formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp
(stop killing young
people)
April 2, 2014, Vol. 11
No. 24
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Web, skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation, 210
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, two grand for others.
Because I believe we should examine every
legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from
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 Allenwood, P.O. Box 3000, White Deer, PA 17887
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 26030, 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
This April 2 issue finishes the eleventh year of what began as Stop the Killing of Young People, became Abortion is Murder, and is now “Contraception” is Murder.
_________________
--------------------------
In
the first half of her essay that I posted last issue, Monica Migliorino Miller proved
that force can be moral. In the second
half she tries to prove that in this holocaust, though, it is immoral.
Here Miller abandons the intellectual argument and turns to an emotional
one. You
see, Miller feels force is
wrong. You might have picked this up
from certain words she used even while proving that it can be right. Like the Catholic lady who feels that
contraception is right, Miller feels the anti-force position is right, and
emotion trumps logic every time.
Part 2
This is not the way of the Christian who must
live by faith. At Gethsemane Peter's action showed that he was living by force
and not by faith since Christ had already told Him the Father's will---but
Peter would not accept it. The Christian faith has not interpreted these words
of Christ as a wholesale condemnation on the use of force in defense of life.
Christ Himself used force in the cleansing of the Temple---albeit not lethal
force---but He did assault people (or at least threatened people with a whip)
and destroyed property that was being used sacrilegiously.
Notice the emotion creeping in: “albeit not
lethal force,” and “or at least threatened people.” The implication is that physical, even
lethal, force is wrong because Christ might not have used it. Forget what her
Church teaches.
What
An Evaluation of the Use of Force in
Defense of Life Must Consider
I think it may be quite possible to agree or
disagree on some (or all) of the theological
analysis I have given above. Nevertheless---the Christian tradition
(mostly through the Just War Theory) provides us folks living at the end of the
second millennium with some extremely invaluable principles upon which to
discern when and where the use of force is legitimate and whether it is
legitimate in the saving of unborn children threatened by abortion.
I think if we are going to arrive at an
objectively based answer that is rooted in the Christian faith any use of
lethal force in defense of life must fulfill these conditions:
1.) That the force in defense of life is enough
(proportionate) and no more to repel the unjust attack.
2.)
That there is a probability that lives will be saved by such force.
3.)
That the use of force is the last resort in defense of life.
Under these three conditions it would appear
that the use of force in defense of the unborn is not inherently immoral, but
under the present circumstances of how most abortions are obtained, such force
is virtually immoral.
Style begins to disintegrate along with
thinking. So let me translate: It is
not inherently wrong to stop a hit man by killing him, but killing him is still
wrong for other reasons.
Let's take condition no. 3 for instance.
There are many actions that can be done far short of killing an abortionist to
save the lives of just as many unborn children on any given day. The property
that is used to do the killing can be destroyed rather than the baby killer
himself.
The second sentence is an unprovable generality and the
third calls for the destruction of abortion property. Does Miller believe that
the use of force refers solely to killing? How about damaging and/or destroying
property? How about breaking other laws
that enable the murders?
Indeed, sidewalk counseling probably saves
just as many lives within a given time period as taking out an abortionist
would. Certainly, killing an abortionist is not the last resort and thus to do
so, to save the unborn, is not morally licit.
The usefulness of these three conditions
bears discussion but you see where these three conditions are headed.
The first sentence is another unprovable,
even absurd, statement and its opposite is obvious: taking out a killer saves
far more lives within a given time period than sidewalk counseling does. The second is even more absurd: killing a
serial killer cannot be considered a last resort when everything to stop him
but that has been tried over and over and has failed for forty-four years? The awkward
third sentence is a meaningless fill-in.
Style as well as logic is again succumbing to emotion.
Why the Use of Force to
Stop Abortion
Should Not
Be Used
The use of force in defense of
the unborn is virtually immoral. This means, of course, that it could be
morally licit under extremely rare circumstances. I've been thinking about the
possible hypothetical situations. However, even if force is licit I believe
there is good reason to forego its use, especially in our attempt to end
abortion.
This is what’s known as a circular argument –
the prolife use of force is wrong because the prolife use of force is
wrong.
Simply because a person has the
right to the use of force in defense of life does not necessarily mean he must
make use of it. St. Francis could have defended himself against the robbers by
resorting to force. He chose not to. If he had maybe he wouldn't be Saint
Francis---but in any case he would still be a good man, or at least a man not
guilty of evil doing.
The argument now is that one may use force
but he doesn’t have to. It contradicts the title of this section! And the St. Francis stuff contradicts
that! Didn’t I just say that feelings trump thoughts every time?
On the practical level force
really won't work. As long as abortion is legal it is ultimately the woman who
must be reached. Abortion is a very peculiar sort of murder. The victim is
inside the body of another person. As long as abortion is legal this other
person, namely the mother, must be persuaded not to kill her child. This means
she must be reached by having the truth spoken to her and by personal acts of
love toward her.
This paragraph could have been written by a
pro-deather. How do we know force won’t
work? How do we know that women alone,
and neither men, nor both together, nor the law itself will end the
killings? How do we know that killing
someone in the womb is fundamentally different from killing her out of the
womb? How do we know that if we keep on talking we will eventually change the
hearts of the wayward? And has Miller ever heard of tough love?
But there is something even more
than just whether force is practical in saving babies or not practical. I believe that our most effective weapon
against abortion is adhering to the Cross of Christ. Perhaps God will call us
to fight a bloody war over abortion, but ultimately the cause of abortion can
still only be healed through a massive change of heart---a conversion.
The people I know who have adhered to the
Cross of Christ are either dead or in jail.
I have not and it shames me; Miller hasn’t either and she is trying to
rationalize.
But I can’t blame her for not realizing a
bloody war is going on because it’s a guerilla war and the prolife side sheds
all the blood. God has already called
us and is calling us to fight, but we have so few Michael Griffins, Jim Kopps,
and Shelley Shannons around these days that Miller might reasonably conclude
there are no fighters left.
Abortion is the result of a
grave spiritual crisis. The Cross of Christ is the only true balm for such a
moral disaster as abortion represents. What does the Cross of Christ mean but
that the Christian pro-lifer lay down his life for others---to live a life of
self-sacrificial love so that others may be saved. We need to be radical
lovers. What keeps us from this is fear. And so we need to pray for a lot of
grace. We fear jail, we fear loss of our liberty, we fear ridicule, rejection,
and all the risks involved on whatever level.
Miller would deny she’s describing Paul Hill
here. I’d like to hear that denial.
This is the key to ending
abortion. It is the key in the heart of the Church that still waits to be
turned.
Miller’s right. Now compare her clear, logical and
well-researched first section with this disjointed, muddled, contradictory
second. The comparison makes clear that
in this holocaust force by prolifers not only may but must and will be resorted
to.
It also makes clear that these days most
prolifers are actually supporting the culture of death. Because some oppose the
use of force loudly and consistently and nearly all of the others acquiesce, “pro-choice” America depends on them to do
its dirty work.
Therefore, Lord Jesus Christ, when these
folks pray for a change of hearts and minds, lead them to see it is their own
they should be praying for.
Responding to a different peace-and-love-only person, Reverend Michael Bray says more succinctly
and powerfully what I’ve been trying to say above:
Of
course “The killing clinics must be CLOSED.” But why the
“peacefully and legally”? Calls for shutting murder houses down with that
caveat undermines the truth of the proclamation: the child in the womb IS
a CHILD!
Call abortion murder (truth) and do what you
can to stop it (justice and mercy) , but don’t insist that “peaceful and legal”
is the means. It MUST BE “by any means”!
Do what you want to do in that realm of
rescue (persuasion or intervention – forceful and non-forceful), but let the
truth be proclaimed and not confused by strategy-driven, propagandistic
denunciation or renunciation of “violence.”
Clearly, the dearth of forceful rescues in
the past decade has not improved the status of anti-abortionists in the eyes of
our pagan political elitists. No consideration ought to be given to
making nice with such folks to win their favor.
Do your thing and don’t condemn others for
doing theirs. I.e. Let there be support for local autonomy and
freedom for all. Each community ought to have the liberty to rid itself
of its abortionists as each sees fit. Let freedom reign!
______________________
----------------------------------
Jimbo continues listing
his discoveries of movies and more with a prolife message:
Constantine
-- Here's another one I can't believe got made. Not theologically
perfect, but awful close. A man finds
errant devils to throw them back into hell. He hopes to get back to heaven in
the process. Yes, a little Pelagian, but the film even discusses that, and
counters with correct theology, "some thing's are true whether you believe
them or not," spoken to a character who had just questioned the existence
of demons. The same line shows up in
City of Angels. Depicts hell in a shocking scene.
Overall idea: we must
struggle against evil, for reasons that go beyond our own selves. For others,
for the planet, for God. Even, if you can imagine it, just like Paul: ignoring
concern for even our own salvation, provided the lost are saved. Yes, such a
great heroic idea made it into this supposedly secular flick. A great flick. I
would recommend it to any New Ager, as a starting point for conversation.
Pay it Forward -- Full disclosure: I am obsessed with this
flick. Not because of the upfront cheap moral theology of random acts of
kindness, with no ontology to back them; i.e., no Jesus. But for another
reason: the movie carefully depicts no less than a dozen characters who are all
struggling with vice: drugs, booze, sex addiction, etc., and all of whom show
heroism in their own way to struggle to be good, to want to be good, to try to
be good. Yes, Jesus is no where in the flick explicitly, but it is still a good
idea, even if only that a New Ager could see this, try to be good, fail, and
come to the realization that he needs God.
The reason people don't need Jesus anymore is
that they have no sense of sin. The reason they have no sense of sin is because
it is not preached anymore, even from the Fake Catholic and Fake Protestant
pulpits. This movie, for all its secular basis, preaches the evil of sin, and
guilt, right up there in front of you. In that sense, its a great movie. Don't
be distracted by the ontology-less New Age moral campaign centered around the
boy. That's not the main point. A wonderful movie.
City of Angels -- Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan, ('80's). A surgeon calls out to God in a stairwell
after a surgical death and the camera shows us an angel she cannot see who is
sent by God. A little like Its A Wonderful Life, I suppose. But this is the
re-telling of the Daphne and Chloe myth, which is derived from the Incarnation:
a heavenly being falls in love with a mortal, but must lose immortality in
order to love her. Not exactly like the
Incarnation, but stolen from that.
There are Christians who could dislike this,
I suppose. But the flick portrays so wonderfully what you and I feel all the
time about angels hovering near, and it does it in a way without the usual
attacks against "organized religion."
Even the ending is uplifting. Despite a cant in the direction of carnality
motivating one angel to make the drop, between the angels and the humans, the
Daphne and the Chloe's, the entire picture winds up being a testimony in praise
of God Who made us the earth and heaven, each with its wonders and good points.
Very Recent
Stuff You May Not Have Noticed:
Punto Y Aparte -- For a solid decade here and in Mexico,
people have faithfully been trying to portray the problem of a struggling young
woman with an unwanted pregnancy who chooses life for her baby, and it shows
the truth: she is glad she did. All of these are gems and all have been
ignored. None are preachy. The Mexican one, Punto
Y Aparte, is especially interesting. Two women conceive unwanted
pregnancies at the same time. One aborts, one delivers. Film follows the fates
of both.
The Changeling -- With Angelina Jolie, ca.2010. A widow's ten year old boy is kidnapped,
police unsympathetic. On a fluke, cops
run into a kid with a story about mass murder on a remote ranch, at one point mother
is stashed in nut ward by cops to silence her.
While thee, she hears about forced abortions from a prostitute. Set in the 30s.
Seven Pounds -- I still can't believe this film was made.
No explicit Christian message, but... maybe so. A man loves his fellow man so
much he literally kills himself so a tiny handful of people can live
from his organs, which he donates while he is still alive, ultimately killing
himself. Quiet and subtle, but the message is loud. Jesus sacrificed His Body
for us, dying in the process.
Henry Poole Lives Here -- What a gem. despondent terminal man finds
hope through next door hysterically autistic child. Oh, and Jesus appears in a
suburban backyard. I forgot that part. A wonderful movie. George Lopez plays a
priest with no one-liners. Very Spanish-friendly, very Catholic-friendly, in a
backhanded way. Finally a movie that can poke a little fun at Catholics but
without the usual Henry VIII smarm.
Ides of March -- Philip Seymour (RIP), George Clooney,
2011. An abortion figures front and
center in the plot of this movie, not off to the side or implicit or hidden. It
shows the mom going to the abortion mill, begging for a ride there, being
driven there, talking to the nurses, waiting after the abortion. In the end,
she kills herself the same day she killed her own child. Hello? Right in front of God and everyone? In a
non-indie flick with A-list stars? You bet.
The abortion alone is probably why you've
never heard of this flick, even though it is high production quality, well-written,
etc.
After the
suicide, the biological father asks his political competitor how he's going to
prove anything, since the woman who killed herself had gotten an abortion:
"She got an abortion, right? So you got no DMA..."
I couldn't believe my ears when I heard this
song. Wow! Hey, fellow profilers out there still in the trenches: does this
ring a bell, or what? The guy speaking was a governor running for president,
and favored. This woman, the equivalent of an intern, her pregnancy would bring
him down. His competitor confronts him, and he says this. How many interns were
dragged off to the mills this way especially now in the era of DMA testing, so
that some politician wouldn't have to worry about Clintonesque "Bimbo Eruptions"?
The competitor was the one who drove the mom
to get the abortion, too, so all in all, a very realistic portrayal of how moms
actually experience AB. Rachel, where's your review of this flick, huh? Chris
Matthews? OK. I didn't think so.
The Windup Bird Chronicles -- This is not a movie, but I hope you will let
me talk about it. It’s the same idea: a book that discusses abortion.
Full disclosure: I ran into this book on the
run and it was a real sustainer for me. Believe it or not, it has an abortion
front and center in the plot, just like Ides
of March, just like Punto Y Aparte, and no one objected. No liberals
cried out and said, NO! it isn't like that. Because, you see, we have the moral
high ground any time we want to tell the story of abortion. The liberals don't want to hear about
abortion, the downside of it --and its all downside. They only trot out the
“concept” of some generic woman who has a "right".
If someone conscientious and moral like
Jennifer O'Neill introduces us to women who actually had abortions and were
bullied into them and all tore up over them, physically and psychically (read:
spiritually) the Rachels and Chris's of this world don't want to hear it. They
stop their ears. Don't look behind the curtain! they shout.
Haruki Murakami was shortlisted for the Nobel
Prize in literature, in consideration of this book, at a year when Doris
Lessing was also. Lessing was the completely reluctant hero of feminist
literature. She was also closer to dying and by Nobel logic, she had to go
first. But I mention it to give an idea of the “critical” acclaim given to
Murakami.
Murakami at one point ran an
American-friendly jazz bar in Tokyo. He’s since immigrated to here and he now
teaches English at Princeton. Yes, a native Japanese teaches English. And he
should.
Please read this book. I'll tell you one
benefit of reading it: you will never, ever have to listen to a liberal drone
on about abortion from their usual unfeeling, theoretical perspective. Just
tell them to read this book or shut up. And the book isn't even preachy about
abortion; it only makes it clear that an abortion broke up a marriage, and that
the husband figured this out after much meditation.
You know, the Japanese are interesting in
this regard. We regard them as some kind of cold fish, with their simple and
austere and sort of impersonal religion, and their overweening ambition,
especially directed, if they're lucky, towards their one or two precious kids.
Big on the pill and mechanical abortion, over there, they are. But women go to
Buddhist cemetery shrines and put up a little stone to symbolize their aborted
children, and they do ritual offerings to the stone, the same way Buddhists do
for their ancestors. Not a Christian practice, but an honest human sentiment
nevertheless.
This book, The Windup Bird Chronicles, is nothing less than a confession about
the evils of abortion in Japanese culture. It’s all the more interesting in
that it also has a confession from a soldier about the Rape of Nanjing in 1936,
the true start of World War II, and the subject of much internal debate in
Japan. The Japanese, amongst themselves, always believed they were wrong to do
the Rape of Nanjing, which involved the torture and slaughter of a million
defenseless Chinese women and children. It was like their Viet Nam. This book is a discussion of collective
Japanese guilt over that, and, most definitely, over abortion, and it has
received enormous secular critical acclaim since it is so well written, and, it
has been ignored in the West.
Per minimum, once you read it, you can always
shut up your liberal or weak Christian friends. Please read it and tell me what
you think. Yes, there is a weird part in the middle, but it’s not much. The
book's still worth it.
_________________________
----------------------------------
Glenn Beck said Wednesday that the recent
news that the British have used the bodies
of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies to heat their medical facilities will have
absolutely biblical ramifications.
“This is so horrific, it doesn’t even sound
real,” Beck said in shock on his radio program.
“They have built the high places of Baal to
burn
their
children in the fire as offerings … I will
make
them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who want to
kill them, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds and the wild
animals. I will devastate this city and make it an object of horror and scorn…”
-------------------------------------------
Quote of the Day: When
it’s her child being atacked, an anti-force prolifer turns pro-force
Jimbo
----------------------------------------
For back issues of this newsletter go to
skyp1.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------
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 Federal Bureau of Prisons, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment