Winning the Battle...
Exodus 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.A response to 'When Perfection Kills'.
Have been a little frustrated recently watching the debates between Abortion Abolitionists and 'Incrementalists'... which is to say your run of the mill pro-lifer.
First of all, let me be quick to say that the incrementalists are wrong. And the Abolitionists are, more or less, right. But neither one of them seems capable (the incrementalists less so than the abolitionists) of framing the actual debate in such a way as to bring forward the very real, very deadly issues. Let me be very clear: with each 'victory' the incrementalists win, they sacrifice more ground. With each baby they save, they kill ten more.
Abolitionists are fond of standing on the moral high ground and shouting out 'It isn't right!'. And they are right. It isn't right. But they tend to cede the pragmatic low ground: tacitly seeming to acknowledge that their opponents are right 'down there': that their tactics in the legislature actually save people on a daily basis. But there they are both wrong. The incrementalists tactics actually kill far more than they save.
The debate tends to be framed, by the incrementalists, as 'we do this or we do nothing'. Now nothing is, sometimes, the right thing to do, and we should compare to it. If a new drug came on the market and we found more people died with that drug than if they 'did nothing', then that disproves that drug, anyway.
But usually we don't 'do nothing'. Usually a new drug is best compared not against nothing, but against the old drug, or a different new drug. And in this case 'incrementalism' fails dramatically against the 'old drug'. So let's examine the issues:
Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
In politics there is no such thing as a 'reality'. Politics is the art of the surreal, but, above all, it is the art of, well, politics. It is the art of telling people 'I would make a better candidate than person X', and then convincing them of it. There is no way that Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, or Adolf Hitler fit within their societies 'political realities'. They were all radical outsiders who sold themselves and their policies to those who did not, at that time, fit those policies.
Psalms 15:1-2 A Psalm of David. LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
The 'incremental' strategy has been an unmitigated disaster. Oh, they may have had some successes at various regulations and the like, but while they have been fiddling, Rome has burnt.
We are now faced with a society where any kind of Christian morality has been thoroughly washed out of the public conscience. These 'incremental' leaders forgot that their job was to lead: to actively teach, and preach, and call a society to Godliness. "This is the best we can get" is hardly a moral clarion call.
So for every one child they have 'saved', they have lost ten more. By abandoning their role as moral shepherds, they have won a few battles, and lost an entire nation.
Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Abolitionism is being portrayed as 'doing nothing'. Or, rather, 'waiting' until the political winds change before doing anything: doing nothing in the meantime.
And some abolitionism seems like that. But that is not what it is supposed to be, not what it is defined to be, and not what they have been in history. William Wilberforce, their hero, did not 'do nothing'.
One 'nothing' that they don't do is to state, and state clearly, their goal: the abolition of all child murder. To the extent that any pro-lifer states that their goal is to eliminate all child murder (even if they call it the weasel word 'abortion') they are, to that small extent, an abolitionist.
An abolitionist can never say 'I want to get rid of most abortions' or 'all abortions except'. They must desire to end all abortions.
Nor is there anything to prevent abolitonists from supporting 'incremental' legislation... as long as the legislation is not deceptive and has a clear goal: the elimination of child murder. The problem is that 'incrimental' legislation is almost always written in an untruthful, indeed deliberately deceptive, way. It does not speak of 'child murder' but of 'the health of the mother'.
Speaking the Truth
John 17:16-19 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Abolitionists, indeed all Christians, are required to speak the truth. Incrementalists... not so much it seems. Let's take one sentence from the article:
Ahmad patiently explained that he was not deciding which girls could be enslaved and which could not.
That sounds good... but is it true? Do you notice that one thing we don't see in the example is the legislation itself? What does it actually say?
It is actually possible to write legislation in the fashion described... but it is not usually done. Most legislation, and all of the recent 'pro-life' has seemed to be of this type, reads something like this:
"No abortion shall be carried out *except* those before 20 weeks gestation...."
Do you see? They have, actually, put the 'exception' into the law. They have not actually spoken the truth in their description. Let us see what a 'true' incremental law might look like:
"All so called 'abortions' are murder. The state of Texas, in this legislation, provides for the following penalties for these murders if carried out after 20 weeks gestation..."
There. That's still a horrible law, but it is, at least, honest. It would have the same practical effect as the other. Why is it not passed? Because the dishonesty, itself, was part of the 'comprimise' that allowed the first bill to pass. The obligation to lie was part and parcel of the 'political reality' that the incrementalist spoke of... and part of the reason why no abolitionist could support the bill.
Exodus 9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.
The article linked begs the obvious counter-argument of Moses and the slaves he liberated. But neither side seems to realize that Moses didn't just come forward and say 'my way or the highway'. He didn't say 'all the slaves or nothing'. What he said was 'all the slaves or face the wrath of God'.
We have not been divinely sent and equipped to call forth ten physical plagues upon our country. But in the light of the false argument of 'political realities', here are ten plagues we can call forth:
- I) Stop speaking of 'abortion'. Ever. Call it 'child murder'. Speak of 'child murderers'. Recognize that society should treat these murderers as they treat other murderers... if not even more severely.
- II) Stop speaking of 'doctors' and 'nurses' in the context of child murder. Speak of 'murderers' and 'assistant murderers'. Even the receptionists, guards, parking lot attendants... the 'teachers' in universities. We should speak of them as murderers and murderers assistants, and seek to treat them as murderers.
- III) Stop speaking of 'Christians' in the context of those who murder children. Someone who murders children for a living is not a Christian. Someone who supports it is not a Christian. God may know their heart, but we are forced to judge by their actions. And their actions are not Christian. Indeed, they are anti-Christian.
- IV) Stop speaking of 'women's health' in the context of those who murder children. Few things could have been as nauseating as 'pro-life' speaker after 'pro-life' speaker got up in Texas a couple of years ago and spoke of how their 'pro-life' bill was 'for the health of women'. Except for the women being murdered by child-murder, this was either an obvious lie or, worse, a total miscarriage of justice.
- V) Stop lying. It is one oft hinted at but never seemingly acknowledged feature of the incrementalist position that they do a great deal of lying. "Health of the mother", "clean safe facilities" and the like. Yes, you are motivated by your religion. Yes, child-murder is a sin. Yes, you are legislating morality. Yes, you are a Christian. Yes, everyone else is going to Hell.
- VI) Get your children out of government schools. Having your next generation trained up in all of the lies of government school, including pro-murder, pro-statist, and pro-Sodomite propoganda, is hardly the way to be 'pro-life'.
- VII) Support capital punishment. It was God Himself that pointed out that the only appropriate way to reflect the value that He puts on life is to execute murderers (and kidnappers, etc.)
- VIII) Get your children married young, and frutifully. Nothing is so good a witness for the 'pro-life' cause as young, fruitful, marriages.
- IX) When you support 'incrimental' legislation, be honest about it. In your preamble state, "Whereas all child murders are murder most foul, and a dreadful insult to God and man, and yet whereas too many legislators are too cowardly to support the outright repeal of all child murder in our state, be it enacted that no left-handed three and a half month old children may be murdered except with the signature of three so-called doctors indicating that the woman who wishes them murdered will be 'harmed' if they are not murdered."
- X) Remember that honoring God will always result in God fighting your battles for you. Above all, honor God. Give God the honor, and praise, and glory for anything 'you' do.
One point of the above ten plagues is none of them are outside of the 'political realities' of the pro-lifer's position. Each and every pro-lifers is physically capable of doing thiese things. They may not want to. Indeed I doubt they want to. But they are capable of it. They cannot whine that these are outside of the 'political reality'.
Another point is that these will all spell disaster for our country's false civility on the issue of child murder. It is very difficult to sit down and chat about upcoming legislation with someone you are calling a child murderer. And that is how it should be.
And they will be plagues to the current system of indoctrination. If even one national leader, let alone all of those who claim to be pro-life, were to adopt even half (and they should adopt them all, and more) of the plagues above, our system of indoctrination would fall apart. A 'real' politician willing to speak of abortion is 'murder'? Willing to call out the other politicians, 'doctors', 'nurses' and the like and call them murderers and murderers accomplices? That would change the way our country looks at the universe!
Let us not be fooled, our country will be, and is, undergoing God's own plagues, sent down from on high and, if we do not repent, they will destroy us. But that does not absolve us of our responsiblity to speak His truth, will we be heard or no.
More of this debate can be found starting here.
.. Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, Judge Keith Dean , and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.