Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Enough with "And then you can kill the baby"

I've seen a lot of snarkily-titled Pro Life News posts lately, reporting on -- and sneering at -- desperate prolife efforts to spare as many women and children as possible from the horrors of abortion. The posts will mention the legislation proposed/debated/voted on/passed, then add in parentheses, "And then you can kill the baby" -- implying that the people supporting the laws just want a formality in place before the baby dies. These words are for those people adding their snarky, backbiting jabs at fellow prolifers:

Get real!

We live in a society where abortion is normative, enshrined in law, and entrenched in the courts. Any direct assault on abortion is doomed to failure until we turn around the idea that abortion is some sort of palliative measure that merely postpones birth until a woman is ready for it.

These laws work. They have been shown again and again to reduce the abortion rates in states where they are passed. They save lives, and spare women much anguish and heartbreak, not to mention the scars abortion leaves on their hearts and souls.

Yes, for all practical purposes, they can still kill their babies. But many of them don't. And this makes a difference.

Oskar Schindler, Corrie ten Boom, and others who saved Jews from the Nazi death camps didn't save everybody. They couldn't. Should they therefore not have tried?

Quit trying to discourage people who are actually managing to do some good. Save the snarkiness for the hypocrisy of the abortion lobby, that purports to care about women's lives, then sets up legal defense funds for abortionists who kill their patients.

Stop shooting your own troops.

Until you, personally, are able to have 100% success stopping all abortions, stop with the air of smug superiority toward those who are having 10%, 20%, 30% success in stopping abortions.

They're accomplishing far more than all your sniping at them will ever do.

ADDENDUM: Imagine if some Germans (or Dutch or Poles) were able to successfully convince Nazis to spare Jews 10%, 20%, or 30% of the time? Should those Germans (or Dutch or Poles) have not bothered approaching the Nazis to get them to spare some Jews, on the grounds that 70%, 80%, 90% of the time it wouldn't work?

What's your cut off point for success? Is it based on how many lives you save? Or is it better to save zero Jews because a particular approach, however successful, might leave a Nazi thinking it's okay for him to kill the other Jews?

43 comments:

Joe said...

Agreed, the purist position is unsound.

I would agree with some that there has been too much incrementalism and compromise in this movement. However, any roadblock you can put in the way of abortion crime, so you can reduce the crime rate, is a morally good thing.

I would rather just prohibit prenatal homicide and have done with it, but we must do whatever we can to stop these atrocities without compromising the integrity of unborn human rights or the personhood of the unborn.

We must meanwhile do everything we can to prohibit the killing of our children once and for all.

We have allowed the abortionists to win and control society, which they never could have done but for the incredible blunders our movement has committed in the last 40 years. Most prominent among our failures has been our inability to get our Presidents to make good appointments to the Supreme Court. Had we done this we would have won a long time ago.

In the meantime, whatever can be done to stop the killing should be done.

Naaman said...

Joe, we've lost control of our society because we never had it. Scripture is very, very clear that it will get a lot worse before it gets better. America will fall much farther than this....

That said, we can't give up the fight. Pro-lifers must all work together on a range of tactics. Crisis pregnancy centers are good, but so are prayer vigils at abortion clinics. Incremental laws are good, but so is a continued push for the Human Life Amendment. To paraphrase Paul, we must become all things to all people so that by all possible means we might save some.

Christina, your analogy to the Holocaust is perfect. Oskar Schindler saved some of the Jews, and he tormented himself with guilt that he couldn't save more. Even so, Oskar was recognized as a hero by the Jewish people.

Our current circumstances don't allow us to save every child. So we must work to change those circumstances. (Even though our work may not be successful until Jesus returns.) Meanwhile, we must save every life we can save.

Leslie said...

Do we have the authority to violate God's
enduring command, "Thou shall not murder"?

Do we have the authority to claim if a girl
tells her parents or views an ultrasound,
that she can then end an innocent life?

Not being able to save every Jew is very different
than enshrining in law the right to kill, if . . . .

Leslie said...

A life, made in God's image, is never ours
for negotiation - no matter how
smart we think we are.

William said...

FOCA will undo all such laws showing that the pro-life movement has built it's house on sand. Trying to return to slavery would not be as simple as the stroke of a pen because personhood of blacks was established. Any law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby" undermines personhood and violates God's command of "Do not murder."

