Social conservatives are being told that the only way for a candidate to demonstrate their social conservatism is to 1) end abortion through a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and 2) end the gay marriage debate through a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

 

      These goals are certainly desirable. As a social conservative, every time I hear a politician shy away from a stated social conservative goal, I am immediately suspicious. Usually, they do not believe as I do and are attempting to skirt the issue.  However, there is a difference between the goals, and the tactics used to achieve those goals. As tactics to accomplish the goals of ending abortion and prohibiting gay marriage, the constitutional amendment route is not the only tactic. In fact, the amendment process is so difficult that the tactic can be somewhat of a red herring. Many politicians can advocate amending the constitution, realizing all the while that they will never actually accomplish it.   

 

            Ron Paul’s tactics on the other hand have a great likelihood of success and only require majority votes! Read the attached bills that Ron Paul has already presented. To summarize: 

 

H.R. 1094 the Sanctity of Life Act Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life.

 

H. R. 1095 prohibits any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity, including abortion.

 

H.R. 300, The We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

 

Ron Paul is the best candidate for social conservatives, for several reasons -

 

1)      Ron Paul’s bills to protect the unborn; are superior to a constitutional amendment because they only require a majority vote.

2)      Ron Paul’s plan properly invokes the Federal Government to protect the innocent from those who would cause them harm.

3)      Ron Paul’s plan properly does not invoke the Federal Government to legislate a national morality.

4)      Ron Paul removes federal judges, the greatest threat to our freedom of religion, our freedom to foster morality at the state level, and our freedom to define marriage as between one man and one woman – from the picture and places the power to decide these issues back in the hands of the people.  

5)      Ron Paul’s plan recognizes that a large federal government is never a friend to conservatives.

 

The distinguishing between abortion and gay marriage when it comes to federal protection demonstrates a principled analysis that is lacking in modern social conservatism.

 

The unprovoked taking of an innocent life should always be proscribed by law and the right to not be deprived of life without due process of law is an explicit constitutional guarantee. So when very liberal candidates suggest a “right to choose, to take an innocent life” we know they have no concept whatsoever of the proper role of government under the United States Constitution. We know that if they provided the same due process to the unborn that is required a death row prisoner, the child at issue would be hitting puberty by the time their appeals run out. Rudy has found a right to kill babies in the Constitution that is superior to the right to life. We shouldn’t be surprised; Pat Robertson has found a right to kill babies in the Bible.  Rudy does not protect the innocent, or even the state’s rights to protect the innocent. This is why any reason given for supporting Rudy Giuliani in the primary is inadequate.

 

Now a less liberal candidate like Fred Thompson wants to leave both abortion and gay rights to the states. The position is better than Rudi’s, but fails to comprend the right to life that is not a matter left up to the states. This is a position one takes when they are tepidly pro-life, but are still balancing the right to life with a woman’s right to have sex without consequence. Unfortunately our National Right to Life has also become a tepidly pro-life organization. Mitt Romney and John McCain probably fall in this category as well, with Romney being slightly more pro-life in his current rhetoric. But both clearly have nuanced positions on embryonic stem cell research, indicating either their failure to identify life as beginning at conception, or their adoption of an “end justifies the means” mentality with regard to human life.

 

So, then we go to what appears to be a pro-life stalwart in Mike Huckabee. I cannot question his pro-life views and would rank him #2 on my nominee wish list. However, Mike’s convictions are not all that conservative, as he would not only prohibit abortion and gay marriage by federal law, but smoking as well. I also believe he would outlaw certain trans-fats and possibly mandate exercise for all. We do not want the federal government legislating decisions that should be individual moral decisions.

 

Does not the difference jump out at you? Protecting life is a (if not the) primary function of government, whereas controlling behavior inexorably leads to controlling more behavior at the expense of liberty. So Mike Huckabee has social conservative credentials, but if I can help it, I’d rather not be on the official state diet.

 

It’s not that a marriage amendment is wrong per-se; in fact an approach seeking both Ron Paul’s plan, and an amendment might be the perfect route. However – Ron Paul’s plan is superior to Huckabee’s due to its return of power to states, its increased likelihood of success, and our knowledge that he has the will to do it, since he has already introduced the bill.

 

Ron Paul makes the logical and principled distinction of 1) Protecting life, including embryos, but also 2) Protecting a states right to define marriage through its legislature, and thus 3) Protecting our liberties against federal or international whim.

Why is number 3 so significant to social conservatives? Two huge reasons.

 

1.              The biggest problems with the homosexual agenda can be cured by promoting and protecting our liberties.

 

a.       Church’s Teaching: Removing the federal government from the issue and the federal courts from the issue ensures that churches can teach the truth about sexual deviancy.

b.      Education Choice: Ron Paul is an education choice advocate, which ensures our ability to pass on our values to our children, by avoiding public schools that force feed secular indoctrination.

 

2.              Social conservatives often lose at the national and international levels, so that acquiescing to federal control over some liberties has a great likelihood to backfire against our traditional morality.

 

We must consider the likelihood that our nation as a whole will be moved in the right direction regarding morality, and with the neo-conservative ideas of global government, we must also consider the direction the rest of the world is taking regarding morality. Read the following article.

 

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/533

 

Imagine for a minute the following scenarios.

 

1. The president signed a treaty that required sex museums like the one above to be part of compulsory sex education for all children.

 

2. The president proposed a bill that required sex museums like the one above to be part of compulsory sex education for all children.

 

3. The governor of your state proposed a bill that required sex museums like the one above to be part of compulsory sex education for all children.

 

Now, in which scenario would you have the greatest likelihood of preventing the bills passage? Now throw in that the national media is all for the bill, and dishonestly creates the impression that a large national majority supports the bill. Or in the case of number 1, there is no coverage whatsoever of the treaty until after it is passed.

 

It seems like our government would never cede our sovereignty to international organizations, yet they already have. The Bush administration sought to overturn the death penalty of a convicted rapist-murderer at the behest of the International Court of Justice. The full power of the federal government as directed by our “conservative” president fought to overturn the Texas conviction of an illegal alien who raped, sodimized, and killed two teenage girls -  because International Law was violated when he wasn’t informed of his rights to petition the Mexican Consulate for attorneys.

 

In addition, the Approval of The Law of the Sea Treaty just made it out of committee. This is a treaty which Ronald Reagan adamantly opposed. This treaty would give the United Nations authority over all the oceans. America would be ceding thousands of miles of what we currently claim as our water to the United Nations. The UN would then rake in billions, selling of the rights that we gave them.

 

It seems like people wouldn’t go to jail for home schooling, yet they already have.

 

It seems that a treaty to promote fair trade and economic growth could not impose abortion on a pro-life country, but it already exists.  You see they are convined in Europe that the right to abort is a “fundamental right” and would glady force a Christian Doctor to perform one.

 

The reality is that our liberties and our values are always better protected at a local level because we have a greater likelihood of influencing the decisions at that level. Furthermore, the current media distorts the truth on behalf of the left everyday. So while a Mike Huckabee sounds great when he wants a federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, what happens when Al Gore runs the U.N. and wants to define marriage as a man and a woman who have a maximum of one child for the good of the planet?  Having one child is mandated as a “moral” right of the ozone layer.

 

Ron Paul not only has a better plan for ending abortion, he has a plan to end the judicial tyranny which has been the real block to a socially conservative legislative agenda. Ron Paul would promote free trade, but never at the loss of our national sovereignty. Ron Paul also promotes educational choice, which would allow more Americans to say NO to a morally relative secular indoctrination in our schools.

    How I became a Paulette. 
    
    The following is pretty close to verbatim a letter I sent to a pro-life activist and friend of mine recently.     

 

    I was just starting to like Mike when I heard Ron Paul at some of the debates , and then learned that he raised some good money last quarter (he has over $8million in the bank right now)  I checked out his campaign in earnest   a couple weeks ago.

 

    I must say that he is a patriot and he is the real deal when it comes to conservative values. He is rock solid on basically every conservative issue. He articulates his pro-life stance better than any candidate I have heard and brings it back to the Constitution, which is the law of our land. He has been married only once and has 5 children.

 

   I scratch my head a bit at why the party is so focused on supporting Giuliani; it really seems that the party is trying to shift leftward, despite the views of the American people. 

 

    The problem is that most of the candidates represent that leftward shift in at least some key areas. Even Huckabee seems to be a big spender, and for amnesty among other things. I think Dr. Paul is the only one that really could fire up the base enough and pull enough independents (maybe even some liberals as he is against the war in Iraq)  to win back our true conservative republican values. He is doing amazingly well despite a near media blackout. If he could pick up some of the social conservative leaders, he could literally explode overnight.

 

    Think about it, combine the disillusioned pro-lifers with the disillusioned anti-war crowd, with the disillusioned anti-communists, with the disillusioned Americans who want their nation's sovereignty preserved and it's borders protected, with the disillusioned tax payers, and the disillusioned NRA members, and the disillusioned school choice’s, and the you have the makings of one heck of a coalition. If nominated, what problem would conservatives have with him? Even the left leaning republicans would certainly back him over Hillary.

 

    I believe there is a real sense of a revolution with this candidacy. There are a slew of reason why my support for Dr. Paul has really become quite passionate in a very short amount of time. Let me touch on one:  

 

RESPONSIBILITY

 

   Ron Paul’s insistence on Constitutionalism inspired me to review not only the document itself, but also the federalist papers written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.

 

   You probably recall that the federalist papers were a series of papers or articles that argued for ratification of our Constitution and are considered the primary interpretation of our republican government. The word, "responsibility" derived its current usage during this fight for ratification. It combined the idea of direct "response" to the public will, with the deeper promise or vow, to serve the true public interest, even regarding conduct that is not currently popular. Sort of like an elected parent. We elect officials to protect us from things that go bump in the night, but also to make us eat our brocoli. 

 

     A problem to be solved by our constitution was the tension between avoiding the oppression that a majority rule (majority faction) could create in a near-pure democracy, with the oppression that could be created by a less representative republic's ruling class (minority faction).  

 

    It was argued that our republic with its three branches of government was sufficiently removed from a direct democracy to prevent majority oppression. However, the three branches of Government all had representative components and the three branches’ of government were sufficiently independent to prevent their common control, thus reducing the chances of minority faction.

 

    But it was the interplay of the branches of government that provided the real insulation against both majority and minority faction. That interplay meant that it would take time to do things. The element of time would allow yet another group to ensure good government: That group was the American people.

 

    Federalist # 1 argues that it is up to the people of this country to establish good government from reflection and choice. That they must reflect on and choose our constitution and that once chosen - they must reflect and chose future policy based on it. That it will be that very responsibility to the truth of the constitution that we have chosen that will elevate the Constitution to THE authority by which to measure the desirability of conflicting political actions.

 

    It was therefore respect for our Constitution that would protect us from both majority and minority faction. That it would in fact be this respect, responsibility, and patriotism towards our chosen form of government that would justify our Declaration of Independence, and ensure the continuity of a government tasked to secure our inalienable rights.

 

   Who is the candidate that constantly reminds us of our duty to the Constitution? Ron Paul. It is no wonder then that people are becoming so passionate about him.

 

   Who has been trying to decrease our responsibility for all those years? Trying to reduce our patriotism for all those years? Ignoring our Constitution for all those years, or adding to it and subtracting from it? Liberals and the liberal media. It is the complicity of the liberal media that has prevented the majority from asserting  their good will into our government. Instead, the majority is often cajoled, bamboozled, lied to and vilified into believing that in fact they are not the majority.

 

   Unfortunately the effect goes beyond the liberal mainstream media and into even the RNC and the so-called conservative media. Consider what is going on this very day. RNC leaders and much of the conservative media are endorsing liberal Republicans because they want to “endorse a winner” while at the same time paying lip service to conservatives, and disingenuously bemoaning the unfortunate circumstances that led them to this point of supporting a liberal. Amazingly, the primary issue right now that might win moderate liberals is an anti-war position – which is the only issue that Giuliani is very conservative on! Even the premise is a lie.

 

   The truth is that the party is moving left, that the party is becoming victim to minority faction right along with the government as a whole. It’s not even being hidden – think about it. We are being told we must support someone who holds the positions of a minority of people,  because he is the only one that can win! How preposterous. To follow this advice is to sacrifice our party. If we want to have a conservative party then we must insist on a conservative party. It is our party and we have to fight for it.

 

   The solution to our leftward slide is to remember our Constitution is the law of the land, and to venerate it as such, and to follow it and to demand it be followed. For example, the constitution requires by its plain language that a person cannot be deprived of  life without due process of law. Abortion deprives a person of life without due process of law. Roe v. Wade could not have happened if every American knew the truth of the Constitution. Also, the Constitution no where mentions a “separation of church and state,” but this phrase has been injected into the Constitutional dialogue to the point that  many Americans believe it is, and public policy has been based on this deception.

 

   One candidate has touted the Constitution loud enough to get people like me to go back and read it, and even read its justification in the federalist papers. It is clear from his ability to motivate me to do this, that other people of good will can be motivated to this also. This simple and honest message may allow us to take back our country, if we hear it in time.

 

   Our government was designed to be led by people like Ron Paul. The impact of the truth of that statement is great. The further away from patriotism and responsibility that we move, the more difficult it will be to ever take back our country.  The fact that people of all stripes are waking up to this truth, means that people can wake up.

 

     I hope you consider this information and the websites below. It will take people like yourself to accomplish something here. But his positions on the issues along with the grass roots support that has raised great Q3 money and that has tons of folks on the ground makes him a candidate that could truly capture the hearts of the Conservatives, the other Republicans, and the Independents alike.

 

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

 

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

 

http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008DotCom

 

This is a good quick video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI

 

 

We have to trust in God. We must do what we can and then put the result in his hands. I think God is Ok with different tax schemes, and even more socialist programs, and different ways to handle unions formation, or whether they take our guns away, or ban trans fats, or spend more time condemning crooked trial lawyers or the crooked companies they sue, or whether all bridges go to somewhere. He probably won't expect me to be perfect about the right answer to all those questions, and I don't expect my candidate to be perfect about those questions. But how do I tell him I voted for a candidate that supports the genocide of our young? Could I say: "God, I stood outside and held up a sign today to support a man who supports the use of my money to pay a doctor to kill a baby. I know you're OK with that God because he is going to build us a really strong millitary by which we will defend our Republican and our American Values. I will worry about the babies again in 8 years God, maybe sooner!"

 

The following is actual correspondence between me and a friend who was going through the Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults (RCIA) at Xavier College in Cincinnati. Most universities (even Catholic ones) lean left, but I was pretty shocked that this RCIA group was learning “social justice” instead of the doctrines of their faith.

Following the initial email is my attempt to deconstruct the subtle heresy of this insidious movement. We must prevent Christians from being tricked into adopting far left (im)moral values.

From:
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:43 PM
To: Jerry Shade
Subject: FW: RCIA

Jerry: I got this about a month ago, but I forgot to forward it on to you. It might give you some guidance of how a person of faith ought vote his faith and conscience. (Hint: the poor, the environment, the promotion of peace, fiscal responsibility, human rights, combating corruption, and other issues will not be helped by voting Republican).

I'm Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics. I was surprised and grateful when Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called to say his party wanted to set a new tone and invite, for the first time, a non-partisan religious leader to deliver their weekly radio address and speak about the values that could unite Americans at this critical time.

So, I want to be clear that I am not speaking for the Democratic Party, but as a person of faith who feels the hunger in America for a new vision of our life together, and sees the opportunity to apply our best moral values to the urgent problems we face. I am not an elected official or political partisan, but a religious leader who believes that real solutions must transcend partisan politics. For too long, we have had a politics of blame and fear, while America is eager for a politics of solutions and hope. It is time to find common ground by moving to higher ground.

Because we have lost a commitment to the common good, politics is failing to solve the deepest crises of our time. Real solutions will require our best thinking and dialogue, but also call us to transformation and renewal.

Most Americans know that the important issues we confront have an essential moral character. It is the role of faith communities to remind us of that fact. But religion has no monopoly on morality. We need a new, morally-centered discourse on politics that welcomes each of us to the table.

A government that works for the common good is central. There is a growing desire for integrity in our government across the political spectrum. Corruption in government violates our basic principles. Money and power distort our political decision-making and even our elections. We must restore trust in our government and reclaim the integrity of our democratic system.

At this moment in history, we need new directions.

Who is left out and left behind is always a religious and moral question. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the health of a society was measured by how it cared for its weakest and most vulnerable, and prosperity was to be shared by all. Jesus proclaimed a gospel that was "good news to the poor."

I am an evangelical Christian, and a commitment to "the least of these" is central to my personal faith and compels my public actions. It is time to lift up practical policies and effective practices that "make work work" for low-income families and challenge the increasing wealth gap between rich and poor. We must find a new moral and political will to overcome poverty that combines personal and social responsibility with a commitment to support strong families.

Answering the call to lift people out of poverty will require spiritual commitment and bipartisan political leadership. Since the election, I have spoken with leaders from both parties about creating a real anti-poverty agenda in Congress. We need a grand alliance between liberals and conservatives to produce new and effective strategies.

This week, President Bush met with Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq, seeking solutions to the rapidly deteriorating situation in that civil-war torn nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. The cost and consequences of a disastrous war are moral issues our country must address. Leaders in both parties are acknowledging that the only moral and practical course is to dramatically change the direction of U.S. policy, starting with an honest national debate about how to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq with the least possible damage to everyone involved.

Our earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God's good creation. Yet, our environment is in jeopardy as global warming continues unchecked and our air and water are polluted. Good stewardship of our resources is a religious and moral question. Energy conservation and less dependence on fossil fuels are commitments that could change our future- from the renewal of our lifestyles to the moral redemption of our foreign policies.

A culture that promotes healthy families is necessary to raise our children with strong values, and the breakdown of family and community in our society must be addressed. But we need serious solutions, not the scapegoating of others. And wouldn't coming together to find common ground that dramatically reduces the number of abortions be better than both the left and the right using it as an issue to divide us?

We need a new politics inspired by our deepest held values. We must summon the best in the American people, and unite to solve some of the moral issues of our time. Americans are much less concerned about what is liberal or conservative, what is Democrat or Republican. Rather, we care about what is right and what works.

The path of partisan division is well worn, but the road of compassionate priorities and social justice will lead us to a new America. Building that new America will require greater moral leadership from both Democrats and Republicans, and also from each and every one of us.

I'm Jim Wallis. Thank you and God bless you.

Mike,

Thanks for sending me the Jim Wallace article.

If you read between the lines, here is what is being said:

"I'm Jim Wallace, Author of Gods Politics, and I am attempting to implement the Democrat's strategy of appearing to be concerned about Christian moral values. This strategy has three tenents. First, I elevate the importance of real Christian values that the Democrats agree with: Fighting poverty. Second, I creatively argue that Democratic values are in fact Christian values: The environment. And third, I gloss over the Christian and moral values that Democrats do not agree with: Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay Marriage.

This strategy surfaced or re-surfaced shortly after the 2004 elections when exit-polling showed that many voted for President Bush because of their "faith and values." If you read carefully you can see that I also attempt to appear bipartisan, but at the same time, I praise the Democrats: "I was surprised and grateful when Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid..." And bash the Republicans: "Nearly 3,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. The cost and consequences of a disastrous war are moral issues our country must address..."

I am pro-abortion, pro euthanasia, pro gay marriage and I want you feel the same. I will start by convincing you that these issues are more divisive than they are worth, and that we live in a pluralistic society where it is OK to sacrifice the moral law so that we don't offend those with opposing views.

---

Plato and Aristotle called this sort of argument sophistry, after the sophists who used rhetoric to persuade for personal gain, where as Plato and Aristotle argued that rhetoric should only be used to seek the truth. In my college persuasion classes, we called it contingency theory. The idea being that to persuade a listener you must seek to begin at a point as close as possible to something that the listener already believes, and then lead them further away from that position to what you want them to believe. Mr. Wallace identifies with the reader by proclaiming himself a Christian and by leading with a discussion of those Christian values for which there is little or no disagreement. He then moves on to pull the reader away from other Christian Values that he wishes the reader to abandon, or at least not concentrate on. It is the twisting of the relative importance of these values that makes Mr. Wallace's argument so heinous.

The church recognizes "Moral (and cultural) Relativism" as one of the greatest evils in the world today and this article is a fine example of arguing "Moral Relativism" as justification for abortion and other attacks on the family.

An excellent article commissioned and approved by John Paul II and written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which summarizes Church teaching on this issue is: "Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life," from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It can be found at the Vatican web site -

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

At it's essence the article encourages political involvement, and makes clear that the Church does not take a position on every temporal political question. However, it is also a crystal clear rejection of moral relativism in making political choices.

"A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defense of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law... If Christians must recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs, they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society...

While democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. It is respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible.”

The article speaks specifically to abortion and gay marriage:

"When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children...;"

Reviewing the Catechism's position on war and abortion illustrates the point further:

Here is the Church's teaching on War:

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.¹⁰⁵

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."¹⁰⁶

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Here is the Church's position on abortion:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.⁷²

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.⁷³

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.⁷⁴

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁵

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.⁷⁶

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"⁷⁷ "by the very commission of the offense,"⁷⁸ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁹ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."⁸⁰

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."⁸¹

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

------

If nothing else, all must agree that as to the Churches unchanging position on the issues of abortion and war - one is always wrong and one is to be avoided, but has exceptions. Both implicate the moral law, but only the right to life is a natural moral principle, not allowing for "exception, compromise, or derogation."

The author of your article argues the opposite - that the war is clearly wrong and we must find a way out of it, while abortion is something that we shouldn't spend our time creating political division over, but should work to reduce. Clearly the author is pro-abortion in the sense that he is for legalized abortion. He attempts to convince Christians that abortion relative to the Iraq war is not something that needs to be eliminated at all costs, while the war (or at least this war) is something that we must eliminate at all costs.

Even more disturbing is that the ozone layer, is credited as "God's Good Creation," while the unborn are mentioned only as a divisive political tool. The poor are credited with being "the weakest and most vulnerable." Yet, does anyone care to argue that the poor are more weak or vulnerable than the unborn? Furthermore, isn't it patently obvious that you can "dramatically reduce" abortion, by making it illegal to perform one? Whereas reducing or ending poverty is much more difficult problem, for which the author offers no solution? Moreover, haven't we largely ended the problem of "death by poverty" in America? There are roughly 1.3 million babies intentionally killed each year through abortion. When was the last time you read about somebody in America starving to death, because of poverty?

Of course we can work to further reduce poverty, end wars, and improve the environment, but the grave danger is being lulled into a belief that "helping the poor," "pulling out of Iraq," or "reducing CO2" are adequate counterbalances to being pro-abortion. Also, let me be clear that helping the poor can be a great vocation, and not everyone has to focus all philanthropic energies onto ending abortion. My point is not that one effort is greater or lesser than the other. My point is that a Catholic cannot in good conscience allow the justification of abortion through a relative re-ordering of values, anymore than one could justify Hitler's killing of the Jews, because he was a good provider to the poor who weren't Jews.

Furthermore, the inherent moral benefit and Christian vocation of helping the poor - is found by in fact helping the poor - not in voting for politicians who use compulsory taxation to redistribute wealth, in a way that more closely approximates a violation of God's commandment not to steal, than it does implementing any teaching of Jesus. Social services to the poor are a moral value to be sure, but socialism and/or the welfare state are not.

It is classic culture of death stuff with sheep’s clothing. Grounded with an understanding of the natural moral law, this man's true positions leap off the page. Perhaps he has been duped himself, but be sure he is trying to dupe the reader. There is a reason why a speeding ticket will cost you a fine and Murder can cost you your life. The moral relativist argument is that we are concerned with the poor or the environment and so we don't have to worry about abortion, because that is a divisive issue. This is like arguing the death penalty for speeding and a fine for murder.

The Pontical Council for the Family made the case plainly in 2000 (

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001014_rome-jubilee-of-families-index_en.html

when it stated:

An abominable crime.

Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime". But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor!

"The interuption of pregnancy".

In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy", which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is "the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth".

It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience. Nonetheless, no motives, no matter how serious or dramatic, can ever justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human life.

Prenatal testing, if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed towards its safeguarding or healing as an individual, is morally licit. On the other hand, it is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending on the results. Therefore, when one requests a prenatal diagnosis with the intention of having an abortion should the results confirm the existence of a malformation or hereditary illness, one commits a gravely illicit act.

Other responsibilities.

As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he leaves her alone to face the problems of pregnancy. Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Doctors and nurses are also responsible, when they place at the service of death skills which were acquired for promoting life. But responsibility likewise falls on the legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws, and on the administrators of the health-care centers where abortions are performed. A general and no less serious responsibility lies with international institutions, foundations and associations which systematically campaign for the legalization and spread of abortion in the world.

-----------

The line, "The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake." is at the heart of my point.

It is why, I am so vehemently opposed to the propositions of the article you sent me. Most significantly this article being sent about to an RCIA class, in the very midst of learning their faith. It teaches exactly the opposite of the truth. Catholics are clearly free to accept varying propositions on how best to help the environment, the poor, and to some degree the acceptability of particular wars. However a Catholic is not free to engage in moral relativism and disregard the moral law (based on the dignity of the person). Mr. Wallis has turned the truth upside down, in order to justify his candidate.

Learn the Catholic faith from the Bible, the Catechism, and the Magesterium - at least in your RCIA class, without the influence of charlatans who call themselves "Evangelical Christians" and convince you that the ozone needs protected more than human beings.

Yours In Christ,

Jerry

... that democracies are only viable until the people realize that they can vote that the coffers of the treasury be distributed to themselves? 

 Great article about "diversity training".

It reminds of an experience I had as a law clerk for GE Aircraft Engines. I worked at GE while attending the University Of Cincinnati College Of Law. While working on an issue regarding the hiring of law clerks for the following year, I came across two things.

First was a binder portfolio from the University of Cincinnati that highlighted minority candidates. Nice of my law school to develop special aids for the minority students that I did not get.

Then was a letter from a Professor Brown at the law school, actually scolding GE for not hiring enough minorities! She informed by boss in the letter that GE needed to make an effort to hire more minorities as law clerks. My own college was arguing that I should not have been hired because I was a white male!

 

There is some discussion regarding Trojan’s new frog-prince ad with the bar full of beautiful women and real live pigs. One able pig is able to unlock chastity’s secret by rolling a quarter into the condom vending machine and turning into a “lucky” man. SOME PIG! Unfortunately the ad was a little too boarish for the likes of Fox and CBS, who both refused to run the ad.

Several themes worth addressing have come up with this ad. One of which is the idea that networks are being hypocritical considering the sexual content on their own shows and other commercials (Brent Bozell).

Another is the voices decrying the decriers on the grounds that “at least the ads promote safe sex, something we could use more of.” These aren’t the people who think meaningless sex is honky dory (another worthwhile topic, but not one I am addressing here.) These people are arguing that the message of casual sex is bad – but that the message is redeemed because safe sex is promoted.

My belief is that there is truth that addresses these concerns.

That truth is that you don’t ever do what is wrong or immoral with the justification that you are creating a higher good or preventing a greater evil. In other words the ends don’t justify the means).

If we agree that having sex with someone you just met at a bar is immoral then we know why this ad is wrong. It is using the promise of sex with someone you just met in a bar to sell a condom. If we call "sex with someone you just met at a bar" immoral, then we know the ad is using immorality to sell a condom. This is wrong.

But then we have the argument that it is important for people who are "going to be immoral anyway" to do it safely to prevent disease or pregnancy. Therefore we justify immorality by its usefulness in preventing inconvenience and sickness. This is still wrong. Because the ends justify the means is not a valid argument. Period.

The equation is simple but we live in a world where no principle, no moral, no standard of decency or self-evident truth is safe because the elucidation of the principle is to label the elucidator an intolerant religious freak. As we know it would be highly horrific of me to demand that others “follow my religious beliefs."

For that reason, the argument will appeal to a wider audience if argued from a logical base rather than a religious base. Beginning with our original premise: That we agree that sex with someone you just met in a bar (casual sex) is immoral (I realize that this premise could be argued against as well, but we have to start somewhere). So the argument goes that even though the act is immoral, using a condom is better than not using a condom. Any means that get people to wear condoms is worth pursuing.

This assumes some people would be having condomless sex but for this brilliant advertising campaign. This, it is argued, is because they receive the message “girls like to have one-night stands, with guys who have condoms.”

The biggest flaw in this ends justify the means message, is that upon even modest reflection, one realizes that condoms don’t come into play in the seduction phase of the one night stand. No one is really just going to buy the condom and waive it around in the bar? Are they? Of course not. The reality is that by the time you are in position to use a condom, the girl has already pretty much committed to the one night stand. The message in its entirety is so illogical that it cannot be accepted in total.

The message therefore will be truncated to “girls like to have one-night stands.” There is not even a moral benefit because the message about wearing a condom is so illogical as to be lost. Passions are stirred and girls are portrayed as objects for the selfish male to conquer: with or without their Trojans.

Furthermore the logic involved by the supposed “responsible” crowd is the tacit acceptance that one night stands are bad… but people just cannot control themselves when it comes to sex, so we need to educate regarding condom use, “just in case.”

Does anyone in America really not know of the existence of condoms? Of course not. Are the guys not using condoms going to start because of this commercial? Of course not. Look at the recent news that high schoolers are having less sex AND are using condoms when they do. This is due to abstinence programs which promote abstinence because it is right and responsible and moral and the safest. But even when kids do fall short – they fall short using condoms. This is because they are more responsible in general. The condom based programs tells kids that they are going to be irresponsible and so they are. Even though they learn about condoms, they are less likely to use them. This is because Guys who don’t use condoms do so because they don’t like to. Period. They are selfish and they want to have free meaningless sex the way they want to. How does a commercial glorifying their selfishness make them less selfish?

As we established, even the cave men from the “it’s so easy even a cave man can do it” commercials aren’t going to think that merely having the condom in their back pocket will get them sex. The concept of invoking selfishness to promote safety is even less effective here than in sex ed. because the selfishness is not even logically linked to safety.

Furthermore, it is the mixed messages on an issue with so much temptation that creates the self-fulfilling prophecy that temptation can’t be avoided. If it is hard for people to avoid one night stands then why is it being advocated as a way to practice safe sex? Ridiculous.

If some individuals want to have one-night stands, but have a conscious and try to resist – then this commercial may give those individuals the OK if they buy the message in the ad. We do immoral things out of selfishness, because we want to do them more than we want to be moral at the time. A bout of selfishness will seek a bout of dishonest justification and this commercial provides such justification for those individuals so inclined. The logic is still weak “Wearing a condom makes casual sex OK,” but the will can be weak too and grasp at any justification. So even if that person uses a condom - this is a person that wasn’t going to have sex at all! So the ad hasn’t increased safe sex, it has increased immoral sex.

What must also be acknowledged is that the makers of the commercial want people to have more casual sex, because that’s how they make their money. The message at the end of the commercial; “evolve” clearly implies that its progress to have more one night stands. That it is not immoral. That the idea that it is immoral is outdated and needs to be “evolved” away from. That the only thing keeping girls from jumping on every guy they see is the fear of unwanted pregnancy or disease – which can be cured with a condom.

What we don’t see so readily is that we are buying this argument if we think the commercial is “doing some good by encouraging safe sex.” If the media was convinced that the message about one night stands was really objectionable, they wouldn’t use it.

Think about it: What if the ad showed a white teenage girl dating a black teenage boy and as the two begin to kiss, we cut to White Girl’s Dad two years later. As white girl walks down the isle with white boy that she is about to marry - dad grins “Thank God I gave her Trojans when she was going through that black boy phase!” HOW REPULSIVE we would say and rightly so because THIS IS REPULSIVE AND RACIST. But the difference is that no one would argue it’s OK to play on racist fears to achieve the noble goal of encouraging safe sex. So why is it OK to advocate casual sex as long as you are encouraging safe sex?

As to hypocrisy of the networks – I do not think that the networks are being completely hypocritical, because this commercial uses condoms to promote casual sex as much as it uses casual sex to promote condoms. Men who use women for sex are plainly glorified here. Other commercials use sex appeal to sell products and certainly prime time is always PG13. But this commercial implies that the man without a condom is a pig and the man with a condom is a prince deserving of sex with strange women he meets at a bar. Don’t we all really know that the pig is really the guy who only thinks of sex when he sees the woman? Don’t we know this internally to the point that the turning of this moral truth upside down is just a little too much? I don’t think FOX and CBS are taking an especially high road here, I think they just realize that this ad could offend an entire segment of viewers.

The lesson here is that at its inception the argument that the ends justify the means is a lie. The organizations that begin the lie have been duped, and they need to dupe you too.

Need to see more truth turned upside down? Look at Amnesty International today.

Thomas More Law Center has the right idea! 


http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=764


INTENTIONAL BLANK SPACE

THIS MESSAGE IS NOT SUITED FOR CHILDREN

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES OF ABORTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF AWAKENING THE CONSCIENCE AND MOVING THE INDIVIDUAL INTO ACTION

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR THE MESSAGE

The Supreme Court of the United Stated of America issued a decision in the case of

GONZALES v. CARHART & PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, on April 18^th, 2007.

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the partial birth abortion ban. Henceforth it will be mostly illegal to kill babies using this method which is seen below:

However the more common dilation and evacuation method where the baby is removed piece by piece is still allowed. This method has been considered more tasteful because you don't have to deal with watching the baby kick and squirm as the scissors are being jammed into its scull and its brains being suctioned out. The baby is ripped apart inside the womb and therefore does not squirm as visibly. The type of abortion below is therefore still allowed:

So is the saline method whereby the baby is scorched inside and out by a Saline solution and then delivered dead, as seen below:

Of course the downside of the saline burn method is that it doesn’t always work and babies who fight for their lives have survived these abortions. For example, see the stories of Gianni Jesse and Amy Charlton at http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/survivors.asp. You may have heard of the more recent case where the mother is suing Planned Parenthood because they failed to kill her baby and now she has the inconvenience of a baby to take care of. "Wrongful life" it’s called.

---

It’s anybody's guess whether the abortion seen below is still legal. This is either a Partial Birth Abortion where the scissors were opened so widely as to completely decapitate the baby, which would now be illegal. Or a standard D&E where a large chunk of the baby remained intact - which would be legal. I am not a Doctor - I am sure the Doctors could tell the difference.

One of the great things about the Supreme Court’s opinion is that it was honest about the horrors of abortion. For instance this nurse’s description of the procedure was fully printed in the opinion.

“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’”

The following diagrams also help differentiate the procedures:

The Partial Birth Abortion Procedure (not allowed anymore):

 

	Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
	The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
	The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
	The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole...
	The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

While the standard Dilation and Evacuation procedure (below) is still allowed.

It is good that it has been deemed constitutional to ban the killing of babies that have been delivered alive (except for the head). Unfortunately we still have the insanity of Roe v. Wade creating the fiction that it is unconstitutional to prohibit the killing of babies in so many other ways. At over 40,000,000 abortions we have surpassed the great mass murderers like Hitler (12,000,000), Russian Communists (30,000,000), Polpot (2,000,000), and Saddam (1,000,000). Only the death toll in Mao's communist government in China remains above our abortion numbers at 60,000,000.

There remains no justification for killing our young. The politicians, the college professors, the feminists, the media - give all kinds of reasons, they scream their reasons - but which one, which one reason really justifies the killing of our young? Abortion on demand as mandated by Roe v. Wade in America began a trek down a slippery slope that has no end in sight. "Slippery slope" is a term describing when a wrongful act is justified due to extenuating circumstances that seem sufficient to warrant the exception. Unfortunately if the act is truly wrong, it cannot be done to achieve "good". The slope is slippery because once you accept the initial proposition that good can come from evil, evil is embraced more and more for lesser and lesser goods. Abortion for the health of the mother, becomes abortion for rape or incest, becomes abortion for economic reasons, becomes abortion as birth control, becomes abortion to control the "fitness" of our children, becomes abortion to control the sex of our babies, becomes leaving babies in the trash can at prom, becomes killing elderly and terminal patients by starvation, becomes killing non-terminal vegetative patients by starvation, becomes killing live trauma patients so that their organs can be harvested in time, becomes using babies to experiment on (to "save" other more valuable lives), which becomes creating babies so that they can be killed and experimented on, which becomes....

"In times past, abortion took the life of one, for other-wise two would die. Today, abortion takes the life of one, where otherwise two would live." H. Ratner, M.D.

It's not too hard to project the future; these are just the things that have already come to pass. It is also properly analogized as the boiled frog syndrome, because a Frog will immediately jump out of boiling water if you throw him in - but will be boiled alive if you put him in luke warm water and turn on the burner. He won't notice the gradual temperature change until its too late.

The slippery slope is created by controlling information, by calling babies - "tissue", by coming up with procedure names such as "therapeutic abortion," making it sound almost like going to the spa. By making it about "choice," something we all like to have, ignoring the reality that no one can "choose" to do that which is morally wrong (killing) in other circumstances. By making it about women’s rights, which we all have to respect for fear of being sexist or politically incorrect, while ignoring the rights of the women who are aborted, and the enduring pain of the women who get the abortions. By naming an organization dedicated to the killing of babies - "planned parenthood" when it has nothing to do with planning or parenthood. By repeating over and over that Americans support abortion - when the reality is that there has never been a majority of people supporting abortion on demand. Depending on how the question is asked, a majority, at worst, supports abortion for the life/health of the mother, rape and incest. Abortions for these reasons accounts for less than 3% of all abortions.

The point is that you are not going to get the truth from the people supporting abortion, which is most of the people in the information business. Every day the only news we hear about IRAQ is the American death toll, creating a perception that the media is highly concerned about the # of Americans killed in action. But more babies are killed in the US every 2 days through abortion than US soldiers during the entire IRAQ war. You won't hear daily, weekly, or monthly updates of the abortion numbers. The statistics are there for anyone to find. We are left with the conclusion that the media doesn't want us in Iraq, but they do want us aborting babies.

WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY CREATED

A case like this Supreme Court Case may mean little in the actual number of abortions reduced. But it can be everything if it reverses the trek down the slippery slope. It can do that. If people agree that leaving a live baby's head inside the womb as it is killed, just so that it can be called abortion versus murder (which it would be if the head came out). Then they may wonder why pulling apart a live baby inside the womb is any better. The question is begged - did this become less of a human person because we left it in the womb when killing it? Technology gets in the way as we can now see what a baby in the womb looks like (in the womb at 5 months, below) -

- And it is hard to call it "tissue". We may wonder why we ever said it was OK to kill babies in the first place? We may really really want to end this holocaust. In the boiled frog analogy - it is like waking up frog and telling him that it’s getting really really hot and he might want to get out of the water. If the frog takes advantage he will use all his might to get out of the water. If the frog doesn’t comprehend fully - he will likely stay in the water a little longer, not believing that it will really ever reach a boiling point, not knowing that it already has.

Into my twenties, I sat on the fence on the abortion issue, I can recall thinking that the issue was just too close to call and therefore I was justified in taking no action one way or the other. I weighted the woman’s right to chose against an unidentified mass of cells that may be a burden to society, which was overpopulated anyway, and I didn't really object to abortion. Deep down I also possessed the same selfishness that really creates apathy in the case of abortion - I liked he idea, the concept, and the ability if necessary to be able to take care of "mistakes" that might be made. Deep down, I liked the idea that the welfare rolls were a little lighter because of abortion. Deep down I never told myself the truth, because I hadn’t ever really heard the truth.

I can say with absolute conviction that all the reasons I used, and all the reasons that are used - are nonsensical. The reality is we are killing the most innocent members of our society. We have accepted this for generations now. We throw up our hands. We move onto other issues.

I recently read a book; That Reminds Me of a Story... Reflections of a Pro-Life Warrior, by Robert Cetrulo. At a point in my reading this book, I understood at a new level of urgency the gravity of the abortion problem. I have been ardently pro-life for years, but the gravity of the evil of abortion had not sunk in. I think it was reading side by side comparisons of Nazi justifications to the killing of Jews and abortion justifications that got me. It could have been -

Only persons of German or related blood can be citizens: this does not include the Jews.

- Reich Citizenship Law, 1935

Compared to -

The word person as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn.

- US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade 1973

Or it could have been -

It was nothing to do with Humanity - it was a mass. I rarely saw them as individuals.

- Franz Strangl, former commandant of Treblinka, 1971

Compared to -

What is aborted is a protoplasmic mass and not a real, live grown-up individual.

- Drs. Walter Char and John McDermott, 1972

Or it could have been -

Removal of the Jewish element.

-Hans Frank, 1943

Compared to -

Remove the products of conception

- Dr. Thomas Dillon, 1974

Or it could have been any of a thousand other truths made clear in this compelling book. abortionfacts.com or priestsforlife.org are other solid sources of information that most of us are blissfully ignorant of.

The new Supreme Court has opened the door for us to think about what we are doing. Will we learn that:

1. We cannot rely on the press to report the truth about abortion:

2. We must learn the truth ourselves because willful ignorance is insufficient:

3. We must begin talking about the truth, despite the consequences (people who are opposed to the truth get very angry when it is stated. Not having truth as a defense, they often use hatred :)

4. We must demand that abortion (all abortion) be prohibited by law:

5. We must recognize that there are no greater issues in America than this issue:

6. Our actions must demonstrate that there are no greater issues in America than this issue:

Ending the mass murder of our children?

America will either sink into an infinite morass of lies, death, and destruction, or God will pull us out before it’s too late. If you believe the first - then do nothing. But if you believe the second - then picture the world where truth and light have been restored and we are being compared to the Germans who acquiesced in the holocaust and the earlier American's who acquiesced in slavery.

And the future generations are looking back and asking, "How did they justify this?"