Les Kinsolving from Worldnetdaily.com wrote a hit piece on the unborn today, referring to the Pro-Life people of South Dakota as "barbarians".
In reference to the "exceptions" that many in the movement want to allow, Les says:
"I am distressed indeed that there is any chance that he would sign into law any measure denying the relief of abortion to all victims of rape – however young – and to all victims of incest."
Not as distressed as those who would die if you allowed that "relief" Mr. Kinsolving.
He then goes on with this:
"If a victim of rape or incest – both of which are against the law – is forced by law to come full term with the result of the unlawful rape and incest – is this not an absolutely barbaric and legally contradictory insistence on carrying out what the laws of rape and incest and marriage are designed to prevent?"
What is the "result"? A human being.
For you folks out there who want to debate these kinds of exceptions, please consider the fact that human beings are what we are talking about killing in cases of rape & incest. Why would you want to damage the woman twice? Women who have abortions suffer the abortions forever. If they have already suffered from a rape, why would you further impose suffering upon them by encouraging them to execute the person inside the womb? That person didn't have a part in the crime did she/he?
Les then goes on to say:
"Would either South Dakota or Mississippi be willing to revise their law that all persons' ages are determined by their date of birth – so that all of their citizens would, in one vote, become nine months older?That would appear to be very doubtful. But the abortion prohibitionists use that verbal ruse "pro-life" in an attempt to portray their opponents as "baby killers."."
"Abortion prohibitionists"? Did he just compare abortion, the killing of human beings, to the prohibition of alcohol?
The final part of his article really shows his disconnection from understanding what LIFE really is.
"This necessitates a contention that a human being is created at the instant of conception – when the united sperm and egg are invisible to the naked eye.Yet when a girl of 13 is gang-raped and impregnated, the right-to-life people (including legislators in South Dakota and Mississippi) contend that aborting the result – no matter how microscopic – is murder.
There have been those who have strongly opposed any inhibition, chemical or otherwise, of invisible sperm reaching invisible egg.
Since both sperm and egg are invisible – as is the initially fertilized egg – why should these joined invisibilities be proclaimed as "unborn children"?"
This is a point that so many people make, that if you can't see a person, she must not exist. It is one of the biggest pro-abortion arguments, alongside "women's right to choose".
Yes Mr. Kinsolving, life begins at the moment of conception, even if you can't see the fertilized egg while squinting your eyes.
I don't know if Les is Pro-Life. I do know that many Pro-Life people will start debating the fine points of what it means to be Pro-Life now that we are winning many battles around the country. For those of you who are 100% Pro-Life, keep the focus and don't get distracted by people within our ranks. There are many people who don't understand that Life is Life, no matter what. There are many people who think that abortion is wrong...except for certain circumstances. Innocent lives must be protected from those who wish to take their lives, whether in the womb or through research.
I have a question for all of you who believe that you must "see" Life before you believe it exists, how do you feel about God? If you put a fertilized egg in a microscope you will see a fertilized egg. I don't think there is a test out there to see God is there?
Finally, my wife made a point about this last statement of his. She asked, if a blind person can't see Mr. Kinsolving, does he have a right to exist?
I don't think that debate *within* the Pro-Life ranks is inherently harmful or bad; rather, the methods and intent of that debate determines whether it is helpful or harmful.
Debate can be healthy, as it implies open-mindedness, desire to reason, and willingness to defend one's beliefs. Debate helps root out weak or false arguments, and helps strengthen good arguments.
However, invective, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and all the other forms of *bad* argument can be and are harmful. Note, these are generally the nature of the pro-abortion advocates, NOT the pro-life camp.
Les Kinsolving sounds in no way an advocate of the pro-life position; thus, I am not at all surprised at his methods of "argument".
"determines" should be "determine" - I've not yet had my coffee this morning!
Pro-lifers must unite behind the common goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. Infighting will ruin us. Once Roe is gone, we can fight with each other all we want.
Enough already! I'm tired of people and politicians who think they know what is best for a women, whose circumstances they don't know in most cases (if not all) who seek an abortion.
Starting the 1st of the month we are going to take a more active stand. We are going to follow you and the politicians who seek to criminalize a legal procedure. And when we find one who (or who's spouse) is pregnant we are going to follow then to their doctors and scream ABORT! ABORT! ABORT! We are going to hold up pictures of starving and abused children. The more radical of us may even take a pot shot or two at doctors who deliver babies. We are going to harass then just as you harass women who make the tough and personal decision to seek an abortion.
APRIL FOOL! We realize that this is a personal decision - we wish you felt the same way.
(signed)
MrMike
MrMike, you have already decided what is best for women. By supporting abortion you have no problem with them being killed in the womb.
In case nobody has informed you, to "ABORT!" a human being is to kill her/him.
You solution for starving and abused children is to kill them before they might become poor and abused children?
You even threaten to shoot at doctors, people who bring human beings into the world.
No current Pro-Life effort supports violence against anyone. In the past there were those who thought that violence was the proper reaction to the violence of abortion. Today, all Pro-Life efforts involved peaceful prayer at doctors' homes and abortion mills.
If you want to pray at the homes of doctors who bring human beings into the world, please do so, I'm sure they will welcome you.
Abortion isn't a "personal decision". Abortion kills innocent human beings, over 3,000 a day.
In Regards to MrMike's comment:
This here is a example of what is happening to the left. They are in a panic. Their sacrement of legalized abortion is finally being "properly" examined by both the government and the public. Comments like this one encourage me. It tells me that we, as pro-life activists, are gaining ground. God will answer the prayers of His people! Amen.
JJ Honeycutt
www.GodGunsGlory.com