Thanks to the generosity of those who are willing to give witness to the Judeo-Christian principle of the sanctity of all innocent human life, NKRTL’s annual March for Life Newspaper Ad was published this year in the Kentucky Enquirer on January 22, and in the Community Recorder papers on January 19, 2017.
Putting the Pro-Life Message in the Pro-Abortion Secular News Media
Although the same names appeared in each of our two ads, each ad ran a different teaching message. Aside from publishing large numbers of faithful pro-life advocates who each year submit their names in support of our annual ad, NKRTL publishes a pro-life message, one which would never be seen in the news media.
The following is the message published in the Community Recorders, followed by the message published in the Kentucky Enquirer:
Northern Kentucky Right to Life requests that all remember Robert C. Cetrulo and his family in your prayers. Bob went home to his loving Creator on October 27, 2016. As a founding member of NKRTL, Bob had unselfishly dedicated his life’s work to proclaiming the Judeo-Christian principle of the sanctity of all innocent human life. He stood in opposition to the culture of death which prevails in our nation, a nation that accepts the intrinsically evil acts of abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
NKRTL can think of no better tribute to this man than to republish his writings, such as the following:
A Strange Society
It is indeed a strange society which says that our Constitution prohibits the taking of the life of the convicted felon who, after being furnished due process of law, assistance of counsel, and presumption of innocence, has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous wrong against individuals and society, but says further that our Constitution authorizes the killing of the innocent child in the womb for reasons of convenience – and base that decision upon his utility or capability.
It is indeed a strange society which tells us that the Constitution furnishes legal rights to fleshless corporate entities as “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but denies those same rights to the live being – species Homo sapiens – growing in his mother’s womb. (This article continues on page 7.)
It is indeed a strange society which says to us that the woman who, on her way to keep a 4:00 p.m. appointment with her abortionist to kill the unborn child growing in her womb, and who suffers a vehicular accident resulting in the injury or death of that child at 3:00 p.m., may now sue and collect damages for the injury or death of that child.
It is a strange society that tells us that a woman who has been raped can kill her unborn child growing within her, but that the state may not kill the criminal rapist because capital punishment under such circumstances is cruel and unusual punishment.
But unfortunately, that is a small, but significant, glimpse of value selection presently imposed upon the American people by the Courts.
Following the “meaningful life” definition adopted by the Supreme Court in authorizing permissive abortion 43 years ago, there have been further horrible but predictable consequences. We have now legalized the experimentation upon live aborted babies and the withdrawing of food and water from living comatose patients who are not dying, but simply unconscious – with the result, of course, that they die violently from dehydration and starvation.
We have the vast majority of American citizens who claim to be Pro-Life but who do nothing to stop the killing, make no donations to the Pro-Life causes, attend no rallies, do not picket, sometimes support pro-abortionists for office, etc., while maintaining steadfastly all along of course that they are “Pro-Life.”
Does saying so, make it so? Or, does what we do count more than what we say? As the reader has no doubt determined, “Pro-Lifers” (those who are actually doing something about the current incredible real-life, here-and-now holocaust) believe that in fact the word “Pro-Life” does have a certain precise meaning. Its meaning really ought to be, and is in fact, defined by those who have conceived it and whose lives and actions have given this word “Pro-Life” breadth, depth, and intelligible substance. The nutritionist says, “We are what we eat.” The psychiatrist says, “We are what we think.” The Pro-Lifer says, “WE ARE WHAT WE DO!”
Intimidation of the Righteous
God-fearing people must not allow themselves to be intimidated from carrying their basic moral beliefs into the marketplace and into the political arena. Have you noticed that the epithet “religious right” is always thrown at religious people by “the pagan left”? But it must also be observed that organized religion has indeed fallen down frequently and badly on its sole mission – to spread eternal truth.
The pro-abortionists who would intimidate the Pro-Lifers from “imposing their morality on others” do not shrink from imposing in law their concepts of mandatory morality on other issues – prohibiting other forms of homicide, robbery, perjury, directing how our tax money shall be taken and used, even down to “Thou shalt not run a red light.” However, when it comes to abortion, “They try to weasel out…they refuse to admit that a vote for ‘pro-choice’ is a vote for abortion,” says Protestant Pastor E.W. Hill of Los Angeles.
It’s difficult to imagine, for example, that they would shrink from arguing forcefully about slavery (which was also “legal”). So why the peculiar hesitancy on abortion? It is obvious that their reticence about “imposing their views on others” is feigned and restricted solely and peculiarly to selective issues, like abortion.
This strategy – to say that a certain position is a “religious one” and therefore not appropriate for the public arena – violates the democratic principle which is that everyone’s opinion is included in the public debate, and that your views cannot be excluded simply because they are shaped by religious beliefs. The first settlers in this country were religiously motivated. The movement to abolish human slavery clearly had its strength in moral and religious underpinnings.
The secular media – the most vocal supporter of this attack by the irreligious upon the religious – was certainly uncritical and accepting of those members of the clergy who supported the peace movement in the 1960’s and currently, but yet attack so viciously those who, in the name of ethics and morality, presume to defend the most innocent member of the human family – the unborn child.
What is immediately obvious is that “church-state separation” is a specious and dishonorable facade to mask the simple reality that the Pro-Life agenda interferes with their goals. All law – or the absence thereof – represents someone’s morality!
