"America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion"

Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

Please visit the new site of http://www.prolifewarrior.com/ and join in the fun of throwing cyber punches at those who believe 'fetuses' are not people

Tuesday, February 16, 2010


George Offerman

There continues to be demonstrated confusion among many in the pro life movement about means of conduct in general, and the Roeder situation in particular. It seems more and more, there is rigidity in thought and behavior, and what one should do, be and think if pro life according to their definition. The problem is, this formula is not working, and the seeds of defeat are already sown into this.

One has to look no further than 37 years nearly 52 million dead, increases in every type of debauchery, violence and substance abuse, coupled with the deafening silence of the churches, and the very well known strategy of incrementalism espoused by the mainstream pro life movement. Why many continue to argue we are winning, and the goal of the pro life movement is to change hearts and to educate goes to show how out to lunch the mainstream pro lifers really are.

It is very disturbing to see people of high reputation in this movement, such as Gregg Cunningham, continue to go after those who think differently than him, and it is safe to say that Gregg Cunningham would be a mainstream pro lifer. What is disturbing about Mr. Cunningham in his attacks on Randall Terry, then Jill Stanek, is the intolerance for any thoughts other than his. Neither of these people “condoned” Roeder’s killing of Tiller, yet the rigidity is there. No tolerance for any questions or thoughts outside of Mr. Cunningham’s and this goes to show how highly Mr. Cunningham thinks of his own thoughts.

I came across an article written 3 years ago by Neal Horsley, then a candidate for governor for the state of Georgia. In this article, Mr. Horsley goes into great detail concerning the problems of the pro life movement, and how leaders such as Mr. Cunningham actually do harm by confusion they sow into the debate. Mr. Horsley takes it a step further, and uses the term treason, to describe what Mr. Cunningham and others are doing, and in essence locking in legalized child killing as the law of the land, versus really changing it. I will place a few paragraphs from this article below, and the rest of the article can be found using the link after the quotes.


CBR makes it their business to send a stream of trucks--trucks costing millions of dollars--across the nation and the world. On the side of those trucks in pictures ten feet tall we see the dead, eviscerated bodies of little people, people who were killed in the USA with the full protection of LAW, the full protection of the federal government of the USA. But at the same time CBR does that, CBR issues messages to the Christians and others in this nation that unequivocally tell everyone that they must support the government that creates the conditions leading to the pictures on the side on their trucks. CBR issues definitions of "violence" that make it clear people are not even allowed TO THINK ("justifiable homicide is not cognizable," CBR tells us) about treating the babies who are pictured on their trucks the way we would expect every other person in this nation to be treated if they were in imminent danger of being torn limb from limb like those babies.

With this fundamental contradiction in view, is there anybody alive who fails to see the confusion CBR creates?

While it is true that God sometimes brought confusion into the camp of those who opposed Him. It has never been the case, nor will it ever be the case, that God brings confusion among those who live their lives in His service. The presence of confusion within the Body of Christ is ALWAYS a sign that the Body has been invaded by a virus, an alien trespassing agent, an invader that must in time be cut off from the Body unless the whole Body be destroyed.


The sad part about much of Mr. Cunningham’s writings is the fact he uses the term anti abortion in many instances versus pro life, but seems to use this term as a pejorative to those he does not agree with. In his own definition of violence, Mr. Cunningham states it is “Physical assaults against the person or property of people who perform elective pregnancy terminations”. In looking at this terminology, Mr. Cunningham does not even acknowledge human life and the murderous implications it holds. This language, especially “elective pregnancy terminations’ is more Orwellian and soft petals the whole aspect of child killing. I guess as long as one doesn’t acknowledge that a human being is being brutally murdered, we can agree on this ghastly definition.

By sugarcoating child killing with neutral wording, Mr. Cunningham is actually promoting and propagating legalized child killing. It would seem that Mr. Horsley is correct in stating that Mr. Cunningham does not see an end to the “legalized’ piece of the child killing, for if it were so, the child killer could not have a set office, with set times to do set procedures (murders) and be handsomely paid, for immoral and illegal acts. Like crack houses or moon shiners, force would be used to stop the activities, and the perpetrators would be in jail immediately.

Words mean things. When someone of the stature of Mr. Cunningham uses his legalese to sugarcoat the activities of a heinous enterprise, he is only propagating this system, and may want to use whatever defense he may, but my request to Mr. Cunningham is at least don’t claim to do it in the name of the Living God, when minimizing the destruction of his most precious creation.

1 comment: