A Few Random Thoughts

1) Remember the Mission

For many years now, I’ve been saying that the pro-life movement must not judge success on its ability or inability to win over the pro-choice mob and that our goal is not to convert these people but to stop them.  Of course, for an equal number of years there have been some in the pro-life community who challenge that position. 

Fortunately, over time I have seen the percentage of those who disagree with me decrease significantly.  It seems that our movement is, indeed, becoming less naïve.  But such naïveté has certainly not been eradicated altogether.  It still exists, and may always exist, because pro-lifers tend to be decent well-meaning people who sincerely want to assume the best about others.  And while that is certainly a laudable trait, there are two fundamental truths about the abortion struggle that make this attitude unrealistic. 

First, the pro-life position is one based exclusively on a moral principle.  We do not oppose the slaughter of the unborn because it is impractical or because it lacks utilitarian advantages.  We fight against abortion because it is so abysmally wrong that it cannot be either defended or ignored.     

Second, those who most vehemently defend abortion are not just misguided or uninformed people with whom we have a philosophical disagreement.  Instead, the “pro-choice” community is dominated by amoral and self-absorbed people who find concepts like “right and wrong” to be quaint and irrelevant. 

Combining these two realities means that our enemies are effectively immune to any argument against the legalization of abortion.  With very few exceptions, they are not winnable and, therefore, we must never evaluate our effectiveness on our ability or inability to convert them.

Now, I can appreciate why some would disagree with me on this.  I have no doubt that they are much nicer people than me and, like I said a moment ago, they want to believe the best about everyone – even the Choice Mafia.  If that describes you, all I ask is that you look for examples in world history where barbarians stopped what they were doing because they came to see that it was wrong.  What you will discover is that inertia is a fundamental property of barbarism.  It never stops on its own. 

2) The Bastardization of Compassion

I have often written about the fact that, in America today, over 90 percent of children suspected of having Down syndrome are executed in the womb.  I use the word “suspected” because a mistaken diagnosis in this area is not at all unheard of.

Generally, the apologists for this particular form of savagery try to rationalize it by claiming that we do it “to protect these babies against a lifetime of suffering.”  Those people are lying through their teeth.  They know good and well that our society does not slaughter babies with Down syndrome in order to “put them out of their misery;” we do it to put them out of our misery.  Whether we want to admit it or not, these babies are killed because we find them inconvenient, unsightly, more expensive to care for than they are worth and missing many of the “normal” human qualities we so admire in ourselves. 

That is the inevitable nature of a culture that places a utilitarian rather than an intrinsic value on human life.  It is a system in which those with power decide who gets to live and on what justification those who fail to qualify may be killed.  Today, this philosophy defines how we approach war, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and, if socialized medicine is in our future, it will define how we ration healthcare. 

The fact is, in the “Brave New World” that America has become over the last forty years or so, the right-to-life must be earned.  And for anyone we label “less than perfect,” earning that right becomes more difficult every day.  In fact, just considering the Down syndrome issue alone, the inevitable question is why we should limit our compassion to the unborn.  After all, if it is compassionate to kill those who, if allowed to be born, may suffer a life of misery, surely it would be even more compassionate to kill those who are already suffering such a life. 

At this moment in history, we need to understand that what I’m suggesting here may be neither farfetched nor far away.  That is why you and I must fight these people with every ounce of strength we can summon and we must do so until we draw the last breath God gives us.

3) A Frightening Time

It is undeniable that we've had defective people occupy the Oval Office before now and we don't have to look very far back in history to find them.  Nixon was a paranoid crook whose view that the law didn't apply in his case brought the country to the edge of a Constitutional collapse.  Carter was a buffoon who is proving to be as squalid a nuisance as an ex-president as he was as a sitting president.  Clinton was a moral degenerate whose abysmal behavior exposed the entire system of American government to derision.  And Bush 43 may have been well-intentioned but my feeling is that history is going to judge him far closer to Jimmy Carter than George Washington.            

However, none of these people were nearly as dangerous or destructive as the guy who sits in that office today.  During the 2008 presidential campaign, I said that the Obama phenomenon is less a political movement than a cult.  Now the evidence to support that view is all around us and growing like a slimy green mold.  Compared to the Obaministas, the Stepford Wives look like a herd of anarchists.

The frightening thing is, not since the Nixon administration have we seen anything like the way dissent is not tolerated.  In both cases, loyalty could accurately be defined as blind devotion and unquestioned obedience as well as a willingness to be oblivious to whatever the leader does.  The difference is that, in those days, if you criticized Tricky Dick you ended up on some sort of “Enemies List” and got your taxes audited.  Today, anyone who says anything negative about The Grand Obama will instantly be labeled either a racist or an Uncle Tom–depending on the malefactor's skin color.
 
And that brings me to my latest question: is the International Olympic Committee going to be labeled “racists” now that they’ve rejected Obama’s pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago?  Or is that tactic only used in the case of Americans who dissent from the party line?

4) Caught Lying

First, the Godless Left says that abortion will not be covered under ObamaCare.  But then, they fight any effort to include language that specifically excludes abortion.  With a straight face, they will say it is an unnecessary waste of effort to add this one tiny paragraph to the bill – even though it is already slated to be over a thousand pages long.  In other words, they are lying through their teeth.  If abortion is not going to be covered, a one paragraph addition to confirm it would do no harm.  Their refusal to allow this provision in the legislation is irrefutable proof that they intend to take money out of the paychecks of every American to buy abortions for other people.        

What we need to be reminding them of is that the word “healthcare” relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, injury and disease and that pregnancy is none of those.  In addition, according to the abortion industry’s own statistics, almost every elective abortion in America is done for a non-medical reason on a healthy baby and a healthy mother whose pregnancy poses no threat to either her life or physical well-being.  What all this means is that, by definition, ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE!

Amazingly, some Obamanistas are arguing that ObamaCare will reduce the number of abortions even if it pays for them.  Of course, many of those making this claim are the same grinning idiots who tell the lie that you can be a Christian and pro-life even while working to put a pro-abortion heretic like Obama into the White House.  

They are also ignoring that long-established principle of politics which says, “When you want less of something you tax it and when you want more of something you subsidize it.”  I have never heard of an exception to this and, in the unlikely case that such exceptions actually exist, there is no evidence that abortion is among them.  So the real question here is: just how pathetically stupid would you have to be to conclude that making abortions “free” will cause the abortion rate to drop?

Let me tell you the bottom line here.  Any form of socialized medicine will eventually, if not immediately, cover elective abortion.  Even if abortion is specifically excluded, the Obamanistas are banking that a future court decision will rule that this prohibition is unconstitutional.  And I think they are correct in making that assumption.  I can also assure you that, if national healthcare is passed, it won’t be long before a challenge to any abortion exemption is headed toward the Supreme Court.  For that reason, until we return legal protection to the unborn, we cannot afford to have ANY legislation passed that would create a national healthcare system.

Don’t Get Drunk on Tea

I want to sound a word of caution about this "Tea Party" and "Town Hall Meeting" phenomenon taking place around the country. 

From some of the rhetoric associated with these events, it would be easy to assume that social issues like abortion are an important factor behind them.  Regrettably, however, that assumption is incorrect.  Yes, there are many people involved with these events who are staunchly pro-life and it is not uncommon to see a strong pro-life presence at them.  But make no mistake about it, the driving force here is money.  If these people were to suddenly conclude that Obama's monetary policies are going to make our economy sing, the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meeting would quickly fade into history.  

Having said that, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that what these people are doing is either unimportant or wrong.  It is neither.  The fact is, the America we all grew up in is being destroyed by corrupt politicians in Washington, DC, who are nothing less than traitors.  Right before our eyes, our nation is being transformed from a capitalist nation devoted to freedom and equality of opportunity into one that will require us to grovel at the feet of godless Marxism.  And while this march toward an amoral collectivist society did not begin with the Obama administration, only an idiot could not have noticed the pace has accelerated exponentially since January. 

It is now clear that, unless we reverse course, we could all wake up in two or three years living in an America we no longer recognize.  If it comes to that, we will be in a frightening place where the love of our country has become secondary to the fear of our government.  And the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings are a needed and appropriate response to this crisis.  They provide a venue where these pompous elitists in Congress and the White House can be reminded that we are not their serfs, but that they are our hired hands.

The point is, even as we acknowledge that the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings are a good thing, we should not forget that they were born out of the fear of a financial collapse of our country and not its moral and cultural collapse.  The reality is, their leaders never organized similar events to help the unborn and, if the time ever comes that they no longer perceive Obama to be a threat to their wallets, they'll go home, drop the unborn in the grease, and we will never hear from them again.

He Learned from the Master

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is the chief medical correspondent for CNN and was recently courted by the Obama administration to be the next Surgeon General of the United States.  He would eventually withdraw his name from consideration saying that family matters would prevent him from serving. 

A few days later, Barak Obama lifted the federal ban on using taxpayer money to pay for embryonic stem cell research.  He even left the door open for it to be legal to create embryos for the intended purpose of killing them and using them in medical experiments.   

