Operation Rescue President Invites Debate, Not Compromise
By Troy Newman
The introduction of a less-than-perfect abortion ban bill in South Dakota has the pro-life movement astir; as it should. As President of Operation Rescue, I’d like to spur discussion on the issue of tactics without the vitriol we have experienced in the last 24 hours.
Right out of the gate, let me say that Operation Rescue is pro-life without compromise and without exception. Children from the moment of fertilization ought to be afforded protection and awarded the same basic human rights as you and I. We work tirelessly toward that end.
But there is a stark contrast between theory and reality. In theory electricity flows through wire without resistance, but in reality wire gages must increase proportional to the current flow. In theory, George W. Bush is a fiscal conservative; in reality he is spending the USA into bankruptcy. In theory Clinton did not have sex with Monica, but in reality well, you get the picture.
So when it comes to theory, or ideology, I am 100% pro-life and I agree with all the think tanks who “theorize” on how the perfect abortion ban should be written. Unfortunately theory is considerably different than reality.
South Dakota is a case in point. That state passed a nearly perfect abortion ban law in 2006. We worked hard to support it. Unfortunately it was defeated through a ballot referendum last November. The exit polling data (along with the Planned Parenthood rhetoric) said the only abortion ban that would pass the electorate would be one that contained “exceptions” for rape and incest.
Before I lose half my readers, hold on and read the rest of the article.
The theory (and utmost desire) of the pro-life movement is to save 100% of all abortion-bound babies. This was soundly defeated. But realistically, we could save 99% of the babies who are “headed for the slaughter” by passing an “imperfect” ban bill. While we can’t save them all, we can save the vast majority. If it is within our ability to save even ONE innocent life unjustly scheduled for death, we are morally obligated to do it.
Some pundits wronging hypothesize that what I am endorsing is akin to lining up ten uncondemned people, and then choosing which ones I will murder. This is, as my friend Randy says, “Stinkin’ thinkin’” and turns logic and reality on its ear.
A better analogy that is closer to the reality of the situation is that we have a hypothetical ten people who are all condemned to an unjust death, and I do everything I can do to save as many as possible.
To put it in WWII lingo, if I were Oscar Schindler, rescuing 100 Jews from Auschwitz, I would not be responsible for condemning the millions of Jews I didn’t save. They had already been condemned by the Nazis.
If circumstances remain unchanged, there will be about 1.3 million babies murdered this year by abortion. The US Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton have already condemned them. Yet the pro-life movement will attempt to save some of them through education, counseling, and legislation. But just because we can’t save them all, it doesn’t mean we killed the ones we couldn’t save.
If the South Dakota legislation passes and is enacted without legal challenge, it would statistically save about 870 babies a year, while failing to protect one baby every four years. I view this as a win, a victory, and certainly a life-affirming law for the 870 babies who will be protected from the butcher’s knife year after year after year.
Therefore, when well-intentioned pro-lifers oppose an imperfect piece of legislation, they need to be careful on what side of the aisle they stand. Planned Parenthood and the abortion cartel, (no matter what their November rhetoric was), will strictly oppose a limited ban on abortions. Will good-hearted pro-lifers side with the abortionist because their “perfect bill” can’t be passed?
Again, our philosophical position is to save every baby. But as a realist, we know that is impossible under the current circumstances. If those we can save, we should. As our mission statement says, “We are here to rescue the baby sentenced to die today.” That baby does not have time to wait for perfect legislation.
This discussion represents a defining moment in the pro-life movement. Never before have so many states attempted to ban abortions. In 34 years we have never faced the reality of an “abortion free state” or the practical aspects of making that happen. As the pro-life movement engages in the discussion of this kind of groundbreaking legislation, we must remember that our common enemy is the abortion cartel, not each other. We will always endeavor to rescue every baby destined to die that we possibly can, but we should not allow the theoretically perfect to be the enemy of the realistic good.
I am a Christian who is pro-life and opposed to the practice of abortion. However, for both Biblical and scientific reasons, I do not believe that the moment of fetilization defines when a developing human body should be afforded the same basic human rights as everyone else.
You wrote:
==========
Right out of the gate, let me say that Operation Rescue is pro-life without compromise and without exception. Children from the moment of fertilization ought to be afforded protection and awarded the same basic human rights as you and I. We work tirelessly toward that end.
==========
Statements like this make it difficult for me to be fully supportive of the pro-life movement and the work you do. While I want to support your efforts to stop abortion, I find your definition to be problematic for me. You claim that full human life deserving of the same basic human rights as you and I begins at the moment of fertilization. Is it possible for Operation Rescue to redefine their philosophy to include those of us who are against abortion but for different reasons? Is this definition of life critical for your operation?
When the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin Mary and she conceived Christ, when did Christ become God in the flesh? at what point does the soul enter the human body if not at conception? there is no other “AHA! moment” when this is possible besides conception. after conception all that happens is growth. whether two days old or two months old it is the same human being…all that has occurred is growth. my bio professor in college was an MD and PHD and was working on the human Genome project. We used to discuss how before conception you can identify the mother’s DNA in the ovum, and the father’s DNA in the sperm, but at conception there is entirely new DNA distinguishable from both mother and father. I pray that if you are really a Christian and walking with God, He will open your eyes to the truth.
Regarding David’s comment:
“I do not believe that the moment of fetilization defines when a developing human body should be afforded the same basic human rights as everyone else.”
I must ask in due respect…that if the product of fertilization, at its *earliest* stage is not human, then what is it? If the early zygote is human, then why is it not entitled to all the rights of humanity?
It is true that the embryo cannot think, reason, etc. But it is not yet at the developmental stage where those functions are expected. So the lack of those functions does not make it less human.
The product of human fertilization has a unique genome, the capacity to fully develop if properly nourished, and is of distinctly human origin. Hence it is human. Just because it is smaller, less developed, can’t feel pain, can’t vote, etc does not give us the right to consider it of lower status.
Many embryos die naturally. One pro-life OB told me perhaps 25% of embryos naturally conceived will die. But that does not make them less human either. Death can hit us at any developmental stage – embryo, fetus, infant, young adult, etc, and all of these forms are fully human.
The product of conception is fully human, and therefore should be treated like any other human.
Please show me the fault in any of this reasoning – as all who seek the truth, I am open to criticism.
Steven
We have never done this before, but we would like to share with you a couple of e-mail messages we received in response to our covereage of the South Dakota abortion ban. We are withholding the names of the writers to protect their privacy.
________________
I would like to express a huge thank you for your article regarding the new ban bill on abortion in South Dakota ! I am a South Dakotan who agrees 100% with what you said.
I had an abortion when I was 18 years old. The turmoil as a result encompassed most of my adult years. Only through Jesus Christ did I receive healing. Now, I share my story publicly to let as many as will listen know the harm of abortion. I firmly believe this current piece of legislation is the right step toward ending abortion in SD. Pro-lifers waiting for the perfect piece of legislation to pass will wait for too long, while babies continue to die, and women continue to suffer the consequences.
God’s mighty blessing to you for your well stated words!!! I thank you!
Sincerely,
Name Withheld
________________
That was well thought out, I agree we need to do what we can even if it seems small!
I too wish we could have a sweeping victory in one shot. Yet it comes precept upon precept, we must fight to win and there are many fronts. Recently DNR language for the elderly is being reevaluated. Not sure good or bad, apparently no one other that the alert patient or the Dr. when patient is not alert can sign a DNR.
Anyway, I think we take the field goal and keep the mojo going until complete victory is God’s!
Your friend,
Name Withheld
__________________
Thank you very much for all that you do – and this letter was very well written and in just the right tone. We support you and applaud you! This bill will do a world of good, for everyone (except Planned Parenthood!). We praise God for your efforts.
Name withheld
Pro-life committee chair
__________________
THANK YOU!!!!! As a 100% pro-lifer and Christian activist in Ohio, I firmly believe the stance you are
taking is the most ethical, moral stance you can take right now. Yes, we will lose a few babies if the bill is passed, but we will lose many more if it is not. Your philosophy is correct, however painful.
