Monday, April 28, 2014

"Contraception" is Murder, April 2, 11-24, 2014


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


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.

  He read from Jeremiah 19:5-8:

  “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




  For back issues of this newsletter go to



  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: