Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Abortion is Murder, 7-13, January 2, 2010

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

January 2, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 13
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 71
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to 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, 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, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
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 5094
10. Roeder, Scott, Sedgewick 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 Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 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

And I believe that Doomsday will actually be glorious, for the goodness of God will shine clearly in all his gifts of grace. Some who are now despised and held in contempt (and who are even perhaps inveterate sinners) shall on that day reign in splendor with his saints. And perhaps some of those who have never sinned grievously and who to all appearances are pious people, venerated as gods by other men, shall find themselves in misery among the damned.
My point is that in this life no man may judge another as good or evil simply on the evidence of his deeds. The deeds themselves are another matter. These we may judge as good or evil, but not the person.
From The Cloud of Unknowing

Mr. Dunkle, I hope this finds you blessed by God almighty. I am well considering He is watching over me. I have a new text, called “The Militant Christian.” It is around 70 pages in length, and initially I planned to have a friend transcribe it for the ArmyofGod webpage. However, I’ve run into some difficulty with that being accomplished.
I wondered if, akin to how you’ve been running sections of Eric’s book, you would be interested in running my long text in pieces. From there they could be transplanted to the AOG page at my domain there. Please let me know how you feel about the prospect of doing this. It would be an enormous help.
As always the best to you and your family, in Christ Jesus’ name. Sincerely and Respectfully, Paul Ross Evans

p.s. I sent you an email request. Please accept me. We have email access at the Max-USP-level now.

I’d be honored to post your writing, Paul. For several days I’ve been trying to establish email contact with you through info@corrlinks.com, as their email directed. First, a message came back “undeliverable.” Then “the identification code is wrong.” But that’s the one they gave me – YTR5TWJ2. What’s next?

Dear John, Hope all is going well with you and yours.
Enclosed is a letter from Robert Weiler dated June 7, ’09. I was going over my papers recently and noticed he had a note at the bottom to send a copy of his letter to you. You might have already received a copy forwarded from Donna Holman but thought to send you mine, just in case (my apologies to Robert for being so late getting this to you).
Also included is a letter of inspiration from Michael Bray, with a new song at the end. It was very uplifting and was hoping everyone else would enjoy it as much. We have to thank our brother Mike for his keen insight.
One last thing, I’d like to try to pass on a message to Peter Knight, our dear brother down under. I tried mailing a letter to him a while back but it was returned for lack of postage. I mailed the amount he told me but was returned, nonetheless.
Anyway, Peter, thank you very much for the original (if I’m not mistaken) copy of the skyp dated 4-12-03. This is the one that included Paul Hill’s eulogy. I find this a real treasure and will keep it near and dear to me the rest of my days. Thank you, again, for sending this to me. We all need to keep in mind Paul Hill’s great sacrifice.
Well, better close for now. I’ll be sending further comments on different aspects of how the pro-life (poor life) movement responded with their cries and whimpers on the shooting of Tiller.
But for now, wanted to leave you with a few gems that Dan Holman sent me regarding responses to pro-aborts. Many of you have heard these before, but here goes:

1. I personally would not shot an abortionist but who am I to impose my morality on someone else.
2. The prosecution and execution of Paul Hill violates his privacy rights.
3. Paul Hill changed the heart of John Britton; he changed his baby-killing breathing heart to the still heart of a dead man.
4. We cannot be sure it’s wrong to kill an abortionist because we don’t know when life begins!
4. Killing an abortionist should only be done if the baby’s life is in danger.
6. We can stop the shooting of abortionists by legalizing their executions.
7. Paul Hill had more love and courage in his little finger than the entire Body of Professing Believers in America.
8. We are not advocating violence; we advocate stopping the violence. It’s open season on babies seven days a week. Why don’t we have one day, call it Wacky Wednesday, when we kill four thousand abortionists. Baby murder would grind to a halt. Experts agree, “Dead Doctors Don’t Kill Children.”
9. I’m pro-choice on killing abortionists. Is this not a personal decision? Furthermore, I think killing abortionists should be safe, legal and rare.

And my favorite! With a little revision.

10. George Tiller was wearing a bullet-proof vest but he forgot to pull it up over his ears.

Well, there are ten of them. I’ll send more next time.

Also, wanted to tell your wife great job on getting the last illustration put on the back of your newsletter. There is another illustration included in this letter. Maybe she could get this one on the back of your December issue. Better go for now, until next time, in His Service, Scott
p.s. Credit for the enclosed illustration goes to Donna Holman with Missionaries to the Preborn – Iowa

The illustration Scott refers to shows a weeping Christ holding a dead young person in the palm of His hand. I’m sure that’s one we’ve all seen (I’ll send you a copy otherwise); so I won’t run it again. I think I even posted it in an earlier issue.

Scott Roeder ------ God’s man --------- My Hero

Now that Tiller the Killer is burning in Hell, “pro-life” organizations are tripping over each other to be the first to condemn Scott Roeder’s righteous acts. However, I believe that any truth worth speaking has already been worded better in Scriptures. Therefore, I respond to Mr. Roeder’s actions in this manner:

Then stood up [Scott Roeder] and executed judgment . . .And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore. (Ps 106:30-31 & Ezekiel 33:4)

I encourage those within the anti-abortion movement to stand by Mr. Roeder and his family. Pray for and with them.
Scott Roeder showed that he had the courage to defend the unborn; he showed that he actually sees the humanity of the reborn. May he be an example to the cowards speaking out against him who affirm the humanity of the unborn but deny them the rights to humanity.
Organizations like “Operation Rescue” and “Priests for Life” who have spoken out against Mr. Roeder should take the lesson that the unborn are entitled to a defense, even if it means the death of the unjust aggressor.
Tiller himself chose his fate. He showed that only death would protect the children from his murderous hands. He did not stop when his abortuary was bombed. He did not stop when Shelley Shannon put the bullets to him. He had the audacity to serve as an usher in a “Christian” church with blood on his hands. Indeed he proved the only good abortionist is a dead abortionist.
Very sincerely, Robert Weiler

Here’s more from “The Debate,” Chapter 3 of Eric Rudolph’s Abortion: the Irrepressible Conflict:

To the egalitarian, history is the record of oppression, injustice, one big mistake. All of our elders were liars. All religion is superstition, used by the master class to keep their slaves ignorant and in subjection. For thousands of years the governments of the world were the enforcers of a vast conspiracy, designed to prevent a return to the communist paradise. But the true-believer knows that socialism is inevitable. Egalitarian thinkers had figured the whole thing out on a blackboard, and then put it in books. Comte reduced his formula and issued it in The Positive Philosophy. Karl Marx put his formula in Das Kapital. Edward Bellamy wrote his down in Looking Backward. What they all shared in common was a belief that there is a template for the just society, and all that was needed was to apply it. Egalitarians of whatever kind—Revolutionary Socialist, Maoist, Democratic Socialist, American Liberal—aim for this universal society. They only differ over how to get there.
Egalitarianism can be traced back as far as Plato’s Republic. And Christ’s preaching against the “love of money” inspired a religious strain of egalitarianism. After Christ’s crucifixion, the disciples practiced communal living, holding “everything in common” (Acts 4:35). Monasticism during the Gothic period was based on the ideals of the common life. Monks and friars took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. But religious egalitarianism was practiced only by the initiates. It was meant to produce conditions that were conducive to the better contemplation and worship of God. There was a clear distinction between life inside the commune and life outside in the secular world. It is true that during the Reformation a few radical Protestant leaders like Thomas Müntzer tried to confiscate lands from the nobles and redistribute them to the peasants. But for the most part Christian egalitarians did not have a political program to force the common life on the secular society.
Modern egalitarianism is a different animal entirely. This type is secular, atheistic, materialistic, and it always has a definite political program. Modern egalitarianism really has its origins in the Enlightenment, especially in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Inspired by Rousseau, Robespierre and his Jacobins tore France to pieces during the French Revolution in the 1790s—burning, destroying, murdering under the banner of Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood. Then Napoleon and the French middle class crushed the Jacobins and ended their Reign of Terror. Egalitarians regard Napoleon as the betrayer of the revolution. To them the ideals of Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood remain unfulfilled. And this is where their mission begins. They want to finally and fully actualize the ideals of the French Revolution.

In the century following the French Revolution industrialism and capitalism greatly expanded the methods of production and exchange. The resulting inequalities of wealth and property caused egalitarians to focus on economic inequalities. They called their movement socialism. Containing many different strands, socialism basically teaches that the system of private property—whether in the form of industrial capital, accumulated money, landed estates, serfs, or slaves—is wrong because it creates inequalities which lead to the unjust exploitation of one person by another. Historians call the first generation of socialist thinkers “utopian” because most advocated building small socialist communes which would serve as models for the rest of society to follow. Fourier (1772-1837) set up a few communes in Europe, and a famous one in America named Brook Farm (1841-47). Longfellow and Emerson and a procession of America’s elite visited Brook Farm. Robert Owen (1771-1858) built a commune in Indiana called New Harmony. Another utopian was Saint-Simon (1760-1825), who influenced a generation of socialists. But the most famous and influential socialist was Karl Marx (1818-1883).

Marx castigated the utopians as unrealistic dreamers. In his Communist Manifesto (1848) Marx claimed that his theory of dialectical materialism would do for “history what Darwin’s theory of evolution did for biology.” His socialism was scientific, not utopian. To distinguish his socialism from the other varieties, he labeled it communism. Briefly, Marx thought that the history of all societies “has been the history of class struggles,” between the oppressors and the oppressed, the rulers and the ruled, the exploiters and the exploited. A man’s relations to the mode of production determine everything about him, said Marx. Whether you are a hunter-gatherer, a farmer, or a manufacturer will determine what gods you worship, what beliefs you have, what values you cherish. The prevailing methods of production and exchange in any given society will determine its social, cultural and political structures. Classes take shape based on their collective relation to the modes of production and exchange. But internal contradictions develop between the exploiting class and the exploited class. Eventually the contradictions become so great that a social revolution occurs, producing another mode of production and exchange, which will in turn create new classes and new contradictions. Marx called this process dialectical materialism.

It was not always this way, though. Like most egalitarian dreamers, Marx believed that the first form of society was socialism. Once upon a time men and women lived in a communist paradise. There was no private property, so there were no classes, families or governments. Then the snake of ownership entered paradise in the form of monogamous marriage, and women and children became the first form of private property. Things went downhill from there. Men enslaved other men. Caste, rank and class followed. As property was monopolized into landed estates, the landowner class exploited the landless class of serfs in an economic system called feudalism. The oppressors invented the state to keep the oppressed in subjection. Then in the late 1400s, the growing merchant class started undermining the feudal system, producing the capitalist mode of production and exchange. Two new classes then emerged: the exploiting capitalists (bourgeoisie), and the exploited workers (proletariat). As is true of every other economic system, capitalism has internal contradictions. To improve their profit margins capitalists improve the methods of production and produce more and more goods. This in turn creates a demand for more and more workers, and the workers have to work for lower wages. With their wages depressed workers are not able to purchase the ever-increasing quantity of goods. This creates an endless cycle of booms and busts. Eventually the busts will become so great, said Marx, that the overworked, impoverished workers will revolt. Once they seize the state, the people will set up a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to purge the last remnant of the bourgeoisie. The state and the means of production will then be in the hands of the people. Class differences will disappear. Since the state was nothing more than an instrument that the exploiters used to control the exploited, with the absence of classes the state will eventually “wither away.” Citizens will finally govern society through direct democracy. Society will look much like the egalitarian paradise of old. (tbc)

Jim Kopp sends and then comments on this article that appeared in the October 15, 2009, edition of The Remnant:

Ireland Sinks into the Sea

"Ireland Backs EU's Lisbon Treaty" screamed the BBC headline on October 3, 2009. The Irish have surrendered, the new-world crowd is ecstatic, and Tony Blair could actually become the first President of Europe. Hilaire Belloc must be turning in his grave.

Far from backing the Lisbon Treaty, Ireland had roundly rejected it just last year. But the increasingly anti-Christian European Union doesn't take "no" for an answer, especially when "yes" can be purchased. They used intimidation and vast amounts of money to knock the democratic process in Ireland on its backside. As UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage put it, "there was a wall of money for the Yes campaign....The Irish have been bullied into voting Yes."
Mr. Farage, one of the last voices of sanity in European politics, aptly summed up the sorry affair: "I guess history may well look back upon this day as being the day when the very short, brief period of Irish independence actually ended."
So what do EU politics and the Lisbon Treaty have to do with us on this side of the pond? Alas, everything. We're all part of this burgeoning new order, and with a globalist of our own in the White House at the moment, America is rapidly pawning off whatever sovereignty she has left for a similar mess of globalist pottage.
As much as anything else, Ireland's capitulation demonstrates the sheer tenacity of the EU. The Lisbon Treaty is essentially a repackaged version of the very same EU Constitution that was rejected by the French and Dutch back in 2005. Unable to ramrod its Constitution through back then, the European Parliament essentially renamed it the "The Treaty of Lisbon" and kept at it ever since. They will continue to keep at it until every EU member-state votes the right way.
In order to "vote" the right way, Ireland ratified its own constitution; but in a few years there may not be much of an Irish Constitution left to ratify. Ireland will be as powerless to block encroachment from Brussels as Wyoming is against Washington.
Once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all EU member-states (including the Czech Republic which for the moment is dragging its feet), all of Europe will be under the thumb of the European Parliament and its brand new President of Europe. The Treaty of Lisbon also makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, something European pro-life groups believe spells doom to their cause.
As the Association of Catholic Lawyers in Ireland pointed out on the eve of the vote in Ireland:

