants–division, and AHA has fallen into a big trap of being used exactly for that, unfortunately.
WSFW,
Could you please cite where I, or any other abolitionist, is here speaking evil against other Christians?
Thanks
We are not pragmatists and we don’t count up the number of babies we see saved so that we can report them in fundraising letters. We don’t gauge success on those sorts of things anyways.
Glad that’s settled then.
We are not pragmatists and we don’t count up the number of babies we see saved so that we can report them in fundraising letters. We don’t gauge success on those sorts of things anyways.
—
And here I thought saving babies from abortion was the whole point.
Steven
“We don’t count up the number of babies we see saved.” It’s not about being right, it’s about saving lives. You save lives by being right, but simply being right doesn’t save lives.
Mr. Ertelt,
Do you think that taking pieces off the chess board will win you the game…?
Interesting.
Do you think that taking pieces off the chess board will win you the game…?
—
As an avid chess player, YES! The only way to win the game is taking pieces off the chess board. Even Scholar’s Mate requires taking one pawn to win the game. If you think capturing chess pieces is not necessary to win, I would love to play you sometime.
But babies are not chess pieces. They are human beings with inherent God-given values. it matters to THAT baby that h or she was saved from abortion — whether through legislation, education, a pregnancy center, praying outside a clinic, etc.
Mr. Hunter–all one has to do is to have skimmed through social media sites such as facebook and you will find all kinds of criticism’s, disparaging words, accusations of pro-lifer’s not doing anything for 40 years, mean-spiritedness, and more coming toward prolifers new or old from those saying they represent AHA.
As far as babies saved, even those that were part of the Underground Railroad understood that one human life saved from being someone’s property and escaping slavery was well worth the risk involved. Just as so, one human life spared from abortion is worth it all.
Incrementalism works or the LGBT movement would not have used it. Yet I ALSO think we need to be working to completely overturn Roe and as also pointed out change our culture to a culture that loves LIFE.
If the AHA folks disagree and want to try another strategy…go right ahead! I pray for their success. But being nasty, sanctimonious and attacking other pro-lifers who are actively saving babies is a bad way to persuade the PLM that they are doing things the right way.
I’ve interacted with AHA folks a lot and while I was originally excited about what they had to say, over time I saw that they were a bitter bunch and their goal wasn’t to save babies but to be right. Ain’t no one got time for that! Babies are dying while AHA bickers.
I’ll continue to stand at my local clinic and save babies one.by.one. Mothers and Fathers have heard the gospel for the first time at my local CPC. The harvest is white and will be plucked up one soul at a time.
“I’ve interacted with AHA folks a lot and while I was originally excited about what they had to say, over time I saw that they were a bitter bunch and their goal wasn’t to save babies but to be right.”
This hurts so much. My wife, four of my daughters, and one of my sons are deeply involved with AHA, and have been for a few years. I watch as some of my family weep through many nights, unable to sleep because of the thought of children dying. The passion drives them to the clinics and other public places, where they plead with mothers and fathers. Sometimes people react with anger and abuse the abolitionists. Other times people stop, think, and interact. Sometimes children are saved from death, and men and women are saved from suffering the stain of murder on their souls. The gospel is preached, sin is called sin, and healing and forgiveness are offered in the name of Christ. All is done with gentleness and humility, knowing that we were all once in the same place.
My wife is kind and compassionate, more so than pretty much anyone I have met. When she’s not out on the street, she’s a committed keyboard warrior, reasoning with pro-aborts and presenting solid science. My children, likewise, are sold out for Jesus, and their hearts move their feet to action. Neither our family nor the many AHA members that I have personally met are bitter people. I’ve rarely seen such a combination of compassionate hands, humble hearts, reasonable minds, and fiery souls.
I still remember the moment that I understood why the abolitionist approach is right. I was arguing with one of my daughters during the Obama/Romney election cycle. My daughter was presenting abolitionism and I was arguing for the incrementalist approach. She was planning to vote for Paul or nobody and I thought she was throwing away her vote. I made all the arguments that incrementalists make about the lesser of two evils. Then suddenly I saw it. God does not want us to vote for the lesser of two evils. He does not need my assistance and manipulation. He wants us to repent, vote for what’s right, and trust him with the rest. I will never again vote for a candidate who supports abortion exceptions. I no longer believe that refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils is throwing away my vote. Doing what is right and trusting God is never a waste. Trusting in human wisdom has produced 41 years of failure.
