I touched on this subject in a response, so I thought I would bring it out in the open.

I do oppose abortion, but a study of history shows the bloodshed that occurred prior to 1973 in areas abortion was banned. Back-alley abortions occurred, and young women died in these underground clinics. If abortion was banned again, or if the right to ban abortion was returned to the states, we face not only underground abortion clinics, but also the black marketing of abortion pills (technology, it's good and bad). Both would be unregulated, resulting in what kind of suffering for those seeking illegal abortion?

This nightmare scenario, which most pro-lifers seem to deny is even possible, is why I don't get all hyped up on the standard pro-life positions. We need to spend less time picketing clinics and more time counseling young pregnant women on the alternatives to aborting their child. We need to spend less time writing our congressman and more time witnessing to teenagers. We need to give less to right to life political organizations and more to pregnancy crisis centers who help young women who decide to carry and keep the child.

Honestly, where do you think Jesus would be, beside a pregnant teenager telling her that He loved her and that baby in her, or would he be out campaigning for a prolife candidate?

Let's be like Jesus.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Answers

Yeah.....to what Scott and Mike said.

Scott....I would disagree with you slightly. When Jesus reaffirmed the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".....I think that summed it up.

I know, I know....I'm being petty.

You know you da man!!!

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

And to add to what John says......Kevorkian stuff doesn't even make the front page anymore....if at all!!!

We are ending up exactly where Francis Schaeffer said we would back in the late 70's and early 80's....i.e., a culture of death.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Jon....

There are plenty of instances where picketing has opended doors for the futherance of the gospel.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Mark...this is the most ludicrous pro-choice garbage I have read in a long time. You don't oppose abortion, let's be honest (as you say) you clearly think it is an out-of-reach and unattainable ideal to ban abortion on demand in the U.S..

Do you need a lesson again on this issue of pro-life over pro-death? The fact of the matter is, over 97% of abortions that occur (those we have records of at least) are abortions for reasons of convenience - you know that as well as I.

AND, (and that is a big and - I mean this is the "alla" in Greek) come on, my friend. Are you so naively idealistic to think that back- alley abortions do not occur in the U.S. today? You said, "Both would be unregulated, resulting in what kind of suffering for those seeking illegal abortion?"

My response to that kind of lunacy...it is quite idealistic to think such things aren't already occurring, my friend.

You said we need to stop all the political involvement (to sum it up) and start more one-on-one with those touched by this horrific crime. I say, why can't we do both?

You have opted for a position that is just the type of attitude and position that will foster more and more death in this nation until we wake up and hear the screams of the innocent. I will do what it takes to rescue those innocent being led off to slaughter. I will peacefully picket, I have written my congressman, I have spoken with potential pres. candidates about their views on this issue, I have written letters...but I have also counseled with hurting men and women who have aborted their babies, I have given more money and time and effort to more girls than I know who have chosen to keep their child instead of kill it. And my wife and I will adopt a child in the future because we feel it is our obligation in this issue.

I don't say any of that to pat myself on the back, but I do say it as one "idealist" that abortion is a holocaust upon our nation, and just like the first holocaust...it is sadly Christians like you who largely ignored the first one in Germany (either because they felt there was nothing they could do or they were just apathetic). I, the idealist, have chosen to keep the fire of passion burning over this issue and it is 100%, most certainly, a litmus test for any candidate. Even my local Sheriff.

I hope you wake up from your comfortable slumber and truly begin to hear the cries of the perishing innocent instead of taking such an apathetic view that you have.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Mark,

Were you on a soapbox when you wrote that? {:o)

WHy can't we do all of the above? There are many of us out here that do spend a lot of time working with crisis preganancy centers, encouraging adoption, finding adoptive parent, etc, etc. I have and am involved in those. I have also walked the lines. I do not think they are the most efficient thing to do nowadays because of the media spin (i.e., we are all compared to insane bombers).

If you research some more, you will find that after RvW back alley abortions skyrocketed. It has since come way down, but I do not feel that is the result of legalized abortion, it is the result of the fact that there is no longer a since of shame about becoming pregnant out of wedlock (another thread perhaps).

Since the issue is not directly dealt with in the NT, you cannot say what Jesus would do. I do know that He loves children, and would have nothing to do with their massare.

You seem to give us the option of sanitary murder as opposed to bloody murder. ISTM that the "bloody" part would be quite a deterent.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

I guess I am prepared to Lee-like in writing, I shouldn't start these issues.

Interesting, back alley abortions went up after RvW. I will have to independently verify that for myself. For the moment, I will trust that -- in fact, I would imagine in many parts of the country, back alley abortions remain common -- seems like I recall hearing that it is a six hour one way trip from Lincoln Nebraska to the nearest abortion clinic.

You don't oppose abortion, let's be honest (as you say) you clearly think it is an out-of-reach and unattainable ideal to ban abortion on demand in the U.S.

No, I don't believe it out of reach and unattainable. I just think the real issue is not abortion. The real issue is how we much value we place on life. Oh, great portions of this country are up in arms on abortion, but it seems breathing is all that matters. Forget about quality of life, and providing opportunities for life to be worth living. How different is the attitude of its my land I will do with it what I want, its my factory I will pollute what I want, and these are my rights you better not trample them as I use my rights to trample on the environment, the poor, (fill in the blank) etc. from the attitude of its my body, I will do with it what I please? If we could shift this country's overall worldview, we would have no problem banning abortion. Shouldn't we spend our efforts on promoting a Christian worldview? Maybe I am the idealistic one, maybe I am being unrealistic, when I hop up on my soap box and expound that if we could all adapt a more Christian worldview (yes, that would involve evangelism), then this country's attitude (and laws) would shift so that pornography (especially child porno), abortion, sexual morals, etc. etc. would not be so anti-God.

I hope you wake up from your comfortable slumber and truly begin to hear the cries of the perishing innocent instead of taking such an apathetic view that you have. What slumber? My thoughts aren't to stop the fight, but to shift the battlefield! Suppose the fight against abortion was won on the terms we are fighting it in this country. Do you think the battle would be over? NO. The pro-choicers would adapt our tatics as best they could and fight back. Right now, they have pretty much have the upper hand by holding the advantage in the status quo. We fight for a Prez who will appoint pro-life justices, if we win, they will fight for a prez who will appoint pro-choicers. The battle continues. To win once and for all, the tactics have to change. Supporting or opposing candidates because of shades of gray on abortion isn't going to cut it. There are greater questions. Does a candidate support interpretations of the Constitution and current laws to allow student prayer groups on our campuses? Does a candidate support interpretations that allow Christians to gather freely on public grounds? In some areas (like in Texas), schools can't be used for church assemblies unless the church has deed on land in the district. These hinders church plantings in fast growing areas. What do your local candidates think of that? On and on these sorts of questions could go, why aren't we asking them? In summary, I am talking about changing the battle plan, not giving up the fight.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Tell me, exactly who decides what "quality of life" is not worth living?

We can evangelize while at the same time save the life of literal millions of babies - this is not an either/or situation. I don't think anyone here disagrees about changing the world to be Christian - but while we're having our Sunday Socials the kids are dying (I have nothing against socials nor do I think that that is the extent of evangelism - at least for most Churches).

We don't need a new battleplan The one we've got is great if we would but implement it. It's called the Gospel. We don't need a new plan. What we need is to fight the battle on ALL fronts instead of picking and choosing.

Again I say it, abortion is where the choice of candidate BEGINS. Everything else follows. I may only have a choice of somewhat pro- life versus pro-abortion and then I'll take the somewhat guy and wait till next time. But that is where it starts for me.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Not only are there still back-alley abortions today (and probably -- although nobody is doing a study on this, for obvious reasons -- as many as before abortion on demand started), but we have become a society so calloused regarding the sanctity of life that throwing newborn babies into trash dumpsters has become epidemic in this country (yesterday there was a front-page LA Times article on the subject). Mothers drive their kids into lakes because they are "inconvenient". We kill newborns while they are half out of the birthing canal and call it a "partial birth abortion." New evidence is coming to light that abortion doctors are in the illegal business of selling fetal parts, often killing babies who have survived botched abortions to harvest their organs and tissues.

