Posted on 11/20/2008 3:18:42 PM PST by cpforlife.org
I regret to report it was pro-life dissidents who caused the defeat of the South Dakota abortion ban initiative and worsened the lopsided trouncing of the Colorado personhood amendment. According to Medical News Today:
The defeat of abortion ballot measures across the country… may have been the result of divisions among anti-abortion groups. …
Opposition to the measure in South Dakota came from the anti-abortion groups American Life League and South Dakota Right to Life. The groups did not support the measure because of its exceptions to the abortion ban – cases of rape or incest or in narrowly defined instances "to preserve the health or life of the woman." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“But my problem is more with the purist hardliners. They’re irrational. They ignore arguments comparing the incremental approach, with which I agree – saving babies when we can until we can save them all – to the Underground Railroad or the Oscar Schindlers and Corrie ten Booms of the Holocaust.
This debate isn’t even comparable to “Sophie’s Choice,” being forced to choose which children live or die. All children slated for abortion are going to die. But if given the opportunity, do we not rescue any of them? Purists say no, not unless we can rescue all of them.”
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Any movement that ends in “or nothing” usually cause more trouble than not.
Any "pro-life" "movement" that ends with "and then they can kill the baby" is not pro-life.
Jill Stanek is part of the problem. Big time.
Prom dress.
You take what you can get and move forwards. For example, if you vote against a late term abortion ban, because it doesn’t ban 1st trimester abortions, you’re a fool. You can fly the righteous flag all day long, but you’re still a fool for voting thusly.
Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works in the real world.
“health of the mother” is not acceptable language.
Period.
OK EV, I’ll “play”
First from the article:
“This debate isn’t even comparable to “Sophie’s Choice,” being forced to choose which children live or die. All children slated for abortion are going to die. But if given the opportunity, do we not rescue any of them? Purists say no, not unless we can rescue all of them.”
EV, It is not possible to pass a HLA. http://www.nchla.org/
Not even remotely possible at this time. We should save as many babies as we possibly can, NOW while also working to change the culture so that in the future a HLA will be possible.
This should never have been presented as an “either or” scenario. IMO, it is a “both and” real world situation. You do everything you can whenever you can.
When it becomes possible to pass a HLA, by all means we will do it.
The so-called “purist” seems to think that if we work incrementally now (which has saved untold thousands) that somehow will prevent us from working on a HLA when it is possible. That is very short sighted and costs lives in the process.
A very interesting article. And it proves the point that the Pro-life movement is much more of a purist, religious movement than a practical political one.
It’s about feeling good about yourself more than really being able to make abortion illegal, which is not going to happen.
The incrementalists give up the core principles. After that, there’s nothing left but a phony shell.
You are going to have to do a lot better than that.
It’s true that some “incrementalists give up the core principles”.
It’s also true that some “incrementalists” would be happy with stopping at leaving abortion legal for rape incest health of mother etc. Well they’re not completly pro-life.
The core of the Movement believes that it is always wrong to kill an innocent person—murder.
Of the core a majority want to save as many as possible now while also working towards the future HLA.
EV, please explain what is wrong with that.
It is estimated that FOCA will cause an additional 125,000 babies per year to be aborted*.
EV that means that the “incrementalist” approach has been saving 125,000 babies every year for many years.
This has in no way stopped efforts to advance the cause to stop all abortions. If anything it has helped educate 125,000 more mothers to become pro-life. How many of them will communicate the pro-life message versus how many would have been stuck in the pro-abortion message.
EV, Please explain how any of this is bad or causes me to “give up the core principles. After that, there’s nothing left but a phony shell.”
That really does not make sense to true pro-lifers.
Barack Obama’s “Freedom of Choice Act” Would Mean 125K More Abortions
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4359.html
Yep. All attempts to regulate abortion, instead of stopping it, are coming to naught. Why are you surprised?
I won’t click on your last link. I have no use for that website and its deceptions.
All or nothing is such a ridiculous, irrational and losing strategy, I can't help but wonder if the people pushing it are trolls who are ardently pro-abortion.
And the sad fact is, some precious lives that are lost could have been saved.
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.