Formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp (stop the killing
of young people)
June, 2012, Vol. 10 No. 2
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 211
John Dunkle, Editor
“Contraception” 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. Emails are free but snail-mail
is free only for PFCs, $800 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 and from those who defend them. I’d also like to hear from those who oppose
the prolife use of force and call it 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. Grady, Francis Gerald # 040368, Outagamie
Co Jail 5HLD03L, P.O. Box 1779, Appleton, WI 54912-1779
4. Griffin, Michael 310249,
5914 Jeff Ates Rd., Milton, FL 32583-0000
5. Jordi,
Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight,
Peter James, P.O. Box 376, Laverton,
Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp,
James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA
18472
8. Little, David SJRCC, 930
Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
9. Moose, Justin 27494-057 FCI Talladega, P.O. Box 1000, Talladega, AL
35160
10. Mower, Donny Eugene 65828-097, FCI Terminal
Island, PO Box 3007, San Pedro, CA 90731
11.. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, CCM, 716 McDonough Blvd.
SE, Atlanta, GA 30315
12. Roeder, Scott P. 65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043
13. Rogers,
Bobby
Joe 0202B, PO Box 17800
Pensacola, Florida 32522
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
This was among the writings I found after changing AIM’s name to CIM:
. . . .
The wholeness of the woman can be terrifying to a man. After all, from the viewpoint of sexuality,
the role he plays is very limited compared with that of his counterpart. Her sexual repertoire goes far beyond that of
the male and includes conception, implantation, pregnancy, gestation, labor,
delivery, lactation, and breastfeeding.
She is like the Queen Bee in comparison to the male drone. How important it is, then, for the man to
recognize, appreciate, and honor the highly diversified sexual wholeness of the
woman.
There is a passage of extraordinary moral
insight in James Joyce’s Ulysses, one of the most difficult to
comprehend books ever written. In the
“Oxen of the Sun” episode, some students are declaring their support for
contraception: “Copulation without population,” they chant. But Stephen Dedalus, who is in their midst,
disagrees with them because he is wary of separating sex from fecundity. He states in typical Joycean fashion, “But,
gramarcy, what of those Godpossibled souls that we nightly impossibilize, which
is a sin against the Holy Ghost, Very God, Lord and Giver of life. In her lay a Godframed Godgiven preformed
possibility which thou hast fructified with thy modicum of man’s work. Cleave to her! Serve!”
To contracept is to rebuke a woman for being a woman.
Fresh language can revive ideas that have
gone stale. Joyce is trying to awaken
us, perhaps even resurrect us from the dead.
Dedalus (which stands for “Dead-all-of-us,” a judgment against the
unthinking masses) does not want to free women from their fertility to make
them more male-like; he wants to honor them in their extraordinary capacity for
life-initiating, love-receiving, and person-developing. A woman, in this physiological sense, is a
true virtuoso. She commands profound
respect. Therefore, the freedom that the
immature students are urging is a false freedom because it makes the woman less
free since it reduces her to something less than what she is.
Contraception, therefore, is a deprivation Because
the woman’s body is “preformed” by God, and because she is in touch with the
“Giver of life,” to sin against the woman is also to sin against her God. Contraception, then, is both contra-woman as
well as contra-God.
It is critical that the man honors the sexual
breadth of the woman and not use contraception to cut her down to his
size. As soon as a man has this respect,
even reverence, for the woman, the use
of the contraceptive becomes repugnant to him. . . .
I had
to read the Joyce passage seven times before its beauty struck home. Although I love Portrait of the Artist and the short stories, I’d never been able to understand the older Joyce,
but now, in my 78th year, I shall begin with Ulysses and read each passage seven times. Then, in my 98th, I will begin Finnegan’s
Wake.
And
remember, Joyce condemns contraception here decades before another Catholic,
John Rock, invented “the pill.” In
Joyce’s day they didn’t realize that some “contraceptives” did not actually
contracept but killed. In this day of
the pill, 90% of “contraceptives” actually kill, and we all know it.
And In keeping with the
anti-contraception, especially the anti-pill, theme here, check this:
What the Pill is
Doing to Our Water Supply
In 1960, the combined oral contraceptive pill was first approved for use in the United States. Seven years later, “the Pill” was featured on the cover of Time Magazine, illustrating its enormous societal impact. Roughly two generations later, statistics from the United Nations show that, within more developed nations worldwide, just under 16% of “partnered” women use contraceptive pills, a number which does not include usage among single women.
However, even as the popularity of oral contraceptives remains high, the drugs themselves have been evolving in response to further discoveries about the human reproductive system, as well as efforts to reduce the Pill’s negative side effects. As with any major technological or medical development, particularly one embraced very quickly by a large sector of the population, it can take years, and even decades, for the full range of effects to become evident. And as demonstrated by several recent studies, many questions remain unanswered regarding the long-term and environmental effects of the hormones used in oral contraceptives, as well as other medical treatments.
When a new synthetic substance is created, or a naturally occurring substance is generated at greatly increased levels, the effects can be far longer-lasting and wider-reaching than its manufacturers predict or intend. Some well-known examples of this include asbestos, a popular insulation and flame retardant in the late 19th century, which was later discovered to be carcinogenic; and polystyrene foams like Styrofoam, which is frequently used in disposable packaging, yet takes hundreds of years to break down once discarded. In the case of oral contraceptives, the key ingredients are synthetic hormones known as progestins, which mimic progesterone, either alone or combined with estrogen. When used therapeutically in contraceptive pills or in hormone replacement treatments for menopause, these synthetic hormones make their way into the water supply after being excreted in the patients’ urine. As environmental contaminants, these are referred to as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), due to the fact that they interfere with the endocrine systems of humans and animals alike following exposure.
While its impact is still being widely studied, there is no doubt that the exposure is occurring: multiple international studies have documented elevated levels of natural and synthetic hormones in drinking water, and one such study conducted in France noted that progestins in particular were more resistant to removal by water treatment methods, compared with other types of pharmaceuticals.
Due to the accumulation of synthetic steroids in water, much of the research conducted on its impact has been done using water-dwelling vertebrates such as fish and frogs. An ever-increasing collection of studies report harmful effects of these hormones on aquatic vertebrates, particularly with regard to their reproduction, as would be predicted given the nature of the contaminants. One study focused on the effects of exposure to the progestin Levonorgestrel (LNG) on the frog Xenopus tropicalis. While the male reproductive system did not appear to be impaired, female tadpoles exhibited severe defects in the development of their ovaries and oviducts, rendering them sterile.
While studies such as these cannot be taken as a direct assessment of the impact of environmental EDCs on humans, they do have certain advantages: the capability of controlling for the duration and concentration of exposure, and the fact that these animals’ life cycles are much shorter than those of humans, thus enabling multigenerational studies in far less time. Like the proverbial “canary in the coal mine,” animal studies can serve as early indicators of environmental conditions that may prove harmful to humans and direct our attention toward seemingly innocuous substances we encounter in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and, as in this case, our water supply.
In 1960, the combined oral contraceptive pill was first approved for use in the United States. Seven years later, “the Pill” was featured on the cover of Time Magazine, illustrating its enormous societal impact. Roughly two generations later, statistics from the United Nations show that, within more developed nations worldwide, just under 16% of “partnered” women use contraceptive pills, a number which does not include usage among single women.
However, even as the popularity of oral contraceptives remains high, the drugs themselves have been evolving in response to further discoveries about the human reproductive system, as well as efforts to reduce the Pill’s negative side effects. As with any major technological or medical development, particularly one embraced very quickly by a large sector of the population, it can take years, and even decades, for the full range of effects to become evident. And as demonstrated by several recent studies, many questions remain unanswered regarding the long-term and environmental effects of the hormones used in oral contraceptives, as well as other medical treatments.
When a new synthetic substance is created, or a naturally occurring substance is generated at greatly increased levels, the effects can be far longer-lasting and wider-reaching than its manufacturers predict or intend. Some well-known examples of this include asbestos, a popular insulation and flame retardant in the late 19th century, which was later discovered to be carcinogenic; and polystyrene foams like Styrofoam, which is frequently used in disposable packaging, yet takes hundreds of years to break down once discarded. In the case of oral contraceptives, the key ingredients are synthetic hormones known as progestins, which mimic progesterone, either alone or combined with estrogen. When used therapeutically in contraceptive pills or in hormone replacement treatments for menopause, these synthetic hormones make their way into the water supply after being excreted in the patients’ urine. As environmental contaminants, these are referred to as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), due to the fact that they interfere with the endocrine systems of humans and animals alike following exposure.
While its impact is still being widely studied, there is no doubt that the exposure is occurring: multiple international studies have documented elevated levels of natural and synthetic hormones in drinking water, and one such study conducted in France noted that progestins in particular were more resistant to removal by water treatment methods, compared with other types of pharmaceuticals.
Due to the accumulation of synthetic steroids in water, much of the research conducted on its impact has been done using water-dwelling vertebrates such as fish and frogs. An ever-increasing collection of studies report harmful effects of these hormones on aquatic vertebrates, particularly with regard to their reproduction, as would be predicted given the nature of the contaminants. One study focused on the effects of exposure to the progestin Levonorgestrel (LNG) on the frog Xenopus tropicalis. While the male reproductive system did not appear to be impaired, female tadpoles exhibited severe defects in the development of their ovaries and oviducts, rendering them sterile.
While studies such as these cannot be taken as a direct assessment of the impact of environmental EDCs on humans, they do have certain advantages: the capability of controlling for the duration and concentration of exposure, and the fact that these animals’ life cycles are much shorter than those of humans, thus enabling multigenerational studies in far less time. Like the proverbial “canary in the coal mine,” animal studies can serve as early indicators of environmental conditions that may prove harmful to humans and direct our attention toward seemingly innocuous substances we encounter in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and, as in this case, our water supply.
However, the effects of EDCs are not limited
to water-dwelling frogs: female sterility resulting from early exposure to
progestins has been reported in studies involving rats and mice, whose
mammalian reproductive systems more closely resemble those of humans. The
female reproductive system undergoes many key developmental changes in the
early stages of life, and these changes are dependent on endocrine signaling
events that are sensitive to contaminating environmental hormone exposure. A
series of studies by a group at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have
demonstrated that mice exposed to phytoestrogens – plant estrogens such as
those found in soy products – at key developmental time points exhibited
impaired fertility. In contrast to mice, in which the critical period of time
is during the neonatal period, the human female reproductive tract is
undergoing development from prior to birth through adolescence. Therefore, it
is necessary to evaluate the risk of exposure to EDCs across a broader window
of time, beginning in the womb.
The use of hormonal contraceptives by pregnant women is discouraged for the obvious reason that they are not ovulating, in addition to the potential for harm to the unborn child. However, postpartum contraception guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control in 2011 state that the use of progestin-only contraceptives “can be initiated immediately postpartum,” and discourage the use of estrogen-containing combined contraceptives in breastfeeding women primarily because the estrogen can reduce the mother’s milk supply. The presence of progestins in the breast milk of women taking oral contraceptives has not been demonstrated to adversely affect their babies’ health, although such assessments tend to focus on the short-term outcomes rather than those that might not manifest until adulthood. Nevertheless, the most recent report from the NIH group studying the effects of phytoestrogens highlights the notion that limiting early exposure to plant estrogens, such as those found in soy-based infant formulas, may prove to be beneficial to female reproductive health in the long term. Furthermore, the potential harms of prevalent EDC pollution in the environment are not restricted to women: in November of last year, the British Medical Journal published a report indicating that levels of prostate cancer in men are highest in geographic areas with the greatest use of oral contraceptives. While the authors stress that their findings are correlative rather than causative, their work provides a sobering hypothesis for further important research.
Ultimately, the Catholic opposition to contraception is grounded in a fundamental understanding of the meaning of human life and the purpose of procreation as a part of God’s plan, not a pragmatic conclusion reached by painstaking scientific research. While it makes intuitive sense that humans both individually and as societies benefit by living in accordance with the wishes of their Creator, in a fallen world there are practical things that can be done to alleviate some of our suffering, including the use of medical technology and pharmacology. It should be noted that synthetic hormones are not exclusively used in contraceptives, nor are the chemical compounds marketed as contraceptives intrinsically immoral – for instance, an unmarried and abstinent woman using hormonal treatments to treat endometriosis in the hopes of safeguarding her future fertility is doing nothing sinful, regardless of the efficacy or side effects of her decision. However, in a world in which influential groups and individuals are increasingly advocating for population control, often in a manner that recalls the eugenics movement of decades past, it is necessary to insist that research be done to uncover truths regarding the long-term and unintended side effects of widespread contraceptive pill usage.
The use of hormonal contraceptives by pregnant women is discouraged for the obvious reason that they are not ovulating, in addition to the potential for harm to the unborn child. However, postpartum contraception guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control in 2011 state that the use of progestin-only contraceptives “can be initiated immediately postpartum,” and discourage the use of estrogen-containing combined contraceptives in breastfeeding women primarily because the estrogen can reduce the mother’s milk supply. The presence of progestins in the breast milk of women taking oral contraceptives has not been demonstrated to adversely affect their babies’ health, although such assessments tend to focus on the short-term outcomes rather than those that might not manifest until adulthood. Nevertheless, the most recent report from the NIH group studying the effects of phytoestrogens highlights the notion that limiting early exposure to plant estrogens, such as those found in soy-based infant formulas, may prove to be beneficial to female reproductive health in the long term. Furthermore, the potential harms of prevalent EDC pollution in the environment are not restricted to women: in November of last year, the British Medical Journal published a report indicating that levels of prostate cancer in men are highest in geographic areas with the greatest use of oral contraceptives. While the authors stress that their findings are correlative rather than causative, their work provides a sobering hypothesis for further important research.
Ultimately, the Catholic opposition to contraception is grounded in a fundamental understanding of the meaning of human life and the purpose of procreation as a part of God’s plan, not a pragmatic conclusion reached by painstaking scientific research. While it makes intuitive sense that humans both individually and as societies benefit by living in accordance with the wishes of their Creator, in a fallen world there are practical things that can be done to alleviate some of our suffering, including the use of medical technology and pharmacology. It should be noted that synthetic hormones are not exclusively used in contraceptives, nor are the chemical compounds marketed as contraceptives intrinsically immoral – for instance, an unmarried and abstinent woman using hormonal treatments to treat endometriosis in the hopes of safeguarding her future fertility is doing nothing sinful, regardless of the efficacy or side effects of her decision. However, in a world in which influential groups and individuals are increasingly advocating for population control, often in a manner that recalls the eugenics movement of decades past, it is necessary to insist that research be done to uncover truths regarding the long-term and unintended side effects of widespread contraceptive pill usage.
-----------------------------------
More “Neal and His Enemies”:
Al, Rather
than go forth and act as an individual defender as Michael Griffin, Paul Hill
and others, Neal wants to reform the government so that it does its job in
protecting the innocent from murder by punishing the murderers via due process
of law.
Isn't this what all "Right-To-Lifers" and "Anti-abortionists" want?
That Neal is brash, offensive and rude does not negate the purpose of governmental reform. You are right: NEAL IS NOT THE ISSUE.
Isn't this what all "Right-To-Lifers" and "Anti-abortionists" want?
That Neal is brash, offensive and rude does not negate the purpose of governmental reform. You are right: NEAL IS NOT THE ISSUE.
Governmental malpractice is the issue.
Even if Neal is an unwashed infidel, he supports God's law in regard to the murder of the innocent. Perhaps he is a megalomaniac. Nevertheless, he supports God's law in regard to the murder of the innocent. NEAL IS NOT THE ISSUE.
All abortions will never be prevented. All that government can do is to discourage potential baby murderers by punishing those who have been caught after murdering a baby.
If the state was doing its duty the "Pro-Lifers" (real ones; not the cause-junkies) and "Anti-abortionists" would be busy ferreting out abortionists and reporting them to the appropriate civil authorities.
Then the police/sheriffs would be kicking in the doors of the secret abortuaries, hauling out the aborting mothers, abortionists and accomplices in chains to the courts for their trials, convictions on due proof, sentencing, and imprisonments and executions.
