Friday, June 8, 2012

No to abortions, no matter what

Posted By on Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM

In the upcoming Republican primary, being the best conservative possible means opposing abortion in all instances, including rape and incest.

And abortion is not an option in a situation where the mother's life is at risk due to the pregnancy.

According to Colorado Right to Life, a number of candidates for the state House and Senate, as well as the candidates for the 5th Congressional District, have weighed in on the debate surrounding abortion.

Weighed in, that is, by either filling out CRL's survey correctly, or not responding to it at all.

You can read the entire survey below. To get an idea of where CRL is coming from, you can read its "Talking Points" flier regarding a personhood amendment. Or, read this explanation of a doctor's moral responsibility in a hypothetical life-or-death situation:

When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby, but not if the intent is to kill the baby. When the life of the mother is at serious risk by her pregnancy, the goal must be to save the life of the mother and the baby if at all possible. The doctor has two patients. If one patient dies, that’s a tragedy, but if a doctor intentionally kills one patient, that’s murder.

On CRL's website, the justification for forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy that results from being raped by anyone, a stranger or her father, comes from the Old Testament:

Abortion for Incest: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin." – Deuteronomy 24:16

Once a person sees that the Bible clearly teaches that it is wrong to kill a child for the crime of his or her father, that frees the person to get beyond the cliché and look more closely at the actual result of abortion for incest. Because it is wrong to kill the child for the crime of the father, there are other terrible consequences, including that abortion for rape and incest emboldens those criminals and increases such crimes against women.


Abortion for Rape: "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son… the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." – God, Ezekiel 18:20

Of course incest is a particular kind of rape, and the same scriptural teaching, here as spoken by God Himself, condemns all such punishment of the child for the crime of the father. This principle as recorded by the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel explains that a good man would love and protect the baby, but instead many lawyers and others will treat the rapist with respect and protect him, but kill the baby.

Anyway, let's get to the results from CRL's survey.

According to their blog, the big winners are Rep. Marsha Looper, Owen Hill, and U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn.

A number of candidates haven't filled out this survey, including Looper's opponent House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, Hill's opponent Rep. Larry Liston, and Lamborn's opponent Robert Blaha.

Interestingly, a number of Republican candidates who are running without Republican or Democratic opposition didn't fill out the survey, either, including state Reps. Bob Gardner, Mark Waller and Janak Joshi. Former Lamborn staffer Daniel Nordberg, who is running with no Democratic opposition in HD 14, hasn't filled out the survey, either.

In the two House districts where the Republicans face a Democratic opponent, the response has been split: Rep. Mark Barker, who represents southeastern Springs, has curried CRL's favor in the past by filling out his survey, but has yet to do so this year; in the west side and Manitou Springs' race, newcomer Jennifer George has yet to respond.

And in HD 21, both Albert Sweet and Lois Landgraf, who are running for an empty seat, returned their "correctly answered" surveys.

CRTL 2012 State House & Senate Candidate Survey

Candidate Name: _____________________________ District: H / S _____ Party ____

1. Religious freedom is a fundamental right. Therefore, do you oppose federal funding mandates requiring taxpayer funding for abortions or euthanasia, or any insurance mandates that would force religious institutions or individuals (nurses, doctors) to act against their conscience by providing or paying for abortions or forms of birth control which kill an already conceived child?

Yes ____ No ____

2. Generations of families know the excitement of expecting a child, and they universally grieve if the life of their child is unexpectedly lost. Colorado presently provides little additional penalty to criminals who take the life of an unborn child during the commission of a crime. CRTL has long pushed for an “abortion-neutral” law protecting unborn victims of crime. Since the mere mention of an allowable practice in law implies governmental consent for that practice (consider “needle exchange” programs, for instance), it is important that abortion not be mentioned as an exception to the unborn victims law. CRTL has proposed “abortion-neutral” language that cannot be interpreted as impacting abortion in any way, but would still protect unborn victims of crime. Would you support an abortion-neutral law to protect unborn victims?

Yes ____ No ____

3. The Colorado Constitution prohibits direct or indirect taxpayer funding of organizations which provide abortions, but this law has mostly been ignored. Will you work to actively oppose direct or indirect taxpayer funding of abortions, or organizations which provide abortions?

Yes ____ No ____

4. Do you believe in the value and sanctity of human life, and that the government has a preeminent responsibility to protect the Right to Life as referred to in the Declaration of Independence, and as guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, and also that the Right to Life is an inalienable right for every unborn child from the time their individual DNA is formed?

Yes ____ No ____

5. Do you agree that since an unborn child is innocent of any crime, that there should be no circumstances when their Right to Life should be violated, even in a situation of incest or rape, as that child is an innocent human being with an inalienable Right to Life? (see language at the end of this page explaining how doctors should act to save the life of both mother and child in difficult pregnancies, and why a doctor need not intentionally kill an innocent child in order to save the life of their mother)

Yes ____ No ____

6. The “Personhood Amendment” will likely be on Colorado’s ballot again this November, this time with language explaining how it cannot affect birth control, medical treatment, or in vitro fertilization except where those kill an already-conceived child. Do you support the 2012 Personhood Amendment? To view the language:

Yes ____ No ____

7. If death is seen as a “solution” for one societal problem, suicide may seem like an acceptable choice for many elderly, disabled, or young people suffering depression or heartbreak. Do you agree that no government should ever sanction or decriminalize the taking of an innocent person’s life through physician-assisted euthanasia, with or without permission?

Yes ____ No ____

8. Do you agree that if every innocent human individual has a Right to Life from their biological beginning, that no form of modern technology should be allowed to kill that individual, even if for purposes of “medical research,” and therefore technologies and practices such as cloning, embryonic stem cell research, etc. should be banned?

Yes ____ No ____

9. Some respected pro-life legal experts believe anti-abortion regulations, such as parental notification laws or ultrasound requirements (i.e. “require that a woman view an ultrasound before she makes her decision to kill her child”), undermine the concept of a Right to Life in law. First, mentioning abortion in law creates a stronger legal status for legalized abortion (i.e. if it says “a woman may not have an abortion unless…” that means abortion is legal in some circumstances, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned). Secondly, setting conditions to be met before a woman can choose abortion reinforces society’s impression that women should have a “right to choose,” and undermines the concept of an inalienable Right to Life for unborn children (if such a right existed, the law could not allow abortion in any circumstance). In fact, anti-abortion regulations themselves promote the idea that abortion is and should be legal in some cases – otherwise there would be nothing to regulate. Therefore, Colorado Right to Life and many other national and statewide pro-life groups oppose any law which “regulates” abortion. Do you pledge not to support such compromised regulatory laws while in office?

Yes ____ No ____

Signed: ____________________________________

Please Note: When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby, but not if the intent is to kill the baby. When the life of the mother is at serious risk by her pregnancy, the goal must be to save the life of the mother and the baby if at all possible. The doctor has two patients. If one patient dies, that’s a tragedy, but if a doctor intentionally kills one patient, that’s murder. There is never a medical emergency that could justify a physician to stop caring for a pregnant mom long enough to kill her child (abortions take hours or days to perform, whereas a caesarian section takes a few minutes and can save the baby’s life). If necessary to save the mom's life, the unborn baby should be delivered with the determination to care for both, and if possible, to save both the baby and mother.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Comments (4)

Showing 1-4 of 4

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-4 of 4

Add a comment

More by Chet Hardin

Latest in IndyBlog

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation