Monday, February 02, 2009

Bearing false witness

Another "Pro Life News" headline about an effort to save babies, with the snarky, "And then you can kill the baby."

Yes, for all practical purposes, she still can kill the baby. But that's not the intent of the law and you know it.

The idea is that the more time she has to think about it, the less likely she is to kill the baby. And you know full well this is the intent. The prolifers who are working for these laws are being wise as serpents, rescuing as many as they can of those who are being led to slaughter.

Laws that stand directly between the woman and the abortionist can't possibly pass, and if they did, they'd never be enforced. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act isn't even being enforced! A country that doesn't enforce a law saying you can't kill a baby once it's born alive isn't going to enforce a law saying you can't kill them before they're born. It's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So we have to do the best we can to save as many babies as we can.

YES, go out and do your own thing. Push for an overturn of Roe. Push for a total ban. GO FOR IT! But in the mean time, STOP WITH THIS BEARING OF FALSE WITNESS, of deliberately misrepresenting the motives of people who are managing the best they can to save as many children as they can.


Joe said...

Good points made.

We need to find a way to bridge the gap between the "absolutists" and the "pragmatists" so that we can all work together for the common cause of protecting unborn children.

The problem seems to be that absolutists feel that pragmatists are "authorizing" the killing of unborn children when we pass statutes that do not completely prohibit the killing. Let me state for myself that I would right now, if I could, completely 100% prohibit the crime of prenatal homicide in this country (and every other country as well). I would support federal and state statutes to that effect.

What are we going to do if we cannot pass legislation protecting 100% of unborn children? What if we can protect 99% of children by prohibiting abortion killing except for unborn children conceived through rape and incest?
Under these circumstances, are we really "authorizing" the killing of rape and incest babies? I do not believe so.

If you have tried to stop the killing of 100% of children but do not have the votes to do so, but can save 99%, I believe we have a moral imperative to save those we can. The very fact that we attempted to prohibit killing ALL unborn children indicates that we recognize that all such killings are crimes. If we then pass legislation stopping 99% of abortion crime, we are simply recognizing that we cannot now stop the other 1% but will continue to try to do so in the future.

I think it would be profoundly immoral to allow the killing of the 99% of unborn children whom we could save but we refuse to do so because we cannot also save the other 1%. We must recognize that in such a situation we are NOT "authorizing" the killing of anyone. We are simply recognizing that we cannot save everyone.

It is no more immoral to pass laws protecting the 99% of children conceived voluntarily, while conceding we cannot save the 1% conceived coercively through rape and incest, than it would be to pass a law protecting unborn children in Colorado, while conceding that we cannot yet protect children in Wyoming, Nebraska or New Mexico.

Other statuters, such as parental consent or notification and mandatory ultrasound ("and then you can kill the baby") are much weaker than I would like. However, they also do NOT authorize the killing of unborn children, but recognize the tragic reality that right now we cannot stop the killing. Nevertheless, like it or not, they do represent a roadblock put in the way of criminal abortionists and parents engaging in unlimited killing of unborn children. If we can save lives of God's children in this way, why should we not, if this is all we can do right now, and provided that we do NOT compromise our princples that ALL human beings have a fundamental and inalienable right to life?

I believe we must hold high the banner of protecting the fundamental rights of ALL human beings, but in the meantime we must do all that we can to save all that we can right now.

We must resist the urge to allow ALL children to die until that glorious day when we can save them all. If we can save some of them or most of them or almost all of them before we can save absolutely every last one, this is something which morally we simply must do.

Let us do everything possible then to advance as rapidly as we can to reach the goal of 100% protection of the lives and rights of unborn children.

Unknown said...

Joe said, "However, they also do NOT authorize the killing of unborn children"

Joe, you're wrong. This is utter ignorance. Of course they authorize the killing of unborn children. If Roe was overturned and sent back to the states, any of these compromised incremental laws would actually KEEP ABORTION LEGAL in that state. If a state had no compromised incremental laws, then abortion would be illegal in that state.

Assume this exact scenario. SCOTUS overturns Roe, send it to your state and the law you helped pass, that ends with "and then you can kill the baby" allows any woman to still have an abortion if she just waits 24 hours. Who shares responsibility in every child's death because of that law?

Jim Jordan said...

Truly, we've ceded the language game to the abortionists. It is the "murder of an innocent child", not a choice. Educating people to the truth is the only way to change their minds about abortion. The public conscience needs to change before people follow the law. George W. Bush's mild rhetoric on the issue over his 8 years in the bully pulpit was a terrible disappointment. Here we have an unspeakable act to oppose and all the technology to expose it for what it is BUT we approach it sneakily and snarkily.

Mamabear said...

I really appreciate your comments on this topic. My husband was one of the "snarky" pro-lifers and we've gone 'round and 'round about this. It's been great to share your points & attitude with him - making head way!

Wesley Wilson said...

Excellent post. I get sick of the purists fighting against laws that save some lives because they do not save all lives.

It's like a firefighter who pulls 9 out of 10 people from a burning building, but can't save the last one in time (or even one out of ten). I call him a hero. The purists call him an arsonist.

A classic example was when some of the pro-life purists opposed the latest South Dakota abortion ban because it had an exception for rape and incest. Frankly, they have blood on their hands. I would rather save 100% also. But if we can save 97% now, let's do it, and spend the next ten years working on the last 3%.

Christina Dunigan said...

According to the absolutists, Moses' sister and mother were evil and complicity in Pharoah's plan to exterminate the Hebrew children, because they played games to preserve Moses' life instead of taking a firm stand against infanticide.

So the abortion absolutists are much, much holier and more righteous than even Old Testament matriarchs.

WKen said...

Ummm ... actually, William, if Roe is overturned and there aren't any laws regarding abortion on the books, then it's just legal in all cases, any time.

It might well be our interpretation that homicide laws should already ban abortion, but that will not be the object of enforcement unless the ruling that overturns Roe specifically says just that.

There's a part of me that wishes that I believed that these "purists" were really pro-choicers just trying to get pro-lifers to spin our wheels in pointless arguments, but I'm afraid it's just not the case.

I'm curious, William, are you proud of what your ilk did in South Dakota?