Why Pro-Lifers Lose

Coservative Action Alerts ^ | September 11, 2013 | Steve Deace

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Would you support a “pro-life” bill that banned the killing of all unborn children except those born to parents who are Hindus? After all, only 0.6% of the U.S. population is Hindu, so we’re talking about saving almost 99% of the babies here. Who wouldn’t sacrifice the 0.6% to save the 99%? Don’t the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, or the one? Shouldn’t we save as many as we can?

Or maybe we should put forth “pro-life” legislation that protects all children except those born to Muslims? After all, they’re only 0.9% of the U.S. population, and represent a worldview whose radical elements we’ve been at war with for over a decade. Why not protect the 99% here?

Better yet, if you’re going to leave anyone unprotected to “save as many babies as you can” why not target the Jewish people? No people group has been more targeted for extinction throughout human history than the Jews, so there’s certainly precedent for it. There are whole sectors of the globe that would support us doing so as we speak. And the Jewish people represent less than 2% of the U.S. population, so we could still save 98% of the babies.

This all sounds utterly preposterous, doesn’t it? Nobody in the pro-life movement in their right mind would propose such a thing, would they?

Except many in the pro-life movement already have.

Simply substitute “children conceived via rape and incest” for “Hindu” or “Muslim” or “Jewish” and it’s the exact same exception many in the pro-life movement have put forth time and time again. They use arguments like “why wouldn’t you sacrifice the 1% to save the 99%” to justify it. The question itself admits we’re sacrificing something. So what is it we’re sacrificing? We’re sacrificing innocent human life in the name of political expediency, that’s what we’re sacrificing. I’m no Socrates, but sacrificing the sanctity of life to preserve the sanctity of life sounds to me like an absurdity with no basis in logic.

That all sounds well and good to some when you’re talking about kids conceived in rape and incest. Kids conservative talk radio superstar Sean Hannity refers to as “evil seed.” Kids that Ann Coulter, who wrote a national best-seller called Demonic that chastised the Democrats for promoting a culture of death, doesn’t mind killing.

Obviously nobody would publicly propose not protecting life by law on the basis of someone’s religious belief. Even if they thought such a thing they wouldn’t dare say so publicly because of the obvious and deserved backlash that would ensue. So when the pro-life movement publicly says we’re not going to protect life by law on the basis of the way it was conceived, what we’re really saying is that particular life isn’t sacred.

If you bow to public opinion polls that say children conceived in rape or incest aren’t worthy of being protected, then you are tacitly admitting not all life is sacred yourself. For if the public was in favor of protecting every child other than the one named you, something tells me you’d fight public pressure and not succumb to it if it were your life on the line.

Furthermore, if we agree that not all life is sacred and worthy of protection, then we aren’t really arguing a pro-life position. We’re really arguing the Planned Parenthood position, which is “make every child a wanted child.” Let’s face it, nobody wants a child conceived in rape or incest up front, because that means you had to suffer through something heinous to conceive that child you wouldn’t even wish upon your worst enemy.

But after that child is conceived, why would we execute the child for the crimes of his/her parents? The only justification for doing so is that you really don’t believe all life is sacred, but that life conceived in certain circumstances is unwanted so killing it is an option. Therefore, is it any wonder why after 40 years we have been unable to shut down the child killing industry once and for all when not even those who are “pro-life” are of one mind on whether all life is worthy of protection?

Case in point: if you get elected and try standing for the right to life for all of God’s children, including those conceived in rape or incest, you may get criticized by the pro-life movement itself.

We can certainly agree or disagree with one another tactically about how much incrementalism is practical, and how too much incrementalism at times works against our stated strategy of working to eventually end all child-killing in America. But this is not that debate. This is a debate of principle.

When we say we’re willing not to protect children conceived in rape or incest, we’re agreeing with the child killing industry’s core vision that we mere mortals – not the Creator – determine who’s worthy to live and who’s worthless enough to be targeted for extinction. Make no mistake, when we consent to the execution of certain children because of how they were conceived we are not promoting the imago dei. And the only reason a society would turn away from the horrific selfishness of child sacrifice to the altar of personal convenience is its belief in the imago dei.

Just as a bloodied, bruised, and battered Christ on the Cross testifies to what it takes to bring redemption to a world so fallen it would execute its own Savior, so does the hope of a new life brought forth in the tragedy of rape or incest testify to the potential for meaning and redemption in such unspeakable suffering.

If you really want society to protect all life then start making the case that all life is worthy of protection.

[campaignPete R-CT]

what did steve ever win?

[ClearCase_guy]

This is like saying because I support the Second Amendment I should support letting people have modern artillery pieces and guided missiles.

The Constitution points out that if a private citizen owns a warship which is capable of going toe-to-toe with the British Navy, then Letters of Marque may be issued so that the private citizen may use his advanced military hardware in the service of his country.

You might be surprised out very liberally I view our Second Amendment rights. It's not just about pistols and deer rifles.

[ZULU]

I have read your posts before Joe. You are a good man and usually right on the mark. But we disagree here.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

What about giving the child up for adoption after it is born?

[ontap]

Forcing a woman to give birth because of rape is hardly equivalent to her getting an abortion out of convenience. We have to be cognizant that there are always exceptions to the rule

[ConorMacNessa]

A human life is a human life, and human life life begins at conception. The entire genetic code that distinguishes us as human is entered at conception. Children conceived by rape are just as much human, just as much alive, and just as worthy of nurturing as any other children.

Carving out an exception for children conceived by rape is analytically no different from carving out an exception for children with genetic defects. Follow that road and you're on a short drive to abortion for convenience, which is what we have now in this nation.



"Dia shábháil ar fad anseo!"

Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[EternalVigilance]

It is the height of barbarism to kill one person for the crime of another.

[EternalVigilance]

Forcing a woman to give birth...

The deceptive language of the Left.

If she is pregnant she has a dependent child. She has a God-ordained obligation to care for that child until that dependency naturally ends.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I have read your posts before Joe. You are a good man and usually right on the mark. But we disagree here."

I appreciate that. I also concur that legitimate rape victims suffer a horrible trauma. No dispute whatsoever. I'm just not sure having their body invaded by an abortionist and wrenching an innocent life from their womb doesn't increase the trauma.

Furthermore, there are a lot of traumas people suffer. They are horrible, and things no person should ever have to go through. But this isn't a perfect world, so people do go through them. And they survive. Certainly with some scars and bruises, be they physical or spiritual, but they survive. And in most cases, there is no resort to "solving" the trauma by killing an innocent party. It's legal, so people think it's a viable solution.

[Trailerpark Badass]

If your daughter were raped by some lowlife thug, you would want her to suffer through the pregnancy and raising the result of that experience? I DOUBT it.

Don't be obtuse.

No, I wouldn't WANT my daughter to deal with a rape. But I wouldn't want her to be a murderer, either.

Doing the right thing is usually hard and unpleasant; if it weren't, everybody would do it.

[John Valentine]

Well, you’re talking about killing a child because their father committed a crime.

Just WOW!!!

If this isn't the most euphemistically phrased, self-decptive, rationalized piece of bogus argumentation I have seen in many months, I'll eat my hat. You ought to be a Democrat. You would make them proud.

[DaveyB]

No woman should be FORCED to bear a child conceived by a rapist. That is insane.

I have many problems with your assertion.

• The definition of rape is so broad that include next morning disappointment in the sexual coupling. - Hey if you wanted a little twirl then but now regret it, it was a rape - so kill a child to make up for it makes sense?
• How is killing innocent life ever justified? Sacrificing a life for pregnancy avoidance is sociopath behavior.
• The life destroyed is still precious and worth protecting.
• If someone was abused and raped I feel for them, but murder of a child is twisted revenge.
• Justice takes precedence over feelings, (even the feelings of a woman), in a just society like America was not too far in the distant past.

[John Valentine]

The abortion may present itself as the best way out of her terrible situation, but once it sinks in that she killed her baby, she will regret that decision for the rest of her life.

I actually know two women in the situation you describe, and neither one has lost a moment's sleep, nor suffered the mildest regret. You are projecting.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Ultimately the popularity of this objection today is a reflection of a shift in world view.

People used to view their bodies — in fact all human bodies — as temples of the Holy Spirit (in a Christian context). If some ruffian broke into your temple rudely and put a treasure in there, you wouldn’t chuck the treasure out just because of what the ruffian did. Now you might hold the ruffian responsible for fixing the damage as best as possible, but you wouldn’t chuck out the treasure.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Funny you talk about projecting — unless you can enter their heads you only know the image they are projecting.

Granted however, people can be this callous.

[GilesB]

You cannot support life by claiming a fetus is a human life, then turn around and claim that some of them are not quite as human as others.

They are or they aren’t - and the only justification for laws prohibiting abortion is they are human lives.

Suppose a woman was raped, did not conceive, but the son of her rapist walked by her house every day on his way to school, causing her a great deal of mental anguish - is she justified in killing that son?

Emotion says the woman should not HAVE to carry the child, but emotion is what got us to this point in the first place. Let logic reign.

If i were talking to someone who confessed that he was conceived by rape, am I justified in killing him because of that? Is his mother, after he is born? Wouldn’t it be murder?

Should a niece of mine become pregnant by rape, I would hold her in my arms, tell her how sorry and angry I am for what happened, and then tell her that in this horrible situation, God has seen fit to bless her with a child and entrust her with one of His precious little lives.

Life is often ugly, sometimes VERY ugly. That ugliness is not justification for killing an innocent baby.

[chae]

There is always adoption, she doesn’t have to raise the baby.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Emotion is sometimes a good view into spiritual realities, but one has to look at the foundation of the realities.

The idea that “I am mine” is as old as the fall in the Garden. And it isn’t even a true idea; the Serpent was behind this, remember? Believing in him got man there and keeps man there. Believing on God who now offers a superior promise to the false, fraudulent promise of the Serpent — that of forgiveness, cleansing, and salvation — pulls man away from this fallen condition.

It’s the “I am mine” that gets the emotions going in most modern women of this godless age. Those women view the ones who still carry a genuine Christian world view as odd, weird, suckers and losers.

Also this is a clue that to make headway in this, we need to make headway in quite another area first. That area is the gospel.

[kevao]

One’s view on the sanctity of life depends *almost* entirely on one’s belief in God. You will never convince an unsaved person that the seed of a rapist is a “treasure” in her womb. Sorry.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It is a sorry state. The conquest of Christ is only upon willing souls.

As I’m pointing out — the way home in this and many other areas that are symptoms of godlessness is the gospel. Sell THAT (and a genuine gospel won’t even need to be sold with the stereotypical hellfire; how much of that went on in the 1st century church anyhow? it will sell itself by the blessing and healing merits of heaven). Then miracles of attitude will follow.