If the courts rule against free speech for pro-lifers(NOTE: They did!) that will be so unfair, hypocritical. That would be "double-standardism" at its worst. For the courts have protected-wrongly- the free speech rights of pornographers on the net, when the courts struck down the Decency Law passed by Congres about a year (or more) ago. I hope the latest effort by Congress, which Clinton resisted , but was forced to sign in November, is upheld by the courts. It goes after just the "teasers' on the net.

Anyway, I think it is totally outrageous that the courts have protected pornographic pictures, photography under the free "speech" clause of the First Amendment. For speech is one thing. Photography is something else. You might say I'm getting technichal. But pictures can be "worth a thousand words" and this is especially true of motion pictures. Photography plus motion plus audio can add up to a life-like object. It can be more hypnotic, ie attractive than words on a page. So, while words on a page about sex are not that harmful (and so can be protected free speech), motion pictures are more powerful. And so certain restrictions should apply. I mean if a vehicle that goes 10 mph needs only very limited brakes, this doesn't mean a vehicle that can go 120 mph should be equipped with those same weak brakes. Rather it deserves more powerful brakes. The more powerful the vehicle, the more powerful the brakes need to be.

While I'm on the subject of porn, let me just say that I think everyone who is against abortion should also oppose porn. Why? Because porn and "irresponsible sex" go together. And that kind of of sex results in unwanted p[regnancy which in turn results in abortion. Porn is a degree of sex with strangers. It's a degree of adultery. It therefore is anti-marriage in the same sense that it is "virtual" adultery. Does it promote adultery or does it reduce adultery by serving as an alternative to it? i'd say it does more promoting than reducing.

I am convinced that the legalization of porn in the 1950's and 1960's did more to bring about the legalization of abortion than almost anything else did. The way I see it, the Supreme Court legalized abortion, why? Because they saw the sexual revolution going on, of which the legalization of porn was a big part. And they, the Justices, saw that more and more babies were being born out of wedlock, born without fathers. One of the main reasons for this escalation (in the number of men who father children without marrying the mothers of those babies) was the "Playboy Philosophy" preached by Hugh Hefner in the 1960's (and still today). The gist of it was (is) that marriage=bondage. "It's better to be single so you can be 'free'."Hugh Hefner made sexual irresponsibility "cool', popular. What a monster!

The judges saw this trend and knew that with the increasing numbers of fatherless boys, there would be more illiteracy. For single mothers commonly don't impose their wills on teenage sons. That means that some don't do their schoolwork at night. And so they grow up illiterate, a certain percentage of them. (Not all of them, of course,) They don't get good jobs. A high percentage go on to a life of crime and prison sentences.

The Justices of the Supreme Court had this in the back of their minds, I believe, when they made their decision in Roe v Wade. I believe this factor influenced their decision. That is, they legalized abortion as a way to combat the threat posed by growing numbers of fatherless boys who grow up to be unproductive people.

Now for the Christian alternative to this Nazi-like solution (abortion) to the problem faced by fatherless boys. Let me say at the outset that God is the Creator of human society. It was part of His plan for man. He is the builder of it. And the words "builder" and "engineer" are fairly similar, synonymous. So we can call God, as the builder of society, the original "social engineer". And since we're in Him, in Christ, we have His Spirit or have of His Spirit. So we, too, have this trait in us of being "social engineers," builders of society.

I say that because I believe God wants Christians to be interested in running society. For who else should do it? The unbelievers, by definition, have "darkened minds." Christians are supposed to have the "light," ie insight, that comes from Christ which enables them to solve problems. And that includes social problems.

OK, the solution to the problem of fatherless children (especially boys) isn't to kill them in the womb, of course. Rather the solution is to get men to marry the mothers of those children. I mean, the answer is to reverse the sexual revolution of the 1960's. Reverse the legalization of porn.

The judges on the Supreme Court thought the reversals of such things couldn't be done. So they were open to abortion as the weapon to use against an army of fatherless boys growing up as criminals that was coming against society in the future.

I am not sayng that I have the answers as to how to reverse these things (the sexual revolution which includes porn). I'm just saying this is the size of the problem. This is what God will bring about- through a harsh judgement if necessary.

The abolition of slavery in America had to happen. But Christians in the 1830's, 40's and 50's couldn't do it. It was an "impossible" task. But God did the "impossible" by raising up the Republican Party and Lincoln as President. For that led the South's politicians (not the people) to hold a convention in which they voted to secede from the Union.

Once the southern states did that, Lincoln had a reason for going down and taking over those states and ending slavery! So, where before there was no way to end slavery, God made a way. I'm just saying that without the South seceding, Lincoln wouldn't have been able to end slavery.

My analysis of the abortion issue is speculative on my part, but I am certain the Justices turned to abortion not just because of the reason they give, namely women's rights. Rather, there is a secret reason, so to speak. Namely, the prospect of fatherless boys growing into criminal adults in increasing numbers.

Joseph Grace