formerly,
Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp (stop killing young people)
May 2, 2013, Vol. 11
No. 2
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Email, johndunk@ptd.net
Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 243
Editor, John Dunkle
“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 yet 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, a grand 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, FCI, PO Box
1500, El Reno, OK 73036
2. Griffin,
Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000
3. Grady,
Francis 11656-089, USP Terre
Haute, PO Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808
4. Holt,
Gregory 129616 Varner Supermax, PO
Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600
5.
Kopp, James 11761-055, USP
Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472
6. Roeder,
Scott 65192 PO Box 2, Lansing,
Kansas 66043
7. Rogers,
Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP
Beaumont, PO Box 26050, Beaumont, TX
77720
8. Rudolph,
Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
9. Shannon,
Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,
P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093
10. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP,
P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837
The Obama Administration’s Department of Defense lists seventeen
organizations in its “religious extremist” category:
1.
Evangelical
Christianity
2.
Ikhwan
or Muslim Brotherhood
3.
Ultra-Orthodox
Israel
4.
Christian
Identity
5.
Al
Quaeda
6.
Hamas
7.
Abu
Sayyah
8.
Ku
Klux Klan
9.
Sri
Ram Sene
10.
Catholicism
11.
Kahane
Movement
12.
Army
of God
13.
Sunni
Muslims
14.
Nation
of Islam
15.
Jewish
Defense League
16.
Mormons
17.
Hutaree
Including the Army of God here is even more surprising to me than
listing the Mormons, the JDL, the Catholic Church, or the Evangelicals.
A few years ago a Planned Parenthood spy told the Feds I was a member of
the Army. When they visited, I said the
Army of God was the name of Rev. Don Spitz’s website and that’s all it was. Later
I learned Neal also uses that name for his planned peaceful takeover of one of
the states.
------------------------------------------------
A while ago I mentioned “the repartee with the boys,” an ongoing
discussion/debate about the nature of our anti-abortion movement, especially
about the use of force. Neal and one or
two other friends participate, but most of the emailers are new to me and many
of them write in unique ways that I have to translate into North American normal. Here’s one translation from someone who signs
on as bobbyBIBLEstein:
This is why
babydolatry is struggling in America.
Jesus says not to judge others so when good men like all of you are
concerned about abortion, when heathens murder kids in the womb because kids’
parents do not want them to mess up their lives’ future with too many kids,
etc., so most good married Protestant men like all you below say, hey wait,
Jesus warns Matt. 7, judge not lest I be judged, and as I judge God will judge
me.
If I,
good church-going Joe Protestant, condemn abortionists as murderers worthy of
hell, 1st Cor., 6 Gal. 5. etc., will God look fairly at me and my wife who
plotted and planned to sidestep kids in birth-control family planning
ourselves and thus be baby genociders,
not even allowing them into the womb – worse than abortions?
At least the aborted baby most likely gets to
heaven or gets recycled, Heb. 9:27, which is better than a nation of people
called by his name who do not turn from the wicked ways of family planning and
condemn others who do, etc.
Hey, just talking, just loving, just sharing
to spare my well intentioned but misled brethren along the way who are in a
deep jam/pit.
Why no action, no zeal in stopping abortion
now? Go now to surround the Supreme
Court, March 26th, as all should have been done with Roe v Wade, so that we’re
not all stuck with abortion.
At the end of this month we may be stuck with
sodomite marriage, which is only about the love of money which is the root of
all evil.
Homo marriage simply allows all young gays to
find and marry old, about to die, rich, gays with soc sec pensions and get
married, and hope he dies quickly like hot young chics do with old rich men
And dumb America is soon to allow young
sodomites God hates to retire early to destroy the church in America, and your
retirement plans.
Wake up you dummies
best friend Bob Hal Lindsey, watchman at the
Church Wall For Jesus
Did you
pick up on the two insights here?
________________
--------------------------
Emily Dickinson Tobra carries on with her anti-abortion ministry:
I was
in frigid Green Bay, Wisconsin yesterday for a closing event that included
a march outside the hospital that does abortions in that city.
It’s a cause
for rejoicing when 40 Days for Life volunteers learn that no abortions are
scheduling during a day the facility is usually open – or even for a whole
week. Or even longer in at least one case.
