Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue

[Vine&FigTree]

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

I'm convinced, from what I've read, that the pro-life legislators in South Dakota are trying to save all the babies. They think like you do, Lighthouse. They oppose all abortions. The fact that their previous bill attempted to do just that is pretty convincing. If they try to save them all, they save none, because their attempt will be swatted down by pro-death courts. If they only try to save some, they might sneak the bill past the courts and create momentum to save them all. Saving some is better than saving none.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm convinced, from what I've read, that the pro-life legislators in South Dakota are trying to save all the babies. They think like you do, Lighthouse. They oppose all abortions. The fact that their previous bill attempted to do just that is pretty convincing. If they try to save them all, they save none, because their attempt will be swatted down by pro-death courts. If they only try to save some, they might sneak the bill past the courts and create momentum to save them all. Saving some is better than saving none.

Allowing for any of them to die is unGodly!

 

[Toast]

Vine, I think in reality, whether you want to believe it or not, it(repealing abortion) will be an all or nothing thing, for the simple reason that saying its okay to murder some babies, and not others, is an inheritly illogical and hypocritical position. We either have people who are against the bloodshed of the innocent, or are for it, but you cant have it both ways. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

 

[RobE]

Vine, I think in reality, whether you want to believe it or not, it(repealing abortion) will be an all or nothing thing, for the simple reason that saying its okay to murder some babies, and not others, is an inheritly illogical and hypocritical position. We either have people who are against the bloodshed of the innocent, or are for it, but you cant have it both ways. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

I need to chime in here on Vine's behalf. I've stood at 20th and Vine in Denver. I've worked with Operation Rescue. I stand on the side of life. If you voted for Bush you've compromised, if you went to work today instead of working directly to stop the killing you've compromised, and if all you do is pay lip service to the death of innocence you've compromised.

It's easy to stand in judgement of those who would save 99% of the victims when our legitimate goal is the total elimination of child killing. I'm sitting here typing this response and I've compromised. I ask all of you to consider if those who aren't against are not in fact for us.

Bob Enyart, Ken Scott, Fr. Norman Weslin, Fr. Don McDonell, Bishop Mote, Philip Faustin, Archbishop Ziegler, Terry Sullivan, and myself haven't done everything within our power to stop the slaugher. Have you?

I feel that O.R. has become impotent and is unable to continue their once great mission. We try and God determines the outcomes. Vote to save 1% if that is what you have in your hand today. Saying that it would legitimize the other 99% is an error in judgement. Would you pull one from the fire? Did Corey Tanbaum save all the jews during World War II or just the ones she could within her ability?

Today we stand at a crossroads. I am theoretically uncompromising, but I won't allow my position to stand in the way of saving one more innocent. Will you? Satan understood that killing the 1% would allow the murder of 100% in the future. Are we able to see that the elimination of 99% of the murders will lead to the elimination of 99% of the murders? Or has our vision become more important than the victims?

We've failed to stop the killing since 1965. I say let's not stand on principle and fight those who would work with us towards our ultimate goal. What say you? If any of you doubt my sincerity then ask those I've mentioned in this post.

Rob Mauldin, Wishbone

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Allowing for any of them to die is unGodly!

Then allowing 99% of them to die is much more unGodly than allowing only the rape cases to die.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Vine, I think in reality, whether you want to believe it or not, it(repealing abortion) will be an all or nothing thing,

I've given my reasons for believing that reversing the legalization of abortion will be incremental, just as the legalization was incremental. But you give me no reasons for believing that everybody is going to completely change their position all at once.

for the simple reason that saying its okay to murder some babies, and not others, is an inheritly illogical and hypocritical position.

Nobody who voted for the first South Dakota bill believes this, as is evident by the fact that their bill abolished abortion in every case, even rape and incest. That's what they believe; they do not believe it is "okay" to murder some babies. They believe it is wrong to murder ANY baby. They believe they must work hard, day and night, and take action to save every baby possible. They realized that it is not possible in today's evil, reprobate, lawless, antiChristian climate to save ALL the babies. So they're trying to save as many as they can. And some people at TOL condemn them for trying to save all they can.

We either have people who are against the bloodshed of the innocent, or are for it, but you cant have it both ways. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Either/or is not always the case. But it cannot be clearer that we are dealing with people who are against the bloodshed of the innocent. It is slanderous and uncharitable to say that legislators who sponsor a bill to eliminate ALL abortions with no exceptions are moral relativists, don't know the difference between right and wrong, or are not against the bloodshed of the innocent. They are pro-life. They can only save 99% of the babies, so that's what they're doing. What are those who criticize them doing that will save 870 babies within one year of passage? Criticizing them for the one baby every four years that they couldn't save?

 

[Lighthouse]

Allowing for a baby who is a product of rape is completely unGodly! It's punishing the child for the crimes of the rapist!

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Allowing for a baby who is a product of rape is completely unGodly! It's punishing the child for the crimes of the rapist!

I agree with you.
South Dakota pro-life legislators agree with you.
Operation Rescue agrees with you.
This is not the subject of the debate.
The name of this thread is "Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue." Operation Rescue, defending South Dakota Legislators, believes that you should stop as many abortions as you can, and if you can't save the rape-case babies, you should at least save the other 99%. Colorado Right to Life criticizes South Dakota for criminalizing 99% of all abortions, apparantly believing that if you can't save 100% of all babies, you should not save any at all. South Dakota legislators tried to save the rape-case babies, but they could not. So now they're trying to save the other 99%, hoping to try again later to save the rape-case babies.

So the question is, should pro-life Christian legislators criminalize SOME abortions and stop the murder of as many babies as they have the political power to save, or should they allow ALL babies to continue to be murdered, day after day, year after year, until they have the political power to criminalize ALL abortions?

 

[Lighthouse]

I agree with you.
South Dakota pro-life legislators agree with you.
Operation Rescue agrees with you.
This is not the subject of the debate.
The name of this thread is "Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue." Operation Rescue, defending South Dakota Legislators, believes that you should stop as many abortions as you can, and if you can't save the rape-case babies, you should at least save the other 99%. Colorado Right to Life criticizes South Dakota for criminalizing 99% of all abortions, apparantly believing that if you can't save 100% of all babies, you should not save any at all. South Dakota legislators tried to save the rape-case babies, but they could not. So now they're trying to save the other 99%, hoping to try again later to save the rape-case babies.

So the question is, should pro-life Christian legislators criminalize SOME abortions and stop the murder of as many babies as they have the political power to save, or should they allow ALL babies to continue to be murdered, day after day, year after year, until they have the political power to criminalize ALL abortions?

The point is that they should keep fighting to save all babies, and not revel in this failure that only saves so many, and not all! You can't sit back and think of this as a wonderful day, when any babies are allowed to be murdered, period!

 

[Vine&FigTree]

The point is that they should keep fighting to save all babies, and not revel in this failure that only saves so many, and not all! You can't sit back and think of this as a wonderful day, when any babies are allowed to be murdered, period!

The point is

• they ARE continuing to fight, despite criticism from Colorado Right to Life,
• the saving of one life is a success, not a "failure,"
• it is even more of a success because it saves 99%, not just "only so many" -- only one baby every four years is killed under the proposed law, and all the rest will be saved
• it is a wonderful day when a state legislature decides to take aim and fire a load of buckshot at Roe v. Wade, even if one pellet doesn't hit, a whole bunch are going to, and 99% of all abortions will be prevented.

The point is, we should be encouraging South Dakota, not criticizing. But as the title of this thread indicates, Colorado Right to Life is "criticizing," not encouraging, and if CRTL had its way, the bill saving thousands of babies and losing only one would not be passed, and they would ALL be murdered.

 

[jeremiah]

To Vine & Fig Tree:

The argument I was making in my previous post was an argument ad absurdum.

I suggested that S.D. propose a law that prohibits abortion only in the case of rape-incest. You have said that you did not understand my point and asked me to explain.

Here is my explanation.

I see abortion as a misunderstanding between human rights, property rights, and to some extent master-slave rights.

A proponent of abortion on demand "must" see the baby inside the womb, either as the property of the woman, or as a non person. Why? ......because almost all of those people then agree that it is wrong to kill that baby once it is outside the womb.

If somehow it is possible to convince a majority that a mother can not kill her baby, inside the womb, except for rape, then it must be wrong, because it is a human right for the baby to live. If it is a human right for the baby to live, then the mother would have been a willing accomplice to murder.

Thus without "explicitely" stating it, abortion is being banned in cases where the mother is, or would be, a murderer.

Then that leaves the case of what to do if the father is "only" a rapist and not a murderer.

This is what I am proposing, by making the argument ad absurdum.

If the father is "only" a rapist while the mother is a "murderess" then let's kill the child of the murderess and not the child of the rapist. Since in the minds of some it is permissable to kill a child, if the father was a rapist, especially if it somehow relieves the trauma of the woman who was raped.

Just imagine how much more permissable it it to kill a child if her mother was a murderer, and how by killing her own child it will again, "somehow" relieve her trauma of being a murderer????? Argument ad absurdum. It does not work that way!!!!!

I think that highlights the fallacy of the argument. If one is acquiescing, however begrudgingly, to the human rights of a baby whose mother wants to kill her; how absurd is it to NOT admit to the same rights, for a baby whose father was "only" a rapist, and not a murderer.

I know this argument sounds crazy, because it is crazy. That is because we lost the argument when the baby inside the womb became the exclusive property of any woman, or child, old enough to bear another human being.

That human being is either her property, or her slave, or a non human.
Once one admits that it is wrong to kill a baby in the womb for one reason, then it is wrong for every reason. The Pro-aborts "know" this.

I think it then becomes a matter of the proper penalty for the particular reason for the abortion. That is why I would be for the type of incrementalism that outlaws all abortion and has a small fine for cases of rape.

I don't think that is totally right or just, but at least the principle and law, would be established. A baby inside a mother's womb is not her property, and to end her life, falls under the commandment of Thou shalt not Murder {life}, and not Thou shalt not Steal {Property}. The Bible then ascribes different penalties, or allowances for pre-meditated murder, manslaughter, and self defense. It also ascribes different penalties, and rights, for the taking, and protecting, of personal property.

I "think" we can err on the penalty side of the command as long as we do not err on the command itself. "Thou shalt not murder." That is why we have judges. Moses judged the hardest cases, and the other judges the lesser ones.

Aborting the baby of a rapist because the mother "wants to", is murder. Any law that states that it is legal for her to do so, is unjust and makes its society, either a willing or unwilling accomplice to murder, by condoning it, in its laws.

 

[jeremiah]

Another aspect of my argument ad arsurdum is this. If the type of incrementalism which would pragmatically save 99% of all babies is a "good" thing. Then legislation that would only save the 1% would also be a "good" thing and a justified means to the ends of eventually saving the other 99%. Would it not? If you are in favor of legislating the salvation of 99% and the loss of 1%, then you would also be in favor of legislating the salvation of 1% and the loss of 99% would you not?

Instead of my absurd example of only saving the innocent children of rape. let's start with the few percent of married women who do not want another child, and yet her husband desperately does, and is adamantly opposed to abortion.

Certainly that should be the easiest form of abortion to ban incrementally.

Then ban all partial birth abortions.

Then ban all abortions for any reason in the late term.

Then we could ban all abortions if the baby is viable.

Then we could ban all abortions where the women have not been notified of all her options, and all her risks.

Then we could ban all abortions where the grandparents have not been notified.

Then we could ban all abortions where the grandparents do not give permission.

Then we could ban all abortions where the unmarried father does not consent.

Then we could ban all abortions where someone is making a rash decision and force them to wait 24 to 72 hours.

Then we could close abortuaries that do not report all cases of statutory rape.

Then we could close all abortuaries that do not meet state health facility standards.

By the time we are done we will have stopped almost all abortions.

Then finally we could ban abortions of convenience for the purpose of "birth control", and lastly abortions in case of rape-incest.

Oh wait, all of those incremantal approaches have been tried and failed. Either voted down by a majority of people and-or legislators, or overturned by a Republican dominated Supreme Court. Oh well, never mind.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Saying that it would legitimize the other 99% is an error in judgement. Would you pull one from the fire? Did Corey Tanbaum save all the jews during World War II or just the ones she could within her ability?

I agree that you can't save them all ... but in an attempt to save some TenBoom did not declare it valid to kill others. It's okay not to do everything possible to save babies lives. Some people can or cannot get into the battle at various levels ... but no one ever has the right to make an agreement to have certain babies put to death. Sadly that is what this laws says. Over half the law deals with the ability to kill babies in certain scenario and the law declares that it is legal to kill those babies. That's more than just saving babies lives and I don't see how anyone can objectively look at that and not say it is legitimizing it (if the law declaring it legally valid isn't legitimizing it, then I don't know what it takes to legitimize something).

Are we able to see that the elimination of 99% of the murders will lead to the elimination of 99% of the murders? Or has our vision become more important than the victims?

We want good results, but the end result can never be so important that we sacrifice everything else to get there. The end does not justify the means. Also, you never bless the murder of a little girl even if you think in doing so it will somehow save millions more. God wants us to fight the good fight, but He's prefer us to fail than for us to try to win with dubious means. Paul tells Timothy (2 Timothy 2:5) that it must be fought the right way, and that is the most important thing.

If Gideon decided that he needed to win the battle his own way, not only would he likely have lost, but more importantly he would have sinned against God. Gideon needed to do things the way God asked, just as we cannot overrule God's command not to murder. The question of saving the lives of babies is in God's hands then.