Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 7-20, April 3, 2010

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

April 3, 2010 Vol. 7 No. 20
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 107
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 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
------------------------------------------------

Oh, this book by Eric Rudolph, Abortion, the Irrepressible Conflict -- it just keeps getting better and better. You’ve got to buy it. Now we continue in Chapter 3:

Sally Markowitz begins with the same basic premise—women are not autonomous actors, they are an oppressed slave class, and the personhood argument is inappropriate within this context. Markowitz puts forward two principles: the Feminist Proviso and the Impermissible Sacrifice Principle. In the first principle, “Women are, as a group, sexually oppressed by men and this oppression can neither be completely understood in terms of, nor otherwise reduced to oppressions of the other sorts.” The second principle: “When one social group in society is oppressed by another, it is impermissible to require the oppressed group to make sacrifices that will exacerbate or perpetuate this oppression.” Together, these principles “justify abortion-on-demand for women because they live in a sexist society.” The unborn child is a hostage in a war for equality. Patriarchy needs women slaves to bare its children, so abortion is an effective tactic against the male slave masters. Until patriarchy frees its women, Markowitz encourages her oppressed sisters to get the little bastards while they’re still in the womb:
Let feminists insist that the conditions for refraining from having abortions is a sexually egalitarian society. If men do not respond, and quickly, they will have indicated that fetal life isn’t so important to them after all, or at least not important enough to give up the privileges of being male in a sexist society. If this makes feminists look bad, it makes men look worse.25
Naomi Wolf is just as committed to the war against patriarchy. She is, however, more sentimental about enemy casualties. Abortion is a moral tragedy, says Wolf. She suggests that feminists ought to put aside the de-humanizing language when it comes to aborted children. In fact, mothers ought to mourn their aborted children as fellow human beings. Out of respect for Priam, Achilles finally gave him Hector’s corpse, allowing the old Trojan to mourn his dead son. After bloody battles, it’s customary to call a truce, so both sides can carry off the wounded and the dead. There are no enemies in the after life. But no one mourns for the aborted child, says Wolf. Perhaps feminists should hold the occasional “candlelight vigil at abortion clinics, standing shoulder to shoulder with the doctors who work there, commemorating and saying goodbye to the dead.”26
Wolf doesn’t suggest for a minute that abortions should be outlawed or restricted in any way. Abortion may be a moral tragedy, but it’s a legitimate tactic:
War is legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Letting the dying die in peace is often legal and sometimes even necessary. Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die. [Emphasis Added] 27
And make no mistake; Wolf has no qualms about killing children. When a conservative asked her at a roundtable discussion whether the fetus was a human being, Wolf snapped back, “Of course it’s a baby. And if I found myself in circumstances in which I had to make the terrible decision to end this life, then that would be between myself and God.” Although recognizing that abortion is a deliberate killing of another human being, Wolf wants a little sympathy for the victims, because “it is never right or necessary to minimize the value of the lives involved or the sacrifice incurred in letting them go.”28

Of the three pro-abortion arguments, the feminist is the most consistent. There is nothing new here. Throughout history it is often the least consistent arguments that are the most popular. To accept the feminist position you must first acknowledge the personhood of the unborn child. Then you must accept that abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child. Most that are pro-abortion don’t have the stomach for such honestly. They prefer hiding behind a lie. The unborn child is either a “part of a women’s body,” or he is only a “potential human being.” If he is only a potential human being, then the unborn child could potentially turn out to be a shoe, or a rock, or a Brazilian walnut. Who knows? Whatever it is, the fetus is not a human being, they insist. Both positions are cowardly and inconsistent and typical of mass ideas.
According to the first, the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, just like a cell. Therefore, abortion is akin to amputating a smashed finger, removing an appendix, or having some cells scraped from the insides of your mouth with a cotton swab. The “philosopher” Mortimer Adler claimed that until the child reached viability, he was “part of the mother’s body, in the same sense that an individual’s arm or leg is a part of a living organism. An individual’s decision to have an arm or leg amputated falls within the sphere of privacy—the freedom to do as one pleases in all matters that do not injure others or the public welfare.”29 Adler’s fellow traveler Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor, said that even “though the fetus eventually develops into a separate independent identity . . . it begins as a living part of the women’s body.”30
Adler and Tribe are both egalitarian frauds, using whatever argument seems best at the moment. In the same book Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, Tribe contradicts his above position, arguing that “Even if the fetus is a person, our Constitution forbids compelling a woman to carry it for nine months and become a mother.”31 When you’re fighting for progress, Tribe and Adler believe that lying is an effective tactic against the reactionary enemy.

