Abortion is Murder, 9-5, September, 2011

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

September, 2011 Vol. 9 No. 5
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 83
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should examine 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 prolifers and pro-deathers who call force violence.

Prisoners for 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, 5914 Jeff Ates Rd., Milton, FL 32583-0000
4. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
5. Knight, Peter James, 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. Moose, Justin 27494-057 FCI Talladega, P.O. Box 1000, Talladega, AL 35160
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, FCI Pollock Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 4050, Pollock, LA 71467
10. Roeder, Scott P. 65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043
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

Even though it’s a shameful sin to abandon defenseless victims to their attackers, it’s a far worse sin when you attempt to pass the blame for that sin onto God by claiming that’s what he wanted you to do. And that’s precisely what so many people have done with their rejection of God’s clear and sensible instructions to defend the defenseless, and with their pretenses and fake excuses for rejecting those instructions. Pride is a terrible thing when it leads you to deny your own sin and instead say that God sinned. Peter James Knight
-----------------------------

a message from Cal:

Dear John, You didn't follow up with the Catholic Pro-Life Quiz. The address for Moose is missing his inmate number: 27494-057.
The Kansas Supreme Court has now denied all of seven motions to file briefs in favor of Scott Roeder, including yours and mine, but granted the one motion to file a brief against him by the American Civil Liberties Union & National Abortion Federation.
A humorous quote from the ACLU's trial brief reads, "Amici appreciate that a defendant's ability to defend against criminal prosecution should be limited in only the narrowest circumstances." When do the "narrowest circumstances" occur? For the ACLU, they occur whenever defense strategies might challenge something the ACLU stands for. When that happens, then rather than respecting the right to a fair trial, the ACLU will actually show up in court mid-trial to ask the judge to nullify any hope of fair proceedings. Sincerely, Cal

I delayed posting my follow up to Cal’s July Catholic Pro-Life Quiz (and the continuation of Jimbo’s “Stacey & Hutch”) till now because I needed room in August for Dr. Frank’s take on the Caylee verdict. So, first, here are my answers to the quiz:

1.(c)
2.(b) The Church says, “We have no doubt about the person status of the fetus, but even for those of you who do have a doubt, it is morally wrong to accept the risk of committing homicide.
3.(a)
4.(a)
5.(a) That’s the truth but we might say (b) for political reasons.
6.(b)
7.(a)
8.(b)
9.(a) Although circumstances might play a part in how we answer this one too.
10. Neither of these is correct. The child may not be baptized till she has emerged from the womb, real or artificial.

I believe, Gentle Reader, that all my answers are different from Cal’s. So you can ignore his.
-----------------

And here is the continuation of “Stacey & Hutch:

Diner Break

Diner breaks really can’t happen in a small town, but in a bigger town you can get to a part where there’s no planned nocturnal activity. Or, if you are next to a border (a preferred working station) you might be able to skip across for “lunch.”
“Lunch” in their case was usually about 2 or so. That way it happened just about the time the Red Zone was really kicking in. And when they hit the street again. they only hade a couple more hours of it to endure until the relief of the first joggers and first garbage trucks, which was still a workable time, until first light.
“I had another talk with James,” said Stacey.
“You‘re shameless, S,” said Hutch, “You’re a happily married woman!”
“It was a short discussion,” she riposted, a bit icily. “Besides, I was doing union research.”
“I bet.”
“I’m serious. He told me about her accountant, and I went and talked to her.”
“Oh?”
“Do you realize how simple it is top make a P.O.?”
“P.O.?”
“Purchase Order, Silly.”
“Oh, that little thing.”
“Right,” and Stacey described the pink half-sheet of NCR carbon less paper which seemed to rule the world.
“You just go to the damn printer and give ‘em your address. It’s like getting stationary for your Christmas cards.”
“Your address? Are you crazy?” Where you, Tom, and the kids live?”
“Don’t be a dope,” said Stacey, “not that address.”
“So, what, you gave ‘em my address?”
“Do I look like a dope? Don’t answer that.”
“So, what’s your address?”
“I live at the Post Office, just like Eudora Welty. And a million deadbeat dads too.”
“You mean . . .”
“That’s how they do it, Silly! Move to another town, get a main squeeze, another job, and open a P.O. box. Can’t find ‘em.”
“So, that’s what they do, the bums. But how do they open a box? They can’t show their driver’s license.”
“You never read Catch Me if You Can, did you.”
“Great movie. That titanic kid, Kate Winslow? The other Titanic kid, DiCaprio Capricorn? Looks a little like my nephew Billy.”
“The movie! That’s the movie! Read the book, and another ten on the shelf next to it on how to open up a private detective agency.”
“Who wants to open a private detective agency?”
“No, Silly, the book. Get you a nice high-school-kid-to-the-liquor-store ID. They do it all the time.”
“I’ve always wondered how bartenders deal with all that.”
“Funny you mention bartenders. they have their own little cheat book under the counter. Comes from the breweries.”
“This is making me thirsty.”
“So get an old book from the bartender.”
“Seamus?”
Tell him your son is doing a paper in college.”
“Yeah, right.”
“Like a science paper, alcohol abuse.”
“Then what?”
“Well, Silly, take the book, read the bugnale, get a cheapie ID, and go rent a mailbox.”
“Why?”
“And then put that address on your PO.”
“Post Office?”
“Purchase Order, have you been listening?” (tbc)
--------------------------------

Dear Mr. Horlsey, Hello, I am a 16 year old boy who has become involved in the anti-abortion movement. Today I was at the mill trying to intervene and stop the slaughter of the innocent. If you would suggest some tips for me, or if you want me to keep e-mailing you or O'Toole, please contact me. I am very distressed about this murder and often cry, partly because of this sin.
God Bless, Daniel R.

Daniel, the last 38 years have proven you are being led to the most frustrating and the most potentially dangerous ministry in the USA and the world. Only the Holy Spirit of God can equip you to deal effectively in a decent and orderly manner with the great challenge you face. Pray for His Guidance as we will pray you will be filled with the fruit of His Spirit.
I must tell you that your willingness to go to the sound of these cannons is one of the most encouraging things that can happen to me. Because the Lord needs young men, men willing to spend their lives to abolish legalized abortion. Either young men heed His call today, or your generation, like mine before you, will be an example of how NOT to serve the Lord Jesus Christ rather than, like the generation of the Apostles, as example of HOW TO serve the Lord.
Your tears are a reasonable and appropriate response to the specter of legalized child sacrifice in the nation you have inherited as a birth right and a responsibility from your Creator. And the tears are an appropriate response to our terrible failure in abolishing this evil from our nation.
Hear what the Lord says: Psalm 126:5, They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.
I hold onto that promise because there is no more important work, no higher priority, that can be done in the United States of America than establishing God's law against murder for in establishing this law we show that we do love our neighbor. 1 Tim. 1:8-11 makes it clear that God has put His trust in us to establish that law.
Daniel, you must recognize that Satan will work his hardest to make you a casualty in this war against the least of God's children. Listen to me and those that I point out to you. We have much experience in resisting the devil as well as enduring hardship in this war.
To understand where we are at in the war you have been called to fight in, go to http://www.aogusa.org and read the material there slowly, thoughtfully, and diligently apply every faculty God has given you to understand the role God would have you play in this battle at hand.
And Daniel, call me Neal. Just as there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, in Christ, neither is there an age limit or a need for formality among those chosen to leadership in this battle. And, brother, if you stay the course in fellowship with me and my friends, you will be a leader in the United States of America and the Kingdom of God on earth.
Yours in Christ, Neal

beautiful
----------------------------------

If deanna stays with it, I’ll be posting at least one of her writings every issue. Here’s a response to the killers’ helpers on the abortion.ws blog:

It’s about diversion. The game goes something like this. “Take the focus off of the dead human fetus and put it on EDH, James Dobson, Dunkle sending letters to doctor killers, 10 mm differences in fetal length, me not being a brain surgeon, pro-lifers supposedly not taking care of the born children, flag burning or Ted Bundy. Heck anything to take the focus off those 10 week old fetuses that gnaw at their consciences with their fully formed little bodies.
But the reality is that if every pro-lifer on here screamed loudly that we HATED everyone of these things listed above, it still wouldn’t take away the humanity of that 10 week fetus or the fact that it has fingers and toes and a beating heart and it feels things and is active in the womb. Nothing can or ever will erase that fact. That 10 week fetus needs to be looked square in its little FACE and acknowledged for what it is.
Then if they are going to continue to kill it, they need to look it in its little face and admit what they are doing for the sake of the woman’s “bodily autonomy” or probably often for the sake of money. The facts cannot be erased John, only the attention diverted.

Isn’t she good!
------------------------------------------

That prolific prolife stalwart Dr. Frank sent this:

If bishops were truly concerned about their flocks and wanted to end the killing of 1.3 million unborn and partially born children every year in the USA they would announce at their next meeting that the United States has two major parties, the Democrat party which supports the killing of God's precious, innocent unborn children ( this support is written in their party platform.) Then you have the Republican party whose party platform is one of pro-life and calls for overturning the Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortions.
In view of this there should be no doubt who a Catholic should vote for, nationally, statewide or locally. To vote for someone who supports killing makes the voter a party to the killing and for that you will answer to God. This should not be that difficult to understand.
The bishops' past voting guide, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” is completely flawed and enables Catholics to vote for members of the "baby killing party" with not a tinge of regret. Bishop have to get over their affinity with the Democrat party -- the party of death.
According to an exclusive Illinois Leader analysis [6] of the voting habits of the Chicago Archdiocese's voting Catholic priests, more than 75% of them sided with Democrats in the March 2002 primary election. Consequently, many U.S. Catholics are receiving a message from many priests and Bishops, however subtle, that the Church wishes them to vote for the Democrat Party, the official baby killing party in America. Is this why many of our pulpits are silent on the infallible Church teachings regarding morals and faith, teachings that definitely target Democrats and, of course, the devil himself.
If the bishops do NOT issue such a statement, or close to it, consider these weak shepherds as mere phonies who have already excommunicated themselves (latae sententiae) for their lukewarmness. We have God's Own word on that from the Book of the Apocalypse, 3: 16
"Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of My mouth."
How about sending the above to your bishop -- I am. If all my readers did so, I do think it would help to save lives. Bishops MUST be told that the bulk of them are lousy shepherds. There are about 55 million Catholics of voting age in the USA and could swing any election -- if only the bishops had a mind to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

SKYP, I was given your address a few years back by a Prisoner of God named McDonald. He and I became good friends in USP Victorville, Ca. He let me read your newsletter. Sorry, it’s been some time between then and now. Figured I should write to you to give moral support and applaud you in your work and endeavors.
If you have any old newsletters taking up apace, or any new ones, I’d do my part in making sure the noble people will read them and pass them on.
There’s not much financially I can do, no prison-slave job in here. And not much coming in from family. You can google my name on line and see that I too am a legit Political Prisoner within the White Racial Movement, and still an activist with my articles.
If you send me SKYPs, I’d put them to good use and help spread the Word. Write me @: Jake Laskey 68777-065, USP #1, PO Box 1033, Coleman, FL 33521

Hey, I’m in the black racial movement but I’ll accept all allies in this war. I don’t want donations. I try to sooth my guilt feelings by borrowing from my wife to pay for the newsletter.
I’ll send you all the back issues of skyp you want. Tell me when you’re inundated.
------------------------------------

Rev. Michael Bray is still in fighting form, thank God:http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38257.htm

Looks like the Obamanation is going hard after the street activists. One Richard Retta is taking the heat in the D.C. area as per link above. The report names the latest person sued under FACE. There is also Angel Dillard in Kansas http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-crt-442.html,

Ken and Jo Scott in Denver, http://kgov.com/bel/20110602.

Remember the operative words: "intimidate, interfere, harass." Those are the inflatable or flexible or ambiguous words that the nefarious legislators used to write the statute known as FACE (1995). They can be interpreted quite broadly in accordance with any wicked judge's imagination. (The civil provision of the statute allowed for PP to sue yours truly for writing A Time to Kill. Yes, in that fairy tale stretch of juridical imaginative powers, the jury was told that if the defendant "should have known" that the abortionists would "have felt threatened," then the defendant can be found liable for threatening said baby killers.)

It is not smart to run away from those who have been charged with FACE as if it is applied "in good faith" only against the "violence" users. No. It may have been applied FIRST to those associated with force who were denounced and segregated as part of the "violent anti-choice" folks. But leaving those folks out to be burned did not serve "the movement." Once those who faithfully refused to condemn the use of force have been swept from the streets, this foul Federal government will - as it is now - turn on anyone who continues to oppose childslaughter. Don't fool yourself. Speak up for those who are being persecuted.


Cathy Ramey elaborates:

For those who are not getting Michael's most excellent anti-abortion updates, let me put these news stories into context for you.

It seems the U.S. government has recently filed suit under the F.A.C.E. Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) charging 4 anti-abortion protesters, in three separate suits, none of whom blocked access to an abortuary. All of them were engaged in what has historically been called "sidewalk counseling" against having a baby killed by abortion. That simply involves telling women about abortion and pleading that they not go in to the mill. One of those being sued is a woman who wrote a generic letter to an abortionist to state that abortion is a form of murder and that murderers are generally tracked and always having to look over their shoulders because someday somebody will hold them accountable. Unlike doing sit-ins, these actions have always fallen under the First Amendment to the Constitution, but as anti-abortionists have learned over the last few decades, we are special. The First Amendment was not written to apply to our speech.

Under a civil lawsuit, the complainants (abortion mill owners, abortionists, "escorts" and the federal government) only have to allege acts; there is no "preponderance of evidence," and no need to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt"; in other words, no need to prove the allegations that somebody stepped on someone's foot, that the protester was somehow violating a murdering mother's personal space in an aggressive manner, etc. One only has to allege an action, against the protester's arguing they did not do an act. Then the abortion lobby and federal government have endless resources and use them in court to present a jury with such a sideshow that the jurors--like those in the Casey Anthony case--become confused and suppose that somehow, because it is the sacred act of abortion that is involved, they must find the defendants "guilty."

It used to be that more vigorous protesters who actually sat down and blocked doors or otherwise prevented women from entering to have their children killed were the target of the FACE Act. At that time we who were targeted warned that such raw federal power against people doing sit-ins (historically tolerated protest activity) would never be enough for the abortion lobby. Ultimately they would seek to silence any source of protest against abortion, no matter how limited and eventually they will require active support for what they are doing.

That is what is happening now. It has been happening for a long time, and at every stage of oppressing godly voices the churched have always rationalized that the defendants "must have done something wrong" or they wouldn't have been charged. The Church as a collective body has done next-to-nothing to protect the Unborn or to advocate for the ones who have attempted to intervene on their behalf. Albeit that God is in control of all history, the silencing of God's wrath against our national sins proceeds apace with Satan's agenda. Killing the most innocent is, after all, the crown jewel in his hat; it supposes that those made in God's image and likeness who are least guilty of death, are precisely the most significant target in his opposition to God.

I reiterate a fundamental truth, which many already have heard: there is no "slippery slope" of injustice that we are going down, and no place to get a handhold to stop our descent into evil. In one swift move Justice was turned completely upside down, fully corrupted when the highest court in the land set itself against God Almighty and signed their Supreme Court decisions on 1/22/1973 to allow for the least guilty, the most vulnerable people anywhere, (the Unborn who have had no occasion yet to personally sin), to be killed based upon individual dictates of conscience and access to a licensed physician-assassin.

If the most innocent and weakest can be given a death sentence, no individual with a lesser claim to innocence is assured of justice any longer. That is why Caylee Anthony was not given justice and the murderess Casey Anthony was, astoundingly, found "not guilty" by a jury of her peers who later testified in the media that they all "thought" she was guilty, but could not see their way to providing that just verdict. Now it is the guilty who we find being exonerated, and those evidencing genuine innocence that are left to suffer or die. Indeed right (in God's eyes) is being called "wrong," and wrong is being called "right" by social engineers and their befuddled, conscience-seared followers, today.

There was and remains no more egregious decision; no class of people more innocent, helpless and in need of the protection of others. That any of an entire class of people could be singled out for death based upon other's personal whims and desires to disregard their right to remain alive is outrageous. The only greater outrage is that the people of God, those who know His holiness, apparently don't understand His justice. The Church continues to argue over personalities, tactics and other minutia to avoid stepping in for the defense of the most vulnerable, the fatherless who are considered most alien. Our churches appear to have no frame of reference for the biblical mandate to "Rescue those being led away to slaughter; O' hold them back!" (Prov 24:11); most stand by too distracted to comprehend that the only way that evil this profound can have progressed as it has is that God's people do nothing.

So, four of God's people are being sued by the government in order to silence them. Eventually the Church will find that pastoral admonitions against abortion, whether from the sidewalk, in a classroom or from the pulpit will also come under such governmental scrutiny. Pastors and teachers and leaders who speak out will also eventually be under attack as well. The New Testament promise that "All who live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution" is a promise you can lay odds on. And for those who have failed to lead at all when there was enough light for them to guide their flocks and students along a righteous way, to stand in the gap for the Unborn and their hounded advocates, they will find that eventually their own ability to speak on other matters of righteousness they have considered to be more important will also fall.

"Death is never satisfied," to quote another biblical truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hang in there Peter, Paul, and others who have writings pending. I’ll get to them. But the Rev. again, first:

Abstaining from Terminating Abortionists: An Apology
(A defense for those who refrain from exercising the right to terminate an unwanted abortionist)
Prefatory Considerations

I have not opined recently at any length on the great subject at hand because just about all that need be said has already been articulated and inscribed and broadcast profusely. There is no lack of “education” as NRL was accustomed to proclaiming in the 70s. Child slaughter had followed in due time after the national abandonment of God and His Law. In a word, Lawlessness rules. The whims of the moment – the evanescent fashions swinging now left, now right – drive the people onward in the name of “freedom” as an evolutionary nightmare into self-destruction. It is the inevitable consequence along the course which idolatry sets.
When a state or nation abandons God and enthrones false gods (philosophies, constitutions, governments, dictators) in His place, the Law (true morality and justice) is cast away along with the abandoned God. And when, as in the case of the United States since the 20th century, mankind itself – as in the case of pure democracy – generates its own ever-changing “law,” a people, in the name of freedom, and fancying themselves free, place themselves instead into bondage by promoting Lawlessness and reaping for themselves the unpleasant consequences which God, in accordance with His Law, is bound to execute.
For example: Sexual liberation yields adultery which yields broken families which yield state sponsored remedies which yield high taxation which yields poverty which yields child slaughter as the hailed remedy for poverty. The pursuit of “freedom” (Lawlessness) without Law thus produces slavery and death. How remarkable is the popular euphemism with which child slaughterers identify themselves. They want to be known as “abortion providers.” Indeed, along with abortion maladies of all sorts abound. Slavery, death, disease, and theft are provided by Lawlessness.
Formerly, from the mid 1980s until the turn of the century, I answered questions in hundreds of interviews in all form: print, radio, and T.V. I was pleased following a cornucopia of abortuary demolitions or disablements by sundry methods such as the application of glue to door locks, butyric acid treatments, fake anthrax threats, and occasional abortionist terminations, to answer ethical questions; to wit: “How can you, as a Christian pastor/theologian, justify such actions?”
In 1990, at the annual meeting of evangelical theologians, I presented a case for blocking doors at abortion facilities. While acknowledging that both racism and abortion were injustices and offenses against the dignity of man as a creature made in the image of God, I distinguished the actions of the Civil Rights activists from those of the highly publicized Operation Rescue. I averred that abortion, as the killing of an innocent human being, was nothing less than murder. Segregation and deprivation of opportunity on the basis of race was an offense less egregious than murder. If non-violent civil disobedience was justified to make a political protest against racist segregation, then a fortiori blocking the doors of abortion facilities to prevent the deaths of innocent children was certainly justified. Indeed, I argued that much more drastic action was ethically permissible including forceful action such as the destruction of property which had already taken place on multiple occasions within the United States. I iterate here the first of three points: 1) forceful action taken in defense of womb children is not to be confused with political protest (whether it be civil rights for black people in the U.S. in the 60s or G-8/G-20 protests against “government” and “capitalism” in 2010). The next is 2) the child in the womb may be defended on the basis of his humanity just as any other person may be defended when his life is threatened by an aggressor. And finally, an argument which we have not advanced publicly and in polemical form before is this: 3) the neighbor of the child in the womb of a mother who delivers her child unto death is not under obligation to rescue the child.
When I stated that the same defensive action which would be permitted for the sake of a person outside the womb ought to be permitted for the person inside the womb, one from the ETS audience raised the question as to whether or not the justification for breaking bricks would not also allow for the shedding of blood. To which I affirmed that such bodily harm could not be condemned. Three years later when an abortionist was shot dead in Pensacola, a thorough treatise on the subject was produced. It fleshed out the Defensive Action statement published by Paul Hill in 1993 following the shooting death of abortionist David Gunn by Michael Griffin. Whatever action is justified to defend the born may be used to defend the preborn.
This systematic reply (point 2) was accomplished by the foresight of Andrew Burnett, publisher, and Paul deParrie, and Cathy Ramey, editors of Life Advocate, the flagship magazine of the anti-abortion activist movement of the same period. Following the deed performed by Griffin, Burnett devoted his staff to the production and publication of A Time to Kill, employing me to write and had his staff edit it.
The proclamation of this defensive action doctrine along with Burnett’s involvement with the newly formed street activist organization, American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), resulted in a lawsuit which named, among a dozen defendants, Burnett, Ramey, and Me (Planned Parenthood v. ACLA, 1995). The magazine was consequently shut down as the court required subscription lists to be turned over to Planned Parenthood. But the doctrine expounded in A Time to Kill remains philosophically, theologically, and ethically unrebutted. Its substance might be simply stated by theologians of the Reformation in their commentary on the Fifth Commandment: “Thou shalt not murder”:
So also, if you see any one innocently sentenced to death or in like distress, and do not save him, although you know ways and means to do so, you have killed him. And it will not avail you to make the pretext that you did not afford any help, counsel, or aid thereto, for you have withheld your love from him and deprived him of the benefit whereby his life would have been saved.3
Having frequently and abundantly in public forum answered the fundamental ethical questions concerning the use of force to defend the innocent, and failing to have our arguments answered, it now seems appropriate, following the fourth highly publicized termination of an abortionist over a span of 16 years (George Tiller on Pentecost in 2009) to offer some additional ethical clarifications. If it is permissible to defend the lives of womb children because they are truly human beings, why is it not mandatory? Why is it only an ethical option rather than an obligation? (tbc)

The final three writings here all support the use of force in our baby-killing war. I am sending this issue of AIM to four prolifers who do not support that, who I know are capable of explaining themselves, in hopes that one or all of them will respond to the Reverend and Cathy. Everybody else is invited to take part in this discussion as well.