Skip to comments.Why Pro-Lifers Lose
Posted on 09/11/2013 8:00:17 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Would you support a pro-life bill that banned the killing of all unborn children except those born to parents who are Hindus? After all, only 0.6% of the U.S. population is Hindu, so were talking about saving almost 99% of the babies here. Who wouldnt sacrifice the 0.6% to save the 99%? Dont the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, or the one? Shouldnt we save as many as we can?
Or maybe we should put forth pro-life legislation that protects all children except those born to Muslims? After all, theyre only 0.9% of the U.S. population, and represent a worldview whose radical elements weve been at war with for over a decade. Why not protect the 99% here?
Better yet, if youre going to leave anyone unprotected to save as many babies as you can why not target the Jewish people? No people group has been more targeted for extinction throughout human history than the Jews, so theres certainly precedent for it. There are whole sectors of the globe that would support us doing so as we speak. And the Jewish people represent less than 2% of the U.S. population, so we could still save 98% of the babies.
This all sounds utterly preposterous, doesnt it? Nobody in the pro-life movement in their right mind would propose such a thing, would they?
Except many in the pro-life movement already have.
Simply substitute children conceived via rape and incest for Hindu or Muslim or Jewish and its the exact same exception many in the pro-life movement have put forth time and time again. They use arguments like why wouldnt you sacrifice the 1% to save the 99% to justify it. The question itself admits were sacrificing something. So what is it were sacrificing? Were sacrificing innocent human life in the name of political expediency, thats what were sacrificing. Im no Socrates, but sacrificing the sanctity of life to preserve the sanctity of life sounds to me like an absurdity with no basis in logic.
That all sounds well and good to some when youre talking about kids conceived in rape and incest. Kids conservative talk radio superstar Sean Hannity refers to as evil seed. Kids that Ann Coulter, who wrote a national best-seller called Demonic that chastised the Democrats for promoting a culture of death, doesnt mind killing.
Obviously nobody would publicly propose not protecting life by law on the basis of someones religious belief. Even if they thought such a thing they wouldnt dare say so publicly because of the obvious and deserved backlash that would ensue. So when the pro-life movement publicly says were not going to protect life by law on the basis of the way it was conceived, what were really saying is that particular life isnt sacred.
If you bow to public opinion polls that say children conceived in rape or incest arent worthy of being protected, then you are tacitly admitting not all life is sacred yourself. For if the public was in favor of protecting every child other than the one named you, something tells me youd fight public pressure and not succumb to it if it were your life on the line.
Furthermore, if we agree that not all life is sacred and worthy of protection, then we arent really arguing a pro-life position. Were really arguing the Planned Parenthood position, which is make every child a wanted child. Lets face it, nobody wants a child conceived in rape or incest up front, because that means you had to suffer through something heinous to conceive that child you wouldnt even wish upon your worst enemy.
But after that child is conceived, why would we execute the child for the crimes of his/her parents? The only justification for doing so is that you really dont believe all life is sacred, but that life conceived in certain circumstances is unwanted so killing it is an option. Therefore, is it any wonder why after 40 years we have been unable to shut down the child killing industry once and for all when not even those who are pro-life are of one mind on whether all life is worthy of protection?
Case in point: if you get elected and try standing for the right to life for all of Gods children, including those conceived in rape or incest, you may get criticized by the pro-life movement itself.
We can certainly agree or disagree with one another tactically about how much incrementalism is practical, and how too much incrementalism at times works against our stated strategy of working to eventually end all child-killing in America. But this is not that debate. This is a debate of principle.
When we say were willing not to protect children conceived in rape or incest, were agreeing with the child killing industrys core vision that we mere mortals not the Creator determine whos worthy to live and whos worthless enough to be targeted for extinction. Make no mistake, when we consent to the execution of certain children because of how they were conceived we are not promoting the imago dei. And the only reason a society would turn away from the horrific selfishness of child sacrifice to the altar of personal convenience is its belief in the imago dei.
Just as a bloodied, bruised, and battered Christ on the Cross testifies to what it takes to bring redemption to a world so fallen it would execute its own Savior, so does the hope of a new life brought forth in the tragedy of rape or incest testify to the potential for meaning and redemption in such unspeakable suffering.
If you really want society to protect all life then start making the case that all life is worthy of protection.
It’s the babies who lose...and they lose because they can’t vote and they can’t tithe, so they’re ignored by the politicians and a large part of the so-called Christian churches.
When you are talking about a child conceived in rape you are talking about something very sensitive.
No woman should be FORCED to bear a child conceived by a rapist. That is insane.
Well, you’re talking about killing a child because their father committed a crime. I don’t think the issue is as cut-and-dried as you indicate.
Me. I wouldn't sacrifice people, period.
I suspect that if abortion was banned with an exception for rape, you would see a sharp rise in rape accusations by females seeking abortions.
When you are forcing a woman who suffered through such a traumatic incident to relive that incident for 8 months every moment of her life and then face the child that incident produced, and you are FORCING her to do so, I think its pretty cut and dried.
Where pro-life people loose is where they become irrational and they are irrational here.
Aside from rape or to save the life of a mother, I oppose all abortions.
By your logic, it makes just as much sense to kill the woman.
How very muslim of you.
Right and wrong? Well ... that all depends. I mean, if she was raped ...
So much evil has entered the world through that door.
I don’t see how a ban on the aborting of children conceived without rape or incest is sacrificing children who were conceived under those circumstances. It would be a step in the right direction. As it is, they are all being sacrificed.
To win, we need to focus on CAUSING PAIN TO THE ENEMY!
We will NOT win by trying to protect everyone at the same time. Wars are not won that way, political battles are not won that way.
The “no compromise” crowd, Judie Brown and ALL, FOUGHT the legislation that SMART members of the prolife movement passed, in Kansas.
That legislation, once passed into law, was used to FINALLY prosecute abortionist George Tiller. We did not win in Court, with him, but we DID win in Court, with the abortionist who was required to sign his “second opinions” as the new law required.
The “no compromise” crowd is made up of idiots, and your post is quite offensive.
FDR had to make choices between the Pacific theater and the European and North African theater. EVERY General in the field must sacrifice SOME lives so that others might live.
A Sidewalk counselor, working alone, who sees 2 pregnant women walking to the abortionist's door at the same time will have to decide which one to focus upon. There is no way her attempts will work if they are not personal and specific. Did she “allow” the other abortion then? Of course not!
Get off your moral high horse, stop being so arrogant and learn how wars and political battles are fought.
DEFUND abortionists, who send millions of dollars to proabortion politicians every year. Make it unprofitable to be an abortionist. Cut back on the money that liberal politicians can expect from the abortion industry by reducing the number of abortions. This is how any SMART political operative would face this issue, but ALL and Judy Brown are political and legislative idiots.
That’s insane. If your daughter were raped by some lowlife thug, you would want her to suffer through the pregnancy and raising the result of that experience? I DOUBT it.
What is illogical is carrying arguments to an insane extreme. This is like saying because I support the Second Amendment I should support letting people have modern artillery pieces and guided missiles.
See my response to Joe Six Pack
There’s an easier rebuttal to the pro-aborts.
Ask them if they would support a law that restricted access to abortion to ONLY victims of rape or incest.
Quit letting them put pro-lifers in that spot.
There's a lot of things I don't want to see anybody suffer through. Killing an innocent person is rarely a solution to any of them.
Rape is a serious crime and accusing a person of a serious crime falsely is a very serious crime also. I DOUBT it. And those who tried it would have to face the consequences.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
The women has been traumatized by the act of rape, then she kills her innocent flesh and blood.
The abortion may present itself as the best way out of her terrible situation, but once it sinks in that she killed her baby, she will regret that decision for the rest of her life.
She will ALWAYS regret killing the little one she never knew.
Like Crystal Mangum?
what did steve ever win?
The Constitution points out that if a private citizen owns a warship which is capable of going toe-to-toe with the British Navy, then Letters of Marque may be issued so that the private citizen may use his advanced military hardware in the service of his country.
You might be surprised out very liberally I view our Second Amendment rights. It's not just about pistols and deer rifles.
I have read your posts before Joe. You are a good man and usually right on the mark. But we disagree here.
What about giving the child up for adoption after it is born?
Forcing a woman to give birth because of rape is hardly equivalent to her getting an abortion out of convenience. We have to be cognizant that there are always exceptions to the rule
It is the height of barbarism to kill one person for the crime of another.
The deceptive language of the Left.
If she is pregnant she has a dependent child. She has a God-ordained obligation to care for that child until that dependency naturally ends.
I appreciate that. I also concur that legitimate rape victims suffer a horrible trauma. No dispute whatsoever. I'm just not sure having their body invaded by an abortionist and wrenching an innocent life from their womb doesn't increase the trauma.
Furthermore, there are a lot of traumas people suffer. They are horrible, and things no person should ever have to go through. But this isn't a perfect world, so people do go through them. And they survive. Certainly with some scars and bruises, be they physical or spiritual, but they survive. And in most cases, there is no resort to "solving" the trauma by killing an innocent party. It's legal, so people think it's a viable solution.
Don't be obtuse.
No, I wouldn't WANT my daughter to deal with a rape. But I wouldn't want her to be a murderer, either.
Doing the right thing is usually hard and unpleasant; if it weren't, everybody would do it.
If this isn't the most euphemistically phrased, self-decptive, rationalized piece of bogus argumentation I have seen in many months, I'll eat my hat. You ought to be a Democrat. You would make them proud.
I have many problems with your assertion.
I actually know two women in the situation you describe, and neither one has lost a moment's sleep, nor suffered the mildest regret. You are projecting.
Ultimately the popularity of this objection today is a reflection of a shift in world view.
People used to view their bodies — in fact all human bodies — as temples of the Holy Spirit (in a Christian context). If some ruffian broke into your temple rudely and put a treasure in there, you wouldn’t chuck the treasure out just because of what the ruffian did. Now you might hold the ruffian responsible for fixing the damage as best as possible, but you wouldn’t chuck out the treasure.
Funny you talk about projecting — unless you can enter their heads you only know the image they are projecting.
Granted however, people can be this callous.
You cannot support life by claiming a fetus is a human life, then turn around and claim that some of them are not quite as human as others.
They are or they aren’t - and the only justification for laws prohibiting abortion is they are human lives.
Suppose a woman was raped, did not conceive, but the son of her rapist walked by her house every day on his way to school, causing her a great deal of mental anguish - is she justified in killing that son?
Emotion says the woman should not HAVE to carry the child, but emotion is what got us to this point in the first place. Let logic reign.
If i were talking to someone who confessed that he was conceived by rape, am I justified in killing him because of that? Is his mother, after he is born? Wouldn’t it be murder?
Should a niece of mine become pregnant by rape, I would hold her in my arms, tell her how sorry and angry I am for what happened, and then tell her that in this horrible situation, God has seen fit to bless her with a child and entrust her with one of His precious little lives.
Life is often ugly, sometimes VERY ugly. That ugliness is not justification for killing an innocent baby.
There is always adoption, she doesn’t have to raise the baby.
Emotion is sometimes a good view into spiritual realities, but one has to look at the foundation of the realities.
The idea that “I am mine” is as old as the fall in the Garden. And it isn’t even a true idea; the Serpent was behind this, remember? Believing in him got man there and keeps man there. Believing on God who now offers a superior promise to the false, fraudulent promise of the Serpent — that of forgiveness, cleansing, and salvation — pulls man away from this fallen condition.
It’s the “I am mine” that gets the emotions going in most modern women of this godless age. Those women view the ones who still carry a genuine Christian world view as odd, weird, suckers and losers.
Also this is a clue that to make headway in this, we need to make headway in quite another area first. That area is the gospel.
One’s view on the sanctity of life depends *almost* entirely on one’s belief in God. You will never convince an unsaved person that the seed of a rapist is a “treasure” in her womb. Sorry.
It is a sorry state. The conquest of Christ is only upon willing souls.
As I’m pointing out — the way home in this and many other areas that are symptoms of godlessness is the gospel. Sell THAT (and a genuine gospel won’t even need to be sold with the stereotypical hellfire; how much of that went on in the 1st century church anyhow? it will sell itself by the blessing and healing merits of heaven). Then miracles of attitude will follow.
Whether or not that is true, the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of this land, nonetheless explicitly, absolutely, requires the equal protection of the right to life of every single innocent person, in every jurisdiction.
No child should have to die because of the sins of it’s father.
Even babies conceived in rape, will be sucked out, burned to death with saline, ripped apart, etc.. Do they deserve that?
And all those noble sentiments will get flouted until the spiritual foundation is back.
Well, that’s the advantage we have. Every decent argument, from the biblical, to the natural law, to the words of our founders, to the Declaration of Independence, to every clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution, to the explicit, imperative requirements for equal protection of the unalienable right to life in multiple amendments, to science, all argue for our position.
“There’s a lot of things I don’t want to see anybody suffer through. Killing an innocent person is rarely a solution to any of them.”
Well said, Joe 6-pack! Furthermore, many women suffer AGAIN because of the loss of having their child aborted.
“Conceived in Rape
Listen to these words by Kahtleen DeZeeuw: I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child conceived in rape, feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that were being used to further the abortion issue, even though weve not been asked to tell our side of the story.
The story of Kathleen and of many other mothers who are rape survivors can be found in the book Victims and Victors. None of those who bring these children to birth ever say that they regret having their child. Yet those who abort after conceiving in rape usually suffer more from the abortion than from the rape. Find out more at priestsforlife.org.”
Yes, that’s kind of what I was getting at in my post to you. IMO, all this Roe v Wade debate is utterly pointless. Abortion used to be illegal, and abortions were still committed nonetheless. You can’t stop abortion by outlawing it.
Ultimately, the choice is the woman’s. And her choice will be determined by her relationship with God. I can’t back this up empirically, but my guess is if people spent as much time spreading the gospel as they do obsessing on overturning Roe v Wade, more babies would be spared.
You’re right though, of course. It’s quite obvious that what we’re up against is an absolute spiritual blindness.
There is no grip for the “advantage” without the faith actually existing in the people.
You can argue all day and get the choir’s applause and at the end of the day... they’re still crankin’ at the abortuaries.
In a word: GOSPEL. No other solution. None.
Law in a democracy (even a representative one) can mirror social mores. I won’t pretend that Roe v. Wade didn’t give a lot of women the excuse that they wanted, however, especially when they could have gone from a no-abortion state to a free-abortion state and didn’t. Law has a non-null effect on the drift of mores.
If it is right to take a life because a woman does not wish to carry the baby, it makes just as much sense to kill the mother - then she won’t have to carry a baby.