I believe people like Sydney M. above, and other pro-lifers, have good intentions. They simply do not understand the people they are degrading or the philosophy that AHA represents. I do not hate or despise my PLM brethren, but I do know that their approach is wrong.
I am an abolitionist. A//?
“and their goal wasn’t to save babies”
I disagree with this statement and would be very hurt if it was said about me.
Relevant side note: Members of the underground railroad were anti-incrementalists. They were immediatists. Just like the Abolitionists today who go out to mills daily to rescue babies from destruction yet reject to compromise with Molech or make deals with the devil to let some of the babies go.
Go look it up.
Relevant side note: Members of the underground railroad were anti-incrementalists. They were immediatists. Just like the Abolitionists today who go out to mills daily to rescue babies from destruction yet reject to compromise with Molech or make deals with the devil to let some of the babies go.
—-
Since it’s impossible to save every baby from abortion by standing in front of an abortion clinic, according to your logic, you’re a compromiser who makes deals with the devil to let some of the babies go.
In a way abolitionists blind themselves in a manner similar to progressives by focusing so intensely on an imaginary utopia they can claim that they have no responsibility for the murder that goes on around them.
Eric R,
May God bless you and your wife and your children with fortitude.
“In a way abolitionists blind themselves in a manner similar to progressives by focusing so intensely on an imaginary utopia they can claim that they have no responsibility for the murder that goes on around them.”
I think the only way someone could have this impression is if they did not spend much time observing what abolitionists actually do. I have been “pro-life” for 30 years, but it wasn’t until our family encountered abolitionism that we actually did anything to save babies or change the culture. I can guarantee you that abolitionists have no utopian delusions and are deeply involved in taking responsibility for the murder that is going on around us. Over a hundred of us will be at a mill within the next couple of days, in fact. The problem here is that most people who denigrate AHA do not understand what we mean by imediatism or incrementalism because they have not taken time to read what we have written on that subject, but it essentially boils down to this. We understand that the way to eat a loaf of bread is one slice at a time. We have no disagreement with that idea of incrementalism, so long as there is no ungodly compromise along the way. We do not believe in making deals with the Devil in the name of advancing “the greater good,” as that is human wisdom. Pharoah’s argument was incrementalist. Moses was an immediatist. We are also astonished that our PLM brethren do not see that the past 41 years of incremental legislation have resulted in 56 million dead. After another 41 years passes, will you at that time still be making the incrementalist argument? When will we all stop trusting in human wisdom and start being a prophetic church and trusting God?
“May God bless you and your wife and your children with fortitude.”
Thank you, and you as well. :-)
Well, I’m no math whiz, but if you’re going to go for the end game of “Zero Abortions,” then that goal will never be reached, imho. There will always be abortions committed; there were abortions being committed before Roe, and there were many doctors who did them in fairly clean conditions. So, “Zero Abortions,” imho, is off the table.
Math: 56,000,000 dead from direct abortion, and God only knows how many by chemical abortion, worldwide or within our borders. I’ve heard something like 250,000,000 worldwide, but it’s impossible to be completely accurate.
Math: How many lives are saved over a 41 year period when ONE life was saved from abortion in 1973? Then two, then four, then eight, then 16….and so on. Just plain math tells you that some people who weren’t killed by abortion means other people sprang from their loins and then others, and then others, etc. The way my simple mind works, math-wise, I’d say that there are potentially WAY more than 56 million people alive today in the USA as a result of saving babies from abortions over a 41 year period.
We’re fighting against elitists and eugenicists. Those who stand in the gap outside abortmills don’t play eugenics games, and we don’t represent elitists. Or utopians. Just as Pharaoh couldn’t win the eugenics game, the modern-day pharoahs can’t win it, either. Moses may have been an “All-or-nothing” kind of leader, but it was the people of Israel who chose to multiply beyond what the Pharaoh could kill by all his social programs, by all his pyramid schemes. Helping people see the Promised Land, and then getting there, is what the Pro Life Movement, imho, is all about. God bless Moses *and* the Children of Israel.
The effective way to “regulate” is not to reduce the number of buildings. This just makes consolidation by PPFA with the aid of taxpayer funding more effective.
Any law that begins with the phrase, “In order to perform an abortion, the physician must …” is literally a pro-abortion law. This type of law regulates abortion centers in order to make them safer and more legitimate.
Regulatory laws may be useful in some cases in reducing the number of abortionists. If we can use such a law to put an abortionist out of business, we should.
