Saving Lives=Condoning Killing?

Scott Klusendorf writes a much needed post on what I'd call the "prolife absolutists" or "non-incrementalists" of Covenant News. Covenant News and its editor Jim Rudd proclaim that they are prolife news source yet they take illogical cheap shots at any piece of prolife legislation that doesn't attempt to ban abortion completely. Somehow any legislation (parental consent laws, informed consent laws, bans on partial-birth abortion, abortion clinic regulations, etc.) which attempts to limit or reduce abortion somehow condones the killing of unborn children for Jim Rudd.

A bill which would require abortionists to let pregnant women know they can view their ultrasound is compared to Nazis taking pictures of Jews. A bill to regulate abortion facilities is labeled "A Bill To Murder Babies In 'Regulated' Clinics." When Indiana has legislation to inform women who are considering abortion about couples waiting to adopt, Covenant News says, "Indiana Panel OKs Murdering Babies After Mothers Are Told 'Many Families Are Waiting To Adopt Children'".

In Jim Rudd's world, prolifers who pass prolife laws which try to limit and reduce the number of abortion are "just as responsible and just as guilty of murdering children by abortion as the pro-abortion people."

With "prolifers" like these who needs pro-choicers to oppose prolife legislation?

It's like they can't fathom that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this issue and that federal courts will strike down complete abortion bans immediately. Working to save unborn children with prolife laws while also focusing on getting U.S. Supreme Court justices who recognize that the "right to abortion" isn't in the Constitution is useless for those who are more focused on berating prolife efforts than on making a real difference in the lives of women and children.

In his post Scott asks,

"Was William Wilberforce no different than pro-slavery leaders in the House of Lords bcause he supported incremental steps which banned some forms of slavery but allowed others? Or, should we celebrate him as a moral hero who did what he could to limit evil insofar as was possible at that time? If he is a moral hero, how is he any different from pro-life politicians in Georgia (and elsewhere) who also work to limit evil, albeit incrementally?"

Jim Rudd's updated response (in the post where he compared ultrasound legislation to Nazi picture taking) is to ignore these questions, assert that the legislation is "Naziesque" and create a rather obvious strawman argument. Jim says, "The Commandment says, 'Thou shalt not kill.' It does NOT say, 'Killing is OK after you take ultrasound pictures.'"

Hello? Earth to Jim? The legislators voting for the Georgia bill to require abortionists to tell women they have a right to see their ultrasound doesn't mean the legislators think that abortion is "OK" if an ultrasound is shown. Quite the contrary. Their strong opposition to abortion is the reason behind this legislation. The legislators recognize that seeing a live ultrasound image of her child might change an abortion-minded women's decision.