The author is a former political speechwriter and press secretary with much experience in politics and the reading and analysis of legislation, and also operated a political correspondence office at the Capitol where he read every letter addressed to the Governor for a number of years -- a very helpful education in learning how people think and why...
For many years now, I have warned against “compromised incrementalism” – the mistaken belief that we “move the ball forward” or “save some babies now so that others may be saved later” by pushing for compromise legislation.
This legislation may be framed as great legislation by well-meaning Christian legislators, but it may have unintended consequences of devastating proportions!
I first spoke out publicly about this in December of 2006, with a column published in WorldNetDaily.com – A Growing Split in the Pro-Life Community (which, coincidentally, was the starting point and first post of this blog). In short, I pointed out that the idea of a law requiring abortionists to administer anesthesia so an aborted baby would not feel pain is heinously perverted in its implications.
Since then, the anti-compromise faction of the pro-life movement (now recognized largely as the Personhood Movement, with proposals for Personhood Amendments now active in 40 states) has persevered, educated, and brought a growing number of pro-lifers to recognize a shift in our perceived mission – a return to emphasis on the Right to Life, rather than merely trying to place curbs and cautions on the institution of legalized abortion.
Are they a majority of pro-lifers now? It wouldn’t surprise me. I've met and spoken with dozens of recent converts -- people who once supported compromised regulations (as did I) but have forever changed their minds, and will refuse to ever support one again. I know of several legislators (from other states than my own, sadly) who have made this conversion themselves. Alabama's Judge Roy Moore has, also, and who better to understand the legal argument from a Christian perspective?!
But pro-life leadership and pro-life legislators are slow to recognize the sea change. Many of them either fully support, or give lip service to, the Personhood movement, and to Personhood Amendments, while their hearts and minds still believe Personhood is too forward-thinking, and they want to remain in their comfortable world of political compromise legislation.
They fail to realize that by supporting compromise legislation, they do two things:
1) They undermine the public perception of a Right to Life – they instead build a perception that there are “good” abortions and “bad” abortions and that proper regulation will end the abuses and socially-negative consequences of more gruesome abortion procedures while “compassionately” leaving those forms of abortion which our society finds necessary and useful.
Average Americans, being average Americans, are always seeking the middle ground, and this political debate allows them to participate in a process of finding it, while no one who’s not an activist on one side or the other of the issue realizes that this is fundamentally a question of principle – one side is right, the other is wrong, and it’s the public duty to find it!
Constantly pushing for compromise legislation prevents the general public from ever having to really deal with the principle in question, and keeps most from realizing the argument is about principle at all!
2) According to Dr. Charles Rice, a legal professor at Notre Dame University, laws such as parental notification laws, “abortion-ultrasound” laws, late-term abortion bans, etc. actually build a legal framework to protect the institution of abortion. They establish a legal status, by implication, for abortion – a judge looks at a law which puts legal limits on abortion, and the obvious legal/logical implication is that unless the specified limits apply in a situation, then abortion is clearly legal!
Dr. Rice believes that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, many of these “pro-life” laws on the books today would become the enabling language for pro-aborts and judges to prove that abortion is legal in those states.
Imagine that – pro-abortion liberals refusing to repeal a “pro-life” parental notification law because it establishes in law that abortion is legal so long as a parent agrees to the minor child’s abortion!
Any time you argue in law that “…abortion is illegal unless you do this…” you are simultaneously leaving the assumption that “…if you do this, then abortion IS legal…” These types of law are called “and then you can kill the baby” laws. “If the mother views an ultrasound of her unborn baby, and signs a release stating she’s seen it, then she can kill her baby.” “If a minor child has the approval or her parent, guardian, or a judge, then she can kill her baby.”
Laws such as abortion-ultrasound laws automatically imply that a woman has a right to decide to kill her own living, moving, growing unborn child if she so chooses!!!
The more of these laws that exist on the books – “pro-life” laws which end with “and then you can kill the baby” - the stronger the case for legal abortion is. You cannot regulate something that’s not legal – that’s a legal truism. If it’s not legal, there’s no reason to regulate it, therefore if it’s regulated under the law it is by definition legal.
Pro-life legislators are unwittingly writing the death sentences for millions of babies by writing legislation intended to "save some babies" because they don't think we can realistically save the rest!
Plus, all this time, while we argue about where to draw the line between legal abortions and illegal abortions, we’re failing to teach the general public that all abortions kill an innocent child, and therefore abortion is always wrong.
Recognition of the Personhood of the unborn child is not just our best option, and not just our final goal. It is the ONLY answer, and must be our ONLY goal. Supporting compromised legislation, at best, is one step forward, two steps back -- it undermines a public belief in the Right to Life. It makes our job so much harder when we try to convince society that our Right to Life is God-given and inalienable.
Why don't these laws automatically shock us? Why do we fail to recognize the unintended consequences?
Our problem is this. We have become so comfortable with abortion – just as one generation of Germans was comfortable with “solving” the Jewish “problem” and many generations of Americans were comfortable with the “peculiar institution” of slavery – we’ve ceased to think of abortion as comparable to the Holocaust or slavery.
Yes, our intellectual mind makes the comparison, but our emotional reactions are different, because we’re so “close” to the problem. We know it's legal, so we feel powerless to say it's murder (just as Christians in Germany failed to recognize that legalized extermination was murder).
We fail to be properly "shocked" at how bad legal language is. It seems to us that "of course we must acknowledge it's legal, because it IS!" By writing ANYTHING into law which states or leaves a legal implication that abortion is legal only builds the foundations of legalized abortion.
To show ourselves what's really going on -- in order to feel properly "shocked" -- it’s necessary to compare abortion to other evils of history, or else we won’t realize how wicked our “pro-life” laws may actually be. Replace unborn child, in the language, with Jew, or replace abortion with extermination by gassing. Replace the regulation of abortion with the regulation of anything else which we know in our hearts is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Then we will see...
Do we want pro-life legislators signing their names and reputations to bills which say you can only perform an abortion in the first trimester? This is the moral equivalent of passing a law saying slavery is prohibited in Maine, but slavery is a legally protected institution in Texas. Congressmen, in the 1850s, actually passed compromised laws like this – what do we think of those legislators today? Do we consider them anti-slavery, or does history judge them as having perpetuated the institution of slavery? In case you’re wondering, the judgment of history upon these men is not favorable.