This apathy for the sanctity of life that has been spawned out of the abortion trade has had far-reaching and devastating effects. Already one state allows people to become accomplices in suicide (a hair- breadth away from premeditated murder), and others are following suit. A prominent university professor advocates killing the unborn in the womb if they are "undesirable" (handicapped, etc.), and even killing handicapped and elderly who have become a "burden on society," and he is not censured. People poo-poo'd the "slippery slope" idea years ago, when this all began ... but look where we are now! When do we say enough is enough? Last one to commit suicide, please turn off the lights?

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

I like Nelta's "Letter From the Future" in a different thread...humorous, but I think it applies here. Where do we draw the line? Why not abortions up to the sixth year, not just the sixth month? We medicate out children because they are an "incovenience" to our "lifestyle," so why not go for the gusto?

Of course I am being ridiculous. Abortion is murder, period. Thanks to some creative redefining, murder is a medical procedure, "abortion." On the other end of the medical spectrum it is "euthanasia." The only solution to end this madness is for our society to wake up from its hedonistic haze and regain some absolute morality. Unfortunately, I do not think this will ever happen, because there are too many who make an actual profit or profit in some other way from it. To be blunt, they love sin, and don't want to stop.

Our problem is that the "other side" will never hear what we have to say. Until the morality of schools (at all levels, from elementary to college/university) changes, and our legislatures realize that their function is to not answer polls, but to sometimes protect the society from itself by insisting on a clear societal standard which enhances, rather than degrades, we are talking to a brick wall. Ours in America is a post-Christian society, and we are talking a different language than everyone else.

Oh oh, I'm drifting from my point. I don't think we should "give up the fight" against abortion. But I also think we should realize that reality is that the real battle is moral, not political, and in the heart, not in the courtroom. We need to change our tactics.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Perhaps not change our tactics ... perhaps add to them?

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

How many battle fronts do you want to fight at once?

God maybe unlimited, but are we?

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Our FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) is spiritual, for the conversion of souls, one at a time...and our tactic is preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Oversimplification? I don't think so. The major changes in society in the previous century was always due to the Gospel being preached, which caused a softening of hearts, and a greater concern for God's righteousness. Picketing will never change hearts...only the Gospel can.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Danny -

I will agree with you. It is my opinion though that the abortion protests have created too much negative, and can be counter- productive. This is a complicated subject, too much so to explain in a few bullet comments, but what it all boils down to me is that the battle for abortion is in the realm of changing hearts more than in the realm of changing minds. This is the best solution for ME, and not necessarily the only answer. Waging the war on two or three (or more) fronts is not unrealistic. Some can picket, some can witness, some can write, some can pursue litigation, some can pursue legislation. By making a concerted, unified effort, then the victory be won. Yes, I stand corrected.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Mark:

I normally avoid political matters. My reasons are that I firmly believe that as Christians we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth and we are citizens of the kingdom of God. I fight this battle with two weapons, the word of God and Prayer. I preach the gospel to the lost and work to convert them to Christ. To the extent that I am successful in this endeavor I will limit the number of abortions by the number of conversions to Christ. I pray to God for those who are lost that he will help them to not advance in evil but that He would grant them opportunities to hear the gospel. I pray that he will prick the consciences of these evil women who desire to kill their own children and evil men who are complicit with them.

However, I want to say something about your following words:

"I do oppose abortion, but a study of history shows the bloodshed that occurred prior to 1973 in areas abortion was banned. Back-alley abortions occurred, and young women died in these underground clinics. If abortion was banned again, or if the right to ban abortion was returned to the states, we face not only underground abortion clinics, but also the black marketing of abortion pills (technology, it's good and bad). Both would be unregulated, resulting in what kind of suffering for those seeking illegal abortion?"

I see the distinction between abortions done with the approval of society in a nice clean safe and sanitary clinic with a professional physician performing it and a dirty filthy unsanitary Back-Alley clinic with a quack performing the same evil deed in a completely different light.

. There is indeed a difference between murder committed in the darkness of a back alley because of societies stern disapproval of such evil and the murderer taking all the risk that comes with the evil desire to kill. And one committed in the light by a professional "angel of death" as an accomplice with the murderer, with the approval of society, to protect the murderer from all of the dangers involved in the act of committing this evil.

For in the darkness evil must hide its ugly head and those who chose it must face all the dangers and consequences of that choice. I do not feel any sympathy for a woman who chooses to kill her child and is forced by society to go into the darkness of a back alley to risk her life in the commission of this evil crime against God, society and her own flesh and blood! If banning abortions would improve societies respect for life such that we all together force these evil workers back into the darkness and to do their evil and lose their lives as a consequence of their sins against God then let it be! We do not need, as Christians, to support, aid and abet these evil women who want to kill their own children. I will give them no aid and comfort whatsoever! None! If they die a horrible death in the process committing a crime of this nature it is their choice. I would do my best to preach Christ to them that they would turn from their evil but I will not become complicit with them in the commission of this evil just to "protect" these "poor helpless murderers" from dying of infection as a consequence of their evil choice. Oh, yes, I am pro choice. You can chose evil or good, God or Satan, right or wrong, good and bad. I will tell you of Christ and offer you the choice. But I am also pro consequence. If one chooses to jump off the empire state building I expect him to be allowed to meet the consequence of that choice in full and unmerciful force. If one chooses to kill their child I feel no desire to prevent them from the consequences of that choice whatever that may be. The idea that we must not ban abortions because we must protect these murdering women from the terrible dangers of a back alley clinic is absurd! It seems that we actually are foolish enough to think that we must see that they do not face any risk of the loss of their own life while they are in the act of taking the life of another human being! It may be my former military background that makes me have no feelings for them but I can tell you that I have absolutely no compassion for such murderers until they repent! We do not treat other murderers this way now do we?

As things are at present evil women are committing murderer of innocent children in their mother's womb mostly because their children will inconvenience them. Before abortion was legal they had to choose to face dire consequences for killing their innocent children. But now they are prevented from those harsh consequences. Now we are very diligent to ensure that these evil women never must face life's responsibilities much earlier than they had planned because of a choice that they made to use the God-given sexual drive as a mere tool of pleasure with no "strings attached". Those who claim to be pro choice are in reality "anti-consequences". But you cannot have it both ways. If I must give you the right to choose you have no right to expect me to deny you the responsibility of facing the natural consequences of your choices! Choice and consequence go together like "hand and glove" and God has so joined them that the one who tries to "part them asunder" will do nothing more than bring the consequence upon him. So society today, in this abortion debate is doing nothing more that taking upon itself the consequences that are due to the perpetrator of this evil murder of innocent children. Eventually this consequence will become a "culture of death" that cannot be stopped and the generation that shifted responsibility from the murderer to the society that aided the murderess will die at the hands of their own philosophy! Mark that down in a book somewhere and watch. Already, on the foundation of abortion on demand rest the structure of the soon to be completed addition. Yes the final addition to this monstrosity, an evil that our previous generation fought against Hitler to prevent. Yes an evil that the devil failed to impose by force directly upon society from Germany he now has deceived a free society to accept. Yes, it is the newest wing of the hospital where those who support abortion will die at the hands of their own families who have decided that they are too much trouble for them to handle. Watch it!

I pray for our nation but I will not be swayed from my course of preaching the gospel to save this society from the consequences of its evil choices. Only those who come to Christ will be spared this horrible evil. We do not need to go into politics brethren. We need to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." It is not my purpose to save society, American or otherwise. It is my intent to save the souls of men through preching the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

I disagree with you, Brother Staffold, in that I believe we are to be salt, as well as light; the moral preservatives of our society as well as the ambassadors of the good news. That means being active in the government which Paul says is God's servant to that end. That being said, otherwise ...

WELL SAID! AMEN!

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

John:

I appreciate your correction. I agree that we should be the moral presevatives of society as the "salt of the earth" yet we must be careful not to think that political means are primary weapons in these battles. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal". We must avoid the danger of leaving the gospel to persue political objectives no matter how noble they may be. I believe that we are basically in agreement on that score.

