Pro-lifers opposing the partial birth abortion ban say it will force abortionists to commit more torturous abortions, and this may be true.Whereas the ban prohibits breech abortions of babies delivered past the navel and head-first abortions of babies delivered past the chin, some pro-lifers say abortionists will now simply deliver a baby's legs and rip them off before proceeding, or deliver the baby almost to the navel and disembowel the baby, etc.
One pro-life group opposing the partial birth abortion ban wrote in an Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson two weeks ago (emphasis theirs):
The [Supreme Court] Justices raise the likelihood that with this [PBA ban] ruling, the fetus faces greater brutality. On page 30, the Justices note the objection "that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E [PBA]." That is, standard late-term D&E abortion appears to be more cruel than PBA... [N]ow these kids will suffer more horrifically with this ruling than before, as we congratulate ourselves.However, the very pro-lifers making this argument oppose fetal pain legislation, so their argument is disingenuous. Stated one member of this group, Brian Rohrbaugh, president of Colorado Right to Life, in an interview:
... What was wrong with that [fetal pain consent] bill is it's very good to warn women that their child is going to suffer intense pain. But its evil to offer a solution and then to allow the abortion to continue...I can only call it ruthless to withhold pain relief from someone you know is about to be tortured to death, which you can't stop...
Should Jesus' friends have knocked the sponge of wine vinegar away from Him while He was being legally but wrongfully killed?...
Continue reading my column today, "The pain of the partial birth abortion ban," on WorldNetDaily.com.
Brian( from CRTL), I hope you see this:
My first issue with his not supporting the bill is this.
Every time we get a law passed that gives the "fetus" patient rights, such as pain relief, it sets precedent for future case law. Saying the baby will feel intense pain, does not give him his humanity, it recognizes that he already has it. That he is a member of the human family.
Second: To quote Brian:
"What was wrong with that [fetal pain consent] bill is it's very good to warn women that their child is going to suffer intense pain. But its evil to offer a solution and then to allow the abortion to continue...".
My question is this, how does Brian know that after the woman is counseled on her infant's pain during the abortion, that it will then continue? I submit that he does not. There is no way he can know what effect this information will have on each woman's heart.
Lastly, Jill Stanek writes:
"I can only call it ruthless to withhold pain relief from someone you know is about to be tortured to death, which you can't stop...".
Again, I can see why the purists would not even want to go there. Your emotional, knee-jerk reaction as a pro-lifer is to say that you are condoning the practice causing the pain in the first place. However, just like Mr. Wilberforce's first law on how many slaves can be put on one ship eventually led to more restrictions and then abolition of slavery, any restrictions on abortion, any legislation that recognizes the humanity of the fetus, is a step in the right direction. Lori V.
The fact that the whole PBA ban brouhaha has forced abortionists to discuss the details of their trade in public will accomplish a lot, I think.
Call it "Sneaking in the back door." Pass a law that you'll know they'll fight, but in a way that forces them to admit that what they're doing is killing babies.
Matthew 27:34
They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
Blackmun himself stated in Roe v. Wade, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." And the pro-aborts agreed: Blackmun's next statement is, "The appellant conceded as much on reargument."
Jill, I have to address this commentary.
1. "I can only call it ruthless to withhold pain relief from someone you know is about to be tortured to death, which you cant stop."
Perhaps if pro-lifers would not have introduced such evil legislation, we would not be here having this discussion. These laws will keep abortion legal for years to come thanks to pro-lifers who came up with them. Since when is it ever OK to offer pain relief to those about to be murdered? Would you have felt better if Daniel Pearl received pain medicine before they cut off his head? I would be just as outraged, if not more! By supporting a law that says if you give pain medication, then it is legal to murder the baby you are "inadvertently" supporting the abortion in that case.
2. "Another member of the aforementioned group wrote and asked me, Should Germany have offered the Jews sedatives before sending them to the gas chambers? If so, would they have been perceived to have been more compassionate Nazis? But that was not an analogy at all."
That sounds like a good analogy to me. Can you tell me why that analogy "was not an analogy at all"? It isn't good enough just to say it isn't an analogy, you need to explain how the analogy doesn't work. Like with your analogy about them giving Jesus wine vinegar, THEY WERE MOCKING HIM!! Not helping him. Pilate found Jesus "Not Guilty" but sentenced him to death anyway, which violated Roman law, Jewish law and even our laws today. That is why your analogy doesn't work, what difference would it have made if they knocked the sponge away?.
3. "Bottom line: Don't lament the torturous side effects of the partial birth abortion ban if you don't support fetal pain legislation".
I don't support fetal pain legislation (murder committed more humanely) and I lament heavily for all abortions and the torturous side effects. Bottom line: Don't praise, write and support evil laws that end with "and then you can kill the baby".
Why is it that everyone associated with Colorado Right to Life always puts "and then you can kill the baby" in quotes as if any piece prolife legislation says those exact words?
Why is it that Colorado's parental notification law isn't a "and then you can kill the baby" law? The law allows abortions (the killing of the child) after the parents are notified so it seems that by CRTL standards it would be a "and then you can kill the baby" law since the law identifies something you have to do before and once you do that then an abortion can take place.
They always claim it isn't but their reasons seem to me to be reasons created to defend their law and not based on any kind of sound principles. Maybe someone could provide an argument that wasn't all unqualified generalizations.
I would also like Leslie to count to 5. That's the number of Supreme Court Justices we need who will agree that the unborn are persons in order for Blackmun's quote to mean anything. Can Leslie give me the 5 justices?
You are correct, the parental notification law IS a law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby". Sound principles are if any law ends with a regulation that says it is ok to kill as long as you follow guidelines, it is an evil law.
In my above comment, I need to be clear that I am only speaking about INNOCENT human life. It should have read "ok to kill AN INNOCENT person as long as you follow guidelines, it is an evil law", as executing the guilty of a capital crime is not evil.
MR,
Are you aware that everyone from Colorado Right to Life that I've talked to before about this doesn't believe their parental notification law is bad?
I guess you have a consistent principle. Whether it is sound or not is another question - especially since prolife laws don't say "its okay to kill..."
Unfortunately, the PBA law that Focus on the Family and others are praising does not have the authority to save one human life. This is considered a pro-life victory? I may be wrong, but I don't think the parental notification law was a law written by CRTL.
This is straight from CRTL's website:
Statement of Values
Colorado Right to Life commits, from this day forward, never to compromise on God's law, "Do not murder." This includes every provision that condones any abortion and/or can be interpreted to conclude, "and then you can intentionally kill the baby, the handicapped, or the elderly." Every human being has a God-given right to life from fertilization through natural death, regardless of their perceived value to society or perceived capacity to contribute to that society.
Colorado Right to Life understands there are no exceptions which would allow for the intentional killing of an innocent human life. We recognize that in some circumstances, the mother's life and/or the baby's life will be in danger. Under those circumstances, those responsible must make every legitimate effort to save the life of both mother and child. Adopted unanimously by the CRLC Board of Directors, 1/13/2007
MR, the "and then you can kill the baby" in conjunction with poo-pooing pro-life legislation is false. It implies pro-lifers have legal authority to deny permission to kill preborn babies. We don't. They're going to be legally killed whether or not we agree. We can, however, seek to limit the number of those being killed.
MR, you also asked, "Would you have felt better if Daniel Pearl received pain medicine before they cut off his head? I would be just as outraged, if not more!"
You sicken me, MR. I think Daniel Pearl would have felt better if given pain relief before dying that horrible, horrible death. I think his wife would have felt better knowing. It's mighty easy for you to say you wouldn't want someone to get pain relief before their head was hacked off - that you had no way of stopping, MR. Frankly, I'm horrified you apparently would have disallowed that poor savaged man from being anesthesized.
You think wishing for pain relief is condoning the act. It's not. Get it through your head you have absolutely no control over stopping abortion. It's going to happen whether you approve or not. And some of those babies are going to die horrible deaths equal or superior in pain to Mr. Pearl's.
You are the worst kind of heartless legalist.
Jill, you continue to miss the point time after time after time. Isaiah 5:20 says, "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Remember your wine vinegar analogy?) Daniel Pearl should not have been murdered at all!!! Whether he received pain meds or not it was evil. Which do you think his wife would have been happier with? An execution with pain meds or if they would have not murdered him? This PBA "ban" that you support rips legs off beautiful innocent babies, yet you are praising it. You are calling evil good and good evil. "Wishing" for pain relief? Your fetal pain law makes it legal to kill a baby after giving it pain meds. Your support of these laws is why abortion will remain legal for years to come.
You say:
"Get it through your head you have absolutely no control over stopping abortion." But yet, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years.
I say:
It's time for some new leadership, your efforts for 30 years have been totally wasted. I think it's time you retired. You can't admit that the downside of these laws is that now women might even feel better about their abortion!!! Why can't you admit that? After all, it makes you feel better that the baby has pain meds before he is murdered, so why not someone seeking abortion?
MR... sigh.... We are two ships clearly passing in the night. I resent your attempts to portray me as condoning murder. Of course I don't, and you waste time by so attempting.
WE HAVE NO SAY IN THESE MURDERS, whether they're Daniel Pearl or aborted babies.
You take the same approach as pro-aborts who say since women will seek illegal abortions, we should legalize them. You say since abortionists will seek other forms of abortion, we should legalize PBA.
What do you want me to admit? That women won't feel better after abortions? Get real. Of course I agree and have written on that more times than I can count.
MR, you're fighting the wrong person/people. Fight pro-aborts. Work with fellow pro-lifers to stop abortion. If you disagree with certain strategies, pursue your own. You're more than wasting time. You're hurting fellow soldiers.
MR,
While the PBA Ban might not be able to stop abortionists from using other abortion techniques that doesn't mean the ruling isn't a prolife victory, though the victory may be small.
Take the time to read Hadley Arkes' thoughts on this ruling.
Before they reworked their web site, Colorado Right to Life had a section where they attacked other prolife laws but defended their parental notification law. You can see what that section used to say here at the internet archive. Here's their attempt at reasoning:
First of all Jill, thank you for taking the time to respond to me, I appreciate it. I meant to say that earlier. Anyway...
"You say since abortionists will seek other forms of abortion, we should legalize PBA."
When have I ever said that? I am opposed to ANY law that says it is legal to kill an innocent human being. All abortion is murder All abortion should be illegal. Abortion is always wrong.
The Gonzales v. Carhart ruling suggests that abortionists "may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus," This quote is DIRECTLY from the ruling itself (p. 30). Not from me.
WE HAVE NO SAY IN THESE MURDERS. Jill, we have a say when we vote. We have a say when we praise a worthless ruling. We have a say when we choose not to compromise on DO NOT MURDER. Abortion wasn't always legal. You had a say when "President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act."
I want you to acknowledge the possibility that a fetal pain law could actually encourage someone to get an abortion because now the baby will not feel the pain of its murder. Instead of preventing abortions, which the law was wanting to accomplish, it inadvertently encouraged abortions because it made it more "humane".
Jill, stop compromising on DO NOT MURDER and then we can both take on the pro-aborts with success.
MR, let me ask you some very simple questions about the federal government:
1) If we pass a law which states, "All abortions are illegal", would such a law survive the courts?
2) If the President of the United States declares, "All abortions are illegal", would in fact all abortions be illegal?
3) If we get one more anti-Roe Justice on the Supreme Court, could Roe v. Wade be overturned?
The answers:
1) No, it would be declared unconstitutional almost immediately.
2) No, the President does not have legislative authority.
3) Yes, because we currently have 4 out of 9 Justices on the Supreme Court who are opposed to Roe v. Wade. With a fifth anti-Roe Justice, we can overturn Roe. It is therefore very unwise to pretend that the anti-Roe Justices are just as bad as the pro-Roe Justices.
Janet Folger Calls it Bickering : writing for WorldNetDaily.com, pro-life columnist Janet Folger said that "pro-lifers bicker about whether the partial-birth abortion ban was strong enough." Not one of the coalition groups raising the new standard of leadership in the pro-life movement have ever said that the PBA ban wasn't strong enough. What virtually all pro-life industry leaders have either not understood, or have chosen to ignore, is our warning that:
1) pro-lifers disobey God when they defend rulings and advocate laws that regulate the killing of unborn children;
2) child-killing regulations, being immoral, easily backfire on the unborn, making abortion appear more reasonable to judges and governing officials, and less offensive to voters;
3) the brutally-wicked PBA ruling is the bad-fruit evidence of a secular humanist 30-year strategy of National Right To Life, Americans United for Life, Jay Sekulow, etc., which moral relativism is crumbling the spiritual foundation of the Body of Christ in America;
4) by the evidence amassed throughout 27 years since Ronald Reagan was first elected president, apparently, every single one of "our" Justices, whom our Republican presidents have put on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, apparently every single one of our judges reject the personhood and God-given right to life of the unborn child , all of this being done without even acknowledgment or warning from Dr. James Dobson or any leader in the pro-life industry warning.
And Janet Folger refers to all this as bickering.
KGOV.com
Jivin J
This is straight from CRTL's website:
Statement of Values
Colorado Right to Life commits, from this day forward, never to compromise on God's law, "Do not murder." This includes every provision that condones any abortion and/or can be interpreted to conclude, "and then you can intentionally kill the baby, the handicapped, or the elderly." Every human being has a God-given right to life from fertilization through natural death, regardless of their perceived value to society or perceived capacity to contribute to that society.
Colorado Right to Life understands there are no exceptions which would allow for the intentional killing of an innocent human life. We recognize that in some circumstances, the mother's life and/or the baby's life will be in danger. Under those circumstances, those responsible must make every legitimate effort to save the life of both mother and child. Adopted unanimously by the CRLC Board of Directors, 1/13/2007