Burning Buildings and Half a Loaf

Half a loaf's not always better than noneThe pro-life industry has used many clichés trying to justify the compromised strategy of regulations and exceptions. Various national "ministries" use these clichés to actually oppose advocacy of personhood and the right to life of the unborn. One of the clichés is that half a loaf is better than none. Of course, that's true unless that loaf is putrid and moldy. Check out this list of invalid clichés...

Abortion and the Death Penalty

The Historic and Biblical Relationships
between Capital Punishment and Abortion

Countries that prohibit the execution of murderers typically then permit the killing of unborn children. Nations encapsulate the actions of millions of people. As for individuals, for an example consider Republican Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the U.S. Supreme Court's pro-abortion Roe v. Wade opinion. After years of his desire and efforts to minimize the imposition of the death penalty for murderers, eventually Blackmun strongly advocated total abolition of capital punishment. Thus he opposed killing the guilty who were convicted while intensely supporting the killing of the innocent unborn child. Are these coincidences or is there a correlation? Consider the lessons below from modern history and from the teachings of Scripture including passages like Ezekiel 13:19, Proverbs 17:15, and Hebrews 10:28-29.

Why Abortion's Not A State's Rights Issue

WND: Mark Crutcher on pro-life divide over personhood

"Both the 5th and 14th Amendments create a constitutional right to life for all 'persons' as well as a federal duty to protect those lives. Therefore, if the Court were to overturn Roe on the basis that the unborn child is a person, their lives would [or at least should] be protected by the Constitution and this nightmare would be over. However, most legal experts feel that the Court is far more likely to overturn Roe on the basis that… abortion… is... a 'states' rights' matter. That would be an unmitigated disaster for the unborn..."

Dred Scott Shepardized

 Justices Reference Dred Scott 56 Times
Informing Pro-life Strategy

April 2010

Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error v. John Sandford [sic]* (1857)

The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned its own pro-slavery Dred Scott decision 56 times in more than 150 years since issuing their opinion that many blacks and some other humans could be owned as property. What have they said about their own ruling, and what might that tell us about today's fight to re-criminalize abortion? To answer these questions American Right To Life commissioned this Shepardization of the Scott opinion, analyzing each reference to that iconic case to better equip those working to protect the innocent.

The Supreme Court has been mostly positive or neutral in its references to its own pro-slavery Dred Scott decision as documented below. As late as 1992 in an abortion decision they actually make excuses for their own century-old Plessy ruling which upheld law based on the amount of "colored blood" in a person's veins. Both Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott falsely present living human beings as property and not as persons with full human rights. For decades, national pro-life organizations, arguing that the Supreme Court is not ready to overturn its 1973 ruling, have therefore actually opposed constitutional amendment efforts to recognize the personhood and right to life of the unborn child. This review of the court's references to its own atrocious violation of the human rights of millions of enslaved human beings indicates that it is politically naïve to craft a pro-life strategy based primarily on the composition and humility of the court…