Monday, October 04, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-8, October, 2010

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

October, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 8
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 118
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 PFC’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 for Christ:
1. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
2. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
3. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
4. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
5. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
6. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
8. Lo, Erlyndon Joseph LE#234894, Collin County Detention Center, 4300 Community Avenue, McKinney TX 75071
9. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
10. Moose, Justin – inmate, Alamance County Jail, 109 South Maple Street, Graham NC 27253
11. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
12. Scott P. Roeder KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
13. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
14. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
15. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
16. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
17. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
18. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918

"I'm prepared to die in jail, if necessary. I can no longer cope with the hypocrisy of praying for life ... and paying for death." David Little

This remarkable report arrived 9/20:

On Lessons Learned, by Robert F. Weiler Jr.

At the time of this writing I have spent four years and three months in prison. I wish now to comment on lessons learned through this experience.
I am often asked if I would again engage in the activities that brought me to prison. To answer this question I must ask myself two related and yet distinct questions; (1) Was I justified in my course of action?; and (2) Was it the right thing to do?
As to the former question there was never, and probably never will be, any doubt in my mind that it is completely justifiable to use even deadly force in the defense of the unborn. The latter question, however, is more complicated. We owe it to the unborn in whose name and defense we take these actions to engage in the most effective defense of them possible. I must face the fact that my actions, while easily justifiable, may have been in fact the least effective mode of defense in which I could have engaged.
I would like to share a true story to help illustrate the relative ineffectiveness of my attempted bombing. Less than a year before my arrest I attended a meeting of the Capital Area Pro-life Council. In this meeting strategies for sidewalk counseling and on-site protests were discussed. One older gentleman suggested that abortuary workers and "customers" don't like being photographed or videotaped; therefore, an effective method may be to have somebody stand out front with a video camera recording every person entering and exiting the building. Another person questioned the legality of this, and after much argument, the matter was unsettled. At this point I volunteered to test the legality by doing it and seeing what happened.
The next Saturday morning I showed up at the Metropolitan Family Planning Institute at 5915 Greenbelt Rd., Berwyn Heights, MD, (the abortuary I am currently in prison for attempting to destroy) with a video camera. The thing that surprised me most was the reaction of a group praying the rosary in front of the abortuary, who vehemently argued that I was just "troublemaking." During the taping, a man and woman, presumably "customers," pulled into the parking lot. Upon getting out of the car the male noticed the camera and started yelling "Hey! Don't take my f@*#ing picture!" and attempted to slap the camera out of my hand. I pulled my cell phone out of my pocket and called 9-1-1. I kept taping and talking calmly to the emergency operator as the man, who finally realized what I was doing, ran inside with his girlfriend. The police arrived and arrested the man on a second degree assault charge since I had the entire incident on videotape. The woman left shortly thereafter before the abortionist showed up.
A baby was saved that day.
How many were saved on June 6, 2006?
Zero.
I have spent over four years in prison and not one child is alive today because of it.
In those four years, how many could have been saved if I was out there every Saturday morning with a video camera. I'll never know now.
What if I had succeeded? If I had gotten the bomb to the clinic and discharged it there, would that have stopped any abortions? Probably not. They would have been done somewhere else, by this or another "doctor."
I now face that what I did, while justified, was wrong. My actions have cheated thousands of unborn of the effective assistance that I owe them if I speak and/or act in their names. This is a difficult thing to face, and admit. But I must face this if I am to work on behalf of the unborn in the future. Some lessons are learned easily, this one not so much.

I wouldn’t be so quick to agree with Robert. If couples or single women were walking two-year-olds into the mill, would Robert have kept taping and the Catholics kept praying? “Oh no,” you say, “then they would have gone into action.” But hold on – societies in the past have allowed the sacrifice of older people. Are we about go there too? And how many lives has Robert saved because people realize that a least a few are acting as if abortion is murder?
As for those Catholics, they might as well have been praying for the grace of a happy death. Executions without due process taking place in front of their eyes are a different matter altogether. (And peruse Peter, especially in this issue.)
---------------------
-------------------------------------------------

More of Eric’s Chapter 3:

The same is true of many other conflicts. In 1857, Indian Sapoys serving in the army of the British East India Company mutinied after they refused to handle new bullets that were apparently greased with pig and cow fat (an outrage to Muslims and Hindus respectively). The mutiny quickly spread across northern India. After capturing the fortress of Cawnpore, the mutineers massacred the entire British garrison. In 1993 four white police officers were acquitted of charges in the beating of black motorist Rodney King. South Central Los Angeles exploded. In both of these cases the specific pretext for violence was less important than the underlying culture identity disjunction. The Indians were reacting to over a century of British domination. The blacks of South Central Los Angeles were reacting to the perceived injustices of living in a so-called white man’s country. These violent eruptions have little to do with the breach of some objective social contract. They were the result of an underlying culture identity disjunction. As long as there is a culture identity disjunction such violent eruptions will occur again and again because there is no trust between the government and the governed, and there is no trust because they do not share the same culture identity.
Whether the philosophers and theologians like it or not, the organic culture identity evolves its own interpretation of the Moral Law. Universalist schemes, whether religious or ideological, have always broken down in the face of these organic divisions. A social contract is possible within a given society only because those within it share the same culture identity. Laws are seen as just only because those within the society share the same comprehensive moral-religious conception of the good life. As laws must reflect some conception of the good life, one system of laws cannot contain a diversity of identities holding very different definitions of the good life. Sooner or later an issue will come along—taxation, greased bullets, pummeled motorists, abortion—that cannot be bracketed out. One of the identities will succeed in assimilating, excluding or extirpating the opponent; or, a political division will take place.
The Constitution of 1787 was designed to serve the American nation that created it. It was an expression of the values of a particular organic culture identity, at a particular time of history. Those values are Western Christian. The Constitution did not create the American nation, it gave it form. The American nation was forged organically over two centuries from Jamestown to Yorktown. The representatives of this organic culture identity met in Philadelphia and wrote the Constitution. Outside of this organic context, the Constitution means something different. Look, for example, at the nation of Brazil. It has precisely the same constitution as the United States. They copied our Constitution word-for-word. Are the United States and Brazil the same? If you listen to the egalitarians who say that America is a set of culturally neutral abstractions found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The answer would have to be: yes. But only a fool with a very shallow view of history would give that answer. A closer examination of the two countries reveals vast culture-identity differences. And it is precisely these culture-identity differences that form the basis for our respective nations, not the dead words of a constitution. It is the nation which breathes life into a constitution in its own peculiar way.
In Roe v Wade Blackmun insisted that the Constitution was not the reflection of one particular nation, with a particular culture identity, with a particular value system. The Founding Fathers, said Blackmun, designed the Constitution with the greatest amount of diversity in mind. It was designed to handle everyone from Catholics to cannibals, in a culturally neutral system. Blackmun quoted from a 1905 dissent by former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Constitution, wrote Holmes, “is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”56 In other words, you might believe that abortion is cold blooded murder, but others don’t. And you have no right to demand that others adopt your beliefs about abortion. Different strokes for different folks. Some folks believe that children are gifts from God. Others believe that they are medical waste.
What about Baal worshipers? Nature cults are hip these days, what with all the Wiccan worship. What if several million fools from Berkley, California decided to move to Arkansas and set up an agrarian society, centered on the worship of Baal, the ancient god of Canaan and Carthage. And as part of their religious expression they sacrificed a few children to Baal every spring in the hopes of producing a good harvest. Remember, in many ancient fertility cults that practiced human sacrifice, it was a great honor to be selected as the spring offering in times of great crisis. Many of the best families of Carthage offered their children to Baal. In other words, it was a voluntary act. Should we allow voluntary human sacrifice? But the victim is a “minor,” you might say. Well, what if the sacrificial offering was eighteen or nineteen?
Since we’re following this train of thought, what gives society the right to determine the “age of consent”? Isn’t the “age of consent” a value judgment based on the moral beliefs of a particular culture? After all, I can find fifteen-year-olds that are far more mature than some forty-year-olds. If the age of consent is a value judgment, what about sex between a forty-year-old father and his six-year-old daughter? Remember, in many cultures girls as young as eight are eligible for marriage. Until the late nineteenth century, Delaware’s age of consent was seven. What about consensual cannibalism? What about voluntary blood feuds? If two families want to kill each other, why not? As long as their gun-play doesn’t jeopardize the lives of non-consenting third parties, there should be no problem in Holmes’ or Mill’s book.
Most Americans still see the absurdity of these propositions. All societies make value judgments about how its citizens ought to live. The laws reflect these values. The only real question is what value system will be applied, and how the parameters of that value system will be defined. The parameters determine the extent of allowable diversity. There are limits to diversity in any society. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, pedophilia, incest, child marriage, blood feuds, slavery—all fall outside America’s present value system. And until 1973, abortion fell outside the value system of most Western governments.
What happened in Roe v Wade, however, was not a case of the Western Christian value system reinterpreting its own values, liberalizing itself for the sake of “diversity,” as Blackmun asserts. No, starting in the nineteenth century a completely opposite value system was emerging from the sewers of Europe, and later took ship for America. You will find this sewer value system in the writings of Darwin, Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Comtè, Dewey, and Freud. This sewer value system set about to destroy the existing Western Christian value system and replace it with a set of egalitarian abstractions derived from a completely material explanation of the universe. Slowly but surely these sewer values have gained power throughout the West. And Roe v Wade was an expression of this new value system.
The diversity argument is camouflaging, used by those who have adopted the egalitarian value system. In a world where egalitarians have absolute power, there will be no diversity. If you don’t believe me, go speak against homosexuality and abortion at the University of California Berkley. You will find yourself being spat upon and ticketed by the campus cops, as happened recently to an anti-abortion activist. Or go to Columbia University and talk about our immigration problem. You’ll find yourself being shouted down and pelted with objects, as happened to Jim Gilcrist of the Minutemen. The most intolerant place in America is at a seminar on “tolerance and diversity” at the University of California Berkley.
The U.S. Constitution was designed to handle the diversity within a Western Christian nation. It was not designed to deal with every conceivable question of cultural diversity. When the Founders spoke about religious diversity, they were speaking about diversity amongst Christians. When they talked about religious tolerance, they had in mind Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Ana Baptists, etc. Conflicts amongst Christians had torn Europe apart for two hundred years. It was within the context of these religious wars that they spoke about religious diversity. Non-Christians were such a small number of the population that they really didn’t influence the debate about religion in those days. The Founding Fathers didn’t write the First Amendment with the intention of one day welcoming five million Baal worshippers to America’s shores. And if there had been two million well organized Muslims on America’s frontier in 1791, the First Amendment would have been written very differently. (tbc)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

And the new governor of Georgia is...Would you be interested in curtailing your orgasms? Of course not. The orgasm is one of the most basic pleasure opportunities available. But would you curtail your orgasms if it gave a person a chance to live?
That is the question the Stop Abortion Orgasm Pledge presents to every one in the USA. Like the women in Greece in Aristophanes' Lysistrada, women and men in the USA are pledging to refuse to participate in orgasm with anyone who has not pledged to make the abolition of legalized abortion the first priority as a citizen of the United States of America.
Serious men and women of God have already taken the pledge because they sense God can make this a powerful offensive not only aimed at abolishing legalized abortion, but directly targeting the rampant sexual licentiousness that is legalizing adultery, and homosexuality and fornication along with the entire gamut of grievous sex crimes prohibited by God in Holy Scripture.
How does the pledge work? Some unmarried people are pledging to live in an orgasm-free zone: no masturbation, no illicit sex, not even nocturnal emissions if God will give them the grace to awaken before the orgasm occurs. They pledge to continue this orgasm-free zone until they are married to a person who agrees that the abolition of legalized abortion is the first priority of any American citizen who wants to be free from complicity in the murder of the unborn legalized by this nation. The point is that an orgasm-free zone is the only real abstinence that God recognizes. Unmarried people can pledge to do no less if they want to walk in the Spirit of God.
Married people, especially Christians, are challenged by the Stop Abortion Orgasm Pledge to decide what marriage really means today. Can people be married in the Lord Jesus Christ, engaging in all the benefits of the marriage bed, yet still be diametrically opposed to the Lord in His desire to make His ministry to the least of these His first priority?
The answer is clearly NO. God's people who are married in the Lord will share His priorities or they are no more married in Christ than the most heathen unbelievers. If either you or your spouse will not agree to make the abolition of legalized abortion your first priority, then the spouse that takes the Stop Abortion Orgasm Pledge would be obligated to deprive their spouse of orgasm.
Truly that is a startling offensive, one that has the power to shock everyone who hears of it into listening closely to what God is doing. Today in the United States we can show the world that the Lord Jesus Christ intends to abolish legalized abortion even if it takes destroying every self-serving marriage in this nation. Those who will claim to be Christian yet refuse to make the abolition of legalized abortion their first priority in service to the Lord are counterfeit Christians who use their claim of marriage in the Lord as a mere excuse for sexual licentiousness.
In many ways such counterfeit Christians are more dangerous to the cause of Christ than the most hedonistic libertines who make no claims at all upon Christ for their orgasmic indulgence. At least the licentious libertines do not claim to be serving Christ with their ungodly orgasms.
So the decision is yours: will you pledge your libido, your orgasm, to the Lord, or will you demand to direct this most basic pleasure principle to the service of the flesh instead of the Lord?
Obviously the Stop Abortion Orgasm Pledge will be initially perceived to be the most preposterous idea ever spawned by the mind of man. At no time in the history of the world have men--and women--been more orgasm-centric. Men--and some women--commonly joke about multiple masturbation orgasms per day. No wonder. The society we live in makes sex the dominant sales device for an economy that must be constantly running at full steam or this society risks switching from productive output to full-scale implosion exactly like a nuclear reactor when the fuel rods are tampered with. Sex--the orgasm--fuels this society exactly like radioactive rods fuel a nuclear reactor.
By attacking this most foundational fact, we have an opportunity to abolish legalized abortion at its root, or base.
Legalized abortion is the evidence of illicit orgasm--proof that an illicit orgasm occurred. After all, no pregnancy would ever be unwanted if both parties were fully committed to preserving the logical outcome of orgasm between a male and female. No one can deny that such an outcome will be a baby unless God Almighty decrees otherwise.
To interrupt the orgasm is to interrupt legalized abortion. No abortion can occur without there being an orgasm. Remove the orgasm, you remove the abortion.
If Christians, and anyone else who cares for the unborn people being slaughtered, will take the Orgasm Pledge, we will have launched a powerful new offensive in abolishing legalized abortion, one that will get the attention of everyone on earth.
Please send your email address confirming you have made the pledge. Under no circumstances will your email address be loaned, sold, or used in anyway except to communicate about the Stop Abortion Orgasm Pledge Offensive. You will receive an email asking you to confirm your pledge. Please return that email so that our messages to you about this startling new offensive against the sexual crimes in this nation can be sent to you without being considered spam. A world of unborn babies will thank you and their Creator will bless you.
Until We get the database complete, please send your pledge to nhorsley@wechooselife.net. Strict confidentiality will be maintained.

Three responses:

1. Oh my gosh, Neal, Catholics don’t even do that (although it’s exactly what the Church mandates).

2. Neal, Your program and prayer today were the best! You showed your new NO ORGASM PLEDGE sign on your truck that is replacing your confiscated sign, and you said that OrgasmPledge.com is a new offensive that we can all do. You sang your excellent song, "There's a billion babies in Heaven," which says that we all know what the babies think of us. You said that everyone wants to pretend that unborn babies are not the least of these and are not people. You said that if you are ignored, God's Wrath will be brought upon America, just as It was brought upon the world in the days of Noah, and you can be murdered and that will still not stop that from occurring. You said that you are seen as crazy, but you are not - you are living in The Will of God, and you are showing people The Truth of what is legalized in this country. You said that people love pleasure more than The Truth and God has placed them under a strong delusion. I am praying that many people saw and will tell others about your program and the Orgasm Pledge and that many people will see that sign on your truck, so that all contraception and abortion will be illegal and so that you will be elected and all of the evil Federal laws will be nullified throughout Georgia and the entire world. I will send this to Tobra and some of my co-workers and former co-workers. Dave

3. Neal, Your program today was the best! That is the best that you are going to not only have "Neal at Noon" each day, but also have a 24/7 loop, where many, many people can see you and find out about your campaign - Hallelujah! I am praying that many, many people will see you on your program and loop and tell others about your campaign and vote for you so you are elected. Also, that is the best that you are going to have your program tomorrow be about John the Baptist. I will send this vital information to some of my co-workers and former co-workers and Tobra. Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s more from our harshest (and most perceptive) critic, Peter Knight. Peter here is talking about us sidewalk counselors:

There are people who become extremely traumatized and remorseful after abortions. Even to the extent of becoming suicidal. And these ones who they removed for the abortionist were the ones who were far and away the most likely to do so. The ones who, if they had been allowed through, were by far the most likely to sue the abortionist for negligence, after he failed properly to asses them and give them a correct warning about the high risk of extreme traumatization their sort of person was subjected to by the abortionist’s actions. These days you can’t get away with not telling people of the dangers you are subjecting them to.
How much could any abortionist care if someone removed a paltry one percent of his clients? And would he care at all if the few that were removed out of the way were the ones who were far and away most likely to sue him? Once again they’ve only performed a free of charge beneficial service for the abortionist. Once again they’ve only been sucked into doing the abortionist a favour. This is the type of poker machine which hands the abortionists a million dollar jackpot without them needing to put any pennies into it. “Do us the favour suckers.”
If you were an abortionist what better friends and what more helpful friends could you have than these? What better plan could you come up with than to get some of your friends to take over the top positions at so-called anti-abortion organizations; then have them do as much as possible to suck their members into removing from your premises as many of the people as they could who were most likely to sue you. Get them to convince their followers and the anti-abortion public that when they didn’t have any chance at all; have them perpetuate the myth among all the gullible anties that if the miracles did occur and they got their unobtainable political victories that that would bring them what they wanted, when history in so many places, and in so many times, proved that if they ever did get them, they’d receive the deepest cut of all when their politicians were bought off by the abortion industry to feed them on shit; and then to finish off the job, get them to demonize forceful measures and order their followers not to take the only action which you did fear and was a threat to you?
If you were an abortionist, where could you find a group of people who would do any more for you than that? Is there any direction in which they did not fulfill the abortionist’s dreams? Can you believe that an organization which would do that many good things for abortionists had any right to call them selves antiabortion? They could be only one of two things, they are either on the abortionists’ payroll or they are the purest of pure bred suckers. Has there ever been anyone who has done so many good things for their supposed enemies? Could there ever be anyone?
“Tell me Mr. Abortionist, why did you choose to name your child Right to Life Victoria?” . . . “Well shucks, we just thought it was a nice sounding name. Isn’t that right Virtue? I’ll just ask my partner Virtue to confirm that” . . . “Yes, that’s right Christian. You’ve hit the nail bang on the head again.
And having gotten them to go that far I suppose the abortionists would go in for the coup de Grace:
“Christian, wouldn’t it be tremendous if we could get the anties to complete our dream by paying us to carry out the murders?”
“No doubt it’d be tremendous, Virtue, but how could we ever do that? Is Right to Life Victoria going to do us another helpful and valuable service, Virtue?”
“Indeed he will. Indeed he will.”
“What’s the helpful service going to entail this time, Virtue?”
“Well Christian, first you’ll approach our very good friends in the government and have them ask the anti-abortionists to pay us to carry out the murders via the Medicare system. Then I’ll have a talk with RTLV. And if any of the antis give the slightest sign with refusing to comply with our demands to pay, then our wonder child will jump in and demonize them as traitors who have done very serious harm to the anti abortion cause by giving it the reputation of being comprised of tax evading criminals. Never bring the AA cause into disrepute by becoming a tax evading law breaking criminal, retain your good law abiding reputation amongst non anties. You cannot win them over and win the miracle elections if you harm your reputation. All the usual bull – that’s what RTLV will tell them.”
“Do you think they’ll do it, Virtue? Do you think the antis will come and suck up to us to this excellent degree and actually go so far as to pay the cost themselves?”
“Christian, Christian, they’ve submitted to us each and every time we’ve asked them to before, and there’s not the slightest doubt that they’ll be talented enough to bow down a little lower before us this time and submit to us once again for the advancement of the pro-abortion cause.”
“Oh Glory be and hallelujah, Virtue. What more could we ask for and what more could they present to us. There won’t be a single anti-abortionist, from the very smallest to the biggest, who won’t bow before me. The biggest will be the same as the very smallest. They’ll come to me this time on all fours as a dog comes to his master, with the money to perform the murders in their mouths presenting it to me. It’s our final and ultimate dream. This is what they truly wanted and this is what we were destined for. To be at the top of the pile publicly demonstrating to everyone our complete mastery over them. I’ll have become their prince of princes. I’ll have become their king of kings. Our master plan is about to come true: the full and unreserved submission of each and every one of them. Pay your contribution sucker. Pay your dues to the abortion industry exactly as we’ve told you to.” tbconcluded
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Joyce Arthur frequently tries to promote child killing:

There are those who claim that America’s legal abortion is equivalent to the Holocaust. They equate fetuses with interned Jews in a flawed argument: that fetuses are fully human and that women’s human rights can be ignored.
If anti-abortionists really believe abortion is genocide and really believe their own proclamation that doctors are responsible, they wouldn’t hero-worship a former abortion provider like Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Now anti-choice, Nathanson gets paid to talk at “pro-life” dinner parties about the 70,000 abortions he performed at his New York clinic in the 1970s. Surely genocide is an unforgivable crime, regardless of the perpetrator’s remorse and repentance. Would the Nuremberg Trials have let Adolf Eichmann off the hook if he had apologized for engineering the Final Solution? Perhaps, the anti-abortion movement is far too quick to forgive and forget. Perhaps those who equate abortion with the holocaust are creating a campaign that is nothing more than cynical public relations to make abortion illegal. But making abortion illegal doesn’t just kill women, it also negates their moral autonomy, cripples their economic independence, criminalizes them for their biology, and generally turns them into all-around second-class citizens.
Equating abortion with the genocide of the holocaust is based upon faulty logic, a misogynist view of women, and profound disrespect for the victims of real genocide. It also demonstrates that those who equate abortion as a holocaust are doing nothing more than attacking human intellect, dignity, and ethics.

Nathaniel Kubic tries to stop it:

On Holocaust Analogies One of the things we often do is compare abortion to the Holocaust. There are several reasons for this: the latter being so well documented and so fresh in our collective memories, the scale of both, and the industrial, machine-like method that both abortion and the Nazi death camps entailed. Now pro-abortion people love to rail against the comparison, and there are some differences between the two that make the analogies somewhat uneven. Among others:
1. The Holocaust was wrought by active government-forced malice against "undesirables". Abortion is tolerated by passive, cold-hearted government tolerance of evil.
2. Other than victims of Nazi abortions, forced or otherwise, the victims of the Holocaust were fully-formed, born people, not dependent on another person (with some exceptions). Abortions are performed on "fetuses" enveloped within other people, dependent on the mother, and although not fully formed, no less human than any of us.
3. Nazi atrocities were predominantly racially motivated, earning the label "genocide", whereas abortion only constitutes genocide when ethnic selection is the modus operandi, you know, like modern-day Planned Parenthood accepting earmarks to abort only black children so they won't end up getting jobs or scholarships by means of affirmative action (as discovered in a sting by renowned undercover investigative reporter James O'Keefe). Otherwise, abortion is age or developmentally motivated, and earns the term "infanticide".
4. In line with 2, the physical, emotional, and financial circumstances of the woman carrying the child determine whether the child is aborted or lives. The solution, then, is not to resist or fight government or military forces, but to change minds.
Other than 3, which I've already differentiated, and 4, which I explained, the real point of opposition to the comparison is 2. Where the opposition fails is its refusal to acknowledge the humanity and personhood of the fetus. Indeed, back in the Reich, the Jews were the subject of a campaign of dehumanizing rhetoric; "subhuman", and "untermenschen" were the buzzwords. Today we hear thing like "product of conception", "growth", "fetus", "pregnancy tissue", etc.

There are, no doubt, Jews and others who object to the comparison; then there are religiously observant Jews (names like Yehuda Levin and Yosef Friedman come to mind) who accept it as a valid point. Ultimately, though, we need to realize that although the injustice and the scale thereof are similar, not all points of comparison stick.
For instance, number 1. In Germany, resistance, saving the victims, meant death. In America there are no consequences for it (other than escorts' scorn and an occasional middle finger). So that brings me to one thought: are we more guilty than the "good little Germans" (non-Nazi but also non-rescuer) because of our apathy, even in the absence of consequences? For forty years, give or take, we could have voted the right way, not compromising on principle. We could have had sit-ins in massive numbers, crushing by sheer weight of numbers before FACE laws were even dreamt up. We can yet protest- yet we, collectively (as well as individually, for we can all do more) fail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jimbo, who converted to Catholicism, ordered me, one from the cradle, to post “The Syllabus of Errors,” and, since I bow before the fresher mind, that’s what I’m doing:

19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights. –

20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church..

23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.

24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.

25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit.

26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property.

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs.

28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters Apostolic without the permission of Government.

29. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government.

30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law.

31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See.

32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government.

38 comments:

John Dunkle said...

10/4 334s

Are there any doulas for the little girl who is going to be pulled apart?

John Dunkle said...

These comments refer to three pro-death blogs: the abortioneers (eers), thenotsodailyherald (nots), and abortion and reproductive advocate (aarragh)

John Dunkle said...

10/5 nots

I don't think that's a guest blogger, Kate. Sounds like the big cheese herself (forget her name). What I got out of this whole thing is how quickly these organizations split, dissolve, reorganize, split again -- an organization of one who finally gets someone to join with her. As soon as that happens the "organization" splits again and we have two "groups" of one each. Talk about boring.

John Dunkle said...

10/5 nots

silly

John Dunkle said...

10/5 eers

Fascinating post, but I don't think a 16 year old wrote it.

John Dunkle said...

10/7 nots

WUH? (Kate's been receiving, though not posting, comments for a while now; but today she wants you to sign in, and that includes giving her your password. It's not a good idea to give your enemy your password, is it?)

John Dunkle said...

10/8 nots

Using Guttmacher's statistics on child killing is like using the Nazi's on Jewish killing.

John Dunkle said...

10/10 (1) nots

Kate here first suggests that protest should be limited at funerals; then she suggests that they should also be limited at mills. Obviously, she see the similarity. Ask her though if people die at the mills. Then ideology kicks in -- "no, no, no, no, no."

John Dunkle said...

10/10 nots (2)

"Someone who does not share your views is not uneducated...Someone who does not share your views is not a liar,” says Kate. No, but someone who misuses the English language is uneducated and someone who lies is a liar. That's all we're saying. But the more interesting message in Kate's second post today is that it contradicts her first post!

John Dunkle said...

10/11 nots

Today we get Kate's musings and an advertisement. I thought Kate was going to argue here about why we should keep killing young folks, and I'm losing interest.

John Dunkle said...

10/11 aarragh

Don't worry, Pat. We prolifers all hope that we can sin this war without suffering. But we can't. We can only win it with great pain. And too few of us, now, are willing to endure that.

John Dunkle said...

10/11 nots

Holy moly how do I respond to such endless tripe.

John Dunkle said...

10/12 nots

?

John Dunkle said...

14 eers

I can always understand Sparks. Too bad she helps kill people.

John Dunkle said...

10/12 nots

Hard to believe Kate writes these seriously! Alternatives to abortion don't offer abortion?

John Dunkle said...

10/12 nots

Reread Kate's post, then read this:

A year-long investigation conducted by foxes has determined that poultry farmers devote excessive attention to security measures for chicken coops. Details on this important study later. For now, the New York Times offers a similar report:

A yearlong investigation by Naral Pro-Choice New York found that crisis pregnancy centers — in addition to the E.M.C. centers, there are at least four others in the city — feed women information that has been medically refuted (including an old standby, rejected by the National Cancer Institute, that abortions cause higher rates of breast cancer).

The abortion lobby says that its competitors engage in misleading advertising. What a surprise! And—what a coincidence!-- the crisis-pregnancy centers tell the Times that Planned Parenthood engages in false advertising. But the Times story slaps down the pro-lifers’ claim (although it is accurate), and lets the abortionists’ claim stand unquestioned.

By the way, did the National Cancer Institute say that abortion does not cause higher rates of breast cancer? No; the report said that the connection has not been demonstrated. Go ahead: google it. Browse through the readily available literature, and see if you’re convinced that the connection is “medically refuted.”

John Dunkle said...

10/14 nots

No, and since I'm the only one who reads "nots," that makes it unanimous.

John Dunkle said...

10/15 nots

Well, you know, Kate, this time you're right. That's the reason the best of us have forsworn reproducing and devoted their lives to helping. They're called brothers, priests and nuns. Keep at it, Kate. You'll argue yourself right into the Catholic Church.

John Dunkle said...

10/17 eers

The post and the comments are so utterly, utterly degrading. Why don't the clueless and masturbatory males stick thing up their own orifices. Let's bring back Lysistrata.

John Dunkle said...

10/18 nots

Another of Kate's lists: same ole, same ole.

John Dunkle said...

10/13 nots

What's so surprising about people who do the unspeakable speaking the unspeakable?

John Dunkle said...

10/17 eers

AA is one of the few Abortioneers who are normal because it's normal for someone who helps kill people to be depressed. The sickos are the others.

John Dunkle said...

10/18 nots

Kate's notes overwhelm me, but I will say that Daniel McGuire is the #2 anti-Catholic in the United States, #1 being Richard McBrien of Notre Dame.

John Dunkle said...

10/18 nots

They do get sillier and sillier, don't they: "so many people die young that we should be permitted to kill the survivors"!

John Dunkle said...

10/19 nots

And when does human life begin if not at conception (the beginning)? It begins when Kate says it begins. So far, I don't think she's told us. So, who knows -- maybe when you can see her fingernails, or her hair, or her blue eyes. And for him, maybe when it turns out he is not gay (at least Jimmy, Kate's husband, says he is not gay) or maybe not straight. But we all know really what Kate will decide, don't we: "her life begins when I don't want to kill her and it ends when I want to kill her."

John Dunkle said...

10/19 eers

I suppose this is meant to be artistic. Let's fix the syntax, vocabulary, and grammar first.

John Dunkle said...

10/19 nots

My Lord I knew it, Kate's become a Catholic -- "absolutely sinful"! So, Jimmy converted her rather than visa-versa, as we all thought. The remainder of this post, though, is unintelligible.

10/20 I hope you're not taking Jimmy to encourage the homosexuals, Kate, or at least I hope you've trained him to make the correct political responses.

John Dunkle said...

I mean I hope you're not encouraging Jimmy to wear purple. I'm not wearing purple. Know Why? Because it will lead to more deaths. Why can't you folks see that the homosexual act is unnatural. It leads to death. I guess, though, that since you are killers or killers' helpers, that's what you want.

John Dunkle said...

10/20 eers

I find these killers' blogs helpful (see also thenotsodailyherald and abortion.ws). Thanks, AA. I never gave 40 days much thought, but I will now. But please, you're not a low-life; don't talk like one.

John Dunkle said...

10/21 nots

Two today, the first pits sodomy against the Bible. Guess who wins?
But Kate, you don't have to go to the Bible to know sodomy is wrong. The stench tells you that.

In number 2 Kate accuses God of pulling apart all those young people Kate herself is helping to pull apart. Is that why you do it, Kate? Because you're doing God's will?

John Dunkle said...

I'm including the folowing because Kate Ranieri argues more and more that child killing is OK because what's killed doesn't look like a person. She has to lie, of course, because her "what's killed" is always several weeks younger than is the real person carried into the mill. However, suppose she didn't lie. Is it OK, then, to kill those younger folks? Here's the answer:

"I can understand why some people might think that a very early embryo should not be classified as a human being. It does not have the visible human signs that evoke our natural moral sentiments – no face or hands, or even a beating heart (until several weeks of gestation). But the scientific evidence supports the continuity of life across all stages of development. As a living being, an embryo has an intrinsic unity and indwelling immanent powers for its own program of development; given the minimal protection and nurture, it develops the signs we all recognize in human persons. We all started this way – Nobel laureates were once embryos. To maintain that embryos are not human beings is to prejudice some phases of life over others – and it’s not right. Perhaps with our new tools of following fetal development (such as 4-D sonograms) we will, as a culture, come to recognize this."

John Dunkle said...

10/21 eers

That opening paragraph is priceless. Dizzy fakes like crazy, and then it catches up with her.

John Dunkle said...

10/22 nots

Kate's blaming God again for baby killing: "Either their God is a murderer and abortionist or abortion is simply not murder." I wonder if she blames God for her being a poorly educated pedant and an anger-filled woman. I mean some things are our own faults, aren't they? Just because everybody dies, does that mean I may kill whomever I want?

John Dunkle said...

10/23 nots

Whom does Kate think reads her stupid posts? They're probably just for me. Four, that's 4, yesterday and the one so far today longer than those four combined! Today's begins, I have to say I agree with Bill Mahar. Well of course Kate would agree with this most anti Catholic comedian. I didn't get past that. And I couldn't get through yesterday's vomit either.

John Dunkle said...

10/23 nots

Forget the fact that Kate is deliberately lying here -- I have been trying to talk to her for several years. At first she pretended to be neutral and spoke briefly. Then she came out as the most vicious of the killers' helpers and now talks only behind our backs.
Forget that. Just look at what she says: she loathes and despises us; we are charlatans who lurk, like inmates in an insane asylum. This is the talk of a deranged woman. Jimmy should get her help. I know I would if I were married to her.

John Dunkle said...

10/24 nots

Kkate's back to her lists of why we should legally continue to kill young people. I'll respod to her five arguments but you'll have to go to her blog to see those arguments:

1. What about the fetuses that can survive outside the woman's body? Are they human beings?

2. No, you were a person from day one. You were not a leopard.

3. Scientifically you were there before your first cell divided. "In regard to identifying person hood" is your rationalizing for killing people.

4. Absolutely, but once she has the child, she may not kill her.

5. This one's gobbledygook.

John Dunkle said...

10/24 aarragh

"The pro-choice movement could only watch feebly from the sidelines"! Pat! These former doctors were raking in five grand a day! They couldn't care less about what we were doing!

John Dunkle said...

10/25 nots

I suppose if you have a blog and you like hearing yourself talk, you can post anything, even tables of contents.