So, as an exercise, I’ve substituted the language of an actual proposed Colorado law – one strongly backed by Colorado’s pro-life legislators – with language which purports to “protect” Jews in Nazi Germany. See what you think. Would you sign your name to this law? Would you vote for it? Would you really be willing to “save some Jews” by affirmatively underscoring a legal status for killing others???
A Modest Proposal…
Please note before reading: This “proposed law” is a work of political satire, and is meant to be read as a warning to Christian and pro-life legislators and their supporters that they may be playing into the hands of the enemy because of the wording they use in their proposed legislation.
No ill will toward Jews or "well-meaning but compromised" legislators is meant by this – certainly, just the opposite.
The majority of the text is unimportant, or has irrelevant scope, and so is not included here.
A Bill for an Act
Concerning the Protection of Jews from Unreasonable Death
Making an appropriation in connection therewith
Bill Summary
The bill creates a new statutory part that addresses the fatal consequences of persecution upon Jewish residents in the state and includes the following crimes:
- Murder of an adult Jew
- Voluntary manslaughter of an adult Jew
An adult Jew is defined as 16 years or older. The bill describes acts that do not constitute crimes under the new part.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Third Reich
….
Part 5 – Protection of Jews Act
Acts not an offense [this is where the law specifies its scope, and what it does NOT prohibit]: This part 5 shall not apply to:
a) Acts that cause the death of an adult Jew if those acts are committed during a legal extermination procedure to which a Nazi magistrate has signed a notice of intent, or a person authorized by law to exterminate Jews;
b) Acts committed by one Jew against another Jew;
c) Acts that are committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of extermination in an authorized, controlled facility designed for that purpose;
Definitions. As used in this Part 5, unless the context otherwise requires, “Adult Jew” means a Jew whose stage of development has reached or surpassed sixteen years since birth, such that he or she may contribute, voluntarily or involuntarily, to the State.
Murder of an Adult Jew. A person who causes the death of an adult Jew, without lawful justification, is guilty of Murder of an Adult Jew if he or she: …
…
Voluntary manslaughter of an Adult Jew. A person who causes the death of an adult Jew, without lawful justification, is guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter of an Adult Jew if he or she…
Etc. etc. etc.
…
THE END
(there! you've "saved some Jews!")
Note: This “proposed legislation” is very closely modeled on an actual “pro-life” bill proposed as law in Colorado – HB 10-1261 – by well-meaning (but misled) pro-life legislators.
I have highlighted passages that should shock any moral person – examples of how this law acknowledges and supports the legality of other forms of evil, even while stopping others. Every highlighted passage above – the ones meant to shock a reasonable, moral human being – has its equivalent in the proposed “pro-life” bill, which was meant to enact a “fetal homicide” provision into state law (note that not all fetal homicide or other incremental legislation is compromised - it depends how it's worded).
Please note, specifically, that the part under "definitions" in this law sets an age limit to the law, meaning that even though the law prohibits the murder of Jews above age 16, it specifically does not prohibit murder of Jews of less than 16 years. The actual proposed law in Colorado has equivalent language, basically saying the fetal homicide is not considered fetal homicide before 16 weeks of development, which inherently places less value (i.e. less humanity) upon an unborn child of 15 weeks than is acknowledged for older children. Placing relative value upon one life versus another is inherently wicked -- these lives are seen as equal in God's eyes, and government has no right to determine relative value in contradiction to God's law.
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Incrementalism Incrementally Fails Unborn Children
Jill Stanek's article in WorldNetDaily made me mad, so I wrote a not-so-well written, rambling reply which I hope still makes sense:
Incrementalists try to maintain some moral ground even as they undermine it, and partly they do this by unfairly denegrating the intelligence or sensibilities of their opponents, who they mischaracterize as unrealistic purists.
You've mischaracterized the "purist" (we call it "uncompromised") position. We do not oppose all incrementalism -- if a law prevents some abortions without compromising with abortionists and lending some credence to their legal standing or public support, then we support those laws.
A law which says "abortion clinics must abide by these regulations before they're allowed to perform abortions" is evil because it says "abortion is okay if...". But a law which says "all clinics where medical procedures are performed must abide by these regulations" then that's okay!
If you have a law which accedes, in part, to the arguments of the abortionists, then we oppose it, and so should you. Parental notification is fine if carefully crafted -- basically, "you must inform the parent that an abortion is scheduled". But if you include the parent in the "approval" process (i.e. a parental CONSENT law), then you've just added one or two parents to the pro-abortion camp, because they feel guilty and will in the future defend their decision to support their daughter's abortion. That's a loss for pro-life causes.
Any law which makes some abortions illegal, but which say "it is okay to kill the baby if..." is evil. It's not pro-life at all. Not only do the people who vote for it support those abortions (rape, incest, etc.) in a legal sense, but by arguing in favor of these laws they lend credence to the arguments of the other side that SOME abortions are okay.
Yes, Michael New (I think it is, from Heritage) published a study "proving" (through the use of debatable evidence and predictive assumptions with that scattered data) a 10-15% decrease in abortions "as a result of" incremental legislation. This is the basis of incrementalists' claim that "incrementalism is working." But we cannot logically use his study to establish that incrementalism will eventually result in 40% or 80% reductions in abortion. There's no logical basis to make that assumption, though we may WANT to make that leap in logic.
In fact, I believe incremental legislation is guaranteed to have diminishing returns, because advocates of that legislation split the difference -- they compromise with abortionists to arrive at a poorly defined "point at which abortion is permissible." In fact, I believe it's natural to assume that incremental laws will have a 10% to 20% effect. Maybe as high as 30%.
But that lack of moral clarity is bound to have a push-back effect, where as we approach a 20% "success" rate with incremental legislation, a 40% or 80% reduction becomes all the more impossible. At that rate, with that strategy, a 100% end to abortion becomes totally impossible.
Arriving at "personhood" -- the Human Life Amendment -- becomes harder every time one of these compromised incremental laws is passed, because in the minds of the public you're splitting the difference. You're saying some abortions are worse than others, so most people subconsciously see a corrolary to that -- that some abortions are better than others! Some abortions are permissible -- so much so, that even the pro-lifers aren't arguing that they're as serious as the others.
Splitting differences on abortion denies the moral power of the personhood argument. If a baby at any stage of development is a person, then it's always wrong to kill them. Always!
But if we go out there and say "abortion is bad, but partial birth abortion is the worst!" then it's not very far, morally, from saying, "it's wrong to kill even a handicapped child, but these people even want to kill healthy children!" -- it's establishing a value difference between handicapped and "healthy" children. It's wrong -- it's arguing on the basis of secular, amoral logic, rather than on the basis of absolute, non-relative truth.
The public WILL accept non-relative truth if it's properly framed! People are hard-wired to acknowledge moral standards. Your average high school student will say abortion is okay most of the time, but not at full term -- they see a value difference between a 1st and 3rd trimester baby, because secular society tells them there is one (and many pro-lifers tell them so, too, by arguing that ending some abortions is more important than others!). But if you ask that same student when slavery is okay, they'll say "slavery is NEVER okay -- that's a human being, you can't enslave them!" That's the power of moral clarity which we must enlist for the abortion fight.
Only the establishment of the concept of universal freedom for all persons did slavery disappear in this country. Only with the establishment of personhood in the mind of the American public will abortion 100% disappear.
Incrementalists think they'll compromise and split the difference for now, and then later -- "when we're near our goal" -- they'll switch to a no-compromise personhood strategy that will achieve the full victory. But when (if!) that day comes, abortionists and even the general public will say "but wait, didn't you say 10 years ago that it was okay to abort rape babies, so long as we didn't abort other babies?"
Until we change strategies, pro-life resources are working at cross purposes, with some resources directed toward a policy -- incrementalism -- that does not have the power to totally end abortion at any time.
The time to make that change is now, not 10 or 20 years from now, because no matter when we make the choice to switch to a new strategy, we're going to have to start from the very beginning, convincing the American public we were wrong back when we said some abortions were worse than others.
Ed
Incrementalists try to maintain some moral ground even as they undermine it, and partly they do this by unfairly denegrating the intelligence or sensibilities of their opponents, who they mischaracterize as unrealistic purists.
You've mischaracterized the "purist" (we call it "uncompromised") position. We do not oppose all incrementalism -- if a law prevents some abortions without compromising with abortionists and lending some credence to their legal standing or public support, then we support those laws.
A law which says "abortion clinics must abide by these regulations before they're allowed to perform abortions" is evil because it says "abortion is okay if...". But a law which says "all clinics where medical procedures are performed must abide by these regulations" then that's okay!
If you have a law which accedes, in part, to the arguments of the abortionists, then we oppose it, and so should you. Parental notification is fine if carefully crafted -- basically, "you must inform the parent that an abortion is scheduled". But if you include the parent in the "approval" process (i.e. a parental CONSENT law), then you've just added one or two parents to the pro-abortion camp, because they feel guilty and will in the future defend their decision to support their daughter's abortion. That's a loss for pro-life causes.
Any law which makes some abortions illegal, but which say "it is okay to kill the baby if..." is evil. It's not pro-life at all. Not only do the people who vote for it support those abortions (rape, incest, etc.) in a legal sense, but by arguing in favor of these laws they lend credence to the arguments of the other side that SOME abortions are okay.
Yes, Michael New (I think it is, from Heritage) published a study "proving" (through the use of debatable evidence and predictive assumptions with that scattered data) a 10-15% decrease in abortions "as a result of" incremental legislation. This is the basis of incrementalists' claim that "incrementalism is working." But we cannot logically use his study to establish that incrementalism will eventually result in 40% or 80% reductions in abortion. There's no logical basis to make that assumption, though we may WANT to make that leap in logic.
In fact, I believe incremental legislation is guaranteed to have diminishing returns, because advocates of that legislation split the difference -- they compromise with abortionists to arrive at a poorly defined "point at which abortion is permissible." In fact, I believe it's natural to assume that incremental laws will have a 10% to 20% effect. Maybe as high as 30%.
But that lack of moral clarity is bound to have a push-back effect, where as we approach a 20% "success" rate with incremental legislation, a 40% or 80% reduction becomes all the more impossible. At that rate, with that strategy, a 100% end to abortion becomes totally impossible.
Arriving at "personhood" -- the Human Life Amendment -- becomes harder every time one of these compromised incremental laws is passed, because in the minds of the public you're splitting the difference. You're saying some abortions are worse than others, so most people subconsciously see a corrolary to that -- that some abortions are better than others! Some abortions are permissible -- so much so, that even the pro-lifers aren't arguing that they're as serious as the others.
Splitting differences on abortion denies the moral power of the personhood argument. If a baby at any stage of development is a person, then it's always wrong to kill them. Always!
But if we go out there and say "abortion is bad, but partial birth abortion is the worst!" then it's not very far, morally, from saying, "it's wrong to kill even a handicapped child, but these people even want to kill healthy children!" -- it's establishing a value difference between handicapped and "healthy" children. It's wrong -- it's arguing on the basis of secular, amoral logic, rather than on the basis of absolute, non-relative truth.
The public WILL accept non-relative truth if it's properly framed! People are hard-wired to acknowledge moral standards. Your average high school student will say abortion is okay most of the time, but not at full term -- they see a value difference between a 1st and 3rd trimester baby, because secular society tells them there is one (and many pro-lifers tell them so, too, by arguing that ending some abortions is more important than others!). But if you ask that same student when slavery is okay, they'll say "slavery is NEVER okay -- that's a human being, you can't enslave them!" That's the power of moral clarity which we must enlist for the abortion fight.
Only the establishment of the concept of universal freedom for all persons did slavery disappear in this country. Only with the establishment of personhood in the mind of the American public will abortion 100% disappear.
Incrementalists think they'll compromise and split the difference for now, and then later -- "when we're near our goal" -- they'll switch to a no-compromise personhood strategy that will achieve the full victory. But when (if!) that day comes, abortionists and even the general public will say "but wait, didn't you say 10 years ago that it was okay to abort rape babies, so long as we didn't abort other babies?"
Until we change strategies, pro-life resources are working at cross purposes, with some resources directed toward a policy -- incrementalism -- that does not have the power to totally end abortion at any time.
The time to make that change is now, not 10 or 20 years from now, because no matter when we make the choice to switch to a new strategy, we're going to have to start from the very beginning, convincing the American public we were wrong back when we said some abortions were worse than others.