Isn't that what we SHOULD want? Then others would "Give the people of [America] these instructions, which apply both to native [Americans] and to the foreigners living in [America]. "If any of them offer their children as a sacrifice to Molech, they must be put to death. The people of the community must stone them to death."
We are not particular about the method. The intent is both to stop the cry of the blood of the innocent that rises from the ground and to terrorize those who sacrifice their children to the god "Choice."
Even if Neal is an unwashed infidel, he supports God's law in regard to the murder of the innocent. Perhaps he is a megalomaniac. Nevertheless, he supports God's law in regard to the murder of the innocent. NEAL IS NOT THE ISSUE.
All abortions will never be prevented. All that government can do is to discourage potential baby murderers by punishing those who have been caught after murdering a baby.
If the state was doing its duty the "Pro-Lifers" (real ones; not the cause-junkies) and "Anti-abortionists" would be busy ferreting out abortionists and reporting them to the appropriate civil authorities.
Then the police/sheriffs would be kicking in the doors of the secret abortuaries, hauling out the aborting mothers, abortionists and accomplices in chains to the courts for their trials, convictions on due proof, sentencing, and imprisonments and executions.
Isn't that what we SHOULD want? Then others would "Give the people of [America] these instructions, which apply both to native [Americans] and to the foreigners living in [America]. "If any of them offer their children as a sacrifice to Molech, they must be put to death. The people of the community must stone them to death."
We are not particular about the method. The intent is both to stop the cry of the blood of the innocent that rises from the ground and to terrorize those who sacrifice their children to the god "Choice."
Neal, Al, you said in your note that I am
considered "brash, offensive and rude." Al, there is not a law
enforcement officer on this planet who is not considered to be "brash,
offensive and rude" by the outlaws and lawbreakers under investigation
and/or subject to arrest by those law enforcement officers.
What makes the
vast majority of Christians in the USA my enemies--not you I praise God, but
the ones who think I am offensive and rude--is I clearly call them
lawbreakers--outlaws--who, like the deluded Christians of Nazi Germany or the
deluded believers in ancient Israel, have become deluded by Satan into an immunity
to murder. The Christians today are angry at me because I berate
them in brash, offensive and rude language for pretending to be obedient and
faithful Christians when, in fact, they are literally modern day replays of the
ancient church Lapsis,
Christians who pretended to be faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ but
who, by making sacrifice to Caesar while the true Christians fought Caesar to
the death, denied everything that it meant to be a true Christian, a true
follower of the True Lord Jesus Christ.
Such Lapsi
Christians were the enemies of the true Christians who used their own bodies as
literal living sacrifices
rather than surrender to Caesar's attempt to usurp the authority that belonged
only to the Lord Jesus Christ. Not only that, those Lapsi Christians were the reason Caesar could
continue to slaughter faithful Christians so easily for so long, just as today
the present lapsi are the
reason unborn babies continue to be so easily legally slaughtered.
This generation of American Christians has
followed pro-life leaders who have proved for 38 years that they will decide to
be immune to the murders of the least of God's children rather than risk their
own lives or the lives of their own chooselings rather than do what is
necessary to arrest legalized murder in this nation. Such a decision makes
those Christians outlaws, makes them lawbreakers I am attempting to arrest,
using every means available, even the means of brash, offensive, rude language.
But these Christians, like all lawbreakers
and outlaws who resist God's arrest, ain't seen nothing yet. Before it's over
their continued decision to resist arrest will cost them and their families
their lives, if they don't repent and allow themselves to go along with their
arrest and with the officers who are trying to arrest them.
Otherwise, what Jesus Christ said in Matthew
5:25 will come true to the American and other worldly Christians who think they
can get away with becoming immune to murder just like it came true to the Lapsi
Christians under Caesar and just like it came true to the ancient Israelites
who became immune to children being sacrificed to demons.
Brad, Neal/Al- I only skimmed what you
wrote, thus far, but one quick point for now: police officers are usually not
rude, even to lawbreakers. The do not say rude or demeaning or unnecessary
things to lawbreakers; they simply enforce the law. Their lack of rudeness is
probably due in part to the fact that they carry a gun and have the authority
to use it - they do not need to use words.
Al, Brad, dear, when's the last time you
were approached by a cop?
From addressing me uninvited by my first name
to knocking me down and dragging me naked (after stripping me) on the floor,
threatening to hogtie me, brandishing guns at me and my family, I haven't
gained a very complimentary impression of the politeness of cops.
Sorry, you must live on a different planet
from the one I am on.
Neal, Al, you nailed the situation with Brad
Riegg. Like most Christian in the USA, he has a fantasy about police where they
treat him, because he's a loyal US Christian, like a member of the nobility has
always been treated by law enforcement. That's because he's never actually
threatened the status quo enough to be treated as a true threat by law
enforcement officers. Should he ever do anything this nation's cops are told is
dangerous to the status quo, he will find out just how rude police can be, and
will find out not one of them will apologize for their rudeness. Just like the
cops didn't apologize to the Lord when they humiliated Him on direct orders
from their superiors in law enforcement.
Al and Neal, the Prophets livith
--------------------------------------------
Here’s the ending of a grotesque article in
the May 14 New York Times about the increasing popularity of egg freezing:
Amy West, 37, a psychologist in Chicago, said
that she could have afforded the $7,600 bill to freeze her eggs, but that with
her parents paying $5,000, “it somehow didn’t feel like as scary an
investment.”
In November, Ms. West’s mother, father and
brother flew in from Washington for the egg retrieval, which followed days of
hormone injections.
Even Ms. West’s mother, an international
environmental and human rights lawyer, whom Ms. West described as “very career
oriented” and “not the type to nag,” could not resist a joke after hearing how
many of her daughter’s eggs had been successfully frozen.
“I have 26 grandbabies!” she exclaimed.
Course
it’s no joke, is it. If things go as
planned Mrs. West just might get her 26 grandbabies, 25 or even all of whom will
be murdered.
--------------------------------------------
I’ll bet you’re getting tired of my quoting pro-deather Pat Richards but
he posts stuff on abortion.ws I can find no where else:
I want
to talk about two pro-choice people who have been in the news lately.
The first is a pro-choice activist named Ted
Shulman. It seems that this turkey recently pled guilty to making death
threats against Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life and Princeton Professor
Robert George. He could face up to 51 months in federal custody and will
be sentenced on September 12. He has called himself the “first pro-choice
terrorist.”
Maybe I’m missing something here, but I’ve
done some research and am bothered that I have not seen the major pro-choice
groups condemning this nut ball. For many, many years we have been quick
to criticize the pro-life movement when they seem to disappear when one of
their own engages in acts of violence or, if they do condemn the action, it is
always with the caveat that “if the abortionist did not engage in the act of
killing himself perhaps this would not have happened” or words to that effect.
Well, this pro-choicer is not going to play
games with something as serious as this. Let me for the record condemn
the actions of Mr. Shulman and I hope he does serve his time. What this
guy did was wrong – period.
Pat’s
right – “I have not seen the major pro-choice groups condemning this nut ball,”
but he’s also wrong – the pro-life movement “seem to disappear when one of
their own engages in acts of violence . . .”
The pro-life movement actually condemns forceful prolife activity more
roundly even than the pro-death movement does.
Is Pat just unaware of this or is he being disingenuous. My guess is the former.
Here’s an example. Years ago I was nodding as our premier prolife
politician, Chris Smith of New Jersey, droned on about prolife stuff. I was awakened by a sudden and forceful
change in his voice. He was condemning
the prolife use of force. Hey, I said to
myself, it’s been eight years since Jim Kopp terminated Barnett Slepian, and
nothing’s been done since!
What’s Chris talking about!
Moreover, I am one of the few prolifers who have not made up their minds
about that issue. Even for this I have been kicked out of my local prolife
organization; out of the United States’ only prolife teachers’ organization, Teachers Saving Children; and
disinvited as speaker to Serra, a vocation-promoting Catholic men’s
association. I have also been lectured to and excoriated by many prolifers,
including priests, ministers, and nuns.
What’s Pat talking about?
---------------------------------------
The neighbors of the killer I am about to visit are up-in-arms. Who can blame them? One letter did actually bother me, though:
Sir: In reply to your
letter of Apr. 17, regarding your proposed vigil at Dr. Anasti’s home, I
respectfully urge you to not proceed.
I believe embarrassing and harassing the
family will not cause anyone to come around to your thinking – rather the
opposite.
As a committed Christian, I implore you to
change your plans. I would also point
out that the doctor does not perform abortions. He is concerned with making
certain women are well-cared for. Thank you for your consideration. B.A. Heist
It bothers me because I don’t want to call someone a killer if he’s
not. But what should I do? None of the letters, including BA’s, had a
return address and Jimmy himself refused to have any contact with me.
So, I’ll go there Sunday and see what happens.
-------------------------------------------
Dear John,
There has been a lot of chatter in the news about a blind Chinese lawyer named
Chen Guangcheng who opposed forced abortion in China. But after looking at the
news, I could not find anything that would indicate his opposition to child
homicide in its most clandestine form of legal abortion when the mother herself
chooses to kill the baby without coercion. But if the government kills me or my
mother kills me, I am just as dead! So what kind of limited activism is that?
The other presumption I find in the news seems to be that the United States does not support forced abortion, and therefore provides a refuge for this activist. To dispel this myth, someone should give Mr. Chen a braille copy of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), where at pp. 153-154 the Court rejects a woman's right to exercise sole control over the abortion decision, by founding Roe on the abatement authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (to control pregnancy epidemics with involuntary abortion) and Buck v. Bell (to use involuntary abortion to prevent our being swamped with female sexual incompetence during a time of sexual revolution), and then even goes so far at p. 159 as to expressly abandon Skinner v. Oklahoma (to authorize involuntary abortion even in arbitrary connection with poverty and the punishment for crimes such as drug use). See also San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), pp. 100-101; and, Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), pp. 915-916.
I think if Mr. Chen was made aware of these facts, and he started denouncing forced abortion here in America like he did in China, New York University would quickly revoke his fellowship.
Plus, I think it is a bit ironic, since I suspect the Chinese abortion policy was originally imposed by the West as a precondition of recognition for the Chinese leadership. For it appears there were those in the West who wanted to help China advance economically, but did not want to be flooded with billions more Chinese in the process. So China's policy may very well be a reflection of Western population control objectives for the world population. Sincerely, Cal.
-------------------------------------------
The other presumption I find in the news seems to be that the United States does not support forced abortion, and therefore provides a refuge for this activist. To dispel this myth, someone should give Mr. Chen a braille copy of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), where at pp. 153-154 the Court rejects a woman's right to exercise sole control over the abortion decision, by founding Roe on the abatement authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (to control pregnancy epidemics with involuntary abortion) and Buck v. Bell (to use involuntary abortion to prevent our being swamped with female sexual incompetence during a time of sexual revolution), and then even goes so far at p. 159 as to expressly abandon Skinner v. Oklahoma (to authorize involuntary abortion even in arbitrary connection with poverty and the punishment for crimes such as drug use). See also San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), pp. 100-101; and, Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), pp. 915-916.
I think if Mr. Chen was made aware of these facts, and he started denouncing forced abortion here in America like he did in China, New York University would quickly revoke his fellowship.
Plus, I think it is a bit ironic, since I suspect the Chinese abortion policy was originally imposed by the West as a precondition of recognition for the Chinese leadership. For it appears there were those in the West who wanted to help China advance economically, but did not want to be flooded with billions more Chinese in the process. So China's policy may very well be a reflection of Western population control objectives for the world population. Sincerely, Cal.
-------------------------------------------
Soon after George Tiller was terminated, a young priest, Father Nathan,
videoed a talk about it that I am seeing more and more frequently. Father starts by saying his views will not
make him popular, and then he delivers a view that is calculated to do exactly
that –“in our defense of the victims, we must never resort to violence.”
