The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The #MarchForLife2015 Thread

Posted on | January 22, 2015 | 157 Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C.
The lobby and corridors of this hotel were crowded with Catholic school kids when we checked in yesterday. St. Vincent de Paul of Perryville, Missouri, was the most visible contingent — dozens of kids wearing blue-and-gold letterman’s jackets — but the annual March for Life brings groups from all around the country, not all of them Catholic. On my way down to the lobby to go out for a smoke this morning, I noticed one of the kids was wearing a nametag with the familiar Episcopalian (or Anglican) symbol: Red cross on a white field with the St. Andrew’s cross in blue. “Episcoplian?” I asked.

“Yes, sir,” the boy said.

“Wow, I didn’t realize there were still pro-life Episcopalians.”

Out on the sidewalk in front of the hotel, the boy joined a group of about a dozen kids, and I spoke to one of the adult leaders, who told me they are from St. Michael’s Christian Academy of San Clemente, California.

Seeing so many fine young Christians who support the cause of life is very encouraging to me. I’ve spent the past several months of researching radical feminism and being immersed in such evil can be psychologically disorienting. “Has the whole world gone crazy?” I find myself asking, knowing how many millions of taxpayer dollars are spent to propagate this weird ideology in colleges and universities. “Is our civilization utterly doomed?”

The March for Life reminds me that there is still hope. There are still people who have not been deceived and corrupted. Unfortunately, however, there is the problem of Congress.

Pro-life conservatives were livid this morning after the House GOP leadership demonstrated its incompetence yesterday:

Today marks the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court legalizing abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. The pro-life movement commemorates this day with marches, worship services and lobbying for bills to protect unborn children. Pro-lifers were promised by the Republican leaders they just helped elect and re-elect that the House of Representatives would pass a bill today banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a point after which infants can feel pain and survive if born prematurely.
The legislation has been passed by the House in the previous Congress and is extremely popular in national polling. “One of the clearest messages from Gallup trends,” the polling firm reported, “is that Americans oppose late-term abortion.” A Washington Post/ABC survey showed that 64 percent of Americans favor limiting abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. . . .
We’re one of just a small handful of countries, including notorious human rights violators North Korea and China, that allow late-term abortion.
And yet somehow the Republicans managed to make a disaster of passing the bill. Instead of passing the legislation and sending it to the Republican-controlled Senate, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was pulled at the last minute and replaced with a bill that bans taxpayer funding of abortion.
What in the h-e-double-hockey-sticks just happened? It takes a special combination of incompetence and cowardice to miss an easy lay-up like this, but apparently the new Republican Congress has it in spades. . . .
If Republicans can’t pass wildly popular legislation protecting innocent unborn children, what’s going to happen when they face difficult legislative battles? . . .

You can read the rest. What happened is that two Republican members — including Rep. Renee Ellmers, whose election campaign in 2010 I strongly supported — decided at the last minute that they didn’t like some language in the bill. The problem, as I see it, is not with the bill, and not even with Ellmers. The problem is that the leadership doesn’t know how to whip the caucus properly and make sure they’ve got 100% support on crucial votes. Tom DeLay never would have let a trainwreck like this happen. Organizational incompetence is perhaps even more dangerous than ideological wobbling in a situation like this.

Proverbs 29:18: “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.”

The lack of vision among some of our leaders is disappointing, but the people who “keepeth the law” are still happy. When I went out for another smoke, I encountered a group of about 20 people from Voice of Truth, a church near the central Georgia town of Dublin:

Voice of Truth is a non-denominational church where the Word of God is taught and preached. The church was formed when several Christian families felt called by God to reach out to the unchurched in our community. God has blessed us and we have grown in a few short years to a congregation of more than two hundred.

Preaching the Word of God and reaching out to “the unchurched”? Of course God will always bless that kind of work. I spoke to the leaders of the church, including brothers Phil and Keith Mills. They hold to a very basic Bible-focused theology, the kind you don’t need a Ph.D. to understand. As they were ready to leave for the march, they asked me to walk with them a little way. Phil explained that he and his brother were once a couple of young hellbound sinners, “just as bad as we could be.”

“Yeah,” I said. “I used to be a Democrat myself.”

 




 

Category: Abortion, Congress, Feminism

Comments

157 Responses to “The #MarchForLife2015 Thread”

  1. theoldsargesays
    January 22nd, 2015 @ 11:30 pm

    Neo- a serious question if I may…..
    I understand and respect your freedom to choose your belief system but I’m wondering why you choose to troll in here and argue with people that you know are most likely Christians.
    I mean that’s what it is man- being a troll.
    I myself am not a Christian by religion but do consider myself of Christian heritage and values while being more of a “higher poser” kind of person.
    It confounds me that so many people such as yourself, who are clearly on another path, are unwilling to allow Christians the freedom to follow their chosen path without confrontation.

  2. Adobe_Walls
    January 22nd, 2015 @ 11:31 pm

    States don’t have the authority to legalize murder. Neither does the federal government for that matter. Any federalism or states rights argument is moot unless abortion is not murder.

  3. theoldsargesays
    January 22nd, 2015 @ 11:41 pm

    While freedom of speech and property rights may not require Christianity in order to exist, I challenge you to name a place where they exist that does not have Christianity as a basis for it’s culture.

  4. K-Bob
    January 22nd, 2015 @ 11:51 pm

    You don’t “legalize” things. You make them illegal. Murder is made illegal by the states, punished by the states, and policed by the states.

    The rare exception of federal jurisdiction comes from the fact that the feds have wisely chosen to follow whatever the states have made illegal as a guide (IOW if you can’t get away with rape in a state, then you can’t get away with a rape spree that crosses state borders).

  5. K-Bob
    January 22nd, 2015 @ 11:57 pm

    No one can threaten you with “the afterlife.” That’s like saying some mathematician is threatening you with his insistence that multiplication is associative and commutative.

  6. JeffS
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:00 am

    Oh, I noticed, all right. Although “Sponge Bob” is better than my estimate. I was thinking some wacky Hare Krishna offshoot.

  7. Zohydro
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:05 am

    He’s a “technopagan”…

    neowayland. com

  8. Adobe_Walls
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:13 am

    On the contrary several states had legalized abortion before Roe v Wade, all of which legalized murder of a particular class of people. Banning abortion isn’t a jurisdictional issue it’s a constitutional issue. Depriving people of life without due process merely because they’re inconvenient is an unjustified homicide. Once again any argument is moot unless abortion is not murder and fetuses are not people. If any of the several states or federal government changed the law to permit the killing of others only in cases of armed robbery would that not be legalizing murder?

  9. Adobe_Walls
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:49 am

    So I was right.

  10. K-Bob
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 2:40 am

    Legislation would be infinite if you had to go around “legalizing” things. That’s just not how it works.

    Laws regulate specific things or prohibit specific things. Occasionally the regulation part requires specific acts. But laws don’t “legalize” things.

    A law that regulates, forbids, or requires something may be repealed. To that end, it is often referred to as “decriminalizing”, but the specific act is unlikely to contain that particular word, because it is not very specific language. Especially when the sentence, “Legislative Act number (fill in the blank), entitled, “(fill in the blank)” is hereby repealed” is long-accepted, very-specific language as used by legislatures.

    The Constitution gives enumerated power to the federal government, and nowhere does it empower them to legislate on things like murder, speed limits, incorporation methods for businesses, or a host of things that states have always taken care of for themselves.

    Abortion is clearly something the federal system is not supposed to be dealing with at all (although where legalized, I can see where the CDC or HHS bureaucrats would be seen as standards bodies acceptable to state legislators as a way of regulating things like cleanliness, counseling, methodologies, etc.).

    In addition to murder, manslaughter, and accidental deaths, states already regulate the medical aspects of childbirth. Also death by natural causes. All of it falls under state legislative control. The federal government is not empowered to define where life begins or ends (as usual, the interstate aspects handle federal jurisdiction, and the FBI would handle it under federal law, so that’s a loose area where the federal laws need to match up with long-accepted state laws — you sure wouldn’t want the feds deciding that killing people across state boundaries was not murder, when all fifty states would define the particular killing as murder).

    The Tenth Amendment really means what it says.

  11. Adobe_Walls
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 3:38 am

    So when several of the states repealed their laws that made abortion illegal they weren’t legalizing what was previously a crime.? And when the supreme court struck down all the remaining laws that made abortion a crime they didn’t make abortion legal? When Colorado passed a law making recreational use of marijuana legal they weren’t legalizing marijuana? The determination of what is and is not life is indeed a constitutional issue if that determination determines who may or may not be killed. The right to live is an absolute right for ”innocent” life. To deprive a person of their life without due process violates the 14th amendment. This trumps all state prerogatives just the 1st and 2nd amendments do. Once again ALL of your arguments are moot unless a fetus is not a person and killing one is not murder.
    If the 1973 court had available the scientific knowledge we have today they would have ruled differently

  12. Daniel Freeman
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 3:52 am

    What would happen if African-Americans returned to their percentage of intact families of sixty years ago, and what would it take to make that happen?

  13. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:28 am

    It depends on what one is standing up for, doesn’t it?

  14. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:35 am

    Ah, now that is interesting!

    Property rights for example do predate Christianity by quite a bit, but I agree that the first real big push was probably the Magna Carta.

    China has had a pretty convoluted history with property rights, and as things exist now it’s not part of the culture.

    Free speech is trickier. Repressive governments regularly destroy it. As happened in many nominally Christian nations prior to modern times.

    I believe the U.S. was the first to codify it into something that not even the chief ruler could rip out. But since the same men said that the U.S. was not a Christian nation, something else was happening.

  15. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:37 am

    Except when one states that Christianity has a higher morality?

  16. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:42 am

    So do you think someone can be moral without being Christian?

  17. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:44 am

    You misunderstand.

    I will test your assumptions when I think they are wrong.

    Just as I expect honest criticism of mine when you think I am wrong.

  18. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:45 am

    So you believe.

    I believe different.

    Why should either of us be controlled by the belief of the other?

  19. Jeanette Victoria
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:51 am

    I think you are asking the wrong person corrosion is what Muslims and statest do

  20. Jeanette Victoria
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:52 am

    I can believe someone even make that remark it is embarrassing to read

  21. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:53 am

    Serious answer then.

    Because whatever else applies, conservatives are usually up front about what they believe and what they expect.

    I can’t say that about progressives.

    Now with that being said, conservatives aren’t going to prevail by wrapping themselves in Bible verses.

    The only criticism I’ve made about Christianity itself in this thread is that not all people accept it and some of those non-Christians are moral.

    Look at the ruckus. Imagine if I had directly attacked Christianity.

    It’s not enough to recite the verses. That’s not going to stop progressives and IT WILL drive some potential allies away.

  22. Jeanette Victoria
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:54 am

    He’s A neo-pagan part of a group of folks who make up their “religion” from myths, movies and SciFi books

  23. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:55 am

    You’re the one typing those threats here.

    I just want to make the place a little better than I found it.

  24. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 11:57 am

    Then why is he doing it?

    I’ve lost track. I think it’s the fourth time he’s done it to me and about the sixth or seventh time I’ve seen him do it.

  25. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:01 pm

    While I recognize that you see that as truth, I do not.

    I’ll ask the question again.

    Can a non-Christian be moral?

    I’ll ask another. Do you remember the parable of the good Samaritan?

  26. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:04 pm

    RSM started this thread talking about people taking a moral stand for pro-life.

    I approve of that.

    Then he turned it into a more-moral-than-thou-because-we’re-Christian.

    I don’t approve of that so I commented.

  27. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:06 pm

    Ah well. There might have been something you didn’t know there. The third paragraph explained it.

  28. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:08 pm

    Perhaps I should have said that if a person was not a Christian, that’s pretty much what Christianity is.

  29. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:11 pm

    I’m not arguing against either Christian morality or Christianity.

    I am arguing against Christianity being the sole morality that matters, and I am arguing that Christians do themselves a disservice by demanding that Christianity must come first even for not-Christians.

  30. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:16 pm

    I haven’t said mine is better, I’ve said mine is different.

    I haven’t denounced Christianity, I’ve just said that it applies only to Christians.

    I really try to avoid either/or, the solution is often the fourth or seventh thing you look at.

  31. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:17 pm

    Nah, those were overbooked.

  32. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:21 pm

    It’s not about the path.

    “Words matter. Actions matter more. Intentions don’t”

    That’s one of mine.

  33. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:35 pm

    Because (as hard as this may be for you to believe), I really don’t want the progressives to win.

    As a wise man once said (paraphrasing because I can’t find the quote): “Someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is an ally, not an enemy.”

  34. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:41 pm

    I’m on the fence on if it’s murder, yes. Especially since spontaneous abortions do occur.

    After the first trimester I’d agree that it’s probably manslaughter and a drastic last resort.

    Let me say that other than the first two posts, you’re the first one in this thread who even bothered to raise that topic.

  35. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:43 pm

    You know that I could trot out a few dozen counterexamples, but my intent is not to debate Christianity.

  36. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:44 pm

    And how does this lecture get people marching for life?

  37. NeoWayland
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 12:50 pm

    I disagree with your assumption there.

    My point here is not to debate the “ultimate philosophical point,” but that plastering Bible verses over a good cause is likely to drive away moral people who otherwise might support the cause.

    If it’s a Bible rally or a revival, that’s one thing. If it’s a march for life, that’s another.

    So which should it be?

  38. Quartermaster
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 3:21 pm

    Once more, that isn’t the proper question. Yours is irrelevant.

  39. Quartermaster
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 3:22 pm

    I am warning of the threat. There is a big difference between what I am doing and what you are accusing me of.
    Rottsa ruck on the last.

  40. Quartermaster
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 3:25 pm

    I would suggest you take a much different tack then. There are atheists and agnostics here that get along with everyone. You came here and immediately became obnoxious. If you wish to join in, then fine. Play nice and you’ll get along. Act as you have, well, you already have seen the annoyance with you chasing your rhetorical tail. People here do not abide fools well, no matter their persuasion.

  41. Quartermaster
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 3:28 pm

    Then I suggest you stop debating Christianity. What you have posted since coming here has done little to persuade anyone. I’ve seen the bilge you’ve pumped here before, and have little patience for it. It only becomes worse when someone surrounds with it with a pseudo-intellectual halo.

  42. Quartermaster
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 3:30 pm

    You have brass, I’ll give you that. You’re the one that pushed things in this direction, so don’t bother acting all hurt and try to put on a reasonable face. If you don’t like this then don’t come. If you come then play nice and you’ll find yourself accepted along with the atheists that preceded you here.

  43. Adobe_Walls
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 4:11 pm

    No, obtuseness is not a virtue.

  44. K-Bob
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 4:18 pm

    Well, you’ve waded firmly into straw man territory there.

    It’s Muslims that go around enforcing their religion on unwilling populations. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Jainists, Baha’i, and other faiths merely lead by example, because they know down deep that you cannot force faith upon people.

    It’s pretty clear you’re demanding some major distinction be made where there’s really no difference.

  45. K-Bob
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 4:20 pm

    You are railing against the signpost warning you of a washed out bridge ahead. I’m not sure what purpose that can serve.

  46. K-Bob
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 4:29 pm

    Repeal and decriminalize are all the law can do. Obviously all behaviors not regulated or forbidden by law are “legal.” But to act as though states have no power to repeal laws regarding abortion by coming up with the concept of “legalizing” is a red herring.

    States own the power to regulate birth, manage cases involving harm or murder, and maintain the standards for orderly treatment of the dead. They get to define what constitutes birth, not the feds. The feds get to deal with citizenship of the nation as a whole, and they are stuck taking whatever the states give them as assurance someone has, in fact, been born.

    These are not “arguments,” they are simply facts.

    The issue of whether the unborn can take precedence over the living is not one I want the federal government involved in in any way. The 14th amendment does not address it in any way.

    The tenth amendment means what it says.

  47. K-Bob
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 4:49 pm

    He’s trying to debate too many folks at once. That’s public school education, though. They have everyone under thirty convinced that your average fire and brimstone, hellfire and damnation preachers are totally the same thing as these lunatic jihadists.

    The reality is, the most angry-looking, cranky old cuss of a hellfire and brimstone preacher would still give you the shirt off his back, bind your wounds, and feed you from his own table if you needed it.

    He may warn you of evil and deny you the ability to act certain ways in his presence, but even those guys know they are sinners before the Lord, and must follow Matthew 25:40.

    But leftists think they are evil old men who want to cause harm. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    I’ll admit they can be scary dudes. Fortunately other kinds of men and women have found better ways to preach, witness, and, proselytize.

  48. K-Bob
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 4:54 pm

    The appeal to large numbers only works if the large numbers amount to something useful.

    “Most of the planet” includes vast populations of people living in sh*tholes of totalitarianism, brutal dictatorship, starvation, and disease. Ignorance doesn’t begin to describe the conditions most of the planet lives under.

  49. K-Bob
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 5:00 pm

    I think you are looking backward through a lens colored by definitions of today.

    Prior to the US Constitution, no one who was not part of the privileged classes had property rights.

  50. Jeanette Victoria
    January 23rd, 2015 @ 5:16 pm

    Well as most of you know I was a pagan for almost 30. Ten of which I was completely immersed. I really know where he is coming from.