Killing abortionists saves babies, but I doubt you would go along with that. How about a law limiting women to only 2 abortions in their lifetime? That would save lives too. How about a law putting an enormous tax on an abortion? That would save lives too. These laws would save babies, but they're evil.

This attitude of "win at all costs" has really brought us nowhere, it has returned legal protection to not one single baby since Roe and will never help return personhood to the unborn.

Spending 15 years trying to stop partial birth abortion, when the abortionist now just uses a different method, was a waste of time.

Make yourself the baby in the womb. Do you want the pro-lifers in the world to spend 15 years trying to stop partial birth abortion or trying to establish personhood?

William said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Enyart said...

Christina, thanks for your love for the innocent. I would like to ask, which of the following points do you think are incorrect. They seem obvious to me. American Right To Life opposes every law that regulates the killing of unborn children because, regardless of the intention, such laws:
- make abortion seem more palatable to the public and politicians, and so
- merely prune the abortion weed and strengthen its root, while they
- violate God’s enduring command, Do not murder by re-authorizing abortion,
- on the surface undermine the very concept of the right to life of the unborn,
- call upon judges to uphold laws that regulate killing the innocent, and thus
- turn conservative judges increasingly against the Right to Life of the unborn, and
- could easily authorize a hundred million abortions post Roe, for they
- will keep abortion legal if Roe v. Wade is merely overturned, and because they
- end with the meaning, “and then you can kill the baby.”
Thanks for your consideration,
-Bob Enyart

Jason said...

Christina isn’t there a difference between 1. Not being able to save everyone and 2. Pro-life laws giving approval to a mom to kill her baby once she follows a procedure.

Abortion is a weed and if we merely prune the weed at the edges we trick ourselves into thinking the problem is shrinking all the while the root of the problem –the humanity of the unborn- is a bigger problem then ever. Pro-life laws say, “wait 24 hours, have bigger hallways, sign a consent form,…” and that undermines the personhood of the baby. Should an abolitionist have proposed a law that said, “Wait 24 hours then you can buy a slave”? It would have made the slave trade harder. Of course we think that would have been horrible to do back then yet, that is what we do today.

If we push personhood amendments we very likely will fail now. But the line in the sand will be drawn and the debate will be framed in our favor. Politicians will have to choose which side they are on and expose who they really are and the debate will center around is this “thing” a child and not, is this regulation an undue burden for the poor woman. He who frames the debate wins.

Keep fighting for all the babies.

Wickle said...

Thanks, Christina.

I put a heck of a lot of work into trying to get the parental notification/consent law passed in New Hampshire, and to be told that that was nothing demonstrates to me that some people prefer being able to raise money than make a dent.

I'm also trying to get the Human Life Amendment passed so that nothing like Roe v. Wade can ever happen again. I want all abortion ended.

But in the meantime, maybe a few teenagers won't kill their babies and inflict damage on themselves. No, it's not perfect, but it's something.

As to the weed analogy that seems to be popular ... Yes, one has to kill the root rather than just clip a weed. However, if all you do is stockpile weed killer and never use any, that's useless, too.

Leslie said...

Well since FOCA will eliminate all abortion
regulations, isn't this the perfect time
for PERSONHOOD to pull all our efforts
together - promoting the only way to restore
legal protection to all pre-born lives and negate
the most pro-death president ever?

Glory!

Great new site: www.personhood.net

GrannyGrump said...

I'm too tired to enter this fray other than to say that there is ROOM FOR BOTH, and a NEED FOR BOTH, incrementalists and absolutists. The absolutists keep up front the fact that this is KILLING BABIES, and that this is just totally unacceptable in any kind of just and civilized society. And the incrementalists actually stop the abortions from happening.

Passing a personhood law or constitutional amendments is trying to legislate REALITY. Why not just codify the Pythagorean theorem? People who are out of touch with reality will be no more responsive to a law than they are to reality -- especially when you consider the degree to which abortion enthusiasts are perfectly willing to break the law.

We need to limit abortion while working to make it unthinkable. And we need to stop shooting our own troops.

William said...

Christina,

To imply that absolutists aren't saving babies is a slap in the face. Pretty much the only people saving babies are sidewalk counselors and crisis pregnancy centers.

There is no evidence that incremental laws are saving babies. Colorado abortions went down 2/3 from 1990 to 2000 and in that time we had no incremental laws.

Incremental laws are fine, compromised incremental laws are evil. A statewide personhood law is an incremental law. A national personhood amendment is incremental universally.

There are good incremental laws and evil ones. Incremental laws that end with "and then you can kill the baby" or "and then you can gas the Jew" or "and then you can trade the black" are evil. What is so hard to understand about this?

Where did God tell us to compromise? Where did God tell us "Do not murder...except"? We have no authority from God to make a law contrary to His law. Do not do evil that good may come from it Christina. This is what you are doing. That verse proves you CAN do evil that results in good. A law that says "You can murder if you wait 24 hours" is doing evil that good may come from it. God said "Do not murder" and it stopped there. It was not "Do not murder...unless you wait 24 hours."

Compromised incrementalism is anti-God.

GrannyGrump said...

Sidewalk counselors aren't acting like absolutists -- if they were, they'd be blockaders. After all, if you're letting her walk past you and go in to ACTUALLY KILL THE BABY, then you're conceding with your behavior that she has a right to do so, by absolutist logic.

Naaman said...

Quoth William:
There is no evidence that incremental laws are saving babies.

Bzzzt, wrong. The Heritage Foundation has done a number of good studies that prove incremental pro-life laws lower the abortion rate. Here, I'll give you a link to one of the studies:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm598.cfm

Incremental pro-life laws save lives. Attacking your fellow pro-lifers does not save lives. With a pro-abortion President and solid pro-abortion majorities in both houses of Congress ... don't pro-lifers have better ways to use our time, energy, and money than attacking each other?

I agree with Christina. The circular firing squad has got to stop. The only group who benefits when pro-lifers fight each other is the Party of Death.

Ken and Jo said...

"Oskar Schindler, Corrie ten Boom, and others who saved Jews from the Nazi death camps didn't save everybody. They couldn't."

Oskar Schindler, Corrie ten Boom did not work to implement laws that made it legal to kill some Jews in order to save others. That would have been unthinkable. There is a difference between risking your life to save those that you can and making murder legal is some cases.

We may live in a society that has embraced the culture of death, but joining them is no solution. We must walk by faith, stand on God's word and watch Him move the mountain. We will move nothing depending on man's laws.
Jo

TheOnlyThing2Fear said...

Naaman, Bzzzt...you expose yourself when you capitulate with child killers by using their language.

Is an "abortionist" a doctor? No, but the name makes him/her more palatable to the general public. A doctor is one who takes someone who is sick and makes them well. A "child killer/abortionist" is one that takes someone who is well, makes them sick, then dismembers and kills them.

The former president, the 2 candidates for that office last fall, and the entire Supreme Court are NOT pro-life, and are all in the Party of Death, as you phrased it.

Open thine eyes and ears, for the teacher will appear only when the student is ready.

GrannyGrump said...

The reason people didn't try to pass laws to save some of the Jews from the Nazis is that THIS WAS NOT AN OPTION. The Dutch and the Poles were dealing with a freaking OCCUPYING ARMY. They had ZERO say in how the country was run. And the Germans were dealing with a dictator in their own country.

I'm starting to conclude that there is NO room for absolutists. Roughly 800 babies will die in South Dakota this year -- babies that the incrementalists were very close to saving, but absolutists like Judie Brown voted down the law that would have saved those babies, on the grounds that the law in question would have still legally permitted the deaths of about 8 babies.

Let me repeat: The incrementalists came within a hairs breadth of passing a law that would have saved 99% of the babies slated for abortion in South Dakota The ABSOLUTISTS actually joined forces with the proabortionists to defeat the law.

Again: THE ABSOLUTISTS ACTUALLY WERE WORKING WITH THE ABORTION ADVOCATES TO DEFEAT A LAW THAT WOULD HAVE SPARED 800 BABIES A YEAR FROM DEATH.

For the sake of what? Feeling smug and superior.

They might as be performing every one of those abortions with their own hands. Because the blood is just as much on the hands of absolutists like Judie Brown as it is on the proabortionists' hands.

And the PR battle didn't come out as, "Abortions are TOTALLY unacceptable!" giving South Dakota and the rest of the country a lesson in the value of unborn life. No. The PR was, "See? The people of South Dakota WANT the 800 abortions a year."

ABSOLUTISTS CONSIGNED 800 MORE BABIES TO DEATH THIS YEAR. AND NEXT YEAR. AND THE YEAR AFTER THAT.

Just for their own smug self satisfaction.

They're WORSE than the proabortionists, because the proabortionists at least thought they were helping women. They weren't fighting against the law so they could feel smugly superior to the people who drafted it and were voting for it.

Wickle said...

I'm going to walk away from this thread after this comment ... I cede the last word to anyone else who wants it. The only reason is because I have actual work to do,and being cut down by people who agree with me is pretty damn demoralizing. (Sorry, I hate profanity, but it was the only way to say what I want.)

William complains about a slap in the face, then went on to call most of the pro-life movement "evil." Chutzpah, anyone?

We live in a world dominated by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. We have pro-aborts in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

Choose your image -- friendly fire, circular firing squad, whatever. We're all on the same side, and yet this discussion is getting at least as vicious as if we were fighting the actual enemy.

I'm sure that someone in NARAL headquarters is passing this discussion around to his/her friends, saying, "The silly pro-lifers can't even get along amongst themselves. No wonder they're losing the PR war with the public in general."

Jesus said, by the way, that anyone who is not against Him is for Him when His disciples asked about other people who were teaching about Jesus but weren't of their group. I wish that we could get that.

Let's think of this as a war. The US Army has tanks, helicopters, and infantry. It's not going to abandon any one of them. Sometimes a tank is the right tool for the job. Sometimes you need a helicopter. Other times, the infantry. Sometimes, what you need is to send in the Special Forces.

By all means, work on the absolute solution. In the meantime, though, if we can save a few thousand lives by incremental steps, that's a few thousand lives saved.

NARAL is afraid of incremental steps, because they chip away at the absolute right to kill the baby.

I'd like to serve beside Naaman, William, Leslie, Christina, and everyone else who thinks that abortion is the greatest evil we face in this country.

Not pro-lifers who use different methods ... the evil is abortion.

I vote that we take the knives out of each other's backs and get to the real work.

Kathy said...

William,

In regards to the "Personhood Amendment", there is an angle that everyone needs to understand. On an email list I'm on is at least one pro-life woman from Colorado who did not support the Personhood Amendment because of the possible ramifications in childbirth. The fear is that doctors will be able to use the "personhood" amendment to require women to have certain unwanted interventions, or that prosecutors might file charges against a woman if her baby dies in utero after she declined an induction or C-section. After all, the C-section rate is already skyrocketing because doctors are unwilling to take the slightest chance that something unfortunate might happen to the baby -- having the personhood amendment might become a tool to force women to give birth in a manner against their will, although not necessarily helping their babies at all.

The fear for most people of this opinion is not that women on drugs or other such women who don't care about their babies will be prosecuted or forced to do things against their wills, but that normal women like me who love their babies and prefer to give birth at home or wish not to have C-sections or other interventions required of them during labor and birth, will be somehow criminalized or otherwise forced to do things against their wills just because there is an off-chance that perhaps, maybe, somehow, some way, potentially, possibly their babies might be hurt if they decline an intervention.

I'm not sure if the amendment can be worded in such a way so as to keep such a thing from happening; but I'm afraid that until something like that changes, the amendment will be opposed by many pro-life women.

TheOnlyThing2Fear said...

Wickle stated..."The only reason is because I have actual work to do,and being cut down by people who agree with me is pretty damn demoralizing."

Lame. We all have work to do. It's your choice to be "cut down" and run, or to stay in the discussion until what is absolutely right becomes clear.

For Wickle, or anyone who believes in the regulation of child killing, I offer this scenario.

A pregnant woman is told she will have severe health complications, possibly life threatening, if she carries the baby to full term. She comes to YOU and asks your advice. What advice do you give her?

GrannyGrump said...

TOT2F, I think anybody here would try to get her hooked up with a top-notch high-risk OB/GYN. I'd tell her about my friend who had to have three pregnancies terminated due to life-threatening pregnancy complications, and show her the pictures of those terminated pregnancies: Daniel, Rebecca, and Mary. They were delivered by emergency c-section, which is a life-affirming way of terminating a pregnancy.

I don't mind an absolutist pushing for absolute laws. I think it will accomplish diddly-squat, but if they want to try, maybe the arguments they put forward will change the thinking of a few people.

What I hated was when the absolutists actually JOINED FORCES WITH ABORTION SUPPORTERS to defeat a law that would have saved 800 babies a year, on the grounds it's better to sacrifice the 800 babies than even seem to give approval to the killing of the 8. Isn't that prochoice thinking? To say, "Yeah, I'm really sorry that these babies are gonna die, but I would much rather make a political statement than spare their lives."

GrannyGrump said...

TOT2F, I think anybody here would try to get her hooked up with a top-notch high-risk OB/GYN. I'd tell her about my friend who had to have three pregnancies terminated due to life-threatening pregnancy complications, and show her the pictures of those terminated pregnancies: Daniel, Rebecca, and Mary. They were delivered by emergency c-section, which is a life-affirming way of terminating a pregnancy.

I don't mind an absolutist pushing for absolute laws. I think it will accomplish diddly-squat, but if they want to try, maybe the arguments they put forward will change the thinking of a few people.

What I hated was when the absolutists actually JOINED FORCES WITH ABORTION SUPPORTERS to defeat a law that would have saved 800 babies a year, on the grounds it's better to sacrifice the 800 babies than even seem to give approval to the killing of the 8. Isn't that prochoice thinking? To say, "Yeah, I'm really sorry that these babies are gonna die, but I would much rather make a political statement than spare their lives."

Martha said...

Wickle admitted the Supreme Court was pro-abortion which is good to be truthful. The elect Republicans to get pro-life judges is not working is it? Another failure in this long war. We can continue to use the same strategy or try something different.

When someone says they are tired of hearing "it is a bad law and then you can kill the baby" or "there is more than one way", it reminds me of those who reject the Gospel on the same terms. God gives the rules, they are rejected. God says there is only one way and it is rejected as well.

There is some serious rebellion against God's commands in the pro-life movement and as long as this is rejected, you will continue to sentence the innocent to death....

Joe said...

We need to stop fighting and find some common ground. Both sides make a valid point.

I think we should have a pro-life summit and invite all groups to participate. Maybe we can find a way to build a common strategy and work together for the sake of unborn children.

Fighting among ourselves like this only helps the abortionists.

Let us find a way to promote the fundamental human rights of unborn children while at the same time saving as many of their lives as we can as soon as we can.

William said...

Christina said: Sidewalk counselors aren't acting like absolutists -- if they were, they'd be blockaders. After all, if you're letting her walk past you and go in to ACTUALLY KILL THE BABY, then you're conceding with your behavior that she has a right to do so, by absolutist logic.

You didn't respond to anything I said which is becoming so typical in this battle. You want to do it your way, I suggest we do it God's way. Look at the people in this blog that disagree with you.

Leslie is a sidewalk counselor.
Jason is a sidewalk counselor.
Bob Enyart is a sidewalk counselor.
Ken and Jo are sidewalk counselors.

They all strongly disagree with child-killing regulations, aka compromised regulation. My point still stands. Pretty much the only people saving babies are sidewalk counselors and crisis pregnancy centers. The time and money and effort put into worthless child killing regulations like the partial birth abortion ban are not saving any children.

A statewide personhood amendment is an incremental law, so I'm proud to be an incrementalist.

If the Bible teaches us to compromise, then I missed it Christina. God gave us no authority to consent to killing some to save others. A law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby" is consenting to kill some to save others, or doing evil that good may come from it.

William said...

Naaman said: Bzzzt, wrong. The Heritage Foundation has done a number of good studies that prove incremental pro-life laws lower the abortion rate.

Wrong Naaman. The Heritage Foundation Studies have been explained by American Right to Life here http://kgov.com/bel/20080911

Here's a great example. The pro-life movement spent 15 years to end partial birth abortion. They claimed it was an incremental law and raised a quarter of a billion dollars to do so. We can prove exactly how many lives were saved by ending PBA. Zero.

William said...

