Senator Herod

By Jennifer Hartline Published on February 1, 2018

To every senator, and especially those 14 so-called Catholic senators, who last week refused to protect the child in the womb from dismemberment:

Shame on you. You voted for barbarism. You voted for something only the most heinous of uncivilized people would ever conceive of doing to a helpless child. You voted in favor of chopping a living child into pieces.

You voted in favor of reaching into the womb with weapons and showing no mercy to the defenseless person living there. You voted in favor of armed invasion and brutal slaughter. Slaughter not of a powerful and wicked enemy, but of an innocent and powerless infant.

You voted for the continued dehumanization of a group of human beings you’d like to keep from gaining any rights at all. What hostile, oppressive bullies you are.

You’re Deceiving Yourselves

No doubt you reject my appraisal of your vote. I’m sure you take umbrage at my description of what you favored by your vote. You can only do that because you deceive yourselves, and you are either too drunk on your own power or too spineless to stand up for what’s right. I couldn’t care less which it is. I only know that I’m sick and tired of hearing you say you did it for me.

That you would use your political and legal power to preserve some grotesque “right” to tear a child into pieces is utterly revolting and vile. Don’t you dare hide behind the lie that you did it for women.

Either you have the integrity to protect the most innocent and helpless among us or you do not. Clearly, you do not. You have chosen to accept the warped idea that the “autonomy” of women grants them the “right” to have another person butchered to death.

Even if every woman in America believed that demonic lie — and I assure you, we all do not — it does not excuse your cowardice before the truth. You are obliged to see the humanity of the child in the womb and act to defend that child from slaughter.

Every one of us is obliged to see the humanity of the child in the womb, just as we are obliged to see the humanity in every person on earth. Just as we were obliged to see the humanity of the slave, and bring an end to the wicked injustice of slavery in America. How many of you would have been so eager to support legislation to safeguard the “right” to take an ax to a slave’s arm or leg and just keep chopping until he was dead?

Don’t delude yourselves about what you did. You weren’t acting in the interest of “choice.” You aren’t valiant defenders of liberty. You had a tiny, growing baby in your hands and you gave him over to the hatchet man.

Stop smiling and high-fiving each other in congratulatory glee, then looking straight-faced into the camera solemnly swear you had to endorse this barbarism for women’s sake. You’re happy to cloak yourself in the noble garment of “Women’s Rights,” then fling off any moral guilt over the tiny body parts because you say you did it all for women.

Women Deserve Better Than Abortion

No woman should ever be told that choosing death for her child is in her best interests. No woman should have her baby’s violent death portrayed to her as her best option. No doctor should ever tell a mother that cutting her baby into pieces is the right thing to do. 

No women should be encouraged to turn her womb into a torture chamber. And women should not be deceived into thinking that this barbaric “procedure” is ”health care.” The white lab coats do not disguise the brutality, and women deserve to be confronted with the brutality. If you truly believe women are entitled to make informed decisions, then make sure those decisions are truly informed with the facts.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

There is no abortion fairy who waves her magic wand and Poof! The baby just disappears! It isn’t just a lengthy D&C. It isn’t just a heavy menstrual period.

It’s a brutal act of violence. A thumb-sucking child with a beating heart, functioning brain, kicking arms and legs, working bladder and kidneys, and an up-and-running nervous system will be ripped out of the womb in pieces.

Despite the propaganda the abortion industry peddles, it is never necessary to kill the child in order to save the mother’s life. Never

You Failed in Your Duty

You occupy the seats of power in our nation, and you are obligated before God to protect the weak and vulnerable. Do not think you enjoy the moral support of your Church. Do not think you have fulfilled the commandments of God in what you’ve done. You have facilitated the slaughter of innocents. You could have helped stop it, but you chose to follow Herod rather than Christ.

Women deserve so much better than a system of government that champions violence against their own babies and calls it a victory.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Bob Lindberg

    Amen, sister.

  • Cody

    They won’t be smiling when they meet their maker. Remember their blood cries out and not only their blood but also all those descendants who would of been born of them.

  • tz1

    At 20 weeks, do unborn babies dream? And even if not then, should they be denied the ability to grow into “Dreamers”?

  • JP

    I wish the bishops and the vatican had the guts to excommunicate these so called Catholic politicians.

    • Parrish

      They are to preoccupied with immigrants to fill their pews, hopefully.

  • Kevin Quillen

    Their careers should be aborted. Should be recall elections for all.

  • jgmusgrove

    Powerful and true. Thank you for stating the issue so clearly.

  • Karen

    So you will join me in demanding free contraception for all women, paid for by the government? Thorough, comprehensive sex education for teens including information on contraception? Mostly, a change in society so that men, including husbands, are taught as harshly as necessary that they are never entitled to sex if the woman is not enthusiastic about it? Requiring parental leave, job protection for women whomtake maternity leave, and a fifty-fifty split in domestic chores so that males have to do half the housework? You will join in creating a world where mothers can have both their professional dreams AND children? Or do you favor what we have now but with more forced birth?

    • mbabbitt

      Completely a non sequitur. Has nothing to do with murdering a child. Grow up.

    • Terry Lewis

      There’s a huge difference between a contraceptive (literally “against conception”) and abortion which kills the product of conception, namely a baby.

      I also don’t care if you go to Disneyland, but by what possible logic would you claim that I should pay for your admission? Neither do I have any problem with your choice to use non-abortive contraceptives, but neither do I accept the responsibility to pay for it!

      Society is made up of individuals; if each individual followed the teachings of scripture and loved his own wife, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, (and to be fair, if all women respected their husbands, as that same passage teaches), a lot of your complaints would suddenly go away! The thing is, you’re complaining about the symptoms, not the problem. Fix the problem, and you don’t have to worry about the symptoms.

  • tz1

    Changing the title.
    Not Senator Herod. Senator Herodias who told her Daughter Salome to ask for the head of an innocent man on a platter. Herod imprisoned JtB, but it was his “Eve” that caused the evil.

    • Ken Abbott

      The reference is to Herod the Great and the slaughter of the innocents.

      • tz1

        So John the Baptist wasn’t innocent?
        Sometimes it is hard to tell.

  • Concerned Christian

    “There is no abortion fairy who waves her magic wand and Poof! The baby just disappears! It isn’t just a lengthy D&C. It isn’t just a heavy menstrual period.”

    Is it possible that women are not weak or stupid and are just making the decision that they think is best for them? I’m not saying it’s the right decision, i think it’s the wrong one.

    There are 22 women in the senate, 17 democrats and 5 republicans. Of that number 19 voted against the measure.

    it seems like the argument is that, in this day and age, a woman can be talked into an abortion. Not by the man that fathered the child in the first place but by congress and the doctor.

    If a woman is the victim of anyone in the process, it’s the man that fathered the child. She’s the one that will have the child and raise the child, possibly, without child support from the man that fathered the child. I know she should have thought of that before hand, since it’s her fault alone that she’s in the situation. That’s what I’ve been told on Stream before.

    But, maybe the vitriol should be reserved for the man that fathered the child and not for congress or the doctor!

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Was slavery simply the best choice for the slave owner? Even if it was the wrong choice?

      Did the nation have no right to expect its political leaders to abolish slavery? The vitriol should just have been directed at the slave owners only? There is a bigger picture here. We, as a nation, endorse and promote the slaughter of the child in the womb. It is enshrined in our laws as a moral good. That is the most vile of all evils, and it has to change. Only our legislators can change that, and they deserve every ounce of outrage we can throw at them until they do the right thing and change the laws.
      The medical community as well must cease in being paid hit men. So much for “first do no harm…”

      We’re talking about a human being here, who is helpless and vulnerable and being killed under the guise of someone else’s “right.” It’s not just a private matter everyone gets to decide for themselves. It is objectively, morally evil all the time, period.

      Yes, the father of the child is obligated to the child he helped create. Yes, women are too often coerced into having an abortion, and often by the father, and this is horribly wrong.

      And yes, women need to start being their own best defense, and making more thoughtful choices, especially about sex. I’ll say to any woman: If a man won’t commit to YOU first by way of a wedding vow, then you have no business having sex with him. None. It’s asking for trouble.