Given that the Lisbon Treaty allows the newly formed Union many powers regarding the criminal laws of the member states, what stops the Union from abolishing our criminalization of those who seek to destroy or attack the Unborn Child? The onus in article 40.3.3 is on the Irish state, not the EU "state". So, in recognizing article 40.3.3, - -the EU-does-not assume responsibility for the protection of the Unborn Child. It may no longer be "practicable" for the Irish state to "defend and vindicate that right" when it has handed over criminal legal powers to the EU.

Of course the European Parliament promises that member-state constitutions will remain autonomous, which might be reassuring, were it not for the fact that it's already demonstrably untrue. At this very moment the European "Parliament is demanding a review of one EU member-State's laws regarding parental rights. Lithuania it seems does not necessarily possess the right to enact legislation protecting children from "minority sexual groups". LifeNews.com explains:

"The EU is not supposed to have the power to review the domestic law of member states and this represents a new departure," Pat Buckley, international spokesman for the UK's Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said in a statement sent to LifeNews.com.
"The European Parliament has today voted to instruct its Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) to review a new law recently passed in Lithuania. The European Parliament has been spurred to this attempt to extend its sphere of influence by the Lithuanian Parliament's move, which has not yet come into force, but which seeks to stop minority sexual groups seeking to influence children."

So much for sovereignty in the EU! Piero A. Tozzi, J.D. of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (CFAM) is concerned, as we all should be. Again, according to LifeNews.com:
"The resolution directs the Agency for Fundamental to opine on whether the [Lithuanian] law contravenes European anti-discrimination standards. Any such opinion would be non-binding, though activists would likely use it to press for greater recognition of rights" such as abortion, he explained today.

"While the EU has 'guaranteed' that Ireland's constitutional protection of unborn life would be unaffected by a 'yes' vote on Lisbon, the European Parliament's action on Lithuania has fueled concerns among Irish euro skeptics that European institutions would seek to override the Republic's domestic laws," he said.
"Among other changes, the Lisbon Treaty would make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding upon members. While silent on abortion, critics fear an activist European Court of Justice reading such a right into the charter," he said.

No wonder the opponents of the Treaty of Lisbon argued that it will destroy national sovereignty by moving power away from national electorates and towards Brussels—the de facto capital of the European Union. This was already happening before the Irish ballots had even been counted. (tbc)

Commentary: The real legal situation in Erie is worse than this article says. The Lisbon Treaty and Nice before it, has a delayed “anti-grandfather” clause built into it. In a generation or two, Eire will be forced to conform its laws to EU laws, which are diabolically pro-abort.
It was bad enough when Irish Christians only had to fight in-country whacked-out English liberals; how can she fight all the liberals in the UK including the child-molester perverts in UK, Holland, BDR (Germany), and Scandinavia who support and maintain child sex-slavery in the South Pacific?
Not happy with that near-infinite supply of helpless innocents, and fresh from its victory, destroying Western European Catholicism, the bloody child-raper Northern Alliance must beat up on poor Ireland with overwhelming force.

Check the November Abortion is Murder to see the letter I wrote to the New Oxford Review in response to an article they ran by Judie Brown trashing those who defend others forcefully. Jim Kopp also wrote to them. NOR printed neither letter; so, here is the first half of Jim’s:

This letter is in response to a recent article on the subject of the death of Dr. Tiller in Kansas.
I think the world of Mrs. Judie Brown and her co-workers. If 5% of all self-professed prolifers did 1% of the work she and her co-workers do, we probably wouldn't have abortion, or shooting of abortionists.
Nevertheless, when Thomistic force to stop child murder is called "murder," I feel a few words are in order, humbly offered by a guy who spent most of his life adjusting his prolife workload to his own protection, not to the task.
Call the use of force against Dr. Tiller, abortionist, anything you want, just don't call it murder.
Why? Scott Roeder did, to protect any child, even a child unknown to you and me, what all of us would have done, if it had been our own child. Any force justified to save any child, such as mine or yours, is justified to save the life of every child.

Dwell on these words a minute, please. There's much that could be said. Instead, I'd like to gently refer you to the Holy Spirit, to reflect on these few words above, which are not mine. En passant, to assist our meditation, let me give you a short list of theologians and other leaders who support this classic RC position.

1. Cardinal O'Connor, NY Archdiocese, 1994

In 1994 John Salvi used a gun in a mill. Even some of those in favor of Thomistic force to protect children thought this instance excessive, since some of his targets were deathscorts, not strictly necessary for child killing. This has been debated. But many children were born as a result.
Boston Cardinal Law condemned Salvi's action as "violence" and ordered all RCs away from the mills. Cardinal 0'Connor, in response, said all NY prolifers would stay at the mills until the violence inside the mills, the true violence, had stopped.

2. John Paul II, 1994

Law then flew to Rome for a scheduled ad limine visit with
John Paul II. He marched into the room and shook his finger in the Pope's face, ordering him to excommunicate Salvi, and to also issue a statement condemning "violence" by prolifers (something that would have "cost" the Pope nothing, I might add, in terms of public fallout. . . ).
The Pope pointedly refused, instead referring Law to a stack of
complaints the Pope had received from Boston. I can hear Ferrms Beuhler's teacher saying, “Geoghan? Geoghan?"
It's worth mentioning here, that in 1979 JP II said in Denver, "When life before birth is threatened, we will stand up!"
Many believe that this was a reference to something beyond education and lobbying, endeavors already in full swing before that time, and also, a reflection on Daniel 13:46 et seg., (deuterocanon), standing up to prevent murder, specifically.
Rescue was not abandoned because it was immoral (even though mainstream prolifers said so) but because of the penalties of FACE, and our unwillingness to pay them. Jesus never promised His followers a mortgage and no jail. On the contrary . . .
Also on JP II: the quote of Evangelium Vitae is inappropriate. The Holy Father refers to attacks against the innocent. Innocent, here, is a legal term, not a moral one. We do not condemn abortionists, we stop them, just like police should. There’s a difference.

It is no mistake the words "rescue" and "holocaust" appeared in the same encyclical. They were put there by JP II at the specific request of rescuer Randy Terry. "Rescue," in Polish and Latin, out steps education and lobbying alone, even as it includes them.

3. Bishop Austin Vaughan, Archdiocese, NY, 2000..

This beloved rescuing bish issued a statement to the effect that Thomistic force to protect unborn children is not murder (full text in Summer, 2003, The Wanderer).

4. Dr. Germaine Gabriel Grisez, 200 Questions. Moral Theologian

In this book in response to a heartfelt question from an RC RN, Dr. Grisez responded that force, even lethal force, to save children in danger from abortion is in no way illicit. He then went on to propose a prudential argument about efficiency.

5. Dr. William Marra, Philosophy, Fordham U., 1986

On his radio program in 1986, Dr. Marra mentioned that force to protect children from abortion is licit, and perhaps even required, given the four decades of having exhausted "lesser means," a Thomistic condition.
Please notice, when I write Thomistic, I never write "war." Thomas defined just self-defense and its extension to any innocent third party, such as a family member or any known innocent person in danger. What prolifer, in 2009, can say child killing is unknown when it happens by appointment at public locations?
When asked if direct killing was the way to go, Marra replied, "well, maybe you could shoot them in the leg," thus establishing the possibility that a death, unfortunately, could result from sub-lethal force. Death is always a tragedy, but it is the abortionist who puts himself in harms way, not the child protector.
Facultative child protection and willful direct killing are inimical, even if, sadly, death results. Especially if we treat all kids like our own (See, “double effect,” Waters’ letter)

6. Thomas Aquinas

Vide Waters’ letter, infra. In addition to the Waters letter, it is interesting to note that Serbia's principal abortionist, Dr. Stojan Adasevic, credits his cessation of abortions and conversion to pro-life, to the intercession of Aquinas in persistent realistic dreams. Aquinas also appeared in a dream, again, to Dr. Adasevic, to encourage him when post-Tito reprisals to Adasevic's conversion came about (Lay Witness, Sept./Oct/ 2009)

7. Dr. Raphael Waters, PhD., P LPh., PhC., Professor ofPhilosophy (Niagara U.T Emeritus); President, Scholars for Social Justice; Registrar, Catholic Academy of Sciences in the USA; Director, Aquinas School of Philosophy

In 2007, Dr. Waters addressed the judge in connection with my own case, in a detailed letter, "The Case of James C. Kopp." The entire letter is at skypl.blogspot.com. Some excerpts:

Objection: should this action of assassination [sensu strictu] be
condemned as an act of murder?
Reply: It should be stated that murder is defined as the unauthorized and direct killing of an innocent human person. It must also be said that authority is vested in human nature (as a property of man's rationality) and delegated by the people to those appointed to take care of the community . . . hence, the act of defense is authorized by reason of human nature and the circumstances of the act of the defense, that is, the deliberate neglect or opposition of the governing authority or its instrument, the police. [Note: Dr. Waters earlier dealt with Romans 13: unjust law is not law.]

8. G. K. Chesterton

"This is the pacifist position, one often held in the past by severe religious sects that held all human life to be sinful [classic Albigensianism] and that has reappeared in a modern humanistic guise in which human life is somehow destructive of the natural world [Neo-Albigensianism/global warming].
“Pacifism is a wicked philosophy and one of the more pernicious evils of our day. Nobody has the right to be a private pacifist -- one who would refuse on principle to defend innocent human life -- any more than one has the right to be a private thug or a private thief. Such a person places the satisfaction of his own esthetic sentiments above the very lives of other human beings. Indeed, this is a defining mark of evil, that of making the lives of others subservient to one's own pleasure.”
Throughout his career, Chesterton was a vigorous enemy of
pacifism. What he did believe in was the duty of self-defense and the defense of others, without exception. Chesterton was also a vigorous enemy of militarism. Both ideas, he argued, were really a single idea -- that the strong must not be resisted. The militarist, he said, uses this idea aggressively as a conqueror, a bully. The pacifist uses this idea passively by acquiescing to the conqueror and permitting himself and others around him to be bullied. (Gilbert Magazine, recent issue)

9. Pro-life foot soldier

. They do not have massive mailing lists. they have day jobs. They have paid their dues with rescue, sidewalk work, cpc work, and/or police/lawsuit contact. The following, and many more, have quietly stated their support for the idea that force to save kids is not a sin, however awkward it is – Pastor Matthew Trewhella, Pastor Dan Holman, Pastor Michael Bray, Joan Andrews Bell, Dr. John Dunkle, and many more. By the way, I never seem to encounter strong criticism on this subject from cpc/sidewalk workers and rescuers. Hm . . .

10. The entire Third World

Every person of the thousands of people I have met in the third world agrees resoundingly with the main theme of this essay. The only reason you and I hesitate is that we have lived our lives with the luxury of never hearing of a police force without enough bullets, gas and radios available within seconds. All Third World parents, every day, live in a world where death lingers near their children, within seconds. As a result, they never abrogated their God-mandated parental role to instantly protect their kids. Most of them have never heard of abortion. When I tell them what it is, they say, "This must be why the Americans are called barbarians.

11. You, reading this

You know with apodictic certainty what you would do if someone dared to put his hands on your daughter to pull her arms and legs off. You also know that in God's Eyes, there is no difference between your kid and anybody's kid, aside from differences in natural affection (Mt. 5).

12. Classic Christianity

In addition to this short list of theologians who've explicitly endorsed the Thomistic position, we must add those spiritual leaders who never condemned the use of force to save children: every pope in history; every saint; every verse of Scripture. We can scour these sources all day long (children die while we do it) and despite all kinds of warm and fuzzy misquotings about peace, you will never find this simple formula of words: "it is a sin to use force to protect children." (tbc)

My favorites so far – GK’s “nobody has the right to be a private pacifist . . . any more than one has the right to be a private thug” and JK’s calling himself “. . . a guy who spent most of his life adjusting his prolife workload to his own protection, not to the task.”


Mark Archer said...

Abortion is murder and what Scott Roeder did was murder of the worst kind, because he is lying about his motive for murder. Scott Roeder does not care for the unborn. How can he, when he does not care for his own children. He does not care if they are fed, clothed or sheltered. He has done nothing to make sure his alleged daughter has any of those things, in fact he abandoned her before she was born. I know Scott Roeder personally I am the one feeding, clothing and sheltering his alleged daughter. He is a hypocrite of the worst kind.
Mark Archer

Anonymous said...


John Dunkle said...

Thank you for responding, Mark Archer. I read a similar denunciation on the prolifer, Jim something, who was shot and killed recently. I believe that one was submitted by Jim's son; you seem to be Scott's substitute dad. Impressive sources. I'll check them out.

Jack said...

By the way, I never seem to encounter strong criticism on this subject from cpc/sidewalk workers and rescuers. Hm . . .

find people search engines

Anonymous said...

很好啊 ........................