Stanek- Both ends against the middle
Download: Dialup / Broadband Stream: Dialup / Broadband Comment: at TheologyOnline
* Bob Enyart Replies to Jill: Regarding Jill Stanek's Nov. 19, 2008 WND column, "Pro-life movement: Both ends against the middle," I'd like to present here something indisputable about the divide between "purists" and incrementalists:
The incrementalists have long opposed significant pro-life groups, legislation, and leaders for tactical reasons (wrong timing, wrong approach, too militant, etc.). The "purists" oppose incrementalists for moral reasons (we have no right to recognize permission to kill some kids in order to try to save others).
That's an indisputable observation. God gives us enormous tactical latitude, and no moral latitude. As succinctly as possible, the list below shows why groups like American RTL oppose regulations. And then I'll apply these ideas to even the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Jill Stanek championed. This may be hard for her to read.
Jill Stanek is incorrect to report that the purists oppose incrementalism. As American Right To Life's widely reported full-page open letters have always stated, "Incrementalism is fine; compromised incrementalism violates God's enduring command, Do not murder. When you compromise on this fundamental law, you undermine the goal of re-establishing the personhood of the child, and you cannot possibly foresee all the negative consequences."
So ARTL opposes every law that regulates the killing of unborn children because, regardless of the intention, such laws:
- make abortion seem more palatable to the public and politicians, and so they
- merely prune the abortion weed and strengthen its root, while they
- violate God's enduring command, Do not murder by re-authorizing abortion, and
- on the surface undermine the very concept of the right to life of the unborn, and
- call upon judges to uphold laws that regulate killing the innocent, and thus
- turn conservative judges increasingly against the Right to Life of the unborn, and
- could end up authorizing a hundred million abortions of all kinds post Roe, for they
- will keep abortion legal if Roe v. Wade is merely overturned, and because they
- end with the meaning, "and then you can kill the baby."
Now to contrast the goals and practical results of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the goals were to:
- save kids
- harm the political career of politicians who would oppose it.
Barack Obama, the most visible opponent of the Born Alive act, was elected president.
The Practical Results of the Born-Alive Act: and six of these bullets are also indisputable, are that:
- the abortionist now makes absolutely certain that he kills the baby
- it cleans up the image of the abortion industry
- it enabled pro-abortion politicians to vote Yes to improve the abortionist's reputation
- it provides cover for liberal politicians who support it to show they are not extreme
- NARAL gives no opposition because this pro-life action improves abortion's survivability
- it squandered the blood of children killed after birth by passing a law that saves no kids
- distracts from the essential effort to recognize the God-given right to life of the unborn
- the baby's death now is quicker and likely more violent
- fewer kids live with BAIPA because those who would survive now have no chance
A number of slave holders actually advocated regulating slavery to make it more tolerable for the public. That's of course why NARAL went neutral on the Born Alive Act, and why so many pro-abortion politicians voted Yes, not only to make themselves look humane to the gullible masses, but also to remove the second greatest vulnerability to legalized abortion. The single greatest vulnerability to legalized child killing was the brutality of partial-birth abortion, which opportunity was squandered wasting 15 years on a PBA ban that never had the authority to stop even a single abortion, but did raise a quarter of a billion dollars for the pro-life industry.
Jill Stanek's website has this text from the Born Alive Act: "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive.'"
Any statement that equivocates on a fundamental truth (there is a God; He made us; our rights come from our Creator; etc.) will likely be counterproductive despite any perceived tactical advantage. The 'purists' support saving one of a hundred when only one can be saved; we support parental consent for surgery on all minors (but not laws that regulate abortion that end with, 'and then you can kill the baby;' we support laws that defund abortion providers; we support laws that end abortion here or there; but not compromised incrementalism, because it is immoral and counterproductive.