But in most cases, laws are not needed in order see this trend continue. What is needed is the conviction of the majority of the culture to view abortionists as paid assassins. They must be exposed and boycotted whenever they participate in “legitimate” businesses on the side.
The most effective way to regulate is to reduce the number of doctors willing to perform assassination. Right now, there are fewer abortionists than abortion centers, with many acting as “circuit riders.” As we continue to expose abortionists and add community pressure, we see the total numbers of abortions drop.
The great irony here is that group such as AHA and Personhood that stand for no compromise don’t spend their time, money and resources fighting laws that regulate abortion clinics. We give our opinion that these regulatory laws are either a waste of time or immoral (or in many cases both) but we are mainly proactive for our cause and let the incrementalists do their thing in peace.
However, groups like National Right to Life CLAIM that they are for “all of the above,” but in reality they spend large amounts of time and money fighting Personhood and efforts that are aimed at ending all abortion. They persecute groups that are working to end abortion. They have disaffiliated over 20 Right to Life chapters that have stood for Personhood. They even went on record to “disaffiliate” a large, successful Right to Life group that had never affiliated with them!
Jay, that is patently false. National Right to Life hasn’t spent a dime fighting personhood amendments. It has also not disaffiliated over 20 Right to Life chapters. The handful of groups that have been disaffiliated over the years have been disaffiliated because they attacked pro-life legislation/candidates or taken on issues other than pro-life ones.
“but we are mainly proactive for our cause and let the incrementalists do their thing in peace.”
… except when you post here attacking other pro-life groups with false claims.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/national-right-to-life-committee-disowns-cleveland-chapter-for-defending-ma
“National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) told Cleveland Right to Life (CRTL) that they must disassociate from the national group over CRTL’s criticism of Senator Rob Portman’s support for homosexual ‘marriage,’ since the Senator has voted for pro-life legislation and is a sponsor of an NRLC-backed bill.”
So for stuff like that?
That’s a pretty misleading article Jay but, as I said, National Right to Life has had a clear policy for many years that it ONLY deals with pro-life issues. When Cleveland Right to Life decided to get involved with other political issues (and sadly attack pro-life groups and candidates) it disaffiliated itself.
You can read more on this at http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/06/pro-lifers-attack-pro-life-group-for-being-pro-life/
“National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) told Cleveland Right to Life (CRTL) that they must disassociate from the national group over CRTL’s criticism of Senator Rob Portman’s support for homosexual ‘marriage,’ since the Senator has voted for pro-life legislation and is a sponsor of an NRLC-backed bill.”
So is this true or false? Does NRTL support pro-homosexual candidates and refuse to allow its affiliates to take a stand on this issue?
I don’t see how that can be “misleading” — or “patently false.”
If it is true, then NRTL is a wicked group for supporting pro-homosexual candidates. I don’t spend my time, money and resources attacking NRTL or trying to thwart NRTL in their incremental strategies. I just think NRTL godless, anti-Christian group that doesn’t always stand up for the unborn.
That’s not my opinion, it is the Truth.
It is my opinion that the divide now is between what used to be called “pro-life” and pro-Personhood.
Personhood stands for the imago Dei. We oppose abortion not because we want to save babies (although we do that) but because we believe we are all made in the image of God. When the marriage issue comes into play, we also believe that God made us male and female from the beginning in His image. Homosexual unions are a violation of the truth of the imago Dei. I would argue that abortion is worse, but promoting a candidate that stands for homosexual marriage with your time, money and resources is wicked.
The word “pro-life” has thus become meaningless.
“I would argue that abortion is worse,”
Jay,
Can you tell me why you think that it is worse?
“What is needed is the conviction of the majority of the culture to view abortionists as paid assassins.”
I am in agreement with you Jay. They are truly nothing more than hired killers of the denfenseless.
They are both abominations, but killing one’s own child is a crime against nature that is particularly abominable.
If you read Genesis 3 and then Revelation 12, you get the idea that Satan’s war is with the Seed of the Woman. Satan hates the image of God in man — especially the helplessness and judicial innocence of infants and the preborn.
Homosexuality is a crime that mars the image of God, but a homosexual can repent and there can be civil forgiveness and a level of restitution. Even under the Law of Moses, the “sodomites” received the punishment of banishment and not death (1 Kings 15:12).
Murder is the only crime for which there can be no plea bargain or restitution according to the Law of God (Genesis 9:5,6; Numbers 35:31). Murder is punishable by death precisely because we are made in the image of God.
Child sacrifice was especially condemned as an abomination that did not even enter into the mind of God (Jeremiah 7:30-34). This does teach God’s limited knowledge, but is an expression meant to point to the extreme unnatural criminality of child murder.
Sexual immorality is bad, but child sacrifice is worse.
Ezekiel 16:20-21 “And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?”
EXCUSE ME: This does NOT teach God’s limited knowledge, but is an expression meant to point to the extreme unnatural criminality of child murder.
I’ve largely been simply observing the conversation. But I thought I’d clarify that 1 Kings 15:12 was NOT the law of Moses. Leviticus 20:13 was. And the death penalty was required.
“but killing one’s own child is a crime against nature” – it would appear that there is a whole lot of ‘nature’ which is unaware of your thinking there (unsupportable thinking by the way). Perhaps you should advise the multitude of species which are unaware (not that it’d make any difference).
“Homosexuality is a crime that mars the image of God” – well then, if you believe in god don’t be homosexual, or at least pretend not to be. For everyone else, irrelevant.
God knew we were unable to follow the law so he sent us His son Jesus Christ through whose passion and death we are given an infinite wellspring of mercy. Fortunately for all all of us our salvation is no longer bound to the law of Moses or we would all be doomed to death.
Jonathan, thank you for clarification of the scriptures.
No man or organization will ever end abortion. The truth is that, as a nation, we must repent and welcome God’s Holy Spirit to guide us or both the born and the unborn are all on a death spiral.
“No man or organization will ever end abortion.” – congratulations truthseeker, it would appear that you have recognized a truth! We won’t worry about the other stuff for now :-)
Reality, repent and make straight the path to welcoming God’s Holy Spirit. A death spiral is something worth avoiding even to you isn’t it?
// “but killing one’s own child is a crime against nature” – it would appear that there is a whole lot of ‘nature’ which is unaware of your thinking there (unsupportable thinking by the way). Perhaps you should advise the multitude of species which are unaware (not that it’d make any difference). //
You are unaware of what is meant by a crime against nature. For a fuller understanding, read John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government.” As you may already know, Locke is credited with being one of the main thinkers from which the Founders drew when they built our system of government, and was influential in the wording of the Declaration of Independence and other documents. The Founders saw natural law as an extension of God’s law. This is why Jefferson built his whole argument in the DoI on the concept that human rights are endowed by God, not inherent within humans. Like Locke, the Founders believed that humans are fundamentally different from animals because we have in us the breath of life from God, and are created in His image. Murder, therefore, is a crime against nature. Animals killing and eating each other is not. But of course you already know this. You’re just being troll-ish. :-)
// “Homosexuality is a crime that mars the image of God” – well then, if you believe in god don’t be homosexual, or at least pretend not to be. For everyone else, irrelevant. //
That’s like saying, “If you believe that rape violates human rights, don’t do it. For the rest of us, irrelevant.” I’m sure that you must realize that failing or refusing to “believe” in something does not make it irrelevant.
I prefer facts truthseeker. Death spiral?
“You are unaware of what is meant by a crime against nature” – evidently you have the shoe on the wrong foot. Perhaps because you seem to have only read David Barton’s history books?
“Murder, therefore, is a crime against nature” – better tell Rick Perry. And who determines what is and isn’t ‘murder’? A hint…it isn’t a god.
“Animals killing and eating each other is not. But of course you already know this. You’re just being troll-ish” – who said anything about killing and eating each other? The reference I made was in response to your “killing one’s own child is a crime against nature”, which many species do, for various reasons. So no ‘trollishness’ there on my behalf.
“That’s like saying, “If you believe that rape violates human rights, don’t do it. For the rest of us, irrelevant.” – what an appallingly poor comparison. Rape is a crime of violence against another person. Society has formally deemed it to be so. Homosexuality isn’t such.
And if you do believe that homosexuality is a crime that mars god then you’ll need to explain how and why it is that your god came to create homosexuality.
“I’m sure that you must realize that failing or refusing to “believe” in something does not make it irrelevant.” – ‘failing or refusing to believe’? How about ‘learning’ to believe or not? You know, through study, facts, science, learning. But anyway, sometimes it’s irrelevant, sometimes it isn’t.
Haven’t checked back at this thread. Sorry…
Praxades–I’ve had AHA people TELL me their goal is not to save babies. Their goal is only to save souls and if babies are aborted at least the child goes to heaven. This is why I say this. They also say “We are NOT pro-life” They don’t count themselves as “one of us” trying to fight abortion but as a whole separate movement.
