BREAKING: House to vote on 20-week abortion ban Jan 22: Roe anniversary, date of March for Life

OK, so it sounds like we’re going to have the same argument that we have every time that a pro-life legislator tries to pass the most anti-abortion law that possibly could be upheld by the courts. So let’s skip ahead to where we will end up a few posts from now, when you argue that anything short of an immediate, absolute ban on abortion from the moment of conception must be voted down, and claim that history has proven you right, and I respond to your arguments. I thus repost your arguments against a similar law (banning abortions after the 20th week, that time in Arkansas, where the pro-abortion Democrat governor vetoed it) and my reaction to them from March 1, 2013:

“A) It’s not morally right to pass laws that say you can kill some innocent persons.”
_________________

But the law right now allows the murder of *any and all* innocent persons before their deaths. How many additional babies are you willing to sacrifice in the name of waiting for a perfect law, which certainly won’t come without winning some battles along the way? I’m with Father Frank Pavone on this one.

“B) It’s not constitutional.”
___________________

I agree with you. And if we had an enlightened majority in the Supreme Court and the Arkansas law was struck down because it violates the inalienable right to life of innocent human beings, then we would get exactly what we want, thanks to that law. Unfortunately, if the law was struck down, it would be for not permitting abortion in enough circumstances. The law that you and I would pass would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional, and would set back the pro-life cause for years.

“C) We have forty years of experience that tells us it doesn’t work, because you’re giving up the principles that argue against the practice of human abortion every time you pass one of these bills.”
______________________

I would posit that we have much more than 40 years experience that tells us that it is counterproductive to make the perfect the enemy of the good. We need to tear down Roe v. Wade brick by brick, and then, when states finally are able to ban abortion, fight for the right to life in all 50 states (passing the most pro-life law possible in each state—if you can’t ban abortion in New Jersey without an exception for rape or incest, then do that, and try for a full ban later). Or perhaps get Congress to use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to ban abortion nationwide as a violation of a state abridging the right to life without due process of law; and then we can then try to elect large enough pro-life majorities so that Congress can propose a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and then fight for ratification by 3/4 of the states. But we won’t win the war if we insist on losing every battle.

“Wilberforce went through the same thing in the effort to end slavery in the British Empire. For decades he and his cohort in Parliament tried the compromise, incremental approach, until finally they figured out that it wasn’t right, and that it DID NOT WORK. So, they changed to a no-compromise equal protection approach, which very quickly prevailed.”
________________

Actually, you are absolutely wrong about this. Wilberforce did not insist that the only acceptable outcome of legislation was banning slavery throughout the British Empire, and he did not oppose laws that fell short of that. He fought for emancipation for 26 years, and in 1807 finally convinced Parliament to ban the slave trade. He did not oppose the Slave Trade Act of 1807 because it didn’t ban slavery; he accepted it as a necessary first step towards emancipation.

Wilberforce then fought until his death for emancipation, and died a few days after hearing confirmation that slavery would finally be banned in the British Empire. And even then, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 did not prohibit slavery on certain parts of the British Empire (such as what are now India and Sri Lanka, and the island of St. Helena); that came 10 years later, with a law that passed thanks to the prior passage of the imperfect emancipation act of 1833.

So the lesson we should learn from Wilberforce’s fight to end slavery is not to compromise on your principles, but accept partial victories instead of total defeats.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2992649/posts?page=26#26

I see than nearly two years later, you are still being a useful idiot for the abortionists. You do realize that NO ONE who wants to keep abortion legal supports a post-20-week ban? Once again, you are on the same side as NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Barbara Boxer, in opposition to National Right to Life Committee, Priests for Life and just about every other pro-life group. And the saddest part is that you think that you are being the modern incarnation of William Wilberforce, when your actions are diametrically opposed to his.

You’re fooling yourself when you cede the nature of the inalienable right to life, and when you surrender the whole idea of equal protection under the law. You think you’re getting a “partial victory,” but actually you are no more doing that than if an army ceded all of its equipment, arms, and ammunition to the enemy in exchange for a piece of land in that enemy’s military prison.

You fail to refute my contention that these bills are immoral, responding instead with a Utilitarian claim based on facts that are not in evidence.

You admit that these bills are unconstitutional, which among conservatives should end the argument. But no, you then respond with a rant that proves nothing except that you are in thrall to the judicial supremacist lie, the lie that is doing more to destroy this republic than just about anything else I can think of.

You accuse me of being a useful idiot for the abortionists, when the exact opposite is true. They laugh at the NRTL faux “strategy,” knowing that they will continue to do what they have always done, which is crush it like a bug.

On the other hand, they fear a real debate over the supreme right of man and of equality before the law.

The whole political and legal world would tremble and move if the “conservatives” in this country would finally decide to make the real case against this genocide.

“You fail to refute my contention that these bills are immoral....”
__________________

Abortion is immoral. Laws that prohibit abortion, even if imperfectly, are not immoral. On the other hand, opposing such laws so as to continue with the present state of law of legal abortion at any time prior to birth is immoral.

