Home

Advertisement

Customize

Questions for the American Right to Life

« previous entry | next entry »
Dec. 6th, 2007 | 12:40 pm
mood: enthralled enthralled

I probably should write something that's relevant to the theme of this blog. That is, that child-killing is wrong. One thing I noted in an article this morning is that Alan Keyes, who is victoriously listed on the American Right to Life website that I blogged about two days ago as being against the "ineffective" Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is actually against a Human Life Amendment, which is pretty much the sole goal of ARTL, other than blasting the National Right to Life, that is.

I wonder if this will irritate the ARTL people. Having a quick conversation with one of them on friend Jill Stanek's blog (which I quickly ditched in favor of not going insane) I get the feeling that making basic, logical connections is not their m'etier. Attacking other pro-lifers is.

Question: Do parental consent laws directly kill babies?
My answer: No. In fact they will save a handful of babies now that parents are clued in. Without the law the baby will be killed a lot easier.
ATL Supporter's Answer: Actually, it's the law that kills the child.

This is literally what I've been told by an ATL supporter. This is not a joke. I'm beginning to think that the pro-choicers are right about pro-lifers' intelligences. (Italics designate sarcasm, S4C ladies!)

Another quote from a supporter of ATL:  "Incrementalism has never, and will never, save a single baby." That's quite a statement to make. NRLC has never (and will never!) save a single baby?

Perhaps I'm being a bit brazen in attributing this perplexing and dim stance on parental consent laws to the entire American Right to Life organization, but I doubt it. I've come across groups like this before, where their sole purpose is to attack Right to Life. Then when you start talking to them—and I'm not even a member of Right to Life, by the way—they attack you and say that your support for parental consent is what sticks the curette into the womb for dismemberment, not an ignorant teenaged mother and murderous abortionist. That's really going to endear me to your cause, guys!

I'm hoping that I can lay off the American Right to Life posts, because I do want to be able to support them if they can actually come up with legislation that won't bring us into another thirty years of Roe vs. Wade. I just wish they would stop insinuating that the rest of us aren't true pro-lifers. Heck, I'm apparently the only pro-lifer in the world that actually thinks mothers should be punished for getting abortions! It doesn't get much more die-hard than that!

Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments {5}

Perhaps I should have ditched the conversation, too...

from: anonymous
date: Dec. 6th, 2007 10:17 pm (UTC)
Link

I love being told that I support abortion in some cases since I support legislation to limit and prohibit abortions. I love being called a Satan-following baby-killer. /sarcasm

-Jacqueline

Reply | Thread

Nathan Sheets

Re: Perhaps I should have ditched the conversation, too...

from: [info]natewillsheets
date: Dec. 6th, 2007 10:18 pm (UTC)
Link

Hey Jacqueline! Welcome.

Yeah, I saw things going way out of control. Perhaps if we could sit down in person with the person we were talking to a lot more could be accomplished:)

Reply | Parent | Thread

Mala in se versus Mala Prohibta

from: anonymous
date: Dec. 8th, 2007 10:14 pm (UTC)
Link

I spent a few hours with Alan Keys talking about ARTL efforts and was there when he spoke to the group. He is not against their efforts, but he does believe it will take more dramatic responses than even ARTL is dishing out.

Mala in se is a phrase that denotes something that is evil in and of itself. Mala prohibita denotes something that is not evil in and of itself, but may fall under some regulatory effort in hopes of producing a specific outcome. Under absolute moral value, if you regulate an action, you are conceding that it is not evil in an of itself. Saving lives is a goal, but not an absolute objective (otherwise safety officers would shut down anything that has even the remotest possibility of loss of life). By proposing laws that regulate abortion, those laws make it a potentially mala prohibita crime (if the regulations are not followed), not a mala in se crime.

Check out http://www.supremejustice.net/Government/situational_morality.htm

TRobinson

Reply | Thread

Nathan Sheets

Re: Mala in se versus Mala Prohibta

from: [info]natewillsheets
date: Dec. 9th, 2007 05:43 am (UTC)
Link

I fully understand what you are saying. I just want ARTL to acknowledge that their way of doing things is the way that will cause more babies to die if that's how it ends up going.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: anonymous
date: Dec. 10th, 2007 10:11 pm (UTC)
Link

Alan Keyes is not "against" a Human Life Amendment as you said. Alan Keyes said he supports a HLA, but that it is not necessary, because the Constitution already protects the lives of the unborn.

When it comes to child-killing regulations such as parental notification, the question is not, "Will it save babies?" but should be, "Is it in obedience to God?" There are a million ways to save babies from abortion. Paul Hill most definitely saved babies by his actions, but most would agree that even though he saved babies lives, it's not okay to take the life of someone in order to save others.

But child-killing regulations do exactly that. They justify the killing of the innocent in order to save some. Passing a law that says, "You can kill all your kids if you just get your parents permission first" is evil in the sight of God. "Do not murder" is a moral absolute, and is not relative. If Satan offered to end abortion in America, as long as one Christian was willing to kill one innocent child, that would be evil. It would save millions, perhaps more, but still evil. Satan wants us to disobey God, and we disobey God when we say it's okay to kill children.

Reply | Thread

Advertisement

Customize