Friday, September 16, 2011

Abortion is Murder, 9-6, October, 2011

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

October, 2011 Vol. 9 No. 6
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 89
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

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

Last month I included “Prefatory Considerations,” Part 1 of Rev. Michael Bray’s defense of prolifers who do not break the laws that protect the killing industry. Here’s the second and final part of the Rev’s defense:

The Argument
The following line of argument presents itself: “If abortion is murder, one must certainly have a very good reason NOT to rescue these innocents; some very important affairs to conduct! If true human children are being dispatched with every abortion “procedure,” how can one deny the legitimacy, yea, the duty, to take up arms to defend the helpless innocents?
We set forth here arguments for our third point, personal vocation (point 3). It stands upon inductive arguments from Biblical examples and is fashioned upon three principles: A) the sovereign judgments of God, B) conflicting obligations, C) personal discernment of divine calling.
First is a laissez faire (“let do” as in leave the economy alone!) argument. As we are not bidden to follow an ex-communicant and implore him return, but would let the due judgment fall upon him and his children whom he has by his own choice taken away from the fellowship of the Church, denying them the Life of the Church; and as we would simply pray for his repentance and return to the Life found at the Table of our Lord where he and his children are nourished, so we must similarly look at these children. They have been taken to the slaughter by their own parents who, living in a Godless and Lawless nation, have been equipped and protected by the state to carry out such a deed. This very condition is a judgment of God upon a wicked people. It is the same situation found among the nations among whom Israel dwelled. They sacrificed their children to Moloch bringing judgment upon themselves in their own wicked idolatry, destroying the most precious gift from God, thinking that they were serving Him. And God did not command His people to rescue those who so sacrificed their children nor did he pronounce the failure to rescue such children to be sin.
Our current legal/ethical status under our apostate government might well be viewed in terms of the biblical “ban,” by which a town or nation was “devoted” unto destruction. In that case, God sent judgment to that nation, slaughtering all - women, children, animals.
A similar laissez faire posture was taken by Christians regarding American slavery. Christian theologians argued that the enslavement of Africans was a particular divine judgment upon their idolatries. They could overlook the condition which Providence had placed these fellow human beings and entrust them to His benevolence and mercy. They could, therefore, be good overseers and citizens of a society where slaves were undergoing their own process of conversion and sanctification. They could be taught the Gospel, converted to the Faith, and given the hope of salvation even as they lived in less desirable conditions than their otherwise blessed white countrymen and fellow Christians.
A second principle is a “conflict of obligation” principle in which a person declines to take on one duty because it disables him from performing another. A man with duties to his own children has less of an ethical demand to lose his life to imprisonment of death to save an orphan depriving his own children of a father. I say less of an ethical demand. The man who gives up his fathering responsibilities to save another does not do wrong, but he certainly is engaged in choosing one duty over another. The choice is left to him and we may remain “pro-choice” by this principle.
A third principle has to do with divine calling and is thus related to the second. The legitimacy of taking defensive action for the sake of the innocent at great personal and familial loss beckons one to discern the will of God among multiple options and it thus falls as well under the “pro-choice” banner. One may call to mind the divine calling upon Hosea to marry a harlot or upon Samson to marry a woman outside of the covenant nation or upon Ezekiel to preach to a people of whom God said that they would not repent. These callings are reserved for the particular servant of God to discern. He called these men out for a special task to which He did not call others. Such extraordinary and sacrificial deeds may be compared to the “prophetic call” by which the leading of God is sensed by the one who defends the innocent ones.

In the last few issues I’ve been posting deanna’s responses to various pro-death people on the blog. Here’s one she writes to Kate Ranieri:

Kate, miniscule fetal abortion? really? You think the dead babies are miniscule?
This is the very thing that I am talking about. How is it that you as a human being have gotten yourself to the point that you think the death of another human is miniscule?
Also, you said, “Deanna repeatedly uses grotesque imagery in her words like, slicing up preborn babies, ripping their arms and legs off, crushing their heads and sucking their brains out with a vacuum hose. But where’s the grotesque imagery for the Holocaust and slavery?”
I use this imagery intentionally as I am sure you suspected. The reason I do that is because it is easy to hide behind terms like “abortion”, “products of conception” and “contents of the uterus”. I want you to never forget what it is that you really do because hopefully one day it will click with you that what I am saying is the truth and reality. Kate, THIS IS WHAT YOU DO! You do this to another human being and you have so deceived yourself that you not only justify it to yourself but try to justify it to others. But the reality is there IS NO justification for it.
Also, you said, “Morality, as an ideal, is clearly a key consideration for those who believe in the seamless garment protecting all life. But, in the real world, morality is situational.” Unfortunately you are right on this one. Morality is situational. But it shouldn’t be. At one time there were moral absolutes but in our quest to be free we have even freed ourselves from morality. As a society we have lost moral absolutes, I admit that. But the basic (should be) unmovable moral foundation is the unquestionable right that each person has to live without another killing her. This is why we pro-lifers say that a woman’s right to freedom over her body doesn’t trump the right of the baby to live. The foundational stone of freedom is the freedom to be alive and the foundational stone of morality is to not kill. These should be absolutes. But we have convinced ourselves that they don’t have to be.
As far as the other social injustices go and why there isn’t the outrage. I can tell you that from my perspective those things do anger me. I can guarantee you that had I been alive in slave days I would have been as loud and persistent as I am about abortion. But the abortion issue hits close to home because of my background. If you read the “about me” section of my blog, that will help you make sense of it. Also, as a Christian I know from scripture that abortion offends God. The scriptures are clear on it. Unless someone is taking scripture out of context and twisting it, she has to admit this. Scripture specifically says to be a voice for the voiceless and to speak up for those who are destined to die. Some are called to speak for those innocents in one area, others another. Mine happens to be to be a voice for the unborn. Also, the fact that I am loud about the one does not mean that I ignore the others.

Here deanna argues with Kate again. Kate had denied that the abortion industry tries to increase the number of abortions in order to benefit financially:

When you consider the high profile names that have said this you have to look at it with some interest. Several former abortionists have said it. The movie Blood Money goes into detail about it. Carol Everett, an owner of two abortion clinics in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, wanted to become a millionaire. “And the way for me to be a millionaire was to sell 40,000 abortions a year.” Everett wanted students to “come to us with their sexual questions so we could put them on a low dose birth control pill we knew they’d get pregnant on. Of course we passed out condoms but we never passed out high quality condoms; we always used seconds or defective condoms. Our goal was to get the kids pregnant.”
Abbey Johnson said, ““Planned Parenthood absolutely has quotas that each center has to meet, They have an abortion budget and they have a certain number of patients that you have to perform abortions on every month, and there’s a dollar amount attached to each woman.”
Joan Appleton, former abortion nurse and NOW activist says,” Now the pharmaceutical companies and Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry were not stupid. They knew that the less dose of estrogen in those pills, the more likely it was they were going to fail. But you don’t have to worry. We can bring you right back here for another abortion. They even used percentages, by the way -- thirty percent failure rate because we’re going to use the real low estrogen pill. So that means thirty percent will come back. And if we forget to tell you, by the way, that if you get the flu and have to be put on antibiotics, the chemical reaction between the birth control pill and the antibiotic renders the birth control pill worthless, and totally ineffective, so we have another twenty percent. Thank you, come back around.”
As far as the condoms go a January 2005 consumer reports article shows that two of the three types of condoms that Planned Parenthood distributes ranked the lowest out of the twenty-three brands that they tested, failing air inflation tests. Consumer Reports reprimanded them for it and The Chicago Tribune carried a story about it as did Newsday.
I could go on with more quotes but I think you get the point. You have to ask yourself the question why these people would say these things if there weren’t some truth to it. Some pro-choicers say that they do it for attention or their 15 minutes of fame, but that makes no sense, especially for Carol Everett who made millions off abortion. As did Bernard Nathenson. It was their consciences that got the best of them. You have to investigate the motive. They were pro-choice, in the industry and came out, some of them with very tough after effects. Why would they go through all of that unless there was some truth to their stories? It makes no sense.

Two quotes, the first from someone long dead and the second from someone still alive:

“Humility is a virtue by which one has a low opinion of one’s self because one knows one’s self well.”

“Every man, one day or another, becomes aware of his poverty as a creature. And since this experience is a crushing one, the natural temptation is therefore distractions, or, as Pascal said, diversions . . . Distractions, therefore, appear as the opposite of prayer, a refusal of our real condition, an evasion of it in favor of different kinds of drunkenness: evasion by the flesh, art, sports, etc.).” (scary)

Other powerful prolife voices besides deanna on the blog are NunYa, voice, and various anonymouses.

from NunYa

To Kate and Chuck, I have to say this blog is the first place I have heard anyone refer to being a hero in this issue. It has never occurred to me, nor have I ever heard another pro-lifer even allude to the need to be a hero. Kate, however it is said by the pro-life individuals, in a good way or bad, (I admit there is bad) the message is the same: we believe in the sanctity of HUMAN life, in each and every stage of development. It is a human life at each and every stage of development. We believe it is wrong to end human life, whether cognitive or not. Abortion ends human life. What part of any of that is a lie? It may be handled wisely or poorly or tragically by either side, but it is still the truth, proven by science and reality. As far as anything at all about God, neither of us can prove or disprove his existence. I look at the intricacies of the world around me, such as the human eye, and I see no other choice but to believe in Him. I don’t believe because I need to believe, I believe because a lifetime of seeking answers to the universe leave me no choice but to believe.
History is on my side. Most civilizations have believed in a creator or divine being. Some of the greatest minds in human history believed in Jehovah God. I am amazed that you are so certain, 100% sure, that he doesn’t exist. So I find no “lies” that you keep mentioning. Also, being new to the blog, I have researched many of the facts mentioned here that were called lies by you guys, from independent sources, since I do want truth in my life, and I have so far found nothing mentioned to be a lie, including Malachi, which you failed to disprove. All you did was quote others, as I did. I really am sorry that so many pro-lifers out there, as well as so many Christians, behave in a way that drive people away rather than draw them in. I have given you both tit for tat, because I felt you were the bullies of the playground, and now Kate, you say you have something called Bully Watch.
I find it amazing that you are guilty of the exact same behavior you accuse others of. If pro-lifers and/or Christians out there are behaving badly, that’s a shame, it really is. But I believe you both know, Kate with your Bully Watch, and Chuck with your Aborticintrism, that believing in God and the sanctity of human life isn’t a cult, syndrome or psychosis. And I also believe that you both know that this whole thing is about people believing babies are being killed, not about being a hero, or refusing to adopt dozens of babies, which seems to be your only argument, and is a lame one, because the children languishing in the system aren’t there because of abortion, or due to “insisting” woman have babies, or a violation of women’s rights. They are there because ALL women can’t be trusted, (men too) and because ALL women (men too) aren’t respectable. Men and women everywhere have shirked their responsibility, their duty, their common decency toward their children, usually due to self-centeredness and irresponsibility. Your answer to that, like all liberals, and I don’t mean that as a slur, is to turn them into victims, and strip them of what little self respect they may have, giving them the easy way out, complete with excuses. What they and all humans need are boundaries, responsibilities, a conscience and a sense of shame when they slack off, and a sense of pride when they don’t. Society used to handle these things very well by our public approval or disapproval. That was stripped away little by little as morality declined. Now, anything goes, and it’s not your fault.

SKYP Much Love! Thank you Soooo very much for sending Vol 7, #’s 1-20, from May ’09-April 2010. I see why you call it a “weak, pathetic response to baby murder” due to the immensity of the lives of aborted children’s worth. Those Prisoners For Christ need to be known as heroes for their actions! Not demeaned nor forgotten. Their sacrifices are not to be forgotten.
As you know I read the issues MacDonald, ex. P.F.C., received while I was at USP Victorville CA with him. I wasn’t expecting you to send all of Vol. 7. But yes, if you have any past issues, entire volumes as this, etc., it would be very appreciated and I would make sure those worthy and like-minded read them. Keep spreading the Word, as will I.
Jake Laskey

You bet, Jake. Here comes Vol. 8. I’m so glad to hear about Ricky Lee MacDonald. He was a prolific writer for AIM (skyp back in those days). One condition of his parole was that he cut off all ties to prolifers and prolife groups. I miss him.

On the blog, a killers’ helper said she would not use pro-death bumper stickers because some crazy pro-lifer might damage her car. I stupidly asked if she weren’t afraid, then, to expose herself since she is an obvious, active, and open fighter for her cause -- stupid because that could be considered a veiled threat, as she pointed out. One of our great prolife voices on that blog then wrote this:

John, While I assume you had no ulterior motives, I will say that I thought the same thing as I read your comment. I abhor what Kate stands for, and I find her obnoxious, but I don’t wish her dead. I am against planting thoughts in the heads of crazies. I am against it in movies, music, games, books, and now blog comments.
I know, though rarely admit out loud, that pro-choicers act out of a belief in the rights of a woman over her own body, not out of a desire to kill children. I also believe that that comes from a need for God coupled with worldly thinking that always, always puts “me” first.
Jesus came to seek and save those who are lost, not kill them. Yes, I also understand that babies are being killed. They will continue to be killed unless we change either the law, the person, or both. Occasionally killing the random abortion provider does nothing but prove that the killer wasn’t “really” pro-life, cause even stricter laws to be passed limiting us even more, and making us all look like backwoods crazies. It hurts the cause so much that it actually results in MORE babies being killed. FACE is a good example. Yes, I also know that the abortion providers aren’t innocent. But I am not for vigilantism. If you want to start an uprising leading to another civil war, I’ll be on board, but only something on as massive a scale as that would ever hope to work.
Again, I am assuming you meant no veiled threat.

Editor and Chief, Pat Richards, responded first:

Nunya: I very much appreciate this post!

And then I did:

So do I. Although 95% of us prolifers are against the minimal use of force (Rescue) and 99% plus are against the maximum (killing the baby killer), I have rarely been able to get one of them to write down her or his opinion. Since my newsletter is more concerned with that part of the legal baby killing issue, and since many entries there have supported the use of force (three in the September issue alone), I am most thankful for NY’s comment, which I’ll post in the October issue, out next week.

OK, let’s hear it.

And I’ll respond first. “40 Days for Life” considers itself the quintessential peaceful, prayerful, prolife organization, one that I feel sure NunYa would approve of. Those who run it, like Abby Johnson, have harsh words for other prolifers who challenge rather than placate. They won’t even discuss tactics like those forceful actions that Operation Rescue used to employ, much less tactics that involve the more demanding uses of force.
So what does it get them? It gets them moved into the outer fringe that they themselves rail against, as Phil Lawler demonstrates:

“A reader on Mark Shay’s blog reports that Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, Washington, has told the priests of his diocese not to be involved with the 40 Days for Life campaign, because he doesn’t want them to be identified with the “extremists” of the pro-life movement. (Exactly the same report came to us separately, from a reliable source.) You know: the “extremists” who pray quietly outside abortion clinics, and try to save unborn babies from slaughter. If secular editorial writers in Spokane characterized those pro-lifers as extremists, it would show the need for more effective Church leadership in the city, to give people an accurate understanding of how real Christians behave. But if the bishop himself thinks they’re extremists, it’s a sad certainty that sort of effective leadership won’t be coming from his chancery.”

Now you might be thinking that with a name like that and a history like his, the bishop might be one of those homosexuals who infiltrated the Church by the thousands during the sexual liberation era that lasted from the ‘50s through the ‘80s and are still causing untold damage to the organization, and you’re probably right. But those people should be resisted, not acquiesced to as the “peaceful, prayerful” groups urge. Otherwise, even those groups will find themselves personae non grata.


For about two years I’ve been posting the ten chapters of Paul Ross Evans’ “The Militant Christian.” You’ll have to go back to the January, 2010, issue to read the last one, Chapter VI. Here’s Chapter VII:

The Ten Commandments – Behavioral Standards and a Sacred Code

Paul lists here, and fleshes out, the Ten Commandments.

In Chapter VIII, “Prayers for Strength,” Paul includes the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles Creed, the Doxology, and the Hail Mary.
He adds this note after the Hail Mary: This meditation s not meant as a prayer to a higher power, simply an acknowledgment of the sacred feminine, of Mary and her life, and asking God the Father to help us be blessed by such knowledge and love.

He then offers several prayers he composed himself:

Prayer to Honor the Five Solas.

a. Father God, help me to honor Sola Scripture (Scripture Alone). The Bible, your word, is the sole and final authority in all matters of life and godliness. Help the Church, as well as the individual, l look to the Bible as the ultimate authority.
b. Father God, help me to always remember Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), that salvation is by Grace alone. Also help me to remember Christ’s sacrifice giving men that.
c. Father God, help me to remember Sola Fide (Faith alone). Help me to remember that salvation is through grace alone which is attained only through Faith in Christ, and honoring that sacrifice.
d. Father God, help me to remember Solus Christus (Christ Alone), that there is no other mediator between God and sinful humanity. He alone, based on this work on the cross, grants access to the Father
e. Father God, help me to always remember Sosli Deo Gloria, (the Glory of God alone), that everything I do should be for God’s glory. His will and missions alone are all that matter.

Prayer to Stay Clear of the Seven Deadly Sins

1. God, guard me from Pride, that I may not sin against you.
2. God, guard me from Envy, that I may not sin against you.
3. God, guard me from Lust, that I may not sin against you.
4. God, guard me from Anger, that I may not sin against you.
5. God, guard me from Gluttony, that I may not sin against you.
6. God, guard me from greed, that I may not sin against you.
7. God, guard me from Sloth, that I may not sin against you

Prayer to be Guarded Against and Refrain from the Six things the Lord Hates and the Seven Which are Abominations.
Lord God guard me against and protect me from the six things you hate and the seven which are aboninations unto you.
Guard me against and protect me from a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that are swift to run to mischief, false witness that speaketh lies, and sowing discord among brethren.
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.. Pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth do I hate.

The last several pages of “The Militant Christian” consist of more than a dozen prayers. I will name here the ones you can look up and include in the November issue the ones Paul composed himself.

You can look up “The Prayer in the Midst of Illness” by Ulrich Zwingli; “The Jabez Prayer” from the Chronicles; “The Beatitudes” from Matthew; “The Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi;” “The Act of contrition”; “the Magnificat, Mary’s Prayer of Praise” (no note); “The Prayer for Family” and “The Deliver Me Prayer” by Mother Theresa; and “The Prayer of Good Will,” “The Belief Prayer,” and “The Spirit Prayer” by John Henry Cardinal Newman.