The Road to Hell is paved with ... empty promises and expectations

Following a brief response from Operation Rescue, my reply to the question is below.
----
Hi Cheryl,

Thanks for your response. Again, I understand your argument and respect your sincerity. However, I would be willing to wager that the results you apparently expect will never happen. Not one of the 870 real lives you expect to save, will in fact be saved, and you will further confirm moral relativism in civil law and thereby misinform the consciences of South Dakota citizens. Their conviction, that abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances, and therefore preborn children cannot be considered persons under the law, will necessarily maintain the legalization of all abortion. The result, therefore, will be a prolongation of the abortion holocaust and more dead babies.

Before the pro-life movement can save the lives of the children, we must first save the simple Truth--God's simple natural moral law which is binding on all rational human beings, and which even a 5 year old child can understand in its most basic form. This is not some "high pinnacle of perfection," but the most basic requirement of a civil society.

Yes, the civil law "already condemns those conceived by rape and incest," however, the law you are proposing cannot be rightly classified as simply "not perfect," in truth it is intrinsically flawed, intrinsically unjust because it explicitly permits abortion by exercising legislative authority to confirm the condemnation of these rape and incest babies. This is what the bill does. No legislator can morally vote for such a bill, nor may an organization such as Operation Rescue morally participate in a propaganda campaign for such a law. As affirmed by John Paul II:

"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'" (Evangelium Vitae, 73, my emphasis).

No one has the authority to permit the killing of the innocent ... not even the SD legislature in an effort to restrict abortion. Though the legislators may be able to restrict abortion in the wording of a bill, they may never explicitly permit such killing, which is what an exception does. Again, as stated by JPII in Evangelium Vitae: "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being ... Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action" (57).

Exceptions explicitly permit preborn child killing. Voting for such a bill, doing what is morally wrong, can never be advantageous.

Finally, I agree with you. This debate should in no way be just intellectual and abstract. We are discussing saving the lives of the innocent. What we have experienced over the last 34 years is a "bait and switch" by the devil. He promises we'll be able to "save lives" so long as we surrender God's objective moral law, so long as we surrender just a few innocents. The result is always the same (for he is a liar and a murderer from the beginning): we save none. The slaughter continues and is prolonged because we confirm in the law, and by our actions, that "the least these" brethren of Jesus Christ, made in the Image of God, are non-persons. We confirm moral relativism in the culture. Confirming moral relativism can never lead to building a society that recognizes simple objective truth, particularly the intrinsic dignity of each and every human being, again, the only principle which can prevent the full legalization of abortion on demand.

Only the Truth can make us free. This is not an abstract argument at all; its about putting and en to the daily slaughter, human sacrifices to satan. Confirming lies can never lead to affirming Truth. Exceptions in "pro-life" bills, confirm lies. It's that simple. Adopting this course can only permit the killing to continue.

Here in my hometown of Madison, liberals campaigned for 20 years to get the city to fund a convention center on one of our lakes downtown. They lost referendum after referendum ... for 20 years! Then, they finally won. Now we have this huge wasteful monstrosity down on the Lake Monona where Planned Parenthood holds their conventions. What is the point?: The liberals never gave up ... they sponsored the same referendum year after year. South Dakota pro-lifers should do the same. Push the same bill again and again until you wear down the opposition and / or adequately educate the public. WIN THE WAR, don't give up. Or as the saying goes, from Winston Churchill, I believe: "Never give up. Never, never give up."

God Bless,

Patrick Delaney, M.A., M.Div.
Madison, WI

P.S. By the way, I'm not sure anyone thought of this the last time around, but if it was a mortal sin for Justice Blackmun and the Roe majority to decriminalize abortion, isn't it a mortal sin for a SD voter to overturn the law as they did last November, legalizing abortion? Like Blackmun, the voters themselves, in this situation, are the legislators and are therefore directly responsible for the outcome. Knowing the new bishop of Sioux Falls, and several priests in that diocese, I would expect they would be willing to preach this truth next time around. As these arguments surface and become more developed, this movement will receive help in passing a law which simply reflects the duty of the government (before God) to protect the innocent. The no exception course should not be abandoned.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Operation Rescue"
To: "Patrick Delaney"
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: SD Legislation a Watershed Moment in the Pro-life Movement

The law already condemns those conceived by rape and incest. Why do you place their lives over those who were conceived consentually? Are their lives something we can just throw away because this bill (which efforts are already undewrway to strike the exceptions in a future legislative session) is not perfect now? I hate discussing this kind of thing as if it is merely an intellectual argument about the pros and cons of some archane political measure. 870 REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES are condemned to die and we have the opportunity to save them. This legislation is all that stands between them and the butcher's knife. I say that their lives are worth saving, and in fact, it is our Christian duty to do so.

Cheryl S.
Operation Rescue

The Road to Hell is paved with ... exceptions.

This following Friday, Operation Rescue president Troy Newman issued a press release providing an argument for supporting South Dakota bill HR 1293 which seeks to "ban" abortion while explicitly permitting abortion by way of exception. My first e-mailed response to Mr. Newman is below.
------
Dear Troy,

Thank you for your thoughts in this press release below. I certainly trust your sincerity and understand your argument very well. The problem is your strategy cannot achieve its stated end, and I am willing to guarantee that you are making a strategic mistake that will end up being counterproductive.

One exception in the law surrenders the only principle that can prevent the full legalization of abortion on demand: the personhood of every human being from fertilization. This "pro-life" bill you are supporting is premised on the non-personhood of the preborn and the civil government's claim that they have the authority to deprive innocent human beings of their God-given right to life. In this sense, this bill not only surrenders these children you refer to, but the entire body of natural moral law in general--in favor of moral relativism (i.e., "choice") which, as John Paul II states in Centesimus Annus, will always lead to totalitarianism, or "thinly veiled totalitarianism."

In other words, again, as stated by JPII: "Even though intentions may sometimes be good, and circumstances frequently difficult, civil authorities and particular individuals never have authority to violate the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence" (JPII, Veritatis Splendor, 97).

Trying to end abortion while permitting exceptions is folly. Establishing exceptions in the law, affirming the non-personhood of the preborn, can never lead our country to recognize the personhood of the preborn (again, the only principle that can prevent the full legalization of preborn child killing). In fact, the very opposite is true ... this strategy invincibly leads to abortion on demand. As confirmed by Dr. Brian Clowes of HLI in his research:

"In every one of the 56 countries that now have abortion on demand, the first step the pro-abortion forces took was intense lobbying for abortion in the so-called 'hard cases'—the mother's life and health, fetal deformity (eugenics) and / or rape and incest … Once the pro-abortionists secure abortion for any of the 'hard cases,' they point out the 'inconsistency' in the laws in order to justify abortion on demand" (Clowes, Facts of Life, 1997 ed., 179, emphasis in original text).

Doubt it? Check out this story from today's Catholic World News: UN presses Colombia on abortion access. Since Colombia allowed abortion by way of exception last year, it is now a discrimination issue in that country. After all, if abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, etc., why can't women in other circumstances obtain them as well? How long do you think it will be before the pro-aborts achieve fully legalized abortion in Colombia, now that they have established the non-personhood of the preborn?

Pro-aborts never compromise their lies. Why should we ever compromise God's natural moral truth? In fact, I wrote my M.A. Thesis on this question (in Catholic Morals) and concluded that not only should we not pursue such a course (for it is counterproductive), but we may not pursue such a course for it is immoral.

Also, in the second chapter of that thesis paper, I attempt to show why the exceptions strategy can never get us any closer to ending abortion. Another reason comes from the abortionists themselves who admit that they could exploit the smallest exceptions loophole to perform any abortion they want. Brian Clowes shows how abortionists can legally “interpret any loophole—even a ‘life-of-the-mother’ exception—to mean abortion-on-demand" (Clowes, Facts of Life, 1997 ed., 181). Check it out.

In any event Troy, I would encourage you and all the legislators in SD to support and pass the same bill as last year, and let the next battle continue. Conforming your legislation to God's natural moral law will also bring about the dynamic of grace ... for when the truth is spoken and defended, grace is imparted to listeners and can transform hearts. This is not possible with falsehoods.

In addition, I would encourage a large scale vote verification effort. Somehow I doubt the board of elections in SD, or whatever phantoms count the votes, are angels from heaven.

As a former employee of American Life League and a member of Pro-Life Wisconsin's speakers' bureau, I'd be happy to talk with or come to SD to discuss these issues which I have been privileged to study in depth. Though I would not actively oppose your legislation, my research, training and judgment tell me this course is counterproductive.

Take Care and God Bless,

Patrick Delaney

P.S. In addition, your analogy limps Troy. A better one, is yes, you are trying to save 10 innocents condemned to die by terrorists (who have abducted them). The terrorists decide they will relinquish eight so long as you allow them to brutally kill the other two without prosecuting them for the crime. They draw up a contract to this effect and ask you sign. Do you sign? And to take it a step further, let's say one of the two is Jesus Christ.