Abortion: A "nice" name for 1st-degree murder

I'm a physician. I've been in practice for over 20 years. I've still -- to this day -- never had any personal knowledge of an abortion which was done to "save the life of the mother".

Talk about "saving the life of the mother", however, is another story altogether. It's discussed incessantly as an "excuse" for abortion.

"Rape" and "incest" are also discussed incessantly as excuses for abortion. But wait a minute. Aren't there pills which can prevent pregnancy if taken immediately? What's a woman doing 2, or 3, or even 9 months later, suddenly demanding an abortion for "rape"?

And who said that because a father had such poor self-control that he fornicated with his own daughter, that the offspring of the union must die? What did the offspring do wrong? Isn't it the father who deserves punishment? No, you say? We better look into this in a little more detail, if you just said "no".


Abortion is not an attack on a fetus.

It's an attack on YOU.


Although many of you don't know it yet, I'll "leak" the punch line of this part of our abortion report, and reveal to you in advance that you're about to learn that a fetus is a living human being with rights. You don't believe it yet, but you will soon.

That being the case, it follows that abortion is nothing but a clever trick, perpetrated by the Devil, to get you to willingly give up YOUR right-to-life in exchange for a brief perverted sexual encounter.

If you fell for it, you were not alone. America bought it hook, line and sinker. The right-to-life was, and still is the first of the three rights to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which our ideological ancestors fought a war to obtain. It's the most fundamental of them, because you can't have liberty, or be happy, if you're dead.

Well, guess what: You have given up your right-to-life. As the wise have known from the start (and I don't include myself as "wise", because the lesson had to be pounded into me), abortion could never have been constrained to the 1st trimester. It was inevitable that it would "spill over" into the 2nd trimester, then the 3rd, then the "partial birth abortion" where the doctor lies in wait for the fetus at the vaginal orifice, armed with instruments of murder, which he uses to hack the living child apart before it comes fully into view.

It gets worse. There are Nobel Prize Laureates who have gone on record as advocating that if a child is born "defective" (whatever that means), it should be permissible to kill it even after it's born.

Perhaps this sort of murder could be made more "politically correct" by moving it to a concentration camp of some sort, where the public didn't have to look at it. They could kill retards, old people, political "undesirables" and Jews there also, to save money on separate concentration camps.

So, how do I know that the fetus is "alive", and "has rights"? I confess to you that it's not necessarily self-evident, but that it requires thought. I was thrust into the problem by a peculiar set of circumstances, which I shall not burden you with. Let us proceed, rather, to the logical conclusion.


Proof that a fetus is a person with rights


Advocates of wild sex and it's "cousin", abortion, claim that the fetus is not "alive" in the legal sense. By this they mean that the fetus is not a person with legal rights such as the rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Let's play the Devil's Advocate (and the use of the word "Devil" here is remarkably apropos). If the fetus is not "alive" at conception, but is "alive" at birth, then it must have come "legally to life" at some point in the 9 months of development.

Let's presume that to be true, and see where it takes us.

If the fetus "comes to life" -- at least legally speaking -- during development, then when does it come to life? Is it in the first month? The second month? The third month?

Obviously, we don't know. But it must be one of the "early" months, must it not?

Let's do an exercise. Let's write our own abortion law, and let us be very, very careful to avoid terminating any late-stage fetuses which are "legally alive". So in our law, we shall allow all abortions up to, but not including, the second trimester. And, during these "early" months, we shall make abortion available to any woman whose "health" is threatened by the pregnancy (and "health" shall include "mental health").

In other words, just about any pregnant woman, under our law, can have an abortion, essentially "on demand", but -- only up to the end of the 3rd month.

Now imagine yourself being a "triage nurse" in an abortion clinic. Your job is to determine who qualifies for an abortion, and who doesn't. Women whom you find "qualified" are sent inside, where their unborn babies are, shall we say, "removed". The others are sent home to have their baby -- whether they like it or not! Pretty harsh, is it not?

Now imagine that it's 9:00 A.M. The clinic doors open up to the public, and a woman strolls in demanding an abortion. She announces that she's 3 months pregnant, and you believe her. You ask her why she wants an abortion, and she says "the baby gives me a headache".

Well, that's certainly a health problem! Since, therefore, she's "qualified", you admit her and she gets an abortion.

No sooner does the first woman leave, then a second one comes in. She announces that she's four months pregnant, but that the child is known -- from a prior ultrasound study -- to be anencephalic. That means that the child has no head! Anencephalic children can live for a while, but within the first year most of them die, and few survive to be more than two.

You review your rules, and the abortion is denied. The woman is 4 months pregnant, and under our law, no abortion can be done after the 3rd month! The woman begins to protest vehemently. She met the previous client in the waiting room, and she knows that she was 3 months pregnant. She knows further that your clinic aborted the previous client's perfectly-formed, 3-month-old fetus. That aborted fetus had no birth defects, and appeared to be an entirely normal child -- one who could have grown up to be President of the United States with a little bit of luck.

Her fetus, on the other hand (no pun intended), has no head. "Why can't I have an abortion?", she screams. But her protests are to no avail, because "the law is the law", and you intend to uphold it.

So our second woman hires a lawyer, and she sues. In her court papers, she points out the following:

  1. By forcing her to continue this unwanted pregnancy, you are forcing her to consent to 5 months of unnecessary pain, culminating in the unbearable pain of childbirth.
  2. You are forcing her to face the risk of death, since every pregnancy has the potential to be fatal to the mother.
  3. You are forcing her to bear the financial burden of carrying, birthing, and raising a child she doesn't want -- a child with no head!

The case comes before the courts, and -- lo and behold -- our law is thrown out as "unconstitutional"! The court reminds us that the Constitution of the United States guarantees -- in two places -- "equal protection of the law". If the woman with the perfectly normal 3-month fetus was permitted to have an abortion, and our plaintiff, carrying a fetus with no head, was refused the same right, then her constitutional right to "equal protection" was breached.

The court decision goes further. The part of our law which states that permission for an abortion shall be linked to the age of the fetus, is rejected as being "arbitrary and capricious". Clearly -- the court points out -- the lack of a head is a far more important point in determining eligibility for abortion, in our case, than the question of whether the headless fetus is 3 or 4 months of age.

The upshot of it all is that the court orders us to re-write the law, so that it's not based merely on dates, but on some physical parameter; some developmental "benchmark", whereby we may say that before this benchmark is reached, the child has no rights, and after the benchmark is reached, the child has all the rights of an adult.

So you try to comply with the court order. But guess what:  You can't!

No matter what benchmark you choose, it doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Suppose, for example, you go by size. You declare that "all fetuses less than 10 cm are merely 'accumulations of lifeless cells', whereas fetuses longer than 10 cm are 'alive', possessing full legal rights".

Well, this doesn't work. Once again, plaintiffs come into the court demanding abortions. One has an anencephalic child longer than 10 cm, and she wants to know why it is that the length of the headless monster within her causes her to be denied a right which is extended to the mother of a perfectly normal fetus which just happens to be shorter than 10 cm. "What is this?", she demands to know. Is our nation now acting out the lyrics to the song "Short People Have No Reason To Live?"

Then another plaintiff comes before the court. Her fetus has no arms , and she's asking the same question. Then another one comes, bearing a fetus with spina bifida, asking the same question.

In each instance, the court orders that the abortion be granted, because of the doctrine of "equal protection of the law".

So you can't go by date, and you can't go by length. Clearly, you can't go by weight for the same reason. What, then, can you go by?

The answer is, you can't go by anything. I'm a physician; a medical doctor; and I also have a Ph.D. in biochemistry. In nearly 20 years I haven't been able to establish, to my own satisfaction, any physical parameter or set of parameters whereby it can possibly be said that before that stage of development, a child has no rights, and after that stage of development, the same child suddenly "deserves" the full protection of the law.


Partial Birth Abortion


When the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the notorious 1973 Roe vs. Wade case, almost everybody naively presumed that abortions would be limited to the first part of the first trimester. If a woman really didn't want to be pregnant, would she let the fetus grow to large size, for months on end, and then kill it? No one imagined such a thing possible!

About 10 years later, there was a highly-publicized case out of Boston, where an obstetrician was sued for performing an abortion in the second trimester. Most of us couldn't imagine such a thing, and in nationwide fit of irrational self-righteousness, the poor physician was "condemned in the press". The outcome of the case, however, was not widely-publicized at all. I have no idea whether or not the doctor was "convicted".

But now, years later, I know with certainty that he committed no crime under prevailing American law. You see, even back then, abortion had already been determined to be "legal" in any trimester, and third-trimester abortions were already going on! Our Boston obstetrician was not the first doctor to do a second-trimester abortion, he was merely the first one unfortunate enough to be named as defendant in a lawsuit, and to have his formerly good name dragged through the mud in the press.

Nowadays, in our apostate nation, abortion in all three trimesters is universally recognized as being not only legal, but fashionable. The enemies of God go farther:  They consider it "desirable", or even "necessary", since it amounts to "passing a child through the fire to Molech", i.e., sacrificing a child to a false god, which is forbidden at least 8 times in the Bible (Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:2-5, I Kings 11:7, 2 Kings 23:10, and Jeremiah 32:35).

This social "development" (or should I say "degeneration") came to a halt, at long last, with "partial birth abortion". Finally, after all these years, and all these babies slaughtered in the name of irresponsible sexual pleasure (the grand total being in the many tens of millions since Roe vs. Wade), the public finally discovered that there exists a form of child-killing they cannot automatically approve of.

And no wonder. The method consists of positioning a "doctor" at the vaginal orifice, armed with a suction cannula whose tip is sharpened to a fine point. When the baby moves within reach of the cannula, it is thrust into the baby's brain, and a powerful suction pump turned on. The brain is sucked out.

Then the baby -- still inside the mother's body -- can be dismembered and taken out, piece by piece, to make the mother's delivery easier. No one will call it murder, will they? After all, can you call it "murder" to dismember a baby whose brain has already been sucked out?

Well, apparently there are enough Americans who are not themselves brain-dead, that bills to ban partial-birth abortion keep popping up, and enjoy widespread support. But, in most states, as far as I know, it still goes on.

No one will deny that a baby, on it's way down the birth canal, is 100% alive. So what excuse can you give to justify murdering it?

The excuses run thin at thin point, but don't think for a minute that they're gone. There's more than one Nobel Prize Laureate who has stated, publicly, that the parents of babies born "defective" ought to have the right to order them killed for the first 3 days of life. Why force the parents to "suffer" with a defective child?

Sound's good to some. But not to me. What's this "3 day" rule? If, shortly after 1973, abortion itself spilled into the second and third trimesters, and then into "partial birth abortion" -- performed with the living child only seconds from full view -- then what human power will hold this "observational period" to 3 days? NONE, is the answer. The three days will turn into 4, then 5, then... well, use your imagination.

But aren't we talking about "defective" babies? These are not "normal human beings", they are merely deformed monsters. No?

Wait a minute. Who are these so-called "monsters"? How do you measure "monstrosity"?

If a child is anencephalic, the case would appear to be clear enough. But what if the head is not essentially absent, but merely small? An anencephalic child has a rudimentary head. How much larger must the head be before you allow the child to live?

Watch out! There are all kinds of hidden traps here. The children with the largest heads are the ones with hydrocephalus, a disease -- a disease sometimes associated with mental retardation. So "bigger" is not necessarily "better".

Someone has to decide how small the head must be before the child is deemed to be legally "not alive", and worthy of being murdered in utero, or even after birth, if "necessary".

And who's going to make that decision? Some politician under indictment for obstruction of justice?

The minute someone defines a "minimum head size", some pregnant woman will show up demanding an abortion, carrying a baby whose head is 1 mm larger than the minimum, and who is therefore not "qualified" for an abortion because her child is "alive". The woman will give any of dozens of reasons why her child does not "deserve" to live, even though it has a "big head". These reasons may include anything from other birth defects in the child, to the claim that the baby gives the mother a "headache", or any of a large number of other discomforts and health problems, both real and imagined.

The same sorts of arguments can be made for any other theory of abortion based upon "birth defects".


The Ultimate Joke


If none of the arguments so far have persuaded you, then please ask yourself the following question: What's worse, to cut off your daughter's arm, or to kill her?

Thank God, most parents will never face such a macabre choice. But if, by some extraordinarily evil turn of events, the choice was faced, what do you think the average mother (or father) would say? Isn't it better for your child to lose an arm -- God forbid -- than to be killed entirely?

Now, a few years back, a bizarre abortion story hit the New York City papers, and stayed on the front pages for weeks. It involved an abortion which was technically illegal, since it was done in an outpatient clinic in the late second trimester, when, according to the "letter of the law", such abortions must be done in hospitals only.

Both the doctor and the patient alleged that they were not aware of the dates, which no one really believes. But be that as it may, the abortion was botched. It was supposed to be a "D & E", meaning "dilatation and evacuation", which means that the baby is literally cut apart in the womb, and taken out, piece-by-piece.

But something went wrong. The child was born alive!

Unfortunately, it was also missing an arm. The abortionist had cut it off!

Well, you should have heard the self-righteous indignation against this abortionist. "Quack, butcher, murderer!" were terms which were all heard at that time.

Now, think about this. If the abortion had been completed, with the baby being hacked to death, everyone would have gone home happy (except the baby, of course). The abortionist, having successfully accomplished a technically difficult operation, would have been viewed by the patient, and all her friends, as a "hero".

But the abortion hadn't been completed. The child was born alive, which was considered a disgrace. Furthermore, its arm had been severed. The public was outraged. "Quack! Butcher! Murderer!" they shouted.

So, in an adult, murder is the most heinous of crimes, and the cutting off of an arm, horrible though it may be, is not as bad.

In the fetus, however, murder is just fine. But if you cut off the baby's arm, watch out! They'll come after you with a vengeance!

What do you think about this total inversion of human values? How can you explain such a bizarre twist of events?

The answer is, there's no logic to it, because it's based upon a totally false premise. The false premise is that the fetus is "not alive". If your society starts with false premises, then they will inevitably proceed from error to error, until the error finally arrives at your own front door. Don't doubt it.




I have been thinking about abortion for 20 years. I cannot find any criterion whereby it can be determined -- either in a scientifically, medically, legally, or morally acceptable way -- that there exists any time between conception and birth that constitutes a dividing line between "lifeless" and "alive". As far as I can tell, the baby is 100% alive at the moment of conception.

"Birth control" means preventing conception. Birth control is not murder, since nothing alive has yet been produced. Some find even birth control offensive, but in a world poised on the brink of dangerous overpopulation (we're not there yet, but it's coming), it's a certainty that some form of birth control will be practiced.

But once the child is conceived, any attempt to terminate its life is murder, pure and simple. If the Pandora's Box of murder is opened in the first trimester, it will inevitably and quickly move to the second, then the third trimester.

In America today, the issue of partial birth abortion has finally brought this chicanery to the forefront of public consciousness, but there are already numerous advocates of child-killing even after the baby is born. If that ever comes to pass, then the day will come when corrupt governments will exterminate adults, alleging that their birth was a "mistake", and that they never had any "right to life" in the first place. This happened to Jews in the Nazi Third Reich, and if you think "it can't happen here", you are deluding yourself.

It becomes apparent, as you think of these things, that God is testing us. This Web Site is all about the Golden Rule. Do you want to be murdered? If not, then why do you want to kill? If it is legal to kill anyone, then is there anyone whose life is safe?

I think not.

It is a service to God to raise a "defective" child, because in doing so, you labor in the service of the sanctity of the lives which He created. My sister raised a defective child, and I'm very proud of her for having done so. It was difficult. The child's name is Teddy.

Teddy is a very handsome boy (he's 20 years old now). He has problems, however. He can't move very much. His limbs are all contracted. His IQ is too low to measure on any ordinary scale. He'll never talk, and he'll never be able to either feed or dress himself.

But, when you look at him and smile, he'll smile back -- the biggest, broadest, happiest smile you can imagine. He's certainly as aware of you as your dog or cat is.

Which is exactly my point. A pet dog or cat has an IQ too low to measure on any ordinary scale. But people love their dogs and cats, sometimes so much so that it's like the love of a parent for a child.

Now, the intelligence of a pet is very low. Nevertheless, can you imagine anyone killing a cat because its IQ was under 100? Your dog can't use a toilet, or dress itself. Do you therefore terminate its life?

"Can you love a human being as much as you love your pet?"...is a question I would like to raise.

Yes, it really is difficult to raise a retarded or deformed child. I won't deny it. However, in a world without money, it would be much easier. Services for the profoundly retarded are indeed "expensive" -- as is jewelry, cars, shoes, toilet paper, and everything else under the sun in a money-driven, money-mad world.








































How many abortions are done every day in the world?


If there are 6,000,000,000 people in the world, then there must be about 3,000,000,000 women. If we assume that people have a life-span of 80 years, and that the range of child-bearing age in a woman is between the ages of 20-40 years of age, then we can conclude that the child-bearing years are about 25% of the life of the average woman. Therefore, at any given time there are something like 750,000,000 women of child-bearing age in the world.

If we even presume the ridiculous, namely that the population of the earth is not increasing (which you know isn't true), then we can derive a minimum estimate of the number of live births per day in the world, by assuming that each of the above-referenced 750,000,000 women will have a grand total of only 2 children each, in their entire lives.

Since the women will, on the average, each live 80 years of 365 days each, or 365x80 = 29,200 days, it follows that each woman will have


2/29,200 = 0.00006849315 "babies per day".


Multiplying by the number of women of child-bearing age, we get


(750,000,000 women) x (0.00006749315 "babies per day") = 51,370 babies


This represents a minimum estimate of the number of live births per day, in the whole world. The proportionate share in the United States, as a straightforward percentage of this, would be (based upon a US population of 250,000,000):


(250,000,000)/6 billion = 2140 births per day


Obviously, that number is too low, since William Brennan, author of The Abortion Holocaust: Today's Final Solution, reports the annual U.S. abortion figure to be at least 1,000,000, or nearly 3,000 abortions per day! That's more than the number of live births we've just calculated! Therefore, the number of live births is greater than our estimated figure of 2140 per day, but whatever it is, it's clear that an incredibly large percentage of them are murdered -- by abortion!

























The Abortion Holocaust


William Brennan, a strongly pro-life author, has written a book called The Abortion Holocaust: Today's Final Solution (Landmark Press, St. Louis, 1983), which effectively -- and horrifyingly -- compares the mindset behind the Nazi holocaust with the mindset behind the widespread adoption of abortion in the United States.

In 1983, the year the book was published, statistics before Congress indicated that 10,000,000 abortions had been performed in the preceding 10 year period, or about 1,000,000 per year. The number is undoubtedly higher now.

Of those 1,000,000 annual abortions, approximately 400,000 were performed on people who, if they had been allowed to live, would have gone on "welfare". Great way to "save money"! Why not just kill everybody?

On pp. 82-83 of Brennan's book, we see the following quotes from the Nobel Prize Laureates, James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick, the discoverers of the so-called "double helix" structure (but click here if you want to know the truth about DNA structure):

"Fortunately, now through such techniques as amniocentesis, parents can often learn in advance whether their child will be normal and healthy or hopelessly deformed. They then can choose either to have the child or opt for a therapeutic abortion. But the cruel fact remains that because of the present limits of such detection methods, most birth defects are not discovered until birth...If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering."

James D. Watson, "Children From The Laboratory," Prism, May 1973, p. 13.


"... no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live."

Quote from Francis H.C. Crick. Attributed to Pacific News Service, January 1978, and cited by Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1979), p. 73.