The Development and
the Killing of Unborn Children - Page 2
If something is alive and you do something to make it cease to exist, the word is "KILL" and there's no way to sugar
coat it, no matter how hard you try. THE UNBORN CHILD IS A HUMAN BEING. There is absolutely no doubt about this.
Even if someone were an atheist, you would think that just out of human compassion and decency, they would be
appalled at the thought of killing unborn babies. But when you throw in the fact that one of God’s commandments,
"THOU SHALT NOT KILL," is broken, then you are all the more perplexed at the mindset of these people.
If there is a more selfish criminal act than this, I don’t know what it could possibly be. A precious, defenseless
creation of God, literally butchered. Doesn't it want to make you cry? How could the PCKU condone such atrocities?
God laid down laws for us to follow: the 10 Commandments, one of which is, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL." Surely God with
all of His infinite power, would have been able to look into the future and would have seen the aftermath of the Roe
v. Wade decision, and put an asterisk after it, to omit the killing of the unborn. Or let us know in some way, loud
and clear, that the unborn was excluded. The fact that God did NOT do this, should tell us that God means what He
says, and people should not be trying to look for loopholes in the Bible to countermand the word of God to justify
the killing of the unborn and ease their conscience.
Pro-choicers will not accept God's word, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," which means the killing of a human being. To accept
it would mean that they have defied God's word and that they are a party to the killing of 40 million unborn
To say that, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not include the unborn is the same as saying, God, You have no power, You
couldn't look into the future, otherwise You would have put an asterisk after "Thou Shalt Not Kill," to exempt the
unborn. This questioning of God's power is an insult and a slap to His face.
HOW GOD MUST LOVE US, HE JUST KEEPS TAKING ONE SLAP AFTER ANOTHER.
JUST KILL THE BABY - THEIR PROBLEM IS SOLVED.
Today's woman will be on the side of issues that do not require them to be inconvenienced. Instead of showing love,
by having the baby, and putting him/her up for adoption, they will kill him/her. After all, they just have to
fit into their new bathing suit or dress, or a particular job opportunity just came up, so, kill the baby. There are
people who want to adopt, and will pay for the prenatal care as well as the entire doctor and hospital bills.
It seems that every time you read the papers or turn on the news these days, a teenager gives birth, kills her baby
and disposes of him/her, usually in a dumpster. We are appalled at this. How can they commit such an act? Sure we
know that they panic and are not thinking clearly. Still, they are charged with murder, and rightly so. Yet we are
not appalled when a woman who is in complete control of her senses had her unborn baby killed and this can be done
right up to term with a simple sentence. "Doctor, I can't go through with the delivery; mentally I just can't handle
it." And we wonder where these teenagers get the idea that life is so cheap; it's all around them. Can it get any
cheaper than the killing of 40 million unborn babies, some of whom, their mothers or friends may have been a part of?
So it doesn't take much stretching of the mind to say to oneself, "what's the difference if you kill a baby after
he/she is born, or before, since the anatomy and physiology are the same?"
These people who say that a woman has a right to kill her unborn baby because it's her body, also say that they
believe in God. I do not believe that they really and truly, and down deep in their hearts believe in God. The two
are diametrically opposed. They say it because they think it gives credence to their agenda and to ease their
conscience, but they are kidding no one.
Would not a person who really and truly believes in God, and gets pregnant out of wedlock, want to carry the baby to
term, as a penance to God for her sin? After the birth, she can give him/her up for adoption if she doesn't want
him/her. Why compound her sin by killing her baby, and committing a more grievous sin?
I only mention this, because as I said before, I don't believe these people really believe in God, as they say they
do. Would not a married woman, who believes in God as they profess they do, and who is compassionate and full of love,
carry the baby to term, give birth and then give him/her up for adoption? This would be true love.
And yet these same pro-choice people are out demonstrating to save a tree or a fish or against the cruelty to
animals. All of these things are given a higher priority than the precious life that is in their womb. How could
this be? These bleeding heart liberal Democrats, who claim to be for the poor, the downtrodden and the indigent, are
nowhere to be found when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is. Why are they not saddened by these
butcheries? Surely they have got to know that the fetus is NOT just a blob of tissue. Then why do they say that it
is? Are they not playing with a full deck or do they all have IQ’s of turnips? Or has their thinking been permeated
by satan? Certainly not by the word of God.
I just don't understand it; the answer, it would seem, lies in one of the above.
Their main argument is that without the legalized killing of the unborn, the women would have the
killings done by quacks and thus be exposed to infection or some other complication and die.
Remember their slogan: Unless abortions are made legal, women will have dark back alley rusty coat hanger jobs done.
Wow, that sounds real bad, doesn't it?
That was another lie sold to America by the PCKU and the abortion profiteers, in an effort to keep it legal. Let
me show you how ridiculous that statement is. If a coat hanger is going to be used, then why not use it in a well
lit place, such as a person's home or apartment? It would also be much cleaner and convenient with a bed and
chairs. I have never heard of a case where a coat hanger was used, let alone a rusty one and in a back alley. I'm
not saying that they were never used, because this world is made up of all kinds of people.
I'm saying that I, personally, had never heard of it. Yet the pro-aborts tried to shove that lie down our throats,
as if it were a common every day occurrence.
Before Roe v. Wade, most of the killings of unborn babies were done in hospitals with aseptic surgical technique
better than any of today's killing clinics, which are not regulated on a par with hospitals. Sure it was illegal, but
it was no problem for doctors to overcome. There were also many small hospitals owned by groups of doctors and they
did almost anything they wanted.
The president of Planned Parenthood (PCKU group), Dr. Mary Calderone, pointed out in a 1960 American Journal of
Health article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed
physicians in good standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was one of the original leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of
N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-life, admits that he and others in
the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died as a result of illegal
"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of
the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always '5,000 to 10,000 deaths a
year.' I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to
think of it. But in the 'morality' of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our
way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within
reason which had to be done was permissible.
[Source: Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 193.]
The fact is, there were NOT thousands of deaths prior to Roe v. Wade. In 1972, the year before Roe, only 39 abortion
related deaths were reported (by emergency rooms and morgues) to the Centers for Disease Control. With the advent of
"Safe & Legal" abortions, you’d think the death rate would drop to zero. Quite the opposite is true. In 1975, two
years after Roe, the CDC stated that as many as seven times more deaths were caused by legal abortions than illegal
ones. According to the American Rights Coalition, over 200 women are dying every year from botched abortions.
Then there are the emotional and mental factors. Clearly, once a young woman is pregnant, it is no longer a choice
between having a baby or not having a baby. It is a choice between having a baby or having a traumatic experience.