Ed
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Partial Birth Abortion Ruling
News Flash!:
7 of 9 US Supreme Court Justices UPHOLD Roe v. Wade!
I've not had alot of time to write recently, but just so I can help get this out there, here's a preview of what may become a "feature-length" column soon -- either here, or on WorldNetDaily.com .
The US Supreme Court's upholding of the Partial Birth Abortion "ban" is NOT a victory for pro-lifers who want to actually end abortion.
It's only a victory for "pro-lifers" who want to FEEL GOOD about what's being done to end abortion, regardless of the truth.
In fact, it's a resounding defeat not just for those of us who hold that a child is a human life from the moment of conception, but also for those more "moderate" souls who only oppose 1) late term abortions or 2) abortion as birth control.
The ruling, signed by 5 justices, 4 of whom are renowned in Republican circles as "pro-life heroes," specifically upholds both -- abortion as birth control, and late term abortions -- as a "right".
In fact, two justices -- Scalia and Thomas -- were disturbed enough by the ruling to issue a "reservation" against the ruling (which they nevertheless signed on to, failing to stand on principle by dissociating themselves with this pro-abortion ruling in its entirety), specifically noting that they did not believe Roe v. Wade was based on Constitutional principles.
By issuing their reservation, Scalia and Thomas separated themselves philosophically from the other 7 Justices (including both of Bush's appointments) who had no problem affirming easily-available late term abortions as a "Constitutional right."
In fact, the ruling itself notes that the Partial Birth Abortion ban in question is Constitutional ONLY because it "does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle" to a late term abortion.
That specific language, by the way -- the "substantial obstacle" part -- is derived directly from "pro-life" Justice Alito's prior ruling as a District Court Judge that a Nebraska Partial Birth Abortion ban WAS unconstitutional BECAUSE it imposed a substantial obstacle to a woman's "right" to a late term abortion.
More later... This is a tragic ruling.
It's also tragic that so many pro-life leaders are telling pro-life activists that this is some kind of significant victory for our side.
The fact is, besides the fact that 7 of 9 US Supreme Court Justices just telegraphed that they would rule to UPHOLD Roe v. Wade, this will not save the life of even one unborn baby. The ruling itself notes that there are other commonly used means to abort late-term babies (and recommends that they be used!).
Ed
7 of 9 US Supreme Court Justices UPHOLD Roe v. Wade!
I've not had alot of time to write recently, but just so I can help get this out there, here's a preview of what may become a "feature-length" column soon -- either here, or on WorldNetDaily.com .
The US Supreme Court's upholding of the Partial Birth Abortion "ban" is NOT a victory for pro-lifers who want to actually end abortion.
It's only a victory for "pro-lifers" who want to FEEL GOOD about what's being done to end abortion, regardless of the truth.
In fact, it's a resounding defeat not just for those of us who hold that a child is a human life from the moment of conception, but also for those more "moderate" souls who only oppose 1) late term abortions or 2) abortion as birth control.
The ruling, signed by 5 justices, 4 of whom are renowned in Republican circles as "pro-life heroes," specifically upholds both -- abortion as birth control, and late term abortions -- as a "right".
In fact, two justices -- Scalia and Thomas -- were disturbed enough by the ruling to issue a "reservation" against the ruling (which they nevertheless signed on to, failing to stand on principle by dissociating themselves with this pro-abortion ruling in its entirety), specifically noting that they did not believe Roe v. Wade was based on Constitutional principles.
By issuing their reservation, Scalia and Thomas separated themselves philosophically from the other 7 Justices (including both of Bush's appointments) who had no problem affirming easily-available late term abortions as a "Constitutional right."
In fact, the ruling itself notes that the Partial Birth Abortion ban in question is Constitutional ONLY because it "does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle" to a late term abortion.
That specific language, by the way -- the "substantial obstacle" part -- is derived directly from "pro-life" Justice Alito's prior ruling as a District Court Judge that a Nebraska Partial Birth Abortion ban WAS unconstitutional BECAUSE it imposed a substantial obstacle to a woman's "right" to a late term abortion.
More later... This is a tragic ruling.
It's also tragic that so many pro-life leaders are telling pro-life activists that this is some kind of significant victory for our side.
The fact is, besides the fact that 7 of 9 US Supreme Court Justices just telegraphed that they would rule to UPHOLD Roe v. Wade, this will not save the life of even one unborn baby. The ruling itself notes that there are other commonly used means to abort late-term babies (and recommends that they be used!).
Ed
Friday, February 9, 2007
Pragmatism is Bankrupt
A post I made on the Life Training Institute blog (www.lti-blog.blogspot.com), where I am trying to convince a set of pro-lifers who are dedicated to "compromised incrementalism" that we need to change our pro-life strategy -- aiming for success, rather than compromise:
If there existed a law (or proposed legislation) that made 95% of abortions illegal without affirming a "right" to abortion 5% of the time, I would be for it -- that is an uncompromising win for us.
But those examples are hard to find.
What we do see -- compromised incrementalism -- is a bill that makes 95% of abortions illegal while also explicitly defending 5% of abortions. In these cases, I think pro-lifers do ourselves no favors by supporting it. Why?
Because any bill that favors or otherwise upholds a "right" to 5% of abortions is arguing against the principle of a right to life.
Principle doesn't use percentages. Any departure from 0% or 100% is compromise, and it reduces our arguments to 100% pragmatism, 0% principle.
Arguing on the terms of our opponents -- as if there is some line to be drawn, some abstract judgment of when it's okay to kill a baby and when it's not -- is detrimental to our overall cause of getting rid of all abortions, because we're admitting there ARE lines to be drawn. Pragmatism wholly rejects the principle -- they are fundamentally inconsistent strategies. In order to regain the principle, we actually have to convince the voters and citizens we've been talking to that we were wrong when we supported a bill that favored 5% of abortions. We would be rightly accused of hypocrisy.
Would you support a law which said slavery should be legal in New Jersey, but in no other state of the union? If you're a pragmatist, you'll ask "that depends -- is this 1800 or 2000? -- does this increase or reduce slavery?" The response would dictate your answer.
But if you are relying upon moral authority -- principle -- then you would consider the law absurd. Slavery should be legal nowhere under any circumstances, no matter where it is or is not already legal.
