![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
American Right to Life Would Rather Babies Die Than Babies Live
« previous entry | next entry »
Dec. 4th, 2007 | 10:38 am
Jill Stanek broke the news yesterday of a new group forming called American Right to Life. In consists of several prominent pro-life leaders, some who I like (Alan Keyes), and many who I don't like (remaining nameless).
This group was formed with the basic function of opposing Natianal Right to Life, also known as the only pro-life organization that is politically effective. And what irritates me most is that I agree with American Right to Life on virtually everything.
This all comes down to what I've talked about before: principle vs. effectiveness. ARTL is apparently shocked that "NRTL and others have dictated a strategy of child-killing regulations (consent; waiting, consent, PBA, etc., "and then you can kill the baby"). Geeze. If this is how these people see the actions of Right to Life, we can see just how effective they'll be politically.
Note to ARTL: No one in National Right to Life agrees with abortion. But because they'd rather save babies than stand by and complain, they do what is politically savvy. I constantly have to lecture pro-choice advocates that Americans are not gung-ho for partial-birth abortion, and now apparently I have to lecture you that the majority of the country is not pro-life to the "extreme" extent that you (and, hey, what do you know, and I!) are.
Suppose National Right to Life doesn't put a rape and incest exception in a bill for parental consent. It simply will not pass. Even in the most conservative states it's tough for pro-life legislation to pass without a "rape and incest" exception, because the pro-choice movement has managed to fixate Americans so much on that phrase. If NRLC doesn't put them in there, they won't pass.
Parental Consent Bill Passing: Babies saved.
Parental Consent Bill Not Passing: Babies not saved.
Which one does teh evel NRLC want and which one does ARTL want? Their political ignorance makes it clear.
Even more sad is the ARTL's opposition of the only piece of federal regulation on abortion, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. No, seriously, they're against it. Why? Because it only bans a certain procedure, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE EVERY SINGLE BABY IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!! Um, OK. Even James Dobson claims that the partial-birth abortion ban "does not save a single human life", which is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard. Of course it will save a life. Some of the doctors who were insane enough to perform partial-birth abortions will probably be too scared to try anything more dangerous to the life of the mother.
But since when is ARTL and their posse concerned about efficacy? On the one hand they cry because National Right to Life supposedly doesn't stand on principle, and then when National Right to Life tries to pass a bill largely based on principle, they are still upset.
So let's wait. Let's see how many bills ARTL manages to pass, especially at the federal level. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
This group was formed with the basic function of opposing Natianal Right to Life, also known as the only pro-life organization that is politically effective. And what irritates me most is that I agree with American Right to Life on virtually everything.
This all comes down to what I've talked about before: principle vs. effectiveness. ARTL is apparently shocked that "NRTL and others have dictated a strategy of child-killing regulations (consent; waiting, consent, PBA, etc., "and then you can kill the baby"). Geeze. If this is how these people see the actions of Right to Life, we can see just how effective they'll be politically.
Note to ARTL: No one in National Right to Life agrees with abortion. But because they'd rather save babies than stand by and complain, they do what is politically savvy. I constantly have to lecture pro-choice advocates that Americans are not gung-ho for partial-birth abortion, and now apparently I have to lecture you that the majority of the country is not pro-life to the "extreme" extent that you (and, hey, what do you know, and I!) are.
Suppose National Right to Life doesn't put a rape and incest exception in a bill for parental consent. It simply will not pass. Even in the most conservative states it's tough for pro-life legislation to pass without a "rape and incest" exception, because the pro-choice movement has managed to fixate Americans so much on that phrase. If NRLC doesn't put them in there, they won't pass.
Parental Consent Bill Passing: Babies saved.
Parental Consent Bill Not Passing: Babies not saved.
Which one does teh evel NRLC want and which one does ARTL want? Their political ignorance makes it clear.
Even more sad is the ARTL's opposition of the only piece of federal regulation on abortion, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. No, seriously, they're against it. Why? Because it only bans a certain procedure, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE EVERY SINGLE BABY IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!! Um, OK. Even James Dobson claims that the partial-birth abortion ban "does not save a single human life", which is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard. Of course it will save a life. Some of the doctors who were insane enough to perform partial-birth abortions will probably be too scared to try anything more dangerous to the life of the mother.
But since when is ARTL and their posse concerned about efficacy? On the one hand they cry because National Right to Life supposedly doesn't stand on principle, and then when National Right to Life tries to pass a bill largely based on principle, they are still upset.
So let's wait. Let's see how many bills ARTL manages to pass, especially at the federal level. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.