Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Abortion is Murder August 2, 2009 7-5

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

August 2, 2009, Vol. 7, No.5
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--610-809-3388, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 41`
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo haven’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, maybe even including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.

Prisoners of Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6 Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300., Waymart, PA 18472 (new)
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgwick County Jail, 141 West Elm, Wichita, KS 67203
11. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
12. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Dublin Unit A, 5701 8th St., Camp Parks, Dublin CA 94568 3/31
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918

The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight

Paul Ross Evans’ story concludes:

As April 18th arrived, I found myself behind the "XXX Megaplexxx" pornographic movie theater, on South I-35 in Austin. The massive IED that I placed near the corner of the building had a fuse detonator. I lit a cigarette, taking care to keep the butt free of any DNA, and attached it to the fuse. This was a tactic used by Special Forces in the Vietnam war. I hoped to cripple a corner of the building and to rain shrapnel on the cars parked beside it. It did not take, and as I walked back to my car, which I had parked a short distance up the road, a police officer passed by me close. It was very late at night, and upon reflection, I'm certain that had the bomb exploded, I would have been caught immediately.
The next day I returned, planning to light the fuse directly with a cigarette lighter and destroy the building, but when I got there, the bomb was gone. I saw the packaging, but it looked light, and had been moved. Agents later told me that they "think the bomb was stolen by the homeless living in that area" to make fires. That seems rather humorous, but at the time it didn't. My guess is as good as theirs. I was quite surprised to find the bomb disturbed as I approached that day to finish what I had started. Bic lighter in hand, I stood near the scene, frozen for a moment. I could only suspect that a night watchman had discovered the bomb and had called in agents, and that a team of them were now studying me from the nearby forest. I left the scene and spent a paranoid next few days wondering if I were being followed and kept under surveillance.
I was now left impatient. There continued to be no news from around the nation about any bombings on U. S. soil. I was eager for destruction — not out of some sadistic need to hurt others, but to hunt those who had persecuted Christianity for so long. I had struck out against many of them now, but I wanted an explosion to cripple them. I wanted someone to be crushed by it.
After two or three trips to the Austin Women's Health Clinic abortion mill, I was ready to act out against it violently. After purchasing bomb components from all around Texas, I manufactured an explosive device that agents later described as being powerful enough to "kill or injure anyone within a hundred foot radius." I placed it in front of the Austin Women's Health Clinic. A clinic employee tripped over it long after it should have detonated. Agents later told me that something inside that package had obstructed the wiring, causing the timer to stop three to five minutes before the inevitable massive explosion. Agents of the regime in Washington used a robot to tamper with the device and detonate it in the clinic's abandoned parking lot, after removing the accompanying charges of boosters, propellants, and shrapnel.
Although the abortionist and his evil minions slithered away from the bomb unscathed, I still consider my effort to bomb the Austin Women's Health Clinic abortion mill a success. The attention the bombing attempt generated, which I was able to monitor personally until I was arrested, was excellent in accomplishing several of my mission parameters. In weighing terrorist activity, death is not always the primary goal. The mill was closed for a time and children's lives were saved that day. Also, across America and even internationally, many people looked to Austin that day and saw that America's Far Right is still very much alive and well, and far from surrendering Christianity's stronghold in America.
I was still very much experimenting. Eventually, I would have killed people. I was a one-man army, and instead of experimenting on trees in the woods, I experimented on those I despised. It doesn't reflect my deficiency as a bomb maker; it just reflects what one may encounter as a lone bomb maker while learning and cultivating himself, as a process. As well, I didn't live alone in a shack in the woods.
After I had been arrested and had viewed the monster of the case the federal government had stacked against me, I considered accepting a plea agreement. I disclosed information leading agents to the two missing mail bombs, and I admitted that I was the individual responsible for targeting Michael Newdow. After a point, I realized that the two other mail bombs hadn't reached their targets. When a package is returned, it ends up in a postal recovery center, and after ninety days it is opened by postal workers. I wanted to kill Satanists, not postal workers, so I led agents to the mail bombs. They carefully defused the devices, which would have killed anyone who opened them.

