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 we’re talking about saving almost 99% of the babies here. Who wouldn’t sacrifice the 0.6% to save the 99%? Don’t the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, or the one? Shouldn’t 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, they’re only 0.9% of the U.S. population, and represent a worldview whose radical elements we’ve been at war with for over a decade. Why not protect the 99% here?
Better yet, if you’re 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 there’s 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, doesn’t 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 it’s the exact same exception many in the pro-life movement have put forth time and time again. They use arguments like “why wouldn’t you sacrifice the 1% to save the 99%” to justify it. The question itself admits we’re sacrificing something. So what is it we’re sacrificing? We’re sacrificing innocent human life in the name of political expediency, that’s what we’re sacrificing. I’m 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 you’re 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, doesn’t mind killing.
Obviously nobody would publicly propose not protecting life by law on the basis of someone’s religious belief. Even if they thought such a thing they wouldn’t dare say so publicly because of the obvious and deserved backlash that would ensue. So when the pro-life movement publicly says we’re not going to protect life by law on the basis of the way it was conceived, what we’re really saying is that particular life isn’t sacred.
If you bow to public opinion polls that say children conceived in rape or incest aren’t 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 you’d 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 aren’t really arguing a pro-life position. We’re really arguing the Planned Parenthood position, which is “make every child a wanted child.” Let’s 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 wouldn’t 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 don’t 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 God’s 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 we’re willing not to protect children conceived in rape or incest, we’re agreeing with the child killing industry’s core vision that we mere mortals – not the Creator – determine who’s worthy to live and who’s 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.
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 we’re being used to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve 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.”
http://networkedblogs.com/AjX0a
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.
Then this free republic cannot possibly endure. Because our form of government, the rule of law, and our claim to liberty, is premised in the assertion that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, starting with the right to live. This is the very raison d'etre of human government, according to our wise founders. Destroy that, and you have destroyed America. Congratulations.
Ultimately, the choice is the woman’s.
And you've survived on this pro-life website for a dozen years how?
There is no logic to any of their arguments, of course.
You can HINDER something by banning it. You can buy time with law.
But in the long term, the gospel is the only can-do thing. Everything else is melting band-aids.
See my post number 47.
So what? Abortion used to be outlawed, and abortions were committed nonetheless. Murder and theft are outlawed too. You simply can't legislate evil out of existence.
The only sure-fire way to stop abortions is by changing hearts, not the law. If everybody spent as much time spreading the gospel as they do obsessing over Roe v Wade, more babies would probably be saved.
And then we can wail all day about the blindness.
Or we can listen to the Lord knockin’ on our doors every day with “Hey! Here’s some light! Share THAT!”
That's all human government can ever possibly do anyway. God instituted it as a means to restrain evil, and to punish evil-doers.
yes.
i wouild take that bill.
and then i would propose a bill to ban the hindu abortions.
i would use incrementalism just like the damn leftists who never stop and get what they want incrementally. shove their own tactic down their damn wicked throats.
remembering this would reduce the amount of banter here, even. good to keep in mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.