I hope and pray that the pro-life community can see that you are SAVING BABIES and respond in kind. After all, isn’t this our ultimate goal- to stop abortion?
Just wanted to vocalize my support. I will pray for you and your efforts.
God Bless You!!!!!
Name Withheld
Troy,
You are right-on, my firend! Very nice piece and I will soon link to it on my blog.
An excellent point Troy. Yes, it would be ideal if every law protected everyone of us 100% of the time. Crime statistics tell a different story. I suppose we should repeal every law on the book since they are not always 100% effective. I understand up to 50,000 Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year. So let’s repeal all drunk driving laws since they’re obviously not 100% effective. Let’s face it, the majority of the time laws do protect us and we have them no matter how imperfect they may be.
The WW2 example of Schindler is excellent. Why should Schindler have wasted his time on a mere 100 lives when people were dying by the millions? Because he could.
This is disgusting! Any law that ends in, “then you can kill the baby,” is an evil law! And it is perverse in the utmost! God is sickened by any murder, and even moreso by laws that allow murder! How can you support a law that allows murder, and call yourself pro-life?!
Hey Brandon,
I’ve got a news flash for ya, buddy. It is already legal to kill those babies. The South Dakota law would save babies and protect almost all babies from abortion in that state. It will REDUCE abortions. It liberalizes nothing. If you oppose this bill, you are supporting the deaths of hundreds of babies every year that this law would save. How can you do that and call yourself pro-life? Willing to let babies die because a law isn’t perfect? That’s a pretty pietistical, with the aftertaste of Phariseeism. Something to think about.
I oppose any law that would allow babies to die! Including this one! This won’t save a single child! These laws never do! I’m not out to reduce abortion, I want it to end, completely! And how can you sit there and judge me, all the while you’re willing to let babies die, because you think this law would save some?!
Brandon,
You are one confused puppy! You are willing to stand by an watch nearly 900 babies die PREVENTABLE deaths every year, and then you have the gall to lecture anyone else? According your your twisted logic, we should all just fold our hands and let every baby be chopped until some perfect pie-in-the-sky bill comes along. Yes, every baby should be saved and protected, but the status of our unjust legal system currently makes that impossible, so in the meantime, it is our Christian duty to save those we can.
Do you hate sidewalk counselors, too? They cannot save every baby, yet clear-thinking pro-lifers rejoice when even one is spared. We all want abortion to end, but the difference between you and me is that you will stand by on your pride and let the butcher bill mount, while I will work to save every life that I possibly can until we can end this.
“If it is within our ability to save even ONE innocent life unjustly scheduled for death, we are morally obligated to do it.” — excellent.
To Sarah & Steven,
This forum is not the place for me to present all the arguments for my belief about the development of human life. I have done extensive study and the evidence and arguments are too lengthy to present here. I do not believe that the spirit of Christ entered the developing zygote within Mary’s womb at the moment of conception, neither do I believe that such happens with other people. It happens at birth when the baby takes its first breath. If it happened at fertilization, then do you believe that spirits and souls split into other people in the case of monozygotic twins?
Part of the problem is that most biologists are mechanists who do not believe in any thing called a spirit or soul. I’ve even heard some scientists claim that there is such thing as a vitalist biologist anymore. There is no doubt that physical development of a new life begins at fertilization, but the Scriptures speak of spirit and associates it with breath, both in the etymology of the words used and in direct revelatory statements. There is a physical development of a body which at some point receives a spirit from God. I am a biologist and a theologian and I have delivered enough babies to become convinced that this moment happens at birth when that first breath is taken. To borrow your terminology, there is an “aha” moment at that time.
The point is that people can be against abortion and birth control for reasons that do not involve the ideology that full human life exists at the moment of fertilization. I would hope that the pro-life movement could be inclusive of those of us who have a philosophically different view of the development of people.
The idea of differing rights for children versus adults is not that foreign. Young children cannot handle the responsibility of adults, and therefore we do not allow them to enter into contracts or to drive cars, etc. Are we depriving them of basic human rights by such? Of course not. The question of the “right to life” should not hinge upon an arbitrary definition that defines the moment as being fertilization. It could be argued that the right to life exists prior to this time or subsequent to this time.
David
Your concept of ‘differing rights’ is something history has proven, again and again, is wrong. “Differing rights for children versus adults…’ do you believe in differing rights for blacks vs whites? We are not talking about age-related responsibilities here – we are discussing life vs death.
You have completely dodged the main question of the embryo: if it is not human, then what is it? If it is human, why would you deny its right to live?
A ‘philosophically different view of the development of people’, as you mention, has nothing to do with the life vs death issue. The fact that you believe that some humans (for lack of what else to call the embryo) should not be protected, just because they are not fully developed, is tyrannical. Not scientific, not theological, simply tyranny.
To Steven,
I never said that the zygote is not human, nor have I said that it should be aborted. As I stated before, I am against abortion.
My concern is over Troy Newman’s statement, “Children from the moment of fertilization ought to be afforded protection and awarded the same basic human rights as you and I.” I disagree with this statement, and I believe that in time it will be proven wrong just as the Christian ptolemaists were proven wrong in their disagreement with Galileo. If you and Troy Newman are going to continue along this dogmatic religious mantra as the only viable reason to be against abortion, then you are going to lose a lot of educated supporters such as myself. We need to have intellectual honesty in the abortion debate.
You missed the point about age related rights. Age related human rights are a fact of life, despite your poor attempt at fallaciously trying to compare it to racial discrimination. We already discriminate against children’s human rights based upon age. Your inability to acknowledge this shows intellectual dishonesty. A human’s right to life is a different question, one that needs to be answered with more than just playing on the politically correct anti-discrmination mindset. Such a question also needs to involve a consideration of parental authority. The correct answer here is not as simple as you guys try to make it, and if you will not ackjnowledge this, you will create more problems with your zeal to stop abortion. Stopping abortion is the right thing to do, but if you stop it by pushing wrong ideas, you will create other problems.
To David:
I think the point that Operation Rescue and Steven are trying to get across is one that you to aparently have not argued against
“I never said the zygote is not human”
You can argue all you want about when the soul or spirit enters the human body, but guess what, the last I checked laws in our country aren’t based on that kind of theoretical thinking (at least not any more). The point is that when a baby is concieved the zygote has distinctly seperate HUMAN DNA differing from both the mother and the father. If the baby at conception is not human that what is it, as others have pointed out. You have not really given any good arguements to show that the baby is not human at conception – because there are none. If it is human, which all your research should prove, then it should be entitled to the same rights as other humans in our society.
We don’t justify the killing of the mentally or phsyically handicapped, midgets, people who need respirators or infants that must rely totally on a guardian for them to receive food and proper care in order to survive. Non of these are as fully developed as you or I – at least in one sense or another. And some of these examples would not survive without assistance and care from others. Basically zygotes/embryos are just the same. Humans that are a different size at a different level of development and dependency, but that is the only difference.
Explain to me how, then, it can ever be justifiable to kill them. Even in the case of rape or insest – which I totally empathize/sypathize with, killing the baby may protect the mother from some physchological or physical harm, but it is killing another innocent victim. If the baby were born, what mother wouldn’t run out in front of an oncoming car to save it. How come mothers considering abortion aren’t willing to risk their well being to save their unborn child. Because they seem to be uneducated and don’t realize that life starts at conception.
Unless you can prove that life starts at a point after conception then you have no real arguement. If it is a human life it should be entitled to protection under law and it should be illegal for it to be killed. It is not only morraly wrong from a spiritual or religous veiw point, but also from a scientific and legal veiw piont as well. The sooner that more people can be educated about this truth the sooner protection for these innocent children will come.
Scott Klusendorf posted on here… if you haven’t checked out his website yet, you really should. He linked to it, you can get there by clicking his name. He really explains this all better than I can and has the medical and scientific research to back it all up.