Christina said: Let me repeat: The incrementalists came within a hairs breadth of passing a law that would have saved 99% of the babies slated for abortion in South Dakota

Actually here's what really happened:

South Dakota Strategy

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

Result: Lose by 10% AGAIN.

Good Strategy

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

Result: Change hearts and minds and we will win.

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

William said...

Wickle said: William complains about a slap in the face, then went on to call most of the pro-life movement "evil." Chutzpah, anyone?

I called laws evil, not the pro-life movement.

Wickle said: I'm sure that someone in NARAL headquarters is passing this discussion around to his/her friends, saying, "The silly pro-lifers can't even get along amongst themselves. No wonder they're losing the PR war with the public in general."

Actually NARAL provided no opposition to teh Born alive Infant Protection Act because this pro-life regulation only improved abortion's survivability.

Wickle said: By all means, work on the absolute solution. In the meantime, though, if we can save a few thousand lives by incremental steps, that's a few thousand lives saved.

Herein lies the problem. Nobody is working on the solution. Why was Colorado's personhood amendment the first one since Roe v Wade. Everyone is saying "work on both!" yet no one will. They'd rather spend 15 years to end partial birth abortion, knowing it won't save one baby.

William said...

Kathy said: but I'm afraid that until something like that changes, the amendment will be opposed by many pro-life women.

Kathy, the personhood amendment said that babies are people. That's it. If you oppose that, you're not pro-life. They had very similar debates when considering personhood of blacks. It's all irrelevant. Blacks are people and deserve to be recognized as people under law. Babies are people Kathy and that's all the amendment said. All of these made up stories are irrelevant. Abortion was illegal for decades in this country and none of these scare tactic stories ever happened. The only women being prosecuted were those murdering their babies.

William said...

Christina said: I don't mind an absolutist pushing for absolute laws. I think it will accomplish diddly-squat

That's what they told William Wilberforce. He worked for 46 years to end slavery. I have no doubt you would have said the same thing to him.

William said...

Christina said: What I hated was when the absolutists actually JOINED FORCES WITH ABORTION SUPPORTERS to defeat a law that would have saved 800 babies a year, on the grounds it's better to sacrifice the 800 babies than even seem to give approval to the killing of the 8.

We didn't join forces with abortion supporters. We opposed it for different reasons. Abortion supporters are against killing abortionists and so are you. Does that mean you have "joined forces" with them? Of course not. God never authorized us to consent to the killing of some to save many. We can fight this battle God's way or the wrong way, you decide.

Joe said...

The solution as I said is to try to find some common ground so that we can work together to finally rid of our society of this evil.


I can see where a strategy of "child killing regulations", while designed to try to save as many young lives as possible, can have the effect of compromising the ultimate goal of prohibiting this crime.

On the other hand, having an absolute and unyielding, well, absolutism means that it is all or nothing and if you cannot get 100% you will not take 99% but will insist it be zero, which will sacrifice an awful lot of lives.

The problem with trying to establish personhood through state referenda is that you are trying to achieve the most difficult objective (100% protection all the way back to conception) through the most difficult means (public referendum in a general election). It is far better to try to do it through state or federal legislation.

The solution is to pass a federal statute to stop the killing of unborn children or get a Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to life of all human beings, including the unborn, not just overturn Roe vs Wade. The only way to do this is to elect pro-life (truly pro-life) people to Congress and the White House.

We should focus on doing just that in 2010 and 2012.

TheOnlyThing2Fear said...

Granny Grump stated..."I think anybody here would try to get her hooked up with a top-notch high-risk OB/GYN."

Is this what is meant by baby steps? You missed the point, God's point.

I repeat the scenario; A pregnant woman is told she will have severe health complications, possibly life threatening, if she carries the baby to full term. She comes to YOU and asks your advice. What advice do you give her?

Fact, she already has an OB/GYN, who told her she's high risk.

Fact, only God knows her faith.

C'mon pro-lifers, are you struggling to decide which life is more valuable, more viable?

GrannyGrump said...

Okay, I'll spell it out VERY CLEARLY: I would refer her to a high risk OB/GYN who I KNEW HAD A HISTORY OF ACTUALLY HELPING THESE WOMEN instead of bailing on them and telling them to abort. Somebody ike Thomas Hilgers or my friend's doctor. THAT MEANS I WOULD BE HELPING HER CARRY TO TERM. LIKE MY FRIEND DID THREE TIMES. WHICH IS WHY I MENTIONED GIVING THE WOMAN THE EXAMPLE OF MY FRIEND.

