Well, I kept reading, as you see above. And my head gasket blew. Here is an oped I wrote for our local newspaper:
The Shame of Alfred Kinsey
The late Allan Bloom was an Indianapolis native who served as professor at University of Chicago. In The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom lamented the destruction divorce caused his students. Noting that parents often used therapists to help their children cope, Bloom wrote, “Psychologists are the sworn enemies of guilt.”
If therapists are the sworn enemies of guilt, sex researchers are the sworn enemies of shame—with IU’s Alfred C. Kinsey leading the pack.
Although hired by IU as a zoologist, in 1938 Kinsey contrived to land a job lecturing engaged and married seniors on “biology.” He ended the course by taking his students’ sexual histories.
Kinsey spent the rest of his academic career conducting these interviews and disseminating the data. He was convinced that publicizing peoples’ private sexual lives would usher in a more peaceful age devoid of shame and inhibition.
But his efforts did not bring the dawn of Aquarian freedom. Rather, one set of negative consequences was exchanged for another. The fruitful discipline of true morality was exchanged for the fruitless bondage of false morality. The Biblical law codified throughout the Western world over many centuries was exchanged for infinitely smaller and petty laws.
So today, instead of community pressure being brought to bear against adulterers and sodomites, it’s brought to bear against those condemning such crimes. Freedom is shrinking as IU’s diversity advocates and the City Council’s Human Rights Commission use shame as a disciplinary tool against innocent souls caught in the act of expressing disapproval of sexual perversion.
Pity the poor widow who conscientiously declines to rent her upstairs apartment to an unmarried couple. She will soon learn what G. K. Chesterton warned of: “When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”
Motivated by the love of their neighbors, godly citizens work to oppose the sin destroying homes, marriages, and souls, but find their convictions censored and their motives smeared as “hatred.” And the civil authority joins in the oppression by, for instance, using citizens’ tax dollars to provide support for the local baby-killing organization, Planned Parenthood. The biblical prophet, Isaiah, spoke of this day:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; …who are wise in their own eyes (and) take away the rights of the ones who are in the right. (Isaiah 5:20 ff.).
Since Kinsey first began to expose men’s secrets, incest, domestic violence, divorce, the poverty rate of women and children, and deaths due to sexually transmitted diseases have all increased dramatically. But no one seems to notice. At the recent Bloomington premier of the biopic, Kinsey, partygoers making a donation of $1,000 were granted the privilege of hobnobbing with the filmmakers at a private reception where Kinsey was feted.
When the Kinsey Report was released in 1948, noted anthropologist Margaret Mead critiqued it:
In every society sex patterns depend on a careful and meticulous balance between ignorance and knowledge, sophistication and naïveté. (The Kinsey Report) has upset the balance …between the things we don’t mention, and the things we do. And it may be expected to have considerable effect in our society for that reason. Quite a good deal of our virtue has depended upon people not knowing what other people were doing… In the past, it was said, “It is better to marry than to burn.” Now we translate (the verse), “It is better to have an outlet of some sort, because you’ve got to have an outlet of some sort.” …so it’s just a question of which outlet and (Kinsey) suggests no way of choosing between a woman and a sheep.
Two weeks ago the following invitation was circulated at IU:
SLAG is pleased to announce that Will Stockton will be presenting “The Normalization of Bestiality: Kinsey’s Analysis of Human Sexual Contact with Animals” …at the next brown-bag colloquium (Friday, November 19 at 12:10 pm in Indiana University’s Ballantine Hall, Room 221). (Stockton’s paper) explores Alfred Kinsey’s assertion that bestiality, rather than being “a strange perversion of human affection,” is actually “part of the normal mammalian picture” of human psychosexual development.
Kinsey was no hero. Those who think he was demonstrate no love, but hatred, of sexuality’s God-given beauty. So now we’ve arrived at the day when men no longer know why they ought to choose a woman instead of a sheep.
And the band plays on.
*(Tim Bayly is pastor of Church of the Good Shepherd, meeting in the new Grandview Elementary School. He posts regularly at WorldMagBlog.com).
Or consider this:
On the thirty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade: The Lord is in His Holy Temple…
by Tim Bayly on January 20, 2008 - 3:20pm
*On the occasion of the thirty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I post this message given at Indiana’s State Capital several years ago. It would please me if you would take the time to read it. Thank you.
I remain amazed that abortion could even become a political issue in a country with pretensions to being civilized. It is as if we were to debate the merits of legalizing cannibalism, with the liberal side chanting the slogan “Keep government out of the kitchen!”
There is no danger that the other side will ever be persuaded that it is wrong; there is, however, the very real danger that we will become discouraged, worn down, and inured to an evil that should always horrify and sicken us. The erosion of our consciences is surely part of the destructiveness of this abominable “procedure.” -Joe Sobran
The Lord’s Throne Is In Heaven
Indiana State House
On the Thirty-First Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
January 22, 2004
(For the choir director; a psalm of David.) In the LORD I take refuge; how can you say to my soul, “Flee as a bird to your mountain; for, behold, the wicked bend the bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string to shoot in darkness at the upright in heart. If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’S throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares; fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup. For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; the upright will behold His face. (Psalm 11:1-7)
Thirty one years ago today, on January 22nd, 1973, the Supreme Court of these United States issued its infamous ruling, Roe v. Wade, in which the Court declared that a mother’s intentional killing of her unborn child was a fundamental right guaranteed under our Constitution. Since that ruling, it has been a commonplace to observe that Roe v. Wade, the Court’s repeal of the laws prohibiting abortion on the books of all fifty states, was simply the exercise of raw judicial power with a legal justification based upon a mist and a vapor—or as the Court itself might put it, an emanation from a penumbra.
Our Supreme Court: intentionally conniving at murder…
Since 1973, no one has made a name for himself defending Roe. v. Wade’s history, biology, ethics, logic, or justice; and only a few have been foolish enough to claim this ruling will stand the test of time…
In fact, when the Court was handed what was, arguably, the best opportunity for reversal since Roe v. Wade was first issued, although the Court declined to reverse itself, its rationale was telling:
The Roe rule’'s limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious >inequity to people who, for two decades, have organized intimate relationships and made >choices in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. >The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation >has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives…
Overruling Roe’s central holding… would seriously weaken the
Court’s capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the
Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law… Moreover, the
country’s loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by
condemnation for the Court’s failure to keep faith with those who
support the decision. A decision to overrule (Roe v. Wade would come) at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court’s legitimacy… (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992)
Listening carefully, the Court chose not to reverse Roe v. Wade
because the withdrawal of the right to kill their unborn child might
harm the plans of fathers and mothers who count on abortion as a backup
for failed birth control; also because the reversal of Roe v. Wade
might harm women’s exercise of financial and social equality; might "seriously weaken the Court’s capacity to exercise judicial powe due
to the country losing confidence in its judiciary; and might lead to “profound and unnecessary damage to the Court’s legitimacy.” Reading
this rationale reminds us of a father refusing to apologize to his wife
and children because he fears his apology would be viewed as a sign of
weakness and undermine his authority. How sad the homes led by such
little men, but what can we say about a nation whose highest court of
law justifies its use of authority and power to support the murder of
unborn children by such insecure self-justifications?
The irony of the matter is that, by their refusal to reverse Roe v. Wade,
the Court has assured the very thing it sought to prevent–namely, a
significant loss of confidence in the court’‘s jurisprudence, as well as
its members’ integrity and honor, among those it governs. In fact, by
standing firmly on the side of those who support and practice the
murder of unborn children, the Court has assured there will be “profound and unnecessary damage to (its) legitimacy.”
African slaves and the unborn…
Today it would be hard to imagine a ruling more controversial than Roe v. Wade, but some might single out the Dred Scott
ruling of 1857 for that honor. This decision was a key part of the
buildup of hostilities that led to the Civil War, and it is the
judgment of some scholars that Dred Scott “probably created
more disagreement than any other legal opinion in U.S. history; it
became a violently divisive issue in national politics and dangerously
undermined the prestige of the Supreme Court.” [1]
What were the Court’s judgments in the Dred Scott case? That…
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were
brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within
the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in
any of the States as members of the community which constituted the
State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens."
Consequently, the special rights and immunities guaranteed to citizens
do not apply to them.
The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive: …
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 them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed.
The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human
family… But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race
were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who
framed and adopted this declaration…
(T)he men who framed (the Declaration of Independence)…
perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it
would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any
part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race… (Scott v. Stanford, 1856)
Now let us stop and compare the declaration of the U.S. Supreme
Court concerning the personhood of men and women of African descent in
their 1857 Dred Scott decision to that of unborn children following the Court’s Roe v. Wade
decision one hundred sixteen years later. But rather than limiting
ourselves to the comparison of quotes taken from these opinions, let us
develop the arguments much as they might have been heard from the mouth
of the man on the street defending slavery at the time of the Civil War
and the killing of unborn children today. (And as I list these
arguments, please keep in mind that I do not agree with them.)
- Although a slave/fetus has a heart and a brain, and is human from the biological perspective, a slave/fetus just is not a legal person under the Constitution. The Supreme Court made this perfectly clear in the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade decision.
- A man/woman has the right to do whatever he/she pleases with his/her personal property, the slave/fetus.
- Both the social and economic burdens which will result from prohibiting slavery/abortion will be unfairly concentrated upon a single group: slave-holders/pregnant women.
- Isn’t slavery/abortion really something merciful? Isn’t it really better never to be set free/born than to be sent ill-equipped and unprepared into an environment where one is unwanted, unloved and bound to be miserable?
- Those who believe that slavery/abortion is immoral are free to refrain from owning slaves/having abortions; they should give the same freedom to those who have different moral beliefs.
- Accordingly, those who believe that slavery/abortion is
immoral have no right to try to impose their personal morality upon
others by way of legislation or a constitutional amendment.
- The claim that slaves/fetuses are like us is simply ridiculous; all one has to do is look at them to see that they are completely different.
- The anti-slavery/anti-abortion movement is in fact a small
band of well-organized religious fanatics who have no respect for
democracy or the principles of a pluralistic society.
And moving to the opposite side of the argument, we see the analogy works in that direction, also:
- The question of whether slavery/abortion should be
tolerated is not a matter of personal or religious belief; it is a
question of protecting the civil rights of millions of innocent human
beings who are not in a position to protect themselves.
- The humanity of slaves/fetuses cannot be denied simply
because they look different from us; there is no morally defensible way
to draw a line somewhere along a continuum of skin color/(fetal) development and claim, “This is where humanity starts, this is where it stops.” [2]
Two decisions a century apart, both so radical they undermine the
Court’s reputation and sow the seeds of violent division across our
nation. Both deny the personhood of a class of human beings who are
weak and oppressed; both refuse to bring the law’s strong arm to bear
in their defense. Both, rather than taking up the cause of the widows
and orphans in their distress and thereby mirroring the perfections of
the One our second president, John Adams, referred to as “the great
Legislator of the Universe,” [3] take the side of the oppressor,
declaring him to be protected by the U.S. Constitution. Is it any
wonder, then, that these opinions are hated and opposed at every turn,
and that they have given birth to two of the most zealous forces for
political change in the history of our nation–the abolitionist (or
anti-slavery) and the pro-life (or anti-abortion) movements?
By what authority, though, do citizens oppose these rulings?
Whoever sheds man’s blood…
If this question is to be answered on something other than a superficial level, it must be acknowledged that opposition to both Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade
springs from the Christian world view founded in Scripture and codified
in the centuries-long common law tradition: That every human being is
unique among all God’s creation in that he alone is made in God’s
Image. And further, that this Only True God has decreed through His
Word, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For
in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6).
Undoubtedly, hearing the arguments made by the U.S. Supreme Court
against the full personhood of African slaves and the extension to them
of all the rights of a United States citizen in its Dred Scott
decision awakens in each of us righteous indignation. We have no doubt
that, had we been alive in that time, we would have stood against Dred Scott
and called for an end to slavery just as William Lloyd Garrison and
many others did. But if we are inactive in opposing the killing of
unborn children, we certainly would not have been found active in the
anti-slavery movement. Jesus was speaking to us when He said:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the
monuments of the righteous, and say, “If we had been living in the days
of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding
the blood of the prophets.” So you testify against yourselves, that you
are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure
of the guilt of your fathers. (Matthew 23:29-32)
Christian faith, and love for our brothers…
It’s instructive to note the strong positive correlation between
Christian faith and activism within the anti-slavery and anti-abortion
movements. For instance, the first speech given by William Lloyd
Garrison in which he repented of his past support for the colonization
compromise, instead demanding a full cleansing of the evil of slavery
from our national conscience under his uncompromising cry, “No union
with slaveholders,” was given in the basement of Park Street Church on
the corner of Boston Common.
What sort of religious commitments
characterize Park Street Church?
Our nation’s Sunday school movement started in this church and to this day Park Street Church is known as New England’s bastion of
evangelical Christian faith.
This same correlation repeats itself over and over in the mid-nineteenth century.
Jonathan Blanchard, the first president of Wheaton College in Wheaton,
Illinois, was active in the Underground Railway. And today, Wheaton is
known as the alma mater of Billy Graham and his wife, Ruth Bell Graham.
What of the anti-abortion movement?
A war between wicked and godly women…
Some years back Family Planning Perspectives, the research
journal of the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a "special affiliate" of the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America), published several studies
examining the demographic composition of the pro-abortion and
anti-abortion forces. The articles titled “Abortion Activists” [4] and “The War Between Women” [5] demonstrated the intractable nature of this
conflict spawned by the Supreme Court. For instance, taking two of the
principal political action groups on opposite sides of this issue–the
National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right to Life
Committee–they found:
(Right to Life) members are far more likely than (Abortion Rights)
members to have been reared in large families, to prefer large
families, and (themselves) to have large families… Eighty-seven
percent of (Right to Life) members report that religion plays a "very"
or "extremely" important role in their lives compared to only 20
percent of (Abortion Rights) members… (causing the author of the
article to observe) “It is difficult to imagine data that might more
convincingly demonstrate that religion is a very important factor in
determining attitudes about legal abortion.”
Turning from the opposing organizations to individual women involved
on opposing sides of this issue, in her January 1984 article, “The War
Between Women” (also published in Family Planning Perspectives),
author Kristin Luker speaks of the “emotional and volatile abortion
debate,” declaring "over the last decade the subject (of abortion) has
galvanized–and polarized–Americans in the same way that such moral
issues as abolition… once did." She continues,
Women who are engaged in the abortion debate are separated from one
another by income, education, family size and occupation… Thus, the
abortion debate grows out of two very different social worlds that
support very different aspirations and beliefs… The life circumstances
and beliefs of the activists on both sides of the (abortion) issue
serve to reinforce one another in such a way that the activists have
little room for dialogue and few incentives for it.
(O)ne may ask who is the "typical" (Right to Life and Abortion
Rights) activist…? The typical (Abortion Rights) activist is a
44-year-old married woman whose father was a college graduate. She
married at age 22 or older, has one or two children, and has had some
graduate or professional training after her B.A. …She is married to a
professional man, is herself employed, and has a (high) family income…
She attends church rarely, if at all; indeed, religion is not
particularly important to her.
(Whereas) The typical (Right to Life) activist is also a 44-year-old
married woman. She, however, married at age 17, and has three or more
children. [Sixteen percent of the (Right to Life) women in the study
have seven or more children.] Her father was graduated from high school
only, and she herself has a good chance of having gone no further in
school… She is not employed and is married to a small businessman or a
lower income white-collar worker; her family income is (about $20,000
lower than the average Abortion Rights household)… Her religion is one
of the most important aspects of her life… The two sides have very
little in common in the way they look at the world, and this is
particularly true with regard to the critical issues of gender, sex and
parenthood. The views on abortion of each side are intimately tied to,
and deeply reinforced by, their views on these other areas of life.
Even if the abortion issue had not mobilized them on opposite sides of
the barricades, they would have been opponents on a wide variety of
issues.
(Abortion Rights) activists… see women’s reproductive and family
roles not as a natural niche, but as a potential barrier to full
equality… A general theme in the interviews with (Right to Life)
activists–many of whom have large families–is that there is an
anti-child sentiment abroad in American society…
In short, the debate about abortion rests on the question of whether
women’s fertility is to be socially recognized as an asset or as a
burden.
If a broad cross-section of American society is anti-child and views
women’s fertility as a burden, it’s little wonder that unborn children
are killed at the rate of around 1.3 million per year in our nation,
sacrificed on the altars of our national gods of convenience, choice,
autonomy, and self-determination. But it’s also no wonder that godly
mothers and daughters and sisters and grandmothers and wives will
oppose this slaughter of the little ones with every fiber of their
being.
Just as those involved in the anti-slavery movement believed in the
full personhood and dignity of members of the African race because of
their prior belief that every human being is made in the Image of God,
so also those involved in the anti-abortion movement believe in the
full personhood and dignity of all children because of their prior
belief in this same biblical doctrine that every human being, born or
unborn, is made in the image of God. Slaves or freedmen of African
descent, unborn children swimming in the amniotic fluid of their
mother’s womb–each a precious soul who, in the words of
our own Declaration of Independence, is "endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness…" And further, “That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed.”
Mothers who forget their children…
Can a woman forget her nursing child And have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you. (Isaiah 49:15)
This then is the impasse of our nation, and it grows ever deeper.
On one side are those who believe in the dignity of every man,
from the moment of conception to the time of natural death, because he has bears the Image of God. On the other side are those who do not
believe in the dignity of every person, claiming that
the dignity of some–particularly those living in the first world who
are rich, white, educated, and (of course) already born–trumps the dignity of others.
To put it bluntly, our divided nation falls in behind two women: One woman loves her child and, from love, gives up her life for him, while the other hates her child and murders him.
Back in the 18th century, "in six pages of elegant, deadpan prose
Jonathan Swift set forth an impeccably logical solution to alleviate
the Irish famine: poor people should dismember and eat their babies.
(Swift wrote) "A young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a
most delicious, nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted,
baked, or boiled…“ Through satire, Swift intended to shock his readers
out of their moral turpitude…” [6]
(But) today, when English professors teach “A Modest Proposal,” they
often find it hard to make students realize Swift was joking. Here’s one actual
response: "Well, I don’t completely agree with him, but he does make
some really good points.") Harvesting embryonic children for their stem
cells is little different from Swift’s proposal to harvest just-born
children for food. But whereas Swift’s audience pulled back in
revulsion, much of the American public thinks this is a swell idea.
"Adults are supposed to provide for, protect, and, if necessary,
give their lives to defend their children. They are not supposed to
sacrifice children for their own well-being… [7]
What has happened to us, to our senators and congressman and supreme
court justices and presidents and mayors and governors and law
enforcement officers and attorneys and physicians? What has happened to
the men of this nation for thirty-one years now, that has caused us to
look the other way as forty million unborn children have been
slaughtered in their mother’s womb? Has the killing of these children
been invisible? Have we not heard their cries? Have we not felt
their pain? Have we not seen their blood?
Again and again, Scripture declares God’s hatred for the shedding of innocent blood:
Surely at the command of the LORD it came upon Judah, to
remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according
to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood which he shed,
for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; and the LORD would not
forgive. (2 Kings 24:3,4)
But when the blood is shed by fathers and mothers–when it is the blood of their own children?
They did not destroy the peoples, As the LORD commanded
them, But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices,
And served their idols, Which became a snare to them. They even
sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, And shed
innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters, Whom they
sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with the
blood. Thus they became unclean in their practices, And played the
harlot in their deeds. Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled
against His people And He abhorred His inheritance (Psalms 106:34-40).
If we are oblivious to their suffering, here is the condition of our hearts:
The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, The wicked does not understand such concern (Proverbs 29:7).
Inasmuch as ye did it to the least of these…
Brothers and sisters, it is time we shake off our complacency
concerning the oppression surrounding us and remember again the
godliness and courage of those who have gone before us, those who dealt
a mortal blow to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision
and brought an end to slavery. Like us, every effort was made to
silence them and to relegate their cries for reform to the backwater of
private religious expression. But they would have none of it. They were
determined to be heard. When they tried to silence
Abraham Lincoln, he responded:
Let us apply a few
tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all
attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong,
that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so
careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us
do a single thing as if it were wrong; there is no place where you will
allow it to be even wrong; there is no place where you will allow it
even to be called wrong! We must not call it wrong in politics because
that is bringing religion into politics; we must not call it wrong in
the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion…and there
is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can be
properly called wrong! [8]
Let all such men, let each of us here this day, remember that God is not on His throne for nothing:
…The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world
because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe
to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that
American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of
God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed
time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South
this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came,
shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes
which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we
hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may
speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the
wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with
the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said
three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of
the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
May God have mercy on our motherland and raise up a great army of godly men who will follow the godly women leading the battle for the wee ones being slaughtered by the millions each year just down the street from our real estate agent and barber shop. We should tremble to think He has told us He is a Father to the fatherless.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003 Edition; sub "Dred Scott decision" and "Roger Brooke Taney."
[2] Patrick Derr, "The Argument & the Question," Human Life Review, Vol. V, no. 3, 1979, pp. 77-83.
[3] John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765.
[4] Donald Granberg, “Abortion Activists,” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 13, no. 4, July/August 1981, pp. 157-163.
[5] Kristin Luker, "The War Between Women," Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 16, no. 3, May/June 1984, pp. 105-111.
[6] With thanks to Steve Baarendse.
[7] Gene Veith, World, July 8, 2001.
[8]
William McGurn, “Lessons from Lincoln: Abortion and The GOP; If the GOP
Is Lincoln’s Party, Maybe It Should Use His Tactics” in National Review,
March 25, 1993.
[This message was given at a Sanctity of Life Memorial Service on the occasion of the thirty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The service was held in the Indiana State House and co-sponsored by four churches: Christ Community Church (PCA) of Carmel, Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA) of Indianapolis, [Crossroads Community Church (PCA) of Fishers (http://www.crossroadspca.org/), and Church of the Good Shepherd of Bloomington, Indiana. The service was under the leadership of two men from Trinity Presbyterian Church, Pastor Jim Furey and Mr. Brian Bailey. The message was given by Rev. Tim Bayly, a member of Ohio Valley Presbytery, Presbyterian Church in America, and Sr. Pastor of Church of the Good Shepherd.]
But nevermind. Boomers pissed it all away.
Younger men have no patience for those who went before them. Nor their warnings.
Alright then.