Linda Gibbons awaits arrest outside a Toronto abortion facility.
Posted on 10/01/2014 6:28:07 AM PDT by wagglebee
Linda Gibbons awaits arrest outside a Toronto abortion facility.
Editor’s note: Linda Gibbons has been in prison since an August 7 arrest in Toronto while she witnessed to life outside an abortion facility protected by an injunction. Her case goes to trial November 12. She wrote the following letter this month to explain her ongoing mission.
This article is a reflection on my ten years of bearing witness for life in front of Toronto's several abortuaries.
My intention is not an apology for the reason, cause or purpose I engage in civil disobedience against injunctions in place at these death mills; I've written on that previously. My presence is more than a challenge to unjust laws. My presence is a response to a distinctive human cry: the cry of Canada's aborted unborn.
The courts have not responded to that silent cry. Currently, the killing of one in four children continues unabated.
Neither has the majority of Canadian parliamentarians shed tears over lives lost to abortion. Instead, they have unequivocally condoned the killing and compelled a tranquilized populace into paying for it.
When the social messaging regarding inconvenient or complicated pregnancies is "try again next time" or "better off dead," it's not a statement of the human condition but rather of cultural conditioning that implies some lives are unworthy of living. It begs the question: How much is a life worth? Unborn lives then become commodified and put on a sliding scale of values; ignored are the deliberate crimes against Canada's own children.
What then should be a human response to the senseless attacks against babes in the womb? Essentially, the answer for me is simply to be there as one human being recognizes the endangered life of another, and to act in his or her defense. My presence is a plea for each child in jeopardy of being killed and the pamphlets I carry bear witness to the incontrovertible evidence of a child's earliest existence, evidence denied them in the mill.
My presence is to plead for the living and to pray for the dying. I am witness to a holocaust: vis a vis over four decades of bloodshed.
Given the status quo of abortion on demand, with no legal redress throughout the entire gestation and delivery period, some would question the point of insisting that life is a sacred trust from conception until natural death and a God-given right worthy of defending.
My actions publicly demonstrate my commitment to resist the abortuary's campaign of disinformation and to dissuade women from entering the killing centre.
For Christians, the failure to resist the practice of abortion makes a travesty of our faith. An empty sidewalk at the death centres and silence from the pulpits is scandalous when we are called to deliver those being dragged to death and those ready to be slain.
Not to take action contradicts God's will and purpose for life. With abortion mills scarring the land from one coast to another and a death count in the millions, it calls for serious searching of heart. Have I done all I could in the face of such human carnage?
Should cares and commitments to family hold me back? What is the price of loving God's unborn and not relinquishing the fight? I've weighed all of these. If the cost of loving and remaining with my family is the price of unborn blood, then the "cost of living" with family is too high. At what time, then, may I divest myself of the charge to defend life?
Imagine for a moment, in our world plagued with political unrest, the enemy coming to our towns and taking our children from us (as is happening in Iraq and Syria). Could we beg deliverance from God for our own when we were so reluctant to deliver His own babes in the womb threatened with death? When cares of the world distract and disturb, I'm reminded of the words of the Talmudic sage that Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, quoted in his book, Open Heart:
"It is incumbent on you to love as if you were to die the next day.”
The love of God constrains me to love the unborn as if there were no tomorrow. I only have today and in it I am called according to His purpose to answer the unborn's long and unending cry for life.
I remain present in their service.
In the Lord, Giver of Life,
Linda
I have been a long time volunteer attorney for what was similar to but under a different name than Operation Rescue. I cannot speak here for that movement, only for myself.
There are distinctions and major ones among the three cases you mention. First, Scott Roeder (was he the man who shot and killed abortionist George Killer Tiller st church?). By shooting and killing Tiller (apparently quite intentionally), I believe Mr. Roeder NOT to be justified. As bad as was Tiller's outrageous track record, no baby was in imminent danger that morning and the killing cannot be defended, if at all, on the basis of vicarious self-defense. Secondly, there were other, less violent and yet effective ways to deal with Tiller. It was possible to arrange Rescues in which pro-lifers in large numbers could have flooded the mill and its killing rooms, de-sterilizing the instruments and suction machines and putting the mill out of business for weeks at a time. Finally, I believe that moral authority for killing Tiller was absent. As bad as he was, Tiller was murdered.
Shelly Shannon also shot Tiller when she stopped him in his car as he was leaving the mill for the day. He opened the driver's window, she inserted her handgun and shot him in the forearms (apparently to disable him from performing further abortions). If she wanted to kill him, she would have put the gun to his left temple and blown him away. She chose a more modest goal than killing him. We can argue whether she was morally justified. By all accounts, she is/was a good and holy woman who would have considered the moral significance of her acts. Authorities charged her with attempted murder but, if that had been her intent, he would have been dead then and there.
That leaves Eric Rudolph who I seem to recall was charged with a suburban Atlanta abortion mill bombing that very badly maimed a nurse and killed an off duty police officer acting as a security guard at the mill. If so, Rudolph's actions were not justified. Those actions would not save a single baby that morning or otherwise. The bomb exploded on the front porch posing no threat to the abortionist(s) or to their equipment. IIRC, there is little doubt that Rudolph was the perp but was he not also charged with the Olympics bombing at Atlants? I am very skeptical as to the Olympics bombing. I no longer recall whether there is reasonable ground to doubt Rudolph's involvement in the Olympics bombing. Killing the police officer was absolutely unjustified and likewise the maiming of the nurse.
I well understand that many pro-lifers may disagree on these three cases and I respect their opinions. I do hope that each of us will carefully weigh all considerations when arriving at judgment. Each of these incidents has also seriously damaged the good will earned by non-violent pro-lifers.
In any war in the modern day world, PR matters. Looking weird doesn't help to grow the movement....and these kinds of tactics make our pro-life position look weird and extreme. And as well all know, it isn't.
Also, stop calling them abortuaries and mills....terms that are only appealing to the already converted and even some of those have an aversion to them. While such language may be binding to some in the pro-life movement, it's alienating to others.
It isn't about us...it's about the babies. I think the tactics of the woman in this article, draws more attention to her than the cause of the babies....to the clueless public, negative attention I might add. They also feed and fulfill the egos of such people...something we must be very wary of.
So many of the posters on this thread have been active in the pro-life cause for years....I have seen you here time and again; I LOVE and admire you for that. I pray very fervently that you rethink these tactics. Tactics mean the difference between success and failure. A fact the founders were very much aware of. If the forefathers hadn't been concerned about plans and strategy,and had the ability to see what worked and what didn't, we would have lost the revolutionary war and there would be no America.
Also, please remember, disagreeing about tactics doesn't make those who disagree any less fervently, pro-life.
Respectfully, TAdams, if you had been one of the those persons who were saved from being killed would you say such a thing?
Cordially,
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.If it results in more death, it isn’t the right thing.
Proverbs 24:11
If YOU were one of the innocent ones whose life was in peril and YOU were one of the few who were rescued would you still say that?
The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’Cordially,
Matthew 25:40
When I say normal....I mean average people who aren't drawn to politics and causes the way WE are. I AM NOT NORMAL. :)
If we had employed more successful tactics, and been thinking about PR and how to reach people who don't think the way we do, NOT only would the babies who have been saved, been saved...but many more.
Too many conservatives are to egocentric and think what appeals to them, appeals to people who don't think the way they do. We must learn to be able to see things through the eyes/minds of people we're trying to persuade.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that statement.
But I won’t waste my time. >>
good, nobody cares.
Read post 83
Just like an evil pro abort liberal, you are using a straw argument and lying about what I've said to try and make your point. You either show where I ever said that we should "Just ignore abortion" or you can just STFU your hateful pharisaical self.
read post 83 if you’re woman enough
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Me too, I will NOT be voting for halsam or alexander. I see the EBT card users get cash back and go to customer service and buy cigs and loto tickets every time I go to the grocery store.
Yes on 1, 3, 4, NO on 2!
We have a chance to make a difference on ABORTION on #1, you do NOT have to live in TN to donate to the cause.\
TURN IT UP! YES ON 1
http://youtu.be/_G2rjhmo4v8
For donations and yard signs
Yes on 1
http://www.yeson1tn.org/
Project much?
Here are some of your posts where you opine that pro-lifers will push women to have abortions:
Post 18
I also wonder, though, if a lot of young girls see the media coverage of these protests and harden their hearts towards the pro life movement - and then become abortion customers down the road.Post 41
If it results in more death, it isn’t the right thing.Post 68
That is true, but are you 100% sure that Operation Rescue and other operations like it have saved lives NET.....
I just am not convinced its the best use of time and energy in this battle.Post 71
but these operations have the potential to harden the hearts of young women not yet pregnant - but who will become pregnant. It’s these potential back end abortions I am talking about.
These operations generate a lot of bad press and frankly, even though I support their cause 100% - I’ve never felt good about them.
Just out of curiosity, are you aware of ANY good press that the mainstream media has EVER given the pro-life movement? If avoiding bad press is the goal the entire conservative movement might as well pack it in.
You either show where I ever said that we should "Just ignore abortion" or you can just STFU your hateful pharisaical self.
And I've done that. I don't get called a Pharisee much, usually I'm compared to the Taliban (last go around you compared me to Hamas for not going along with same-sex "marriage").
And I'm wondering, in regards to your Post 90, what anti-FReeper forums do you frequent? I only ask because anti-FReepers are the ones who seem to think I'm a woman.
Thank you for your direct and unequivocal response.
...If we had employed more successful tactics, and been thinking about PR and how to reach people who don't think the way we do, NOT only would the babies who have been saved, been saved...but many more.
It seems that what you are saying is that for political and public relations purposes certain non-violent tactics that have saved and do save individual persons from being killed ought to be opposed. Your argument seems to be based on the utilitarian presupposition that moral rightness in these instances is determined by what leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It assumes that good PR and politics will save more children.
A utilitarian ethic such a this requires us assess what the outcome of each choice will be before we make it and the moral value of our actions is determined by the outcome, ie, the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
I object to a purely utilitarian ethic, if indeed that is what you are driving at, because our choices ought to be made out of wholehearted obedience to God’s revelation, not merely because we might think that there is a more efficient way to go about bringing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. If you make the perceived benefits of an act the sole basis of its moral value then we are essentially forced to rely on our own finite knowledge to determine the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which is impossible for our unaided reason precisely because we are finite and we are simply unable to calculate all the variables.
The group numbers do not always seem to be the determining factor:
10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.12 “What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? 13 And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Matthew 19: 10-14
Cordially,
You omit one important matter; that being the cowardice of the evangelical church leadership - specifically Charles Stanley, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. Randy was a very young man sorely in need to more wisdom than he had. Falwell and Dobson supported the tactic verbally, but failed to actually walk the walk to the doors. Stanley preached against the tactic from his pulpit.
If it's the tactic itself of rescue that you object to, then we can get into that. But, it must be acknowledged that, for all his myriad faults, failures and shortcomings, Randy brought the abortion matter to the forefront of the nation's consciousness. Too many of us cowered when the fight got hot.
I was there from the day OR hit Atlanta until I left in December of 1988.
You made some good points, but most of them I agree with, and therefore they were meaningless points for you to debate me on. It was only in your imagination that I said “purely utilitarian” or “purely results” oriented. I never ever ever ever ever said any such thing. In fact, in my first post, I made it clear that results are NOT THE ONLY thing that matters - but I said, and still contend, that they are among those things that matter.
That you jumped to that, based your entire post on that extremely flawed premise, could be mistaken for, oh, I don’t know...maybe insecurity? Maybe down deep you think I may have a point?
Let me put this in perspective for you. In the late 80s and early 90s, I was a conservative, and I was pro life on the basis of biological reality, but I was not a Christian. I was churched all my life, but as I understand salvation, that did not occur until November 22, 1991, about 8:00 in the morning at a men’s Bible study group.
So as I watched Randall Terry and OR as a pro life conservative, I was always hesitant to think this was the way to win this war. As it turned out, in early 92, Terry came to Raleigh to speak. I attended, and I was amazed at how dynamic and intelligent and knowledgable he was - on many non social issues as well as the pro life issue.
I also had a catch in my spirit about the pride he took in Operation Rescue, and how arrogant he was in dispatching several questions raised to him similar to the question I raised here. So my point is this: if I have a bit of a queasy reaction to operations like this as a pro life conservative, both as a non Christian and a Christian - how much more damaging might it be to those who are not predisposed to believe as we do?
I submit it may be significantly damaging. SUBMIT, as in THEORY. Your abject defensiveness and arrogance reminds me of Randall Terry’s. Are you Randall?
What you said!!
Okay Wags, try this. This is from a book called “The Tangible Kingdom” - co authored by some pastors. Think about this:
“Focusing on what we say (or do) without regard to how we say or do it doesn’t work in a marriage, with our kids, in politics, or in any other social arrangement. So why do we think it would work with God? Do we think He is happy with us alienating His world?
“We assume that if we just get the idea across, then it will be up to the person to respond, whether we do it correctly or not. Maybe we also think that in order to get God’s approving glance, it’s our duty to share “truth” - even if our modus operandi is “Obnoxious for Jesus...and loving it.”
NOW: this is not sacred scripture, but it is a reasoned approach. This is page 41 in that book BTW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.