PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

We believe that abortion is infanticide, and that a holocaust of infants is taking place. We do not believe that there is any other issue on Earth that compares with abortion in moral import. And therefore, there is no policy or combination of policies you Republicans can offer, including perfect tax policies, tort reform, and every other thing that is near and dear to Republican hearts, that matters a damn if abortion is overlooked and allowed to slide by.

We know that this issue has to be settled in the Supreme Court, nowhere else. And we know that the opportunity to put new justices on the court comes once in a decade, maybe, and that the current opportunity to alter the complexion of the court is not going to come again for a generation. Therefore, the real possibility exists that abortion can finally be seriously curtailed, soon, by the Supreme Court changing Roe v. Wade or eliminating it...IF, and ONLY IF, we can get pro-life judges on that court.

To do that, we have trusted the Republicans for years. We just came out and voted for you again this time, in unprecedented numbers, because we are not stupid and we know what is at stake. Not just evangelicals either. The religious CATHOLIC vote went Republican in 2004, and they didn't do it because of trade policy or even gay marriage. Their issue is abortion.

So, if the Republicans allow Senator Specter to get the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and he blocks pro-life nominees, or if the Republicans do not use the nuclear option to override Democrat filibusters of pro-life nominees, THIS TIME there is no place for Republicans to hide. WE KNOW that you have the power, now, because WE just voted to give it to you. We understand that you can block Specter. And we understand the nuclear option.

And therefore, we most certainly will understand that if you allow the pro-life judges to be blocked, that it will be your political CHOICE to have done so. You CAN put pro-life judges on the bench, if you expend a lot of political capital. This will offend some people - a lot of people. And that is the price you HAVE to pay to get our votes next time. You have to be willing to bet the whole house to end infanticide.

If not, we will not vote for you. We won't go running to vote for the Democrats: they're pro-abortion. We won't go out and form a third party: we're not stupid and know that won't work. We'll just stay home, just like we did in 2000. Except that in 2000 it was out of frustration and neglect, and the lack of belief that anything will change. There was no organized campaign to keep the pro-life vote home in 2000.

This time, it's different. We understand the system, and we know that you have the power. And we demand that you use the power straight down the line to fill the high court and the appellate courts with judges who will protect the lives of babies. Period. This is not negotiable. At all. This is why we voted for you. You have nothing with which to bargain with us, and if you screw us, we will stay organized and we will stay home purposely to destroy the Republican party. Because if you do not protect the babies when you have the power to do it, you are no better than the Democrats...and worse, you will have lied to us.

This means, in effect, that all of those things YOU care most about: taxation, immigration, trade and business policy, deregulation - all of those core issues that come as an economic package, are held hostage to our issue: babies. If you will not protect the babies, we will stay home and let the Democrats destroy everything that YOU believe in.

This is called "Chicken". It is called a "Mexican Standoff". And since we are fired up by the certitude that we are doing God's work in defending babies, we cannot be bought, and you cannot win so much as an election for dog catcher in this country without us.

Therefore, the solution is simple and obvious: give us what we voted for you to do. Give us pro-life judges. Use all of your power to do it. Sweep Specter out of the way: is he worth losing all the rest of your agenda? - because we really will stay home and throw the country to the Democrats if you're no better than they are on abortion, just to punish YOU for having betrayed us. When the filibusters come, and they will come, use the nuclear option to override them. That will poison the Senate, yes. So what? We are talking about babies here. And with our votes, militantly mobilized because we are winning, alongside of yours, in 2006 and 2008 and beyond, even if the Senate is poisoned, you will be able to replace it with a more Republican one.

That there is even a debate going on as to what to do with Specter is alarming, but we have had our hearts broken before, so we'll sit and pray and trust President Bush and Senator Frist and the Republicans to do the right thing.

Screw us, though, and we will turn on you and your whole agenda will go down the drain with the blood of the babies you wouldn't put your power on the line to save.

The easy solution, the win-win solution, is to BE as pro-life as you campaigned as being. Just do it.

I apologize for the length of this post. But it needed to be said. The Republicans do not seem to get it. They need to understand that we are more committed to saving babies than we are to the fortunes of the Republican Party. That Specter is still in play demonstrates that too many of them do not take this seriously.

Rather than test us, what you guys should do is simply cave, now, and give us what we want. Do that, and you wont hear from us again - there will be no creeping theocracy in America - because this is about the only religious issue that Catholics and Orthodox and Evangelicals AGREE on.

I am pro-life/anti-abortion, but I hold strong in my belief that the government has no place in dictating this. I do not understand why there is such a militant attempt to have our government oversee and enforce this issue. Yes, it is a moral issue; it is God's issue; it is a faith issue; it is a religious issue. And yes, a majority elected our president again this fall, but there still exists a very large majority on all sides who, despite the depth of their religious or moral values, believe firmly in the separation of church and state.

The beauty of our great country is that we are tolerant. We were founded by various religious groups who fled from countries that persecuted their religious practices. We wanted freedom of religion and we got it. But the crux to owning this freedom is that we must always be tolerant of others and allow all individuals to express their beliefs. If we begin to force our beliefs onto everyone, we stop being the glorious nation we have always been. We lose the status we have always strived to achieve. Our nation is not a fixed thing, it changes with the times. We did elect the president again, but only by a narrow margin. Our laws have changed over the years because our nation is not a fixed thing. We need to be respectful of all people, all religions, all cultural mores and values, not just those that we so dearly believe in. This is a hard cross to bear, but you see, if we honor our roots, we cannot take away the freedom of all in the pursuit of our own beliefs.

Can we not find a way to champion our beliefs without dividing our great nation? Can we not find a way to end, or at least vastly slow down the rate of abortion without declaring civil war?

Remember the words our Mothers taught? Choose your battles wisely. If this battle is chosen, it will spell great strife for our country. Our country must be strong at this time in history. If we divide ourselves, we will fall. Divided we fall. But united we stand.

Does the war against abortion have such a high priority that we will sacrifice our nation in the quest to win it? If so, then no one wins. We all lose, but perhaps the terrorists will win....

The Fallacy and Sheer Stupidity of Roe Vs Wade -- Case in
point, Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson has been found guilty on two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci and unborn son, Conner.

Because of California's fetal homicide law, Scott Peterson was convicted of a double Homicide. This is driving Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League and NOW (National Organization of Women) absolutely batty

How could this be possible, they lament, since it is lawful to kill unborn children right up to term?

I certainly can understand their plight, but I must say that I am relishing in it. They were told by the Supreme Court that since no one knows when human life begins, that killing a child in the womb would be perfectly legal right up to term.

So, how could Scott Peterson be charged with a double
homicide, if the unborn child was not a human being?

Well, it seems that the only way a person could kill an unborn child and get off scott (pardon the pun) free is if the killing is done by licensed physician, as long as the woman gives her permission.

In trying to figure this thing out, the only conclusion that I can arrive at, is that the unborn child is not a human being if the mother wants her child dead, BUT if third party kills the child without permission from the mother, then and only then is the child a human being.

Now, let me see if I have this right. An unborn child is a
human being and entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of
happiness and if killed, the perpetrator should have the book thrown at him, as in the Peterson case.

But if the mother has her unborn child killed because the
child would be an inconvenience to her, then that child is no longer a human being.

Wow! This is news, a transfiguration right before our very eyes. Now a child -- Now not a child -- just nothing.

As anyone can plainly see, the Supreme Court in 1973 opened
up a can of worms because their decision was not based on the Constitution and not based on science. It was based on the warped minds of seven justices and from what I have read, a few of their wives.

In the majority opinion it was stated (the vote was 7 to 2) that no one knows when human life begins, thus justifying their conclusion.

Could it be the reason they did not know when human life
begins was because no "human" embryologist was called
in to testify. No reputable human embryologist would dare
to deny that human life begins at conception. Hmm, could
this be the reason, one was not called to testify?

Now that we have DNA which gives the ultimate proof that
human life begins at conception, one has to wonder why
these justices are not now reversing that horrendous decision in 1973, the same way the Dred Scott decision of 1857 was reversed.

This decision declared that black people were not full human beings and therefore could be held as slaves. Sound familiar?

Let me give you another example why the 1973 decision was ridiculous and not given much thought as to all of its ramifications, besides not being based on science or anything that's in the Constitution.

Picture this: A woman has a husband who is a licensed
physician. She told him to kill her unborn child, which is
perfectly legal, as the child is not a human being because
she gave permission.

Her doctor husband also wants to get rid of her because he
has met someone else. So instead of doing the abortion in
his office or hospital, he takes her to the seashore, where he stabs her in the abdomen. The child dies within minutes. As she is bleeding profusely, to take her out of her misery, he shoots her and then dumps her body with the child still in her womb into the ocean so the sharks and other fish could have a feast.

Now, the difference between this hypothetical case and the
Scott Peterson case is that the woman gave permission to
her doctor husband to kill her child, whereas Laci Peterson
did not. So, the doctor according to the law in California and other states which have a similar law, could only be charged with ONE murder. Right?

This is what happens when justices on the Supreme Court
put their ideology before science and common sense. You wind up with a legal mess.

The unborn child in all situations MUST be declared a human
being, and not just a human being when killed by an irate
husband, such as Scott Peterson. Especially since science
with its DNA tells us that human life is created at conception and I also might add the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Notice -- it does NOT say that all men are "born equal." It says, "all men are CREATED EQUAL (quite a difference) and since it's a scientific fact the human life is created at conception, then unborn children are protected, so says the Declaration of Independence.

So, what's the problem -- it's right there in black and white?

Maybe the Declaration of Independence should be required
reading for all attorneys and judges.

If only our judiciary would rely on science and not make up
things as they go along, the double homicide under the fetal law would not be open to interpretation.

AN UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS IF
THE CHILD IS WANTED OR NOT, OR WANTED DEAD OR NOT
AND REGARDLESS WHO KILLS THE CHILD, A PHYSICIAN
OR AN IRATE HUSBAND.

Then and only then will the conjecture be taken out of the
equation, but since we are a society where killing comes
easy and we are a self-indulgent country without pity for
children who are brutally killed, with many suffering
excruciating pain, this common sense and scientific
reasoning will never happen unless our country repents
this great sin of the American holocaust.

If not, there will be standing room only in hell and satan
will have a feast day.

Oh, I forgot, the hereafter should not be mentioned. Keep it secular and scientific. OK, forget the last sentence.

Frank Joseph MD

DFjosephMD@aol.com
http://www.hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortion.html

Such social victimization is, at least, one point that all of us, regardless of our positions on abortion, should recognize as a threat -- against the woman, against the child, against what it means to be a person with rights. http://www.l4l.org/library/aborrape.html

Schwarz, Chapter 10: "Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest, Health and Life of the Woman?" "The child conceived in rape is one of us, merely smaller and less developed and more dependent, and not in full view, but equally a person. Killing her is wrong, just as killing any child is wrong. We must remember that the child is absolutely innocent of the crime of her father. She is not a part of her mother's body, and she is not a part of her father's character. She inherits character traits from both her parents, but in her individual being as a person, she is absolutely distinct from both of them. Even the character traits that are received from a parent are now her own traits. The child is totally her own person. She is not responsible for the crime that led to her conception, and she is untainted by it.¹ Seeing her in these negative ways is sheer prejudice, not based on reality, but at odds with it." ^{www.ohiolife.org/mqa/10-0.asp}

Russell E. Saltzman, is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri, and editor of the independent Lutheran publication Forum Letter. This is reprinted with permission from the August 2002 Forum Letter, and is copyright 2002 by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. "Everything Personal: Children Born of Rape or Incest," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. "I belong to an on-line support group (me, in a sup- port group, there's a picture) composed of adult children born of rape or incest. There are more of us in the former category than the latter. Jennifer is our webmistress, organizer, facilitator, coach, head nanny, chief nag (though very nice about it), and the child of a violent rape. Mostly, I lurk. But for some in the group, I am a kind of unofficial chaplain and sometime pastoral advisor. There are children born before Roe v. Wade as well as children born after Roe v. Wade. The handles adopted by some in the group are evocative: "former fetus," "unawares angel," names like that." ^{www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16-1pg19.html}

Robert Hart, "Her Mother's Glory: The Hardest Abortion Case," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. " She is a young lady who spreads joy wherever she goes. She has a place in the lives of many, not only her new husband, her parents, and her brothers, but many who know her well, and many who have met her in passing-a unique place that no one else could fill. She is happy by nature at 23, married, an avid reader, a good friend, a serious Christian. This is the person that these well-meaning people were willing to sentence to death. Oh, not now, not when they can see her; but when she was in danger the first time, in the womb and hidden from view." ^{Her Mother's Glory by Robert Hart}

Pamela Pearson Wong, "Abortion's House of Cards," Concerned Women for America, Family Voice, January/February 2001. "I, having lived through rape and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest," says Kathleen DeZeeuw in Victims and Victors. "I feel we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story." We can begin by educating the public and legislators on what the women themselves-the victims of rape and incest-say about abortion. "Get Victims and Victors to legislators. Ask them to call for congressional hearings," says Dr. Reardon. "Urge them not to provide money for abortions resulting from rape or incest until they hear what the women say." ^{Concerned Women for America - Family Voice}

David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa and Amy Sobie (Editors), Victims and Victors (San Francisco, CA 94109: Acorn Books, 2000). "In Victims and Victors, 20 women like the ones quoted above share what it is like to face a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. They speak bravely and candidly of the pain of sexual assault, of the sadness and trauma of abortion, and of the joy and healing of giving birth." ^{Victims and Victors:Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies ...}

Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, Why Can't We Love Them Both, (Snowflake, AZ 85937: Heritage House 76, Inc., 1998) Chapter 29, Rape. States that 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies occur per year in the United States. ^{Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.}

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.