First off, he'd get kicked off of there faster than he could log on. Secondly, there's ALWAYS new people signing on to FR who need to see this stuff....but, I DO agree that the word needs to get OUT!
When will the choir start singing?
thanks Khepera, it's so easy to get distracted with the humdrum of everyday life. We need to be reminded often.
Letter #1 - baby seals and aborted babies, can you imagine?
Letter to the Editor (Any Newspaper, USA) (Current date)
In the year 2000, America is assumed to be more enlightened than three decades ago. Is it? I can remember when Americans were outraged by TV coverage of newborn seal pup fur harvesting.
Can you imagine?... Men clubbed newborns in the head and skinned the pitiful things, alive or dead, while the mothers looked on, then left the bloody carcass at the mother's wailing side and moved to the next one! Can you imagine such inhumane behavior?
Can you imagine, three decades later enlightened society now condones and promotes as a woman's right to choose the procedure known as partial birth abortion? How is it more enlightened to yank a 16 week or older prenatal infant feet-first from its mother's body, except the head, which remains lodged inside, then jam blunt-tipped scissors into the struggling infant's soft skull and suck out its brains so the remains pop out of the woman's body into the waiting hands of the aborticutionist. [Brain-body connections start working quite efficiently by week 16 from conception!] Is it enlightened to profit then from the baby's remains, by sending all or part of the *harvested* prenatal infant off to research departments?
The only difference is that now the behavior murders human babies and harvests the remains, instead of seal babies. Can you imagine? Right here in America, more than 10,000 times a year, this inhuman behavior and worse occurs. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, NOW, NARAL, and the DNC call it a woman's right to choose, and they're proud to promote it in order to get votes! Can you imagine?
Letter # 2 - Fetal Psychology article in Psychology Today Magazine
Letter to the Editor
Scientific studies prove womb-bound children are sensing and feeling much earlier than most people think it occurs. [Fetal Psychology, Psychology Today Magazine, Oct'98. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html ] A recently delivered woman can tell you they notice movement in their baby, usually around the fifth month from conception, but studies are now confirming that the feelings and sensing of the womb-bound begin around the fourth month (16 to 18 week period) from conception, when the brain and body have made the vast majority of nerve connections necessary for hearing, taste, sense of touch.
This is a startling thing which Americans need to know, since current policy allows abortions all the way through to term (40 weeks) and the assaulted child is not even given medication to block the pain! Pain? Yes, excruciating pain.
Can you imagine having an ankle crushed and leg dislocated in pulling your body from a car wreck or from out of a collapsed building?… Partial birth abortion accomplishes this quite often, pulling the infant almost all the way from the woman's body before killing for removal. There are other excruciating methods used for abortion. A super concentrated saline solution gets injected into the amniotic fluid, which scalds the child to death, causing the kidney's to fail and the heart to eventually stop. There is a long needle with poison, jabbed through the woman's abdomen and into the chest of the prenatal infant. Sadly, Ultrasound technicians often have to watch this as the doomed child struggles to avoid painful jabs.
Most Americans are not aware of the excruciating assaults being made on the womb-bound, sensing, feeling children killed in abortion clinics. Sensing, feeling, conscious children are being murdered in the womb … and it is painful for them.
Letter # 3 - Pro-choice and the misuse of the term 'life'
Letter to the Editor
Pro choice ... a woman's right to choose ...? Such phrases have been chosen to obscure reality, because the alternate ways to say it --choice to abort ... a woman's right to choose murder-- are loaded with negative connotations.
Science has proven that individual humans come to consciousness in the womb (wake up, if you will), along about the fourth month (16 to 18 week period) following conception. Those on the left in our country wish this to remain obscured. They don't want us to see that most abortions are infanticide.
The current debate has lost America's attention with simplistic catch-alls like 'pro choice' and 'pro life' and 'a woman's right to choose'. The word 'life' is parsed ambiguously. Consider two uses: 1) cellular level life; 2) consciousness in the individual life. One need only look at organ transplants to understand the ambiguity of cellular level life as contrasted with consciousness of the individual organism ... the whole has consciousness, the part, such as the heart or kidney, does not. Should human life be parsed that way? I don't think so, but that's how arguments regarding human stem-cells are framed.
Early stages of pregnancy have been framed with terms such as zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, that have lifeless connotation for average Americans. Try perceiving it this way: would our rule of law allow a woman to murder one of two infants, if she claimed that she could not adequately care for more than one child, or wanted to care for only one child? A prenatal becomes conscious while still in the womb. Shouldn't our rule of law protect these helpless souls? Americans should have an answer for this last question. It is a fundamental issue of our humanity!
Letter #4 - Supreme Court not rejecting the definition of abortion as murder
Letter to the Editor
The Supreme Court is getting a bum wrap. In a recent discussion with my cousin, he told me to stop spitting against the wind trying to change abortion policy, that the Supreme Court has declared abortion legally right even if I think it's morally wrong. Could that be? I looked up the rulings from 1973 to the present, to find out.
One thing came through like a sledge hammer: the Supreme Court has never set aside a state's statute by taking issue with the defined behavior, never overturned a state law by saying that abortion is not murder; the Court rulings have set aside state laws based on some technicality … a technical escape clause, not a cancellation of the defined criminal wrong doing.
If you witnessed a cold-blooded murder, were called to testify in court, the conviction was made, a verdict of guilty rendered, then some lawyer got the conviction set aside because the murderer was not read his Miranda rights, or because the arresting officer's prints were on the gun barrel, would you still have witnessed a murder? Yes, and the victim is still dead. The perp got away with murder, based on a technicality! Is murder legally right but morally wrong?… Murder is always wrong.
In the recent Stenberg v Carhart ruling, the Nebraska definition of partial birth abortion as murder of a human being was not rejected. The statute was set aside because the current Court requires a technically broader exception to allow the abortionist profiting from the killing to define a nebulous health need for killing of the living child. The Court accepts that it's murder, but wants wider technical outs. Abortion is murder, sometimes technically legal, but always wrong, even by the Supreme Court's rulings.
Letter #5 - Something terrible, killing conscious womb-bound infants
Letter to the Editor
Something so terrible is happening in America, to wrap the mind around the horror we must illustrate with an analogy.
Socio-economic conditions for some new mothers are so unbearable that a significant number are withholding life support, allowing their crib-bound infants to starve to death or die of infections due to poor sanitation. The pitiful state of the crib-bound infants has led some mothers to kill their crib-bound infants, thereby putting a quicker end to the infants' suffering.
Too horrible to contemplate?... Substitute the term womb-bound where you read crib-bound and this analogy fits for abortion policy in America. "Oh," you say, "This analogy is stupid. Crib-bound infants have started to sense their environment and it's murder to kill these babies by withholding life support." Here is the horror so hard to wrap the mind around: infants are sensing and feeling and aware and conscious by half-way in the 40 weeks development of pregnancy. Babies of 20 and 21 weeks from conception have been born prematurely and been saved to become thriving toddlers now.
Partial birth brain suction, saline scaldings, prostaglandin poisonings, and abandonment abortions (forced premature delivery then withholding care) are purposely killing babies just like these preemies, in the name of a woman's right to choose. That is the terrible thing happening too often in America.
It's far easier and less enslaving to give life support to a womb-bound infant than it is a crib-bound infant. Can't society welcome these babies at delivery? We must stop this womb-bound murder, or this nation will crumble in raging inhumanity. Once individual consciousness is in the womb, no matter what your religion, you can be sure it is murder to abort that child.
Letter #6 - Letter from future immigrant to House Judiciary Committee
Letter to the Editor
Dear United States House Judiciary Legislators: (Originally sent in 1998)
I look forward to immigrating to America, very soon, as would my many friends. We are very apprehensive that we will not be allowed to live in America. We have been listening to your music for the last few weeks. I prefer the classical music, and would like to spend my life adding to such music.
Some of my friends would like to be farmers, others would prefer teaching or engineering, and a few would like to become scientists. We understand that the sun shines warmly in America, that birds sing, cats meow, and cows moo in America. Where we live, we have been feeling this sunshine and hearing these wonderful sounds, and we look forward to seeing for ourselves the things that make this marvelous music of life in America. (Is it true that you have laws protecting the animals making these wonderful sounds? What a country you must have!)
I am writing because we have also heard disturbing words spoken by men and women debating our minority's right to immigrate. This letter is to request laws that will protect us, for we are disenfranchised. We understand that there are no laws granting us the unalienable rights in your Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We respectfully request that you address this inequity. Because we are conscious beings, we wish lawful immigration to your country with the simple expectation that our consciousness will be protected. Please address your debates to the minority of conscious prenatals. I look forward to soon being an American and thanking you in person.
Sincerely, Future immigrant.
Letter #7 - 'safe as a babe in mother's womb?'
Letter to the Editor
Recently a friend observed, "Maybe some day, with God's help, we can make the term, 'safe as a baby in it's mother's womb', something more than a sick joke."
Abortion advocates would take multiple issue with the above, first stating the 'thing' in the womb is not a baby … they will allow fetus (Latin for child), or any other term, but to say baby is off limits--it conveys too much reality!… Odd how a newly delivered mother knows when her baby was aware in her womb. Just ask her.
These same aborticution advocates will argue over the word 'safe', citing statistics of how many women die due to pregnancy, though the word obviously refers to babies not the women ('mothers' seems a bit of a stretch).
That brings the final disallowed notion, 'mother's womb'. Characterizing pregnancy thusly is 'unfair' to females seeking aborticution … an extension of the 'undue burden' argument used successfully before the Supreme Court to prevent Pennsylvania from forcing a woman, whose life is not threatened by pregnancy, to wait two or three days, to peruse literature which will allow her to make an informed decision before being complicit in murdering a conscious, aware, albeit womb-bound, child.
If any other class of humans besides womb-bounds were in such foreseeable danger of being murdered, it's a good bet the same aborticution advocates would be marching in the streets, demanding that the government do something to protect endangered human beings. Obviously, these advocates don't consider womb-bound children, human beings. But they're wrong, and We the People have been letting these wrong-headed people drive abortion policy in OUR nation, creating a holocaust numbering millions of victims!
(Your name)
(Your phone/address)