Archive for the 'partial-birth abortion' Category

True or False: Jesus Supports Baby Killing

Published by
tieki rae
at October 9, 2007 in 2008, Obama and partial-birth abortion. 6 Comments

Answer: False.

I have always been a big fan of that saying, “You can’t be a Christian and be pro-choice,” and I’m sick and tired of so-called liberal Christians (or New Christians, as they call themselves) thinking they can be.

Speaking of which,


La Shawn Barber has a great post up regarding Barack Obama’s claim that he is a born-again believer, guided by his faith in all that he does.

Barack Obama claims to have accepted Jesus Christ into his life.

He said faith in God “plays every role” in his life and it “propels me to do what I do.” He acknowledged that God “wants us to do the right thing,” but I’m having trouble reconciling the man’s words with his actions. (Source)

For instance, Obama voted against a ban on infanticide while a senator in Illinois. A partial birth abortion, as child murder is euphemistically called, is when a “doctor” grabs the unborn baby’s body and pulls him down the birth canal. With the baby’s head still inside the womb (to avoid murder charges), the “doctor” punctures the baby’s skull with a pair of scissors, killing him.

All in the name of “choice.”

It’s a short post and well worth the read. By their fruit, indeed.

Incrementalism as a Pro-Life Strategy

Published by
tieki rae
at July 9, 2007 in Abortion, Pro-Life and partial-birth abortion. 18 Comments

Perhaps I am naive, but until this year I was completely unaware of the clashes between the various leading forces within the pro-life movement.

In my Evangelicals and American Politics class, I learned for the first time about the considerable differences in the immediate post-Roe era between groups like the National Right to Life Committee (dedicated to legislative action) and members of the rescue movement such as Randall Terry and company.  I would still like to do some research on the motives and methodologies of each group before making a complete judgment about who was right or wrong, but I honestly cannot see myself absolutely disagreeing with either side.  Is it really that novel of an idea to think that we need both legislative pressure and social action?  Lobbyists and protesters?  I would be hard-pressed to criticize either of their goals and actions.

Currently, I’m in the midst of an amazing learning opportunity — basically, I’m studying at the feet of some of the most influential pro-life leaders in the country and obviously enjoying every minute of it. :)  That said, there are a lot of questions that I’ve been asking myself and I’m interested in what a lot of you may think on the issue as well.

One of my assigned readings was a commentary (from Nov. 2003) by Thomas A. Droleskey of the American Life League.  I have always been impressed with the publicity materials produced by ALL.  Their pro-life t-shirts, signs, and various literatures tend to stand out with their boldness and include solid information.  They are a strongly Catholic organization, so some of their articles have not really appealed to me from that angle.

Anyway, I could not find the Droleskey article on the ALL website, but I was able to find it midway down the page here, titled “Affirming the Merchants of Death.”  The gist of this article and much of the other material propagated by ALL is that incrementalism is an inherently anti-life strategy.  Therefore, groups that use such a strategy (read:  National Right to Life Committee) are actually pro-abortion baby killers.  Don’t believe me?  Here is a quote straight from the horse’s mouth:

Here is a simple rule of thumb for pro-life Americans: ignore all of the political and policy judgments of the National Right to Committee. They have affirmed the very principles that have given rise to the culture of death in which we find ourselves at this point in salvation history. All of their pragmatism and incrementalism have failed the cause of saving preborn babies and are failing now the cause of those threatened by euthanasia.

Honestly, this blows my mind.  According to the American Life League, supporting a bill such as the Partial Birth Abortion Act is wrong because it does not make all abortions illegal right now.  Sure, it’s logical to say that ultimately this act probably won’t save many unborn children because women will just get different types of abortion.  Nevertheless, we have established a boundary!  We’ve shown that there is a line that Congress and the Supreme Court will refuse to cross.  No, it’s not perfect, but I recently heard an analogy that makes a lot of sense:  compare the road to making abortion illegal to a large room.  Logically, we simply cannot cross the room in one step.  We’re physically incapable of flying to the other side, so we have to take it step by step.  If each step is successful, we will arrive at the other side of the room.

Is this a satisfying metaphor?  No.  More than anything else in the world I wish we could make all abortions illegal right now.  If there were any sort of plausible way to do that, I would support it 1000000%.  There simply isn’t such a way at this time.  Abortion has become socially acceptable, or at least unmentionable.  The inherent sanctity of life has become a back-burner priority to many politically ambivalent Americans.  This does not mean our goal is unachievable, but it does mean that it may take some time and effort — as horrible as it is to think of the unborn children that will continue to die.

Now, that said, I do believe that some leaders within the pro-life movement take incrementalism much too far.  They argue that it would be best to accept electable candidates who support a rape/incest exception just so that we have mostly pro-life individuals in office.  I simply cannot accept that option.  If we’re not in favor of a rape/incest exception, why would we want to elect people who will only support legislation with such a rule?  That is one criteria which falls into the “all or nothing” category, in my opinion.

Alright, I’ve rambled enough and I have homework/reading to do.  Please, please, please skim that article or think about incrementalism as a pro-life strategy and tell me your thoughts on the issue.  How do you think the pro-life movement would be most effective?  In an ideal situation where we had unlimited funding to spend toward saving the lives of unborn children, what methods would you employ to reach that goal?

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban - Misconceptions and Realities

Published by
tieki rae
at April 24, 2007 in Pro-Life and partial-birth abortion. 7 Comments

There was quite the gem in the Cornell Daily Sun today via a column by Laura Taylor ‘07 titled “Life and Death.”

Taylor begins dramatically,

With the aftermath of the Virginia Tech killings monopolizing media attention, a grave regression of women’s rights in this country passed largely unnoticed last week.

Well, you know what they say: One grave regression to women’s rights, one huge progression for unborn children’s lives! Or something like that…

(Disclaimer: In the likely case that some pro-abortion reader does not recognize the sarcasm in that last statement, let me be clear. I do not consider the murder of unborn children to be an inherent “right” of any sort, therefore, in my opinion there is nothing to regress from. In fact, I believe abortion harms women, so this is truly a step forward for both mother and child.)

Anyway, back on topic. There is one part of Taylor’s column where she truly shines:

Much of the reason late-term abortions developed in this country is due to the legislative and judicial decisions promoted by anti-choice advocates. Abortions are expensive (1975 Hyde Amendment bars insurance coverage), difficult to obtain (87 percent of counties in the country have no abortion provider) and are further constrained by state restrictions that limit access to abortion. A pregnancy does not stop to wait for a woman to raise money for medical, travel, lodging and childcare expenses. (emphasis added.)

In that blip is one feature that appears frequently in Taylor’s columns: factual errors. I am in no position to judge whether or not these errors are based in ignorance or purposeful misinformation, but it is her tradition. (She’s had real winners ranging from calling Iranians Arabic - they’re Persian - to calling Israel an apartheid state - which may be all the rage in Jimmy Carter’s circles, but not so popular among observers of the real facts.)

Specifically in this column is the blatant misconception of the 1975 Hyde Amendment, which as everyone knows (even the pro-abortion ACLU) only restricts federal funding for abortions, i.e. Medicaid coverage. The Hyde Amendment even has exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger. So… Taylor tries to portray this as completely threatening to a woman’s so-called “right” to an abortion, when it is nothing of the sort.

Furthermore, common sense makes me question her argument that abortions are difficult to obtain because clinics are just so darn hard to find! Does anyone have any statistics or information on this? (There is only so much time I can devote to research when I have 50 pages of essays waiting on me.) At the very least, I am quite positive that every major urban city in the nation (unfortunately) offers an abortion clinic of some variety. I am absolutely sure that every state has something available. If the child is really that much of an inconvenience, I am sure that a woman will go out of her way to find an accessible murderer *cough* I mean, abortionist.

Anyway, I would suggest reading her column simply because she summarizes the pro-abortion crowd’s most frequent arguments against the ban. After reading her column, you absolutely must (I strongly urge you to) visit Douglas Johnson’s (Legislative Director for the National Right to Life Committee) article entitled “The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban - Misconceptions and Realities.”

If I had to do a bullet point summary of ways to respond to Taylor’s column simply from Johnson’s article, this would be it:

* Taylor argues that the ban can affect all abortions after 12 weeks. Besides being an unsupported, this claim is completely illogical. This bill bans only partial-birth abortions, defined as any abortion in which the baby is delivered “past the [baby’s] navel … outside the body of the mother,” or “in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother,” before being killed. As Johnson explains, this only occurs at a certain point - far past 12 weeks in the pregnancy.

* Regarding Taylor’s claim that “partial-birth abortion” is not even a medical term: As stated brilliantly by Johnson, “In short, besides being a legal term of art, ‘partial-birth abortion’ is as much a ‘medical term’ as ‘heart attack’ (which both journalists and others usually use in preference to ‘myocardial infarction’).”

* Concerning the so-called safety of partial-birth abortion: According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, there are approximately 2,200 partial-birth abortions performed each year out of a total of over 1,000,000. If this procedure is truly the safest for women, as argued by Ms. Taylor, why is it so rare?

* And of course, in response to the argument that the Court is forsaking its duty to protect human life (I love it when the pro-murder-of-unborn-children crowd plays that card): There is an exception if the mother’s life is at risk, so this is not some oppressive law that will kill women. Instead, it merely restricts the ways abortionists can kill unborn children.

Well, what think you?

(Off topic: Does anyone actually know how to do real bullet points in wordpress?)

Another [barbaric practice] bites the dust!

Published by
tieki rae
at April 18, 2007 in Pro-Life, SCOTUS and partial-birth abortion. 2 Comments

Hopefully.

Obviously, everyone is talking about this right now. My mom, Allahpundit, SCOTUSblog, Students for Life of America, National Right to Life Committee, and Lifenews.com.

I definitely want to look into this decision further, but I actually have to run to the CCFL meeting now. As great as this decision is, there’s never really a break in the pro-life movement.