Advocate.htm

http://www.saltshaker.us/Advocate.htm
I do NOT advocate ìviolenceî (to prevent abortion). Never have.

Contents:

Intro: The statements of OTHERS who have been associated with prolife violence: Johnny Brockhoeft, Jonathan O'Toole

A. Understanding "violence".

B. "Advocating" and "justifying" (or "refusing to condemn").

C. "I don't want anyone to use force to stop abortion, because I need the help of anyone that willing to sacrificially help the unborn, to pass an Iowa law that will stop ALL abortions." But he does not take life seriously who condemns physically stopping the most brutal, violent murder in America today! He cares not about violence who sees it not in tearing unborn babies limb from limb but only in physically stopping it!

D. Why this plan for stopping abortion, which requires public understanding of the Necessity Defense, will be threatened if prolifers continue accusing, of being lawbreakers, those who have forcibly prevented abortion, as if the Necessity Defense were not the Law of the Land.

Intro: The statements of OTHERS who have been associated with prolife violence: Johnny Brockhoeft, Jonathan O'Toole

"Years before 30 states became sufficiently horrified by Martin Haskill's abortion method in which he half delivers a baby, sucks out the baby's brains, and then crushes the skull, I was horrified enough to burn it down. For that, I spent 7 years in jail, from '88 to '95.

"I remain horrified. I remain committed to saving as many lives as possible, using whatever method saves the most lives.

"At the present time there is a plan which shows promise of saving more lives than the methods available to me then. It is the legislative proposal by Dave Leach in Des Moines, Iowa, described at www.saltshaker.us. I urge anybody who is as committed as I am, as willing to sacrifice my time and comfort for the sake of the unborn, to join me in supporting this plan which offers a realistic hope of stopping ALL American abortions."

---Johnny Brockhoeft

"I have publicly been associated with violence for saying Paul Hill and Shelley Shannon (who shot abortionists) didn't get a fair trial because they were not allowed to present the Necessity Defense to juries. I am closely associated with Neal Horsley, whose website has been falsely accused of calling for the slaying of abortionists.

"I urge people thinking of committing violence in defence of the unborn to instead invest your commitment in Dave Leach's legislative plan which offers the hope of saving not just a few hundred or thousand lives, but all of them."

--Jonathan O'Toole, Campaign Manager for Dave Leach

A. Understanding ìviolenceî.

No crime is more violent than torturing an unborn baby to death. Almost everybody admits what is killed is not just an unconscious ìblob of tissueî, but a living human being. Even people who commit abortion admit that. Even Planned Parenthood admitted that, in a publication printed before 1973. Apparently a majority of Americans agrees that ìabortion is murderî.

The only real controversy is over which method is least brutal. Is it the D&X, where you suck out the brains and then crush the skull, while the baby is half born? Or the D&E, where you catch the head in the cervix, with the body in the vagina, while you wrench off the arms and legs? Or how about ìvacuum aspirationî, where it is with a tiny vacuum hose that you suck off the parts of the body, one by one, until you get them all? Or is it the saline method, where all you do is burn the baby to death with acid?

Abortion is violent, violent murder, tearing a baby limb from limb being its most popular form. But almost everybody agrees that physically stopping it is just as bad; perhaps worse. This is America. It is wrong to stop a murderer against his will, ie. forcibly. When Americans stop murderers from killing grownups, the word for them is "heroes". But when someone physically stops an abortionist, even pastors and prolife leaders understand he is "bringing shame upon the name of Jesus."

When violent murderers describe someone who stops them as ìviolentî, at least that is not surprising. They are hypocrites, accusing their adversaries of being hypocrites too. They are the most violent in the land, deflecting the charge of ìviolenceî from themselves, by throwing it back at the least violent in the land, those personally sacrificing to stop the most violent. It is not themselves who are violent, they say. No, not at all. It is only those who try to stop them!

But how can we understand prolifers and pastors equating the violence of torturing thousands of unborn babies to death, with what used to be considered the heroic act of stoppingsuch violence?

They say ìyou canít fight fire with fireî, which itself is incorrect, of course, since firefighters out West stop raging forest fires with ìfirebreaksî all the time. They say you canít fight evil with evil, using the same tools they do. Since when? Police use guns to stop people from shooting guns, and no one calls police ìviolentî. Soldiers use guns and bombs to stop enemies from attacking with guns and bombs, and Americans donít accuse their soldiers of being ìviolentî. Why is it only in stopping Americaís most abominable violence that someone who tries to prevent it is accused of ìviolenceî?

They say ìpreventing abortion is against the law. Thatís the difference. If you prevent abortion by force, you are a lawbreaker.î

Would your opinion change, if you understood the Necessity Defense, which says any action which prevents serious injury is not a public offense? If you knew that stopping abortion is literally not against the law, even if you follow it to the letter, would you stop accusing heroes?

I could understand ultra-legalism, that values obedience to the letter of the law more than life itself, from a lawyer. But from a Christian? (Pro 24:11-12) (Acts 4:29) (Mark 7:1-4)

Did you set off fireworks on the 4th of July? If you live in Iowa, did it bother you that you are a lawbreaker? You know youíre a lawbreaker, donít you? Iowa code 727.2 says if you set off one firecracker, that's a "Serious Misdemeanor"! Do you know the just penalty for your crime? Why, it's a MINIMUM of a $250 fine, up to a $1500 fine, PLUS up to a year in jail!

And you call us "Rescuers" lawbreakers! Why, the WORST we were ever charged with was "Simple Misdemeanors", whose penalty was a minimum $50 fine, up to $100 fine, OR a prison sentence of from a day to a maximum of a month!

By the way, "jaywalking" is criminalized in Iowa Code 321.328. And even when you stick to the marked crosswalk, you better walk on the right side of the marked area, 321.330! Scheduled fine for violations: $10. Not counting "court costs".

Does that help you understand Godís point (Acts 4:19-20, 5:29) that some laws cry out to be broken? If you think itís OK to break the law to watch a few pretties in the sky, how can you condemn a hero who breaks the law to slow the slaughter of thousands of innocent unborn babies scheduled to be torn limb from limb for money?

As it turns out, you are the only lawbreaker in this scenario. The hero who saves lives isn't even a lawbreaker, according to Iowa Code 704.10, which says "any action necessary" to prevent serious injury is NOT a crime.

That's why if you have to break something to save a life, you're not a criminal, but a hero.

And that's why clinic door blockers were found innocent when juries were told of this Defense.

Juries understood that torturing a baby to death is a serious injury; so if blocking a door can prevent it, and the law says any action that prevents it isn't a crime, blocking the door isn't a crime.

When judges figured out what was happening, they stopped allowing juries to learn of this defense.

But case law says the weighing of serious injury should be treated as a fact, and juries are supposed to be the judges of the facts.

Iowa law should agree with case law: Juries should decide the fact issue of whether abortion is a serious injury.

B. "Advocating" and "justifying" (or "refusing to condemn").

If you are new to these controversies, let me explain: you see, when my critics say I advocate violence, they arenít accusing me of advocating abortion. They are accusing me of advocating the prevention of abortion. You see, torturing an unborn baby to death isnít violent, to them, I guess, because...well, ask them why it isnít. I canít figure it out. But to them, stopping someone from torturing a baby to death is as violent a thing as you can do. I know this is hard to follow, if you arenít used to this kind of thinking. But you see, the purpose of this article is to explain that I really never have advocated "violence". Meaning I never really have advocated forcibly stopping an abortionist from torturing a baby to death. Now if youíve been following these debates all these years and your mind knows the appropriate way to think, you will be saying ìWell itís about time Dave Leach backed away from advocating violence!î But if youíre new to this, youíll be asking yourself, ìWhy would Dave Leach say he cares about babies, and then make a big deal out of explaining that he never really meant he wanted anyone to save any babies from being tortured to death?î

Iím sorry all this confusion exists. I didnít cause it. But I am going to try to clear it up.

A man who walks through a raging fire to rescue a burning child is a ìheroî. Everyone says he is. News reporters line up to interview him and even make him look good. (They don't do that for just anybody.) Does that mean anyone ìadvocatesî that anyone else, seeing a child on the other side of a terrible fire, should walk through the fire and bring him out? Of course not. The risk is too great to ask it of anybody. The likely cost too high, the hope of success too faint, to burden anybody else with so costly an ideal. Such a feat is ìimpossibleî, meaning it can only succeed when God walks with a man.

And yet do we not all "justify" the hero, even though we do not "advocate" such heroism? We would all "refuse to condemn" the hero, would we not, though we would not "advocate" what he did?

The great cost and risk is only one of the reasons I do not advocate force to save lives. It is onlyÝ onereason why my publicly expressed friendship for those who have forcibly prevented thousands of babies from being slaughtered does not accurately translate to my advocacy of anyone else following in their steps. There are a couple of other reasons.

A second reason is that I canít emotionally comprehend violence. I myself have no aptitude for violence. There were a couple of times in my life when I was beaten, by men actually weaker than myself, but I chose not to resist. I have no experience either with my fists or with weapons. Bottle rockets make me nervous, let alone the thought of making a bomb! I am glad God has need of people working with legislatures, where I feel I have more to offer.

The third reason is fairly recent: God has finally shown me how the Iowa Legislature can pass a law that will stop ALL abortions. If anyone loves ìthe least of Jesusí brethrenî enough to sacrifice his freedom or his life to forcibly prevent abortion, that kind of commitment will go a long way to helping pass this law which will save a thousand times more babies within about a year. So at this time I definitely advocate that NO ONE take up arms now, when by taking up your pen you can help stop the violence completely. But even before I knew of this plan, I never spoke of those who saved lives, using force, with more respect than I spoke of those who saved lives without force. Anyone who saves lives is a hero, in my book.

So I do not "advocate" force; I "advocate" the opposite, especially now! But if someone uses force, heedless of my advice, I will not condemn anyone who saves even one life!

Nor must you! If you declare that saving a baby from being tortured to death doesn't justify breaking a law (even though it's not against the law according to Iowa 704.10, and every state has a similar law) you attack your own Constitutional Right to Life. A baby is more legally ìinnocentî than you are! If an innocent baby has no right to live, what right have you?!

Prolifers cannot understate the seriousness of abortion, to avoid being persecuted, and maintain the determination needed to stop it.

America can't repent of sins whose seriousness they refuse to acknowledge.

To tell Christians they must stand back and allow corrupt judges to slay their victims unhindered, because obeying corrupt rulings is more important than saving innocent lives, is to deny the seriousness of murder. How can abortion staff, and aborting mothers, repent of their abominations, with Christian and prolife leaders falling all over themselves to deny that abortion is even serious enough to physically stop?

Abortion is serious enough to merit far more physical resistance than has yet been considered. Abortion is more serious than slavery, and justifies more, to stop it, than what was required to stop slavery.

However, thank God, that is not required now; it is not how you can be most effective, now. Join me in stopping ALL the violence!

D. Why this plan for stopping abortion will be hurt if prolifers continue accusing, of being lawbreakers, those who have forcibly prevented abortion

There is one very practical reason why condemning those who have forcibly prevented abortion will make it very difficult to stop abortion.

The most common reason prolifers distinguish between the levels of protection due unborn vs. born children (they concede it is right to forcibly stop a schoolyard sniper, but say it is wrong to stop a womb raider) is that protecting the unborn is against the law.

To accuse those who forcibly prevent abortion of breaking the law perpetuates misunderstanding of the law, and my legislative proposal for stopping abortion requires that average citizens correctly understand the law.

The Necessity Defense says any action necessary to prevent a serious injury is NOT against the law. Stopping abortion requires that people correctly understand this, and be sure enough of it that they will still understand it correctly, even while judges deny it.

Average people need to understand the only reason judges continue to convict heroes is that they do not follow case law (court rulings) which makes determination of serious injury a fact issue, to be decided by ìthe Judges of the Factsî, whom, all judges insist, are Juries.

It is admittedly intimidating to try to persuade neighbors that our view of the law is more trustworthy than that of most judges, yet that is exactly what we must do, because it is true, and because lives depend on our being sure of ourselves. If a judge breaks the law, and then rules that he is not breaking the law, that does not change the FACT that he broke the law.

Hans Christian Andersen wrote about an emperor snookered by traveling salesmen who contracted to make him some invisible ìclothesî. They began making the clothes with the announcement that they were of such quality that they could not even be seen by simpletons, or those unfit for their office. No one in town was willing to admit he couldnít see anything (or, as it developed, that they could see EVERYTHING), least of all the vain emperor. Until a child expressed the truth in wonder. Then everybody finally said it. And yet even then, as the story closes, the emperor felt ìthe procession must go onî, so he dogged through it, his courtiers holding up his imaginary train with ìgreater pains than everî.

Todayís judges assure us their rulings are of such fine quality that they cannot make sense either to simpletons, or to those untrained in their way of thinking. What Christian or prolife leader wants to admit he is either a simpleton or unequipped to understand law? So our entire society watches with admiration as our Christian and prolife leaders hold up the Supreme Court's Train, parading their obedience to rulings which cannot cover one atom of the crime and corruption they are alleged to cover. Everyone says ìOh, what fine rulings! How blessed America is to have such trustworthy jurists so we do not have to understand these principles too wonderful for our lowly intellects!î

Stopping abortion will require a few ìchildrenî, exclaiming, in wonder, ìthe judges are breaking the law.î

If you have other grounds for condemning those who forcibly stop murderers, there may not be this problem. But anyone who wants this plan to work must acknowledge that, though their methods are not the most effective methods at the present, those who forcibly prevent abortion are not in violation of the law.

It is vital, to the success of this plan, that Iowans as a whole come to understand the logic, and the moral necessity, of the Necessity Defense, so that when the law is passed and it is reviewed by the courts, (1) judges will be afraid to overturn it with sloppy legalisms, lest they be mocked as jerks or fools, and (2) prosecutors will find it almost impossible to pack a jury with people who have never heard of the Necessity Defense.

If prolife leaders continue condemning, as ìlawbreakersî, those who have forcibly prevented abortion, they will be more effective than any abortionist in ensuring that the public will be confused, and this plan for stopping abortion will fail.

Feedback Box

Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If youdon't want your email posted, SAY SO!)