www.K2Lministry.com Help for the hurting Christian.

Abortion.

Describing an abortion that apparently did not prevent the child from being born alive, Dr. Haskell said this, It came out very quickly after I put the scissors up in the cervical canal and pierced the skull and spread the scissors apart...in the previous two, I had used the suction to collapse the skull.
Dayton Daily News Sun Dec 10 1989

If the anti-abortion movement took a tenth of the energy they put into noisy theatrics and devoted it to improving the lives of children who have been born into lives of poverty, violence, and neglect, they could make a world shine
Michael Jay Tucker

I hated putting babies in strainers and rinsing them off and putting them in zip-lock bags.
former abortion clinic owner Eric Harrah

I have never denied that human life begins at conception. If I have a complaint about our society, it's that we don't deal with death and dying. Do we believe human beings have a right to make decisions about death and dying? Yes we do, and those decisions are made every day in every hospital.
Abortion Clinic Worker

We know that its killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances
Dr. Neville Sender, abortionist

If it isn't a baby, then you aren't pregnant, so what are you aborting?
Author Unknown

It (the fetus) is a form of life...This has to be killing...The question then becomes "is this kind of killing justifiable? In my own mind, it is justifiable, but only with the informed consent of the mother
abortionist quoted in Democrat and Chronicle 7/5/92

I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.
Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

Seventy-seven percent of anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant.
Planned Parenthood advertisement

I have been there, and I have seen these totally formed babies as early as ten weeks... with the leg missing, or with their head off. I have seen the little rib cages.
Debra Harry

I want the general public to know what the doctors know - that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue.
Dr. Anthony Levantino

We had one saline born alive. I raced to the nursery with it and put it in an incubator. I called the pediatrician to come right down, and he refused. He said, That's not a baby. That's an abortion.
From the Book The Ambivalence of Abortion by Linda Bird Francke

As you get into the second trimester, if we remove the pregnancy using forceps, and if a heartbeat is the measure of being alive, that happens all the time.
Dr. Dennis Christensen. Madison Abortion Clinic

Nobody wants to perform abortions after ten weeks, because by then you see the features of the baby, hands, feet. It's really barbaric.
abortionist quoted in M.D. Doctors.

Abortion is killing the fetus....Human life, in and of itself, is not sacred. Human life, per se, is not inviolate.
abortionist Dr. Smith

I dismember the fetus - pull it apart limb from limb - and remove it piece by piece and two hours later I've forgotten them.
Prof. Phillip Bennett

I got to where I couldn't stand to look at the little bodies anymore.
Dr. Beverly McMillan.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban, should we be thrilled?
by Bryan Kemper
I have heard so much about this partial birth abortion ban. Everyone who knows what I do always talks about this bill and how great it is that it will finally pass. It is not just pro-lifers that are talking about this; the pro-abortion groups are talking up a storm also. They cry out that this is President Bush's first step in banning all abortion.
It is funny how a lot of my friends don't understand how the pro-abortion groups could support even partial birth abortion. "How can they support this? This is so obviously wrong and gruesome," they ask. It's quite simple. The pro-abortion side will not compromise at all -- something I cannot say about the pro-life side.
As you might be able to tell by the tone of this commentary I am not jumping for joy about this partial birth abortion bill. In fact if I were a congressman I would have voted against it. Are you shocked? Are you puzzled? What should puzzle you is how come we can't stand up against something so evil as the killing of an innocent child without compromising.
First of all let me say that partial birth abortion is no worse than any other abortion. It is an instant death for the child. The fact is that every abortion, whether it is from the pill, suction, partial-birth abortion or any method, is the killing of an innocent child and is wrong. The pro-life movement has somehow forgotten about all the other children and for several years has focused 95% of its time and money on just this one type of abortion.
I would have no problem voting for a bill that simply states, "stop all partial birth abortions." However, that is not what this bill states. Unlike the pro-aborts, we were more than willing to compromise. In fact we went ahead and put a compromise in the bill, even before the pro-aborts had a chance to. This bill contains an exception that permits the procedure in certain cases alleged to be threatening to the mother's life. How can delivering a baby up to his neck and then killing him help save a woman's life?
This bill will not save a single life; there are other forms of late term abortion that can still be used. This bill is nothing more than a trophy for congressmen who want to pacify pro-lifers so they don't have to deal with us. This is the proverbial bone being thrown to us and for the most part the pro-life movement is buying it.
We will never win this battle as long as we compromise the truth. We have no foundation to stand on if we do not stand on the truth. Abortion is always the killing of an innocent human child. If we say that in certain circumstances that it is ok, then in reality it is always ok. I for one will never compromise even one single child. God is the creator of every single life -- EVERY ONE. He created the children that are conceived through rape. He created the children conceived through incest. He created the children who have health problems. He created every single child, and we can never make an exception to allow for the murder of even one of those children.
If you want to see abortion end in this country, it is not going to come through phony trophy legislation like the partial birth abortion ban. It will come when we as Christians stop compromising and start standing up for every single child. It will happen when Christians get off their duffs and start acting like abortion is murder. It will end when we stop treating abortion like a political issue and start treating it like what it is, a holocaust that has already taken over 43 million lives, and still counting.

The Wholesalers Of Aborted Babies
by Celeste McGovern
A full-colour, glossy brochure invites abortionists to "find out how you can turn your patient's decision into something wonderful." It's printed by Opening Lines, A Division of Consultative and Diagnostic Pathology, Inc., a wholesale trafficker in aborted baby parts from American clinics. Out of an office in West Frankfort, IL, the company's director, Dr. Miles Jones, profits from an evidently tremendously lucrative trade - his current "Fee for Services Schedule" offers eyes and ears for $75 to $999 for a brain.
Opening Lines was founded in 1989 to "maximize the utilization of fresh fetal tissue we process." It offers researchers "the highest quality, most affordable, and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need when you need it."
Sale of human tissue, including fetal tissue, is against federal law, but Opening Lines advises patients how "simple" it is to get around that. It offers to "lease space from your facility to perform the harvesting to offset your clinic's overhead." It also offers to train clinic staff in harvesting and then "based on volume, reimburse part or all of your employee's salary, thereby reducing your overhead."
Dr. Jones is obviously adept at getting around inconvenient regulations. "We DO NOT require a copy of your IRB approval or summary of your research," he advises prospective clientele, "and you ARE NOT required to site Opening Lines as the source of tissue when you publish your work (we believe in word of mouth advertising; if you like our service you will tell your colleagues.")
Opening Lines is one of two wholesale traffickers, uncovered by Mark Crutcher at Life Dynamics Inc. a pro-life in Denton Texas. The other is the Anatomic Gift Foundation (AGF). Founded in 1994 by Jim and Brenda Bardsley, it originally operated out of a double-wide trailer at the end of a dirt road on the Satilla River in Georgia where the couple also ran a catfish farm. It has since moved its headquarters to Laurel, MD and now has operations in Phoenix, AZ and Aurora, CO.
Life Dynamics' sources inside abortion clinics acquired "fee schedules" for both organizations. Opening Lines' is the more detailed of the two, listing prices for organs from fetuses under eight weeks gestation and over. An "intact trunk (with/without limbs)" costs $500, for example, a liver, $150, ("30% discount if significantly fragmented").
The prices "in effect until December 31, 1999" may seem low, observes Mr. Crutcher, but add up all the parts and single aborted baby is worth thousands. "Our daily average case volume exceeds 1500 and we serve clinics across the United States," says Opening Lines' brochure.
Mr. Crutcher says that Dr. Jones is an aggressive salesman, eager to offer him reduced rates for bulk orders. He also said in a recent taped interview that he is actively pursuing fetal tissue sources in Mexico and in Canada.
Alberta Report

To Stop Murders, Halt the Anti-Abortion Movement
(This op-ed article appeared in the Gannet Suburban Newspapers on January 21,1995)
It is time for religious and political anti-abortion leaders to call a permanent halt to their movement. They have created a monster.
What was once a war of words has escalated to a war fought with guns. Today, "right-to-lifers" murder people involved with abortions-born people whose person-hood is not in question, people who loved and were loved, people who are mourned. The monster is out of control.
The anti-abortion movement has failed. Twenty-two years after Roe v. Wade, it has not achieved its goal of stopping abortions. Pre-Roe laws and back alleys didn't deter women from ending unintended pregnancies, and terrorism doesn't either. Women simply will not be bullied into having babies. That's life, and the leaders should admit it.
The anti-abortion movement is a conservative religious movement. Without clergy and lay leaders providing the theological framework and organizational backbone, there would be little opposition to reproductive rights in a nation that values personal liberty. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops created the anti-legal-abortion movement (and spawned the National Right to Life Committee in 1973) in opposition to legal abortion. (They never protested illegal, unsafe abortion.) They were joined by evangelical Protestant ministers and by politicians who saw political salvation in religious right voters.
The blood of the slain health care providers is on the hands of religious and political leaders, including leaders of right-to-life organizations, who spew incendiary rhetoric and thus inspire drastic acts. Cardinal John O' Connor, Revs. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Rep. Henry Hyde, Dr. John Willke, Rush Limbaugh, Phyllis Schlafly, Gov. Rob Casey, Sen. Jesse Helms, Randall Terry, and Joseph Scheidler are a few who have aroused the unstable along with the grass roots. They must stop equating abortion with murder, the Holocaust, and slavery. Stop calling the war against abortion a "holy war" and pro-choicers "ungodly." Stop confusing embryos with children. Stop shedding crocodile tears for the slain clinic workers as they liken the assassinations to "the violence of abortion." Stop using such terms as "baby killing," "abortuaries," "abortionists." And no mole gory graphics.
Many anti-abortion leaders have disavowed the justifiable homicide" theory to encourage murder of persons involved in abortion, but their fiery oratory (past and present) makes them accountable. They have revved up their flocks to such a frenzy that this radical notion could flourish, and it was inevitable that some would act it out, risking execution for the cause.
Leaders have planted stop-at-nothing anti-abortion passion in the minds of people who would not have dreamed up the idea. Michael Griffn, Paul Hill, Rachelle Shannon, and John Salvi 3rd are not creative thinkers; they are followers.
It is the religious leaders' moral responsibility to stop the demagoguery and call a permanent end to the murder, threats, arson, vandalism, blockades, "sidewalk counseling" and prayer vigils. Let them publicly concede that a woman's right to have an abortion does not infringe on anyone's right not to. Without encouragement, the anti-choice movement will wither. To sustain this movement is to incite zealots to more murders.
It is also the responsibility of political leaders, especially those in the Republican Party, which is allied with the religious right to retrain the misogynists they have galvanized. Few elected officials are truly anti-abortion; most are playing politics with the issue. The grisly turn of events should compel legislators to abandon high profile efforts to defend or restrict access to abortions. If they really want to curb abortions, they can increase funding for family planning and make sex education and birth control universally available.
Religious and political antiabortion leaders should unite to cleanse the political landscape of the abortion issue. That is the way to stop the flow of blood.

When Anti-Abortion Is Not Pro-Life
by Shelley Douglass
How people responded to the December 30 murders of abortion clinic workers in Massachusetts depended in large part on the ideological position of the responder. For many, it seemed, initial human revulsion at senseless slaughter was quickly mitigated by the abortion agenda itself.
Indeed, in the extreme anti-abortion camp, the response seemed to be unholy glee rather than any mourning for those who had died. Supporters of accused killer John Salvi vigiled outside the Norfolk, Virginia jail where he was held, carrying signs that read "We Love You, John" and implicitly promising more killings as they defended "justifiable homicide."
The mainstream pro-life movement moved to condemn the killings and to distance itself from murder as a tactic, but in some cases the protest left much to be desired-as in the case of the editor of a diocesan newspaper who blamed the killings on the Supreme Court, which made the Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
Predictably, pro-choice and pro-abortion groups called for a total end to all clinic demonstrations, repentance on the part of all church and pro-life leaders, and renunciation of provocative language by the other side.
Most hopeful were responses from Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston and from a new California Coalition of Pro-Life Organizations. Law called for a moratorium on clinic demonstrations, a commitment to prayer for pregnant women and their children, and an opening of dialogue among "persons not accustomed to speaking to and hearing one another on this issue." The purpose of the dialogue, Law said, would be "to unite in support of alternatives for those pregnant women who are seeking an abortion."
In California, the LA Times reported a meeting of 15 of the state's "top anti-abortion activists" who spent three hours together molding an anti-violence statement. Participant Teri Raiser of the Right to Life League of Southern California acknowledged a rift in the movement: "How can there not be [a rift]? We will not embrace those who talk of justifiable homicide."
There is a difference between being pro-life and being anti-abortion. Cardinal Law and the Coalition groups are beginning to point to that difference. As the United States becomes less generous and less hospitable to the poor in what amounts to a Contract on America, it is important that we begin to understand just how great that difference is.
CARDINAL LAW'S December 30 statement pointed out a starting place: "I urge us all to recommit ourselves to the way of non-violence in thought, word, and deed."
What would that mean? Jesus was explicit: "It was said 'Thou shall not kill,' but I say to you anyone who says to a sister or brother 'you fool' is a murderer." Hate language must cease on both sides. Hate language allows each of us to avoid the truth of the other side: that our world does not welcome new babies; that at the very least a fetus is an incipient human being, not a lump of jellied protoplasm. If we could put those truths together, we might decide to make the world more welcoming for all humans, before and after they're born.
If we read the gospel with a critical eye on our own lives, Jesus provides us with a scale to measure our pro-life commitment. We are not to kill, not to hate, not to hold our sisters and brothers up to ridicule, not to judge. We are to love each other, to love our neighbour and enemy; to share with those who have little, to care for the children, to give our lives for each other. Jesus calls for a profound commitment to the kingdom, and to the path of non-violence leading there.
In response to Jesus' call, perhaps we could go one step farther than Cardinal Law: declare a moratorium on public demonstrations and make it a time of prayer and fasting and self-examination to see where we ourselves have contributed to the escalation of violence. We could declare a rift with those who would take life to protect it, and then begin to root out and destroy our own violence.
The way of Jesus is an all-inclusive way, so that our self-examination would extend beyond our attitudes toward abortion and abortion providers. We would have to measure ourselves against the gospel itself, which calls for unconditional love and self-giving. The Seamless Garment statement-which links abortion with war, racism, the death penalty, and euthanasia-might be a practical guide.
If such a time of prayer and repentance is initially declared only by those who call themselves "pro-life," so be it. We certainly have plenty of repenting to do. If we undertook that difficult path of prayer and repentance wholeheartedly, we might end in surprising company. Perhaps there could be a moratorium on most abortions, while together we explore ways we have not yet imagined. We might possibly all be converted together to Jesus' way.

OUR BABY DAUGHTER LIVED THREE HOURS AFTER THE ABORTION
A couple whose baby was born alive after an abortion at 21 weeks has told of their anguish as Health Service staff stood by and let her die.
The little girl, who had Down's Syndrome, survived for three hours after being delivered into a cardboard bowl.
Her parents, who claim they were 'coerced' into a termination in the first place, claim nurses at Macclesfield District General Hospital were reluctant to offer any medical help.
They say that they were told later that their baby had not 'really' been alive, even though she was clearly breathing.
The disturbing case follows a warning from doctors and midwives that babies are being born alive after botched abortions then denied medical care and left to die.
At least nine other babies are known to have been born alive from late abortions in recent years.
The parents, who do not wish to be named, already have a toddler, a teenager and a 12-year-old with learning disabilities and felt unable to cope with another special needs child.
Consultants and nurses did not suggest the possibility of continuing the pregnancy and having the Down's child adopted, it is alleged.
The 41-year-old mother, who is considering legal action, said last night: "I don't want any other woman to go through the same nightmare.
"If I had been given any idea that the baby would be born alive after an abortion I would never have gone through with it. They coerced me.
"I have seen how society treats children with disabilities and it frightened me to bring another special needs child into the world, but somehow we would have coped with it."
Two days before the abortion in March, the woman was given tablets which she was told would cut off the blood supply to the placenta and kill the baby in the womb.
She said: "We were sent home and to our distress the baby was still clearly moving. When we went back to hospital on the Monday we were told the tablets didn't kill the baby but they were to get the baby ready for labour.
"We said if there was an outside chance of this baby being born alive we would not go through with it, but they assured us the baby would die during labour."
The baby was born after a two-and-a-half-hour labour induced by drugs.
The mother said: "She was perfectly formed and tiny. I wanted to hold her and was handed the baby in a cardboard dish. My partner got her out and she gasped for breath. Her heart was visibly beating.
"She felt really cold and so he put her inside his shirt to keep her warm. All the time she was alive there were about ten different staff who came in and looked but they never said a word. The offered no assistance."
After an hour and a half, she begged for an incubator, which was wheeled in and not switched on. The baby eventually died in her aunt's arms.
The day after her death, a nurse told the mother: "The baby was not really alive. She was just having reactions."
The 46-year-old father, a trading analyst for a betting firm, said he was "devastated" by the tragedy.
"Our lives have been changed for ever" he said. "Emotions ran high, our relationship suffered. We have stumbled through our lives since that day."
Pro-life campaigners said the case was a tragedy for the entire family.
Nuala Scarisbrick, of LIFE, said: "They are the victims, not just the baby. The callousness of putting a baby in a sick bowl and the mother having to warm the baby is appalling."
East Cheshire NHS Trust, which runs the Macclesfield hospital, said guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for late abortions had been followed.
A spokesman added: "It is regrettable that the patient's experience was so distressing and we would wish to reiterate our sympathies
The Daily Mail (UK newspaper): Tuesday June 29, 2004

How Abortion Builds Better Families.
The word "conservative" has several meanings in American politics. It can mean respect for social tradition and legal precedent, after the fashion of Edmund Burke. It can mean a devotion to free market economics, which is what "liberalism" meant in the 19th century and what it still means in much of Europe. It can mean near-anarchist libertarianism. It can even mean the desire to create a theocracy. Although these possible meanings often logically lead to incompatible public policy, most people who call themselves conservative incorporate some elements of all of these different kinds of "conservatism" into their beliefs. This rarely causes significant problems: since none of us is omniscient, cognitive dissonance is part of the human condition anyway. Still, every so often an issue comes along that threatens to unravel the baling-wire and chewing structure the passes for modern American conservatism.
Consider the movement to deny payments to single women receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) for children born while the women are on the program. This restriction is aimed at reducing the number of out-of-wedlock births, which might strike some people as a "conservative" issue if ever there was one, but the opposition to this policy is almost unique in uniting abortion rights advocates and pro-life advocates. The reason for this is the conventional belief that such a measure will increase the rate of abortion among women dependent on these funds. The pro-abortion people assert that restricting AFDC payments infringes on the "right to choose" by pressuring the women concerned to choose abortion. The pro-life people, while presumably opposed to illegitimacy, are more concerned about the possibility of a rise in the abortion rate.
In reality, of course, the premise of this opposition is probably wrong. Chronic, mass illegitimacy is a product of the lifestyle of the population that has become dependent on AFDC. If the program is removed or modified, there might be a temporary uptick in abortions, but the culture of illegitimacy will be eliminated. However, the belief that AFDC reform really does pose an abortion issue has provided an opening for that type of "conservatism" which consists of a mixture of free market economics and personal libertarianism. A particularly lucid expression of this type of argument is provided by the cover article in The New Republic of August 21 & 28, entitled "The Conservative Case for Abortion," written by Jerry Z. Muller. His thesis, in brief, is that bourgeois family values are incompatible with pro-life ideology. Unlike most pro-abortion arguments, which consist primarily of invocations of the fast-food slogan of "choice," this one rises to the level of refutable error.
Muller seeks to make his argument "balanced." He notes the eugenic value of abortion, including late term abortion, but then he also says "the right-to-life movement has done our society a service by insisting upon the humanity and moral worth of the unborn child." His real argument, however, is economic. (Since his most recent book is Adam Smith in His Time and Ours, this is understandable.) The right-to-life movement, he argues, "undermines [the] fundamentally conservative effort to strengthen purposeful families." Now the purposeful family is the middle class family, as defined in the light of Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism." Such a family is one which believes that "the bearing and rearing of children is not an inexorable fate but a voluntary vocation, and that, like any other vocation, it is to be pursued methodically using the most effective means available." In purposeful families, the number of children is kept small so that they can be carefully educated and thus given the best chance to succeed in life. Purposeful families allow for the accumulation of capital that need not be spent feeding the kids, and therefore purposeful families have more to invest, either in their own businesses or those of others. It is people like this who make advanced societies advanced. Purposeful families are jewels beyond price, which social policy should do everything possible to encourage.
Unfortunately, in recent decades the purposeful family has been under assault from individualism, hedonism, and the excessive emphasis on career advancement by both sexes. Among its enemies is the pro-life movement, whose values are essentially pre- capitalist. "Just as older patterns of economic traditionalism and fatalism persist within advanced industrial societies, fatalistic conceptions of family life remain as well..." It is therefore no surprise that among the most vigorous opponents of abortion are lower middle and working class Protestant Evangelicals, who "stress redemption through divine grace rather than through a lifetime of purposeful activity." Muller, noting the decline in abortion rates among young women in recent years, credits the right-to-life movement. The result of their efforts has been to increase the number of out-of-wedlock births, he says. He therefore castigates the right-to-life movement with inhibiting the inculcation of middle class family values among the poor, particularly with regard to their opposition to welfare reform measures that would stop subsidizing illegitimate births.
Some factual points in his argument might give one pause. For instance, it is news to me that Protestant Evangelicals, either in this country or Latin America, are not entrepreneurial. It is also not entirely true that declining fertility is a law of nature (or capitalism). Fertility rates rose throughout the West, starting the late 1930s, and in the U.S. did not go into conspicuous decline again for almost 30 years. There are economic explanations for this, but the reality is fundamentally mysterious. For that matter, one may question whether the post-babyboom small families have been particularly "purposeful." Certainly they have been more divorce-prone than their predecessors, and the children they have produced do not measure up particularly well in terms of scholastic performance or social adjustment. Quite aside from the question of whether Muller's theory of social demography actually holds water, however, is his misunderstanding of the essence of the traditional family.
The distinction he makes between the "fatalistic" traditional and the "purposeful" capitalist family is, of course, nonsense. People have planned their families from time immemorial, quite without the aid of modern pharmaceuticals. Demographic studies of Puritan New Englanders, for instance, show that they obviously spaced their children. They planned on large families, of course, because infant mortality was high and resources abundant. The secular trend toward declining fertility began in the middle 18th century, in Catholic France. The institution of the family in itself implies a fair amount of forethought, of care for the future. Certainly the traditional family is in no way related to the improvident reproductive habits of today's underclass.
The real question here is not the social habits of the underclass, but of what it has become fashionable to call the "Overclass." This designation represents the latest version of the never-ending story entitled, "Whatever Happened to the Kids of the 1960s?" In reality, of course, the Kids of the 1960s became today's adults, not so different from other generations of Americans. However, there has always been enough peculiar about them that the temptation to weave them into demographic theories of history is irresistible. Michael Lind, an editor of The New Republic, has made a name for himself by propounding the theory that these baby-boomer professionals are slowly turning the U.S. into Brazil with snow, as they increasingly refuse to use or fund public services and fence themselves off from the growing numbers of marginally poor workers. One the other hand, David Frum, a fellow of the economically conservative Manhattan Institute, says that the Overclass is actually the world's first "mass elite." He says that all of the shrinkage in the middle class over the last 20 years can be attributed, not to people falling down from it into the underclass, but rising above it into the Overclass.
In any event, the Overclass are the people Jerry Muller is really talking about when he posits a group of people for whom abortion is a natural element of personal economics. The problem for his argument is that the behaviour of these people really does not support his hypothetical correlation between fertility rates and economic behaviour. What is unusual about today's Overclass is its improvidence, at least as compared with the haute bourgeoisie of earlier generations. They save less than well-to-do people have any right to, to the lasting frustration of economists. In the small Overclass families of today, we are not seeing the victory of the lean, mean, Weberian nuclear family unit. If anything, the Overclass represents a victory of genteel bohemianism, of the spirit of the Woodstock Generation, but with money. The Overclass, like the "counter-culture" whose incarnation it is supposed to be, is self-absorbed, antinomian, and fundamentally intolerant. It is also dishonest in a peculiar way, preferring evasive euphemism to argument. What other group of people could insist with a straight face that "choice" is the real issue in abortion and euthanasia?
Muller's argument is really about the need for a eugenic contraceptive policy, one designed not to weed out bad genes, but bad culture. Abortion is regarded simply as another technique to that end. Overclass culture is capable of acknowledging that there may be some special ethical issues involved in the abortion question, but is quite without any mechanism for assessing the importance of one moral principle with respect to another. That is why it calls principles "values," like quantities that can be added up and averaged out. There is therefore nothing "bourgeois" about the Overclass, if by bourgeois you mean the culture of people like the well-to-do Victorians. The Victorians did believe in moral absolutes, as did the Calvinists and the Puritans and all those other penny-pinching Protestants whom Muller is so eager to invoke. This was the reason for their purposefulness. To work was to pray (as that proto-Calvinist, St. Benedict, once put it), and the virtues of thrift and honesty were important, not simply for their utility, but because they conformed to the will of God. To the Overclass, however, every virtue is a construct, subject to no scheme of value but their own will. This is true even of their own children. Muller even tells us that the "activist conception of family formation also suggests that artificial reproductive technology should be used to reverse infertility." Children as artifacts are less intimidating than children as people.
People who think like this are not "conservative," whether they are Overclass lawyers or illegal aliens. They do not and they will not create strong families, because they think that families are arbitrary constructs, defined according to personal convenience and dissoluble at their own considered whim. Having rejected traditional moral norms, they have no history to conserve, and they will make nothing worth keeping.
Copyright © 1996 by John J. Reilly

Black Pastor Compares Abortion to Slavery
By James L. Lambert
A black minister in Southern California compares the killing of the unborn today to the national tragedy of slavery in 19th-century America. He also shares a fascinating insight into the nation's largest abortion-provider, Planned Parenthood, and its founder, Margaret Sanger, who he says was a "racist." Adlai Mack is pastor at Christians United Church in San Diego. Mack was first introduced to the moral dilemma of abortion in 1973 by one of his professors at Princeton University. Dr. Paul Ramsey, a professor of ethics, was particularly appalled by the procedure of prematurely ending the life of an unborn baby. Mack agreed with Ramsey and concluded that abortion also harms those in the black community.
"Abortion is doing harm to black Americans as did slavery in the nineteenth century -- and for similar reasons," Mack explains. "In the past, the Negro slave was considered by many authorities at the time to be not fully human .... Today as well, the 'fetus [a Latin word meaning "child"] is regarded as not a person and not fully human. [Instead] it is thrown into a bucket in an abortion clinic." Lasting Impression
As a young student and eventual recipient of a Bachelor of Arts degree at Princeton, Mack never forgot the message conveyed by his teacher. And he feels it is equally important for those in the black community to understand the moral consequences of abortion. He thinks that black leaders -- in particular, most black ministers -- do not convey the horrors of abortion to their congregations.
"Black pastors and black priests are largely doing little or nothing on this issue because of apathy or complicity," Mack says. The pastor adds that, in his opinion, blacks are conducting their own genocide. "It is striking that the current U.S. abortion movement mostly aborts poor people, black people, and Hispanics," he says. He points out that according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood of America, those three demographic groups represent 57%, 36%, and 25% respectively of all abortions in the U.S. With blacks making up 12.7% of the U.S. population, that group has a disproportionately greater number of abortions when compared to other racial group categories in America.
Sanger's Legacy
Ultimately Mack is suspicious of the ulterior motives of abortionists themselves. He makes a strong case of his suspicions by referring to quotes from the founder of Planned Parenthood of America, Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger died in 1966. But she has a number of documented statements and positions on record pertaining to family, race, and population control. What pro-life advocates like Mack find particularly appalling are the shamefully "racist" statements from Planned Parenthood's founder. In a May 1997 Wall Street Journal article, Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, wrote: "In 1939 [Sanger] and Clarence Gamble made an infamous proposal called ?Birth Control and the Negro,' which asserted that ?the poorer areas, particularly the South ... are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.' Her 'religion of birth control' would, she wrote, ?ease the financial load of caring for, with public funds ... children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.'"
In 1934 Sanger published her Code to Stop Overproduction of Children, in which she said that "no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child without a permit ... no permit shall be valid for more than one child." It is widely known that Sanger associated with followers of the Marxist, Vladimir Lenin, and with advocates of national socialism and eugenics -- the latter being "the science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities of a race (by the control of human mating)" [Webster's Dictionary]. Malthusian eugenics played a big part in Nazi Germany's promotion of 'a master Aryan race.'
In his book Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, author George Grant claims Sanger "was thoroughly convinced that inferior races" were in fact "human weeds" and a "menace to civilization.".... [Sanger] had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and the poor as a "symptom of a malignant social disease" because it encouraged the [influence] of ?defectives, delinquents, and dependents.'" [p. 91] This stream of thought follows much of the thinking of Leninists and eugenicists at the time who view religious people with much disdain and consternation. Mack counters that, saying: "Predictably, when black Americans turn from God, the Bible and the church, they find themselves frequently in abortion clinics." Planned Parenthood disputes the "racist" accusations involving Sanger as false, stating that her quotes are taken out of context. Faye Wattleton, a former black director of Planned Parenthood, however, admitted in an August 1984 Washington Times article that Sanger was indeed an advocate of "eugenics and the perfect race."
Not Alone
It encourages Pastor Adlai Mack to know that, while few, there are other black ministers who share strong pro-life convictions like himself. Rev. Clenard Childress, Rev. Johnny Hunter, and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson all have deep-rooted pro-life convictions. Childress is a pastor of New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, New Jersey. Hunter, a minister from Texas, is national director of the Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest African-American, evangelical pro-life ministry in the U.S. And Peterson is director of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), which runs a home for fatherless young men in Los Angeles.
All of these ministers have their own stories and reasons to oppose abortion. Notably they bring some additional information that makes their case against "black genocide" even more compelling for African-Americans to contemplate: Three out of five pregnant African-American women will abort their child.
An estimated 1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.
Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States -- a number surpassed in less than three days by abortion.
Approximately one-third of all abortions are performed on black women.
With so much money at stake, it appears that the beneficiaries of the abortion industry go out of their way to defend individuals such as Margaret Sanger. Pro-Life advocates like Mack and others still hope that more African-Americans will see through the veneer of abortion advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood, the Democratic Party, and NARAL Pro-Choice America. Mack, Childress, Hunter, and Peterson are hopeful that more within the black community will join their ranks. Childress thinks this issue will "eventually prick the moral conscious of the black community." For Adlai Mack, that could not come soon enough. James Lambert is the host of Night Lights, a weekly conservative talk cable television show in San Diego

Two Senseless Deaths: The Long road To Recovery
by Ms. Julia Taylor
This year on Mother's Day, I helped my grandson place flowers on his mother's grave. Although Justin is only seven years old, he tries to be brave as he honours his mother's memory. I can't help thinking how proud she would be.
Justin is bright and beautiful. He reminds me of Mary when she was my little girl. How my heart aches for him. Both his mother and his brother were taken from him, killed by an unwanted and unnecessary abortion. I wish that I could say that she had a peaceful death. Instead, she had a painful, violent, and politicized death, a death that torments our family even today.
Mary was only sixteen when Justin was born. She was unmarried, and bravely accepted the burden of being a single mother. We were proud of her, proud of her desire to protect and preserve Justin's life when so many would encourage her to abort. The birth of our precious Justin made all of us more pro-life than ever.
Two years after Justin was born, Mary was the victim of a date rape. When the man found out, he tried to make her have an abortion. She refused and would have nothing to do with him.
At first she was planning to place the baby for adoption. Abortion was something she would never consider. But she had been receiving an anti-depressant for bipolar depression, and her psychiatrist told her that there was a 1 in 12 chance that the anti-depressants would cause heart and brain damage to the baby.
Mary was devastated. How could the drugs which had been helping her now be hurting her child? How could she ever have an abortion? She needed expert advice and counseling. She went to a prestigious hospital that specializes in women's health care. Justin had been born there. The hospital's Medical-Social Worker (M-SW) promised to help her with information and counseling.
When we arrived for the appointment, the counselor excluded me saying that Mary was eighteen and the session was private. She immediately scheduled Mary for a sonogram. After the sonogram, Mary had another session with the M-SW and was convinced that she had damaged the baby.
After this, Mary indicated to us that she had been told that it would be unfair of her to burden me with helping her to raise a second child, especially one who was handicapped. (I was already helping her with Justin and caring for my husband who is quadriplegic.) When it became clear to us that Mary was being advised to have an abortion, my husband and I reassured her that the psychiatrist's statistics were really in her favour. There was a 92% chance the baby was fine. Even if the baby did have problems, we could all cope with it together. She did not have to do this. Nor did she want to. But she was feeling as though she had no choice. We assured her that whatever her decision, we would understand and love her with all our hearts. After that she didn't say anymore about abortion.
But two weeks later the M-SW called our home to speak with Mary. Mary wasn't home, so I told her that Mary was very depressed and she was crying a great deal of the time. I asked her to please do some fetal testing to reassure Mary that the baby was fine. Her only response was to tell me that she needed to speak with Mary privately. Mary waited a few days and then called her back. The M-SW immediately scheduled Mary for a pre-admission check-up and an abortion. From this point on Mary became very withdrawn and dependent upon me for everything.
When I took Mary for her pre-admission check-up, I was not permitted to speak to a doctor or ask any questions. Again, my depressed teenage daughter was expected to sign documents and make major health care decisions without support from loved ones.
When the appointment was finished, she told me that the doctor had assured her that the procedure wasn't bad at all. Then she immediately asked me if she could change her mind at any time. This showed me how fragile and uncertain she really was.
On the day of the abortion my fears began to overwhelm me. But I reasoned that this was the leading women's hospital in the state. Surely she would receive the best of care. She was in the safest place possible. Still, I had no peace -- my 18 week old grandchild was about to die.
A nurse arrived with some papers to fill out. Mary was nervous and having difficulty answering some of the questions. When I helped her the nurse just glared at me. She was clearly annoyed with my presence.
At 12:45 PM the nurse walked Mary to the operating room where they did the instillation of urea which would induce the abortion. When she returned I helped her into bed, covered her, wiped her tears and hugged her. "Oh Mom," she cried, "that really hurt." I remember telling her how I was so very sorry for her pain.
I left the hospital at 5:30 to check on Justin. While I was driving home, my husband called. He told Mary how he loved her and would see her soon. They ended their conversation with a simple prayer, a Hail Mary, asking the mother of our Lord to "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." This was the last time he ever spoke to her.
I returned to the hospital that evening and stayed until 11:00 PM when Mary insisted that I go home to be with Justin. I wanted to stay with her, because the abortion had still not been completed, but she assured me she would call if she was lonely. I kissed her goodnight, saying "I love you...see you in the morning." She looked like a little girl in that bed. It was the last time I saw her alive.
At 9:15 the next morning I received a call from the intensive care unit (ICU). The nurse said, "Something went wrong. It's very serious." I flew to the hospital, rushed into the ICU, bursting into the first room I came to. Behind the curtain I could see the outline of a woman and a doctor writing on a chart.
Just then a nurse came up and asked who I wanted to see. I said I was Mary's mother. She gasped, grabbed my shoulders, and pushed me out of the door. I said I wanted to see her; I wanted her to know I was there. She said I couldn't go in because they were working on her.
Thank God my friend Charlotte arrived. She sat with me and comforted me. Twice a doctor came out to ask me questions about Mary. Each time I asked to see her and was turned away. Then the room was suddenly filled with white coats. A doctor sat in front of me and held my hands. "My daughter is dead, isn't she?" He nodded his head, "Yes."
I could not breathe and felt as if I were sinking into a hole. One of them said they had told Mary I was there. I was less than grateful for that small gesture.
Finally they allowed me to see her. We entered her room and I could hardly believe what I saw. There was my beautiful daughter so horribly disfigured that she was almost unrecognizable. They still had a tube protruding from her mouth and I could see that her teeth and gums were covered with blood. Her eyes were half opened and the whites of her eyes were a dark yellow. Her face was swollen and a deep shade of purple. The left side looked like she had suffered a stroke. The only feature that had not been disfigured was her hair. All I wanted was to hold her. I managed to get an arm around her and to kiss her good-bye.
As they led me back to the waiting room I started to talk about how beautiful Mary was as a baby. I was trying to understand what I had just seen. I was trying desperately to hang on to my sanity. I couldn't feel my fingers as they dialed my husband. I was in such pain I thought my heart was breaking. I whispered to him that Mary had died. I can still hear his crying.
Mary's doctor came to me with an autopsy authorization for me to sign. Only now did they need Mary's mother. Only now was I important enough to sign documents. I signed it, knowing that even more irreverence would be inflicted on Mary's body, because I had to know what had happened. Why had she died? Why had she died alone, stripped of her pride, her dignity, her self-worth?
I remember riding home searching the sky for some sign that Mary was in heaven. When we arrived home, I was grateful to see the family and friends there with love and support. We needed to focus our attention on Mary's funeral. Before we arranged for the Mass, I told our pastor that Mary had died from an abortion. We would be burying both of them that day. Now he was able to make sense out of the horrible condition of Mary's body.
After the autopsy, the funeral home tried several times to make her presentable for viewing. The first viewing was on August 19th, 1989. It was my husband's 39th birthday. Mary's body was clothed in her Confirmation dress. In her hands was a small pink bouquet from Justin. Mary's funeral Mass was a celebration of her life. We wanted God to know that we were grateful for blessing us with this beautiful child. We gave her back to Him with the same love we had for her when we asked for a child of our own.
A month later we met with the coroner to discuss the details of Mary's autopsy. He avoided fully answering our questions. Instead of a detailed explanation, he advised us to "go home and try not to be ashamed or your daughter." We had expected an investigation of the hospital's procedures; instead we received a commentary on our daughter's virtues. She was just a statistic.
We could not allow Mary's death to simply be hidden away in a pile of statistics. To learn the truth would require a lawsuit, and this meant that we and Mary would be dragged into the public record and subjected to vicious attacks from defense attorneys. Yet this was our only way to break through the cover-up.
It was very difficult to find the right attorney. In desperation I called Vicki Conroy of Legal Action for Women. She gave me the name of an attorney in Kentucky, Ted Amshoff, a member of a national law firm specializing in abortion malpractice cases. When I spoke to his paralegal, Josephine, I knew I had finally found someone who cared more about Mary's death than about the controversy of abortion. Two days later Mr. Amshoff came to our city, reviewed the hospital records and autopsy report, and recognized that Mary had died a senseless death.
Our suit was filed in September of 1991. The legal battle is still ongoing, which is the reason why I can't publish our real names and many of the other details which would identify the defendants.
During the course of this suit, I feel the defense tactics have been shameless. Among other ploys, they have tried to discredit us as a family just trying to "cash in" on the situation. Of course I've come to understand that all of this is part of a strategy designed to discourage us.

Contributed by Mercedes Ansell. USA.

Back to top of page Home Page
Copyright © 2003 - 2005 K2Lministry.com All Rights reserved