Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue

[Vine&FigTree]

Vine&FigTree:

What if the 1 baby that was conceived via a rape was your grandson or granddaughter or your niece or nephew? You wouldn't want the law passed if that were the case. Well, love your neighbor as yourself because that 1 conception will be your neighbor's kin.

This is sub-Christian moral nonsense, Jefferson.

Not only would I want the bill passed even if my grandson were to die, I would support the bill even if I were to die. Example:

Suppose there were 1,000 people in a concentration camp, slated for gassing: 999 Jews and one Christian: me. A bill is proposed in the legislature to free all Jews from concentration camps, but not Christians. Would I support that bill? OF COURSE I WOULD! What kind of Christian would say, "NO! The Jews should not be freed unless I am freed!" What kind of Christian says ME FIRST rather than "Women and children first."

"Love my neighbor" means passing a bill that criminalizes the murder of 999 of my neighbors' children even if my own child is murdered.

I cannot comprehend the moral reasoning that concludes it is better to advocate the saving of 1,000 but allow all 1,000 to die than to definitely save 999 and keep working to pass another bill to save the last one.

 

[Jefferson]

This is sub-Christian moral nonsense, Jefferson.

Not only would I want the bill passed even if my grandson were to die, I would support the bill even if I were to die. Example:

Suppose there were 1,000 people in a concentration camp, slated for gassing: 999 Jews and one Christian: me. A bill is proposed in the legislature to free all Jews from concentration camps, but not Christians. Would I support that bill? OF COURSE I WOULD! What kind of Christian would say, "NO! The Jews should not be freed unless I am freed!" What kind of Christian says ME FIRST rather than "Women and children first."

"Love my neighbor" means passing a bill that criminalizes the murder of 999 of my neighbors' children even if my own child is murdered.

I cannot comprehend the moral reasoning that concludes it is better to advocate the saving of 1,000 but allow all 1,000 to die than to definitely save 999 and keep working to pass another bill to save the last one.

Please explain how your view is not a direct sin against Romans 3:8 which commands against doing evil that good may result.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

If a terrorist says to you I will not detonate this nuclear bomb and kill millions so long as you sign your consent to kill this one (pointing to a little girl) you should refuse. I know many think there is something to be gained by compromising righteousness with evil but that view is wicked. Morality is not relative, you can never sponser the death of another human being without incurring sin.

When pro-lifers start making laws that say that it is okay to kill a baby whose father is a rapist, they are giving their blessing to murder.

 

[Greywolf]

Please explain how your view is not a direct sin against Romans 3:8 which commands against doing evil that good may result.

Does the passage of this bill constitute an act of evil?

 

[Vine&FigTree]

If a terrorist says to you I will not detonate this nuclear bomb and kill millions so long as you sign your consent to kill this one (pointing to a little girl) you should refuse.

I agree, but it's a bad analogy. If it is already legal to detonate nuclear bombs and kill one million people, and a legislator proposes a bill making it illegal to detonate and kill, but pro-terrorist legislators vote against that bill, then another bill is proposed making it illegal to detonate and kill all but one person, what morally sane person would say, "NO! Let them ALL die unless ALL live!" I'm voting to prevent the murder of 999,999, even though one will die.

I know many think there is something to be gained by compromising righteousness with evil but that view is wicked.

I'm sorry, but you've been deceived by moral demagogues. Why is it evil to prevent the murder of 99% if you cannot prevent the murder of 100%?

Morality is not relative, you can never sponser the death of another human being without incurring sin.

SouthDakota Right-to-Lifers are not "sponsoring" the murder of anyone, they're just trying to prevent as many murders as they possibly can. South Dakota Pro-Lifers already tried to prohibit 100% of abortions and they couldn't do it. How can doing the best you can be sinful? Why is saving 99% more sinful than OPPOSING the saving of 99%? You people are saying we should vote AGAINST a bill that saves 99% on the grounds that it doesn't save 100%? That's insane!

When pro-lifers start making laws that say that it is okay to kill a baby whose father is a rapist, they are giving their blessing to murder.

It is already legal to murder them all. We tried to make it illegal to murder them all, but that didn't work. We still have a chance to prevent the murder of 99%, and you OPPOSE that? Really, there's something demonic operating in your moral reasoning.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I agree, but it's a bad analogy. If it is already legal to detonate nuclear bombs and kill one million people, and a legislator proposes a bill making it illegal to detonate and kill, but pro-terrorist legislators vote against that bill, then another bill is proposed making it illegal to detonate and kill all but one person, what morally sane person would say, "NO! Let them ALL die unless ALL live!"

No one is saying “let them all die.” That’s a strawman argument. We are consistent in our statement that it is wrong to kill any of them. However you are a hypocrite when out of one side of your mouth you say it is wrong, but with the other side you try to pass a law saying that legal to kill certain ones.

What is legal or illegal now is irrelevant - you DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to say that it is legal to kill any child, even if you think dishonoring God will save a few of them. You are arguing that we should leave God's word behind, and only focus on political maneuvering. I guarantee you that the Devil will beat you as soon as you give up God's high ground. You don't have the intelligence to out-wit the Devil in the political process without moral high ground God has already given you.

But yes, if someone proposes a bill saying to make it legal to kill one person but not thousands, then you can’t support the murder of that one person, and you shouldn’t therefore support that bill – even if the current situation is that thousands can be killed. The stance is simply that we have NO RIGHT to support anything that openly acknowledges it rightful to kill even one person.

Peter = We must obey God rather than man.
VF = We must obey God in as much as we can through man's system.

When making the abortion law, they did not have to say, “… but if you want to kill a child of a rapist, that’s okay with us” – they didn’t have to put that in there, but they did. That shows that they are willing to compromise on the issue of obeying God.

Why is it evil to prevent the murder of 99% if you cannot prevent the murder of 100%?

It’s never evil to prevent murder … so long as you don’t sanction it for someone else in the process. But we are talking about a new law here; a new law COULD HAVE prevented the murder of 100% if they simply did not put in there their condoning of murder in those cases. Whether it would or wouldn’t get passed is irrelevant – you don’t do evil that good may come of it. Paul told Timothy that it is better to have a good fight and loose, than to be on the wrong side and win.

SouthDakota Right-to-Lifers are not "sponsoring" the murder of anyone, they're just trying to prevent as many murders as they possibly can.

When you write a law that endorses the legality of killing another human being, then you’ve sponsored that murder. I agree their intensions are good, but their actions are not. They, no one else, are to blame for the wording that rape and incest children can be murdered.

South Dakota Pro-Lifers already tried to prohibit 100% of abortions and they couldn't do it.

So they said to the terrorists, “Free all the passengers”, and the terrorist said “No”. Big surprise. So then you don’t give up and say, “Okay, okay, kill that guy over there, and let everybody else go.” That’s evil. You don’t advocate the murder of someone else. What South Dakota Pro-Lifers should do from here is to continually try to prohibit abortion, and try to sneak anyone off the plane that they can sneak off in the meantime.

BTW - the movie Amazing Grace is interesting for this conversion as it is about the life of WIlliam Wilberforce who lost hundreds of votes in the British parliament trying to stop the slave trade in England. He didn't give up and start compromising. He arrived every year with the same bills, put the images of the horrors in the minds of the people and eventually saved England from the sort of civil war that the USA had to endure.

One defeat does not mean its time to throw God's enduring commands out the window and forge our own.

You people are saying we should vote AGAINST a bill that saves 99% on the grounds that it doesn't save 100%?

No, that’s mischaracterizing what we are saying. I’m saying that you never condone murder. You don’t try to save 99% by lending your voice that it is okay to kill 1%.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

No one is saying “let them all die.” That’s a strawman argument.

I don't see the difference. You're saying South Dakota legislators should vote AGAINST legislation which would STOP 99% of all abortions. Is that not your position? Vote AGAINST a bill that PROHIBITS 99% of all abortions?

We are consistent in our statement that it is wrong to kill any of them.

Name one South Dakota pro-lifer who disagrees with this!! YOU are creating strawmen. Rep. Roger W. Hunt, chief sponsor of the first bill to ban 99.99% of all abortions said, "the goal is to prohibit the killing and the termination of life of all of those unborn children." Tragically, Rep. Hunt and other prolifers have been unable to ban ALL abortions, so now they're trying to ban as many as they possibly can. And you oppose their efforts, do you not?

However you are a hypocrite when out of one side of your mouth you say it is wrong, but with the other side you try to pass a law saying that legal to kill certain ones.

It has been legal since 1973 "to kill certain ones," indeed, all. South Dakota pro-lifers are trying to reverse that, sponsoring legislation which will prohibit as many murders as they can convince an anti-Christian legal system to prohibit. SD pro-lifers are not passing laws making it LEGAL to kill, they're passing laws making it ILLEGAL to kill as many as they possibly can. And you oppose their efforts, do you not?

What is legal or illegal now is irrelevant - you DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to say that it is legal to kill any child, even if you think dishonoring God will save a few of them.

This is slander and strawman, Jedi. No SD pro-lifer thinks "dishonoring God" will save anyone. Why do you say unChristian things like that? The fact that it is already legal under Roe v. Wade to kill any baby you want is totally relevant, because the goal is to reverse that legalization and make all abortions illegal. SD Pro-lifers are trying to get as many abortions stopped as they possibly can, and you oppose that, do you not?

You are arguing that we should leave God's word behind, and only focus on political maneuvering.

C'mon Jedi, be charitable. Nobody is arguing that we should "leave God's Word behind." God's Word is our goal. Abolition of all abortions is the goal. We're talking about means to an end. If I can't save all, but I can save some, why should I not save some???

I guarantee you that the Devil will beat you as soon as you give up God's high ground.

Nobody has given up God's high ground. Total abolition is the goal. Do you think Satan gave up his "high ground" when he got first trimester abortions legalized? No, that was just the first step. Now abortion is legal in all three trimesters. If I can get third trimester abortions criminalized, I haven't "given up God's high ground," I've made concrete steps to getting back to God's high ground! But if I say, "Oh no, I'm not going to vote for a law that criminalizes third trimester abortions; I will only vote for a bill that re-criminalizes abortions in all three trimesters" -- which isn't going to happen until a few more million babies are slaughtered -- how is that "higher ground?" It sounds holy and pious in theory, but in practice it means more muders will be committed!

But yes, if someone proposes a bill saying to make it legal to kill one person but not thousands,

See, Jedi, this is why "What is legal or illegal now" is NOT irrelevant. Nobody in South Dakota is MAKING it legal to kill -- it already is legal. We're trying to make it ILLEGAL.

then you can’t support the murder of that one person, and you shouldn’t therefore support that bill – even if the current situation is that thousands can be killed.

Your Jedi Master has confused your powers of moral reasoning. Why is it better NOT to re-criminalize ANY abortions than it is to re-criminalize SOME abortions. You have a chance to re-criminalize SOME abortions and you're saying, "NO, I won't re-criminalize ANY abortions unless I can re-criminalize ALL abortions." And by saying that, you're passing up a chance to save thousands of babies. How can you justify letting them be murdered until all pro-abortion legislators die or get impeached or voted out of office? WHY NOT SAVE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE as soon as we possibly can??

The stance is simply that we have NO RIGHT to support anything that openly acknowledges it rightful to kill even one person.

Name one pro-life legislator who supports re-criminalizing most abortions who "acknowledges it {is} rightful to kill even one person." If you can't quote someone saying that, then please admit you have created a strawman. Everyone believes it is not rightful to kill. Some believe it is good to stop killing some, you believe it is better to keep killing some until we have the power to stop killing all.

Peter = We must obey God rather than man.
VF = We must obey God in as much as we can through man's system.

And under my approach, we have more obedience (fewer abortions) than under your approach (wait for the perfect bill while the murders continue).

When making the abortion law, they did not have to say, “… but if you want to kill a child of a rapist, that’s okay with us” – they didn’t have to put that in there, but they did. That shows that they are willing to compromise on the issue of obeying God.

C'mon, Jedi, this is really wrong. A violation of the Ninth Commandment. No SD pro-lifer is saying it's "okay with us" to kill anybody. All they're saying is, "If you won't stop all murders, won't you at least stop SOME?" And if they prevail, SD pro-lifers will stop some murders. Whereas if YOUR side prevails NO murders will stop, because the pro-abortion forces will not stop ALL abortions.

It’s never evil to prevent murder … so long as you don’t sanction it for someone else in the process. But we are talking about a new law here; a new law COULD HAVE prevented the murder of 100% if they simply did not put in there their condoning of murder in those cases.

Jedi, I guess you just don't understand the facts. Last year, SD pro-lifers attempted to get a pure anti-abortion law passed. They failed. So now they're trying to get as many murders as they can stopped. They're negotiating with pro-abortion terrorists. They're trying to save a few, since it's clear they cannot save them all -- at least not right now. Step by step, there's a good chance that they can stop some today, stop more tomorrow, and stop them all in the near future. But you say, better to NOT stop some and wish for a pie-in-the-sky 100% abortion ban, which isn't going to happen before thousands of babies are murdered.

So they said to the terrorists, “Free all the passengers”, and the terrorist said “No”. Big surprise. So then you don’t give up and say, “Okay, okay, kill that guy over there, and let everybody else go.” That’s evil. You don’t advocate the murder of someone else.

I think that's slanderous, Jedi. Nobody is saying it's "okay" to kill. Nobody is "advocating" any abortions. Nobody is making killing legal. The short-term goal is to re-criminalize as many abortions as we can as soon as we possibly can, with the long-term goal being to eliminate all abortions. Be fair to your Christian and pro-life brothers and sisters.

What South Dakota Pro-Lifers should do from here is to continually try to prohibit abortion, and try to sneak anyone off the plane that they can sneak off in the meantime.

This sounds EXACTLY like what they're trying to do! Have you changed your tune? Are you now saying it isn't necessary to sneak ALL off the plane at once? That a step-by-step strategy is okay?

One defeat does not mean its time to throw God's enduring commands out the window and forge our own {snip} by lending your voice that it is okay to kill 1%.

I really think you're unfair, Jedi. Nobody says it's "okay" to kill any at all. We're just trying to stop a few murders now, and all of them eventually.

 

[Lighthouse]

Agreeing to die so others could live is very Christian. However, agreeing that someone else should die, so that others may live is anti-Christ!

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Agreeing to die so others could live is very Christian. However, agreeing that someone else should die, so that others may live is anti-Christ!

Either you people aren't thinking straight, or you're determined to slander other Christians.
Name one person who "agrees" that anyone should die!

South Dakota pro-lifers have already tried to ban all abortions. They couldn't pull it off. Now they're trying to ban as many abortions as they can, and like Sanballot and Tobiah you're telling them they're "evil" to try to save as many as they can unless they save them all.

If SD pro-lifers successfully ban most abortions, they will build on that momentum and continue their work until all abortions are banned. If they're not able to ban most abortions, how can they possibly ban them all??? Why is it evil to continue to try to ban abortions?

I think your analysis is embarrassingly unChristian.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I said: No one is saying “let them all die.” That’s a strawman argument.

Vine&FigTree responded:I don't see the difference.

If you don’t see the difference in saying “I do not have the right to give you my blessing to kill babies from rape and incest cases” and “let them all die” then you a priori have a bias and refuse to see even the possibility that you are wrong.


Let's start with something slower:

1) Do we ever have the right as Christians to over-rule God?
2) If God says something is wrong, should we ever say "Well, we'll allow it?"
3) Do we have the right to compromise on some of God's principles in order to get other ones approved by the wicked majority?

If you were honest, the answer to all of these is "no" we do not have such a right. It is sinful to presume to speak against God in that manner.

This law states that it is okay to kill a baby born to rape. I'm not saying it is making it legal, we both agree that it is already legal. I am saying it affirms the legality of killing a baby born to rape. That is evil. No one has the right to affirm that. God's enduring commands over-rule any law that would say otherwise. Now we have Christians trying to disregard the fact that God has already spoken on this and say, if we just affirm the right to kill a baby in cases of rape and incest we'll be able to save more babies (which is debatable). But any babies saved will be done through a lack of faith in God, and through a making of God's opinion "profane".

But you don't know the history...

Nonsense, I probably know it better than you.

Everyone who sins says, "But you don't know the history". History doesn't justify immoral behavior. That they tried previously to get a better (though still flawed - see their questionable acceptance of Plan-B and other chemical abortions) law passed, that doesn't give them the right to claim to "overrule" God on their next go around.

You are misrepresenting their side...

Sadly, I'm not. It's not slander - it fits them like a bloody glove.

Many people don't intend to be a hypocrite, but the supporters of this law are. Many of them wouldn't in their wildest dreams would think of themselves as overruling God, but that is exactly what they are doing (or presumptuously act as doing) through this law. It is because they, like you, have never learned to think in terms of right and wrong, but have trained themselves to look at morality as a sliding scale ... "We can save some, if we'll just add our voice to the death sentence of these others."

You don't have the AUTHORITY to over-rule God's command. And you should never sign your name to something that pretends to be usurping such. No law can validly kill an innocent person, and for pro-lifers to affirm that which is invalid is a crying shame.

Shouldn't we try to save some...

And that's what I've been able to do at the very gates of hell. At the clinic doorsteps (or at least outside their parking lots) I've seen my fair share of lives saved from the slaughter. We get help to women who thought abortion was their only choice. We save them a litte at a time, even though we can't get them all.

But at no time in doing this do I ever compromise God's word or pretend that I have the authority to over-rule God's enduring command. No person, pro-life leader, nation, or government has the right to over-rule God's command "Do not murder". No one has the right to make a law like the misguided and foolish pro-lifers in South Dakota are making.

Will it save babies?

It is certainly possible that babies will be saved. Here are some other possibilities though:

• Abortion will go up in surrounding states.
• The number of "unsolvable" rape cases will go up to get around the rule.
• It is more unlikely after this law that South Sakota will ever be abortion free (since Pro-Lifers will have to overturn their own law now to accomplish that).
• This law will immediately be put on stay and eventually over-ruled, which will mean hundreds of pro-lifers will have put God's word under the bus for naught.
• The notion that Pro-Lifers are hypocrites, and don't really think it is a baby (because you don't kill a baby just for a Father being a rapist) will increase, using this law as evidence.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Let me start with the last questions:

Will it save babies?
It is certainly possible that babies will be saved. Here are some other possibilities though:

• Abortion will go up in surrounding states.

Jedi, you're not thinking straight at all. Abortion will "go up" only if at least one woman who would have gotten an abortion in South Dakota goes to another state, say, North Dakota. If two abortions are prevented in South Dakota and one of those two goes to North Dakota, ND's abortion rate will rise but SD's rate will go down, and it still means one less abortion. This rise in surrounding states might possibly happen even if every single abortion were banned in South Dakota! You can't possibly be against the banning of every single abortion in South Dakota on the grounds that some (probably not all) of those who would have gotten an abortion in SD will go to North Dakota to get an abortion.

• The number of "unsolvable" rape cases will go up to get around the rule.

All abortions are legal now. You're saying we shouldn't ban ANY of those abortions because SOME women will claim they were raped in order to come under the exception? So you would be against stopping EVEN ONE abortion by the woman who would NOT claim rape?

• It is more unlikely after this law that South Sakota will ever be abortion free (since Pro-Lifers will have to overturn their own law now to accomplish that).

This is nonsense. If all abortions except rape are banned, the only thing pro-lifers have left to do is ban the rape case abortions, not overturn the previous ban on all non-rape abortions

• This law will immediately be put on stay and eventually over-ruled, which will mean hundreds of pro-lifers will have put God's word under the bus for naught.

I don't understand why we shouldn't TRY to ban 99% of all abortions, just because we MIGHT get a liberal judge overturn it. Besides, the goal is to appeal such a decision to the U.S. Supreme Court to take advantage of an (allegedly) more conservative court. If I'm a legislator, I have a duty to God to ban as many abortions as I can, regardless of what the judicial branch might or might not do.

• The notion that Pro-Lifers are hypocrites, and don't really think it is a baby (because you don't kill a baby just for a Father being a rapist) will increase, using this law as evidence.

I don't understand why the notion that "pro-lifers are hypocrites" will increase. That may be because I don't understand why pro-life legislators are hypocrites just because anti-life legislators or anti-life judges overrule the attempts of pro-life legislators to ban as many abortions as possible.

If you don’t see the difference in saying “I do not have the right to give you my blessing to kill babies from rape and incest cases” and “let them all die” then you a priori have a bias and refuse to see even the possibility that you are wrong.

Who is it that is giving a "blessing" for killing children of rape? Not me. Not any Pro-lifers in South Dakota that I know of, since they already tried to prohibit such abortions. But since their legislative efforts failed, they're trying to ban the abortions that they CAN ban. Why is that evil? Analogy: suppose I'm a legislator in Nazi Germany. I propose a law that bans killing anyone in a concentration camp. My legislative effort fails because of massive anti-Semitism in the German legislature. I then propose a law that bans gassing gypsies. Anti-semites are willing to go along with this, the law passes, and thousands of gypsies are released from the camps. How have I sinned by preventing their murder? I'm not putting my "blessing" on the killing of non-gypsies: I just got through authoring a bill to prevent their killing, but it didn't pass. I'm doing all I can to prevent murders. Why is that evil?

Let's start with something slower:

1) Do we ever have the right as Christians to over-rule God?
2) If God says something is wrong, should we ever say "Well, we'll allow it?"
3) Do we have the right to compromise on some of God's principles in order to get other ones approved by the wicked majority?

If you were honest, the answer to all of these is "no" we do not have such a right. It is sinful to presume to speak against God in that manner.

I don't consider it a "compromise" to save thousands of gypsies or thousands of babies who are not the product of rape. I consider it a DUTY. Why is it YOU do not consider it a DUTY to save as many lives as you possibly can???

This law states that it is okay to kill a baby born to rape. I'm not saying it is making it legal, we both agree that it is already legal. I am saying it affirms the legality of killing a baby born to rape.

This seems like semantic quibbling. Pro-life legislators in South Dakota have made clear that they want to ban ALL abortions, including rape cases. They are not "affirming" the morality of killing anyone, they're just trying to prevent all the murders they can. Why is it wrong to try to keep SOME abortions from taking place???

That is evil. No one has the right to affirm that. God's enduring commands over-rule any law that would say otherwise. Now we have Christians trying to disregard the fact that God has already spoken on this and say,

Why is authoring legislation to ban ALL abortions including rape-case abortions, and having that legislation foiled by pro-death forces, then trying to prohibit as many abortions as possible "EVIL?" It's the pro-death forces who are EVIL, not those who are trying to prevent as many abortions as they can!

if we just affirm the right to kill a baby in cases of rape and incest we'll be able to save more babies (which is debatable).

What do you mean "debatable?" Are you saying that banning 99% of all abortions may not allow more babies to live than would live when all those abortions are legal? You're just not making any sense to me, Jedi.

babies saved will be done through a lack of faith in God, and through a making of God's opinion "profane". That they tried previously to get a better (though still flawed - see their questionable acceptance of Plan-B and other chemical abortions) law passed, that doesn't give them the right to claim to "overrule" God on their next go around.

Who is it that is claiming to "overrule" God? Why is it diligent efforts to ban as many abortions as possible is a claim to be overruling God? I see it as obeying God and putting as much of His Law into practice as possible.

It's not slander - it fits them like a bloody glove.
Many people don't intend to be a hypocrite, but the supporters of this law are. Many of them wouldn't in their wildest dreams would think of themselves as overruling God, but that is exactly what they are doing (or presumptuously act as doing) through this law. It is because they, like you, have never learned to think in terms of right and wrong

Give me a break, Jedi. Working hard, lobbying, drafting and re-drafting legislation hoping to get around the pro-death forces, trying diligently to get as many abortions banned as possible, is not being undertaken by people who "have never learned to think in terms of right and wrong." Think for a moment how uncharitable and slanderous you're being. They are trying to make their laws as Christian as possible. It astounds me that someone would accuse people who are trying to ban abortions of being "evil" and "have never learned to think in terms of right and wrong." They believe abortion is WRONG and they're trying to do something about the fact that they are now LEGAL.

but have trained themselves to look at morality as a sliding scale ... "We can save some, if we'll just add our voice to the death sentence of these others."

I don't know what you mean by "add our voice." Pro-lifers in SD have already tried to ban the legalized death sentence against rape case kids. They've postponed that battle and are focusing their strength on the 99% of all other abortions, trying to ban them, returning to rape case abortions when they can succeed. I don't understand why you won't add YOUR voice to the criminalization of 99% of all abortions. You and Wichita abortionist George Tiller will be voting against the pro-life bill.

You don't have the AUTHORITY to over-rule God's command.

But I have a DUTY as a legislator to ban as many abortions as I can. Nobody is claiming "authority to over-rule God's command." This is just slander. SD pro-lifers are carrying out the duty of every legislator to ban as many abortions as they can, and move the laws in a pro-life direction. You oppose this movement, and I can't understand why.

And you should never sign your name to something that pretends to be usurping such.

No pro-lifer is "pretending" to usurp anything. Pro-lifers do not have the POWER to ban all abortions. But pro-lifers do have a DUTY to abolish as many abortions as they have the POWER to abolish. This is their goal. They are pursuing that duty to the best of their ability. You try to impede their progress from the sidelines.

No law can validly kill an innocent person, and for pro-lifers to affirm that which is invalid is a crying shame.

It's a crying shame that the efforts of pro-lifers in SD are being criticized rather than supported. Pro-lifers don't "affirm" the killing of rape-case babies, they affirm the prohibition of ALL THE OTHER abortions, having already tried but failed to ban the rape-case abortions, which obviously they do not affirm.

At the clinic doorsteps (or at least outside their parking lots) I've seen my fair share of lives saved from the slaughter. We get help to women who thought abortion was their only choice. We save them a litte at a time, even though we can't get them all.

Wouldn't it be slanderous and unfair of me to accuse you of "usurping" God's command by not saving them all? Wouldn't it be great if 99% of those women never showed up at the "clinic" in the first place because those abortions had been criminalized? How can you oppose legislators who are trying to criminalize 99% of all those abortions?

But at no time in doing this do I ever compromise God's word or pretend that I have the authority to over-rule God's enduring command. No person, pro-life leader, nation, or government has the right to over-rule God's command "Do not murder". No one has the right to make a law like the misguided and foolish pro-lifers in South Dakota are making.

Pro-lifers do not have a DUTY to ban as many abortions as they can? No one has a right to stop 99% of all abortions from taking place? Better to let them take place???

I can only shake my head in disbelief. I cannot understand efforts to DISCOURAGE pro-life legislators from preventing even one abortion, especially if it creates momentum resulting in the banning of ALL abortions.

 

[jeremiah]

To Vine and Fig Tree:

I certainly understand your frustration, and incredulity, with your fellow pro-lifers like myself, and others, who would not pursue a bill that would potentially save so many lives.

I am now "thinking out loud", so to speak, as I type. Since there are some of God's ten commandments which clearly command, "Thou shalt not", and yet do not carry a criminal penalty: I wonder if a Christian could support a bill that specifies that all abortions are illegal, and then specify a severe penalty for abortion, and yet exclude that exact same penalty for abortions, in the case of rape and incest. Would that be a moral "middle ground" that all of us who agree that all abortion is wrong, could accept?

For instance there are some crimes in our laws, which carry no enforcement, or penalties, other than a small fee for its breaking, thereof, and a record of our offense.

Could we accept it if all abortions are criminalized, and the 1 % committed as rape abortions, were then recorded as crimes. The criminals required to pay some sort of small fine as their punishment, and their crime is recorded on a public venue.




I think that I could accept a bill of that nature. One in which all abortions are wrong, and criminal, and yet we only are "arguing" over the penalty.

That way, at least before God, we, as Christians and as a society, are acknowledging it, as a sin and a crime, and "perhaps" even many Pro-choicers, would pass that kind of bill?

 

[Vine&FigTree]

I think that I could accept a bill of that nature. One in which all abortions are wrong, and criminal and yet we only are arguing over the penalty.
That way at least before God, we, as Christians and as a society, are acknowledging it, as a sin and a crime, and "perhaps" even Pro- choicers would pass that kind of bill?

If I had already tried to pass a bill which criminalized all abortions and provided penalties I thought were appropriate, but didn't have the support from other legislators or other branches of government, but I could get a bill passed which would say all abortions are murder but would not have any penalties, I would think that's an improvement over the current situation, in which there are no penalties for any abortion and the law says they're all Okie Dokie, even a "right." Crimes have historically been legalized first by removing penalties. That process can be reversed.

Some would, I'm sure, say that such a law would be "evil," because it "usurps" the commandment of God. But if the quest for instant perfection brings nothing, I would settle for legislation which criminalizes without any penalty. Even non-Christians have written interesting articles on the power of the legal system as a social educator. When the law says that abortions are "illegal" it is a great step forward from the present situation, even if no abortions are penalized in any way.

References:
Freedman, The Law as Educator, Iowa Law Review, vol 70, p 487, 1985.
Lerner, The Supreme Court as Republican Schoolmaster, in 1967 Supreme Court Review (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 127.
Roden, Educating Through the Law, UCLA Law Review, vol 33, p. 1424, 1986.

 

[jeremiah]

Going back to the Holocaust analogy. If the Nazis are killing the Jews indiscriminately, with the silent approval of the people: Then, if the Nazis "offer" to stop killing 99% of the Jews, if the legislature makes it legal to kill their "worst" 1%, would I offer them that legislation? No

Would I "rather" pass a law that declares that the killing of "all" Jews for any "arbitrary" reason, is a crime and illegal, with no penalties? Yes

Then it becomes a matter of passing further legislation, that makes the penalties, and the enforcement of them, equal to the will and courage, of the governing authorities. It also must be, to some extent, the will of the people, in our form of government.

If incrementalism is the answer to 40 years of legalized abortion, then that is the approach that I would take.

If abortion is wrong, and a murder, then it is a sin to a believer, and a crime to a citizen of the United States. If-then abortion is a murder and crime, then there can be no exception, or reason, to commit that crime, against an innocent individual in the womb, for the sake of , or the desires of, a woman in pain.

If pain and revenge, are reasons for murder, then vigilantism is justified.

If it is not a crime to kill a baby if her father was a rapist, then certainly it is even worse to say that it is a crime to kill a baby, if its mother is a murderess.

In other words, if a woman is a murderer then she can't kill her baby, but if the Father is "only" a rapist, then her baby can be killed. If we are making relative judgments, doesn't that one make more sense, then the "way" the bill is being proposed? Isn't that "exception" more justified?

I know that no one wants to think that young, misguided, distraught women who have willingly decided to have an abortion are murderers! Isn't that what they are in the final analysis? Isn't that why they need to be forgiven, and saved by a Loving God?

Isn't the very fact that we have not even defined it as a crime in "all" circumstances, led pregnant women, and the rest of us, to see them as victims, rather than the perpetrators.

Isn't the very purpose of all of us "pro- lifers", to protect the innocent babies from their own mothers? Hasn't it been rightly said that the MOST dangerous place for a baby, in America, is in its mother's womb?

I know this all sounds "crazy", but we are actually trying to defend, and rescue babies mostly from their mothers and their fathers, and often from their own grandparents!

I know that above and beyond it all, is a great "cloud of deception" that has made, practically an entire world unaware of what abortion is....... the taking of an innocent, God created, life. However it is people themselves, who bear the guilt and responsibility, for their own actions, as adults. We may want to say the devil made us do it, but he is not going to say that for us, and take the "rap".

If, with our laws, we say that abortion is legal, in the case of rape, then we have darkened that very cloud of deception and confusion, that we are trying to diffuse!

Maybe the best form of incrementalism would be this. Propose a bill that would ban only 1% of all abortions, if the father is a rapist , but allow all abortions in the case of either the mother or the father being a murderer. Yes folks if you can prove that you have murdered someone, then you can have an abortion. Maybe then people will "wake up", and stop seeing all pregnant women, as victims!

And maybe then pro- lifers would also come back to their senses?












:kookoo: :hammer: :kookoo: :hammer:

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Going back to the Holocaust analogy. If the Nazis are killing the Jews indiscriminately, with the silent approval of the people: Then, if the Nazis "offer" to stop killing 99% of the Jews, if the legislature makes it legal to kill their "worst" 1%, would I offer them that legislation? No

Would I "rather" pass a law that declares that the killing of "all" Jews for any "arbitrary" reason, is a crime and illegal, with no penalties? Yes

Then it becomes a matter of passing further legislation, that makes the penalties, and the enforcement of them, equal to the will and courage, of the governing authorities. It also must be, to some extent, the will of the people, in our form of government.

If incrementalism is the answer to 40 years of legalized abortion, then that is the approach that I would take.

I'm not quite sure which side of this debate you're on, Jeremiah. The subject of this thread is incrementalism. The title of the thread is, "Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue, that is, CRTL criticizes incrementalism.

We must remember that at one time in our nation's history abortion was illegal. It was incrementally legalized. It is now politically impossible to re-criminalize abortion in one day. It will only be re-criminalized incrementally. But apparently some (like CRTL) will oppose the re-criminalization of abortion if it is done incrementally.

South Dakota Pro-lifers are like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There was a time in Germany when it was illegal to kill a human being just because he was Jewish. There was a time in Germany when there were no concentration camps. Imagine that Bonhoeffer proposed a law which eliminated all concentration camps and all genocide. The proposed law failed to pass (duh!). Suppose that Bonhoeffer has reason to believe that a law might pass which frees only the gypsies from the concentration camps and prohibits the murder of gypisies. Should Bonhoeffer propose such a law, even though it does not free the Jews? This would be only an "incremental" end to the holocaust, but it would save thousands of lives. Hard-line Nazis will oppose the bill, but "moderates" might join pro-lifers in supporting the bill.

Colorado Right to Life would OPPOSE this bill. They would vote with the hard-line pro-death Nazis.

If abortion is wrong, and a murder, then it is a sin to a believer, and a crime to a citizen of the United States. If-then abortion is a murder and crime, then there can be no exception, or reason, to commit that crime, against an innocent individual in the womb, for the sake of , or the desires of, a woman in pain.

Let's rephrase this:

If gassing a human being in a concentration camp is wrong, and a murder, then it is a sin to a believer, and a crime to a citizen of Germany. If-then gassing a human being in a concentration camp is a murder and crime, then there can be no exception, or reason, to commit that crime, against an innocent individual in the womb, for the sake of , or the desires of, Nazi ideology.

Now then, if a minority of Germans like Dietrich Bonhoeffer believe they have the political power to stop the gassing of gypsies, should they propose a bill doing so, even though they do not have the political power to stop the killing of Jews?

I say, YES, they should try to stop the killing of as many people as possible. Colorado Right to Life says, NO, let the gypsies die until we have the political power to save the Jews too.

I don't get this.

I know that no one wants to think that young, misguided, distraught women who have willingly decided to have an abortion are murderers! Isn't that what they are in the final analysis? Isn't that why they need to be forgiven, and saved by a Loving God?

As far as I know, Jeremiah, everyone agrees with you on this. I agree with you: abortion in every case is murder. There are no exceptions, not for rape, incest, or the "health of the mother." No exceptions. Murder.

It is also murder to gas someone to death in a concentration camp. There are no exceptions. Jews, gypsies, Christians: it's always murder.

Should a minority of people attempt to prohibit the gassing of gypsies, even if they don't have the political power to end the gassing of ALL human beings? South Dakota says YES, Colorado says NO.

Isn't the very purpose of all of us "pro- lifers", to protect the innocent babies from their own mothers? Hasn't it been rightly said that the MOST dangerous place for a baby, in America, is in its mother's womb?

I know this all sounds "crazy", but we are actually trying to defend, and rescue babies mostly from their mothers and their fathers, and often from their own grandparents!

We agree on this, Jeremiah. We agree on the goal, we're debating the strategy.

If, with our laws, we say that abortion is legal, in the case of rape, then we have darkened that very cloud of deception and confusion, that we are trying to diffuse!

Maybe the best form of incrementalism would be this. Propose a bill that would ban only 1% of all abortions, if the father is a rapist , but allow all abortions in the case of either the mother or the father being a murderer. Yes folks if you can prove that you have murdered someone, then you can have an abortion. Maybe then people will "wake up", and stop seeing all pregnant women, as victims!

And maybe then pro- lifers would also come back to their senses?

Your proposal strikes me as completely senseless. Sorry, Jeremiah, but I missed your point. Here's the point: if we cannot pass a law banning ALL abortions, should we work to pass a law which bans MORE abortions than are banned right now? South Dakota says we should work to ban as many abortions as we can, banning SOME now, then some MORE tomorrow, until we have the political power to ban them ALL. Colorado says we should allow ALL abortions to continue until we have the political power to ban them all at once.

So the debate here is "INCREMENTALISM" versus "ALL AT ONCE."

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Notice how I deal with each of your issues, but you fail to deal with any of the points I bring up?

Particularly I would like you to answer a few points::
1) Is it wrong, in trying to save some babies to say about others “but you may kill those” in your law?
2) If a law states explicitly that abortions in cases of rape and incest SHALL BE LEGAL isn’t that wrong? Even if it is only confirming the status quo?
3) Would a law ever be valid that states that you can kill the innocent – contrary to God’s law?
4) Does the fact that it is already legal make a difference? If you say so, please be kind enough to put your reasoning why that makes it okay to add your voice to declare it legal?
5) Is it ever right to state to the unbelieving world that God’s law on murder can be compromised and over-ruled by stating that “yes, it is legal to abort a baby whose father is a rapist, we’ll give you that”?

That you constantly run from these questions and try to word your answers in a light that fails to notice that this law gives its seal of approval on some abortions shows your bias against any discussion on the topic. It shows that you are intellectually dishonest on this topic.

Now notice how I deal directly with your best arguments…..

The Gypsy Example
You gave an analogy that is not similar to the current situation because it misses one extremely important point. If the law you tried to pass said, “You can kill a Jew only if you do A, B, C, and D ... but if it is a gypsy you cannot kill them” that would be comparable to a law that states “abortion shall be illegal except [in cases of rape and incest]”. And such a law would be evil, and you would rightly be tried at Nuremberg for declaring that someone can kill a Jew.

You seem to want me to believe you are too dim-witted to tell the difference between trying to stop some from being killed, though not all, and from saying, "go ahead and kill these, but not these". One is heroic, the other is putting blood on your hands.


But it’s legal now
That’s like arguing that it is okay to give your consent to kill a child to a murder and saying “but he was going to do it anyway.” It doesn’t remove the sin from you.

BTW-this law does not leave things as status quo. It regulates the killing of children in cases of rape and incest. For rape, the law states provisions A through F, that if they are done, the law gives it's permission to kill the child. That's what you are supporting? You support the idea that we should be telling people that if you do A through F, then you are good to go with killing the child? Of course you don't support that IN WORD - so then why draft a law that says that and support it in DEEDS? And then you act like you don't know why the unbelieving world declares you a hypocrite .. it's because you are!

As far as incest, you have to satisfy criteria A through H, but still, if you meet all the requirements, you support saying to people ... and then you can kill the baby. Truly a world gone wrong!


But they tried to stop all abortion…
The past doesn’t change whether something you are doing now is evil or good. A rapist can’t say justly, "But I bought dinner before hand!". What is relevant is whether or not what they are doing right now is good or bad.

That they tried to stop all abortions prior, doesn’t somehow bless their actions now. If someone said, hey I tried getting the Germans to stop killing Jews, so now I’m cleared in passing a law that authorized their killing, we would think that person is an idiot. And likely he would have been one of the many we tried and convicted.


We don’t really intend to go against God’s law …
I never thought you intensionally went against God’s law, I think you’re just another someone who got caught up in the excitement of passing a law, and never considered the issues of right and wrong in doing it. In particular, you think it is acceptable to trade on the blood of babies.

You may not have intended to, but you are going against God's law.

Jesus was right when he said about you... "Go and listen to what the SD Pro-Life leaders say, just don't follow them in what they do. For they SAY it's wrong to kill a baby born to rape, but they ACT by drafting laws permitting such." (Matt 23:1-3)


You are just trying to stop up the works.
If “the works” are to try and bless the killing of some of the babies in order t kill the others, then yes, I am here like a prophet in the dessert to tell you that God will not be so mocked. You don’t have the authority to say it is legal to kill some babies. You don’t have that authority.


Does this law bless some abortions
You say “No” because of a few reasons

1) that they tried to ban all abortions previously.
But that’s only a good argument for the PREVIOUS law. That doesn’t say anything about the current law. Can you admit that Hillary Clinton proposing one good law, doesn’t automatically excuse her next law?

2) that they mean well.
Good grief, how many lives have been lost on good intension. That’s an emotional plea. It isn’t logical or a good argument. Some of the people who pass out condoms in schools probably mean well, but like you they prefer not to think about things in terms of right and wrong.

3) at least we are trying something.
Congratulations, that puts you in the same category with me. The problem is that the club is not so exclusive as the abortion clinic bomber can say that too. The abortion clinic bomber isn’t “sitting the sidelines” either, he’s out there doing something. If he bombs an abortion clinic and kills the abortionist he might be able to argue that he stops more abortions than this law ever could. Do you see why simply meaning well, or simply trying something are arguments you’ve used that come up way short?

I say yes it condones some abortions. Because the law states that you can have an abortion if you do A,B,C,D,E, and F. At that point then, HB 1293 declares your abortion valid and legal thus spitting in the face of God.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

1) Is it wrong, in trying to save some babies to say about others “but you may kill those” in your law?

Yes. Irrelevant, however, since the topic of the thread is "Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue," and nobody in OR or the pro-lifers in South Dakota "say" that "you may kill" anyone. They have already tried to pass a law banning all abortions in all cases, saying "you may not kill anyone" including cases of rape and incest, but they were out-gunned. They are still saying "it is wrong to kill anyone." Ask the pro-abortion forces if the South Dakota pro-lifers are saying that it's OK to kill some people. The pro-abortion people will admit that the pro-lifers are trying to ban abortion in all cases, and that's why the pro-abortion people are against passing a law against all abortions except rape and incest, because they know that rape and incest are next on the list.

2) If a law states explicitly that abortions in cases of rape and incest SHALL BE LEGAL isn’t that wrong? Even if it is only confirming the status quo?

Yes, that law is wrong, because it fails to abide by God's standards, yet it is also wrong to not vote for it, because not voting for it is more wrong than the law itself. The law allows 1 baby to be murdered every four years, but not voting for that law allows nearly 900 babies to be murdered every year. So yes, the law is wrong, but not voting for it is more wrong.

3) Would a law ever be valid that states that you can kill the innocent – contrary to God’s law?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "can." Obviously anyone CAN kill an innocent person. The South Dakota bill says killing an innocent baby is a felony:

Section 1. The people of the State of South Dakota find:
(1) That all induced abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of an entire, unique, living human being, a human being separate from his or her mother, as a matter of scientific and biological fact;

Passage of this bill will unquestionably and undeniably prevent the murder of hundreds of babies every year. Voting against such a bill would be wrong, in my opinion.

4) Does the fact that it is already legal make a difference? If you say so, please be kind enough to put your reasoning why that makes it okay to add your voice to declare it legal?

This bill makes 99% of all abortions illegal. Voting against this bill is saying that these abortions should remain legal.

5) Is it ever right to state to the unbelieving world that God’s law on murder can be compromised and over-ruled by stating that “yes, it is legal to abort a baby whose father is a rapist, we’ll give you that”?

Nobody is saying that. What Operation Rescue is saying is, "We do not have the political power to make illegal the aborting of a baby whose father is a rapist. We will therefore do what we can, which is make all other abortions illegal." Opposing Operation Rescue is voting to keep 99% of all abortions legal, instead of making them illegal. This is wrong, in my opinion.

That you constantly run from these questions and try to word your answers in a light that fails to notice that this law gives its seal of approval on some abortions shows your bias against any discussion on the topic. It shows that you are intellectually dishonest on this topic.

Both of us are wording our answers in a certain light. That doesn't make either of us "intellectually dishonest" unless we are distorting the views of our opponents. In my opinion, saying that South Dakota pro-lifers "put their seal of approval" on some abortions or seek to "over-rule" God's law is distorting their views and is slanderous.

The Gypsy Example
If the law you tried to pass said, “You can kill a Jew only if you do A, B, C, and D ... but if it is a gypsy you cannot kill them” that would be comparable to a law that states “abortion shall be illegal except [in cases of rape and incest]”. And such a law would be evil, and you would rightly be tried at Nuremberg for declaring that someone can kill a Jew.

In South Dakota it is already legal to kill thousands of Jews and 1 gypsy every four years (where the gypsy represents the rape/incest abortion and the Jews represent all other abortions). The SD bill makes it illegal to kill the Jews, but does not make it illegal to kill a gypsy. If you vote against that bill you're saying it's OK to continue killing Jews and gypsies, at least for now.

You seem to want me to believe you are too dim-witted to tell the difference between trying to stop some from being killed, though not all, and from saying, "go ahead and kill these, but not these".

Nobody is saying "go ahead." What they are saying is, "We don't have the political power to prevent that one last abortion, at least not right now, so we're going to ban 99% of all abortions now, and we'll work on prohibiting the one final abortion as soon as we can."

One is heroic, the other is putting blood on your hands.

And the blood of 99% of all abortions is not on YOUR hands for voting AGAINST a law that would prevent them? Why am I "intellectually dishonest" and you're not?

For rape, the law states provisions A through F, that if they are done, the law gives it's permission to kill the child. That's what you are supporting?

I'm not sure what you're referring to by the term "provisions A through F." The bill is here. I see "Sections" 1-17.

You support the idea that we should be telling people that if you do A through F, then you are good to go with killing the child?

Your phrase "good to go" is about #23 in series of words and phrases which in no way legitimately characterize the sponsors of this bill, which is universally acknowledged to be an "anti-abortion" bill.

Of course you don't support that IN WORD - so then why draft a law that says that and support it in DEEDS?

This bill criminalizes 99% of all abortions. Pass this bill and save hundreds of lives. Oppose this law and let them be murdered.

And then you act like you don't know why the unbelieving world declares you a hypocrite .. it's because you are!

Nobody has declared me to be a hypocrite. One what grounds would they? Fill in the blank: "You are a hypocrite because you say __________ but you do __________."

As far as incest, you have to satisfy criteria A through H, but still, if you meet all the requirements, you support saying to people ... and then you can kill the baby. Truly a world gone wrong!

The people of South Dakota are right now already being told that they can kill nearly 1000 babies a year. This bill says they cannot legally kill 99% of them, and with the exception of you and a handfull of others on this Board, everyone recognizes that the sponsors of this bill want to criminalize all of them, and will keep trying. If I vote against this bill I'm keeping these abortions legal. Why would I want to do that?

That they tried to stop all abortions prior, doesn’t somehow bless their actions now. If someone said, hey I tried getting the Germans to stop killing Jews, so now I’m cleared in passing a law that authorized their killing, we would think that person is an idiot. And likely he would have been one of the many we tried and convicted.

What you're saying is inaccurate. They tried to pass a law that prevented the killing of 100% of all babies, but they couldn't get the law passed, so now they're trying to pass a law which prohibits the murder of 99% of all babies. And you're blaming the sponsors of this bill rather than those who voted against the previous bill? Don't you think that's twisted?

I think you’re just another someone who got caught up in the excitement of passing a law, and never considered the issues of right and wrong in doing it.

The sponsors of this anti-abortion law "never considered the issues of right and wrong in doing it"?? This borders on the insane, Jedi. Why do you think they've worked so hard to try to ban abortions? You don't think they've ever considered the morality of abortions? C'mon Jedi, be sensible. They are as passionately against abortion as you are, and for the same reasons. I think you're going to have to answer to God for unwarranted and uncharitable characterizations of your brothers and sisters in Christ.

You may not have intended to, but you are going against God's law.

Where does God's Law prohibit me from supporting the criminalization 99% of all abortions? Be specific. Quote the chapter and verse.

Jesus was right when he said about you... "Go and listen to what the SD Pro-Life leaders say, just don't follow them in what they do. For they SAY it's wrong to kill a baby born to rape, but they ACT by drafting laws permitting such." (Matt 23:1-3)

That verse would fit if abortions were ILLEGAL and SD pro-lifers voted for laws making them legal. They drafted laws prohibiting abortion in cases of rape and incest, not permitting them. They do not have the political power to pass such laws. But they do have the political power (maybe) to pass a law criminalizing 99% of all abortions, saving hundreds of babies a year. And you're against that??

You don’t have the authority to say it is legal to kill some babies. You don’t have that authority.

It is the U.S. Supreme Court that is saying that. South Dakota pro-lifers agree with you that they do not have the moral authority to overrule God's Law. But the Supreme Court does have the political authority to overrule a consistent pro-life law. There is now a slim possibility that they might not use that political power to overrule a law that bans all abortions except rape and incest cases. SD pro-lifers say we should take advantage of that opportunity by making 99% of all abortions illegal. You say we should vote against that law, and leave 99% of all abortions legal. I can't figure out why.

Does this law bless some abortions
You say “No” because of a few reasons
1) that they tried to ban all abortions previously.
But that’s only a good argument for the PREVIOUS law. That doesn’t say anything about the current law. Can you admit that Hillary Clinton proposing one good law, doesn’t automatically excuse her next law?

Jedi, I think you're being wierd in saying that SD Pro-lifers are "blessing" abortions in rape cases. They have made their beliefs clear. What motivates you to say that they "bless" abortions when they clearly oppose them, and are working hard to prohibit them?

2) that they mean well.
Good grief, how many lives have been lost on good intension.

Jedi, whatever your good intentions are, they will cause hundreds of babies to be MURDERED. My good intentions will SAVE those babies by making those murders illegal. The body bags are YOUR responsibility!!

I say yes it condones some abortions. Because the law states that you can have an abortion if you do A,B,C,D,E, and F. At that point then, HB 1293 declares your abortion valid and legal thus spitting in the face of God.

I have a chance to save hundreds of babies by voting for this bill, and you say that keeping the murder of these babies legal is not spitting in the face of God?

I understand that you believe this bill is not as "perfect" as a bill that would ban all abortions. But a "perfect" bill that can't be enacted into law is utterly and totally useless. If an imperfect bill that can save the lives of hundreds of babies can be enacted into law, can you not see how a sincere Christian brother can conclude that the imperfect law is better than a perfect dream, and the saving of lives of others is better than abstract personal purity?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Yes, that law is wrong, because it fails to abide by God's standards, yet it is also wrong to not vote for it, because not voting for it is more wrong than the law itself.

Thank you for finally answering this question. I think this brilliantly exposes how you’ve placed your opinion above God’s. You think that it is moral to do something evil. The Bible obviously disagrees with those that say, “Let us do evil, that good may come” (Romans 3:8). To believe that you should do something wrong, or support a law that is wrong, shows moral integrity problem you have that I was talking about.

What you are basically saying is that the end justifies the means. I wanted to make that clear to everyone that this is where those who follow your position have sunk to. I wanted to make the point, but it is more effective to show it from your own words.

The South Dakota bill says killing an innocent baby is a felony

Actually it says only in certain cases is it a felony, in other cases it says that you can legally kill a baby in South Dakota with the blessing of the law. This is another example of you being fast-and-loose with the truth again. You ask later why I say that you are intellectually dishonest ... because you continually fail to state that more than half this law talks about how abortion can be legal in certain cases, and you conveniently want to not ever mention that. The fact that this embarrasses you helps illustrate my point that this is a bad law.

The SD bill makes it illegal to kill the Jews, but does not make it illegal to kill a gypsy.

The bill actually says that it is legal to kill a gypsy. If a law only says it is illegal to kill Jews, that might be a good law, but this law spends more than half of its wording telling how it can also be legal to kill a gypsy. That makes it a bad law.

Any law that says you can kill certain people is a bad law and should not be supported.Do you agree or not?

With the one question I asked that you bothered to answer directly we’ve covered this. You think it is moral to support an evil law if there is a possibility that the end result will be good. That means that the only people that can justly agree with you are other moral relativists – which leaves men like me who know right from wrong on the outside.

Nobody is saying "go ahead." What they are saying is, "We don't have the political power to prevent that one last abortion, at least not right now…

No where in the law does it say that. The law only says “go ahead”.

And the blood of 99% of all abortions is not on YOUR hands for voting AGAINST a law that would prevent them?

So then your statement agrees that the blood of these babies born to rape is on your hands?! Only your argument is that more blood would be on your hands if you didn’t vote for this law. Let’s deal with that idea that blood must be on your hands either way, because it exposes what I said earlier when I said that you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.

In the case of abortion today blood is only on the hands of those that participate. Just like any other murder, you and I are not culpable. Where the blood gets on your or my hands, is if we get involved with the murder and become an accomplice. There are a couple of ways that one can do that:

1) You could explain to the murderer a process in which to kill (which this law does).

2) You could encourage the murderer to kill by giving them your blessing (which this law does).

You are arguing that if you do nothing then you become an accomplice, but that fails largely because it simply is not true. While it cannot be said that I have done nothing, even most don’t need to do everything I’ve done to be innocent. To argue that you are “guilty” if you don’t vote for the law I support shows how desperate your position is.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by the term "provisions A through F." The bill is here. I see "Sections" 1-17.

Your link is to an edited bill. The original bill is here.

Youre is a more up-to-date law, which has been changed beneath the original author’s intent, so now it is no longer 19 weeks, but has been pushed back to 20 (for instance).

Nobody has declared me to be a hypocrite. One what grounds would they? Fill in the blank: "You are a hypocrite because you say __________ but you do __________."

You re a hypocrite because you say it is wrong to kill a baby born of rape but you draft a law that says it is not wrong. Ergo, you are a hypocrite. You do opposite what you say. Now I’ll tell you what you response to this is … “But it will save nearly all of them” (something that is debatable), however that only is an attempt at justifying your hypocrisy.

And you're blaming the sponsors of this bill rather than those who voted against the previous bill? Don't you think that's twisted?

I didn’t say I don’t blame those that voted against the previous bill. I blame them, and I also blame you who says that it is good to sponser a law that gives credibility to killing babies in certain circumstances.

Where does God's Law prohibit me from supporting the criminalization 99% of all abortions? Be specific. Quote the chapter and verse.

“Thou shall not murder” prohibits you from supporting the legalized killing of 1% of all abortions. You are like the unsaved man who says “but I was good 99%” so I killed a few people, for 99% of my life I was good. Even if true (which neither percentage is accurate), it would still be evil.

It is the U.S. Supreme Court that is saying that [abortion is legal].

This law says it too for cases of rape and incest, that’s why it is wrong.

Jedi, I think you're being wierd in saying that SD Pro-lifers are "blessing" abortions in rape cases. They have made their beliefs clear.

I’ve already address this … you are talking about their words, I am addressing their actions. I can’t help that your argument “Do as I say, not as I do” is universally held to be an hypocrite’s slogan.

I’ll add more when I’m not pressed for time.

 

[Lighthouse]

Either you people aren't thinking straight, or you're determined to slander other Christians.
Name one person who "agrees" that anyone should die!

South Dakota pro-lifers have already tried to ban all abortions. They couldn't pull it off. Now they're trying to ban as many abortions as they can, and like Sanballot and Tobiah you're telling them they're "evil" to try to save as many as they can unless they save them all.

If SD pro-lifers successfully ban most abortions, they will build on that momentum and continue their work until all abortions are banned. If they're not able to ban most abortions, how can they possibly ban them all??? Why is it evil to continue to try to ban abortions?

I think your analysis is embarrassingly unChristian.

They're not even trying to save them all! That's the problem!

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Thank you for finally answering this question. I think this brilliantly exposes how you’ve placed your opinion above God’s.

All abortions are wrong, in God's opinion. My opinion is not different from God's nor have I placed it "above" God's. God wants us to abolish all abortions. I have a chance to abolish 99% of them with this law. You refuse to take that opportunity, and would rather leave ALL abortions LEGAL. Tell me why you are not putting YOUR opinion above God's.

You think that it is moral to do something evil. The Bible obviously disagrees with those that say, “Let us do evil, that good may come” (Romans 3:8). To believe that you should do something wrong, or support a law that is wrong, shows moral integrity problem you have that I was talking about.

I am taking steps to STOP 99% of all abortions, allowing only 1% to continue. You are choosing to permit 100% of all abortions to continue. YOU are willing to let thousands die. You say I am willing to do "evil" that good may come. You obviously believe it is good to do NOTHING that 100 times more evil will continue.

What you are basically saying is that the end justifies the means.

Abolishing 99% of all abortions is part of the process of abolishing ALL abortions. Your means to the end -- abolishing NO abortions -- can hardly be said to be morally superior to mine.

I wanted to make that clear to everyone that this is where those who follow your position have sunk to. I wanted to make the point, but it is more effective to show it from your own words.

My strategy will STOP hundreds of abortions in the next year. Your strategy will PERPETUATE hundreds of abortions.

We are both doing "evil" that "good" may result.

• I am ignoring 1% of abortions ("evil") in order to stop 99% of all abortions ("good").
• You are ignoring 100% of all abortions ("evil") in order to pose as morally pure and superior ("good").

Your evil is more evil than mine, and your good is an abstract illusion.

Actually it says only in certain cases is it a felony, in other cases it says that you can legally kill a baby in South Dakota with the blessing of the law. This is another example of you being fast-and-loose with the truth again.

You say "only in certain cases," but the truth is that it is a felony in 99% of all cases. You say "blessing," but there is no moral approbation of the remaining 1%. I think this is dishonest spin.

You ask later why I say that you are intellectually dishonest ... because you continually fail to state that more than half this law talks about how abortion can be legal in certain cases, and you conveniently want to not ever mention that. The fact that this embarrasses you helps illustrate my point that this is a bad law.

More than half the law might talk about the 1% of abortions that we do not have the power to abolish (and this is necessary in order to pass muster with the Supreme Court), but the remaining part of the law is the heart of the law, and it abolishes 99% of all abortions. Again, I think you're guilt of dishonest spin.

The bill actually says that it is legal to kill a gypsy. If a law only says it is illegal to kill Jews, that might be a good law, but this law spends more than half of its wording telling how it can also be legal to kill a gypsy. That makes it a bad law.

OK, that's your opinion. To the extent that it is necessary to pay legislative homage to the killing of one gypsy every four years in order to prohibit the killing of 870 Jews a year, it's indeed an imperfect law. But we live in a radically evil, wicked, apostate, anti-Christian nation. You think you're morally superior because you refuse to be wise as a serpent and get a law past the Supreme Court Serpents which abolishes 99% of all abortions. I think this imperfect law preventing hundreds of murders is better than no law at all allowing all these babies to be butchered.

Any law that says you can kill certain people is a bad law and should not be supported. Do you agree or not?

I agree it is not perfect, but allowing hundreds of abortions is worse. God will commend those who save babies. God will not reward those who claim to be "pure" but put their own personal purity ahead of the lives of hundreds of babies each year.

You think it is moral to support an evil law if there is a possibility that the end result will be good. That means that the only people that can justly agree with you are other moral relativists – which leaves men like me who know right from wrong on the outside.

I believe I am duty bound to stop abortions. You believe your own personal moral "purity" is relatively more important than stopping hundreds of murders. I guess that means we both are moral relativists. I think my moral relativism is relatively more moral than your moral relativism.

Nobody is saying "go ahead." What they are saying is, "We don't have the political power to prevent that one last abortion, at least not right now…

No where in the law does it say that. The law only says “go ahead”.

A search through the bill does not find the phrase "go ahead," or "blessings" or "approval" or any of the other words you use so frequently. The bill says

all induced abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of an entire, unique, living human being, a human being separate from his or her mother, as a matter of scientific and biological fact

The law bans 99% of all abortions, and paves the way for the abolition of the rape/incest case by setting forth the humanity of the unborn and (implicitly) the murderous character of abortion. The law does not explicitly say "go ahead," it CRIMINALIZES 99% of all abortions and with regard to the remaining 1% strongly suggests "better think twice." Refusing to support this bill says, "Go ahead and continue believing the lie of Roe v. Wade, and kill 100% of the babies." Once again, I think you're dishonest in your spin of this bill.

So then your statement agrees that the blood of these babies born to rape is on your hands?! Only your argument is that more blood would be on your hands if you didn’t vote for this law. Let’s deal with that idea that blood must be on your hands either way, because it exposes what I said earlier when I said that you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.

The blood of one baby every four years is on my hands; the blood of 870 babies every year is on your hands. You continually charge me with not knowing the difference between right and wrong. At least I know the difference between wrong and REALLY wrong.

In the case of abortion today blood is only on the hands of those that participate. Just like any other murder, you and I are not culpable.

I would say blood is on the hands of those who have the power to stop hundreds of murders and refuse to get a little blood on their hands.

You re a hypocrite because you say it is wrong to kill a baby born of rape but you draft a law that says it is not wrong. Ergo, you are a hypocrite. You do opposite what you say.

The law does not say it is not wrong. It cannot do that without destroying the possibility of saving the lives of all the other babies. If it attempted to overturn the Supreme Court's decision legalizing the murder of babies whose father is a rapist, it would lose the opportunity to stop the killing of all the other babies. But it does the best it can: it increases restrictions on such abortions. It requires the involvement of law enforcement authorities to make sure there really was a rape, and requires evidence to be preserved which can be used to prosecute the rapist. You, on the other hand, would endorse, bless, perpetuate and approve the present system which allows ALL abortions and lets the rapist go free by destroying the evidence!! Unbelievable.

“Thou shall not murder” prohibits you from supporting the legalized killing of 1% of all abortions. You are like the unsaved man who says “but I was good 99%” so I killed a few people, for 99% of my life I was good. Even if true (which neither percentage is accurate), it would still be evil.

Which is more evil, Jedi: allowing 1% of all current abortions, or allowing 100% of them? Help me see why your proposal is not 100 times more evil than mine. I concede they are both imperfect. Why is yours not much more evil?

This law says it too for cases of rape and incest, that’s why it is wrong.

The word "too" is a lie, Jedi. The South Dakota bill does not say that ALL abortions are legal.

If it's wrong to allow 1% of abortions to continue, isn't it 100 times more evil to allow 100% of all abortions to continue?