[Jefferson]

CRTL & WRTL Debate Fetal Pain Bill - Pt. 2

This is the show from Thursday December 7th, 2006.

SUMMARY:

* Don't Talk Consequences: Part Two of the debate between Colorado Right to Life and Wyoming Right to Life exposes the terrible unintended consequences of HR 6099 which would offer fetal pain killer for late-term abortions.

* Ertelt's Revealing Answers: The president of Wyoming Right to Life was repeatedly asked, "Is it POSSIBLE that offering pain medication for unborn children might encourage some women to go ahead and abort their baby?" Steven Ertelt repeatedly replied, "I don't think it's possible at all... this bill will NOT convince any woman to have an abortion..."

* Ertelt's Denial: Ertelt, also the publisher of LifeNews.com, was asked, "When millions of Americans hear that fetuses are given pain medication, is it POSSIBLE that might lower their opposition to even late-term abotion?" Ertelt answered, "No, not at all."

* Typical of Pro-Life Leaders: Four times Ertelt was asked, "Does HR 6099 offer a SOLUTION to the mom on how to kill her baby without the baby feeling pain?" Ertelt refused to answer the question. Rather than talking about the bill's solving the problem of pain with anesthesia, he only responded about the information the bill provides.

* Brian Rohrbough: president of Colorado Right To Life, furthered his argument that the ends do not justify the means, and laws that include the meaning, "and then you can kill the baby," are bad law, and will have unintended consequences that their promoters cannot foresee because they refuse to even consider how these laws may backfire.

* Analyzing Pro-Life Leaders: This debate illustrates (psychoanalyzes?) a group of pro-life leaders who adamantly refuse to even consider whether their compromise legislation might backfire with possible unintended consequences. Judging from fifteen years worth of on-air experience, Steven Ertelt, who defends HR 6099, typifies today's pro-life leaders. People who deny any possible risks or unintended consequences from such a complex endeavor as lawmaking are demonstrably not objective. Conversely, those who advocate wrongdoing typically will deny any possible negative consequences of their claim, intuitively realizing that if they acknowledge even a possible downside, their entire facade may collapse. Compromising on God's enduring command, Do not murder, pro-life leaders argue that the end justifies their means, and psychologically, that moral compromise itself prevents them from objectively assessing the likely ends (outcome) of their legislation. Just getting a bill introduced makes pro-life ministries look effective, and the campaign to pass a law brings in financial support. But if Ertelt is typical of those who claim that such laws will save lives, this debate shows that this group is especially unqualified to make that judgment. Not only do today's pro-life leaders not weigh the possible lives saved against the possible lives lost, but VERY TYPICALLY, they do not even acknowledge any possible downside, direct or long-term, to their compromise legislation.

Today's Resource: Please consider watching Focus on the Strategy, and sharing this DVD with a friend, or putting it in your church library! So, strap on a seatbelt and start up the DVD player!