The few
prolifers who believe Tiller’s termination was just are still challenging
Father and among them is one of our great writers, Jim Mitchell. When I called
this newsletter Stop the Killing of Young People, Jim submitted some
magnificent pieces of writing. Here’s
his response to Father Nathan’s anti-life talk:
It is
interesting that many of my fellow Catholics are celebrating, and
rightfully so, the upcoming release of a film about the early 20th century
Mexican uprising to fight against those attacking violently their right to
worship Jesus. But ask any of these same people whether a similar uprising
against those who violently attack Jesus' own little brothers and sisters in
the womb would be justified, and they would stare at you in mute horror, or
start preaching pacifism (their right to worship is not under attack, only others'
right to life is in danger).
I
myself would look to the order of the commandments as a rule of thumb for
determining a godly hierarchy of values, placing the worship of God as a
greater value than the preservation of human life, yet they do not exist as
distinct realities but rather as part of an organic whole. I am loathe to admit
it, but we do not perceive ourselves as being violated in our customs and daily
routines by the murders of so many preborn persons. But threaten us directly,
even threaten our lives, because we say Jesus is Lord, and we will resist
mightily either as pacifists or warriors, knowing that either choice could
result in our deaths.
Love of
God is greater than love of neighbor, yet if we do not show a similar vigor in
the defense of our neighbors in the womb as we might show in defense of our
right to love God in worship, then we give reason to the world to believe that
it is not our love of either that is offended by this world's contempt, but
merely our personal, selfish pride (of no value in our Lord's eyes no matter
how much of our own blood we freely offer for its sake).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal
wants Jimbo and me to talk about this during my next visit, June 18:
FOR IMMEDIATE
PRESS RELEASE: Case no. 11-10468, Scott P. Roeder, petitioner, v. Kansas, was
docketed in the Supreme Court of the United States, on May 21, 2012, and is
pending.
Mr. Roeder was convicted of first degree
murder in connection with the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion
provider in Kansas. Mr. Roeder maintains that the shooting was justified
because it was done not in retribution for Dr. Tiller's past actions, but
rather in defense of preborn persons from further acts of homicide as innocent
third parties, and in defense of pregnant females from having abortion forced
upon them.
The questions presented in this habeas corpus
petition include: "Whether having an abortion is a constitutional right
per se under any reasonable interpretation?" As the petition argues,
"Because this Court neither recognizes a pregnant female's unlimited right
to refuse an abortion nor invariably requires her consent to perform an
abortion, it is plainly evident that having an abortion is not a constitutional
right per se under any reasonable interpretation." And as a consequence,
the petition concludes that Mr. Roeder "did not violate the law by
shooting and killing Dr. George Tiller, since it is really our duty to defend
women and children from having abortion forced upon them, and, simply put, it
is honorable to forestall child homicide." (The word "duty" is
underlined in the original.)
So the petition takes the unique step of
attacking Roe v. Wade from both sides. It attacks Roe because it violates the
rights of preborn persons. And it also
attacks Roe
because it violates the rights of pregnant females who are quietly being forced to abort
under the pregnancy abatement policy originally authorized by the Supreme Court
in Roe.
The petition also presents a unique challenge
to the legal assertion of stare decisis, or the presumption that Roe is
"settled law" and must therefore be left undisturbed. The petition
argues that Roe cannot qualify as settled law for failure of the Court to
observe a high standard of law, since no Member of the Court has ever even
"questioned" the children's rights, as reported by two of Court's
justices themselves. Moreover, the Court was not completely forthcoming in Roe,
but instead relied on subtle references to quietly outline its provisions for
forced abortion, with in mind to ensure pregnancy abatement in case voluntary
abortion alone proved inadequate to prune all the wild fruit off women's
branches.
In other words, the petition exposes the true
picture of Roe: That Roe was never about choices, instead, it has always been
about pregnancy abatement, with "choice" being offered as the path of
least resistance, but while keeping females over a barrel of forced abortion to
ensure abatement in case voluntary measures prove insufficient; and, that none
of the Court's justices have ever even "questioned" the children's
rights in the formal legal sense. The petition exposes Roe as the work of a
Court desperate for pregnancy abatement during a time of sexual revolution--a
Court willing to stoop so low as to commit child homicide and even forced
abortion to accomplish it.
Petition:
http://www.JURIDIC.ORG/images/11-10468.pdf
Docket:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-10468.htm
----------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment