March/Apirl, 1998 Volume XII Number 11
High school protests
As a parent of a Medina High student and a teacher, I object to my teenager or any teenager having to plow through people handing out leaflets and forcing her too look at dead baby posters just to get on her bus!! Why don't you people keep your protests aimed at adults. Go protest at a mall where people have a choice of an alternate route if they don't want to interact with you. Kids walking out of school to get on their bus are a captive audience aren't they? Especially when you plant yourselves between them and their busses. Our principal and Board members were only protecting our students' right to be f ree of your harassment.
Caroline J. Cook
Tyranny of Roe
In 1973, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in Roe V. Wade:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable too arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
With the ludicrous assertion that a question of biology, the science of life, was even partly a matter of philosophy or theology, the Court side-stepped the question and proceeded, in spite of its admmitted (though feigned) ignorance, as though prenatal lives did not exist. By this key lie among many, the Court evaded acknowledging that what they were really striking down was the philisophical premise of our nation -- that human rights are intrinsic with human lives. They turned back the clock to when human rights were granted or denied by the powerful based on criteria of their choice, and gave us a nation based on might makes right, the philosophy of all oppression. The mindless resistance to banning partial-birth abortion, a barbaric and medically unnecessary abortion ritual, highlights this fanatical devotion to power and cantrol instead of truth and justice.
Abortion rites advocates claim we have a conflict between core values of life and choice. But it is really a conflict between the philosophy that protects our freedoms and the philosophy that destroys freedom. It is a conflict betwwn a world view that sees us as spiritual beings make in the image and likeness of God -- who alone endows us with inalienable rights -- and a meat manager mentality that sees us as cattle. It is a conflict between obedience to a universal law and idolatrous worship of the human intellect, complete with human sacrifices, as competent to selectively choose criterea for the exclusion and destruction of others. It is a conflict betwwen people whose consciences still function and people who have aborted theirs.
Every Supreme Court vacancy causes a panic over keeping a majority that will support Roe v. Wade, a pathetic spectacle that recalls the effort to maintain a balance of slave and free states in the Senate. When will we admit that this act of judicial tyrrany -- devoid of truth, justice, knowledge, reason and principle -- cannot stand, just as the house divided against itself over slavery could not stand?
Real Americans will never accept Roe v. Wade. We want our country back.
Tribute to Anne
There is nothing more embittering than the trials and tribulations that are faced by the faithful woman of an imprisoned man. The shame and stigma of prison falls upon her innocent shoulders, even more that upon his. She is met by the "I told you so's of society" . . . tormented by the painfull fires of adversity. She is lashed by the cruel tongues of ridiculers, and mocked by hypocritical friends. She is forced to wage a brave fight to preserve her dignity . . .
She has done nothing to deserve the hardships (financial and otherwise) caused by her husband's incanceration. She, however, can be assured of his love and appreciation for her endurring devotion, loyalty, prayers and support. Last but not least, the God of the universe, I'm sure, recognizes and appreciates her hardships, sacrifices and loyalty to her spouse, and looks favorably on her.
Serving a sentence in New York
Blinded by Billy
In the past I have been a supporter of your magazine.Currently, and forever, I will be a supporter of pro-life, anti-abortion efforts. However, the Nov./Dec.  issue of Life Advocate has gone too far. I agree with previuos subscribers regarding graphic pictures being unnecessary. I have two small children who do not need to see that.
But Cathy Ramey's ridiculous and false remarks about Billy Graham . . . has pushed the envelope. I do not believe the Rev. Graham is a "pro-abort," and I'm sure he had something important that kept him from the Washington, DC rally. . . . For that matter, Cathy Ramey had no business being there. It was for men only. I have questioned many things she has written before, but this tops them all.
Shame on Cathy Ramey
Shame! Shame! Shame! on Cathy Ramey.
[Her] callous remarks about the Rev. Billy Graham were straight out of the pit of hell!
Being led by the Almighty God-Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Rev. Graham has told more people about the saving grace of God thru the blood of Jesus Christ in the power of the blood of the Holy Spirit then any person since the creation of planet earth.
He is not a pro-abort! He is in his 80's, has parkinson disease, and an extremely busy schedule.
If you had to vent your ire, it should have been toward the godless park police and not toward one of the most Godly men who has ever lived.
Editor's note: Rev. Billy Graham has publicly stated that he favors exceptions and would advise against condemning the Chinese for their population control policy, which includes forced abortion (see Jan. 1989, Larry King Live; also World magazine, Mar. 4 1995; Life Advocate, Dec. 1992, Feb. 1992, Apr. 1995, May 1995; read as well, the book, Their Blood Cries Out, by Paul Marshall ). By our definition Rev. Graham is pro-abortion. Dr. Graham went on record to pursue Most Favored Nation Status for China, despite their forced abortion, population control policy, as well as their persecution of Christians and prisoners (see World magazine, July 12/19, 1997). He is credited by many with being the force which resulted in the defeat of efforts by groups like Gary Bauer's Family Research Council, groups which favored withholding this coveted and profitable status from China until human rights abuses were addressed. Shame on Billy!
Boycott some churches
Why is it, things in the pro-life movement build up and then fall apart? Are we in vioation of scripture? Are we building on sand?
Mistakenly, I thought revival could come to the pro-life movement when the pro-life movement repented of birth control. Being naive, I thought pro-lifers who repented of birth control would have [left] Christian churches that accept birth control. Mistakenly, I assumed these professing Christian pro-lifers were Christians who just happened to be in the wrong church.
Now, I realize they are post-Christian churches, because thye are post-Christian. Where they give their offerings (treasure), there is their heart, also. They are storing up treasure in the houses of Baal.
Post Christians come to the pro-life events, because they are trying to serve two masters. They jump off the pro-life bandwagon everytime legalized abortion starts to be in danger. In other words, they serve Jehovah with taken efforts to end abortion.
We can stop building sand by demanding that post-Christians repent and leave their post Christian churches. By constant repetition, we can force them to become Christians or leave the movement.
Is it more important to get them to the next picket or to build on solid rock while saving some of the souls on our mailing lists?
Thank you very much for such an insightful and well researched article ("Does the birth control pill cause abortions?"). Well done. There is one area that your article did not touch and I hope you may have the answer. I my native to Canada and I noticed in a parlimentary speech from the Minister of Justice that the official Canadian definition of contraception is the inability of the egg to implant on the lining of the uterus. I know that the definition is similar in the United Stated. When did this change in definition come about? Why do so few people know about this definition?
Editor's note: The definition change came gradually in the United States. By the early 1990s referring to "contraception" as a post-fertilization phenomenon was common. Note other terms, like "pre-implantation embryo," which separate the idea of life from the biological facts.
Why do you care?
I respect your right to have your opinions, but why can't you have enough humility and self-control to stay out of politics? This country operates on a freedom of religion premise, and you people are trying to interfere with this. Why do you care if two men or two women have sex in the privacy of their own home, for example? How on earth does this affect you? Why don't you spend more time looking at yourselves instead of condemning others? Wasn't it Jesus who said you shouldn't throw stones? I am not an expert on the Bible, but I do believe in Jesus, and I know enough that you people are not following half of the tenets of the Christian religion. If you don't agree with homosexuality or abortion, fine, but take it easy and keep it out of politics. You have no right to force your views on the citizens of the United States. If you are so unhappy with the morality of this country, leave.
Internet chat we pulled off the Web
Life Advocate has a Y2k cover story in their brand new issue. The new issue is not available online as of this morning but it will be soon. Single issues and subscriptions are available at their home page.
I hope this helps.
I saw it too! A very reasoned approach that will hopefully help wake some people up.
I checked the web site! The new issue is not up yet but, the one that is is fantastic. They have some great stories about the Birth Control Pill-how it acts as an abortifacient.
I'm glad that they have addressed Y2k. God will surely hold this nation accountable for the blood of innocent babies killed by abortion.
Life Advocate is one of my favorites!
It is the only magazine that I subscribe to. I encourage all to check out their web page like above. Their treatment of the Y2k issue is pretty good. Their continuing coverage of the struggle against abortion is un-matched.
Distressed at coverage
It distresses me to no limit to see such effort being put into convincing people of the horror of abortifacients. . . . It is nearly impossible to convince the masses that a living, active, thinking, even thumb-sucking "fetus," inches from full birth, deserves a chance at life, and indeed has a right. How much more difficult can one suppose it to be to convince others that a freshly fertilized egg has that same right, and is as fully human?
The truth is that babies are at times born just a few months after conception, perhaps as early as 20 weeks, and surely these are fully human babies. Yet many abortions are committed long after this time, on much older, and more fully developed unborn babies. These abortions should be the focus of any abortion discussion, for surely they prove beyond doubt that abortion is, in effect, child-slaughter.
Editor's note: Mr. Cook argues, as many pro-aborts do, that older is better in terms of the right to life and the right to have an advocate. A thumb-sucking "fetus" carries more weight (in more ways than one) than does "a freshly fertilized egg," who, we might add, looks precisely like a human being at that age and stage of development. They too are in God's image and deserve our advocacy. Let's talk from a biblical perspective, and not merely pragmatics.
Postcard from the edge