Friday, April 02, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-1, May, 2010

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

May, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 1
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell—484-706-4375, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 99
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. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
15. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
16. 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

This issue of “Abortion is Murder,” now starting its eighth year, begins with more of Eric Rudolph’s magnificent history:

Used by the majority of “pro-choicers,” the personhood defense of abortion is a hollow attempt to assuage guilty consciences. Killing is a disagreeable business. But if a person de-humanizes the victim, it makes it so much easier. Combatants do this in time of war. The enemy is transformed from a human being into an object: “Gook,” “Jerry,” “Kraut,” “Crusaders.” Even military nomenclature uses “target,” “enemy personnel,” and “collateral damage.” The pro-abortion ideologues are no different. They use “fetus,” “material,” and “parasite.” Thomson, Tooley, and Warren’s use of bizarre de-humanizing examples is evidence of guilty consciences. Unborn children are “burglars,” “people-seeds,” and “kittens on consciousness drugs”—they are anything but human beings. Pro-abortion ideologue Pollack Petchesky put it bluntly when he said that “on a level of biology alone . . . the fetus is a parasite.”36
Medical science says that the zygote is an individual human being at his earliest stage of life. Life never stands still from conception to death, life is one continuum. If you interrupt the continuum at any point, you have killed that individual human being. Stephen Swartz’s excellent essay “Personhood Begins at Conception” makes this point very well. The unborn child, says Swartz, is not an organ like a heart or lung. Nor is he a simple cell, or a cancer cell. If left to grow, a cancer cell will not develop into a walking, talking, reasoning human being. But a zygote will develop into a full grown human being. All of us were zygotes at the beginning of our lives, just as all of us will be elderly at the end. And if our mothers had aborted us when we were zygotes, or at any stage of gestation, we would not be here. It is true that pre-natal life has special dependencies that post-natal life does not. But all of us will have special dependencies at other times in our lives as well—hospitalization, adolescence, senility, old age. Although each stage of life has its special considerations, the individual experiencing that stage of life is still the same person, and should be treated accordingly:
A being at the beginning of his development cannot be expected to possess what only that development will provide him. He is already the being who will later function as a person, given time. The sleeping person is also a being who will later function as a person, only he will do it much sooner. What they each have now—a fully developed brain, in one case, and a less developed brain that will grow into a developed brain in the other—is a basis for his or her capacity to function as a person. It is the same essential basis, one undeveloped, the other developed. It is merely a matter of degree; there is no difference in kind.37
If infants, sleeping people, amnesiacs, the comatose, the mentally ill are protected from unjustified homicide, then so should the unborn.
Even if you put his position in its most favorable light, Tooley’s argument is absurd. Imagine twin girls born at precisely the same time. One is born comatose, and will remain that way until she is nine-years-old. Her sister is born healthy, but the moment she develops Tooley’s “concept of continuing self,” she slips into a coma, and like her sister will remain that way until her ninth birthday. According to Tooley’s twisted logic, it is moral to kill the first twin because she has no history of functioning as a “person.” But it would be immoral to kill the second twin because she does have such a history, however brief.
It simply is not possible to narrow the definition of personhood with the intention of excluding the unborn without at the same
time excluding infants as well. There are no differences between the fetus in his eight month and the newborn infant. The pro-abortion personhood argument thus falls apart over infanticide. Here is Warren sounding like some savage in the Amazon jungle: “It follows from my argument that when an unwanted or defective infant is born into a society which cannot afford and/or is not willing to care for it, then its destruction is permissible.”38
Don Marquis used Kantian philosophy to fashion a personhood defense for the unborn, one that he hoped was not too broad, or too narrow. Marquis believes the pro-life position that it is always “prima facie wrong to take human life” is too broad because it seems to include cancer cells. Conversely, he believes the pro-abortion argument that it is only “prima facie wrong to kill a rational agent” is too narrow because it excludes infants, the severely retarded, and the mentally ill.39
Killing is wrong because of the effect on the victim, says Marquis. It “deprives him of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have otherwise constituted his future. What makes killing an adult human wrong is the loss of his or her future.” Marquis admits that the problem with any argument that relies on psychological qualities is you always end up excluding one or another class of people. Because the terminally ill and the aged don’t have much of a future, Marquis’ formula ends up excluding them: “The claim that the loss of one’s future is what makes killing them wrong does not mean that active euthanasia is wrong.”40
One of the best arguments against abortion is that it attacks the very heart of social order, which is social obligation. Thomson’s libertarian interpretation of the social contract is a pile of nonsense. Either you are in society, or you are out. The individual and society are not sitting in their own little kingdoms, trading rights for obligations. All contractual agreements exist within society. Outside of society is anarchy and war, not a utopia full of sovereign people. The individual is not prior to society. There are no sovereign individuals. Whatever rights and privileges you manage to get in a particular society, the society is sovereign, for if it were not, there would be no society. If everyone was left as judge in his own case, the laws could only be applied to consenting individuals.
Thomson’s contention that the child has no right to live in his mother’s body undermines all social obligations. A woman must give her consent before the child can stay. This applies to all pregnancies, says Thomson. Even if the pregnancy was intended and the child is carried into the ninth month, Thomson believes the mother has every right to “unplug” herself through abortion. Her argument is predicated on the false notion that society is made up of sovereign individuals. The mother has no obligations to her child. No one owes anyone anything unless she gives her consent.
To make her argument, Thomson assumes that all obligations in society are voluntary. A mother’s obligation to her child is similar to those obligations toward a stranger. Her argument is untenable in part because parental obligations are different from those obligations to strangers. Normally, a woman gets pregnant after engaging in consensual sex, being fully aware that pregnancy is a likely possibility. Pregnancy is a natural result of engaging in sex. Any twelve-year-old knows this. Pregnancy is not an unusual event like being kidnapped by music lovers, or being burglarized. Also, what makes Thomson’s arguments inappropriate is their novelty. Sex and pregnancy go together like eating and digesting. If you engage in sex, you assume the risk of pregnancy. If you eat, you should likewise expect to digest. If you engage in certain behavior, you must accept the inherent consequences of that behavior.
Thomson’s thesis also nullifies parental support laws. Under the current laws, a man who has consensual sex with a woman is responsible for the financial upkeep of any resulting offspring, even if he used birth control and didn’t intend to have a child. As Michael Levin points out, “All parental support laws make the parental body an indirect resource for the child. If the father is a construction worker, the state will intervene unless some of the calories he is expending lifting equipment go to providing food for his children.”41
Let us carry Thomson’s argument to its logical end. Why should there be any difference between the way a mother can treat her child before birth, and the way she can treat him after birth? Remember, Thomson accepts that the fetus is fully human at all stages of gestation. Still she insists that the child has no “prima facie” right to his mother’s body. Abortion is not deliberate murder, says Thomson. Aborting a child is the same as unplugging yourself from that violinist. Yes, the violinist will die if you unplug yourself, but you are not deliberatly killing him, just refusing to give him use of your body. Why not be consistent? If a mother can unplug herself at any point during the pregnancy, why not after the pregnancy as well? What if a mother brings a baby to term, delivers him, and raises him for one year. Then one day after watching Sex In the City she discovers that motherhood is a drag. So she makes plane reservations, packs her bags, and jets over to Europe for a few months. Meanwhile, her child starves to death. No harm no foul, right? She didn’t kill the child; she just “unplugged” herself. (tbc)

In the last issue Scott mentioned that this account of his trial is worth reading:

Tiller Murder Trial... Roeder Brings in the Victims & Is Silenced
By Cathy Ramey

So Roeder is being tried for Murder but he is not allowed to describe the gruesome procedure inflicted on victims that had him willing to risk incarceration and possibly execution in order to save those lives.
The last thing the prosecution desires is to have this trial turn into a referendum on abortion. The judge in the trial is making sure that doesn't happen by disallowing the testimony of the former Kansas Attorney General, Phil Kline, who unsuccessfully prosecuted Tiller for providing illegal late term abortions
This court needs a conviction of Roeder and that isn't going to happen if the trial swerves into becoming a decision on the morality of abortion.
Roeder simply tells the truth! Like many, many others, me included, he wanted to see Tiller stopped. He waited in hopes the government would "man-up" to their God-given responsibility, but when it was absolutely clear to him that the government has been taken over by quisling social workers and cold-blooded killers, Scott Roeder determined to do what needed to be done; he used whatever means was necessary to assure that the serial-killer, George Tiller, would be unable to kill any more innocent infants ever again.
Scott Roeder didn't try to "play nice" to please a "church" crowd because he is sadly aware that the Church of Jesus Christ has been invaded, polluted and overrun by slimy sentimentalists who would rather turn away from Truth and Responsibility than exert themselves in any real way to share in the suffering of the Unborn, much less that of Jesus Christ. They propound and lap up with their tongues, like swine, "another gospel" contrary to that handed down through the Scriptures. They want their entertainment and their ears tickled. Sadly, they find like-minded "pastors" who are willing to keep them fat and sleepy so long as gold and silver rings line the offering plate. Tiller's "pastor" serves as a fine example of those so thoroughly fit for hell themselves that all they can do is turn out congregants twice as fit for damnation as they are.
Stop sitting with them in the congregation! Stop tolerating their slick-sounding sentiments about "helping women," "preventing over-population"! (Is anyone heralding Roeder for helping to solve that ZPG [zero population growth] problem, one-butcher-at-a-time?)
Stop buying into their oozing concern about serving the children a kindness by killing them so they don't have to suffer "being abused," "going hungry," and the other pitfalls of life later on.
They are verdant liars; if they really cared, they'd limit the population by doing the easiest, most uncomplicated thing— they would simply "off" themselves after sending all of their money and assets to those "poor" among them. They would help "save the earth" by recognizing their own sins against their goddess and offering themselves as a personal human sacrifice to appease her supposed anger expressed in "global warming," "droughts," “famines," pestilence and other things that plague her.
Why aren't they doing this? Perhaps the rising smoke of these worshipers giving themselves to the fire or leaping into a live volcano would waft that nice smoky grilled meat fragrance down to the goddess and appease her; and, if not her, certainly there are those in hell who will welcome them. What are they waiting for? They are part of their problem; why aren't they doing all they can to fix it?
They don't make such real sacrifices themselves because internally they know their gospel is dung, their churches are not even fit to be transformed into outhouses, and they care for no plant, no animal, no so-called god or goddess as much as they care for themselves. They are selfish bastards, illegitimate in their claims to be "children of God" or offspring of their mythical goddess.
They deserve to be confronted with their lies, not tolerated at all. If the true Church won't be honest in confronting them with their sin and need for salvation, do we think satan and his minions will take up that task?
You want society to "like" your gospel message, then go join the Unitarians, Buddhists, those filthy "reformed" so-called "Christian churches" that sanction murdering the Unborn, or some other no-god cult that centers on you, you, and you.
May that evil man or woman burn in hell's fiercest flames for rejecting the True God who prefers innocent lives over those who stand guilty, who wade in the blood of the Unborn they have killed, or stand guilty of any other sin they try to justify as "safe," "legal," "loving," or more "tolerant" and "diversified" than those narrow-minded Christians who believe God and take Him at His Word.
You want to serve the God who created the heavens and the earth, who outlawed the murder of innocent people through a Noahic covenant, and who commanded that we love others enough to do for them in their distress what we would hope could be done for us? Then "man up," pick up that 400-pound cross and plan on being hated by those who openly hate God, or merely pretend He is their Lord.
When anti-abortion men and women everywhere choose to be as brave as Scott Roeder, then, only then, will we see an end to the holocaust perpetrated by these horrid, despicable butchers of children. They are absolutely contemptible and their spilled blood is on their own heads and hands. May God recompense them with terror and dread for every life they bartered away or butchered under the auspices of being "pro-choice" or "a doctor" just doing a "legal medical procedure."
I pray that God will be generous in pouring out His Holy Spirit; endowing brave men, just as He did Scott Roeder, with outrage at the slaughter taking place in these human dog-pounds called "abortion clinics," "medical centers," "women's health clinics" and the like. I pray to God Almighty for others who are earnest in loving Him, loving our Unborn neighbors and doing all that is humanly possible on their part to stop those who kill Unborn children and those who arrogantly promote their slaughter.
May God raise up people of good faith, good aim, and the courage to try to tell a jury precisely why they are innocent of the blood of the abortionists. I don't know the man, but I am sure proud of Scott Roeder.
Please be encouraged! This is a demonstration that God is at work to tear away any pretense that letting an abortionist continue his "work" is connected at any level with truly being Christian; genuinely loving a neighbor, or is biblically, morally or ethically justified at any level. Nowhere does God command the taking of innocent human life. What He does command is that if "man sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed." Tiller got precisely less pain and suffering than he deserved; but a man, having done a man's job, God will take care of the rest of what Tiller has coming to him. Be of good cheer and spread the good news. Read the news article accessed by that link and praise God for endowing Mr. Roeder with such a lack of guile, a desire to be truthful and courage to hold back nothing in asserting the righteousness of his deed.
God was most truly glorified today in Wichita.

"So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of faith." Gal 6:10.”

Cathy Ramey is a prophetess, like Ruth. I do disagree, though, with her second sentence, paragraph 15. It should read, “We are absolutely contemptible and their spilled blood is on our own heads and hands”

Holman’s Really On To Something
By James Kopp

Actually faithful readers of his newsletter know that he’s always been on to something – he has pitch perfect intuition when it comes to ferreting out bad things within the ranks of erstwhile prolifers – but now he’s really, really, on to something, and once again, I wonder myself exceeding, why won’t we listen and pay more careful attention? Or is it just too painful to challenge basic assumptions?
But that’s the point, if you ask me: Dan is trying to look at it all from a new perspective, as if nothing can be taken for granted, and I believe this approach is well justified.
Something is broken in the prolife status quo and it needs fixing because it ain’t working.
My apologies to Dan, that I keep using the word “pro-life” for now, for this little letter, force of habit. I’ll think about the aborticide thing, I promise. It’s hard to teach old dogs new tricks!
Which brings us smartly to what I really want to contribute to Dan’s, and all of our thinking, and partly why I write this letter. Whether you reading this are one of my dear Evangelical brothers or sisters, or, if you are one of my dear befuddled Modernist American RC brothers and sisters, or, for that matter, if you are just Joe Six Pack in the Street, raving drunkenly about “freedom,” (... there. Have I offended everyone? Oh, wait), or, if you are a non-terrorist Muslim who’s here, mainly, for a nice place to raise your kids, without bullets whizzing over their heads (indoor plumbing, too), ... if you are any of the above, and, anyone with a pulse and beta waves ... we can all benefit, in this discussion, with a nice, big, soppy, 91/2 yard dose of (respectful hush) ... loud fanfare! (“Common Man,” by Aaron Copland will do)
Ta, ta-ta-ta!


Yes, boys and girls, our Dan is so on the money, he, with his unerring Godly intuition (enhanced, perhaps?, by the added time in durance vile occasioned by rough handling on the Upper Peninsula...?, Dan, I say, has happily and felicitously stepped on the Syllabus turf.
Sad pause
Deep sigh
It’s at this point in the discussion where I need to bring up Old Issues. Have I politely requested that this august journal re-print the Syllabus? Oh, let me count the ways. Better yet, why don’t we just cut to the chase and I’ll give you an excerpt from whyjohnwon’, a conspiracy website linked to Alex Jones (juuust kidding=))
1)John already did print it, but The Government filtered it out somehow (15,723 hits)
2) The filtering out was done by “Safe Schools Czar” Jenkins, a non-Congress approved Obama appointee (12,201 hits)
3) Jenkins is a former member of NAMBLA, a notorious child-molesting-as-culture group, and
4) Jenkins is a member of some sodomite group with an acronym like GLBTTF (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transvestite Task Force), and \ 4) Jenkins, while a high school principal, refused to police or prosecute sodomite statutory rape of a minor male student under his tender care, and
5) Barack Obama knew all this when he thrust Jenkins upon vulnerable school children, and
6) This makes Barak Obama guilty after the fact of statutory sodomistic rape of a minor (7,233 hits). (tbc)

What’s going on here, Jimbo? You want me to post all eighty parts of the Syllabus of Errors? Some of them are longer than this page! And just look at them! You and I are believers, but here, for one, is #77: "In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."

In other words, if you ain’t Catholic, you can’t worship! And that’s not the hardest-hitting!

If I weren’t Catholic, I’d be more anti-Catholic even than Tobra!

More from Paul Ross Evans:

Further instructions are bestowed upon God’s law enforcers in Exodus 21:12, 14 –
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death
But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.


Manslaughter is mentioned in our criminal law also. The clear definitive breakdown lies obviously in the intent. In Exodus 21:13 God makes known to us that if a man kills in self-defense or protection of others, or even during an accident, we are not to hold such a man criminally liable. If such a system of civil law demands he be liable, or if for instance the slain individual from an accidental death has friends and family who bear grudges, a place of concealment shall be appointed unto him.

Exodus 21:13
And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand, then I will appoint there a place whither he shall flee.

It should be said at this point that we only bring to the table various laws in each section of this text. Some of those laws, and their descriptions, may even seem brief. But the specific laws we bring up are important, and sometimes are even hard to juxtapose to help explain God’s way. In examining how some crimes are treated in comparison to others, we see what is and isn’t important to our father. After studying and scrutinizing the previous two criminal laws concerning murder and manslaughter, more is revealed to us about the intent and mission of the Father’s will.
Those, who out of vile financial gain and out of pure hatred kill one another, they also shall be put to death. They must be killed by God’s law enforcers. Those however, who kill out of self defense, protection of others, and out of sheer accident shall certainly be spared all punishment, for these actions are not murder


Many forms of assault are given mention in the Bible, according to how the theocracy should deal with such mischief. Distinctly, when man, out of hatred, anger, or vengeance strikes his fellow man, he shall see to his safety and allow him to be thoroughly mended after such a dispute. (see Exodus 21: 18, 19 Later in this same chapter of Exodus, where God Almighty lends us so much wisdom for specific situations and how to handle them, He commands us to punish a man with death if he even, accidentally, while striving or fighting with another man, causes a woman to have a miscarriage (Exodus 21: 22, 23). Clearly such NONSENSE should never be tolerated, as the fruit of the womb is give from God to be returned, from the point of conception, at all costs. I feel it important to make clear of specifics now in these matters: the key guilt and condemning factor in such matters is malice. Accidents aren’t to be treated with the “eye for eye” logic of Exodus 21: 24. These punishments are only to be conveyed upon murderers, those who cause women to lose children prematurely, and many other instances involving malice, self-centeredness, and arrogance. In other situations, however, when we are not protecting God’s law and His People, we are to follow what Christ fulfilled and commanded, by “turning the other cheek” and lending forgiveness.
For in every society there must be order. When the occasion arises, we must, however, show forgiveness. Biblical laws must be upheld, but there are many instances when malice is not present, we should forgive. Here we catch a glimpse of God’s vast wisdom as He judges all the Earth. (Next – kidnapping)

More of Peter’s pro-force argument:

Greg Cunningham claimed in 2008 that Paul Hill was a failure, suggesting that since he was not given support, his actions saved no unborn children. Since it is not the true Christian’s principle responsibility to save the lives of unborn children, whether or not Paul Hill saved any is not the question. The question is this – what field should the true Christian preach in. Where are the people breaking Jesus’ house rules more than anywhere else? Where does the record most need to be set straight? Where do people have the most misconceptions about what the house rules are? And what field are so many fake preachers giving out false information about what the house rules are?
There is nothing that has separated people from Jesus near as much as their failures in regard to abortion murder. Nowhere else have they shown near so much contempt for his house rules. The things that Jesus hates and preached against; their apathetic attitude and indifference towards those suffering great affliction; their lack of compassion; their cowardice; their pride; their sexual immorality; their selfishness; their deranged ability to call good
bad and bad good; nowhere have they exhibited these traits near so clearly. And nowhere has their delusion that they don’t have those traits taken such a strong hold of them.
Nowhere too have they and their traits been responsible for bringing about anywhere near such destruction of human life. So that clearly is where the house rules so desperately need to be explained, and where it is the duty of any true Christian to set the record straight. Explained, and hammered, and hammered, and hammered into them. You will not find a field where it is anywhere near as important to preach as this one. And you will not find a field which has been more neglected.
The fact should be made to shine as brightly as the sun that in view of the enormous benefits it would have brought, there should not just have the necessary two hundred Paul Hills in North America willing to put a stop to abortionists by Paul Hill’s methods, there should have been many many millions who were willing. And the fact that there weren’t many many millions, the fact that there weren’t even the lousy two hundred, the fact that the number of Paul Hills could be counted on one hand, and that the situation has been repeated across the world means that this planet is now in a far worse state than Sodom and Gomorrah.

Unlike other preachers, Paul Hill did not chicken out and search for somewhere else to preach where less would be asked of him. Somewhere, where people’s bad traits were less pronounced and having less disastrous effects. He told people in the best way possible, the only proper way, by non-hypocritical practical demonstration, what God requires of them in a situation such as the situation is with abortion. He told them where their most serious breaches of Jesus’ house rules are and so carried out his principal duty. That was Paul Hill’s achievement.
James Dobson, Chuck Swindall, and all the rest of them, are pathetic failures. Anyone who has ever bothered to spend a small amount of time necessary to find out what they are all about should know that they waste their time on trivial nonsense. Reason being, that it is far easier for them to preach elsewhere than in the much more important field that Paul Hill took on with gusto. If you are too weak to be capable of preaching in what is by far the most important field, and preaching the right message in the right manner, then you are not fit to be preaching in any field. Yes I know the objection that’s raised when it’s said to people that they have a duty to preach – I’m not knowledgeable or gifted in that area. If they have the necessary courage, and the necessary concern, and any consideration for those suffering severe persecution, then there is nothing whatsoever that would prevent anyone preaching in the very important field that Paul Hill took on. You don’t need to know the virtually useless trivia that so many second-rate preachers involve themselves with in order to preach. All you need to know are the important basics which the second-raters do not know, will not accept, and will not put into practice.
We know what Paul Hill achieved. So what has Greg Cunningham done and what have his achievements been? Rather than accept that it was never right to wait until millions of innocents had been slain, rather than accept that there was a 100% proper and effective means available that would wipe the problem out overnight, which he and others had no excuses for not asking use of, rather than accept that his methods could never change the views of any more than 1% of pro-abortionists (90% of them already know anything he can tell/show them, and nine of the ten others won’t be led to change their minds either). Rather than do that, he makes the ludicrous claim that the handful of Paul Hills are responsible for all his failures -- his failures to change people’s views and obtain the easy hollow political victories he fantasizes about.
So apart from blaming others for his failures what else has Greg Cunningham done? By telling people that the coward’s way is acceptable to God, by telling them there’s a coward’s way to heaven, Greg Cunningham has committed a monstrous sin comparable to the sin of the abortionists. He has led the many people who wee keen to believe that the road to heaves was a downhill run rather than a steep uphill climb into hell. That’s what Greg Cunningham’s achievements have been. And the same applies to all others who have told people that it is not their responsibility to follow Paul Hill’s example. (tbc)

Here’s the last claim in Cal’s Habeas Corpus for Scott Roeder. I’ve posted all but claims 4 and 5. Anybody is welcome to have me send him hard copies of the whole document.

In addition to the cause presented in claims 1-6 above, there is cause for a writ of habeas corpus to free me on the basis of technicality: the court failed to allow a voluntary manslaughter defense under Kansas law in view of United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), thereby depriving me of my rights to due process, a fair trial, and the equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and § 10 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, in a manner egregiously violating my right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under Kansas law and the Constitution of the United States.
Even if the jury felt my use of force was unreasonable in absence of the requisite necessity defense, the jury still should have been allowed to decide that I had an honest belief that deadly force was justified, so as to convict me on a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. Instead, District Judge Warren Wilbur ruled out a second-degree murder conviction, saying, "There is no immediate danger in the back of a church [where George Tiller was killed]." However, the court's view on a lack of an immediate danger serves only to question the reasonableness of my use of force; it does nothing to question the honesty of my belief that deadly force was justified. Implicit in the court's ruling therefore is a presumption that I did not hold an honest belief, which amounts to a clear denial of the presumption of my innocence with respect to first degree murder in view of alternatives such as voluntary manslaughter.

In Williams the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an honest yet unreasonable belief has prosecutorial merit only if the belief can be supported, as an objective matter, by matter that plainly conveys the belief that was engendered. Id., at slip opinion p. 10, Opinion of the Court. Analogously, it is fair to suppose merit would likewise be found lacking in a defense setting where one is unable to show that his belief is supported, as an objective matter, by matter that plainly conveys in an honest way the belief that was engendered. By preventing counsel from presenting objective matter to prove the honesty of my belief, the court obtained the self-serving result of making it appear that my suggestion of an honest belief lacked merit.
Instead, the same standard of belief-predicated-on-objective-matter used by prosecutors to convict Williams should have been allowed conversely in my favor in the hands of my defense to acquit me of first degree murder. I have the right to present "objective matter" to confirm the honesty of my belief. For, absent a showing of objective matter to prove honesty, the legal merit of suggesting that one's actions were based on an honest belief is limited.
Using a gaping double standard, in contrast to the prosecution in the Williams case my defense was not allowed to present objective matter to confirm that my belief was engendered in all honesty by matter plainly conveyed, namely, by evidence that Tiller killed children without restraint. For example, if supported AS AN OBJECTIVE MATTER by a coroner's statement, photographs of children victimized by abortion providers such as Tiller will do no less to convince a properly instructed jury that I was led to believe I was preempting homicide of an actual child by shooting an abortion provider than photographs in a case like Williams will convince a jury that someone would be led to believe actual children were victimized by pornographers.


Having been unlawfully deprived of my constitutional rights in the manner stated above, and having been unlawfully incarcerated by my custodian in the manner stated above, I pray for the issuance of the Great Writ to obtain my freedom.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, Scott P. Roeder
Dated: ___________________


John Dunkle said...

4/4 snot

Kate, tell Ellen we antis can't put anything up at all anymore since you don't do it and you were the only kayhaitcher who had anywhere near the courage and intelligence to face the opposition respectfully. Now you're just another name-caller.

The above and the forty or so comments to follow will all deal with three pro-death blogs: The Abortioneers (eers), thesnotsodailyherald (snot), and Facebook Allentown Women's Center (fawk, ahem, pronounced like walk) --

John Dunkle said...

4/1 eers

PS writes nonsense. Try someone else.

John Dunkle said...

The above is 4/4, not 4/1.caitlin6

John Dunkle said...

4/4/ aarragh

This is the fourth pro-death blog I will be responding to.

Isn't Auden great! I'm not writing for that, though. One priest from Alabama -- one priest, out of how many, a hundred thousand? That says it all.

Also, Catholics have the abortions because Jews and Protestants are sterilized, and Muslims have kept the faith.

John Dunkle said...

I think aarragh stands for abortion and reproductive rights advocates going to hell, but I'm not sure.

John Dunkle said...

4/5 eers

Seven minutes caused VF hardly to work up a sweat, but for that little girl, those were seven minutes of horror.

John Dunkle said...

4/5 aarragh

Under a veneer of reason, PR serves us the penultimate lie about baby killing: contraception will reduce the number of babies killed. Before contraception was pervasive, relatively few babies were tortured to death before birth. Now, well over a million are each year.
What is the ultimate kayhaitcher lie. Before I say, I'll wait till PR tells it.

John Dunkle said...


Tsup Kate? Cat gotcher tougue? I found a new gutsy kayhaitcher, Pat Richards, like the Kate of old.

John Dunkle said...

4/6 snot

Now who in the world would call someone who is about to have someone else tortured to death either stupid or satanic! Oops! I said that, didn't I!

John Dunkle said...

4/6 snot

Now who in the world would call someone who is about to have someone else tortured to death either stupid or satanic! Oops! I said that, didn't I!

John Dunkle said...

4/6 snot

You forgot some "what ifs," Kate. What if she's really getting a tooth pulled, what if she's actually there to buy baby parts, what if it's the guy who is carrying the baby (transfer operation), what if she's Dunkle's abandoned daughter looking for him, what if she's escaping from a pack of wild dogs, what if she has mistaken the AWC for Target, what if...

John Dunkle said...

4/6 aarragh

You're right PR. Killing someone is no big deal for many, and the ones who know it is a big deal but do it anyway are worse.

John Dunkle said...

4/6 snot

You losing it, Kate?

John Dunkle said...

4/7 snot

Doesn't look like a feee disss, Kate, does it? Looks like a baby. But I guess the accuracy you mention refers to size, and his picture IS a hundred times larger than he really is. But, just as one has to shout rather than talk normally to a deaf person, one has to draw large so that a blind person like yourself can see.

John Dunkle said...

4/8 eers

Well, Dizzy, God decides whether or not that woman is a murderer, doesn't he. The only thing we can all be sure of is that she's a killer, or, rather, to be more accurate, a killer's helper (a kayhaitcher), like yourself. The killer is the person euphemistically called "an abortionist."

John Dunkle said...

4/9 snot

"Hubris" is getting old, Kate. Need a synonym?
What's the difference between someone determining who lives and who dies in her womb and another determining who lives and who dies in his country?

John Dunkle said...

4/8 aarragh

Pat, please amend the last two sentences in paragraph 2: "The other mills are free-standing facilities that are owned by the killer himself or by the killer's helper (kayhaitcher)" and "Relatively few young people are pulled apart in hospitals."

John Dunkle said...

4/9 aarrgh

There was another guy, I go way back, who sacrificed his political career to support baby killing. His name was Michaels, from New York. His was the vote that made NY one of the first baby-killing states.

So far, no one has sacrificed his political career to protect the innocents -- one of the reason we slice up, tear apart, poison, and starve ten million of us each year around here.

John Dunkle said...

4/10 snot

Kate, "someone else" is one person; replace the following theirs with hers. You'll enjoy realizing that using correct grammar will help you to think more clearly. (I'll let the Commander handle the rest of this.)

John Dunkle said...

4/11 aarragh

What else is new, life is tough! I've heard that the great majority of pregnant women at some time during the pregnancy want to get rid of the baby. Making it easier for them to do that (like making it free) will result in at least doubling the million plus number of young people we are now pulling apart every year.

John Dunkle said...

4/11 snot

Kate, what are you talking about? I've been doing the same thing over and over since you met me. Back then you talked to me, posted my responses, even emailed me I think. Now you threaten me with I don't know what -- lawsuit? punch in the nose? scowls? I can't believe Einstein even said that.

John Dunkle said...

4/12 eers

PS, wouldn't life be easier if you were chaste?

John Dunkle said...

4/13 aarragh

Hear! Hear!

John Dunkle said...

same as above

Why not? It was good, except for paragraph 8. If a Catholic nurse helps to kill an innocent, unborn person, she is excommunicated. Not so if she helps to kill an innocent, born person.

John Dunkle said...

4/13 snot

As I told you once before, Kate, I could explain all this to you. I don't see much hope for that, though, because you were not the best listener even before you clammed up.

John Dunkle said...

4/13 eers

If any Catholic takes you up on your offer, Sparks, she is automatically excommunicated.

John Dunkle said...

4/14 aarragh

There's a lot here, Pat. I'll just take one point -- Roe outlawed killing young people after they had been living for 24 weeks. No, Roe did not. Roe said you may kill her right up till she's born (and our President said you may kill her even after that).

Ok, one more: I say young person -- a real, live person; you say fetus -- an unreal, dead thing. See why I know this issue will only be resolved by our side's using force to combat your side's violence?

John Dunkle said...

4/14 eers

Nobody is helped when killers are on a rampage, including the killers themselves.

John Dunkle said...

4/13 snot

The Times doesn't know what it is talking about. I do, but you won't talk to me.

John Dunkle said...

4/14 snot

Kate, I think you've finally discovered how to shut me up: post something like that and I'm left speechless.

John Dunkle said...

4/15 snot

I think telling on someone is better than threatening her. What do you think, Kate?