I strongly believe that the more we rely on pragmatism to "curtail" abortions when and where we can, we postpone the day when we can achieve our goal and implement the principle of no abortions anytime anywhere, because we then have to undo the damage we did when we talked someone into voting for the 95% solution by saying "it's okay, because it allows for an exception in 5% of the cases."
Ed
If there existed a law (or proposed legislation) that made 95% of abortions illegal without affirming a "right" to abortion 5% of the time, I would be for it -- that is an uncompromising win for us.
But those examples are hard to find.
What we do see -- compromised incrementalism -- is a bill that makes 95% of abortions illegal while also explicitly defending 5% of abortions. In these cases, I think pro-lifers do ourselves no favors by supporting it. Why?
Because any bill that favors or otherwise upholds a "right" to 5% of abortions is arguing against the principle of a right to life.
Principle doesn't use percentages. Any departure from 0% or 100% is compromise, and it reduces our arguments to 100% pragmatism, 0% principle.
Arguing on the terms of our opponents -- as if there is some line to be drawn, some abstract judgment of when it's okay to kill a baby and when it's not -- is detrimental to our overall cause of getting rid of all abortions, because we're admitting there ARE lines to be drawn. Pragmatism wholly rejects the principle -- they are fundamentally inconsistent strategies. In order to regain the principle, we actually have to convince the voters and citizens we've been talking to that we were wrong when we supported a bill that favored 5% of abortions. We would be rightly accused of hypocrisy.
Would you support a law which said slavery should be legal in New Jersey, but in no other state of the union? If you're a pragmatist, you'll ask "that depends -- is this 1800 or 2000? -- does this increase or reduce slavery?" The response would dictate your answer.
But if you are relying upon moral authority -- principle -- then you would consider the law absurd. Slavery should be legal nowhere under any circumstances, no matter where it is or is not already legal.
I strongly believe that the more we rely on pragmatism to "curtail" abortions when and where we can, we postpone the day when we can achieve our goal and implement the principle of no abortions anytime anywhere, because we then have to undo the damage we did when we talked someone into voting for the 95% solution by saying "it's okay, because it allows for an exception in 5% of the cases."
Ed
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Sacrificing Babies to Save Babies!
Background:
South Dakota failed to pass a virtual total ban on abortion in 2006 by just a few percentage points. Rather than gather encouragement from their near-success, pro-life legislators have now given up and are supporting language that would allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, etc. It remains "close" to what they tried to pass in 2006, but this version is fatally flawed because it will sacrifice some babies to save others.
Operation Rescue, led by Troy Newman, issued a press release not only supporting the South Dakota language, but also saying that anybody who doesn't support it is "pro-abortion". That was a pre-emptive swipe at Brian Rohrbough of Colorado Right to Life, who he knew would not support the SD language because of its exceptions. See (and sign!) the Colorado Right to Life no-compromise pledge at www.coloradorighttolife.org/take_action.htm.
Several people (probably a flood, but the no-compromise folks aren't YET all networked -- joining Colorado Right to Life, no matter where you live, would be a start!) sent complaint e-mails to Operation Rescue, and one of them was my wife.
We got a response back from a lady at Operation Rescue who seemed to be the official responder to the complaints. I don't have permission to use her name, so I'll just say this is what appears to be an official response from Operation Rescue. Following their response is my reaction to the response:
My response to Operation Rescue:
(name of official removed}
I hope you will excuse me for stepping into a conversation based on your reply to my wife.
I find your argument unconvincing. And I shall tell you why, but first I want to point something out:
Quoting (name removed): "Try to think rationally about this situation. I think pro-lifers have a knee-jerk reaction to “exceptions” and often do not consider the reality of the situation."
I find that to be one of the most thoroughly condescending things I've seen in any argument in some time. You presume we are responding emotionally, rather than "thinking rationally". We're the "knee-jerkers".
I consider it more emotional to knuckle under for believers in false compassion for raped mothers (which "compassion" is manifested by killing their children and saddling them with the guilt of having killed them). But you speak more, perhaps, than you meant to -- you refer not to "some pro-lifers" but to "pro-lifers" in general as if you are separating yourself from that group of people. Now, I believe that you are sincere, and that your heart is in the right place. But, rhetorically and subconsciously, in your language you are stepping AWAY from "pro-lifers" and calling them crazy, even as you move closer to the world's ideal adherence to "reason and rationality" over what's truly and absolutely right and wrong.
Your Titanic analogy is a false one. A true analogy using the Titanic metaphor would be this -- rather than saying "We want to save all of you, but women and children first", you are instead saying, "Only women and children have a right to be saved. If you are a man, even if we have the ability to save you, even if we find you in the freezing water and have room in the lifeboat, you are still not allowed in the lifeboat because you do not have a right to life."
You may say that this analogy still supports you -- that historically, the Titanic did not have enough lifeboats to save everybody. But it did in fact have more than enough lifeboats to save some of the men. And there were some men pulled out of the icy water after the lifeboats left the ship. Besides this, the crew discriminated against third class passengers, which is perhaps a better analogy -- you are saving "first and second class passengers first", and leaving the third class passengers (offspring from rape, offspring from incest, etc.) to die, moreover saying in the wording of the legislation that it's okay that they do.
What you are really doing is asking... nay, demanding... nay, intimidating pro-life legislators and/or voters to vote for a measure which says "it is okay to kill babies if their father is a criminal (i.e. rapist)". You are forcing legislators (upon penalty of being called a "pro-abort"!!!) to stand up and speak with their vote: "I am willing to sacrifice this one baby and put it to death in order to save 870, because I recognize that there are mitigating factors which cause it to not have the same degree of right to life as the other 870." I understand the emotion behind wanting to save 870, even if you must sacrifice one, but telling the deathcamp guards that you will support them in killing all the gypsies if they will allow you to save all the Jews thoroughly eviscerates the principle of a "right to life". Yours is the emotional, not the rational, position.
The very act of making the statement evidenced in the new, compromised, S. Dakota legislation undermines the whole principle, and even the concept, of a "right to life", which is truly the most powerful tool we have to eventually end all abortions. In fact, by establishing and continuing to support that false division between the rights of some and the rights of others (some are more equal than others), you play into the hands of the abortionists and enable them to argue that even YOU -- the pro-lifers -- support abortion in cases of rape and incest. And they have the votes to prove that you did!
I do not disbelieve the fact that you desire to save all babies from abortion, including the "one" (another false figure) who will be a product of rape or incest. But that's not what the legislation says, so you should not be supporting it. If you really want to save the 870, you should change the law so that it does not confer a "right to an abortion" in any case -- that it does not explicitly defend any conditions under which a baby may legally be put to death. It may be possible to change the legislation so that it does not explicitly permit any abortions, but I think it would be hard to do.
By saving 870 babies today, you may literally uphold the "principle" of allowing abortion, and condemn "870 exceptions" to abortion over the next several decades, because you would not stand firm on the principle of a "right to life", and actually supported abortion in cases of rape or incest.\
You know Dr. Tiller. Would he allow something as simple as a prohibition against abortion "except in cases of rape and incest" to stop him? No! He's already violated the late-term ban. If he were in the situation of the S. Dakota abortionists (who probably look up to him and his methods), he would simply claim that "rape has made an amazing comeback!" And suddenly you have not 1, but 100 or 870 abortions a year in case of "rape or incest."
I, and others who oppose compromising on principle, will wait to see if you will push for that, or if you will continue to support a bill which upholds the "right to abortion" in some cases. I will remain very disappointed in you and Operation Rescue if you do not try to either fix this legislation, or publicly disavow your support.
Ed
South Dakota failed to pass a virtual total ban on abortion in 2006 by just a few percentage points. Rather than gather encouragement from their near-success, pro-life legislators have now given up and are supporting language that would allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, etc. It remains "close" to what they tried to pass in 2006, but this version is fatally flawed because it will sacrifice some babies to save others.
Operation Rescue, led by Troy Newman, issued a press release not only supporting the South Dakota language, but also saying that anybody who doesn't support it is "pro-abortion". That was a pre-emptive swipe at Brian Rohrbough of Colorado Right to Life, who he knew would not support the SD language because of its exceptions. See (and sign!) the Colorado Right to Life no-compromise pledge at www.coloradorighttolife.org/take_action.htm.
Several people (probably a flood, but the no-compromise folks aren't YET all networked -- joining Colorado Right to Life, no matter where you live, would be a start!) sent complaint e-mails to Operation Rescue, and one of them was my wife.
We got a response back from a lady at Operation Rescue who seemed to be the official responder to the complaints. I don't have permission to use her name, so I'll just say this is what appears to be an official response from Operation Rescue. Following their response is my reaction to the response:
Dear _________,
We so appreciated you coming to Wichita for the Cry
for Justice event. That meant a lot to us.
Hopefully, in that time, you got to know us and know
we have dedicated our lives to obedience to God in
working to protect the innocent and stop abortion. We
came out hard on this issue of the South Dakota bill
because we knew there would be a knee-jerk reaction to
it that would cost lives. I hope after reading this
letter, you better understand our thinking and why we
did what we did.
Here is the bottom line: Without intervention, about
870 babies will die in South Dakota next year. We
have the ability to save ALL of them. In fact, in the
next four years, ONE baby might succumb to abortion,
if this law is passed. That is a tragedy, but we
cannot save that baby now. We tried to pass a law
that would protect that baby, too, but it failed. So
should we give up on trying to save the others?
According to your thinking, you would rather that the
870 per year continue to die than pass a law that may
not meet your standard of perfection. Remember, we
still oppose the one death and will continue to work
until that one baby is protected as well, but we are
not willing to sacrifice the 870, year after year on
the distant hope that someday we might get a perfect
bill.
This should not be about some lofty ideology of
perfection as much as it is about saving lives. Those
babies are ALL doomed to die. We have not condemned
them to death. They are already condemned. We oppose
every single death from abortion, but if we can do
something to save even some of them, we will do it,
while continuing to save the rest.
Have you not considered the tremendous loss of life
your principle would cost? Do you seriously have the
ability to justify not intervening to save the 870,
when it is within our power to save them? Can you
really rationalize away standing idly by while those
babies die simply because we cannot save them all?
Doesn't that diminish life?
Take for example that you are aboard the Titanic and
it is sinking. You have within your ability to get
870 onto lifeboats, but one person is trapped in a
cabin and you cannot save him. Would you sacrifice
the lives of the 870 in a vain effort to save one?
Most people would do everything to save the 870 while
continuing to work to save the one until there was no
other hope. That does not mean they approve of the
death of the one or that somehow that life had less
value. It is just that under the circumstances,
saving that one was beyond their ability.
We tried to save them all in South Dakota, and that
bill was rejected. Now we are trying to save the 870.
Would you rather they die? How can a position that
would sacrifice so many – needlessly – be classified
as anything other than irresponsible?
I will stand on the principle of saving as many lives
as we possibly can, and reject the notion of allowing
needless death and human suffering because the legal
method does not meet up to my standard of perfection.
Sidewalk counselors have to face this conundrum day
after day as women reject their help and go into the
mills to kill their babies. There is nothing the
sidewalk counselor can to but watch, and rejoice when
a rare woman does in fact change her mind. Should
sidewalk counselors stop trying to save any lives
simply because conditions exist that make is
impossible for them to save them all? Would we say
that the sidewalk counselor is "unprincipled" or that
she "approved" of the deaths she could not prevent?
Try to think rationally about this situation. I think
pro-lifers have a knee-jerk reaction to “exceptions”
and often do not consider the reality of the
situation. I would say those attempting to save lives
NOW are probably more in line with Biblical teachings
than those who are willing to allow the bloodletting
to continue until such time, if ever, they get the
perfect bill.
You may want to consider whose side you are on here.
Planned Parenthood is fighting this bill tooth and
nail because it will close them down in South Dakota
and virtually stop abortion in its tracks. (Would you
rather the legislature withdraw the bill and allow
them to say open?) When we look around and find the
abortionists are our allies, then maybe we should stop
and think about where ideology is taking us.
Signed (name of official removed)
My response to Operation Rescue:
(name of official removed}
I hope you will excuse me for stepping into a conversation based on your reply to my wife.
I find your argument unconvincing. And I shall tell you why, but first I want to point something out:
Quoting (name removed): "Try to think rationally about this situation. I think pro-lifers have a knee-jerk reaction to “exceptions” and often do not consider the reality of the situation."
I find that to be one of the most thoroughly condescending things I've seen in any argument in some time. You presume we are responding emotionally, rather than "thinking rationally". We're the "knee-jerkers".
I consider it more emotional to knuckle under for believers in false compassion for raped mothers (which "compassion" is manifested by killing their children and saddling them with the guilt of having killed them). But you speak more, perhaps, than you meant to -- you refer not to "some pro-lifers" but to "pro-lifers" in general as if you are separating yourself from that group of people. Now, I believe that you are sincere, and that your heart is in the right place. But, rhetorically and subconsciously, in your language you are stepping AWAY from "pro-lifers" and calling them crazy, even as you move closer to the world's ideal adherence to "reason and rationality" over what's truly and absolutely right and wrong.
Your Titanic analogy is a false one. A true analogy using the Titanic metaphor would be this -- rather than saying "We want to save all of you, but women and children first", you are instead saying, "Only women and children have a right to be saved. If you are a man, even if we have the ability to save you, even if we find you in the freezing water and have room in the lifeboat, you are still not allowed in the lifeboat because you do not have a right to life."
You may say that this analogy still supports you -- that historically, the Titanic did not have enough lifeboats to save everybody. But it did in fact have more than enough lifeboats to save some of the men. And there were some men pulled out of the icy water after the lifeboats left the ship. Besides this, the crew discriminated against third class passengers, which is perhaps a better analogy -- you are saving "first and second class passengers first", and leaving the third class passengers (offspring from rape, offspring from incest, etc.) to die, moreover saying in the wording of the legislation that it's okay that they do.
What you are really doing is asking... nay, demanding... nay, intimidating pro-life legislators and/or voters to vote for a measure which says "it is okay to kill babies if their father is a criminal (i.e. rapist)". You are forcing legislators (upon penalty of being called a "pro-abort"!!!) to stand up and speak with their vote: "I am willing to sacrifice this one baby and put it to death in order to save 870, because I recognize that there are mitigating factors which cause it to not have the same degree of right to life as the other 870." I understand the emotion behind wanting to save 870, even if you must sacrifice one, but telling the deathcamp guards that you will support them in killing all the gypsies if they will allow you to save all the Jews thoroughly eviscerates the principle of a "right to life". Yours is the emotional, not the rational, position.
The very act of making the statement evidenced in the new, compromised, S. Dakota legislation undermines the whole principle, and even the concept, of a "right to life", which is truly the most powerful tool we have to eventually end all abortions. In fact, by establishing and continuing to support that false division between the rights of some and the rights of others (some are more equal than others), you play into the hands of the abortionists and enable them to argue that even YOU -- the pro-lifers -- support abortion in cases of rape and incest. And they have the votes to prove that you did!
I do not disbelieve the fact that you desire to save all babies from abortion, including the "one" (another false figure) who will be a product of rape or incest. But that's not what the legislation says, so you should not be supporting it. If you really want to save the 870, you should change the law so that it does not confer a "right to an abortion" in any case -- that it does not explicitly defend any conditions under which a baby may legally be put to death. It may be possible to change the legislation so that it does not explicitly permit any abortions, but I think it would be hard to do.
By saving 870 babies today, you may literally uphold the "principle" of allowing abortion, and condemn "870 exceptions" to abortion over the next several decades, because you would not stand firm on the principle of a "right to life", and actually supported abortion in cases of rape or incest.\
You know Dr. Tiller. Would he allow something as simple as a prohibition against abortion "except in cases of rape and incest" to stop him? No! He's already violated the late-term ban. If he were in the situation of the S. Dakota abortionists (who probably look up to him and his methods), he would simply claim that "rape has made an amazing comeback!" And suddenly you have not 1, but 100 or 870 abortions a year in case of "rape or incest."
I, and others who oppose compromising on principle, will wait to see if you will push for that, or if you will continue to support a bill which upholds the "right to abortion" in some cases. I will remain very disappointed in you and Operation Rescue if you do not try to either fix this legislation, or publicly disavow your support.
Ed
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A follow-on post regarding Tancredo's "alarmism" on immigration... (poster's name excised)
p.s. The "ragging on Mexicans", etc. is directed at someone else, not at anything I said.
First, ****, let me say that I agree with a great deal of what you say. And I would venture to guess -- from what I know about him -- that Tom Tancredo would agree with you as well. But I think sometimes it's possible to believe one rational thing so strongly that it blinds any consideration of other rational points of view.
Secondly, let me say that I know many Mexican immigrants -- as well as many Vietnamese, Korean, Cuban, etc. -- who are some of the hardest working people I know. We should be proud to have them in this country, provided they are here legally and are law-abiding citizens, which many of them are.
But as someone (probably Tancredo) recently summed up about as well as anyone can, why should we welcome people to this country whose very first act on entering this country was to break the law? They have right up front demonstrated an unwillingness to live by the rules, laws and customs of the United States of America.
******, your relatives did not break any laws getting into this country. They came for jobs. They contrast stunningly with the illegal immigrants of today, simply by the fact that they entered this country legally, meaning to start a new life and to INVEST their hearts and souls in this country.
When I watched a pro-immigrant march through Denver recently -- thousands of marchers -- I saw 100 Mexican flags for every American flag they had. That shows that they are more proud of their former heritage than they are of their new country, and it demonstrates just how committed they are to the US -- not at all (as you say!).
I recently saw video footage on one of those "extreme videos" shows of a boatloat of Haitian immigrants the Coast Guard intercepted before they reached Florida. They were also overloaded and in danger of sinking, and knew it. When the USCG pulled up alongside, there was a stampede of people wanting to get onto the boat. They were so desperate that they actually capsized their own boat because there were too many people and they weren't following the rules. This can be a metaphor for what is happening in America today, and for why there need to be rules for immigration, and those rules need to be followed.
You earlier said that illegal immigrants pay for their stay by paying sales tax. In my opinion, that's a vastly distorted argument. First, many Mexican immigrants come here to work, make lots of money under the table, and send most of it to their families back home in Mexico. Then, many of them return to Mexico, stay, and return again later to repeat the process. They pay very little in the way of sales taxes -- just enough to keep themselves fed -- they pay no income taxes (some do, but very few), no social security taxes (again, some do, but not many), no payroll taxes, etc. They may end up costing the US very little also, except for forgone taxes for the minor services they consume, but if they ever get sick or injured, they are 100% on the taxpayer to be taken care of. The high cost of uncompensated Medicare treatment for a few illegals in this category far outweighs any benefits from those who never get injured.
Next, there are the illegals whose entire families are here. Generally, the man will work, producing none of the paycheck taxes, but then the needs of the family pay for some of that in sales taxes. But this in no way makes up for the fact that the man isn't paying income tax, SSI, payroll tax, etc., because a legal American citizen also pays those same sales taxes PLUS all of the others. Furthermore, in most cities every child here from these families receives a public education (about $5,000 a year), plus free lunch (another couple thousand or more a year) -- this burden is entirely upon the backs of the taxpayers, and in many communities it means that working parents are paying for not only their own childrens' education, but for a large share of the education of the illegal students in their school (this issue alone is breaking America's public school systems). Some of these illegal families receive public assistance for housing, utilities, or other needs (depending on which state and city). And, like the single worker mentioned above, these families -- grandmother, mom, dad, kids, etc. -- are mostly on Medicare for any illnesses or injuries. And these costs often run into the tens of thousands of dollars for each individual.
There is no way at all that an illegal immigrant individual or family is more of a resource for this country than a liability. The millions of illegal immigrants in the US today cost the taxpayers tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
p.s. The "ragging on Mexicans", etc. is directed at someone else, not at anything I said.
Anyone who thinks that Mexico is a threat to the United States, aside from their deliciously artery-clogging food, is living in fantasy land. If anything, without the US, the Mexican economy would collapse. And these Mexicanos who cross the border, their kids speak both languages, and their grand kids speak English. This is the way it's always, always been in the U.S. Little Joey Guiterrez is going to be American as apple pie. Assimilation, integration. Don't believe me? Why don't you speak German, or whatever language your folks got off the boat speaking?
And um, hello? [B]THAT'S WHY ANYONE COMES TO AMERICA TO BEGIN WITH![/B] To find a job and be safe from the dangers of your home country. You think the Constitution means boo when your family is hungry and threatened by the Tzar/Nazis/Mexican Druglords? America is a golden land (built by immigrants, whites and slaves altogether). You come here first for a better life. That's why my mother's people came here from Germany at the end of WW1. And my father's people ILLEGALLY IMMIGRATED in the friggin' Mayflower, STOLE Indian jobs in Massachusetts by farming on their land, and built this great damn country.
People come to America as IMMIGRANTS. They become Americans when they accept and defend the values of the Constitution. And as I said before, Latinos - and yes, even illegal ones - play a HUGE role in the United States military nowadays.
You think your grandparents came to this country with lofty ideals? You think your spit don't stink? 80-150 years ago, all the white folks on this board were their generation's Mexican. Uneducated, poor and desperate for a better life. Especially you damn Italians and Irish. Came off the boat like locusts. Took 50 years to weed out the mafiosos from the pissanos. Please. And you want to rag on Mexicans? Please.
Grrr...
:mad:
First, ****, let me say that I agree with a great deal of what you say. And I would venture to guess -- from what I know about him -- that Tom Tancredo would agree with you as well. But I think sometimes it's possible to believe one rational thing so strongly that it blinds any consideration of other rational points of view.
Secondly, let me say that I know many Mexican immigrants -- as well as many Vietnamese, Korean, Cuban, etc. -- who are some of the hardest working people I know. We should be proud to have them in this country, provided they are here legally and are law-abiding citizens, which many of them are.
But as someone (probably Tancredo) recently summed up about as well as anyone can, why should we welcome people to this country whose very first act on entering this country was to break the law? They have right up front demonstrated an unwillingness to live by the rules, laws and customs of the United States of America.
******, your relatives did not break any laws getting into this country. They came for jobs. They contrast stunningly with the illegal immigrants of today, simply by the fact that they entered this country legally, meaning to start a new life and to INVEST their hearts and souls in this country.
When I watched a pro-immigrant march through Denver recently -- thousands of marchers -- I saw 100 Mexican flags for every American flag they had. That shows that they are more proud of their former heritage than they are of their new country, and it demonstrates just how committed they are to the US -- not at all (as you say!).
I recently saw video footage on one of those "extreme videos" shows of a boatloat of Haitian immigrants the Coast Guard intercepted before they reached Florida. They were also overloaded and in danger of sinking, and knew it. When the USCG pulled up alongside, there was a stampede of people wanting to get onto the boat. They were so desperate that they actually capsized their own boat because there were too many people and they weren't following the rules. This can be a metaphor for what is happening in America today, and for why there need to be rules for immigration, and those rules need to be followed.
You earlier said that illegal immigrants pay for their stay by paying sales tax. In my opinion, that's a vastly distorted argument. First, many Mexican immigrants come here to work, make lots of money under the table, and send most of it to their families back home in Mexico. Then, many of them return to Mexico, stay, and return again later to repeat the process. They pay very little in the way of sales taxes -- just enough to keep themselves fed -- they pay no income taxes (some do, but very few), no social security taxes (again, some do, but not many), no payroll taxes, etc. They may end up costing the US very little also, except for forgone taxes for the minor services they consume, but if they ever get sick or injured, they are 100% on the taxpayer to be taken care of. The high cost of uncompensated Medicare treatment for a few illegals in this category far outweighs any benefits from those who never get injured.
Next, there are the illegals whose entire families are here. Generally, the man will work, producing none of the paycheck taxes, but then the needs of the family pay for some of that in sales taxes. But this in no way makes up for the fact that the man isn't paying income tax, SSI, payroll tax, etc., because a legal American citizen also pays those same sales taxes PLUS all of the others. Furthermore, in most cities every child here from these families receives a public education (about $5,000 a year), plus free lunch (another couple thousand or more a year) -- this burden is entirely upon the backs of the taxpayers, and in many communities it means that working parents are paying for not only their own childrens' education, but for a large share of the education of the illegal students in their school (this issue alone is breaking America's public school systems). Some of these illegal families receive public assistance for housing, utilities, or other needs (depending on which state and city). And, like the single worker mentioned above, these families -- grandmother, mom, dad, kids, etc. -- are mostly on Medicare for any illnesses or injuries. And these costs often run into the tens of thousands of dollars for each individual.
There is no way at all that an illegal immigrant individual or family is more of a resource for this country than a liability. The millions of illegal immigrants in the US today cost the taxpayers tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)