I am caged in a federal prison for forty years, with an out date of 2042. Certainly I am left perturbed and angry that, although no one was hurt, I am nevertheless caged for decades for acts that were merely attempted. I feel that this is evidence, more so than many cases, that the government will go to any length to jail those who even attempt to strike against liberal venues.
I feel that the length of my sentence is excessive, but I do not regret any of my actions in the least. I simply feel that people who still live in the fantasy world of believing that they are "living in a free country" should look at my case and wake up.
If I spoke of any regret, it would be in the mention of the regret I feel toward the fact that I did not get to finish what I started.
I am not of the opinion that Roe v. Wade will ever be reversed by legal action. I targeted Washington's agents merely because they protect those I abhor. What I intended to attempt (and actually started) was not any sort of putsch.
I felt, and I still feel, that if abortion mills and other anti-Christian venues are targeted with enough terrorism, eventually the United States government will abandon its protection of them. When the attacks start to eat into Washington's budget (money is Washington's heart), they will step away from protecting the abortionist. It will become pointless to them, and they will look to other means of population control in order to accomplish their goal of subjugation.
Alone, what I was beginning to attempt was the cultivation of my own three main objectives in this conflict, which, in themselves, are very cause-and-effect:
1. To put pressure on abortionists and their staff through the use of a wide variety of terrorist acts, primarily through murder-by-explosive
2. To cause the government to abandon its protection of the abortion industry
3. When #2 objective is accomplished, to kill all abortionists and their staff
Once the money (which is very important to Washington) is being spent in excess to protect the abortion industry to the point where it becomes a burden, the government will abandon it, just as it has abandoned us for liberal money and socialist coin.
I planned an organized strike that could be done alone, after I had obtained a certain amount of the cash needed to finance such ventures. Some would consider targeting all clinics in the South, driving the enemy's operations north toward Canada. Others would consider starting in the North and driving the enemy south toward Mexico.
I had an entirely different idea altogether. Terrorism, as a means to obtain a particular goal, is the instituting of violence in order to confuse, disturb, and addle, filling the targets and their enablers and protectors with nervous apprehension and horror. The North-to-South/South-to-North approach is too predictable to really work. The enemy could ensnare the perpetrators of such acts:
Jeremiah 18 (KJV) 22 Let a cry be heard from their houses, when thou shalt bring a troop suddenly upon them: for they have digged a pit to take me, and hid snares for my feet.
But to cause confusion is a key tool in instituting fear in enemy agents and the general public. Solely targeting the abortion industry, I planned to use the following tactics:
1. Three in a row in California on foot (clinics) in San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles
2. Three in a row on the East Coast, in Providence, RI, Boston, MA, and New York, NY
3. Drive to Little Rock, Arkansas and mail four separate devices in a cross pattern to Cedar Rapids, IA, San Antonio, TX, Miami, FL, and Louisville, KY
4. A single large scale explosion in Washington, DC, at a downtown abortion mill
5. Drive to Phoenix, AZ, and distribute several threatening letters in the mail to Kansas City, Chicago, Portland, and Las Vegas
In future acts I considered several tactics, including dispensing raw meat and animal blood on abortion mill property, in order to draw scavenging animals (primarily vultures) and producing foul smells on the property; using fake mail bombs, (as many as I could purchase the components for); butyric acid attacks, and using manure on property. Arson would be another avenue. I think it's important to draw attention to the death these places cause. Many of these mills are hidden in name and location.
With the accomplishing of these actions to irritate the abortionist (accompanied by actual bombings and death), the media will spread the information like wildfire. I believe that, on a large scale, Washington would abandon its effort to protect the abortionist. After a time, all abortionists could be murdered, and we as Christians could attempt to co-exist with Washington's evil empire.
The accomplishing of this type of task would deter other liberal acts as well (or at least put them on guard), as it displays what the (Far) Right is capable of, modernity. Once certain elements "go underground" again, as they once were, it will be easier for the Christian in modern society to gain ground. After all, human nature will always produce such evil on the earth, where the Evil One has control and power. Wow!

And Eric’s Chapter 2 continues:

