Posted on 06/20/2007 8:14:05 PM PDT by psycho3lf
Today in Kansas City Missouri, National Right to Life's board of directors voted to disenfranchise a state chapter, Colorado Right To Life, from the umbrella organization. Two days ago, Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, admitted in a mass email that, "Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life."
[snip]
"We will tell the truth that National Right To Life doesn't want told," said Brian Rohrbough, president of Colorado Right To Life, "that NRTL advocates a strategy of child-killing regulations that undermine personhood and distract from the real battle." And Leslie Hanks, V.P. of Colorado Right To Life added, "As a fundraiser, partial-birth abortion has brought in hundreds of millions of dollars, but as a way to save lives, it has no authority to save a single child."
Actually, the government does have business in this, just as they have an interest in protecting life outside the womb. As far as your example of the 45 year old woman, if we start destroying life because of chromosome abnormalities, we go down a slippery slope, which we have already started on. Today it’s chromosome abnormalities, tomorrow it’s babies with crooked feet that a woman wanting an excuse to kill her baby could say was because of defective genetics. And what if these abnormalities aren’t discovered until after the baby is born? Does she have a right to kill the child then? And how does she do it? Suffocation, starvation, lethal injection? What would be acceptable to you? I usually don’t give much creedence to arguing points with those who refer to the babies as fetuses, because it speaks volumes about what side of the fence you’re on, but I made an exception in this case.
Abortion is a truly unique civil and legal issue. It may seem quite simple to you but I don’t think it’s that simple.
It’s also a question of who has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? I do not advocate for abortion at all. I quit supporting a Republican pro-choice group because they wouldn’t denounce late-term abortion.
But the body of a woman is not the “property” of the state just because she becomes pregnant. If I had become pregnant at the age of 45 and had learned of a Down Syndrome condition, I do not know how I would have reacted. But I DO know that neither you, nor any other person outside my family, should be able to force me and my husband to make the choice according to your religious beliefs.
There is no way to compare the questions raised by abortion to murder, although I do agree with those who call late-term abortion “infanticide,” because of the obvious ability of the fetus/child to survive outside the womb. But before that stage of gestation, the mother’s body and the fetus/child are inseparable legal entities, in my opinion.
After birth, the child can survive as long as any adult is available to care for him/her. But the mother’s body does not belong to the state, either before, during or after pregnancy. Sorry.
And the baby’s body does not belong to you. Whether you like it or not, we all belong to the state in the sense that the state has a vested interest in protecting its citizens, even the tiniest of babies. Roe v Wade took that protection away from the babies, and thanks to NRTL, that lack of protection still exists today.
As far as my religious beliefs, you have no clue what my religious beliefs are. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs, but basic human beliefs. You contradict yourself. You say no one has a right to tell a woman that she has to carry a baby to term, yet you denounce late-term abortion. Can’t have it both ways.
The unborn child is not a “citizen,” and you know it. One must have a birth certificate in order to be a citizen. No one gets a Social Security number until he/she is born. And, yes, the baby does belong to the body of the mother. There is no way to separate the fetus/baby from the mother until the fetus/baby is viable.
I denounce abortion, generally speaking, in moral terms. Just as I denounce adultery, fornication. Yet I do not want to make those immoral acts crimes (again). The government has no power to control immoral acts. However, churches, religious institutions, and public opinion can cause people to change their behavior.
I’m not a pro-abortionist, but I am tired of hearing from Republicans and others who claim to believe in freedom that they want to go back to criminalizing ALL abortions. And I’m tired of people on the “right” demonizing people who disagree with them.
People on the right don’t have to do much to demonize anyone on the left. They do a good enough job of that on their own.
Protection of humans has nothing to do with citizenship. If that was the case, we could kill illegal aliens on sight just because they are not citizens. Besides, if the child was a citizen, would that make a difference to you? BTW, what is it about abortion that you find morally denounceable?
“The unborn child is not a “citizen,” and you know it.”
You seem to have found an interesting solution to the immigration problem: “they aren’t citizens so kill them.”
(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--
(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
In (1) (a) above, the law applies only if the entire head or the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother. Given this narrow definition, as a physician, it is clear that one could leave part of the head in the body of the mother (including the vulva tissue) or, if breech, it would be important not to pull the body out beyond the umbilicus before slaughtering the baby. What the effect may be is to truly jeopardize the health of the mother as an unscrupulous abortionist will be doing more manipulation with possible additional internal trauma to the mother in order to get at the base of the baby's skull.
Both of these bills allow a "doctor" to kill a child during the very process of birth until, "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother." Or "in the case of breech presentation", the child should be killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of S.3 and HR 760 in quotes)
That is not a ban. Those are targeting coordinates for the butcher/doctor, plain and simple. These words were put in the bill by its authors: Rep. Chris Smith & Sen. Rick Santorum. The abortionists may be cunning, but they are certainly not stupid. This will not even slow them down.
A law that only protects a child in the last ten seconds of a nine-month pregnancy is a total fraud. It is hard to imagine how anyone could even write a law that would provide fewer restrictions on the legal killing of a human being. As such, it is highly unlikely that even one single child will be saved using the language of this "ban."
Does any one care to read the text of the Fake Partial birth abortion bill Bush signed. Read it and you will see that it does not ban the PB abortion but rather changes how it is done.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.00003:
`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--
`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus
The National Right to Life worked with NARAL & NOW AGAINST South Dakota's anti-abortion Bill
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Pro-Life/Stem Cells/Conservative Issues Ping List. Sign up and Try Conservapedia instead of Wickipedia. Instead of Google, try Pro-Life Search
Cant believe FR didn’t post this already. NRTL is headed by self destructive idiots. Rohrbough was a father of a Columbine victim btw.>>>
How would we know about this if the story did not make it to the National News outlets like the AP or Newswire or Reuters? Are we mind readers? That’s why we rely on the locals like you and the thousands of other freepers to bring the issue to the forefront and post it on the FR. BTW, many states have told the National Right to Life to go stick it, NJ was one of them. Welcome to the FR. I see you joined on June 21 and the date of this thread is June 20th. I wonder how this was accomplished?
National Right to Life and Colorado Right to Life both have problems.
You can argue about the best tactics to use, but most RTL people think that the ban on PBA was a good thing, because it started the momentum moving the other way. Of course it’s not the whole job, but it was an important step.
Personally, I stopped supporting NRTL quite a long time ago because I thought they were stupid on the tactics they used in particular situations. I prefer to support several Catholic RTL organizations (HLI, PRI, and others), also Operation Rescue and Survivors, because I think those are the front line organizations, and they do NOT think in terms of making money on this issue. Also, a couple of legal groups that work against Planned Parenthood.
You can also do some good indirectly by supporting outfits like the Cardinal Newman Society, which goes after dissidents in the Catholic Colleges and helps defend life that way.
I may get blasted here....but I think NRTL was right in what they did to the Colorado group. The Colorado group blasted Dr Dobson publicly. The letter was posted on FR, I believe. If you find it and reread it you may see it in a different light.
I have trouble with the letter for several reasons.
1 - The author who wrote the article should have gone directly to Dr Dobson. If that approach did give them understanding, the next step, biblically would be to take a brother with and confront again. If that does not gain the insight, then bring it to the church. Where does it say to publicly tear down a brother in the Lord, in scripture??? It doesn't.
2 - If, in fact, this letter were meant to bring correction to a straying brother or sister, it would not have been written in the form it was written in. It was written with detailed, nearly line by line, tearing apart! Whenever that is being done, it is NEVER being done in the interest of Christian admonition.
3 - Dr Dobson did not write the Supreme Court response, nor did he say it meant everything was all over. His words were carefully chosen and spoken. The letter tries to apply blame to Dr Dobson that is not his to take. The real 'anger' should have been vented in a more appropriate direction. They were upset with the ruling and its verbage...then hold those who wrote it responsible.
4 - The other issue that concerned me was their need to include other Pro-Life names and organizations in this attack, as if it were picking sides. They even wrote it in such as a way as to lead the public to thinking that everyone whose name was attached to the letter was supporting it. To the best of my knowledge that was not so. A major figure speaking against parts of the Supreme Court's written decision does not qualify as support for the letter they wrote!
I was proud of Dr Dobson's letter that came out a week or two later. He never publicly attacked the Colorado Right To Life, but he did address some of the issues they questioned by quoting his previous words, so people knew what was said. Then he went on to further explain that this was a step in the right direction but not the end of it all.
I truly believe that the letter was instigated, on a spiritual level, to cause further division in the Pro-Life movement. It has happened here in South Dakota, and is now occurring at the national level, as well, being supported by letters such as this! "A house divided against itself will surely fall!" When the enemy can cause division within the ranks of the opponent, the enemy WINS!
The NRTL took a stand and said that one of their state organizations should not act in such a way as to write a public letter tearing down another Pro-Life leader. They did what was right, IMHO.
There have been times in the past where I have questioned the moves of certain Pro-Life organizations. After doing further research, I find there were good reasons for such decisions. Sometimes those organizations do not come out with the full explanation, putting themselves in a complicated position. The public doesn't know all the ins and outs of the issues as well as others working on it for years, and we only see or hear what little is put out there for us. Because of this, the public makes judgments and has perceptions that are not necessarily true because they are made on bits and pieces of information rather than full disclosure.
I am watching as the Devil is splitting the Pro-Life movement. Will we wake up in time to see what he is doing and to correct it? Will we take a stand against the division? Will we be able to take our own personal hurts, stop coddling them and let them go to forgive those who have caused the hurt, and bring healing?
The Pro-Life movement is made up of many organizations. Each organization has a key role to play, reaches a certain target group, and has its specified means to reach the goal. HOWEVER, the goal, the end goal for all of these organizations is the SAME! Can we not focus on the goal, and the fact that we are all trying to keep it moving in the same direction? Only this will bring the movement back together...with a unified front against the abortion industry.
What will each of you choose? To sit on the sidelines, complain and do nothing? Cause further division? Or will you take an active role, and be a part of the healing and restoration of unity in the movement?
Again,
"A house divided against itself will surely fall."
Interesting how, among abortion rights supporters, there are often those who rationalize abortion by making statements like those above. By asserting that a woman's choice to abort is ultimately a matter "between her and her God" or something like that. And thereby avoid confronting the meaning of the very thing they support, e.g., the arbitrary maiming to death of a human being in the womb. It's a good cop-out. As if the fetus is an entity on the order of a tapeworm that just suddenly, almost *magically*, transforms into a person upon completely leaving the mother's body (but not before "tak[ing] his first breath," of course) and not one nanosecond before. It's a little bit ironic, then, that pro-lifers are the ones who are attacked for religious mysticism and irrationality.
And, furthermore, your beliefs (and mine) about the beginning of human life are at core theological. Thus state and federal governments should keep their clumsy paws off this personal, ultimately religious issue.
Here are some atheists who beg to differ.
I denounce abortion, generally speaking, in moral terms.
Why? Is it because you recognize that abortion entails putting an innocent unborn child to death, and you recognize that arbitrarily killing an innocent human being is morally reprehensible? If so, then your position lacks integrity. A position of "It is morally reprehensible to arbitrarily put an unborn child to death, but a woman's choice to do so is a personal, ultimately religious issue" lacks integrity.
I’m not a pro-abortionist...
Kind of funny how those who call themselves "pro-choice" like to distance themselves from the very thing they support by asserting that they are pro-choice and not--oh, absolutely not!--pro-abortion. Please. You are pro-abortion. The dictionary definition of "pro-" is "supporting" or "in favor of." When you support the right to choose abortion, you give your blessing to a cause that exists specifically to accommodate abortion, you support abortion; that is, you are pro-abortion. It doesn't matter that you don't support *forced* abortion (although coerced abortion in "pro-choice" guise happens much more often than you would like to think or admit [classic example]); by supporting the right to choose abortion, you satisfy the minimum requirements for qualifying as pro-abortion.
There are people who support the legalization of marijuana and call themselves pro-marijuana--but it's understood that they are calling for the right to choose to smoke marijuana, not for forcing everyone to be a pothead. There are those who advocate gay rights and call themselves pro-GLBT (gay/lesbian/bi/transgendered)--but it's understood that they are calling for the right to choose to be openly GLBT without having to suffer legal discrimination, not for forcing everyone to be GLBT. It seems that only abortion rights supporters refuse to identify themselves with the very thing they support, refuse to name what it is exactly that distinguishes them from pro-lifers. You may call yourself "pro-choice-and-not-pro-abortion" all you like, but it's the "pro-choice" perspective that provides for the legally sanctioned killing of 1.3 million unborn human beings at any and all stages of pregnancy annually in the U.S. alone.
When somebody declares that they are "pro-choice," you know right away that it's abortion they are talking about. I am in favor of school choice for parents. I am in favor of the choice to marry someone of the same sex. I am in favor of the choice to own a gun. I am in favor of the choice to prostitute oneself. I am in favor of the choice to smoke a joint. But because I am against abortion, I am instantly labeled as "anti-choice." Anti-abortion = anti-choice, because pro-choice = pro-abortion. "Choice," tragically, has become a euphemism for one thing and one thing only: abortion.
FOTF had the open letter sent to them with the
request to agree to meet so that the letter
wouldn’t have to be published.
They chose to ignore it.
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.