Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue

This is the show from Wednesday January 31st, 2007.

SUMMARY:

* Cheryl Sullinger Urges Compromise on "Do Not Murder": Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger said, "We know that some in the pro-life movement will be opposed [to the new South Dakota anti-abortion] legislation because of the rape and incest exceptions, but we believe that position is irresponsible."

* CRTL's Brian Rohrbough: The president of CRTL points out that this position, legitimizing abortion for the hard cases, is the very lie that opened the floodgates of legalized abortion 40 years ago in Colorado.

* Bob Enyart: Pastor of Denver Bible Church, also argues that it is not atheists or liberals, but pro-life Christians who have convinced the millions that abortion should be legal for rape and incest, for they hear this campaign drumbeat not from pro-aborts, but from our candidates and in our bills! And this widespread belief reaffirms the foundation of pro-choice law and destroys the personhood defense of the fetus, which apart from the Second Coming, is the only defense that will ultimately stop abortion.

* George W. Bush: The president of the United States was elected by pro-lifers, and he used his influence to defeat South Dakota's abortion ban, saying that it violated his own position (not God's command, by the way, but his own position), that it should be legal to kill the baby of a criminal. And Bush sleeps soundly at night, knowing that he has the support of virtually all pro-life Christian leaders. Yet it is belief in his own position, that it should be legal to kill the baby of a rapist, that millions of people have accepted as Gospel truth, that defeated SD's abortion ban! And so, abortion for the hard cases is the very position that first legalized abortion, and it's the position that destroys the baby's defense of personhood. Pro-life leaders are more tolerant of abortion than they are of those who will no longer compromise on God's enduring command, Do not murder, as Sullenger's quote makes clear, "To oppose this [then you can kill the baby] legislation would have to be considered ‘pro-abortion.'" Thus, to many Christian leaders, the path to victory is not by convincing more people to obey God's command, Do Not Murder, but by convincing more people to compromise on God's command, in the vain hope that good will come from it.

* CRTL Pledge: If you're committed to never compromise on God's enduring command, Do Not Murder, then please register that commitment with Colorado Right to Life to encourage others to take that same pledge!! Register your pledge!

Today's Resource: We recommend that Operation Rescue leaders, including Cheryl Sullenger, watch Focus on the Strategy, and evaluate how far into moral relativism the Body of Christ has slid, and then answer the question, "What role has pro-life compromise had in the moral slide of Christianity?"
 

Aethril

New member
Jefferson said:
Colorado Right to Life Criticizes Operation Rescue

This is the show from Wednesday January 31st, 2007.

SUMMARY:

* Cheryl Sullinger Urges Compromise on "Do Not Murder": Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger said, "We know that some in the pro-life movement will be opposed [to the new South Dakota anti-abortion] legislation because of the rape and incest exceptions, but we believe that position is irresponsible."

* CRTL's Brian Rohrbough: The president of CRTL points out that this position, legitimizing abortion for the hard cases, is the very lie that opened the floodgates of legalized abortion 40 years ago in Colorado.

* Bob Enyart: Pastor of Denver Bible Church, also argues that it is not atheists or liberals, but pro-life Christians who have convinced the millions that abortion should be legal for rape and incest, for they hear this campaign drumbeat not from pro-aborts, but from our candidates and in our bills! And this widespread belief reaffirms the foundation of pro-choice law and destroys the personhood defense of the fetus, which apart from the Second Coming, is the only defense that will ultimately stop abortion.
Even a "pragmatic liberal" can see the hypocrisy of pro-life groups that have lost their way.
liberal Link
 

rehcjam

Member
Aethril said:
Even a "pragmatic liberal" can see the hypocrisy of pro-life groups that have lost their way.
liberal Link

Absolutely. You know, there are a lot groups that are funded by this issue and I have heard it said that that may actually be the overriding issue.
 

Aethril

New member
Post rejected by Operation Rescue!

Post rejected by Operation Rescue!

South Dakota Reintroduces Abortion Ban With Stiffer Penalties
This is interesting... I posted on Operation Rescue's website and had my post rejected! I guess I am so used to TOL that I got carried away with being politically incorrect and offensive!
Rejected Post:

"You never do evil that good may come of it, allowing some to die that others may live is just that. Pro-lifers should never support a law that allows for even 1 abortion. When you regulate abortion you legitimize it. Stop.

http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/40YearsPledge.htm
"

Maybe my first post was too personal:

"Time for a new spokesperson! Allowing the murder of little boys and little girls because their father is a criminal is evil.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35302
"

Mike,

Because you have a faulty premis that could erroneously lead someone to believe something about Operation Rescue that isn't true, your post (below) has not been accepted.

Operatoin Rescue is 100% pro-life and will continue to fight to save every child we possibly can. There is a huge difference between causing deaths and saving lives. We are attempting to save as many condemned lives as we can. I am not sure what it will take for you to understand that we are not killing anybody. THOSE BABIES ARE GOING TO DIE IF WE DO NOTHING. However, if we intervene, we can save over 99% of those condemned lives. In the meantime, we continue working until the rest can be protected.

If your rhetoric would have you sacrifice lives (870 per year) that can be saved now because the law used to save them does not meet your standard of perfection, then I could say to you, "You never do evil that good may come of it, allowing some to die that others may live is just that." By your rejecting this bill, you condemn babies to die that it is possible to save. Do not do evil (ignore and thereby diminish the lives of those we can save now) so that "good" (a perfect pro-life bill) may come of it. Your willingness to sacrifice lives that are savable is most distressing to me, because I view each of these lives as someone's sons and daughters whose blood is on our hands if we turn away and no nothing to save them. I'm not willing to sacrifice these people and stand idly by when it is in our power to help them.

Ours is a position you may never have considered. I hope this message will help you understand it better. No need for animosity.

Cheryl Sullenger

_____________
You never do evil that good may come of it, allowing some to die that others may live is just that. Pro-lifers should never support a law that allows for even 1 abortion. When you regulate abortion you legitimize it. Stop.

http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/40YearsPledge.htm
 
I agree with Cheryl Sullenger

I agree with Cheryl Sullenger

We are commanded to be gentle as doves (pro-life) and wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16). South Dakota pro-lifers have already figured out that the serpents are in charge and will not let us ban abortion in cases of rape and incest (which occur once every four years). If we can be wise as serpents and ban all the rest of the abortions that occur (3480 murders every four years) why not ban those abortions? Why would banning these abortions be, as Bob Enyart calls it, "a tragedy," when these abortions are presently legal?

If a bill banning 99% of all abortions passes, maybe that will build momentum that will enable South Dakota pro-lifers to ban the rest in the near future.

Enyart and Rohrbough argue that the legalization of abortion for rape and incest was the law that opened the door to legalization of all the rest of the abortions. True enough. This bill is designed to reverse that process, step by step. Why oppose the reversal? Why argue that if we cannot reverse a 40-year process in one day, we shouldn't reverse any part of it?

Is opposition to this bill just an attempt to achieve some kind of self-exalting abstract purity?
 

rehcjam

Member
Aethril said:
Allowing the murder of little boys and little girls because their father is a criminal is evil."
Right on. It is so sad that there are pro-lifers who cannot follow the logic (especially Christians, they should know better). Everyone else can see the hypocrisy.
 

Aethril

New member
My reply to Operation Rescue

My reply to Operation Rescue

My response in bold:

Mike,

Because you have a faulty premis that could erroneously lead someone to believe something about Operation Rescue that isn't true, your post (below) has not been accepted.

If my premise is faulty you should defend yourself on the site.

Operatoin Rescue is 100% pro-life and will continue to fight to save every child we possibly can. There is a huge difference between causing deaths and saving lives. We are attempting to save as many condemned lives as we can. I am not sure what it will take for you to understand that we are not killing anybody. THOSE BABIES ARE GOING TO DIE IF WE DO NOTHING. However, if we intervene, we can save over 99% of those condemned lives. In the meantime, we continue working until the rest can be protected.

If your rhetoric would have you sacrifice lives (870 per year) that can be saved now because the law used to save them does not meet your standard of perfection, then I could say to you, "You never do evil that good may come of it, allowing some to die that others may live is just that." By your rejecting this bill, you condemn babies to die that it is possible to save. Do not do evil (ignore and thereby diminish the lives of those we can save now) so that "good" (a perfect pro-life bill) may come of it. Your willingness to sacrifice lives that are savable is most distressing to me, because I view each of these lives as someone's sons and daughters whose blood is on our hands if we turn away and no nothing to save them. I'm not willing to sacrifice these people and stand idly by when it is in our power to help them.

What part is rhetoric, Romans 3:8? I will reject all legislation that compromises on "Do Not Murder". This bill authorizes the murder of children fathered by criminals. Even pragmatic liberals can see the hypocrisy of this bill.

Ours is a position you may never have considered. I hope this message will help you understand it better. No need for animosity.

Cheryl Sullenger

Your position was a disaster 40 years ago. Please do not mistake the Hard Truth for animosity.
 

Aethril

New member
Operation Rescue's response to me

Operation Rescue's response to me

Ouch! I am being compared to a pharisee :(

Cheryl Sullenger wrote:
We have defended oiurselves on the site. Stop looking at this through pharasitical eyes. The pharasees wated to castigate the disciples for violating their idea of perfection for grabbing some corn out of a field and eating it on the Sabbath, when Christ clearly told them they were wrong to do so. Look at the whole bible. Would Jesus really want us to stand by without doing all we can to save as many as we can? There is no place where God told anyone to stand idly by and allow a group of innocent people to die simply because all could not be saved. In fact, those who stand idly by share in the guilt. Is it a pride issue with you that you are so proud of your pro-life purity that you are willing to allow innocent babies that can be save die so your pride isn't offended?

The hypocrisy of this bill is to the shame of the people of SD who forced us to this situation. If we want to save lives, we have no other choice.

Take the beam out of your own eye, then you might see more clearly. We are not saying this bill is perfect, but saving those we can today is our Christian DUTY.

Cheryl

Were I a legalist I would be outraged. My wife and I have sided with Colorado Right to Life in their pledge to never compromise on "Do Not Murder" and to Operation Rescue, that means I am "willing to allow innocent babies to die".

The hypocrisy of this bill is to the shame of the people of SD who forced us to this situation. If we want to save lives, we have no other choice.
I never expected such a quick admittance to the hypocrisy of the bill. But since Operation Rescue was "forced" into this situation and they "had no other choice" we should probably just let them off the hook.
saving those we can today is our Christian DUTY
Agreed! Save all that you can. This is not accomplished by passing legislation that bans abortion followed by the word "except".
 

rehcjam

Member
we have no other choice.
Wow, they have no other choice than the advocate the murder of (some) children. That is some standard that they are living up to.

Thanks you are bringing out some good points.
 

Aethril

New member
My reply to Operation Rescue

My reply to Operation Rescue

My response in underlined bold:

On 2/2/07, Cheryl D Sullenger <cherylsullenger@juno.com> wrote:
We have defended oiurselves on the site.

If your position is defensible then my rejected post should be no problem to refute where everyone can see.

Stop looking at this through pharasitical eyes. The pharasees wated to castigate the disciples for violating their idea of perfection for grabbing some corn out of a field and eating it on the Sabbath, when Christ clearly told them they were wrong to do so. Look at the whole bible.

Romans 3:8 should be all we need.

Would Jesus really want us to stand by without doing all we can to save as many as we can? There is no place where God told anyone to stand idly by and allow a group of innocent people to die simply because all could not be saved. In fact, those who stand idly by share in the guilt. Is it a pride issue with you that you are so proud of your pro-life purity that you are willing to allow innocent babies that can be save die so your pride isn't offended?

Your implications of being "idle" and of having "pride" are unfounded. The efforts of my wife and I may not be as grand as Operation Rescue but we do what we can, we save those we can, and we do so without compromising on "Do Not Murder". We have made a stand not to get in line with OR and other major pro-life groups and follow them down the path of moral relativism.

The hypocrisy of this bill is to the shame of the people of SD who forced us to this situation. If we want to save lives, we have no other choice.

This is an extremely perverse and shameful statement, however, I am stunned at your admittance to the hypocrisy of this bill.

Take the beam out of your own eye, then you might see more clearly. We are not saying this bill is perfect, but saving those we can today is our Christian DUTY.

Cheryl

It is good to see you understand the biblical principle of judging! But by your own admission the bill has flaws, which will result in deadly consequences. We should obey God and not misplace our hope that good will come from this.

I appreciate the time you have taken to discuss this with me.

~Mike
 

Aethril

New member
Letter from Jo Scott, anti-abortion sidewalk counselor.

Letter from Jo Scott, anti-abortion sidewalk counselor.

Abortion Exception?
By Jo Scott

The pro-life movement may be on the brink of throwing away one of its strongest arguments against abortion. There is an opinion within the movement that if we give up on the rape and incest babies we’ll be able to save the others and then we’ll go back later for the rape babies.

The rape and incest scenarios can be used effectively to undermine the pro-abortion argument. The abortion industry uses rape and incest as a moral high ground by making abortion for rape and incest victims seem compassionate.

Abortion for rape emboldens the rapists, puts women at a higher risk for rape, multiplies her suffering and increases the rapist population.

Often an underage young woman that has been raped is taken to the abortion mill by the rapist. Many times he is a member on her own family. Her rapist convinced her, long before they ever darken the door of the abortuary that it would be in her best interest never to speak of her abuse. At the mill no questions are asked, she’s aborted and she’s sent home with the rapist, only to be assaulted again. No authorities are contacted, the outward evidence of her abuse is destroyed, and no one is the wiser, leaving her with no way out. Upon leaving the mill she’s been violated and traumatized once again, only this time it’s been done “legally” by the abortionist.

The abortion mill is the pedophile’s insurance policy. He knows if he impregnates his young victim that abortion will destroy the evidence of his crime. Therefore he is free to abuse the young woman with impunity and the abortionist is his accomplice. Abortion for rape and incest only encourages the rapist to repeat his crime.

If Pro lifers sponsor bills that include the rape and incest exceptions we must understand that we are directly attacking the personhood of the child, and the sacredness of all life. We are also leaving young women without protection while we legislate their innocent children to death. All of which will embolden the rapist and increase the number of rapists among us.

Some believe that insisting on abortion ban legislation without rape or incest exceptions is an irresponsible, an all or nothing mindset. They say that if the holocaust rescuers used the all or nothing strategy no one would have been rescued from Hitler’s death camps. They are correct, but the holocaust rescuers did not legislate one group of innocent people to death so that others would survive. There in lies the difficulty. It is immoral to legislate the murder of one innocent class of people in order to save another. It is reminiscent of the movie Lifeboat where several people are stranded at sea in a lifeboat and will only survive if one in the group is thrown into the sea to drown. The movie attempts to desensitize its audience to the value of the weakest among us. In the sixties Christians understood the Lifeboat scenario to be evil. Can we, in the new millennium, understand that the “exceptions” scenario is also evil?
 

Aethril

New member
Also by Jo Scott:

Also by Jo Scott:

Whose Moral Ground are We Standing On?

Highlight:
This week the South Dakota House of Representatives introduced a new bill that will ban abortion except in the case of rape and incest. The pro-life movement has been wandering in this wasteland for 35 years. The battle went on hold the day we were bribed, with a possible political victory, to consider rape and incest as exceptions. That day the argument went from “It's a baby,” to “What exception can we tolerate for the sake of political expediency?” On that day we stepped off the battlefield into the wasteland of compromise. God's command “You shall do no murder” has become a meaningless cliché as we stand side by side with the pro aborts on their moral high ground.
 

Aethril

New member
Scott Klusendorf, what a let down :(

Scott Klusendorf, what a let down :(

Mr. Klusendorf said, "I would not sign it." in reference to Colorado Right to Life's pledge.

Klusendorf's Blog

More of Klusendorf's slide into legal positivism!
Link
 

WandererInFog

New member
I keep seeing it repeated that allowing abortion in cases in rape an incest was what led to it becoming more broadly legal. But that doesn't make sense to me as the first was done by actual legislation, while the latter was an act of judicial fiat. How exactly is one supposed to have led to the other?
 
Re-Legalize Abortion?

Re-Legalize Abortion?

To those who oppose South Dakota's incrementalism:

Imagine that you're the governor of South Dakota and the S.D. legislature passes the bill that criminalizes abortion for 3480 babies but not for the 1 rape baby. Would you veto the bill and demand a bill that criminalizes ALL abortions, re-legalizing abortion for 870 babies per year until the new abortion-free bill gets through the legislative process (which didn't happen last year, and may not happen for several more years)?

I'm assuming you couldn't possibly say "yes," so why would you not support such a bill this year and build on the momentun to criminalize the last abortion next year?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Vine&FigTree:

What if the 1 baby that was conceived via a rape was your grandson or granddaughter or your niece or nephew? You wouldn't want the law passed if that were the case. Well, love your neighbor as yourself because that 1 conception will be your neighbor's kin.
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
Vine&FigTree said:
To those who oppose South Dakota's incrementalism:

Imagine that you're the governor of South Dakota and the S.D. legislature passes the bill that criminalizes abortion for 3480 babies but not for the 1 rape baby. Would you veto the bill and demand a bill that criminalizes ALL abortions, re-legalizing abortion for 870 babies per year until the new abortion-free bill gets through the legislative process (which didn't happen last year, and may not happen for several more years)?

I'm assuming you couldn't possibly say "yes," so why would you not support such a bill this year and build on the momentun to criminalize the last abortion next year?


I couldn't say yes, because it is immoral to kill even one innocent baby to save the lives of 99 other innocent babies. It is a false dilemna that has been created in our minds, by the "hostage" takers who have no conscience, when it comes to killing babies in the womb.

The false dilemna is this, the raped woman, and her baby will be better off if the baby is killed. Actually, the mother may come to accept the baby, or, "she" will almost certainly be adopted by the many couples longing for children. The other part of the false dilemna is that the woman will actually relieve some of the trauma of her rape, by committing an abortion. Instead she is adding her "own" guilt and shame, upon her rape, with its "imputed" guilt and shame. Regardless, of the intent, or the effect, abortion is still wrong.


Let me add another false dilemna scenario for you. Suppose you are a "Pro Choice" Governor of a state and the legislature delivers you a bill that would outlaw all late term abortions, to which you are also opposed. However they do not include an exception for the life of the mother. Would you then veto the bill to save the life of that one innocent mother {another false dilemna BTW} and condemn the other 99 innocent children to their deaths?

Of course you would, and the pro choice crowd would applaud your "high" and unyielding moral principles. Sort of the "lifeboat" in reverse scenario. In order to make sure that at least one person survived on the lifeboat, all the others were thrown off and drowned.......... BRILLIANT!!!


It would be comical, except that it has happened numerous times in reality, in nuanced scenarios.
:cry:

Please try and criticise the false ethical standards of politicians, and not the true morality that comes from God. "Thou shalt not murder"!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top