The notion that the fetus is a part of the mother’s body is unscientific. In his book The Abortion Papers, Dr. Bernard Nathanson wrote “that the modern science of immunology has shown that the unborn child is not a part of a women’s body in the sense that her kidney or heart is.”32 In fact, as soon as the pregnancy implants itself in the wall of the mother’s uterus an immunological battle begins between the mother and the baby. The mother’s white blood cells maneuver to confront the alien embryo that has set up camp:
Therefore, an intense immunological attack is mounted on the pregnancy by the white blood cell elements, and through an ingenious and extraordinarily efficient defense system the unborn child succeeds in repelling the attack. In 10 percent or so of cases the defensive system fails and pregnancy is lost as a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. Think of how fundamental a lesson there is here for us: Even on the most minute microscopic scale the body has trained itself, or somehow in some inchoate way knows, how to recognized self from non-self.33
Another good example of the separateness of the mother and the unborn child is the inescapable fact that conception can be formed in a Petri-dish using the sperm and egg of white parents and the conceptus can then be transferred to a black surrogate mother and carried to term. And when the child is finally born, it will be white, and will carry the unique DNA of the embryo conceived in the Petri-dish nine months before, using the sperm and egg of the white parents.
The pro-abortion personhood argument is equally flimsy. Looked at closely, Warren’s and Tooley’s personhood arguments are really transparent attempts to narrow the definition of a person just enough to exclude the unborn child. In order to qualify as a person, Warren says you must have consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, and the capacity to communicate messages. Tooley says an “entity” can’t have a right to life unless it “has an interest in its own continued existence,” and can’t possibly have an interest in its own continued existence, unless it has a “concept of a continuing self.” In other words, if you didn’t graduate from Columbia University; don’t have a time share on Fire Island; can’t put a down payment on a Lexus; or can’t complete a decorating plan for your new corner apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan—if you can’t do any of these things, you’re not a person.
The problem with their arguments is that all of us at various times in our lives lack the qualities Warren and Tooley use to define a person. Under their definitions, sleeping people and infants, because they lack “consciousness” and a “concept of a continuing self,” have no right to life. People in comas, people suffering amnesia are not “conscious” and have no “concept of a continuing self.” But these are temporary states, Tooley and Warren would object. Well, so is pregnancy. And what about the senile? What about suicidal teenagers? They have no interest in their “own continued existence.” Should we stop them from killing themselves? Or are they fair game for others who might want to kill them?
One can make the argument that most of humanity lacks rationality. History is a testament to the fact that humans are primarily guided by irrational passions, perceptions, desires, fears, emotions. Witness drug users, drinkers, people who eat at McDonalds, people who fall in love with “losers,” people who watch the Jerry Springer Show. Are these people rational?
To accept their narrow definitions of personhood, you must also accept infanticide, as both Warren and Tooley do. The newborn infant simply can’t hurdle their personhood bar. “Since I do not believe human infants are persons,” says Tooley “infanticide is in itself morally acceptable.”34 Warren also supports infanticide: “Killing a newborn infant isn’t murder. Thus, infanticide is wrong for reason analogous to those which make it wrong to wantonly destroy natural resources, or great works of art.”35 Infanticide is the Achilles Heel of the personhood argument because most Americans will not stomach infanticide. Then again, most Americans who claim to be “pro-choice” use a vulgarized personhood argument to justify their position. This is an irrational, paradoxical position, which would disqualify then as persons under Warren’s and Tooley’s definitions. (tbc)
[people who fall in love with “losers” – my wife]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Cal tells me that this and CLAIM 7 are the two most important sections of his “Writ of Habeas Corpus” for Scott. I will post 7 in the next issue.

CLAIM 6
In addition to the cause presented in claims 1-5 above, there is cause for a writ of habeas corpus to free me on the basis of technicality: appointed counsel's deficiency prejudiced the defense in a manner so serious as to deprive me of a fair trial and likely acquittal, in violation of my Sixth Amendment right under the Constitution of the United States to the assistance of counsel and my Fourteenth Amendment right under the Constitution of the United States to the equal protection of the laws.
In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended to the judiciary the right to lie, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (upholding judicial immunity for forced sterilization conducted under false pretense of appendectomy). The U.S. Supreme Court is presently considering extending to prosecutorial attorneys the right to lie as well. Pottawattamie County, Iowa, et al., Petitioners v. Curtis W. McGhee, Jr., et al., Supreme Court Docket No. 08-1065. The present claim deals with the question of whether it is also acceptable for defense attorneys to lie to indigent petitioners about their defense prospects to maintain their currency in court.
The U.S. Supreme Court allows appointed counsel wide latitude to ignore matters of law or fact to preserve his or her "currency" with the Court by avoiding any issue "[t]he Supreme Court has signaled very clearly it doesn't want to deal with" or is "unwilling to deal with" (to quote attorney-general designate John Ashcroft, responding to Sen. Dianne Feinstein on his second day of confirmation testimony, Jan. 17, 2001.) In view of the Certiorari Act (43 Stat. 936), which authorized the U.S. Supreme Court to reject any petition despite its legal merit, attorneys such as Mr. Ashcroft have long viewed it as "a losing proposition" to do otherwise. Yet even if it is a losing proposition, it still does not give appointed counsel the right to lie to (or to humor) defendants about such matters; for the defendant has the right to present all matters of legal merit that are necessary to complete a competent defense. Our courts should not allow or encourage their bar members to do the court a favor by lying to clients and omitting issues of legal merit to maintain their "currency" with the court so they can succeed on other days, in other cases, and "on other issues," to again quote Mr. Ashcroft.
In this country, rights, laws, and technicalities should apply to all of us great and small, without exception, and it should be the job of the attorney to go into court and make sure our judges are observing them, without exception, even if it means rubbing their faces in due process once in a while, even at the highest court of the land. Unfortunately, rather than upholding this ideal, our nation's courts encourage attorneys to be mindful of their social, political, and financial currency more so than any underlying issues, the merits of law, or the rights of the client. Indeed, under the Certiorari Act, the U.S. Supreme Court is leading the way in this respect, by expressly reserving the right to ignore matters of legal merit, including "the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law." U.S. Supreme Court Rule 10.
Although I had a bona fide agreement with appointed counsel to pursue a necessity defense, counsel omitted key questions related to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212). This deficiency prejudiced the defense with respect to a necessity defense in a manner so serious as to deprive me of a fair trial and likely acquittal. For if the unborn can be victims of violence, then it is reasonable to protect them from violence. The legal standard of reasonableness should not be measured by the willingness of a society to draw the line according to the anarchy of its psychological rationalizations. Since the law recognizes that the unborn can indeed be victims of violence, it must also recognize the courage of those who find it in their hearts to accept the necessity of defending them from violence. To do otherwise means giving in to the anarchy of conscience at the expense of innocent children.
Perhaps appointed counsel's omission of questions relating to the Unborn Victims Act was intended to satisfy Mr. Ashcroft's mantra about being mindful of one's "currency" with the court. Though the legal merit of such questions is overtly critical to the my case, the U.S. Supreme Court has created a completely different standard of what constitutes a question of legal merit under the Certiorari Act, whereby presentation of even the most critical questions may be deliberately avoided by counsel as "a losing proposition" depending simply on what the court has "signaled," to again quote from Mr. Ashcroft. Instead, every defendant should have the right to have his or her case settled according to law.
While the Unborn Victims Act makes an exception for children who are legally versus illegally aborted, a coroner would not be able to distinguish the two on this basis alone. (In other words, one child pulled feet first from the womb and thrown into the dumpster naked with a stab wound to the back of the head and the cranial contents removed will look just like any other to the coroner, regardless of whether the woman wanted it done or not.) In this respect, the trial court should have been forced to address whether they are beings so far inferior that they have no rights we are bound to respect, as Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 (1856), puts it, or whether they instead deserve the equal protection of the laws, as the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States puts it. Pursuit of this question is critical to my defense because the latter establishes the right of each child be protected by another person, in this case, myself, as an innocent third party entitled to defense from homicide.
Instead, being mindful of his currency with the court, appointed counsel let the court slip by this critical question, by allowing the court to make a false statement to the effect that abortion has already been thoroughly debated. On the contrary, as Justice Stevens and Roe v. Wade author Justice Blackmun point out 20 years after Roe, neither any Member of the U.S. Supreme Court nor the U.S. solicitor general has ever so much as even "questioned" whether the children in question have rights we are bound to respect, as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; instead, the only debate has been over to what extent should the states be allowed to override both a woman's decision to refuse an abortion as well as her decision to choose an abortion; indeed, there cannot have been any meaningful debate without someone at least having "questioned" the matter. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), at 153-154 (relying on Jacobson and Buck to reject the argument that the abortion decision should be left to the woman's sole determination), and at 159 (disavowing Skinner, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from ... Skinner"); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), at 215 (Justice Douglas joining the Court's reliance on Jacobson and Buck in Roe); San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), at 100-101 (Justice Marshall reflecting that the Court in Roe abandoned Skinner and instead "reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell" for abortion); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, at 859 (the plurality warning that the states' rights justices would allow states to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to override her decision to choose an abortion), at 913, 932 (Justices Stevens and Blackmun, who wrote Roe, respectively reflecting that no Member of the Court, nor the solicitor general, has ever so much as "questioned" whether the children have rights we are bound to respect, but instead the Court has debated to what extent states should be allowed to override the woman's abortion decision), and at 915 (Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joined at 932, disavowing Skinner for abortion); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), at 980 (the states' rights justices banding together under Justice Thomas to clarify that they would allow states to perform even partial-birth procedures, provided only that the states so decide). In light of this abundant evidence, there is no question that appointed counsel allowed the court to get away with making a false statement to avoid further questioning on the matter of the children's rights and my right to defend them.
Again being mindful of his currency with the court, appointed counsel let the court make a self-serving statement without opposition, namely, that admission of a necessity defense would result in anarchy. On the contrary, it is anarchy to oppose the right of innocent children to be protected from homicide. It is anarchy to allow children to be victims of homicide without so much as ever even calling the coroner for a statement. Absence of a coroner's statement is most conspicuous. It testifies to the judicial anarchy associated with 'legal' abortion.
To competently address my right to a necessity defense, the court should have called the coroner for a statement to address any question of child homicide in an upright and legal manner; the court furthermore should have appointed counsel to represent the children's rights to the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. For my right to be equally protected by laws permitting a necessity defense is indissoluble from the children's right to be equally protected from harm as a matter of necessity. The issues of a coroner's statement and the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the children therefore cannot be excluded from a meaningful defense in this case.
The ineffective assistance of counsel results not only from attorney error or misconduct, but also from restraints imposed by the court which render even the best ambitions of the most capable counsel ineffective, by allowing perfunctory pursuit of latitudes ripe for conviction while denying any pursuit of those ripe for acquittal. It is to appoint counsel to pursue what is doomed, while denying a defense likely to prevail. I would have been acquitted had counsel been allowed to pursue a necessity defense and had counsel obtained a coroner's statement to confirm, as an objective matter, that the children in question are indeed victims of homicide.

Cal just sent me this: John, I know you already have claims 6-7 in your queue for the next issue. But if you have the time to read it yourself, here is the link to my case notes on the Scott Roeder habeas corpus petition.
http://www.juridic.org/images/notes.pdf
You might print the link along with the one to the full petition when you publish claims 6-7:
http://www.juridic.org/images/hc.pdf
The notes are pretty interesting because they tell us about how Roe was actually about pregnancy abatement, not choice, and how the Members of the Supreme Court never even "questioned" whether the children have rights we are bound to respect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

My favorite writer now is Mary Eberstadt. Each essay she wrote on one of the Seven Deadly Sins is magnificent. Here’s a paragraph from the final one, Pride:
The burning drive to leave a mark on one’s world, even if only in the disappearing ink of the Internet, ploughs up just the sort of soil in which Pride readily takes root. The Internet itself, especially the blogosphere, then fertilizes the results more wildly than any other medium could. To push one’s words into the public square under today’s circumstances is to know intimately just how gray is the area between promoting one’s message, worthy though it may be, and promoting oneself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Dunkle & AIM, I have just received word that the regional FBOP office has denied any half-way house time for me. That’s okay though. I have a place to live and a job lined up already. My release date is now November 7th of this year.
I want to thank you for sending AIM/SKYP to me all this time. Even when the jerks in the mailroom sent it back. I know I have not written to you for quite some time but I have been keeping myself rather busy.
A number of months ago I started working in the prison chapel. I enjoy the job as well as the access it has given me to research materials. I am taking a class on conversational Spanish and have just finished a class on marine biology.
Thank you, Robert Weiler

P.S. I wanted to respond to Cal’s attacks on the Catholic and LDS (Mormon) churches. I think this will have to wait for another time. However, having been raised Catholic and currently adhering to the LDS faith, I took exception to a number of his remarks.

God bless you, Robert. Federal agents visit every so often to ask me questions. One agent asked me if I knew a Robert “Wheeler.” No, I said, and I could see she thought I was lying. Since I never lie (unless I really have to), that upset me, especially, when, after they left, I realized her Wheeler was my Weiler. She has not been among those who have visited me recently, but if I see her again, I’ll explain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John, Hope this finds you and yours doing well and blessed.
Sorry I haven’t written recently but finally got a copy of this “Roeder Trial analysis” written my Kathy Ramey that seemed to be very enlightening. Kathy is with (or was at one time) the Life Advocate which is a pro-life magazine. She was at my trial and seems to have done a good job in assessing what took place that day.
Also, there is another article included by someone off the internet which seemed to be very well written. [How can I find this one, Scott?]
You might want to include them in your next newsletter. Let me know what you think.
God bless you all! Until next time, Scott Roeder

P.S. Wanted to thank you wholeheartedly for all the original and back issues of SKYP! They have been most enlightening. Especially the ones with Paul Hill’s writings! God bless!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John, I now have email, I think Lewisburg is either the last, or near the last federal prison to get this new modern marvel of communications. Slow as it has been to get it, I'm very grateful to have it. I've sent you an automated message to: JohnDunkaptd.net [Clay, please resend to jdmd@ptd.net; I don’t know what happened to johndunk.]
This automated message will direct you to a web site that you must register with. Once you register I can email you, and you me. My email is slightly different from what you are accustomed to. With this system you must send email to me from the web site you registered at (corrlinks I think). I understand it is similar to other web based email systems except that you can't send attachments and all you send is guaranteed to be read by the fed, (As opposed to it will likely be read on normal email). But the real pain with this system is that when I send you an email, you don't receive any form of notification. The only way you'll know I've sent you something is to log into the web site and check. It is no problem on my end. As soon as I log in it informs me that I have new mail, but it’s a pain for you out there.
Hope you don't mind going through this extra step so we can email each other. I see is as a preferred way for me to write stuff for the newsletter. It should inspire me to write articles more often. I am having a great time emailing my family, even a son aboard a Navy ship in the Persian Gulf. The email is not instant, mine has a one to two day delay for security reasons, but after ten years of struggling to communicate with snail-mail, this is a real blessing, Take care my Friend, Clay [signed]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The March 23 post on The Abortioneers is “A Letter to My Local Protesters.” One of the regular contributors, AG (About A Girl), wrote it:

"There are five people you meet in heaven, each one of us was in your life for a reason. you may not have known the reason at the time, and that is what heaven is for. For understanding your life on earth."

Sometimes I imagine that if heaven (if I really believed in one) included five people who affected your life (like in Mitch Albom’s novel), there might be five of the local “peaceful” protesters looking at me. There are things I’d want them to know. Things I’d want to tell them about how their protesting affected my life. This list is not exhaustive:

1. Your rosaries and hail marys don’t make you a nice person.
2. I see you and my blood pressure rises several points past boiling.
3. When I see you, my jaws clench, my fingers tense, my head pounds, my stomach turns in knots, and I get scared.
4. Despite your old age, I don’t trust you haven’t got a pistol behind your sign, ready to blow my doctor’s head off. Or mine.
5. When I have to walk past you or see you, I think of my child. Hope today isn’t the day someone decides to shoot me, leaving my child without a mother.
6. When you stare at my co-workers and write down their license plate numbers, I want to follow YOU home.
7. For years, you have hurt women, causing them pain and anguish. I see them. They cry. Are angry. Feel judged. Yet you have no place to judge her.
8. Because of you, when I leave the clinic, I look both ways exiting the door.
9. Because of you, when I leave or arrive at the clinic, I speedily get into the false safety of the building or my vehicle.
10. Because of you, when I drive home, I check my rear view window to see if I’m being followed.
11. Our doors are a little tighter. Our windows shut harder. Our curtains drawn darker.
12. Because of you, we can’t have normal glass. We have bullet proof glass.
13. Because of you, we have panic buttons.
14. Because of you, I may get a home security system. And I live in a very nice little neighborhood with no other need for a home security system.
15. I really think I hate you.
16. I want to spit on you when I see a woman weep (who was raped by her father; or found out her wanted pregnancy has anencephaly; or who just got her lights shut off because she can't pay any bills, let alone keep another baby; who can die for our country in battle, but is about to get court marshalled if her country finds out she's pregnant; or who slept with the wrong guy on the wrong day and realized she really wants to finish school and make something of herself; or who might even be your daughter or sister or niece or granddaughter) after listening to you scream at her, judge her, beg her not to have an abortion. FUCK you for hurting her.
17. I watch my colleagues and doctors and nurses get tense and nervous and scared because you exist outside our building.
18. You’ve stripped from us basic things: the ability to hire staff without questioning if their anti spies; the ability to walk freely to and from our cars; the ability to do our jobs in safety free from fear.
19. You’re a terrorist.
20. I really think I hate you.
21. Your hail marys and rosaries don’t make you a nice person.
22. You are not a nice person.
23. You're quite awful, really.
24. Oh yeah. I hate you.

Well, this is good news. Great news would be if we upset AG to the point where she got a different job. These nazis operate their auschwitzes voluntarily, remember, not like the Germans who were ordered.

Moreover, look what elicited this vitriolic and embarrassing outburst – five old ladies praying the rosary. Who says the rosary is not a powerful weapon! I know that the next time I get tired standing outside a mill, I will recall AG’s post here, take out my rosary, and know that, among other things, I am attacking the enemy effectively.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter’s letter on Greg Cunningham (the April writer) and other pacificist prolifers like him continues:

People would never be drawn to Jesus in the proper manner, though, if any of the April writer’s ideas relating to the subject were followed. To some people the unprovoked and unjustified brutality and savagery of Jesus’ crucifixion brings to mind some of the most emotionally disturbing images possible. And you must bring those images to your mind and the minds of others in order for what he did to be properly appreciated. So if you adopt the AW’s ideas and reasoning that you should not place before people, especially the young, anything that has a potential to upset them emotionally, then you are never going to place before them the story of Jesus’ crucifixion.
These are the reasons why I also disagree with the Apostle Paul when he said that a woman should not teach (preach) 1 Timothy 2:11-12; If people are any good, they cannot help but preach through their example. And what is the difference between preaching by example and preaching by word? Except it be that it is far easier for a hypocrite to preach by word. Paul’s rationale for this precept, Verse 12, that Adam was formed before Eve, is nonsense. If you have that as a reason for a judgment, then you should be consistent and say that Adam was superior to all later formed humans. And that no one should preach to anyone who is older. And that the plants are superior to the animals and humans.
The Apostle Paul had many admirable qualities: concern and compassion; conviction; courage; charity; commitment; confidence (in the Lord) but unfortunately he was prejudiced against certain people. Prejudice is discriminating against someone because of something which itself is of no importance.
And I most certainly do not agree with Paul’s line of reasoning in Verse 4, that if someone of one particular sex does something wrong (Eve) then all people of that sex should be discriminated against and victimized forever more because of it. God sees and considers what’s in the heart of each individual. Not what was in the heart of his or her ancestors.
It’s not as though the men have had such good hearts and have been such crash hot preachers that they deserve the field all to themselves. They’ve been lousy. On the other hand, it’s not that there’s any reason to suppose that the women would be any better. But if someone, male or female, is one of the few people who place the appropriate value on the Lord’s supreme act of love, then she will have an overpowering desire to see to it that it receives as much reward as possible. And it is a major crime, a crime of great cruelty, to attempt to kill or sabotage her good desire. Asking a woman who has that desire to quell it is asking her to fulfill 5% of her potential. Asking her to be a 5% Christian. A 5% Christian is no Christian at all.

The true Christian’s principle duty is this – to invite people, by the only proper means, to come to Jesus’ house and live with him, so that his great act of love receives the maximum reward. Some people are reluctant to perform that duty. The Lord was willing to be crucified so that people would be drawn to his life saving words. All his followers, both male and female, should be no less willing and no less committed to doing the same. It is therefore a fallacy to think that there is any true Christian who does not have a duty to preach.
Having given people the bus ticket to Jesus’ house, it is then up to you to complete your principle duty by (A) correcting any misconceptions they have about the house rules; (B) ensuring that they have a full and proper understanding of what is required of them to live as members of his family, and (C) refusing them entry if thy are unwilling to comply with his house rules.
The main rules at Jesus’ house, the main things he preached about, were these – not desiring or living an affluent lifestyle; having concern and compassion for the poor and the needy and the persecuted and helping them, rather than being apathetic about their plight; being genuine; not being proud; honoring marriage; a willingness to sacrifice for others; promoting the Gospel; and whilst I can’t recall whether he ever specifically mentioned it in words, his own example indicated you should be courageous. If you travel back far enough, you will find that selfishness is the root cause of people’s faults in regard to all these, apart maybe from being genuine. (tbc)

Next issue: Kopp on Holman, and more Evans

34 comments:

John Dunkle said...

3/24 I agree with you two. I don't know what's going on.

John Dunkle said...

3/25 Once there were two, bullywatch and abortioneers. I feared that the plethora of riches wouldn't last, and it didn't. Bully, which had been the only brave pro-death site because it faced, rather than ran from, the opposition, finally ran; and even though cowardly abortioneers had a dozen contributors, they struggled to post weekly.
All has changed: bully is back feisty as ever, but probably not brave this time, and I tweaked eers into posting daily.
Bully is now thenosodailyherald -- I will refer to it here as snot; eers for abortioneers.
Let the fun begin.

John Dunkle said...

3/24 snot Don't you think the Golden Rule applies more to someone who is about to be pulled apart than to someone who wants to stay in college?

John Dunkle said...

3/6 snot This is old. I repeat:

Abortions are the worst crimes people are capable of committing.

Women who have abortions are either satanic or stupid.

In this country abortion should be illegal, of course.

People working to restrict abortions should realize that the use of force is necessary to accomplish their goal.

People working on behalf of a woman's right to choose should realize that unless they add the object of the infinitive they are deluding themselves.

A woman facing an unwanted pregnancy needs to realize that her feelings are similar to those of women who carry to term.

John Dunkle said...

3/25 thesnotsodailyherald
As you know, Kate, I am sweetness personified, but that beautiful lady saves many more lives than I do.

John Dunkle said...

3/25 snot I've always said one woman at auschwitz is worth three men, and, Kate, you prove it. Your seeing a woman attempting to save someone's live brings on frenzy.
Also, remember in the old days when you had the guts to face me? Now you hide, and run, and silence. What happened?

John Dunkle said...

snot Is Jennifer controlling you?

John Dunkle said...

3/25 eers
Dizzy is at it again. Does anybody around here understand what she is talking about?

John Dunkle said...

3/25 snot
One chooses parenting if she wants children; one chooses adoption if she wants children but cannot herself have them; one chooses abortion if she is a killer.

John Dunkle said...

3/25 snot
Let's cut a deal, Babes. I'll shut up if you say this to the lady approaching the mill: "Just before you enter the door that ugly old man over there will pretend his is the voice of the baby you're carrying. He'll shout, 'Mommy, please don't let them pull off my arms and legs.' He'll do that in a last ditch effort to wake you up. But stay asleep, sweetheart. We will all be much better off, including the baby, if you stay asleep."

John Dunkle said...

3/26 snot

How come I have to sign in every time I receive an inspiration? By the time I do that, I forget my best stuff. Anyway, I was there this morning. Why aren't I mentioned! You really know how to hurt a guy, Kate.

John Dunkle said...

3/26 eers

John Dunkle said...

3/26 eers
This is awesome? This is narcissistic low life.

John Dunkle said...

Reminder: Most of these posts do not respond to "Abortion is Murder," which does not receive much attention, but to "The Abortioneers" (eers), and "Thesnotsodailyherald" (snot), which do.

John Dunkle said...

I don't mean most of these posts, I mean most of these comments.

John Dunkle said...

3/27 snot

"Codger" -- a queer person -- you being homophobic again, Kate? But you're right. Father had me squirming. I don't think he likes the rough and tumble of politics in action.

John Dunkle said...

3/28 snot

This "if only" obliterates all yours, Kate Ranieri: if only you would realize that no one, no matter how young, how old, how black, how white, how different in other ways, may be executed simply because someone else doesn't want her, that is reason enough to make abortion illegal again.

John Dunkle said...

3/26 eers

What is with you folks! Kate Ranieri at her thesnotsodaily blog posts every day, sometimes twice a day. And the twenty-five of you go half a week with nothing new to say! Think of poor me. I feed off your stuff. If I have to depend on Kate the Krank, I'll lose too much weight!

John Dunkle said...

3/28 "On Intimidation" snot

Kate, could I be your editor. It's so darn hard to read something when the pronouns don't match the antecedents.

John Dunkle said...

3/28 eers

A 501(c)3 organization that exists solely to pay to kill young folks who might otherwise escape the tornado? That doesn't seem legal. Let's give it to the lawyers.

John Dunkle said...

3/28 eers

If PS's commitment to abortion care is anything like her commitment to communication (referring to this contradictory, long-winded post), I can't understand why she's not prolife.

Anyway, no one ever claims life is void of risks. We prolifers just say that everyone has the right to face those risks. No one has the right to wait till the little girl, by sheer determination, lives through the most hazardous weeks of her life, and then kill her.

John Dunkle said...

3/30 snot

Kate, I praise you to the heavens to Abortioneers because you post once, twice a day, and the forty of them about once a week. And then you stop posting! Are you letting me run your life?

John Dunkle said...

Careful now. Don't forget: God talks through the Pope.
About clerical sexual sin, I can explain it all to you but you don't listen to me anymore.

John Dunkle said...

the above is from 3/30 snot

John Dunkle said...

3/30 eers

Can you imagine? Sparky had two weeks to come up with a new pro-death argument and even though she is brimming with ideas, nothing's forthcoming. Sparky, why torture yourself. Relax, and become a pro-lifer. It's so natural.

John Dunkle said...

3/30 eers

If I were one of you killers, I wouldn't be worried that ole Sparks might not try to write all her ideas down; I'd be worried if she wrote any down. She's #3 on the Abortineers' air-head list.

John Dunkle said...

3/31 eers

Some of these are so bad that even I can't think of a thing to say.

John Dunkle said...

3/31 snot

You mean T-Shirts for Low-lives. But, oh, do I wish you were right!
I should have guessed you were Catholic, Kate. Boy, when they turn, it gets ugly.

治士士 said...

人妻自拍18havno185st成人片0204交友單身同學會交友覓戀會館交友聊天室成人 影片日本卡通美女漫畫日本卡通野球拳日本卡通色情網日本卡通h漫日本卡通少女日本女藝人圖片網站日本女傭a片日本女優名字日本女優圖庫日本女優姓名視訊 辣妹sex520免費影片色情a圖cu成人bt情色 網a圖打飛機專用網成人影城微風成人sex999免費影片情色聊天松島楓免費影片0410 免費視訊聊天網維克斯成人999無瑪試看圖av影片下載網際論壇曼雪兒追追追曼雪兒黃色小說曼雪兒色 f 情小說曼雪兒色情免費小說曼雪兒色情小說

John Dunkle said...

3/31 eers

I see a trend here. First, "they" eliminate men, then they eliminate mothers too, and then they eliminate all older people. Now they are left on their own to do anything they want (or are persuaded to do) sexually because it's all free -- condoms, killings, etc. And all the while they stay ignorant of the fact that it's satanic, old men who pull the strings.

John Dunkle said...

Hey, 18haveno185st, you going to get into trouble for saying that!

John Dunkle said...

4/1 eers

No wonder DOW fell into that hole as she was listening to "Everything." I got two minutes into it and don't know if anything else happened because I fell asleep.

John Dunkle said...

The director of the Allentown Women's Center, Jennifer Boulanger, is trying to persuade blogspot to drop "Abortion is Murder."

Jen, I'm not sure you should continue with this. "Abortion is Murder" takes up a lot of my time, probably too much. It keeps me out of the field where I'm more needed. If you succeed in silencing it, I'll probably visit the AWC three times a week instead of just Saturdays. In case of a shut-down, I would also use the extra time, probably, to hold my Quakertown prayer vigils for you every Sunday rather than just the third Sunday. Since I'm not sure of which direction to take, I'm letting you make the decision.

John Dunkle said...

4/2 snot

Remember Mary Homa (sp?)? She tripped over a broken sidewalk in front of Reading Planned Parenthood a few years ago, and fell in great pain. The camera must have picked it up because Lisa and other kayhaitchers appeared immediately at the door, clapping and cheering. This post reminds me of that. All you kayhaitchers alike?