Kathielee:
contrary to the peaceful rhetoric spouting forth from the mouth of prolifers,
you see our hero before grabbing a shovel outside a closing
event of a
babykilling store in green bay, wisonsin while our peaceful prolife choir
sings.
Choir:
put him in the ground put him six feet down put
that baby killer in the ground 6
foot down right there in dear ole green bay town put
him in the ground put him six feet down
And look
here:
Thank
you Mr. Dunkle for running Mr. Greg Holt's letter. Mr. Holt is a wonderful
friend and Christian brother of many years. I also respect the muslims however
i am also a Christian like our brother Greg Holt.
Mr.
Holt and the POC's are often dealt severe hardships and this is compounded by
men like dan holman who wish to play church while human suffering is involved.
I
hope mr. holt and myself have put an end to this greg holt is a muslim gossip
and rumor.
Thank
you so much for your fine newsletter Mr. Dunkle, I love it!
Sincerely, Tobra Potter
Mr. Dunkle, I
thank you so much also, and I also love your newsletter.
Sincerely, Dave Struck
See!
I’m not the only one!
___________________________
------------------------------------------
Two issues ago I told you about Eric
Rudolph’s Between the Lines of Drift, The Memoirs of a Militant, about how great it is and about how it is no
longer available on lulu.com. Here’s the
latest:
Needless to say the government has not been happy about the memoirs, as
well as all the other writings I've posted on the Army of God website. When a
person is sentenced to the Supermax he is never heard from again. Or at least
that is the design and purpose of this place. Because I have gone against that
design, the staff have singled me out for "special treatment."
Despite having a clean record, I have been moved to what they call the
"bug range," which houses chronic trouble makers, most of whom are
mentally ill. They bang and yell all
day, tearing themselves apart; producing an atmosphere of chaos and noise.
I have decided to protest this unjust treatment through a hunger strike. Beginning on the morning of March 11, 2013, I have refused all food and medical care. Pray for me, and God bless.
I have decided to protest this unjust treatment through a hunger strike. Beginning on the morning of March 11, 2013, I have refused all food and medical care. Pray for me, and God bless.
The first response is Tobra’s:
Buttercup Suggests
Writing our brother ERIC
RUDOLPH --
Prolifer Johnnie: write
RUDOLPH are you nuts buttercup? the law would be on me like pooh pooh hitting a
fan. oh man buttercup, i am ready
to lay down my life for the unborn but write a man in supermax, i don't think
so.
Prolifer Jimmie: are you
crazy buttercup? they read your mail! i am busy protesting the slaughter of
innocents. RUDOLOPH is a grown
man let him take care of hisself in there, after all i am saving lives &
stopping suffering.
Prolifer Jessie: my
husband would never give me permission as he thinks violence is of satan, who
be hating those that kill.
Prolifer Jennie: oh yes i
will, he is still single and hot rite?
The second is mine:
If
someone receives a special call from Jesus and starts growing toward a greater
love and compassion, to a deeper life of prayer in the community, there will
come a moment when he or she begins to reveal the mediocrity of others and thus
becomes dangerous.
A
prophet is always dangerous. Prophets were always killed in Jerusalem because
they were dangerous. They make people ask questions about their own mediocrity,
but they are unwilling to face them and to seek change.
A
community can become a place of death, just as it can become a place of life.
Bonding can stifle and bring death just as it can bring life.
This quote might sound familiar because I
posted it a while ago also.
And the third is Neal’s:
In a world where everything is neat and tidy
and everybody does things that cannot be criticized by anyone, Eric Rudolph
might have gone on a hunger strike, but he would have done it, not because he
had been transferred from one portion of the belly of the beast to another,
even more horrible, portion of the beast’s belly--a portion the word bedlam was
designed to explain. No, in a world where symbols were uncriticizeable,
General Rudolph would, if a hunger strike was in order, have made it clear he
was putting his life at risk because the beast who has devoured him also
devours the least of Eric’s brothers and sisters as a main part of its beast
diet; his hunger strike would remind everyone that the beast has legalized the
very activity that nullifies the meaning of God’s most important symbol, Christ
and the Church. In defense of the unborn slated for slaughter, in defense
of Holy Matrimony I will die, General Rudolph would boldly proclaim. But
alas that’s not what he said about why he was going on a hunger strike.
That said, no one should lose sight of the
fact that Eric Rudolph would not have contemplated a hunger strike had he not
made fighting the evil that legalizes the slaughter of the least of God’s
children and legalizes the sodomatic perversion of the great mystery of Christ
and the Church a battle he was willing to give his life to fight. So for
that reason, no matter what the immediate cause of his decision to starve
himself to death, Eric’s hunger strike is actually designed to remind people
that he has been willing to die to defend God’s Law for decades—the very same
decades that the rest of us pro-life Christians have been hand fed by the beast
obtaining our tasty treats until we salivate on cue when the beast brings out
his next tasty treat and been willing to do anything for God except things that
might cost us our lives.
So, the point is, if we can’t do anything
else to act like men of God who are willing to war for the Triune God revealed
in Holy Scripture, we can at least let people know Eric’s hunger strike is not
going to be ignored by these God damned helots who call themselves American
Christians and their heathen allies who presently rule this nation.
_________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
Can anybody help me out
here? Years ago I read a doctor’s
account of a late term abortion that he’d witnessed as part of his medical
school training. After the abortionist
had inserted a tube into the belly of the pregnant woman, this guy saw the tube
shake, and shake again, and again. He
realized that someone inside the woman was shaking that tube.
I can’t remember who the doctor was or what effect that experience had
on him. I’m hoping one of you can.
________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------
Quote
of the Day:
Dear
John, From a medical perspective, unless you are talking about natural
miscarriage, you are talking about forced abortion. Sincerely, Cal
_____________________________
---------------------------------------------
More from Cal:
Dear
John, This continues the excerpts from Scott Roeder's application No.
12A525 to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of execution of sentence of death
for preborn children, which was denied by Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
It remains most conspicuous that despite a persistent question of the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection, the Court has never obtained a coroner's statement to determine whether aborted fetuses are victims of homicide or not. In absence of a coroner's statement, then even if only to err on the side of caution, it would seem that anyone's opposition to abortion has legal merit, even in the extreme, in view of the irreparable harm of child homicide.
More children are executed on an average day in the United States under Roe v. Wade than the total number of adults executed since 1976 when the Court resumed adult executions in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). "In this situation, there just is not sufficient time for me adequately to consider the merits of the stay application… With an execution so irrevocable, I therefore choose to err, if at all, on the side of the applicant." Grubbs v. Delo, 506 U.S. 1301 (1992), at 1301-1302 (1992), Justice Blackmun granting the stay.
As the Court notes in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, at 157-158 (n. 54), "When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists." [Texas showed up at the Supreme Court with a glum look on its face, hoping the Justices would tie its hands and make it permit abortion, since Texans were too proud to legalize child homicide themselves.] From this it follows that the children did not receive meaningful representation by counsel [from Texas] and, thus, there is doubt whether due process has been followed in the procedures [of Roe v. Wade]. "A decision on the merits follows and does not precede the stay. If there is doubt whether due process has been followed in the procedures, the stay is granted because death is irrevocable." Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1316 (1972), at 1319,
Justice White granting the stay.
The Preamble, which is the most controlling interpreter of the Constitution, sets forth the right of the People to among other things, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." See also Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 953 (2000). Accepting the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, it follows that "ourselves" in this instance regards those who are created, including the preborn, and "our Posterity" includes all future generations whether as yet created or not.
Inasmuch as the blessings of liberty referred to in the Preamble relate only to persons, this provides a reasonable assurance that the word 'person' as used in the Constitution has pre-natal application. Cf. Roe, supra, at 157.
Moreover, since homicide is a universal public fact, it cannot rightly be the legal subject of a right to privacy anyway.
The unborn must be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the same as the unwhite, the unmale, and the uncivilized. [None of which, by the way, are specifically mentioned by the Amendment.]
In addition to sparing children from homicide, a stay of execution of sentence of death will also stop: forced abortion; the practice of allowing physicians of dubious qualification to hide behind a suspension of medical regulations; the masking of social and economic ills; and, the obstruction of justice.
The Court has never promised that abortion, once legalized, would be incapable of any interruption in the course of judicial affairs. On the contrary, ever-mindful that the suggestion of the personhood of preborn children has been left open to further consideration, the Court has forewarned, see Roe, supra, at 156-157, "If this suggestion of personhood is established … the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment." Since nothing can be more substantial than the right to life, it follows that the harm of not granting the stay plainly outweighs any reservations to the contrary.
To lament [as a pitiful Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did] that the social and economic life of our Nation would not be the same without abortion is an unabashed copy of the same plea made once for Slavery. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 856 (1992). It is time for the Court to stop treating human life as being as discretionary as the petitions it is asked to review. It is time to stop masking for the Nation's ills, and to start protecting the newest members of our society.
Granting a stay of execution should not be a discipline too hard for the Court to accept.
Unfortunately, in a race to promote women to greater stature and currency, the Nation has elected to mask for the trouble women have had in controlling their bodies in advance of getting pregnant, rather than improving the protection and discipline of women. But this is quite contrary to earlier ideals. [This next part goes on to tell the surprising story that Margaret Sanger was actually more anti-abortion than our religious and conservative leaders, and that she wanted to give women abortion alternatives from the start. It was not until after her death in 1966 that Planned Parenthood, which she co-founded, was able to evolve into the child homicide company it is today. She would not allow abortion while she was alive.]
As Margaret Sanger explains the original ideal of the contraception movement (Sanger, "Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography," New York: W.W. Norton, 1938, p. 217):
"[In 1916, at the first birth control clinic in America] To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
Contrary to this ideal, what is particularly puzzling is that the Court insists that masking for a woman's inability to control her own body in advance of getting pregnant is the best way to advance women to a more desirable status than they may have enjoyed in the past. What is even more puzzling is that the Court seeks to accomplish this not only by voluntary abortion, but also by involuntary abortion, using, as it were, every means but protection and discipline.
It is interesting to note that Sanger recognized that "no matter how early [abortion] was performed it was taking life." Ibid. Given the choice, it seems most of us would prefer to be victims of homicide in our 80th year rather than in our 10th. But when it comes to abortion, there has been great insistence to the contrary, as if it were better for children to be aborted in the 1st month than in the 8th. Clearly the preference stems not from the child's perspective, who would prefer the longer life for the same reason any of us would, but rather from the selfish perspective of reducing the public's burden of psychological rationalization.
For when the fetus looks little different than the babies women put into strollers, society has a harder time pretending people do not know the fetus is a person. But when the child is as yet so small that the knowledge of early development baffles us, it is easier to rationalize. Yet we see the grim truth of what an abortion really is when it is performed so late in pregnancy that it is hard for all but the most obdurate to rationalize. But even then, the Court's focus has been on making the homicides less graphic, not on protecting the children themselves. See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), upholding partial-birth procedures, until such a time as a less graphic procedure was made available, as per Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
Abortion is not a precise medical term. Instead, using standard lexicon, a precise medical term for homicide in the form of the taking of the life of a child with gestational needs is 'concepticide.' See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 31st ed., Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders, 2007 [conceptus + -cide]. Though infanticide is also correct, concepticide is more specific to gestation. The adjective is 'concepticidal.' For example, while some may question whether drugs or devices to prevent implantation cause "abortions," there is no question that drugs and devices to prevent implantation are concepticidal. Similarly, the destruction or abandonment of human embryos is also an act of concepticide. This Application seeks a stay of execution of sentence of death to forestall concepticide in all its forms, in the manner of a full-blown enforcement of civil rights for the preborn in Kansas and throughout the entire United States.
Preborn children are never going to up-and-file an application of their own [for a stay of execution of sentence of death]. It is therefore legally proper that necessary applications be presented whenever this Court's judgments or decrees against them are eligible for review [as in Scott Roeder's case, which he successfully got before the Court]. Whether on application or on this Court's own initiative, it is also legally proper that counsel ad litem be appointed for the preborn in all cases where their rights or concerns hang in the balance. Particularly where their lethal executions hang in the balance, such revision to the Court's practice is not without precedent. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
It is also noted that the Court should take better care in assessing the positions, interests, and qualifications of its amici. [This next part reveals the little known scandal that the position of the Catholic Church is not really what it seems to be on its face, and that even the most discerning readers, such as the members of the U.S. Supreme Court, have been misled by it.]
For example, in Roe, supra, at 160-161, the Court badly misinterpreted the Roman Catholic position:
"The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. [Citation omitted.] The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church."
The following year, the Church officially clarified [conspicuously in a footnote] that by no means whatsoever has its ensoulment debate been resolved: (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), Acta Apostolica Sedis, Vol. 66, 1974, pp. 730-747; n. 19.)
"19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his
soul."
Nidation is another word for implantation, sometimes connoting successful implantation. The infusion of a spiritual/immortal soul, the existence of which is a distinctly religious question, is what the Church ultimately equates with the onset of human personal life.
Simply stated, the official Catholic belief is that while human (biological) life begins at conception, the Church has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation when it comes to the question of when human (personal) life begins.
This religious question is pondered in the Instruction Donum Vitae: "how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion." (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Donum Vitae (22 February 1987), Acta Apostolica Sedis, Vol. 80, 1988, pp. 70-102; p. 79, I, No. 1.)
From this it evident that pondering a distinction between the personal versus biological life of a human individual is a distinctly religious undertaking. It would therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution [the separation of Church and State] for the Court to entertain such a distinction to the effect of depriving a human being of legal recognition as a natural person, in spite of evidence of his or her biologic status as a human individual.
[In other words, the Church takes the distinctly religious view that biological life alone is not enough for human personal life, so that instead we have to ponder whether the soul fairy has as yet already infused the biological aspect with an "immortal soul" in order to really become a person. Although the Church affirms that the biological aspect begins at conception, it has not expressly committed itself regarding the onset of the personal aspect: "For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation."
It remains most conspicuous that despite a persistent question of the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection, the Court has never obtained a coroner's statement to determine whether aborted fetuses are victims of homicide or not. In absence of a coroner's statement, then even if only to err on the side of caution, it would seem that anyone's opposition to abortion has legal merit, even in the extreme, in view of the irreparable harm of child homicide.
More children are executed on an average day in the United States under Roe v. Wade than the total number of adults executed since 1976 when the Court resumed adult executions in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). "In this situation, there just is not sufficient time for me adequately to consider the merits of the stay application… With an execution so irrevocable, I therefore choose to err, if at all, on the side of the applicant." Grubbs v. Delo, 506 U.S. 1301 (1992), at 1301-1302 (1992), Justice Blackmun granting the stay.
As the Court notes in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, at 157-158 (n. 54), "When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists." [Texas showed up at the Supreme Court with a glum look on its face, hoping the Justices would tie its hands and make it permit abortion, since Texans were too proud to legalize child homicide themselves.] From this it follows that the children did not receive meaningful representation by counsel [from Texas] and, thus, there is doubt whether due process has been followed in the procedures [of Roe v. Wade]. "A decision on the merits follows and does not precede the stay. If there is doubt whether due process has been followed in the procedures, the stay is granted because death is irrevocable." Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1316 (1972), at 1319,
Justice White granting the stay.
The Preamble, which is the most controlling interpreter of the Constitution, sets forth the right of the People to among other things, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." See also Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 953 (2000). Accepting the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, it follows that "ourselves" in this instance regards those who are created, including the preborn, and "our Posterity" includes all future generations whether as yet created or not.
Inasmuch as the blessings of liberty referred to in the Preamble relate only to persons, this provides a reasonable assurance that the word 'person' as used in the Constitution has pre-natal application. Cf. Roe, supra, at 157.
Moreover, since homicide is a universal public fact, it cannot rightly be the legal subject of a right to privacy anyway.
The unborn must be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the same as the unwhite, the unmale, and the uncivilized. [None of which, by the way, are specifically mentioned by the Amendment.]
In addition to sparing children from homicide, a stay of execution of sentence of death will also stop: forced abortion; the practice of allowing physicians of dubious qualification to hide behind a suspension of medical regulations; the masking of social and economic ills; and, the obstruction of justice.
The Court has never promised that abortion, once legalized, would be incapable of any interruption in the course of judicial affairs. On the contrary, ever-mindful that the suggestion of the personhood of preborn children has been left open to further consideration, the Court has forewarned, see Roe, supra, at 156-157, "If this suggestion of personhood is established … the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment." Since nothing can be more substantial than the right to life, it follows that the harm of not granting the stay plainly outweighs any reservations to the contrary.
To lament [as a pitiful Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did] that the social and economic life of our Nation would not be the same without abortion is an unabashed copy of the same plea made once for Slavery. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 856 (1992). It is time for the Court to stop treating human life as being as discretionary as the petitions it is asked to review. It is time to stop masking for the Nation's ills, and to start protecting the newest members of our society.
Granting a stay of execution should not be a discipline too hard for the Court to accept.
Unfortunately, in a race to promote women to greater stature and currency, the Nation has elected to mask for the trouble women have had in controlling their bodies in advance of getting pregnant, rather than improving the protection and discipline of women. But this is quite contrary to earlier ideals. [This next part goes on to tell the surprising story that Margaret Sanger was actually more anti-abortion than our religious and conservative leaders, and that she wanted to give women abortion alternatives from the start. It was not until after her death in 1966 that Planned Parenthood, which she co-founded, was able to evolve into the child homicide company it is today. She would not allow abortion while she was alive.]
As Margaret Sanger explains the original ideal of the contraception movement (Sanger, "Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography," New York: W.W. Norton, 1938, p. 217):
"[In 1916, at the first birth control clinic in America] To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."
Contrary to this ideal, what is particularly puzzling is that the Court insists that masking for a woman's inability to control her own body in advance of getting pregnant is the best way to advance women to a more desirable status than they may have enjoyed in the past. What is even more puzzling is that the Court seeks to accomplish this not only by voluntary abortion, but also by involuntary abortion, using, as it were, every means but protection and discipline.
It is interesting to note that Sanger recognized that "no matter how early [abortion] was performed it was taking life." Ibid. Given the choice, it seems most of us would prefer to be victims of homicide in our 80th year rather than in our 10th. But when it comes to abortion, there has been great insistence to the contrary, as if it were better for children to be aborted in the 1st month than in the 8th. Clearly the preference stems not from the child's perspective, who would prefer the longer life for the same reason any of us would, but rather from the selfish perspective of reducing the public's burden of psychological rationalization.
For when the fetus looks little different than the babies women put into strollers, society has a harder time pretending people do not know the fetus is a person. But when the child is as yet so small that the knowledge of early development baffles us, it is easier to rationalize. Yet we see the grim truth of what an abortion really is when it is performed so late in pregnancy that it is hard for all but the most obdurate to rationalize. But even then, the Court's focus has been on making the homicides less graphic, not on protecting the children themselves. See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), upholding partial-birth procedures, until such a time as a less graphic procedure was made available, as per Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
Abortion is not a precise medical term. Instead, using standard lexicon, a precise medical term for homicide in the form of the taking of the life of a child with gestational needs is 'concepticide.' See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 31st ed., Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders, 2007 [conceptus + -cide]. Though infanticide is also correct, concepticide is more specific to gestation. The adjective is 'concepticidal.' For example, while some may question whether drugs or devices to prevent implantation cause "abortions," there is no question that drugs and devices to prevent implantation are concepticidal. Similarly, the destruction or abandonment of human embryos is also an act of concepticide. This Application seeks a stay of execution of sentence of death to forestall concepticide in all its forms, in the manner of a full-blown enforcement of civil rights for the preborn in Kansas and throughout the entire United States.
Preborn children are never going to up-and-file an application of their own [for a stay of execution of sentence of death]. It is therefore legally proper that necessary applications be presented whenever this Court's judgments or decrees against them are eligible for review [as in Scott Roeder's case, which he successfully got before the Court]. Whether on application or on this Court's own initiative, it is also legally proper that counsel ad litem be appointed for the preborn in all cases where their rights or concerns hang in the balance. Particularly where their lethal executions hang in the balance, such revision to the Court's practice is not without precedent. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
It is also noted that the Court should take better care in assessing the positions, interests, and qualifications of its amici. [This next part reveals the little known scandal that the position of the Catholic Church is not really what it seems to be on its face, and that even the most discerning readers, such as the members of the U.S. Supreme Court, have been misled by it.]
For example, in Roe, supra, at 160-161, the Court badly misinterpreted the Roman Catholic position:
"The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. [Citation omitted.] The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church."
The following year, the Church officially clarified [conspicuously in a footnote] that by no means whatsoever has its ensoulment debate been resolved: (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), Acta Apostolica Sedis, Vol. 66, 1974, pp. 730-747; n. 19.)
"19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his
soul."
Nidation is another word for implantation, sometimes connoting successful implantation. The infusion of a spiritual/immortal soul, the existence of which is a distinctly religious question, is what the Church ultimately equates with the onset of human personal life.
Simply stated, the official Catholic belief is that while human (biological) life begins at conception, the Church has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation when it comes to the question of when human (personal) life begins.
This religious question is pondered in the Instruction Donum Vitae: "how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion." (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Donum Vitae (22 February 1987), Acta Apostolica Sedis, Vol. 80, 1988, pp. 70-102; p. 79, I, No. 1.)
From this it evident that pondering a distinction between the personal versus biological life of a human individual is a distinctly religious undertaking. It would therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution [the separation of Church and State] for the Court to entertain such a distinction to the effect of depriving a human being of legal recognition as a natural person, in spite of evidence of his or her biologic status as a human individual.
[In other words, the Church takes the distinctly religious view that biological life alone is not enough for human personal life, so that instead we have to ponder whether the soul fairy has as yet already infused the biological aspect with an "immortal soul" in order to really become a person. Although the Church affirms that the biological aspect begins at conception, it has not expressly committed itself regarding the onset of the personal aspect: "For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation."
See
Declaration on Procured Abortion, ibid. So the Church condemns procured
(intentional) abortion not
out of any
express regard for the person, but only on the moral ground that having an
abortion involves "the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but
already in possession of his soul." Ibid. But entertaining religious
beliefs of ensoulment violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, and so the Court has no choice but to recognize personal life at
the onset of biological life.]
Sincerely, Cal (Mr.
Eurica Califorrniaa)
Cal and I argue about the Church’s position on killing young
people. Cal says her refusal to say when
exactly a person begins to exist enables the killers because they say the same
thing. I, on the other hand, say it results
from the mixing of the spiritual and the material. It’s like Consecration. Some say that since the Church does not say
exactly when the bread becomes Christ’s body, that proves it doesn’t happen. I disagree of course.
______________________
-------------------------------------
I
agree with you on the justification for the use of force, because the
babies are just as worthy of the same level of defense as any other people. And
if there were an organized viable force of men willing to fight for our country
and defend our land against the New World Order and against our domestic
enemies, I would join that force of men right away. But I just don't have it in
me to try to do it all by myself. I just don't have what it takes to stand all
alone, like Paul Hill, and commit an act of war (even a justifiable, defensive
act of war) against the policies of the New World Order. If ever such an
organization does form I will join it right away, but right now there is no
such organization. So, for now, I'll keep on saving babies like this."
(Sidewalk counseling or whatever.)
That's all I ask, the right attitude, a manly attitude, an attitude free of compromise. That's all I ask! If only a
That's all I ask, the right attitude, a manly attitude, an attitude free of compromise. That's all I ask! If only a
man
should make the above statement to me, I promise you I will show that man
nothing but patience and gentleness...forever!
I will never call that man a coward. I will
believe he is sincere and has all the courage I would expect in a man. I will
never call him stupid. I'd like to have that man for a close friend, preferably
live next door to him. I'd like to enjoy camaraderie with him every day. And
even if only 20% of the men in that man's church were as manly as he, I'd be so
happy and encouraged by that fact that I'd join that church immediately. I
wouldn't care what denomination it was, as long as they proclaimed Christ the
King. At a time of such grave national crisis as this, denominational
differences must take a back seat to zealotry. Wherever other men show
Christian zeal, that's where I want to be found...." John
Brockhoeft
__________________
------------------------------
To send money to the federal Prisoners, those with
eight digits after their names, make out a postal money order to the Prisoner’s
name and number. Then send it to Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001
Ask the non-feds how they may receive money –
check, money order, etc. It varies by state.
_________________
-----------------------------
Receipt of this excellent missive
notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future,
simply advise me.
