11 comments
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Rori Ross
After reading and rereading your article, I have to say it's the best piece of creative writing I ever read. Well done. If I could read between the lines like you, I'd have a career in Journalism.

There's a lot about your article that makes me think you should also consider a career in politics alongside writing lies for views. From your outright slander to you not sourcing anything you claim abolitionists believe, you have a fighting chance to be state senator someday.

In all seriousness, the reason you hate this resolution so much is because it forces you to confront the fact that you don't care as much about babies lives as you think you do.
Avatar Placeholder
ThomistTankEngine
Andrew Kaake does not understand mens rea. If he did, and he read the statutes, he would realize how ridiculous he sounds. His argument is purely political but ignores the actual criteria for being criminally responsible in someone's death whether at the lowest level of involuntary manslaughter all the way up to murder in the first degree.

I am not an "abolitionist" as described in the article. Those people are making the argument in the wrong way. I am an abolitionist in the sense that it would be intellectually dishonest if not cognitive dissonant to hold that abortion is killing a human while also holding that someone who clearly aided in killing the same human being is somehow not only innocent, but also a victim.

Not only should you go back to law school.....you should also retake logic/syllogisms 101.
Avatar Placeholder
BCCannone
Goodness. Where to even begin! Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Exodus 20:13 says you shall not murder. It doesn't say you shall not murder most of the time, if a heartbeat is detected or pain felt. There are no exceptions.

Re the SBC resolution: In the days leading up to and during the conference, Abolitionists printed and handed out thousands of brochures outlining the entire proposed resolution, along with the Scripture supporting it. They discussed, explained and answered any doubts or questions anybody had. Nobody attempted to dupe anyone. Abolitionists were NOT the ones who inserted the word "alone." That was a proposed compromise by a pro lifer. Abolitionists would agree with you that inserting the word "alone" was ridiculous and made no sense.

Roe is not law. SCOTUS is not God and is not the final arbiter of authority under our constitution. When SCOTUS makes an iniquitous ruling as it did in Roe and its ilk, and as it also did in the Dred Scott decision, states not only have the constitutional authority, they have the Biblical duty to ignore that iniquitous ruling. Nullification of erroneous laws or rulings is perfectly lawful. Most states are already nullifying -- completely ignoring -- federal law and Supreme Court rulings in order to legalize marijuana. There is no reason we can't do the same thing with child sacrifice. Abolitionists propose the same action be put into practice with the homicide of preborn children.

As far as severability (striking down part of a law while allowing other parts to stand), it is pretty simple to put in a non-severability clause. It is also simple to say that an abolitionist bill supersedes previous pro-life laws rather than strikes them down. So the "what if" argument does not hold water.

Re "Life of the mother:" No abolitionist bill denies emergency, life-saving treatment for a life-threatening condition during pregnancy. But according to many well-known OB-Gyn experts in high-risk pregnancies (such as Anthony Levatino, MD), there is simply no such thing as a medical emergency that requires the intentional killing of a preborn human being in order to save the mother's life. Premature delivery may well be necessary, and the preborn child may not survive. That is a tragedy. When one allows abortion as a life-saving procedure (as in the standard pro life regulation), that is murder. Doctors should not be allowed to murder a preborn ectopic child with a methotrexate injection, for example; whereas premature delivery of that ectopic child might be necessary. Watchful waiting is encouraged to closely manage the mother's condition while waiting to see if the ectopic child passes on his/her own. Attempting the technique of transplantation of the ectopic baby into the uterus is also encouraged. We will never perfect it if we never try.

Re prosecution of mothers: Abortion is murder, and murder is a soul-damning sin and also a crime. You obviously have not been outside too many mills to see mothers dancing, twerking and celebrating the murder of their children. Once abortion is totally outlawed, every mill is shut down, and every abortionist put out of business, abortion will only be obtainable on the black market -- the same as hiring a hit man. If we truly believe the preborn child is a human, then the act of homicide against that human should be immediately and equally prosecuted as any other homicide. A woman who seeks out an illegal, back alley, black market hit man to murder her child should be prosecuted just as any mother who drowns her two-year-old. The law is a schoolmaster, says Galations 6:24. To deny the prosecution of a woman for a crime is to deny justice to her victim. It is also to deny to that woman the opportunity to see the dire state of her sin and the need for repentance. Lack of prosecution also creates a market for DIY abortions and abortion "parties," because there is no punishment for the deed.

Re the "burning building:" No abolitionist would fault a fireman for attempting to save every life he could. He goes into the fire with the intention to save every life - not to intentionally sacrifice some to save others. We would fault him for shooting in the head those he could not save. That is what a pro-life regulation does.

Abolitionists do not "scream at women" outside of mills. Some use amplification to be heard inside as we offer help, and to cry out to mothers, fathers and grandparents to flee from that place of evil. Countless have heeded the cry and turned away from murdering their child. Any person who would call names or otherwise scream at or shame women are the exception, not the rule. Such persons are generally shunned by the rest of the abolitionist community.

"For all the anger on display in this article . . ." Exactly. But it's your anger that is on display here. You are the one creating an entirely false narrative and intentionally causing division. Repent.
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Valerielhw
At a time in history when killing one's unborn children has become almost routine, pro-lifers should adopt reductionist policies to change hearts and minds, and to save as many pre-born babies as possible.

My suggestions?

Instead of fighting progressive reforms such as paid maternity leave, greater pregnancy protections on the job, subsidized daycare, guaranteed livable wages, affordable housing, and universal healthcare, true pro-lifers attempting to curb abortion rates should be STRONGLY ADVOCATING for them!

Instead of arguing over abstinence-only vs 'contraception-mainly', pro-lifers should strongly advocate for including accurate fetal development--as well as alternatives to abortion--in sex education classes, regardless of what else is being taught in them.

Instead of going out of the way to anger LBGTs (as a well-known "pro-life" site is infamous for), we should reach out to them in the same way that we reach out to OTHER minorities who either are now or are at
a future risk of becoming disproportionately targeted for prenatal killings.

Lastly, we need to get legal restrictions on abortion whenever possible, but not allow the "perfect" to become the enemy of the GOOD.

Heartbeat laws save lives. So would laws that restricted abortion to cases of rape or fetal disability. Supporting such restrictions DOESN’T mean that we are "okay" with EITHER exception. It just means that we are working hard to stop as many totally elective abortions as possible.

If a mother's life is truly in danger, ending the pregnancy should be allowed, saving the baby only IF possible .

Finally, no sane person wants some government official investigating women's pregnancy loses and charging her if her circumstances seem 'suspicious'. Any legislation which seeks to prosecute aborting mothers is counter-productive and will NEVER pass.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
Thank you for your insightful comment on our article. There are so many great points here! I agree!
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
Good article, but you shouldn’t let AHA people co-opt the term “abolitionist”. Calling them “AHA adherents” or something like that would be more appropriate I think.
Avatar Placeholder
Ryan, fairly new and proud abolitionist
Would you be incremental in your approach to rape or slavery? I agree with one of the other commenters in that your position is unsupportable from Scripture. And this article is outright slander. I think some immediate and complete repentance is in order here. I'll no longer be supporting ERI.
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
As the article states, when "abolition of an evil is possible, incrementalism and abolitionism look the same." Unlike abortion, rape is illegal and widely accepted as evil. Slavery at the time of Wilberforce was not widely accepted as evil, and "it is itself an incrementalist decision to aim for the abolition of the slave trade before, and separately from, the abolition of slavery," as discussed in the article. When total abolition is possible, that is what we must do, but total abolition of abortion is not possible yet, so we must, as Jesus Himself says, “...be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16). We truly wish that these abolitionist bills would work instead of inevitably resulting in abortion being more accessible than it is now. But they will have the exact opposite of their intended effect -- they will make abortion access completely unobstructed. We must consider the consequences of our actions. "'Wise as serpents'...means to weigh one’s actions, to think before you strike; you’re responsible for planning, for considering the results of your actions, not merely for doing the “right” thing and letting God do the rest, as the abolitionists maintain." The second half of the article frequently cites other Scriptures as well, which the other commenter never read since she did not complete the article.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
BCCannone
When abolition of an evil is possible, why on earth wouldn't you abolish that evil? When abolition is possible, abolition and incrementalism could not be further apart. One abolishes evil, the other regulates it little by little in the hope of someday getting it all eradicated. If your house is overrun with cockroaches, wouldn't you bug-bomb the place instead of putting out one little roach trap?
Avatar Placeholder
Rick Small, Working to Abolish Human Abortion
“We can’t Abolish Human Abortion”
is a Cleverly Designed Myth
believed and pushed by the Pro Life Movement. #PLEXIT #WalkByFaith
Avatar Placeholder
Mama abolitionist Fishy
Andrew, I haven’t seen any scripture in what you have written thus far. I cannot even finish the article as it is erroneous in about every paragraph. Roe v Wade is NOT the law of the land. Neither was Casey. Both are were decisions handed down by a court system and that falls under the juridical branch. Perhaps you should review civics 101 again. Courts don’t make laws. And last time I checked, exodus 20:13 is extremely clear. Thou shall not murder does not have exceptions. Isaiah 10:1-2 tells us not to entertain iniquitous decrees. Back up your article with some scripture. Guarantee you won’t find your words match with God’s.