(puts down 2x4 that I really didn't think I'd need to beat you over the head with to express something that obvious)

TheOnlyThing2Fear said...

GrannyGrump stated..."THAT MEANS I WOULD BE HELPING HER CARRY TO TERM."

and

"(puts down 2x4 that I really didn't think I'd need to beat you over the head with to express something that obvious)"

How's that self induced pain? Many "purist" posts on your blog are that so-called 2x4 and it's apparantly working. On You!

Since God commands us to love the child and the mother and to do everything in our loving ability to save both, when there's a complication, then yes carry the baby to term!

Why is this not your attitude when it comes to regulating child killing?

TheOnlyThing2Fear said...

William stated to Christina and GrannyGrump..."You didn't respond to anything I said which is becoming so typical in this battle. You want to do it your way, I suggest we do it God's way."

Hello? Has anyone heard from the moderator? Hello?

GrannyGrump said...

BECAUSE IT WILL NOT SUCCEED.

Proabortionists are right in that many women will persist in seeking abortionists even if it means breaking the law. And many proabortionists are so enamored of the practice that they'll risk prison to facilitate abortions. And many abortionists are either greedy enough, or deluded enough about the value of their "services", or both, to persist in killing babies even they have to do it illegally.

So, what does a ban do, while you have this active embrace of abortion? Put abortion-minded women totally out of our reach. We need to transition them from thinking "The prochoicer is my friend" to recognizing that there's something fundamentally screwy about thinking that a dead baby will fix your problems.

They KNOW it's wrong. They're on the abortion table crying and begging God and their babies to forgive them.

It's NOT AS SIMPLE AS "WE BAN IT, IT GOES AWAY."

Abortion advocates use that reality to argue that we therefore should do everything in our power to facilitate abortion and make it cheap, readily available, socially sanctioned, etc. And because they use that reality as political leverage, prolifers tend to ignore it.

Until we ADDRESS IT, and come up with ways to negate it, we're just fooling ourselves if we think banning abortion will make it go away. Reduce it yes. But I thought the goal was making it unthinkable, not just making it invisible.

GrannyGrump said...

I AM the moderator.

And doing it "God's way". ....

Exactly where does God say that we are to take sides with evildoers as long as they're opposing people we think are not quite as righteous as us?

Yeah, He sent prophets to kick people upside the head with some pretty uncompromising messages. But He also sent the Apostle Paul to use a much gentler approach with the Corinthian church, which was as much of a moral cesspool, in many ways, as the most leftist member of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights.

I've not heard the voice of God telling me, "And thou shalt go forth, and thou shalt proclaim thy great righteousness, and Lo! All the heathen babykillers shall cry out in shame, and they shall lay down their curettes, and rend their garments and do great penance." Rather, I've gotten a pretty strong message to try Paul's approach of meeting people where they are, thinking the best of them as much as possible, and letting the Holy Spirit do the rest.

I've seen plenty of cases of soft answers turning away wrath (Hm... something Scriptural. Maybe "God's way"?) to the point of conversion. Of abortionists laying down their tools of death and taking up the cause of life. I don't know of one that turned around and repented because of anybody arguing with them or trying to prove to them that they're evil.

Maybe you can provide a few examples.

Martha said...

GrannyGrump says,"We will not succeed". We will remember you said that. Those that follow after God and His Commands know that He will do the heavy lifting in a battle, as righteousness always prevails.

There are more abortions now than in 1973 when it got started.
This may be a secret to you but, you are not succeeding now. All of you want to continue failed strategy go ahead. Today people despise those who were incrementalists in the anti-slavery movement.

TheOnlyThing2Fear said...

Granny Grump stated..."It's NOT AS SIMPLE AS "WE BAN IT, IT GOES AWAY." and "BECAUSE IT WILL NOT SUCCEED."

Clear evidence of why the talking side of pro-life is, well, just talking.

There exists a direct path between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" and the "Did" and "Did Nots".