Eric–I’m sure your family is very compassionate and you seem like a very nice guy yourself. Unfortunately, not all AHA people are as nice as you. I’m okay with people disagreeing with me or disagreeing with incrementalism. I also keep an open mind and am always willing to hear what AHA thinks we should do. My ultimate goal is to see abortion end in our land. I’m not saying “my way or the highway”. I can always use constructive criticism.
Unfortunately, the majority of AHA people I’ve interacted with are NOT loving, not compassionate and are unable to argue their position without resorting to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments…kinda like proaborts! Funny that.
I originally was very pro AHA. I bought the drop cards. I still use them actually. I am not anti-AHA though I do not agree with everything they preach or do. Attacking people who stand out in front of the clinics day after day is not going to win you converts. Just being honest here.
And for the record–I also argued against Romney and the “lesser of two evils”. I voted Paul. He was still a choice. If there was a bill that would overturn Roe I would support it. In the meantime, there is no bill to overturn Roe so I will support any and all legislation that chips away at Roe incrementally.
If Paul wasn’t running maybe I would have been forced to vote for Romney. I didn’t like him but I felt he was better than Obama. Not by much but a little. I would have voted for the best guy available at the time. Same with legislation. I may not think the legislation goes far enough but it is the best we’ve got at the time. And it does save babies and it makes life that much harder on abortionists.
Sydney, I don’t know who you interacted with previously, but I would like to exhort you in a few ways.
Here you are, faced with a reasonable and compassionate family, representing eight AHA abolitionists, and doing so without, as you say, ad-hominem. I would ask you to add this experience to your system of weights and measures when judging the movement.
My encounters with those who I perceive to be the chief proponents of AHA have been the opposite of what you are reporting. Online conversation can be difficult, and we all tend to judge others by their actions, whereas we typically judge ourselves only by our intentions. I would ask you to consider the possibility that your rhetoric may have been perceived in like manner to the way you perceived theirs. For example, your comment above, “I saw that they were a bitter bunch and their goal wasn’t to save babies but to be right,” is the sort of blanket generalization that unfairly pigeon-holes a lot of good people and puts them on the defensive, just as I am feeling right now, even though you don’t know me and we have never met. That sort of comment ultimately looks like an ad-hominem against the whole AHA movement. It does not address the AHA philosophy or strategy; rather, it (seemingly) attempts to summarize and discredit it based on your feelings.
// I originally was very pro AHA. I bought the drop cards. I still use them actually. I am not anti-AHA though I do not agree with everything they preach or do. //
Remember that AHA is defined by the 7 Tenets of Abolitionism with its phases and strategies expressed in writings and YouTube videos that are available online. Anything else that you see preached or done, even by people who may self-identify as AHA abolitionists, is not AHA abolitionism. Therefore, I don’t agree with some of what I see said or done either. AHA is a philosophy, and anyone can self-identify as AHA, and anyone can post on an AHA page. The miracle is that, somehow in the midst of it all, a tongues-talking charismatic such as myself can be heartfelt friends with a hardcore Calvinistic dispensationalist John MacArthur acolyte like Tim L. :-) ?
// Attacking people who stand out in front of the clinics day after day is not going to win you converts. //
I am not aware of any AHA adherents who have a problem with people standing in front of clinics every day. That would be self-defeating, as many AHA abolitionists do exactly that. However, I think people of all persuasions should have the freedom to address each other about strategy. The AHA philosophy is gospel-centric. If we see a group of people trying to end abortion through superstitious practices or trusting in human wisdom, or by refusing to lovingly call sin exactly what it is, some abolitionists may comment on the advisability of that. In my view, that’s not the same thing as attacking. I do not consider myself attacked when someone disagrees with my approach. What can I say? When iron sharpens iron, sometimes it makes sparks.
// Unfortunately, the majority of AHA people I’ve interacted with are NOT loving, not compassionate and are unable to argue their position without resorting to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments…kinda like proaborts! Funny that. – //
Remember, if you agree with and practice the tenets of AHA, you’re an AHA abolitionist. You might as well hang around the AHA page and be a force for good, and an example of the opposite of what you didn’t like. :-) ?
“I prefer facts truthseeker. Death spiral?”
It is a fact that people like you are willing accomplices to the daily slaughter of thousands of defenseless unborn children. Yes, we are in a death spiral. And I may not be able to open your eyes but the Lord can.