      • Concerned Christian

        this is the proper slavery analogy.

        1. A person owns another human being.
        2. The government, by force of law, says you can no longer enslave that person.
        3. The government also says that the former slave owner must now take care of the slave’s financial needs until they reach 18.

        what do you think the life of that former slave is going to be? We can look at Jim Crow as an example of the hatred that former slaves had to deal with.

        In our world:
        –prisons are full of men and women raised by parents who did not want them.
        –a child that makes it to the age of 18 in the foster care system has an 80% chance of being incarcerated.

        My point is that forcing a woman to have a child may not result in a fairy tale ending for the child. there is a consequence to this action as well.

        Believe it or not, I believe abortion is wrong and is a sin. However, your body is your body. I don’t believe anyone should allow anyone else to tell them what to do with their body. It’s the most sacred thing you own.

        In a perfect world, the government and christian organizations would work together to counsel women before that decision is made. I think most women would not make it. But right now we’re in a mode where there’s no middle ground on the issue.

        Now you may want to or someone else may want to tell me how bad I am. That’s fine, I can take it.

        But the easiest thing in the world to do is to tell someone else what they can or cannot do when it doesn’t affect them directly. My body is my body. It’s the only thing in the world that I should truly own. That may be the most selfish statement in the world. I believe that my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit But that’s my belief and no one else has the right to forcefully tell me that I’m wrong!

        The only way to truly get rid of abortion and the consequences of it is to ban pre-marital sex. This would be biblical. Otherwise you’re simply transferring a problem that society has already proven that it can’t deal with!

        • Jennifer Hartline

          I must disagree. Slavery was accepted because the humanity of the slave was denied. Slaves weren’t considered full persons like everyone else. Neither is the child in the womb considered a person like you and I. We deny the humanity of every human being we wish to enslave or oppress or somehow have control over. When we want our wishes to take precedent over another’s inviolable rights, then suddenly that other is less human than we are.

          As far as “your body is your body”, the flaw in that reasoning is obvious. The child’s body is NOT MY BODY. I have no right to destroy the body of another human person. The body being chemically destroyed or dismembered in an abortion is NOT my body!

          • Concerned Christian

            “I have no right to destroy the body of another human person”.

            Until the child can live outside of the woman’s body it is very much her body.

            For instance:
            –If she refuses prenatal care has she committed a crime?
            –If she drinks or uses drugs during the pregnancy has she committed a crime?
            –if she refuses bed rest, has she committed a crime?
            –If she behaves in a manner that puts the child’s life in danger, has she committed a crime?
            –Reckless driving has she committed a crime?

            Further, if she has an abortion, who goes to jail? It’s the woman that has instigated the crime. Should she go to jail as well as anyone complicit in the crime?

          • Jennifer Hartline

            No, the child’s body is not her body. Not ever.

            Even while residing in my womb, my children’s bodies were not my body! Never! They were always, at every instant, a distinct human person, separate from me, even as they required my bodily support for their survival.

            The child in the womb is a human person distinct from the mother. Period. There is a finite measure of time in which a growing fetus depends on mother’s body for survival. That has no bearing on the humanity of the child, or on the child’s body being a separate body from the mother.

            Newborn infants are also totally dependent on another person for survival. So what? That’s human nature.

          • Concerned Christian

            So then how do you feel about these questions?

            –If she refuses prenatal care has she committed a crime?
            –If she drinks or uses drugs during the pregnancy has she committed a crime?
            –if she refuses bed rest, has she committed a crime?
            –If she behaves in a manner that puts the child’s life in danger, has she committed a crime?
            –Reckless driving has she committed a crime?

            Further, if she has an abortion, who goes to jail? It’s the woman that has instigated the crime. Should she go to jail as well as anyone complicit in the crime?

          • Jennifer Hartline

            I can’t help but feel as though you persist in these questions out of a desire to catch me out somehow. As though if I were to say, “of course it’s not a crime to refuse bed rest or prenatal care” then you could say, “See! You don’t really believe the child is a distinct person after all!”

            I hope I’m wrong, but that’s my suspicion anyway. You’ve created your litmus test, and if I don’t pass it, then you declare me a hypocrite to some degree. Is that it?

            It is simply a fact that the child’s body is not the mother’s body. That’s just simple, obvious logic, is it not? My body is not your body. Neither is the child’s body the mother’s body. Two separate bodies because they are two separate persons.

            The child needs to reside in the womb for nine months to grow because those are the dictates of human biology and reproduction. It does not mean the child does not have his own body or is not a unique human person.

            Many women these days seem to resent having a womb. I pity them. Resentful or not, women do not have any sacred “right” to kill the child in their womb. It is objectively and morally wrong, always.
            Will mothers encounter circumstances that make pregnancy challenging, and a great sacrifice? Of course! Welcome to life.

          • Concerned Christian

            I promise it’s not a litmus test. 🙂

            I don’t try to change people’s beliefs or thoughts. I try to understand their perspective and share my own. Trying to change people generally causes them to shutdown and to become guarded. This is the state of the country right now. Everyone is so guarded that we’re afraid of having our beliefs challenged.

            People on this site have called me “fake christian” or “troll”. That doesn’t bother me, I think it’s funny. However, typically when they call me that it’s to shutdown the conversation.

            I asked the questions because during the election, Trump stated that women should go to jail before backtracking. I also think that if you think that a woman doesn’t have a right to an abortion, then she has to go to jail because she is the one initiating the commission of the crime. Now this is my opinion and if you disagree, that’s your opinion, i have no problem with that. I believe you have given prayerful thought as I have. We just came to two different conclusions. In part because we’re coming from completely different backgrounds.

            To me it’s a women’s body. Of course you know better than I, that having a baby is essentially a 2 year commitment for the woman. From the time of conception, to morning sickness, to labor pains, to the body re-adjusting post pregnancy, it’s the women’s body that this is occurring to.

            This comment:

            “Many women these days seem to resent having a womb”

            What I’ve found is that typically resentment mask fear. When I met my wife she told me flat out that she only wanted one child. She mapped out all of her career goals. More than one child would be a hindrance to those goals. I never tried to change her mind. Men, when I was growing up, took care of their wives, so I always knew that my wife would not have to work. Also, I believed and still believe that most women want to stay home with their children.

            My wife stopped working after our first child was born. She started home schooling and then other parents wanted her to home school their kids as well. Now she runs her own school with about 26 kids.

            To me our experience has been Proverbs 31. A woman has the most powerful role in the family but I know that most don’t realize it.

            I think this is where the resentment comes from. A woman is the one that bares the most direct impact of the pregnancy. It’s her body that makes the most changes and it’s her future that is the most impacted. I’m talking between her and her husband.

            We talk woman, wife, mother, with the expectation that she should excel at all of them. So the fear of failing in one or more of those areas is where, i believe, the resentment comes from.

            This feeds directly into the abortion debate. I know for you it’s about making the procedure illegal. For me it’s making sure that the woman knows who she is so that this decision is not made.

            I’m not saying that you shouldn’t pursue your beliefs. I’m just hoping that this perspective provides more insight! 🙂

          • Jennifer Hartline

            I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I hear compassion and charity in what you express. That’s a wonderful thing.
            I agree with you that the pressure to be a successful professional woman on top of being a fantastic wife and perfect mother is too much. It’s just too much. I tend to subscribe to, “you can’t have it all, all the time.” There are seasons, and especially so for women. Many women today would scream at me for saying such a thing, but it’s true.

            But a few other thoughts: Do not let your inclination to “it’s a woman’s body” keep you from protecting the most truly helpless of all human beings. Especially as a man, part of your duty is to protect the vulnerable, and to speak out for those being led to slaughter. Women don’t need men who step aside and have no opinion about the humanity of the unborn. Abortion does not help women. It exploits them and wounds them forever. Women deserve better than abortion. Abortion is in the interest of jerks, abusers, and otherwise irresponsible guys. MEN are better than that. Does that make sense?

            Yes, it is women who bear the entire burden of pregnancy, nursing, and infant care for the most part. I know exactly what it requires of a woman, physically, emotionally, mentally, etc. The sacrifices are not small. But neither is the reward. Neither is the joy and the honor of creating new life with God. Women have been gifted with an ability men will never have.

            Finally, do not think that I only want abortion to be illegal. I want abortion to be unthinkable. I want it to be such a revolting, ghastly prospect that no one would consider it. And I want a society that is neither masculine nor feminine-oriented, but FAMILY oriented, so that a woman never feels abortion is her only choice. I don’t want any woman to be coerced or driven by desperation to kill her baby. I want a culture of LIFE in which human life is revered and protected from conception to natural death.

            And I realize that this will never happen without a culture of respect and reverence for the marital act. Until we once again restore the link between sex and procreation, until we once again understand that the purpose of sex is procreation, we will not succeed in building a culture of life and abolishing abortion. I understand all this.

            Still, I will work toward making abortion illegal, because it must be illegal, because killing the child in the womb is gravely evil, period. It’s not a matter of personal opinion. The child is a human person who has the right to life, and there is no “right” to terminate that child.

            I wish you could take that next step, and say without equivocation that the child in the womb deserves full legal protection under the law, and abandon this “it’s a woman’s body” nonsense. You know it’s not the woman’s body being torn apart and killed.

            Finally, please don’t call it a “procedure.” We must stop employing such clinical euphemisms and call this monstrous evil what it is. The sole purpose of this “procedure” is the death of a helpless human person. It’s not medicine. It’s not health care.

  • Wow, Jen! Thank you! Wow! Wow! Wow! All spot on! Thank you!

  • Larry

    Dear Jennifer,
    I appreciate your passion on this issue and your desire to save every human life in the womb. Unfortunately, by supporting the passage of this bill by the U.S. Congress, you do not achieve this goal. So I have to disagree with you.

    Your defense of this federal bill falls miserably short of defending every baby’s life in the womb. If passed this federal law would codify the sentencing to death not only of all unwanted children younger than 20 weeks in the womb but also all unwanted children of any age in a mother’s womb conceived as a result of rape and incest or endangering her health.

    You yourself in your article state, “Despite the propaganda the abortion industry peddles, it is never necessary to kill the child in order to save the mother’s life. Never.”

    Yet, this very bill, which you support would codify murdering the child to save the mother’s life, as one of its exceptions.

    Our lawmakers need to write bills which protect every unborn child from conception, without exception! Also, Congress needs to reverse the unlawful Roe v Wade decision which they never had the courage to vote for or against after the decision was rendered. Which means that Roe v Wade was never and is still not a law, passed by Congress, even though so many of our fellow citizens unfortunately invoke it to protect them when they murder innocent human lives.

    The efforts, energies and prayers of our lawmakers in Congress (not in the Supreme Court) and of all of us that have strong feelings about this tragic injustice and brutal holocaust, including Jennifer Hartline, would be better spent focusing on the vision laid out in my previous paragraph.

    Let us pray and fast for that vision to become a reality, because with our God all things are possible, even a nation that outlaws every single abortion!

    Please also consider these other arguments.

    This legislation, in essence, codifies that women can continue murdering their babies in the womb after conception until they are twenty weeks old, or continue to murder their babies in the womb if they are victims of rape or incest or if their health is at risk.

    God says that every life is precious in His eyes. We don’t get to decide.

    This legislation not only violates His will. It also violates the 5th and 14th amendments to our Constitution.

    The Roe v Wade decision violated God’s will and the United States Constitution.

    I believe that it is important, when given the opportunity, to try to talk a mom out of aborting her baby. That is why I support Embracing Options and organizations like it.

    However, when it comes to legislation, we need to uphold God’s legislation and our Constitution.

    Also, please consider these two viewpoints:
    Tom Hoefling
    There’s nothing wrong with an incremental approach to ending abortion, per se.

    The problem is when your incrementalism includes the codification of permission in the statutes to murder individual persons. All of them, as long as your illogical, unreasonable, arbitrary requirements are met.

    There is a simple two part test of all legislation:

    1. Does it recognize the God-given, unalienable nature of the individual right to live?

    And

    2. Does it provide the equal protection for every innocent person that the Constitution absolutely requires?

    If it fails on either hand, it is immoral and unconstitutional, and in fact is reinforcing the practice of abortion on demand.

    There is another horrible problem piled in on top of what I said above, which is that most all of the incrementalists who are pushing this immoral, failed strategy are also judicial supremacists.

    And so, no matter what you do, the judges are simply going to continue what they have now done for decades, which is strike down your ill-founded regulatory schemes as an impediment to the woman’s “right” to access to the means to murder their offspring.

    Leaving you with absolutely nothing but to continue to deceive “pro-lifers” with empty promises of accomplishing something, somehow, somewhere over the rainbow. When it is politically expedient, of course. Which is never.

    Kevin M Nelson, CIA

    There are 2 fiercely conflicting ideologies when it comes to abortion, Not including the obvious 100% pro-abortion ideology. Those who want to “reduce it”, “regulate it”, “make it ‘safer'”, “make it ‘rare’ ” and those who want to END it, now not later, completely, not just a little. The first ideology is described as incrementalism. It seeks to just chip away at the problem, or appear to be doing so (“baby steps” -oh, what a cute pun), literally codifying the deaths of certain babies while stipulating which few must be protected. Purveyors of that ideology often call folks like us, (on the END it NOW side) “extremists”, “purists”, “impractical”, etc- and those are just the things I can post on facebook. We attempt to show how incrementalism is not only not Biblical, Constitutional, or remotely Moral, it has fueled 41 years of on-going murder in the womb and is therefore the truly impractical, unproductive, and counterproductive ideology. We don’t say “a little rape is OK”. We don’t say ” a little slavery is OK”. We don’t say “a little racism or genocide is OK”. We don’t say ” a little tyranny, a little thievery or a little abuse is OK”. So why would we say ” a little murder is OK” ? We wouldn’t. STILL don’t quite get it? Saw this posted to a friend’s thread this afternoon. Maybe this will help: Jamie Schofield: Can you imagine telling your spouse, “I’m pro-fidelity… with exceptions?” So again, why is it that the organizations and people that literally rub elbows with legislators and solicit Million$ in donations under the guise of being “Pro-Life” are the ones that make deals with evil and call legislation that, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, says that babies that don’t meet a certain criteria, and some that do, under certain circumstances- CAN BE KILLED… “pro-Life”? If THAT’s what You march for every January- just keep walking the other way. Thanks. KMN, CIA
    love,

    larry

  • Angelite49

    Thank you! I hope you sent this to each and every one of them!

  • Larry

    Dear Jennifer,

    I appreciate your passion on this issue and your desire to save every human life in the womb. Unfortunately, by supporting the passage of this bill by the U.S. Congress, you do not achieve this goal. So I have to disagree with you.

    Your defense of this federal bill falls miserably short of defending every baby’s life in the womb. If passed this federal law would codify the sentencing to death not only of all unwanted children younger than 20 weeks in the womb but also all unwanted children of any age in a mother’s womb conceived as a result of rape and incest or endangering her health.

    You yourself in your article state, “Despite the propaganda the abortion industry peddles, it is never necessary to kill the child in order to save the mother’s life. Never.”

    Yet, this very bill, which you support would codify murdering the child to save the mother’s life, as one of its exceptions.

    Our lawmakers need to write bills which protect every unborn child from conception, without exception! Also, Congress needs to reverse the unlawful Roe v Wade decision which they never had the courage to vote for or against after the decision was rendered. Which means that Roe v Wade was never and is still not a law, passed by Congress, even though so many of our fellow citizens unfortunately invoke it to protect them when they murder innocent human lives.

    The efforts, energies and prayers of our lawmakers in Congress (not in the Supreme Court) and of all of us that have strong feelings about this tragic injustice and brutal holocaust, including Jennifer Hartline, would be better spent focusing on the vision laid out in my previous paragraph.

    Let us pray and fast for that vision to become a reality, because with our God all things are possible, even a nation that outlaws every single abortion!

    Please also consider these other arguments.

    This legislation, in essence, codifies that women can continue murdering their babies in the womb after conception until they are twenty weeks old, or continue to murder their babies in the womb if they are victims of rape or incest or if their health is at risk.

    God says that every life is precious in His eyes. We don’t get to decide.

    This legislation not only violates His will. It also violates the 5th and 14th amendments to our Constitution.

    The Roe v Wade decision violated God’s will and the United States Constitution.

    I believe that it is important, when given the opportunity, to try to talk a mom out of aborting her baby. That is why I support Embracing Options and organizations like it.

    However, when it comes to legislation, we need to uphold God’s legislation and our Constitution.

    Also, please consider these two viewpoints:
    Tom Hoefling
    There’s nothing wrong with an incremental approach to ending abortion, per se.

    The problem is when your incrementalism includes the codification of permission in the statutes to murder individual persons. All of them, as long as your illogical, unreasonable, arbitrary requirements are met.

    There is a simple two part test of all legislation:

    1. Does it recognize the God-given, unalienable nature of the individual right to live?

    And

    2. Does it provide the equal protection for every innocent person that the Constitution absolutely requires?

    If it fails on either hand, it is immoral and unconstitutional, and in fact is reinforcing the practice of abortion on demand.

    There is another horrible problem piled in on top of what I said above, which is that most all of the incrementalists who are pushing this immoral, failed strategy are also judicial supremacists.

    And so, no matter what you do, the judges are simply going to continue what they have now done for decades, which is strike down your ill-founded regulatory schemes as an impediment to the woman’s “right” to access to the means to murder their offspring.

    Leaving you with absolutely nothing but to continue to deceive “pro-lifers” with empty promises of accomplishing something, somehow, somewhere over the rainbow. When it is politically expedient, of course. Which is never.

    Kevin M Nelson, CIA

    There are 2 fiercely conflicting ideologies when it comes to abortion, Not including the obvious 100% pro-abortion ideology. Those who want to “reduce it”, “regulate it”, “make it ‘safer'”, “make it ‘rare’ ” and those who want to END it, now not later, completely, not just a little. The first ideology is described as incrementalism. It seeks to just chip away at the problem, or appear to be doing so (“baby steps” -oh, what a cute pun), literally codifying the deaths of certain babies while stipulating which few must be protected. Purveyors of that ideology often call folks like us, (on the END it NOW side) “extremists”, “purists”, “impractical”, etc- and those are just the things I can post on facebook. We attempt to show how incrementalism is not only not Biblical, Constitutional, or remotely Moral, it has fueled 41 years of on-going murder in the womb and is therefore the truly impractical, unproductive, and counterproductive ideology. We don’t say “a little rape is OK”. We don’t say ” a little slavery is OK”. We don’t say “a little racism or genocide is OK”. We don’t say ” a little tyranny, a little thievery or a little abuse is OK”. So why would we say ” a little murder is OK” ? We wouldn’t. STILL don’t quite get it? Saw this posted to a friend’s thread this afternoon. Maybe this will help: Jamie Schofield: Can you imagine telling your spouse, “I’m pro-fidelity… with exceptions?” So again, why is it that the organizations and people that literally rub elbows with legislators and solicit Million$ in donations under the guise of being “Pro-Life” are the ones that make deals with evil and call legislation that, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, says that babies that don’t meet a certain criteria, and some that do, under certain circumstances- CAN BE KILLED… “pro-Life”? If THAT’s what You march for every January- just keep walking the other way. Thanks. KMN, CIA

    love,

    larry

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Larry, I agree with you that the law must protect every child from conception, without exception. And I understand this legislation was not perfect. Still, it should have been supported by all and passed. It is foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

      • Larry

        Jennifer, please read Mr. Hoefling’s and Mr. Nelson’s following comments, in this context, and realize that what you define as “good” laws will never be able to eradicate abortion:

        Tom Hoefling

        There’s nothing wrong with an incremental approach to ending abortion, per se.

        The problem is when your incrementalism includes the codification of permission in the statutes to murder individual persons. All of them, as long as your illogical, unreasonable, arbitrary requirements are met.

        There is a simple two part test of all legislation:

        1. Does it recognize the God-given, unalienable nature of the individual right to live?

        And

        2. Does it provide the equal protection for every innocent person that the Constitution absolutely requires?

        If it fails on either hand, it is immoral and unconstitutional, and in fact is reinforcing the practice of abortion on demand.

        There is another horrible problem piled in on top of what I said above, which is that most all of the incrementalists who are pushing this immoral, failed strategy are also judicial supremacists.

        And so, no matter what you do, the judges are simply going to continue what they have now done for decades, which is strike down your ill-founded regulatory schemes as an impediment to the woman’s “right” to access to the means to murder their offspring.

        Leaving you with absolutely nothing but to continue to deceive “pro-lifers” with empty promises of accomplishing something, somehow, somewhere over the rainbow. When it is politically expedient, of course. Which is never.

        Kevin M Nelson, CIA

        There are 2 fiercely conflicting ideologies when it comes to abortion, Not including the obvious 100% pro-abortion ideology. Those who want to “reduce it”, “regulate it”, “make it ‘safer'”, “make it ‘rare’ ” and those who want to END it, now not later, completely, not just a little.
        The first ideology is described as incrementalism. It seeks to just chip away at the problem, or appear to be doing so (“baby steps” -oh, what a cute pun), literally codifying the deaths of certain babies while stipulating which few must be protected. Purveyors of that ideology often call folks like us, (on the END it NOW side) “extremists”, “purists”, “impractical”, etc- and those are just the things I can post on facebook.
        We attempt to show how incrementalism is not only not Biblical, Constitutional, or remotely Moral, it has fueled 41 years of on-going murder in the womb and is therefore the truly impractical, unproductive, and counterproductive ideology.
        We don’t say “a little rape is OK”. We don’t say ” a little slavery is OK”. We don’t say “a little racism or genocide is OK”. We don’t say ” a little tyranny, a little thievery or a little abuse is OK”. So why would we say ” a little murder is OK” ? We wouldn’t.
        STILL don’t quite get it? Saw this posted to a friend’s thread this afternoon. Maybe this will help: Jamie Schofield: Can you imagine telling your spouse, “I’m pro-fidelity… with exceptions?” So again, why is it that the organizations and people that literally rub elbows with legislators and solicit Million$ in donations under the guise of being “Pro-Life” are the ones that make deals with evil and call legislation that, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, says that babies that don’t meet a certain criteria, and some that do, under certain circumstances- CAN BE KILLED… “pro-Life”? If THAT’s what You march for every January- just keep walking the other way. Thanks.

      • Larry

        Jennifer, it is not foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Jesus said, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Mark 5:48. We don’t say “a little rape is okay”. We don’t say ” a little slavery is okay”. We don’t say “a little racism or genocide is okay”. We don’t say ” a little tyranny, a little thievery or a little abuse is okay”. So why would we say ” a little murder is okay” ? We wouldn’t. Can you imagine telling your spouse, “I’m pro-fidelity… with exceptions?” So again, why is it that the organizations and people that literally rub elbows with legislators and solicit millions of dollars in donations under the guise of being “Pro-Life” are the ones that make deals with evil and call legislation what, in no uncertain terms, says that babies that don’t meet a certain criteria, and some that do, under certain circumstances can be killed… “pro-Life”?

      • Larry

        Jennifer. it is not foolish to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

        We don’t say “a little rape is okay.” We don’t say ” a little slavery is okay.” We don’t say “a little racism or genocide is okay.” We don’t say ” a little tyranny, a little thievery or a little abuse are okay.” So why would we say ” a little murder is okay?” Can you imagine telling your spouse, “I’m pro-fidelity… with exceptions?”

        So again, why is it that the organizations and people that literally rub elbows with legislators and solicit millions in donations under the guise of being “pro-life” are the ones who make deals with evil entities and call legislation “pro-life” which, in no uncertain terms, says that babies who don’t meet certain criteria, and some that do, under certain circumstances, can be killed?”

        “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Galatians 6:7

Inspiration
Fluke or Fruit? What Our Actions Say About Our Hearts
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us