A few years ago, Father Frank Pavone (longtime head of Priests for Life) wrote about what a voter should do when faced with two imperfect candidates. In giving his advice, Father Pavone describes how choosing to limit an evil results in choosing good:

“I’m often asked what a voter can morally do if two opposing candidates both support abortion. I recommend asking a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.

You can have a clear conscience in this instance, because you know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is justified, you don’t agree. Moreover, you are doing the most you can to advance the protection of life.

By your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But it is morally permissible.

Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position.” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).

What if there’s a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position? Of course, we should work like crazy to build up that person’s base of support to make him or her electable. But that is not done on Election Day. That takes years of work, which should start now.

Meanwhile, remember that your vote is not a vote for canonization. It is a transfer of power. We can vote for a less than perfect candidate because we aren’t using our vote to make a statement, but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.”

http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/06-10-23choosingevil.htm

We can all see where Father Pavone’s excusing-making for compromise of the most important principles upon which the survival of the republic have gotten us. It’s as obvious as the nose on your face.

“And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for the second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.”

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816

“In politics the middle way is none at all. “

— John Adams

I have no problem at all compromising on insignificant things, like what we’re going to have for dinner. But on the equal protection of innocent human life, the securing of the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity, the protection of marriage and the family, the preservation of our right to keep and bear arms, the defense of our national sovereignty, security and borders, and adherence to our constitutional form of republican, representative self-government, there can be no compromise.

If We the People continue to fail to put God, and truth, and principle before personality, party, or process, the republic cannot possibly be saved. But once we begin to do what is right, without compromise, nothing on earth can stand in our way.

Hmmm. I’m not sure where you’re getting that figure. I was looking at some statistics from 2007. It says:

“More than nine in 10 occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and more than six in 10 occur in the first eight weeks.[37] The availability of medication abortion and new techniques that allow surgical abortions to be performed earlier in pregnancy are likely to reinforce the trend toward earlier abortions.”

This is from: Pazol K et al., Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2007, MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 2011, Vol. 60, No. SS-01.

So this would be a game changer.

Putting term limits on our politicians would make a big difference on all issues that matter to Americans.

If every Republican votes to override the veto, it still fails. You need Democrats to override a veto.

Let’s do it.

Thanks for the numbers.

So more than 90% of abortions occur before 20 weeks.
That makes this legislation worse.

It stops less than 1 in 10 abortions and it gives legitimacy to abortions by defining life in terms of viability...which will make it all the harder to stop the vast majority of abortions.

I guess it’s one small step in the right direction. I see the young women after they’ve had a second and third trimester abortion. Maybe it’s only 1 in 10 but let’s see what Obama and the rest of them do about it. I can’t imagine anyone voting against this bill.

I don’t think it is in the right direction at all.

The thing is, this bill doesn’t even have to pass to do damage. Obama will veto it, there won’t be enough votes to override it, but abortionists now have the argument “What do you mean ‘Life begins at conception’? The GOP was willing to define ‘Life begins at viability’!”

And if this is a step in the right direction, then what is the next step, after this is how life is defined?

Roe v. Wade itself says that if Congress finds that the unborn baby is “a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, appellant’s case collapses.” They have never done it.

And they never will, because they can't. A "person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment" is a natural human being acting in a corporate or governmental capacity. Ever wonder why the court didn't merely say "a person" or "the people"? Because the first would have been challenged and resulted in the exposure of the real meaning of the term, and they have no jurisdiction over the second. A pre-born baby lacks the birth certificate necessary for the government to presume that status was conferred by its parents.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
Hosea 4:6

I think the passage of this bill...will close down the abortion clinics. Women have access to the morning after pill. You also have a large number of people who accept the morning after pill, but don’t accept a second or third trimester abortion.

I say put Obama on the hook, finally to make a decision one way or the other along with the other Senators.

“It’s time to say that Republicans will not do anything to stop abortion. They merely nibble at it.”

Actually its long past time to say it and yell it from the rooftops. Just like the ‘rat faction of the uniparty, the gop faction doesn’t want to actually solve problems lest it give its base reason to leave the plantation.

A pre-born baby lacks the birth certificate necessary for the government to presume that status was conferred by its parents.

HUH?

I think you have "person" mixed up with "citizen."

A human being is a natural person from the instant of conception. Birth has nothing to do with it.

The Supreme Court GRATUITOUSLY asserted that an unborn baby is not a "person within the meaning of the 14th amendment." They reminded Congress that Congress COULD find the opposite, and that the decision in Roe v. Wade would then collapse.

Obama supports killing babies AFTER BIRTH, if someone wanted them dead before birth.

The demons who possess Obama will never acquiesce in ANY limitation on the killing of babies, before or after birth.

Good optics, will go nowhere

Now the Dems will run on "Republicans want to ban abortions", which of course will gin up more support for them.