Tuesday, November 18, 2008

With Friends Like These [SK]

The Washington Post now likes pro-lifers.

Well, not really.

It likes liberals with pro-life sentiments, but who campaign vigorously for candidates sworn to advance laws promoting the killing of unborn human beings. These self-described pro-lifers, echoing Democrat talking points, tell us abortion is a tragic choice, but laws regulating abortion don’t work. What’s needed are social programs aimed at reducing the underlying causes that lead women to abort in the first place. Obama took this same approach, insisting that his own political party—the one that’s sworn to promote the killing of unborn humans through abortion, ESCR, and cloning at taxpayer expense—will best advance the pro-life agenda.

As I said during my interview with Justin Taylor, this is complete and utter nonsense.

First, if abortion does not unjustly kill an innocent human being, why is Obama or any other Democrat worried about reducing it? But if it does unjustly kill a human being, isn’t that good reason to legislate against it?

Second, laws which allow—indeed, promote—the killing of unborn human beings are unjust even if no one has abortions. Imagine a candidate who said he was personally opposed to spousal abuse while he had a 100% voting record in favor of men having a right to beat their wives. Suppose he told the public the underlying cause of spousal abuse is psychological, so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide federally funded counseling for men. It’s no stretch to say the voting public would see right through his smokescreen, even if he favored social programs to treat the underlying causes that allegedly contribute to abuse.

After all, there are underlying causes for rape, murder, theft, and so on, but that in no way makes it misguided to have laws banning such actions.

HT: Melinda Penner


  1. Scott - what you're pointing out from a strategic point of view is a doppelganger - a pro-life movement that shadows the real thing. Pretty much the way the Submergent church has grown to shadow the real Body of Christ.

    The MSM tends to use the doppelganger as the "authority" on the issue, which over the long haul replaces the true authority in the public eye.

    Doppelganger organizations exploit immature discernment to draw away potential resources, mostly the young, energetic crowd from the actual effort.

    Wolves in sheep's clothing, leading lambs astray for the slaughter.

    The question I pose to you is: How do we, as a pro-life cause, counter such efforts?

    How do we recapture lambs that are being lead away?

    I'm not asking for the obvious, because you definitely make the pro-life case in the debate arena.

    How do we scale the debate up in terms of organizational size and voice in order to win or restore those individuals who haven't discerned the critical understanding of life?

    Debates only work when the voice of reason is loud enough to be heard.

  2. Chris,
    Good questions. Thank you.

    These so-called pro-lifers who endorsed Obama are not wayward sheep, they are mostly liberals who wanted a Democratic sweep and who used silly arguments about abortion to help bring it about. They are not our friends and never will be. Thus, I care not a straw about wasting time reconverting them.

    As for those people they might influence, I don't think the numbers are all that impressive. The groups cited in the WP piece are all established liberal groups who've been around for a long time. Hence, their support for lib candidates is really nothing newsworthy--unless, of course, you're the mainstream media eager to declare the abortion debate over.

    Dream on, Libs.

    When Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, and National Right to Life throw in the towel on legal protections for unborn humans, then we'll have a real news story.

    Thankfully, Hell will freeze over before that happens.

  3. As a true Pro-lifer--(anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti embryonic stem cell research) not to be confused with many who call themselves Pro-life but who support increased use of the death penalty regardless of how much the Church opposes it or how much it is used in a discriminatory manner--and a lifelong Catholic, I have found myself pondering the people I am associated with. The same people I go to Mass with have displayed at times behavior that is so unChristian, that I have been ashamed to be associated with them in any way.

    Just because we don't all agree on the best way to bring about an end to abortion, DOES NOT mean you can belittle, berate, or disparage your 'enemy'. In truth, the solution to the issue is likely some hybrid of both approaches. If those who support only tactics for the banning of abortion hope to have any chance at success, they had better start working with those who favor using tactics to reduce numbers of abortion. Both sides have the same end goal, just different paths. We are One Body of Christ. Let's start acting like it.

  4. Ken,
    Thanks for your comment. I agree we should not berate people personally, but we should go after the arguments of those who claim to be on our side, but who, in fact, advance ideas 180 degrees opposite our own principles.

    I stick by my claim that these lib "pro-liifers" are not our friends. The want us to overlook Obama's sworn support for an absolute evil (elective abortion) in hopes that he'll help us avoid a contingent one (war). That's horrible moral reasoning and extremely dangerous to our cause.


All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.