Thanks to Ken and Jo for this wisdom..."We may live in a society that has embraced the culture of death, but joining them is no solution. We must walk by faith, stand on God's word and watch Him move the mountain. We will move nothing depending on man's laws."

GrannyGrump said...

Okay, story time:

A terrible flood came. A man climbed on to the roof of his house as the waters rose.

Two men came by in a rowboat. "Climb aboard!" they cried. But the man responded, "No, thanks! God will save me!"

Later a woman came by in a rowboat. "Come on! I'll take you to safety!" she called. "No thanks," the man responded. "God will save me."

Later a helicopter came by. A basket was lowered. A man in the helicopter called through a bullhorn, "Get in the basket, and we'll take you to safety!" "No thanks," the man said. "God will save me."

The waters rose. The man drowned. And when he went to meet his Maker, he asked, "Why wasn't my faith rewarded? Why didn't you save me?"

God replied, "I sent two rowboats and a helicopter. What more did you expect?"

Moral: Faith won't do the job without wisdom.

Saying, "All we have to do is stand firm on our principles, and God will save those babies!" is like the man on the roof turning down two rowboats and a helicopter. God is sending us out NOW to rescue those being taken to slaughter.

Martha said...

GrannyGrump says, "Saying, 'All we have to do is stand firm on our principles, and God will save those babies!' is like the man on the roof turning down two rowboats and a helicopter. God is sending us out NOW to rescue those being taken to slaughter."

There are people trying to rescue those who are perishing now. The people that are ridiculed and despised on Jill's site, Jivin J, Steve Ertelt, etc.. these people are Ken and Jo, Leslie Hanks, Jason and Rachel, Will Duffy, Bob Enyart, and scores of other personhood supporters.

It would be wrong to make a law saying that you can only rescue people who are out on their roof during a flood and live in an even house number. That is compromised incrementalism.

We are advocating that ALL babies are people made in God's image and we cannot make laws that allow for the taking of innocent life. Make laws that uphold the right to life not uphold the right to abortion. By supporting the laws that you do, the 'and the you can kill the baby laws,' you continue to support and uphold Roe as good law. By default you are willing to accept some abortion as a matter of fact and policy in this country and by extension worldwide.

It is frustrating that those arguing to continue the status quo, allowing some to die can't understand a simple argument. Schindler saved what Jews he could he did not ask Hitler to regulate Jew killing by giving them a sedative prior to execution. The underground railroad saved those they could, they did not approach Lincoln and ask that only blacks from Africa could be enslaved thereby freeing those who were born in America.

So your argument is not relevant. Emergency situations call for emergency measures and maybe not all will be saved during an emergency ,but that is very different from legislating who lives and who dies.

You people are so invested in your 'good works' that you lack the humility it takes to evaluate if the strategy is working or if it is righteous. This is very evident as none of you will even consider another strategy. God asks us to do His Work on earth, but not anything that is not righteous, promotes evil or would not glorify Him.


Tell me exactly what you are doing to promote personhood? I have yet to see your side do anything in that area. You will spend 15 years fighting for a useless ban on a procedure that continues. Or spend years getting grandma's permission to kill the grandbaby but I see little to no effort to actually end abortion.

A side note, every unbeliever in America say the hypocrisy of the Christian church during the election cycle. After 25 years of telling Americans we won't vote for anyone who is not prolife when push came to shove, fear got the upperhand and McCain was accepted despite supporting abortion. Guiliani was considered despite is aggressively proabortion record, ditto for Romney.

Kathy said...

Christina,

Here is a youtube video of what I had talked about in this comment thread previously -- of why some prolife women oppose "personhood amendments" -- because sometimes the state comes in and forces women to undergo possibly unnecessary medical procedures.

While on the one hand, I say, "We're talking about stopping abortions for millions of babies, so it's worth it," but on the other hand, I see that women would naturally recoil from being taken shackled to a hospital and forced to undergo a C-section against their will. Although the number of babies who will be saved from abortion is huge, the toll taken on mothers could be potentially catastrophic as well. Even if you don't agree with the qualms many women (even pro-life women) have about the ramifications of amendments like this (I have signed the Mississippi Personhood Amendment petition, despite my qualms, because the benefit outweighs the risks), it is certainly worth knowing the risks, downsides, opinions of the other side, etc.