I do understand what you mean. I can see that my post implied that we should just stand idly by while the world goes its way to perdition but I really did not intend to leave that impression. It was my hope to emphasis that our spritual tools of the Gospel and the truth are indeed the most effective and useful ones. They must not be neglected while we seek a political resolution of this terrible blight on our society.

Thank you for your correction.

YOur Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 03, 2000

I like the idea a kid came up with in Half Moon Bay, CA.

I was standing in a one man abortion protest when three kids drove up in a black pickup. The driver said, " Let them get born, we can kill them later."

My Brother Stephen wanted to have his child but the woman would not hear of it. Any of my family would have taken the child. No need to kill the kid.

In a conversation with one of my sisters years later the woman poured out her regrets.....and on and on and on it will go 'till they meet again and the child says, "Why did you kill me?"

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

If you want to know where all this apathy is leading to, just watch 20/20 tonight & see for yourselves what "we", as such a sofisticated nation, is doing with these precious arrows from the Lord!

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2000

Missed the 20/20, but here is the summary I got through Religion Today feature story (to subscribe, send a blank e-mail to join-featurestory@lists.crosswalk.com)

C U R R E N T F E A T U R E S T O R Y by the Editors of ReligionToday

March 10, 2000

Sales of baby parts lead to investigation

Congress is looking into the sale for profit of aborted baby parts. A subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives began hearing testimony March 9.

...It is legal to use the tissue of aborted babies for medical research as long as it is donated, not sold, by the woman. Federal law allows companies that collect, preserve, and ship the tissues to researchers to recoup their costs -- but not to make money.

...The Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health and the Environment is investigating four companies, and has found evidence that they may be selling tissue for profit, Rep. Thomas Bliley, a pro-life Republican from Virginia who chairs the Commerce Committee, told ABC News.

...Pro-choice members of the committee had tried to exclude the public and the media from the hearings, saying they were afraid that militant abortion foes might retaliate against the parties involved, news reports said. Both the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee accused abortion-rights advocates on the committee of concealing the gruesome information because it would outrage the American public.

...The night before the hearings, the ABC television news magazine 20/20 spotlighted what it described as a body-parts industry.

..."People are profiteering and basically making a buck by getting tissue and distributing it," Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, told 20/20. "It's a sleazy business."

...Fetal tissue became available for medical research in 1993, when President Clinton, after two days in office, lifted a long-standing ban. It is in demand because doctors believe it may be the key to cures and improved treatment for diabetes, Alzheimer's, AIDS, and Parkinson's disease. Some researchers use particular fetal cells, while others require whole organs or limbs.

...Congress put safeguards in place to prevent trafficking of body parts. It passed a law making it a felony to buy or sell the tissue for profit; companies that collect, preserve, and ship the tissues to researchers may charge reasonable fees for their costs.

...Despite the government's attempts to regulate fetal tissue research, there is evidence that companies may be violating the law, ABC said, by buying and selling fetal body parts, influencing consent to donate, and modifying abortion procedures.

..."This is purely for profit. Everything was about money," Dean Alberty told 20/20. Alberty, a medical technician, worked for two companies that served as middlemen by getting fetuses from abortion clinics and shipping them to researchers.

...The program also showed a hidden-camera interview conducted by an ABC producer, pretending to be a potential investor, with Dr. Miles Jones, a pathologist who runs a business called Opening Lines, which puts out a brochure listing fetal-organ prices.

..."It's market force," Jones said about how he sets his prices. "It's what you can sell it for." Jones said in the interview that he hoped to run his own abortion facility in Mexico where he could get a bigger supply of tissue by offering cheaper abortions. "If you control the flow, it's probably the equivalent of the assembly line," he said.

...Alberty told 20/20 correspondent Chris Jones that he put together one of the firm's price lists -- from $325 for a spinal cord to $999 for a brain -- prices, he says, that far exceeded the company's costs. He said the companies for which he worked sometimes told him to take tissue from fetuses that were not intended for research, and that some women were put through longer, more uncomfortable abortion methods to yield better tissue.

...Alberty said he was originally pro-choice, but was so disturbed by what he saw that he contacted Life Dynamics (see link #1 below), a Texas pro-life group that paid him $10,000 to be an informant. He denies that he has made up stories to push a political agenda. "I will stand behind my words until I die. I will go in front of Congress if I have to and testify under oath."

...But ABC did not air Alberty's "eyewitness accounts of live babies who were dissected and their organs harvested while still functioning," Judie Brown of the American Life League said. "In these cases, according to Alberty, abortions were not performed. Instead babies were born alive in order to procure undamaged fetal specimens," she said.

..."It's not the fact that these children are being brutally murdered and then chopped to bits, but rather the fact that money is being made on bodies that had been donated - that's what had 20/20 upset," Brown said. "It's not the murder of our little innocent babies, but rather the fact that mom didn't give her consent to her child's further demolition for someone else's profit."

...Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, told Religion Today that demand for fetal tissue for use (see link #2 below) in medical research is what drives the demand for late-term abortions. "It is altering the way abortions are being done. Clinics are trying to produce more intact fetuses. It is driving their desire to keep partial-birth abortions legal." Only partial-birth abortion provides an intact fetus that can be sold, he said.

...The contention that partial-birth abortions preserve the health of the mother "is laughable," Crutcher said. "If the mother's health is truly at stake, why would a doctor order a procedure that takes two to three days and requires a very risky breach delivery? The motive for partial-birth is money."

...Crutcher produced a video in which a pro-life "spy" who purchases fetal tissue from abortion clinics was interviewed. The video alleges that, in some cases, live babies are born by mistake but quickly killed. The spy reportedly decided to work with Life Dynamics after witnessing a set of twins who were alive outside the mother drowned by the doctor.

...The tape also includes an interview with Eric Harrah, former owner of a string of abortion clinics (see link #3 below) who became a pro-life advocate. Harrah now alleges some of the same abuses that Crutcher recounts.

...The Traditional Values Coalition (see link #4 below) is among groups that have been active in opposing the sale of fetal tissue. Legalization of the practice "has led to the birth of an entire industry that profits by selling body parts - just like a junk yard sells car parts from wrecked cars," the group said.

...The companies that sell body parts produce promotional brochures and consent forms for women having abortions. The full-color glossy brochures describe how abortionists "can turn their [patient's] decision into something wonderful." For researchers, the companies send brochures offering "fresh fetal tissue: harvested and shipped to your specification" when and where it is needed, news reports said

...The tactics could increase abortions by making women feel less guilty about having one, anti-abortion groups said. Federal law requires that a woman must have decided to have an abortion before she can be asked to donate fetal tissue, in order to limit coercion. Also, the method of abortion may not be altered to get a better specimen.

...Sale of fetal parts for profit is "the inevitable logical progression of a society that, like Darwin, believes we came from nothing," Gene Rudd of the Christian Medical and Dental Society's Bioethics Commission told commentator Charles Colson. "When we fail to see life as sacred and ordained by God as unique, this is the reasonable conclusion, the inevitable slide down the slippery slope."

----------- RELATED LINKS: 1: http://www.ldi.org/ 2: http://www.religiontoday.com/Archive/FeatureStory/view.cgi?file=1999007.s1.html 3: http://www.religiontoday.com/Archive/FeatureStory/view.cgi?file=1998024.s1.html 4: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/fetal/fetal.html

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Well,

I saw the 20/20 report - vile & disgusting is about the only way to describe it. It was reminiscent of the movie "Coma" from back in the 70's. In that movie, doctors were intentionally causing brain-death in selected surgery patients in order to "part-out" their organs for profit. The only trouble is, in the 70's it was science fiction, today it has become reality. America is literally killing itself for a buck !

How long can the Lord allow this to go on before He crushes this nation?

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

I think its sad that people are more offended that these things are being done outside the law than that these things are being done. If they were legal, it seems most people wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

That's exactly the point, John.

The people's minds, senses, and morals have become so dulled by the world's ideas that they are willing to accept whatever the Gov't (or the media) tells them is ok. If we don't wake up soon, there won't be anybody left to wake up.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000