DIADEMS OF THE DECADE (062000fj.htm) Dr. Frank Joseph with his Pro-Life Prescriptions featured on The DailyCatholic, a Traditional Catholic publication dedicated to perpetuating the One True Faith and preserving the Traditional Latin Mass in this time of the Great Apostasy by upholding the sedevacantist syllogism in order to Save All Necessary Catholic Traditions in the United States (SANCTUS) and preserve the Truths and Traditions of the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Rock of Peter.


Diadems of the Decade from June 21, 2000, vol 11, no. 111

                If it's a matter of choice, then we can choose too!

      Forget gun control! There's something much worse. If we don't help...and soon, the preborn will continue to be sitting ducks for the pro-abort killers!

      This column ran ten years ago in which Dr. Frank Joseph, one of our first contributing writers, asked why so many pro-lifers fall into that trap of calling the senseless and selfish slaughter of the innocents "abortion" when in truth it is "killing." Murder plain and simple. The reason, he deduced then, and holds to it to this day, is because pro-lifers are too nice and don't want to hurt feelings. Ten years ago the good retired doctor was righteously impatient in the fact that it was time to get tough and start hurting feelings if it would help save the lives of countless innocents in their mothers' wombs. He illustrated how if pro-aborts could use the word "choose" why can't we. In addition, he entreated the readers to choose to be heard by encourage then Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush to choose Alan Keyes as his running mate to assure a solid choice for pro-lifers everywhere. As we can clearly see Bush did not heed Frank's sage advice and we're much worse off today than even then. Think of the innocent souls slaughtered since then and shudder.

    At last -- The Truth, from a person with "guts" On Crossfire this past Friday, I finally heard someone use the word, ”kill,” instead of abortion. As you may know, the show is hosted by a Conservative and a Liberal and usually two guests are invited, with the same opposing views. Crossfire is on CNN, which is owned by the billionaire liberal Ted Turner, who once said the Ten Commandments are outdated.

    Laura Ingraham, who recently wrote a book about Hillary Clinton called “The Hillary Trap -- Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places,” represented the Conservative side and Patricia Ireland, the president of NOW (National Organization of Women), which really should be called the National Organization of Liberal Women, -- the Liberal side.

    During the discussion, the abortion issue came up and Ingraham instead of saying abortion, said the word,“killing,” when referring, to the act of an abortion. That shocked me -- at last someone with “guts, ” who is not afraid to tell the truth and say the killing of a baby on national television. I watch many of these types of shows, on cable and otherwise and this is the first time, a pro-lifer strayed away from the euphemism -- abortion.

    When Ingraham uttered the truthful words that all pro-choicers hate, she was quickly talked over by the liberal host Bill Press, as liberals always try to do, when they don’t want the truth to be heard. They will raise their voice and ramble on and on, hoping no one caught the truth. But it was too late -- the words were out, plain and clear. So much so that Patricia Ireland, who was to speak next, appeared flabbergasted. She actually said, “I can’t remember what I was going to say.” If you know Ireland, she’s never at loss for words.

    She must have been stunned by the truth as if thinking to herself, “how dare she say the babies are killed -- why these are just abortions.”

    This is what happens, when people dare to speak the truth -- “the killing of unborn babies,” instead of “abortions.” It leaves the antagonist dumbfounded and groping for words.

    Prior to and after Roe Vs Wade, there were many shows arguing this issue, -- where have they all gone? Today, pro-lifers have much more ammunition -- clear ultrasounds, onset of heartbeat, brain activity, onset of pain, formation of extremities and organs etc. The living human being in the mother’s womb, is no longer a lump of non-sentient tissue, as they tried to shove down people’s throats in those days and still told to women today at abortion clinics. The Media, which is overwhelmingly liberal, will not touch this issue with a ten foot pole. They know pro-lifers would make mince meat out of the pro-choicers.

    I’ve been trying to get pro-lifers to NEVER use the word “abortion,” especially on TV or where there is a large audience. It’s too soft a word. To begin with, it’s the wrong terminology. The definition of abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is viable outside of the womb. In the wholesale killing of unborn babies that are done today, the fetus IS viable inside the womb. It has to be killed first. This is called a surgical, or induced abortion. Plain abortions, which are spontaneous abortions, are nature's way to expel a non-viable embryo/fetus. (dead embryo/fetus.)

    The definition of viable is: capable of living. And the embryo/fetus IS capable of living inside the womb. Again somewhere along the line, to suit the pro-choicers, the meaning of viable when it pertains to the killing of unborn babies, now means: the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb. Forget that it can survive inside the womb -- apparently that's not important anymore.

    Frankly, I'm getting tired of the pro-choicers using the semantic game -- twisting words around to make the killing of unborn babies sound more palatable. And I’m tired of dictionaries being revamped to suit pro-choicers. To be accurate and truthful, pro-choicers should use the words: induced or surgical abortion, to differentiate them from spontaneous abortions, but this doesn't sound as innocuous as just plain abortion.

    When pro-lifers use the word abortion, they’re playing right into the hands of pro-choicers. They don’t want you to say, “the killing of the unborn babies” and yet that’s exactly what is done. What a golden opportunity wasted. It’s as if pro-lifers don’t want to hurt the feelings of pro-choicers. As if pro-choicers care about the feelings of babies, who are torn limb from limb and many of them feeling excruciating pain.

    Have you noticed that the latest euphemism for the killing of unborn babies is the “right to choose.” First it was the right to have an abortion, then it was pro-choice and now the right to choose. “I will always defend the right of a woman to choose,” is the liberal candidate’s battlecry. They don’t like to use the word, “abortion” anymore because it means to kill a baby.

    CHOOSE WHAT? If someone came here from a foreign country, they wouldn’t know what they were talking about. Maybe they mean, the right to choose to write whatever you want to; or to choose whatever religion you want to; or the right to say whatever you want to. Why can’t they finish the sentence? Could it be, that they mean, they will always defend the right of a woman to kill her unborn baby, if she so chooses? Wow!! But that sounds so cruel and merciless. They can’t possibly mean that -- can they -- to kill a human being? How could a civilized society adopt such a policy? No, they can’t mean that. But then, what does it mean, when they say, “I will always defend a woman’s right to choose?" I wish they would make it clear and say exactly what they mean -- but then, is it possible that the truth would hurt them? ---BINGO.

    WHY do Pro-life candidates let them get away with using these soft, palatable sugar coated words? In debates, why don’t they ask, “what do you mean, ‘the right to choose.’ If you’re referring to the right to kill her unborn baby, OF COURSE, I’m against that. When God says “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” I believe Him and I will NOT sell my soul to satan, just to be president.” I guarantee you, that pro-life candidates would have all those on the fence on their side if only they had more faith in God.

    What a difference between: “the right to choose” and “the right to kill her unborn baby.” It’s as if I’m in the twilight zone -- I can’t believe the ineptitude and lack of ingenuity of pro-life candidates.

    I cannot believe they’re still using the word, "abortion" instead of, “the killing of unborn babies," which is the truth.

    I cannot believe they’re still saying Partial birth abortion instead of Partial-birth infanticide or murder, which is the truth.

    I cannot believe they’re afraid to invoke God’s name, or the Holy Scriptures. Isn’t it amazing that the politician, who invokes God’s name the most is that paragon of virtue, Bill Clinton?

    I cannot believe their reluctance to vehemently denounce the killing of unborn babies in no uncertain terms and to educate the public as to why they are abominable --biblically, scientifically and just out of common decency.

    Why they can’t even win on the most diabolical and repugnant acts ever committed -- the barbaric partial-birth murder. I’ve never heard this procedure described on TV or in the newspapers by pro-lifers. You know the pro-choicers will never describe it.

    How is it possible that people would vote for Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and all others who would condone such a gruesome and painful act, if they REALLY KNEW the exact procedure?

    And Hillary is constantly saying, she is all for the children. She wants to alleviate their suffering and give them better health care. She forgets to mention that she doesn’t care if they’re killed, when they’re 3/4 born, and suffer excruciating pain in the process, as long as it will make their mother’s life a little easier and she keeps getting the big bucks from Planned Parenthood and all the other killing mills, NARAL, NOW and the Hollywood Filth Industry.

    What Hypocrisy! Excuse me - I think I'm going to be sick. Pro-aborts have a way of turning stomachs as well as hearts, not to mention their penchant for killing without conscience.

    I must tell you that for George W. Bush’s running mate, my personal choice is Alan Keyes, a Catholic, who follows the doctrine of his faith, and the Holy Scriptures and speaks out against all abortions. A fantastic debator -- easily won all the debates he was in. If he were to debate the running mate of Al Gore, the outcome would not be in doubt. It would not be a pretty sight in the eyes of the pro-abort democrats. It would be downright pitiful for them. Wow! George W. Bush and Alan Keyes -- a GREAT ticket.

Frank Joseph, M.D.



DIADEMS OF THE DECADE
Dr. Frank Joseph's PRO-LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS
from Saturday, June 21, 2000, Volume 11, no. 111