The progressives acquired powerful allies in the media. Adolph Ochs purchased The New York Times in the late 1800s, beginning a reign of lies and distortion that has lasted down to the present day. In the hands of the Ochs and Sulzberger families, the Times has been the leading mouthpiece of leftwing culture distortion for over one hundred years. Louis John Jennings was out, Marxists were in. Never moving too fast to outpace the mainstream, the Times has gradually moved the public debate to the left.
The Hearst and McCormick papers were the last major dailies to treat abortion as a moral evil. The New York Times and Henry Luce’s Time Magazine started to portray it as a socio-economic issue. Abortion they argued was only problematic because it was illegal. The anti-abortion statutes drove abortion underground and into the hands of back-alley butchers. Although morally objectionable, the women were not to blame. Poverty and ignorance caused abortions, and illegal practitioners made a bad situation worse. Put abortion in the hands of competent professionals and it would eliminate the ugly side of an ugly business. Until society has addressed the underlying socio-economic causes of abortion, society might as well provide a safe environment to do it in. After all, people were going to do it anyway. I’m sure you’ve heard this argument before. We’re just trying to be reasonable in an unreasonable situation, said the Times. They are past masters at this approach.
Fredrick Taussig’s book Abortion (1936) articulated the new perspective. His book was widely read and had considerable influence on liberal opinion. Medical, psychological, economic reasons trumped moral reasons. Using Marxist mathematics, Taussig estimated that there were “681,600 illegal abortions” annually, and at least “8,000 deaths due to botched procedures.”11
After the socialists seized control of the federal government in 1933, the Dr. Taussigs of America had more allies for the cause. In 1942 the New York Academy of Medicine held a conference on abortion, declaring that the unborn child “has not the self, the relationships, or the consciousness of his personality—save potentiality.”13 Dr. Sophia Kleegman said the only reason for the anti-abortion laws was “the dogma of one particular church.”14
By the time the Sherri Finkbine case came along in 1963, America had been softened up by leftwing propaganda for two decades. They were now ready to hear the argument for abortion, after being treated to the “hard case.” Mrs. Finkbine was a typical suburban housewife: twenty-nine years old, good looking, four children, a handsome husband, and perfectly waxed kitchen floors. But she had unwittingly taken the drug thalidomide, a sleeping pill, during her first trimester of pregnancy. Doctors had recently discovered that 20 percent of babies born to mothers who had taken the drug suffered severe physical deformities, including flipper-like arms.
Using the health of the mother exception in Arizona’s abortion statute, Mrs. Finkbine scheduled an abortion. But after the local papers got wind of the story, the hospital administrators got cold feet and refused to perform her procedure. So she went in search of a doctor who would. Like one of those Anna Nicole Smith sagas, the press followed her odyssey from one state to another, from one country to another. By then, the press was overwhelmingly in sympathy with Mrs. Finkbine. They covered her story with the hope of changing the existing laws. Bemoaning the prospect that she may be forced to give birth to a severely handicapped child, Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher opined that “the abortion laws have not kept pace with medicine.”15
Finally, Mrs. Finkbine was able to get an abortion in that bastion of progress, Sweden. Measuring the success of their campaign, the media took a Gallup Poll: 52 percent agreed that Finkbine had done the “right thing”; 32 percent were against the abortion; and 16 percent were too busy wondering who would win the World Series.16 Judges know that hard cases make bad law, but propagandists know that they make excellent polemic. Finkbine’s case showed that the hard case was an easy sell to the American people. It was just a matter of obfuscation to sell abortion-on-demand to the public under the banner of the “hard cases”—rape, incest, flipper-armed kids. Talk to any supporters of abortion and they’ll give you the hard case, when the fact of the matter is such cases account for only a small percentage of abortions.
Abortion was still in the hands of state legislatures. Sensing the winds of change blowing in from the Left, several states felt comfortable about legalizing abortion for the hard cases. Between 1966 and 1972 fourteen states changed their laws to allow abortion in cases where a doctor said the pregnancy posed a serious threat to a woman’s physical or mental health, when the child would be born with a grave physical or mental defect, or when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. In 1970, four other states repealed all of their abortion statutes, legalizing abortion-on-demand. Abortion clinics sprouted up in large cities like New York and did a brisk business servicing the followers of the counterculture.
But most states in the American Heartland retained their abortion statutes. The Heartland was unprepared for Roe v Wade. Roe was the capstone on forty years of social engineering. All of this change was imposed from above; none was the result of actual grass roots efforts or organic change. Lacking effective leadership, Middle America was taken by surprise. They have been trying to get their bearings ever since. Actually these policies, which had reached the local level in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, have their roots all the way back to the Enlightenment. The elites had played with this poison for several generations. Now it was dispensed at the local level.
Using the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” Norma McCorvey brought a class action suit against the state of Texas (1970) for having refused her request for an abortion. McCorvey claimed to have been gang-raped, which later turned out to be a lie. But under the 1857 statute, abortions were permitted only to save the life of the mother. Not having a life threatening condition, McCorvey was refused an abortion. She decided to sue Texas. Her lawyer, Sarah Weddington, thought McCorvey’s case would make a good test for abortion-on-demand, so with the backing of leftwing groups, she prepared for trial.
The federal court in Dallas agreed with Roe. Texas then appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was argued two times, once in ’72, and finally in ’73. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice White dissented; the rest of the Court upheld Roe, thus overturning all the state anti-abortion statutes. Roe v Wade established abortion-on-demand as a Constitutional right, and touched off the most important conflict of our generation.
Using a pile of convoluted information to support his decision, Blackmun wrote for the majority. Blackmun was an Establishment judge. And like most Establishment judges of that generation, his heroes were former Justices Brandeis and Holmes. From his perspective, the Roe v Wade decision was delivered in the spirit of Holmes’ famous 1905 admonition that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgments upon the questions whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”17
Blackmun used this hollow quote to scare off the torch-bearing mob. Harry was saying that even though the majority out there in the Heartland might view the disposal of unwanted children as morally repugnant, America is a diverse nation and must accommodate people who regard unborn children as medical waste and impediments to female equality. It didn’t matter that the writers of Constitution would have found such an interpretation of their work as a gross perversion. To keep pace with progress rights had to be crafted and enlightened individuals such as himself were the only ones qualified for the job. Unlike those bigoted Crackers in the Heartland, Harry was progressive. He would deliver a decision inline with “the progressive spirit of the Constitution.” He would pull the Roe decision right out of thin air.
In the history of the Court no other decision was more arbitrary than Roe v Wade. Blackmun’s decision had no basis in common law, history, or the Constitution itself. It was pure invention. Holmes would have been proud. As noted earlier, Blackmun relied heavily on the Amicus brief of Cyril Means. Briefly again, this argument had the “state’s real concern in enacting criminal abortion laws to protect a woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.” Only secondarily were they concerned for the “potential” life of the child: “In assessing the state’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the state may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant women alone.”18 It must be remembered, said Blackmun, that “throughout the major portion of the nineteenth century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect.”19 Then a pack of greedy physicians, who were seeking to cut out the “irregular” competition, pressured the states to pass abortion laws. Overturning Texas’ abortion statute was a return to tradition, Harry insisted.
To ensure that greedy doctors and day-before-yesterday moralists never again forced women to have unwanted children, Blackmun decided to fabricate a new right for women, one impervious to meddling Cracker state legislatures. He called this new construct the “right of privacy.” Harry admitted what he was doing: “The Constitution does not mention any right of
privacy.” Nevertheless, Blackmun believed the Ninth Amendment “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.” Letting his guard slip, Harry revealed his true egalitarian motives:

The detriment that the state would impose upon the pregnant
woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific
and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early
pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional
offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and
future. Psychological harm maybe imminent. Mental and
physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the
distress for all concerned associated with the unwanted child,
and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family
already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.20

Lindsay Says: The prolife argument is actually a good one, and a simple one at that.
At conception there is a organism that by definition is of the human species. After the moment of fertilization when all of the chromosomes are present, they have DNA just like the rest of us.
At some point one becomes a human being, so what is the criterion for this? Logically, I would think when it becomes a part of our species but apparently that is not common sense to all. So, another look… Maybe it should be the most pivotal point of the organism’s life, the time when they change the most. That would be conception.
All that happens after conception is growth. At conception there is the instruction their body needs to develop just like everyone else. Never does an embryo or a fetus turn into a different being.
Breathing air doesn’t turn someone into a human being. Being able to see someone doesn’t turn them into a human being. Size doesn’t decide humanity just as intelligence does not. The way I see it, if we start judging human life based on how developed it is then we subject ourselves to all of the ignorance of Nazi Germany.
The only difference between me and a three week old fetus is that I am able to defend myself, I’m strong enough to live outside of my mother’s womb, and I look different.
Some people think that life begins with the heartbeat (very fallacious considering that actual death is based on brain waves, not a heart beat). Some believe it happens after it is able to live on its own outside of the womb without medical attention. (Apparently you are only viable when you don’t need a doctor.)
Truthfully, I have spoken to a ridiculous number of prochoice people and I have not found one good reason why conception is not the time for the beginning of humanity. I tried to understand this, I asked multiple people, and I was never given a reasonable response. Why would something that is of our species, with our DNA, that has gone through its most pivotal point, and only has to grow not be a human being?
I’m not prolife to be self righteous. I’ve faced the truth. We have been killing babies and we live in an age of technology that allows us to know this. I feel despicable for not standing up for it before
I’ll tell you how America should not work. We shouldn’t say, prove it’s a baby and I won’t kill it. We should say prove it is not a baby and I then I’ll abort it. Since when do we take chances with innocent lives?
I lost a brother to abortion. He was a person. I don’t care what some strangers on an abortion website say. I mourn him.
I love children, I don’t like it when they are ripped limb from limb or burned from the inside out. I’m prolife because I believe that the womb is a place of protection. I am a woman and I respect myself enough to not lie to myself about the truth. If I went out and had sex and got pregnant, then I would have to live with the ramifications of my choice. Sex is giving your body permission to get pregnant. Don’t act like pregnancy is some surprise (this is for consensual sex only of course). The right time for you to not be pregnant is the time before you say ok body here you go, here is all you need to get pregnant. That is like saying that you have the right to abstain from getting a piercing after you asked someone to pierce something… Its a little late isn’t it? You can fix it, but you can’t erase it. Fixing pregnancy is having the baby and finding someone to adopt that baby. And before the foster care argument comes up, don’t put the baby in foster care. FIND A FAMILY yourself
I do have sympathy for women with unplanned pregnancies. I could just as easily be someone like that if my life had worked out differently. Still, I’m not willing for a moment to advocate the death of babies. I know women who have had abortions and I would not wish that heartache on my worst of enemies.
Continue to say that prolife people have no argument as you continue to say that the unborn are not people. You will suffocate yourself in your cocoon of ignorance. Nazis had reasoning for their genocide. They were in their pinnacle of science, remember? America was right there too with negative eugenics, sterilizing people.
btw the people who bomb abortion clinics are not prolife. If they were, then they would value all life. I understand that a lot of prochoice people think that they are supporting a noble cause but abortion is what degrades women. People are making money off of tricking us and lying to hurting women.
By the way people always argue that birthing an unwanted baby is cruel…Who on earth are we to say that death is better than living a hard life?
My life has been incredibly hard but I’m happy that I was blessed to live because even though I’ve gone through traumatizing things I got to see the world. I’m thankful for my life. You can’t judge the value of another’s life for her. The way to care for kids is not by killing them while they are in the womb; it is by making a better world for them.
Fix foster care rather than kill the kid who may go into it. It is sickening to hear this reasoning.
The prolife movement does have major faults. We should be seen working in kids’ lives rather than picketing out front of centers where scared mothers are entering. We should be helping these poor kids who are left alone… But we also should save those who are about to have the chance to live taken away.

Prophylactic Soda
by Aaron Pidel

Here’s an observation about the law of unintended consequences—a law that prevails wherever deeply human problems are given a purely technical solution. For some years now studies have correlated diet soda with weight gain. Though counter-intuitive, the claim has provoked little opposition.

Diet soda has 5 calories or fewer per serving, of course, but
emerging research seems to suggest that drinking sugary-
tasting beverages, even artificially sweetened ones, appears to
develop a preference in the human body for a whole range of
other sweet things. And when we consume sweeter cereals,
snacks, breads and desserts, we tend to consume more calories,

The article additionally claims diet soda can give a false sense of security:

People who are starting to put on weight think choosing diet
soda alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is
false logic, because it ignores the true cause of weight gain –
overeating and poor eating.

As a rule, when the technical solution of “safe” consumption replaces the human solution of disciplined consumption, the human person nonetheless finds his way to harm. Animal desire usually finds its limit in pain, and always presses its case with urgency until it butts up against a disincentive of the same order.
As a thought experiment, let’s apply this rule to an issue of greater moment: AIDS in Africa. The rewritten statements would look something like this:

Prophylactic sex greatly reduces contagion, of course, but
emerging research seems to suggest that pursuing sexual
pleasure for its own sake, even artificially protected sex,
appears to develop a preference in the human body for a whole
range of other sexual pleasures/partners. And when we have
sex more often with more partners, we tend to be more
exposed to contagion, and eventually contract HIV/AIDS.

People who are starting to worry about HIV/AIDS think choosing prophylactic sex alone will stop the process. But, the experts say, this is false logic, because it ignores the true cause of HIV/AIDS – sexual excess and infidelity.

As it turns out, experts who follow the problem of AIDS in Africa most closely do claim to see this sort of false logic operative in Western prevention strategies. The false security that condoms provide creates a powerful “disinhibition” to the human libido, thus “disproportionately erasing” any public health benefits of condom use. Note that perspective here is only one of public health–though it does confirm some of the age-old insights of Christian moral psychology.

If the Washington Times blog, applying the same logic, had expressed as much skepticism about the long-term effectiveness of condomitic sex as it had about the long-term effectiveness of diet soda, I wager it would have generated at least a comment or two. Just ask Pope Benedict.

Submitted by Jim Kopp:

The Culture of Death holds sway, yet pro-life prayers are never wasted. They even contribute to astonishing conversions of prolific abortionists like this ex-Communist, as recently reported by the American Life League. There are many others besides. So, pray always, with complete confidence!
The Spanish daily La Razon has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former "champion of abortion." Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country. "The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue," the newspaper reported. "Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares."
In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in Communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn't recognize the name.”
"Why don't you ask me who these children are?" St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream. "They are the ones you killed with your abortions," St. Thomas told him. "Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions," the article stated.
After this experience, Adasevic "told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university." After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.
“‘You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film The Silent Scream, by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Eugenicist
By George J. Marlin

In an interview published in last Sunday’s New York Times magazine, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, revealed the purpose for legalized abortion: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” (Emphasis added.)
What a deplorable statement. Unfortunately, the Times reporter failed to ask the obvious follow-up: What populations do we have too many of? Jews? African-Americans? Hispanic-Americans? Catholics? Fundamentalists? The poor? Welfare recipients?
This language about getting rid of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” – a/k/a undesirables or those “unfit to live” – is the standard endgame of a vile product of the social Darwinist movement: eugenics, the so-called science of good birth.

According to radical social Darwinists, people who are an economic or medical burden on society should be eliminated. To promote their agenda, they founded numerous organizations, including the Eugenics Record Office and the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Laboratory (funded by the Rockefellers, Harrimans, and Carnegies), and introduced eugenics legislation throughout the nation.

America’s leading apostle of social Darwinism, William Graham Sumner of Yale (1840-1910), declared: “Let it be understood that we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”

Another eugenicist, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), warned the developed nations not to foster the survival of the unfit by interfering with harsh economic realities. In the name of biology, he opposed free public education, sanitation laws, compulsory vaccinations, and welfare programs for those he called the “hereditary poor.” He feared that these services would encourage the perpetuation of undesirable physical, intellectual, and social traits. Spencer’s social Darwinism made the pseudo-science of eugenics “morally” permissible in the name of preserving “society as a whole.”

Even Theodore Roosevelt caught eugenics fever. “Someday,” wrote Roosevelt in 1913 to Charles Davenport, director of the Eugenics Record Office, “we must realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world, and that we have no business permitting the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”

In his work Preface to Eugenics (1940) Frederick Osborne of the American Museum of Natural History called for the segregation of the “hereditary defective” in state institutions; “It is doubtful whether democracy can long continue in any society except one whose operation favors the survival of competent people in every social and occupational group.”

The National Socialists were the first to make eugenics a matter of public policy. The 1933 German Racial legislation signed into law by Chancellor Hitler provided the legal foundation for the Nazi Final Solution of Europe’s Jewish population and approved euthanasia, abortion, artificial insemination, electric-shock experiments, tissue and muscle experiments, fetal experimentation and gas chambers. All these Nazi horrors took place in the name of eugenics. Joseph Goebbels ordered all German organizations to be educated in “the eugenics way of thinking!”

When the Nuremburg trials revealed the horrendous consequences of Nazi eugenics programs, the American movement went underground. The Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Laboratory, for instance, dropped “Eugenics” from its title in an attempt to maintain respectability. Annals of Eugenics became Annals of Human Genetics. Eugenicists now called themselves “population scientists” or “human geneticists.”

By the 1970s, however, the eugenics movement made a comeback with Roe v. Wade, their biggest victory. Reviewing this . . . success, journalist-philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge, concluded, “For the Guinness Book of Records, you can submit this: that it takes about thirty years in our humane society to transform a war crime into an act of compassion.”
The eugenics movement flourishes because public officials, like Justice Ginsburg, subscribe to an ideology that discards the sanctity of the human person. Believing that man is merely a machine or animal – not a person with a soul and, therefore, unique among God’s creations – makes it easy for them to form a rational justification for getting rid of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

It would be comforting to think that Justice Ginsburg will catch a lot of flack and be compelled to explain her outrageous comment in the Times to the American people. But this is one bit of news – and history – the Times is unlikely to think fit to print.

So let’s at least remind ourselves of G.K. Chesterton’s words back in 1915:

[E]ugenics is chiefly a denial of the Declaration of Independence. It urges that so far from all men being born equal, numbers of them ought not to be born at all. And so far from their being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are to be forbidden a form of liberty and happiness so private that the maddest inquisitor never dreamed of meddling with it before.
I began posting an article by Peter Knight and another by Jim Kopp in the last issue, 7-4. I will continue with those in the next, 7-6

No comments: