AL#3 Terminology; Slogans; Letters

This is the third in a series of emails on abortion and related subjects. To be removed from this mailing list please send an empty email from the account in which it was received with the subject line "REMOVE." If you find the materials you will be receiving worthwhile you are encouraged to forward them to your own email lists. If you missed any of the other emails (AL#1..., AL#2...) and would like to receive them, please let me know.


[12/03 update - At the end of the last email I tacked on a brief discussion of the three step process of Abortionism. If you found that of interest, you will likely find the five short articles by Dennis Prager referenced below of value as well. Although he doesn't use my terminology, he is really often discussing the first abortion -- the abortion of the authority of God. This first step could be called the "theological abortion." Just copy and paste the URL into your browser. For a complete archive of his material go to, click Commentary in the left column and his name under Tuesday.


1) What makes a liberal? August 12, 2003

2) What makes a liberal? Part 2 August 19, 2003

3) Only those with beliefs can defeat those with beliefs October 7, 2003

4) The Second American Civil War: What it's about October 14, 2003

5) The 2nd American Civil War: What it's about part 2 October 21, 2003


Another outstanding item that just came to my attention is a new website by Human Life International:, which demonstrates media bias and emphasis on the miniscule degree of violence from some so-called "pro-lifers" compared to the Abortionites who have been violent to the core from the outset. It is extensively documented. I dealt with the subject of media bias in the sixth email of the first round of this series and should be sending that email to this mailing list early in the new year. There will be two more before that. The next will deal with the "War on the Unborn."


Al Lemmo

December 2, 2003


What follows below is the original third mailing from the first round.]



Before I get into my own material, let me bring to your attention the following items (which activists probably already know about --or should):

If you like to write letters to the editor, Mark Crutcher, the founder of Life Dynamics, Inc. of Denton, Texas has published a book of model letters to the editor (some 430) along with some excellent guidelines on how to go about it either as an individual or as part of a coordinated campaign. The book is available for $5 plus $2.50 Postage and Handling from Life Dynamics Incorporated, Post Office Box 2226, Denton, Texas 76202 or by calling 1-800-800-LIFE. The entire publication has also been posted on the website of Priests for Life ( It is a very valuable tool for exposing the nonsensical arguments offered in favor of destroying our nation's young and crippling our nation's women, and a great addition to the already superb website of Priests for Life. It can also be used as a stand-alone tool that could even be loaned to a friend who might be open to persuasion. It deals very directly with many of the myths, false assumptions and contorted ideas that are in general circulation thanks to the efforts of the abortion industry and its media accomplices.

Life Dynamics is perhaps the most aggressive and effective pro-life organization in the country. They recently exposed the abortion industry's long standing policy of covering up the sexual abuse of underage girls made pregnant by adult men and who get their problem solved by having an abortion. This cover-up policy then frees the child predators to continue their abuse with the same or additional victims. Life Dynamics is pursuing legal action against the abortion industry for these abuses which dwarf those for which the Catholic Church has received so much recent adverse attention. This ongoing cover-up clearly violates state laws that require reporting of suspected cases of child abuse. The legal action could bankrupt the industry. Life Dynamics is also threatening legal action against school systems nationwide that cooperate with the industry. If you are serious about protecting children in this country, both before and after birth, it is an absolute must that you look into this at the Life Dynamics websites:, and Life Dynamics needs our support to bring this effort to the speediest and most satisfactory conclusion possible and I am convinced there is no more effective action we can take at this time.




I am attaching to this email the glossary that my friend who owns the website for Catholics United for Life dubbed the "Glossary of Abortionism." I am also attaching my latest file of suggested slogans (more up to date than that posted on the website since I keep adding to it) and including in the body of this email some of my letters to the editor which I mass faxed nationwide. Please be warned that these files contain some material that might be considered rather aggressive.

(The slogans file is accessible at as of August 2015.)

The glossary was criticized by some when it first came out as containing too many new words. That's true, but that's also missing the forest for the trees. The glossary is intended primarily to be a teaching tool and I wanted it to be fairly comprehensive. There are really very few if any new words needed to make the major points that the glossary and the essay on Abortionism are meant to show. For example, one could challenge a Birthist Abortionite friend something like this:

"We're agreed that discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion should be opposed. But those forms of discrimination are based on a premise that those in power or control grant or deny fundamental human rights to others rather than that such fundamental rights as the right to life are intrinsic with each human life. It looks to me like you've taken it upon yourself to determine whether or not the prenatal portion of the population has any right to continue living. So, other than your criteria for discrimination, which are human developmental characteristics before birth, how are you different in principle from racists, sexists or religious bigots?"

Then press the point. Because they're not different. They're just enamored of their own false wisdom and cleverness in coming up with criteria for discrimination to the point of rationalizing the destruction of the prenatal child. You don't need to talk about Birthists or Creedists or even Abortionites. I suspect you'll find that their defense consists of rationalizing their criteria for discrimination which make sense to them. See what happens if you continue to point out that they are only just criteria for discrimination. After all, the criteria of Racists and religious bigots (Creedists) make sense to them as well.

There is one word that I think we really do need. It is the word I have coined for the philosophy our nation is founded on that says we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. That word is Intrinsicism (pronounced with a soft "c" like romanticism). Alan Keyes talks about "Declaration Principles" (from the Declaration of Independence) but this is two words and not very descriptive. Intrinsicism is a single word that describes the philosophy that human rights are intrinsic with human lives. It needs to be put in general circulation. All pro-life people are Intrinsicists.

I do believe that the words Abortionism and Abortionites would also be very useful if widely employed because they more effectively counter the argument that we are forcing a single religious viewpoint on the nation and help establish the linkages between prenatal child-killing and all other human rights abuses. Religious conservatives long ago identified the religious viewpoint that opposed them and labeled it "secular humanism." That's perfectly accurate but not very useful because it carries no negative connotations. Americans think that secular is good because of misunderstandings of the purpose of the First Amendment and humanism sure sounds pretty good as well.

My file of suggested slogans incorporates many of the ideas I've already discussed. After many years of involvement in this work, seemingly without that much to show for it, I admit to being weary, angry and saddened at what has happened to my country and its people and I suppose this shows in the things I've written. Although I still believe that opposition to abortion is best based on principles of human rights, I also believe there is definitely a religious dimension. So at the risk of being labeled a religious fanatic -- think whatever you like -- here's my religious "spin" on the subject: When I consider both the number and the quality of the lies that have been circulated to reduce our nation and our world to their present state, it seems to me that the evidence is substantial that abortion and its related violations have their origin in the father of lies (that's Satan for those of you who didn't get it). Those who have actively assisted in this have been his willing if (usually) unwitting servants. If you've been one of them I hope you'll take the hint and stop. A more detailed discussion of lies and the media is planned for a future email.




A few months ago I was seated in a museum in Cleveland taking a little rest when a youngster of perhaps ten years of age yelled to his mother across the room -- right next to my ear! "Hey!" I said, "I've got an ear there!" The young fellow was appropriately apologetic and moved on, hopefully having learned something. I relate this incident to illustrate one of the characteristics of children: they are very self-centered and lack an appreciation of the impact of their actions on those around them. Likewise, the typical Birthist or other Abortionite lacks an appreciation for how their assaults on the value of life affect others beyond the population they are targeting. A primary characteristic of these Abortionites can reasonably be said to be childishness -- and we ought to say so.

If the value of a human life is not intrinsically absolute then the logical underpinnings for defending life have been removed and anybody's criteria for destruction are on the table for discussion. We're left to argue over whose criteria will prevail -- yours, mine or someone else's. And let's not forget that there are people who are being taken seriously when they suggest windows of opportunity for destroying the newborn who may be perfectly healthy. Some people talk about the "slippery slope." I call it the "Abortionite cliff." We were flung over the edge by the Supreme Court with its *Roe v. Wade* vomit.

Birthist Abortionites think they're very intellectual and sophisticated with all their rationalizations for destroying prenatal lives when they are really just being childish. The radical feminazis barely bother with rationalizations. Their self-centeredness in brushing off the humanity of the unborn child is so extreme as to be reasonably characterized as simply infantile.

Let me add that real feminism, beginning with this country's original nineteenth century feminists, is strongly pro-life. I plan to compose an email devoted to this subject later in this series. While that has not been my primary focus (I do contribute to the support of crisis pregnancy centers and Feminists for Life of America), many in the pro-life movement have devoted themselves to helping women make life-affirming choices when faced with a pregnancy under difficult circumstances. Ongoing research continues to reveal more and more about the devastating effects of abortion on women and most women would not choose abortion if they believed they had any other reasonable choice. It is the pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that make those other choices possible. In those states where minimally protective laws have been enacted (informed consent, waiting periods, parental consent or notification, etc.) the abortion rate has dropped dramatically - by one third or more - without a single abortion being prohibited by law because of the nature of the act (the primary focus of people like myself). But true to their Orwellian principle that ignorance is strength, the abortion industry has always fiercely opposed these laws.



Here's a letter to the editor that I faxed nationwide that illustrates the discrimination approach which I outlined above:

January 7, 1996

To the Editor:

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that injustice anywhere was a threat to justice everywhere. He said this about segregation and discrimination: "Let us never succumb to the temptation of believing that legislation and judicial decrees play only a minor role in solving this problem. Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated.

Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." (Quotation from Strength to Love)

What might Dr. King have said about our current treatment of the immature members of our species?

Dr. King devoted his life to opposing the choice to discriminate on the basis of race. But one week after his birthday we observe the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, which freed us to choose to discriminate fatally on the basis of "wantedness", physical maturity, appearance, sex, health, dependence, sentience, parentage, or any other

criterion, including race, if it is done before birth.

Are these criteria any less arbitrary or subjective than race? By what logic shall we choose criteria for excluding others from the protection of the human community? What does the acceptance of such criteria for destruction say about the content of our character?



Based on the amount of feedback I received, this may have been the most popular of my letters to the editor on abortion.

Here's how I tried to present the Abortionism model in a letter to the editor:

November 30, 1995

To the Editor:

Our country is founded on the idea that human rights belong unconditionally and inclusively to every individual. Oppressive systems are built on the unstated but firm belief that rights are granted or denied based on any criteria the powerful choose to recognize. This philosophy can be thought of as the central faith of an idolatrous cult

which worships human reason as competent to choose criteria for excluding the powerless from membership in human community. The sects of this cult are defined by their criteria for excluding others from the protected community to which rights are granted. Thus, the Racist sect excludes people on the basis of ethnicity, the Creedists on the basis of religion, the Birthists on the basis of prenatal or postnatal status, etc.

Because this philosophy rationalizes the termination, limitation, cutting short or "aborting" of human rights, the term "Abortionism" characterizes both the cult and the philosophy that unites the various sects. Power is a major idol of the cult (see Orwell's *1984*), especially the power to choose whose lives or liberties may be terminated or

"aborted". A Birthist Abortionite mantra neatly captures this idea with the question "Who decides?"

Will we ever learn to recognize and reject this cult and all its destructive choices?



I sent this somwhat lengthy letter to the editor nationwide for the 25th anniversary of the *Roe v. Wade* calamity:

January 14, 1998

To the Editor:

In 1973, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in Roe v. Wade: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

With the ludicrous assertion that a question of biology, the science of life, was even partly a matter of philosophy or theology, the Court side-stepped the question and proceeded, in spite of its admitted (though feigned) ignorance, as though prenatal lives did not exist. By this key lie among many, the Court evaded acknowledging that what they were really striking down was the philosophical premise of our nation -- that human rights are intrinsic with human lives. They turned back the clock to when human rights were granted or denied by the powerful based on criteria of their choice, and gave us a nation based on might makes right, the philosophy of all oppression. The mindless resistance to banning partial-birth abortion, a barbaric and medically unnecessary abortion ritual, highlights this fanatical devotion to power and control instead of truth and justice.

Abortion rites advocates claim we have a conflict between core values of life and choice. But it is really a conflict between the philosophy that protects our freedoms and the philosophy that destroys freedom. It is a conflict between a world view that sees us as spiritual beings made in the image and likeness of God -- who alone endows us with inalienable rights -- and a meat manager mentality that sees us as cattle. It is a conflict between obedience to a universal law and idolatrous worship of the human intellect, complete with human sacrifices, as competent to selectively choose criteria for the exclusion and destruction of others. It is a conflict between people whose consciences still function and people who have aborted theirs.

Every Supreme Court vacancy causes a panic over keeping a majority that will support Roe v. Wade, a pathetic spectacle that recalls the effort to maintain a balance of slave and free states in the Senate. When will we admit that this act of judicial tyranny -- devoid of truth, justice, knowledge, reason and principle -- cannot stand, just as the house divided against itself over slavery could not stand?

Real Americans will never accept Roe v. Wade. We want our country back.


Alfred Lemmo

Note: I have spelled abortion rites correctly. If this must be shortened please retain at least the last two sentences, the quotation and most of the paragraph following it. Thank you.

[End of letter file]

A local Dearborn paper printed this essentially uncut and even slightly improved it by adding quotation marks around the word "rites" in the third paragraph.

Although I get some feedback from readers of my letters I do not have any accurate way to determine how much they get published. Reader feedback by postcard, letter and phone call is the only way I usually know that one of my letters has been published when I have not been contacted by the publication to verify authorship. Many local papers are restricted to publishing letters that originate locally. There are many other restrictions as well, such as length or requirements that letters be in response to something the paper has just published. That's why it's important to have local people organized to deal with their local publications. The materials described at the beginning of this email will be very useful in helping you do this well.

Thanks again for reading.

Al Lemmo

Dearborn, Michigan

October, 2002