...and Then You Can Own a Negro

"While I personally oppose slavery, I believe it is a states right issue"

"black slave ownership should be limited to those plantations totaling ten acres or less"

"black slave ownership should be limited to only blacks with no children"

...Follow these regulatory procedures...and then you can own a Negro.

Can we even imagine advocating for regulatory sanctioned slavery instead of its abolition? No, because we clearly understand that it is wrong (even if the philosophically minded have a difficult and misguided time justifying it) to govern human life in unethical ways. Yet this is exactly what the ostensible pro-life organizations have done for at least the last 30 plus years in America.

Masson's blog passed along recent news on SB 50 introduced by district 42 senator Jean Leising. This bill will require women intending to abort their unborn to obtain a “fetal ultrasound imaging” at least 18 hours before an abortion.

"The only justification for this proposed government micromanagement of a woman's medical decisions is the notion that abortion involves the termination of a human life. But, if you do subscribe to the notion that a fetus is a human life, fully entitled to the moral rights of other humans, then this legislation is monstrous. Can you imagine the outrage if Sen. Leising proposed legislation that required, before murdering a child between the ages of 6 and 10 years old, the murderer watched film and listened to audio of his or her victim at least 18 hours in advance? It's like a mandatory snuff film."

He concludes:

"The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the proponents of this sort of thing don't regard fetal life as fully human. In which case, government should stay out of our medical decisions."

Masson is 100% right in his analysis of this phony pro-life bill. In fact, it is not a pro-life bill at all, rather it is a pro-abortion with exceptions bill. I have for years lamented the strategies used by the conservatives on this issue. No thinking person can take serious the claim of pro-lifers that life begins at conception, while they double speak through regulating the commission of that which they say is killing. It is clearly inconsistent (and immoral according to their own set of beliefs) yet the majority of pro-lifers are OK with this type of strategy.

This ignorance driven “...and then you can kill the baby” strategy has been an utter failure and a black mark on conservative pro-life advocates. As unfortunate as this is, it is increasingly the consensus of many modern conservatives. Sadly, they have either never been taught or have forgotten that there is no room for compromise with the naturally iniquitous. We do not allow some slave ownership nor should we allow some killing unborn babies. We prohibit it! The irony is, this is an internal conflict, not an external one. You would think it would be the liberals and most libertarians that are proposing these token regulations. Instead, it is the pro-lifers themselves that are doing it. All the while the left and moderates are secretly happy to lend their support while laughing at pro-lifers who think they have achieved something of significance.

Recall earlier this year, the Indiana Right to Life withdrew its endorsement of U.S. Senate candidate Richard Behney after some statements he made during a tea party event. He ruffled the feathers of Mike Fichter, the IRTL PAC chairman when he commented about ulterior motives within the pro-life movement.

"One of the things I’m most disappointed about in running for the United States Senate – I’ve met many people here – I’ve met many of these leaders – pro-life leaders – here in our state," Behney said. "And I’m convinced as sure as I’m standing here that they are more concerned with their egos and with their jobs than with saving lives."

Mr. Fichter corresponding with Lifenews.com countered:

"Mr. Behney’s comment reveals an uninformed and cynical view of what drives Indiana’s pro-life leaders to invest their lives in the most selfless of causes by speaking on behalf of unborn children,"

He continued with the basis for revoking Mr. Behney's endorsement saying:

"An error of perception and judgment of this magnitude, and concerning allies in the fight for the unborn, has caused us to lose confidence in him and his reliability, so much so that we cannot recommend him to voters,"

While I cannot point to any one person who I think is in it for personal gain only, I have no reason to believe the pro-life organizations are immune from the same problems that plague other organizations (economic comfort and stability has a way of rocking some people to sleep). I can however, judge with certainty their achievements. In doing this, I conclude they are either reparably ignorant, or beguiling gullible pro-lifers. I lean toward a combination of the two at times. For the last thirty years, the best the pro-life industry has been able to achieve is regulatory abortions- meet these requirements and then you can kill the baby. While Masson may not share my views on abortion, he and others rightly expose the ignorance and down right hypocrisy of conservatives who defend and legislate their “pro-abortion with exceptions” strategies.

I do not intend to indict the front-line folks. The workers themselves are doing everything they can legally do to protect unborn lives. But, their achievements are in spite of their organizational leadership, particularly National Right to Life. Nor do I censure those who honestly acknowledge that they are not sure. But the pro-life advocate that thinks it is permissible to regulate the commission of abortion I stand sternly against.

My position is that the only pro-life advocate is an abortion abolitionist. That's it! There are no degrees of prolifeness; either you are or you are not. If not an abolitionist, you are pro-choice with exceptions. I cannot possibly know which side of the debate each reader stands on. If you are comfortable with regulatory sanctioned abortions as a concession, I encourage you to reconsider and carefully think through your reasoning. If you support abortion, I hope that you too reconsider but I do acknowledge your steadfast commitment. I have never met an inconsistent pro-abort; but I cannot say the same about pro-lifers.