Who Wants to Regulate Abortion?

Iowa State Representative Tom Shaw (R-Laurens) said during the “Celebrate Life” event hosted by the Republican Party of Iowa last Saturday that “we are not to regulate abortion, we are not to fight abortion. What we need to do is to fight for the person. We need to change our entire way of thinking. Stop playing defense and go on offense.”

I agree with him that we shouldn’t regulate abortion, but then again that isn’t how I view what the pro-life community is trying to do. I agree with State Representative Shaw on fighting for the person. Personhood is the ultimate goal. I pray for the day when abortion is outlawed and the womb is once again safe for every baby.

Personhood is a debate that must take place. Because the only question that matters is the question of when life begins. If life begins at conception, which I believe that it does, then no pro-abortion argument can stand since it can’t be applied to any other stage of life.

I believe, however, that I must and we who are pro-life must fight against abortion AND fight for the person. I reject how State Representative Shaw frames my (and the majority of the pro-life community’s) position. I’m not working for “abortion regulation,” I’m working towards saving lives.

I agree that we are to go on offense and not just play defense. We are doing that. I would just like to not have to play defense against those on my own side.

When I want to see telemed abortions banned in Iowa, that doesn’t mean I’m ok with every other abortion technique that exists. I want to save lives by making an abortion that much harder to receive. I want to protect the mother’s life by ensuring that she isn’t able to receive an abortion without a physician present.

When I want to see abortions banned for babies over 20 weeks. It doesn’t mean that I’m ok with abortions that take place prior to 20 weeks. I’m in favor of saving more babies.

Status quo, which is what would exist before a personhood law or amendment is passed, would mean mean abortion is allowed at any stage. I’m not ok with that. That is unacceptable to me.

If we want to discuss the loopholes that have been allowed to remain in place with some legislation, I’m with you. That frustrates me too. We need solid pro-life legislation that is effective.

I just can’t join the all or nothing crowd. I will fight for the person while working to save as many babies as I can until all are safe.

It doesn’t have to be an “either or” when it should be a “both and.” Until we grasp this we’ll continue to participate in circular firing squads while babies die.

Photo credit: Iowa Hospital Association via Flickr

If you like what you read, sign-up to get CT in your inbox!

Comments

  1. says

    Shane – As long as your “saving as many babies as possible” NEVER enshrines in Iowa Code that it is legal to kill babies EXCEPT when…

    Sadly almost every piece of abortion regulation actually legalizes abortion in States where there is no law permitting abortions; they are just being done under the faulty premise of Roe v Wade.

    • says

      I did say I understand and have the same frustration with loopholes, close them. I agree that abortion is illegal since courts don’t make law. So I guess that means no abortions are taking place then right? That’s an ideological position which unfortunately isn’t embraced by most Americans and means that while we take a all or nothing approach babies still die. I want a comprehensive push: effective legislation, work toward personhood, teach people the proper role of courts, pro-life apologetics and work toward a culture shift, support abortion alternatives and crisis pregnancy support… I just don’t agree with “all or nothing.”

  2. says

    Yes it does Shane. By law. By statute, anything that is passed that does not outright declare equal protection that instant, allows the murder statutorily.

    That IS where the law is at. Either you have the training to understand this or you are ignorant. Rather, were ignorant. You have been told. Now you know. Therefore there is no excuse to make legal what IS unlawful except that you do so willingly and stupidly.

    Ignorance no longer being an excuse, only stupidity or evil remain as reasons for attempting to make legal by statute what no other murderous tyrant has ever dared to try: Killing of an innocent.

    Even the worst genocidal tyrants in history would not dare to say “it is OK to kill an innocent. They all made either traitors, criminals or dehumanized those they sought to kill.

    Yet, some who claim to be for Personhood, for life, would dare to defy God and say with the same breath by statute “You are permitted to murder the innocent so long as X” where X is: You give proper notice. Or, you wait long enough. Or, you do it before such an such event. Or, as long as it is not done this particular way.

    And while you make the argument that if we would agree to any of those items above, it would SAVE all those babies who might be killed by those means or under those terms, what you continue to ignore or lie about is the simply fact that the very codification which may save some would be a violation of the very foundation upon which rests ALL of our rights.

    Once you allow the murder of an innocent by some terms, any terms, then by what principles do you prevent another from changing those terms against you?

    This is the heinous wicked evil in ANY regulation. Any. No matter how foolishly intentioned. ANY. Period. Ever.

    Do so, pass one, advocate for one and you become a more barbarous wicked and contemptible fiend than any who have ever lived.

    Not even the leftest most radical genocidal racist like Margaret Sanger dared to say you could kill an innocent. They dehumanized. They said it was a blob or inferior or made up some excuse of the other. You and the rest of the regulators are so gravely mistaken as the words I would say against you are unfit for print.

    Wake up. You have no excuse for perpetuating this lie another instant. Repent! Or if you continue, knowing fully this case, know that we are at moral enmity and that you are a greater threat to Liberty than any leftist or abortion provider.