Then, Sanjay Gupta interviewed America’s moral guru, Bill Clinton, to get his reaction to this new policy.  To no one’s surprise, the former Degenerate in Chief was completely on board with the decision saying that it was justified since, in his words, “these embryos cannot be fertilized and become little babies.”  He went so far as to say that using unfertilized embryos in this way was a “pro-life” decision.         

Of course, this is pure nonsense and Clinton knew it.  This guy is fully aware that, by the embryo stage, fertilization has already occurred.  But ol’ Slick Willy was in sales pitch mode and he knew that this “unfertilized embryo” jibberish might slip past those who failed to connect what he was saying to what they learned in junior high school biology.    

What’s more important, however, is that Sanjay Gupta also knew that Clinton was lying but chose to say nothing.  And with his silence, he demonstrated exactly why the Obama administration wanted him for Surgeon General. 

These people understand that, in order to push their version of the Brave New World, they will need a Surgeon General who knows how to keep his mouth shut when biological facts conflict with political agendas.  In addition, the fact that Gupta would have been coming into this job right out of the media also showed that he was already on board with the “hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil” party line that Barak Obama must have to be successful.

I also want to point out something else that happened about this same time.  While Obama was justifying his embryonic stem cell decision on the basis that science should not be hampered by moral considerations, he was also ruling that cloning for reproductive reasons would not be legal because it was simply immoral. 

I guess we can safely conclude from this that Barack Obama graduated from the Bill Clinton School of Doubletalk and Flexible Morals.

A Little Mutual Back Scratching

Regarding Rick Warren’s decision to give the prayer at Barack Obama’s inauguration, assume for a moment that we had just elected a man to be president who, during the campaign, spoke to a rally of the Ku Klux Klan – all the while reassuring us how important his Christian faith is to him.  Let’s also assume that, during this rally, he told the assembled cone heads that he thinks America should return to the times when only white male landowners were allowed to vote.

 

The question is, could anyone in America be stupid enough to think that Rick Warren would give the invocation for this guy’s inauguration?  Do they think we’d be hearing all this warm-fuzzy rhetoric about “coming together” and “setting aside our differences” or any of the other touchy-feely emotions we now find so trendy?  Believe me, anyone who thinks that would happen has lost contact with the mother ship. 

 

I suggest that we take off the rose-colored glasses for a moment.  The cold fact is that this sorry situation is nothing more than an arranged marriage motivated by politics and ambition. 

 

On one hand, Obama needs someone who can give him cover with the Christian community.  His goal is to hide from them the fact that he is a heretic and moral degenerate.  He chose Warren for this job because he knows that (a) Warren has “street cred” within the targeted demographic group and (b) the vast majority of the people in this particular group are too naïve to see that they are being played.  He also knows that, as pro-lifers go, Warren is “safe” because he has shown that–regardless of what he says about abortion–it is not an issue he cares much about and it is certainly not one for which he will fight.  In the same way some people used to say,” I’m not a racist, one of my best friends is black,” Obama can now say, “I’m not a baby-killer, one of my best friends is pro-life.”  

 

Meanwhile, Rick Warren’s willingness to become Obama’s token pro-lifer is part of an extended job interview.  He knows that Billy Graham is nearing the end of his life and that the job of “America’s Preacher and Spiritual Guru to the White House” is about to be available.  He also knows that, in order to ascend into this role, he will have to throw the unborn under the bus.  After all, he’s watched Graham do it for the last 35 years.  It’s called “selling out” and for those who covet a seat at the tables of power, more often than not it’s just the cost of doing business.  Such is the nature of political life in a nation that no longer places any value on principles and statesmanship.   

 

Now, for those of you who will inevitably accuse me of being unfairly cynical here, let me suggest that January 20th will tell the tale.  If I am wrong about Rick Warren, then he will use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pray for mercy for the unborn and ask God to soften Obama’s heart toward them.  While he’s at it, he will also call America to repentance and beg God’s forgiveness for the 50 million defenseless children we have already slaughtered.    

 

Anyone taking bets? 

Obamanistas Storm the Winter Palace

Last night, the American people made history.  Next January, Barack Obama will be sworn-in as the first African-American President of the United States.  And from a purely racial perspective, that’s a good thing.  Although this election will not heal all of our nation’s racial wounds, it at least signals that the wounds don’t have to be permanent. 

Unfortunately, the voters also made another kind of history.  

During the cold war, the communists always claimed that we were foolish to worry about them trying to conquer us militarily.  They said there was no need for that because they had the intent and the patience to take us over through an internal revolution.  The conquest of America was not to be accomplished with bullets but with ballots.

We should have listened.  But we didn’t, and soon the most powerful political office in the world will be handed over to an avowed socialist.  This morning, in some fetid corner of hell, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Joe Stalin are toasting each other.

Although the polls should have prepared us for this, it is still hard to imagine how a nation founded by statesmen like Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton could decay into one run by socialist whores like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  But that’s what we’ve come to.

For my brothers and sisters in the pro-life movement, I would like to offer a little perspective on this situation.  Before you decide to take a bath with your toaster, remember that God is still in control.  He is not holed-up in some obscure section of heaven pacing back and forth and wringing His hands desperately trying to figure out what His next move should be.  We’re the only ones doing that. 

Be assured that I am not trying to downplay the significance of what just happened.  Besides being a Marxist, Barack Obama is the most rabidly pro-abortion, morally defective and completely unqualified person to ever be given the keys to the Oval Office.  This man is thoroughly evil and I have little doubt that we are likely entering into the most dangerous period in the history of our country.  On the 20th of January, 2009, the fox will not be guarding the henhouse – he will be inside the henhouse.   

Having said that, we need to recall that we’ve been through something similar to this before.  When Slick Willie Clinton and his charming little bride took over, the wailing and gnashing of teeth that ensued from the pro-life community would have frightened the sandals off of anyone in the Old Testament.  But eventually, we got up off the canvas and went back to work.  The result was that, in the following eight years, more abortion clinics closed than at any other time in the history of our movement and the abortion rate plummeted. 

The fact is, the Clintons could not beat us even when they turned the United States Department of Justice into a private police force for the abortion industry – and Barack Obama is not going to beat us now.  We should also acknowledge the possibility that, had McCain won, large segments of the pro-life movement would have gone into hibernation.  After all, we’ve done it before.  But since McCain didn’t win, none of us are sitting back and relying on him to do our work.

So let me tell you what’s going to happen now.

Even on this dark and sickening morning, you and I are going to walk onto the battlefield and fight.  Our mission will not be to merely defeat our enemies, but to drive them into the cold hard ground.  We will settle for nothing less than total victory because that’s the only way the killing will stop.  And if we don’t win today, we are going to return to the battlefield tomorrow with that same attitude and that same resolve.  And we will continue to return every day until God either calls us home or the killing ends. 

Look, we all know that the pro-life movement has its warts.  It is not uncommon for us to do really stupid things and we are always fighting with each other.  But for all we do wrong, there are two things you never have to doubt.  First, we are on the right side of the battle and, second, we will never surrender.  We survived the Billary Clinton juggernaut because we prayed like everything depended on God and fought like everything depended on us.  We will now survive Comrade BO for the same reason.

Are there danger signs?  You bet.  Do we need to be concerned about the Supreme Court, the Freedom of Choice Act and socialized medicine paying for abortions?  Absolutely.  Did our task just get harder?  No doubt about it.  But the only thing that really matters, and the one thing we must never forget, is that when God told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against us, He didn’t say anything about it being easy.  He was simply promising us the victory if we were willing to fight for it. 

So now we go forward in that spirit, always mindful that this was never a war between the pro-choice forces and us.  From the first killing, it has been a war between the pro-choice forces and the unborn.  You and I are just soldiers who volunteered to fight on the side of the babies.  We didn’t start this war, it doesn’t belong to us, and we won’t end it.  If you understand that, and if you understand that God is the only General of the Army in which we serve, then you have no reason to be discouraged.

Today, over 3,000 helpless American babies are lined-up for execution and more than 3,000 are scheduled to be killed every day in the future.  When we signed-up for this fight, what we were saying is that those babies could count on us.  Well, last night that commitment was challenged.  To meet it, we will have to quit whining about the election, do our duty and put our trust in God.  You and I are not children and we are not fragile.  We don’t need self-pity and we don’t need hand-holding.  What we need right now, is to stand up and tell Barack Obama – in a clear and defiant voice – the same thing Winston Churchill once told another morally-bankrupt despot: You do your worst and we’ll do our best.

Why the Big Rush?

As I watch Congress deal with the mess on Wall Street, three things come to mind.

 

First, we are once again forced to watch as a collection of buffoons who couldn’t run a lemonade stand are allowed to manipulate the largest economy in the history of the world.  In all fairness, however, I will concede that it is possible that they will make sound financial decisions.  If pressed to give the odds of that actually happening, I’d say they are roughly the same as the odds that a monkey flailing away at a typewriter would type out the Old Testament.    

 

Second, I am suspicious of the speed at which this calamity unfolded.  It seems that within about an-hour-and-a-half after all this became public, Congress was in emergency session.  Then a few minutes later, a trillion-dollar bailout plan was announced as if it were a done-deal which, as we now know, it wasn’t. 

 

I get the uneasy feeling that Congress wants this whole thing to go away as quickly as possible.  The question is, why?  They are claiming this is the biggest meltdown since the Great Depression, so wouldn’t it be wise to take some time to design the right solution?  So why aren’t they?  And don’t for a moment believe that they are scurrying around like this because they are worried about the impact it will have on the American people.  I will assure you that whenever you see Congress running down the field like their hair is on fire, there is always something in it for them. 

 

Call me cynical, but it seems to me that Congress wants to get rid of this problem before the public has a chance to figure out that they are the ones who caused it.  And if that is indeed the case, I will also assure you that whatever bill is finally passed will be one that covers-up that reality.  Remember, this is an election year.   

 

Finally, there are moral considerations related to this problem.  In America today, we want to treat morality as if it is something that only applies to issues like abortion and homosexuality.  But the fact is that every decision a politician makes has a moral component.  In this case, the problem was created by financial institutions that ignored the immorality of loaning money to people that they knew couldn’t pay it back, and consumers who took these loans knowing the same thing.  

 

The point is that the best financial minds in the world cannot solve this problem if the solution is indifferent to morality.  Unfortunately, when you look at the people in Congress who are in charge of addressing this issue, what you see is that the vast majority have morals that are so low they can support the wholesale slaughter of unborn children.  In short, while their financial qualifications may be weak, their moral qualifications are non-existent.  And we are fooling ourselves if we think that such people can come up with anything more than a temporary patch.

And On They Drone

With the political season in full swing, the Choice Mafia is once again clamoring that the issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong but, “who decides – the woman or the state?” 

 

Have you ever noticed that anytime someone says right and wrong don’t matter, it always turns out that they want to do something that even they know is wrong?

 

In any event, my question is this: if these people think that legalized abortion is such a positive thing, why won’t they defend it on its own merits?  Why do they feel compelled to claim that its merits – or lack thereof – are irrelevant?

 

The answer is that abortion has no merits.  In fact, there is nothing appealing about it.  A mom climbs on a table and puts her feet in the stirrups.  Then, a medical-community washout with the morals of a sewer rat, roots around inside her body with sharp instruments and tears her child limb from limb.  If all goes well, the woman won’t end up in the emergency room or in an early grave.

 

Of course, when the dust has settled, whatever drove her to submit to this abortion in the first place is still a reality.  She is just as poor, or uneducated, or ill-housed, or abused as she was before.  The only significant difference in her life is that she is now the mother of a dead baby instead of a live one.  Call me stupid, but I find it hard to imagine that she is better off for that experience.

 

Obviously, it’s tough to make this scenario seem anything but ugly, which is precisely why our enemies try every trick in the book to avoid talking about it.  One thing is for sure.  If every voter spent just one day inside a typical abortion clinic, there would be no debate.  These death camps would be shut down instantly and the people who work in them dragged off in handcuffs and leg irons.

 

While we’re talking about this “right and wrong don’t matter” rhetoric, let’s also not forget that America has heard it before.  During the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1857, Douglas said that, while he was personally opposed to slavery, he would not legislate against it because it was up to the people to vote it up or down.  Lincoln countered with: “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down.  When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”

 

What Lincoln was saying is that the government is not empowered to protect one individual’s right to inflict wrong on another, but to protect those who would be victimized from those who would victimize. 

 

So let’s cut to the chase here.  The reality is, the pro-choice mob has to say that the issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong because they know that neither they, nor anyone else, can defend the actual act of abortion.  They also understand that their very survival depends on them being able to keep the public from looking at the central question: is the unborn child a living human being?  If the answer to that is yes – and even the most outspoken defenders of legal abortion know that it is – then there is no debate about “who decides.”   Civilized societies simply don’t leave the decision about whether one human being can kill another one up to the one who wants to do the killing.

So does it matter whether abortion is right or wrong?  The better question is: what else could matter?  And if right and wrong do not matter in this case, why would they ever matter?

Choice is a Moving Target

In the early days of the abortion battle, the pro-choice mob’s central argument was that the unborn are not human.  Of course, for this to be true, a woman would have to have the ability to be pregnant with something that is not human.  After discovering that they were unable to defend such a loopy assertion, the abortion lobby quietly dropped it. 

Their follow-up was to grudgingly concede that the unborn are human – but not human beings.  When this also proved to be logically unsustainable, they were once again forced to move on.  

Over the next few years, their position became that the unborn might indeed be human beings but they are not persons.  The problem is, the English language contains no word for a human being who is not a person.  In short, this argument is not based on any generally accepted concept.  The best that the abortion lobby has been able to come up with is that personhood is a legal definition and not a biological one.  But even some of them are uncomfortable with the Orwellian idea that the Supreme Court can take rights away from selected categories of human beings by simply declaring them non-persons.  Despite that, however, this argument is still floated around from time to time.  

There are numerous other examples of how the defense of abortion has been forced to change over the years, but the reason why they have had to do this has remained constant.  Simply put, at its core, the pro-choice position is not based on any fundamental or observable truth.  Whether the standard is scientific, biological, legal or theological, the humanity of the unborn is simply undeniable and, given that reality, there is no way to rationalize their slaughter. 

The problem our enemies are having with their “moving target” strategy, is that all of their quasi-lucid arguments have been exposed and they now have to resort to the absurd.  The good news is that these moronic defenses of abortion are the most compelling evidence yet to support my long-espoused claim that the pro-life movement is winning.

The best place to see this firsthand is on the ProLifeAmerica.com Forum.  One recent argument seen there, and one I have heard repeated elsewhere, is that abortion is justified because the unborn are not sentient.  This basically means that it is okay to execute them because they have no awareness or perception.  It is a completely undocumented argument, but no less so than any of the others they’ve used over the last 35 years.  Moreover, I would argue that, on this basis, we should be allowed to hang almost every member of Congress – but that’s an issue for another time.            

As it regards abortion, the reality is that the sentience (or lack thereof) of the unborn is irrelevant.  Even if it were possible to scientifically prove that the unborn are not sentient, that would provide no moral justification for their execution.  They are living human beings and what they are aware of, or unaware of, has no bearing on that.

I also noticed a bizarre irony in this “sentience” argument.  At the same time that the Choice Mafia is saying it is okay to kill the unborn because they are not sentient, the federal courts are taking the opposite position regarding capital punishment.  Their position is that they will not allow executions unless the condemned is sentient.  This prevents states from executing someone who is in a coma or someone whose IQ falls below a certain point. 

As someone who is opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, I am a little bewildered.  Are we saying that we can legally kill innocent people because they are not sentient, but we can only kill guilty people if they are sentient?  Apparently, I’m just not smart enough to understand that the sentience” target not only has the ability to move, it also has the ability to be in two places at the same time. 

Now That’s What I Call Art !

One of the pro-choice gang’s standard regurgitations is that women never take abortion lightly and only have them for the most agonizing and legitimate of reasons.  With pro-choice people it is not always easy to distinguish when they are lying from when they are simply misinformed.  But such is not the case here.  They are lying and several of their fellow travelers have admitted as much.     

In an interview published in the March 9, 1989, edition of the communist publication, Revolutionary Worker, Marilyn Buckham, who was the director of Buffalo GYN Womenservices Clinic, was asked about the reasons women have abortions.  In her answer, she stated, “Women don’t do this lightly.  I’m sick and tired of hearing this.  Ninety-eight percent of women do do it lightly in here…they think of abortion like brushing their dime teeth and that’s OK with me.”

The reality is, if you go to any abortion clinic waiting room in America you will certainly find women who are there for what they perceive to be difficult circumstances.  But make no mistake, you will also find many who are having their second, third or fourth abortion as well as those who are there for reasons that could never be legitimately described as serious.            

But going beyond that, a recent episode at one of our nation’s “most prestigious” universities has raised the question of whether women ever have abortions after getting pregnant on purpose.  In early April, a pro-choice student at Yale, Aliza Shvarts, claims that she artificially inseminated herself repeatedly during the previous year and then self-aborted using various chemicals and herbs.  This was all done as part of a school art project.  It seems that she had video taped herself sitting in a bathtub doing these abortions on herself, and her plan was to project this video onto a cube that had been covered with blood she had saved from these abortions. 

I will concede that my knowledge of art is not very sophisticated.  My main experience in this field was in junior high school when I drew my own state inspection sticker for my Cushman scooter.  Evidently, it was not very good as a local police officer picked up on the forgery right away.  Needless to say, I was lucky to escape with only a ticket. 

But even though my credentials in this area are suspect, I still have to say that Aliza’s art sounds like it would make those Elvis on velvet things you see sold at abandoned gas stations seem like the Mona Lisa.  I’m also more than a little concerned that we will one day discover that this fiasco was paid for with tax dollars through a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

In any event, the university tried to extricate itself from this public relations nightmare by informing Shvarts that she would have to publicly state that her story was a hoax before they would allow it to be displayed.  They wanted her to say that the blood was not from abortions but from her menstrual flow.  Apparently, menstrual blood paintings are an approved form of artistic expression at Yale.  (Wouldn’t you love to read the minutes of the meeting where this conclusion was reached.)

Naturally, like any other proud but misunderstood artist, Shvarts refused to compromise and stuck to her story.  She did, however, enter something different in the art show so she would not fail the class.  I don’t know what form the replacement “art” took and I’m pretty sure that I don’t want to know.  Let’s just say that Aliza and I probably have different tastes.  

Surprisingly, the idea that women would abort intentional pregnancies is not a new one.  In the August 18, 1991, edition of the Austin American Statesman, rock singer Sinead O’Connor said she wrote the song My Special Child just two weeks after having an abortion.  She also said that, “It was a planned pregnancy, which I was very happy about.  I was completely in love with the father of the child ... But things didn’t work out between us, and we were both unhappy.  It was too much for him to be able to handle.  He was young and I was on tour, and I was feeling ill all the time because I was pregnant, and I was feeling so awful and I made the decision that it would be better for everybody if I had the abortion.’

About the same time, Oprah Winfrey had a show about women who get pregnant as a ploy to trap men into marriage.  One of the guests stated, with no hesitancy or sense of remorse, that when her attempt at this did not work as planned, she had an abortion. 

There were also revelations about the Olympic committee that oversees enforcement of drug policies discovering a trick some female athletes were using to circumvent the organization’s prohibition against blood doping.  These women were found to be intentionally getting pregnant prior to competition to increase the amount of oxygen in their bodies in order to heighten their performance.  After the competition was over, they would abort.  Olympic officials eventually determined that not only was this happening, it was not an uncommon practice among teams from certain countries.

So how common is it for women to abort an intended pregnancy?  Obviously, no one knows.  But we do know that it is common for women to abort intentional pregnancies when their baby turns out to be handicapped.  For example, in America today, over 90% of Down Syndrome babies are executed before birth and it would be illogical to think that those were all unplanned pregnancies.  On a personal level, through the Life Dynamics abortion malpractice campaign, I have spoken with many abortion-injured women over the years who told me that they had intentionally become pregnant but aborted when something changed in their lives.  One case I remember involved a woman who was forced to have a hysterectomy because of her injury.  She said that she had been trying to get pregnant for two years but aborted after being offered a promotion at work.

From a pro-life perspective, I think we need to keep all of this in context.  In a certain sense, the fact that a woman would have an abortion for frivolous reasons or to end a pregnancy she intentionally sought, is irrelevant.  Some justifications might make us more angry than others, but for the child that’s killed the reasons don’t matter.  The Down Syndrome child carried by a forty-year-old welfare recipient who got pregnant on purpose by a man whose name she doesn’t even remember, is no less valuable than any other child.      

In the final analysis, if the excuses for abortion don’t matter to the children being killed, they shouldn’t matter to us.  Our job is to protect every child in every circumstance.  And that must always be our focus.  

The Scandal of Selective Outrage

On April 3, 2008, state authorities carried-out an armed raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) facility in Eldorado, Texas.  They were acting on suspicions that some members of this religious sect were sexually exploiting children and others were concealing it. 

Before long, the State of Texas had taken custody of more than 400 children and isolated them from their parents.  Now, even the most ardent defenders of this action are conceding that the evidence being acted upon may turn out to be a little flimsy and the roundup overly broad.  Time will be the judge of that.  My suspicion is that unless mass indictments are eventually returned, the State of Texas is going to have a lot of explaining to do.    

Obviously, any decent person understands that society has an obligation to protect children against sexual predators.  They also have an obligation to act against adults who fail to protect children against sexual predators.  In fact, that is the most common justification given for separating the children in the Eldorado raid from their parents. 

If this all turns out to be legitimate, I say drop the parents in jail right along side the perps.  They deserve each other.  But I also want to know why everyone suspected of being involved in the cover-up of child sexual abuse are not the targets of such investigations.  

As you may recall, we conducted a three-month undercover investigation in which we recorded over 800 calls to Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities across America – including Texas.  Our female caller portrayed a 13-year-old girl who was pregnant by an adult and wanted an abortion in order to hide the illegal sexual relationship from her parents and the authorities.  On the tapes, many of the clinic workers are heard telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state.  However, even after acknowledging this, 91% of the 800 facilities contacted agreed to illegally conceal it.  Representatives of these organizations—often operating on tax dollars—routinely instructed a child who they believed to be a sexual assault victim to:

• lie about or conceal her age

• lie about or conceal the age of the man who impregnated her

• participate in illegal activity in order to circumvent the state’s parental notification law

• use a fictitious name, phone number or address when she came to the facility

• keep the situation hidden by altering what she would say when she came to the facility

• be more careful about what information she gave out and to whom

Many clinic representatives told the caller that they deal with this situation “all the time” and that the advice they were giving her is the way they normally handle it.  Any way you cut it, we caught these people red-handed.  The tapes from our investigation prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation are running a nationwide pedophile protection racket.  To read our complete report on this issue, take your blood pressure medicine and go to ChildPredators.com.

The reality is, we have an epidemic of child sexual abuse in this country.  The most reliable studies show that among girls 15 and younger who get pregnant in the United States, 60% to 80% are impregnated by adults.  We also know that 15 to 19 year old girls have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the country and that the majority were contracted from adult men.  The evidence goes on and on but it always leads to the same conclusion.  Underage girls are being sexually abused at a rate that is unprecedented in American history.         

I would also point out that facilities which offer pregnancy tests, STD treatments, birth control and abortions are, by far, the most common places these girls are going to show up.  So while the situation in Eldorado affects only a tiny fraction of the potential child sexual abuse victims in America, Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities see them by the tens-of-thousands every year.  Yet we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in getting law enforcement to investigate the undeniable fact that these two organizations are openly flaunting every state’s mandatory reporting laws.  As amazing as it sounds, in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, when pro-lifers bring this up to the authorities – they threaten the pro-lifers!  What we have discovered is that most law enforcement agencies in this country are simply afraid of the abortion lobby. 

The bottom line is, America’s epidemic of child sexual abuse is a national disgrace and the response of law enforcement to it is a scandal.  I challenge anyone to show me the difference between an adult who chooses to ignore the sexual abuse of children in the FLDS facility, and the law enforcement official who chooses not to enforce laws designed to protect children who end up at Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation.  Like I said, it’s a national scandal.

How Many People Do You See?

I have often observed that, when it comes to defending legalized abortion, the pro-choice mob has more tricks than a monkey on a hundred yards of grapevine.  Of course, this is probably a natural response given that the task they have chosen is to defend the indefensible. 

In any event, among their catalogue of rhetorical gymnastics, one of the most amazing is their contention that the unborn child is simply a part of the mother’s body.  They make this argument hoping that the public will conclude that, since society would never interfere with a woman’s decision to have her appendix out, it likewise has no place interfering with her decision to have an abortion.

The problem is, the underlying assumption supporting this argument is asinine even by the abortion lobby’s standards.  To assert that the unborn is part of the woman’s body is the same as saying that when a woman is pregnant she has 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 heads, 2 hearts, 2 brains, etc.   It also suggests that, if her child is a boy, for nine months of her life she has a penis.

Having said all that, for those of you who truly believe in this “baby as part of the woman” philosophy, I want to raise a serious issue.  I ask you to imagine a photo of conjoined (Siamese) twins and answer this simple question: Is that a picture of one person or two? 

Before you answer, understand that, from a biological standpoint, conjoined twins are far closer to being one person than is a mother and her unborn child.  Conjoined twins are always the same sex, always have the same DNA, are always the same blood type, always share at least one external body structure and often share several internal organs.  And as long as they are joined, if one dies they both die. 

But none of that is true about a mom and her unborn baby.  They are the same sex only about half the time, often don’t have the same blood type, never have the same DNA and do not share any external body parts or internal organs.  Moreover, it is not only possible for one to survive when the other one dies, it is common.

The point is, while it would be biologically incorrect to claim that conjoined twins are not two distinct individuals, even that argument would be more grounded in scientific reality than the claim that a mother and her unborn child are not two distinct individuals.  

The subject of conjoined twins also creates another analogy to the pro-life issue.  It is now common for doctors to perform surgery to separate conjoined twins.  In many of these cases, it is understood that the chances for both surviving is low.  However, no ethical surgeon would agree to intentionally kill one of the twins to increase the chances that the other one would survive.  In every case, the intent is to save both lives and every effort will be made to achieve that result.  It may be true that, prior to the surgery, it is accepted – even anticipated – that only one will survive.  But under no conditions would separation surgery be performed with that as its intended outcome. 

This is the principle that must be applied when the issue is whether abortion is acceptable in those extraordinarily rare instances in which pregnancy poses an immediate threat to the physical life of the mother.  From an ethical standpoint, we cannot say that it is ever acceptable to intentionally kill the baby to save the mother.  Instead, her physician should be required to do everything possible to save both mother and child.  If, as an unintended consequence of that effort, one or both fail to survive, that would be considered an unavoidable – thus permissible – outcome.  However, it is as morally indefensible to say that we will intentionally kill the baby to save the mother as it would be to say that we will intentionally kill the mother to save the baby. 

In the final analysis, the pure “no-exceptions” pro-life position is exactly the same as saying that operating on conjoined twins is never acceptable if the intent is to kill one of them.  In both cases, there are two distinct individuals involved and we must never cross the moral line where we argue that one innocent human being’s life can be snuffed-out for the benefit of another.

Oops, I forgot.  We already did that.  It’s called Roe vs. Wade. 

More Entries


Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics