WASHINGTON, D.C. "Anyone who calls himself pro-life but does not approve of the new South Dakota law does not deserve to be thought of as pro-life," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League.
"The idea that the time isn't right to stop the senseless murder of preborn children is simply inane. True pro-lifers should abandon any person, group or political leader that takes such a stance on this important legislation.
"Let's be totally honest here," said Mrs. Brown. "President Bush's press secretary was asked about the president's position on the South Dakota law. Scott McClellan dodged the question, saying this was a state issue, and also noting that Bush, despite his 'pro-life' label, supports abortion in cases of rape, incest or perceived threat to the mother's life. McClellan would not answer the simple question, 'Does Bush support the law?' This is ridiculous!"
Legislators in South Dakota "passed one of the most pro-life laws this nation has ever seen," said Mrs. Brown. "It outlaws all medical and surgical abortions without exception; every abortion kills. And so-called pro-lifers are trying to decide if this is the right time to act?" She noted that more than 3,000 innocent babies are dying every day in this country through surgical abortion alone. "How many more babies need to die before these purported pro-lifers will think the timing is right?" she asked.
"We are simply stunned at the reaction of the president's spokesman, as well as the so-called pro-life groups that have questioned the timing or content of this bill. The entire movement should support this law, as well as encouraging other states to pass identical legislation. That's what we at American Life league are going to be doing; we will work with any other pro-life group that is willing to join us in this effort.
"Let's all remember why we are in this battle it's the babies!" Mrs.
Brown said. "We have the chance to save more than 800 lives a year in South Dakota and to multiply that number by exporting this law to every other state in the nation. Let's roll!"
Editor's Note: LTI Blog responded here
"Anyone who calls himself pro-life but does not approve of the new South Dakota law does not deserve to be thought of as pro-life."
Nonsense. Emotions need to move aside so effective strategy can take place. We can scream "stop killing babies" all we want but it's not going to happen until we can reverse Roe, which may take longer with the passage of defiant legislation such as South Dakota's.
Gee, I just learned that I am no longer pro-life!
Judie is a valuable member of the pro-life community, but I'm saddened by some of her careless statements, like this one: "Anyone who calls himself pro-life but does not approve of the new South Dakota law does not deserve to be thought of as pro-life."
Instead of dismissing her opponents as non-prolifers, it would be nice to see her present a substantial argument saying why those of us who question the timing of the SD law are wrong. We agree with Judie on the principle of outlawing abortion. But we disagree on the best tactics to get there. Judie does not understand that distinction.
For what it's worth, I think those who support the SD law are setting us up for setbacks. (I've stated my reasons for thinking this elsewhere at the LTI Blog.) I could be wrong about that, but I have good reasons for thinking my view is a sound one. But I don't for a moment question the pro-life credentials of those holding the opposite view. Our dispute is tactical, not moral. I only wish Judie would show similar charity to her colleagues.
While her statements were directed more at the President, I find myself agreeing that this form of ad hominem doesn't advance her position at all and manages to offend those who disagree with SD's strategy. Thanks for the remarks.
Actually, her remarks were not directed mainly at the President, but all who call themselves pro-life. She writes: "With new South Dakota abortion law in place, all pro-lifers must practice what they preach."
She goes on to say "The idea that the time isn't right to stop the senseless murder of preborn children is simply inane. True pro-lifers should abandon any person, group or political leader that takes such a stance on this important legislation."
That would include me.
I read her remarks as singling out the President but including "as well as the so-called pro-life groups" - which is why I agreed with your comments concerning her form of debate. There is no point or substance to debate based on name calling.
I have great respect for Mrs. Brown and her accomplishments. However, to simply assert that opponents of the SD law are not prolife without accompanying this judgment with an argument is, frankly, disrespectful. Those that oppose the law--such as the editorial writers at National Review online--have offered compelling reasons why this law, at this time, given the current make-up of the judiciary, may actually hurt the prolife cause in irreparable ways. Of course, NRO could be wrong. But it is up to Mrs. Brown to explain why it is wrong. Mere assertion does not do the trick. It's like saying, "My body, my choice," without first showing that the unborn is not a person. We should not turn the rhetorical vices of our opponents as weapons to use against our friends.
Mrs. Brown is right on the money. South Dakota has plenty of authority to stop abortion regardless of Roe v. Wade. I Praise the Lord for its effort to defend the innocent.
McClellan's comments were disappointing, but not surprising given that the Bush administration has repeatedly supported legislation to fund Planned Parenthood and boasts of such funding online.
I can't help but notice that one or more people have accused Mrs. Brown of "name calling" and engaging in ad hominem attacks. However, I found nothing in her above comments that could possibly be construed as either name calling or ad hominem attacks. Criticizing her comments on those grounds seems to avoid the real issue at hand.
Derek - the "ad hominem" argument presented by Mrs. Brown (whom I greatly respect), is contained in the opening phrase: "Anyone who calls himself pro-life but does not approve of the new South Dakota law does not deserve to be thought of as pro-life." Her argument is advanced by labeling those who disagree as "not pro-life" rather than expressing the merits of her case. It would appear that this is also an "appeal to force" - "agree or you are not pro-life." This does not mean I disagree with her conclusion that the SD law ought to be supported, but rather I find fault in the means by which she motivates it.
The second paragraph uses several fallacies to advance her argument as well - I'll leave it to others to point them out. See: this list of fallacies
Shut up. You're only contributing to the splintoring of your so-called pro-lifers buy making statements like that. You're encouraging factions' seperation. But hey, since I don't agree with you anyways... preach on!
I wonder what would be considered a malicious comment. You probably won't post my last post, so I edited it:
You're only contributing to the splintoring of your so-called pro-lifers buy making statements like that. You're encouraging factions' seperation. But hey, since I don't agree with you anyways... preach on!