The Development and
the Killing of Unborn Children - Page 4
It's just plain common sense. Figure it out for yourself. Emotional problems can be brought on by many things -- some
large, some small. Some people can get an emotional problem if you look at them the wrong way.
Now, consider the taking of a human life -- not just any human life, but your baby's life. In the first few months,
or even the first few years, the woman may justify the killing in her mind, telling herself that it was the lesser
of two evils, that it made her life easier. But as the years roll by, this horrendous act will eat away at her
heart. She'll be reminded every year, on the date she decided to play God, what her baby would have looked like, would
he/she be crawling, walking, talking, in grade school, high school, or college? And as the years go further by, would
she be a grandmother by now; what would her grandchildren have looked like?
Since Roe v. Wade took effect in 1973, the jury is still out, as to all of the complications of the killing of
one's unborn baby, because these women would be middle age. As the woman grows older and gets closer to the "pearly
gates," do you think her emotional or mental problems get smaller? On the contrary, if she have just one decent
fiber left in her entire body, her deed will magnify as time goes by.
So when the proponents of the killing of unborn babies downplay emotional and mental problems, they are just plain
LIARS. The newspapers, TV, radio have got to put politics aside and state the truth, give women all the facts, so they
can make the right choice.
If just these two facts (cancer risk and emotional problems) were told to women, abortions would be history. No one
wants to die ahead of their time, or to spend a life in guilt or fear.
After all, since the pro-choicers preach that women should have a choice, then give them all the facts, so they can
make an intelligent and proper decision. As the Bible tells us: "a person reaps what he sows." Is all this suffering
worth it, and the condemning to death of over 45 million unborn children, (many of them feeling excruciating pain),
just for the convenience of some women? 98% of all abortions are done for convenience' sake.
To pick out a certain developmental stage to justify the killing of the unborn babies is a travesty of justice.
It is scientifically unsound and defies all logic, since the development of a human being is a continuum: zygote,
embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult.
The location of the development is inconsequential, and should not be held against the unborn and used as an excuse
to kill them. The fact is, that in both cases, the unborn and born are still developing and cannot survive on their
After a baby is born, he/she is still not fully developed. The cranial bones are not closed; the eyesight has not
been fully developed. Many newborns have heart murmurs because the heart valves are not fully developed. These types
of murmurs eventually disappear. In young infants, speech has not been developed. In young children, the reproductive
system has not been developed. These are just a few examples.
Whatís next? Kill your baby after he/she is born, because he/she is still not fully developed and cannot care
for himself or herself? You can see what a twisted, convoluted logic this is and where it can lead. Or has it already
led us down the path of self-destruction?
Why do women who kill their newborn baby just get a slap on their wrist? Is it any wonder that the killing of over
46 million unborn children has given everyone the perception that life is cheap? And the closer the newborn is to
his or her birth, the less his or her life is worth, because he/she is more closely associated to the unborn and we
all know that the unborn baby is fair game.
There are pro-aborts/pro-choice, who since they cannot refute the above, will actually have the nerve to say that a
sperm and ovum are human and we kill them; we kill germs and animals and they were created by God. Wow! Is this not
grasping for straws and reaching for just something to counter the fact that only the zygote, resulting from the
fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, has the blueprint.(DNA, genes) to grow into an adult?
So then, I guess that it's OK to kill the baby after he/she is born, using this kind of twisted criteria, that the
baby is not fully developed. If this argument doesnt work then the they will fall back on, "the fetus is not a person
until it takes its first breath." Again, using this criteria, then if the baby is killed after he/she is born but
before taking the first breath, it would not be murder. Most babies do not breathe just as soon as they're born. Many
newborns even require artificial stimulation to take their first breath. I can just see the ramifications of this
kind of reasoning.
Is the next step going to be, kill the newborn, after he/she is born, but before taking that first breath,
otherwise it will be murder?
Whatís next? Kill a child before he/she reaches puberty because that's when most of their systems will be
We cannot play God and pick and choose who is going to live or die in the womb according to certain developmental
stages, no more than we can pick or choose who is going to live or die after the baby is born, since the developmental
process is a continuous one.
If a baby is born prematurely, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent to keep the baby alive, and if someone were
to kill the baby, it would be considered murder. If a baby weighing more than the premature baby is killed inside
the womb, by his or her mother, itís not considered murder, even though he/she is older and more developed. It's
not even a misdemeanor. Does this make any sense to anyone? Even the pro-choicers have got to say, "yes, that is
ridiculous," unless they just donít care about human life.
Now here's the "kicker." If a pregnant woman is attacked and her viable fetus is killed, but she lives, the
perpetrator will be prosecuted for murder. How could this be? I thought that the fetus was just a blob of tissue. Now
our courts admit that the fetus is a human being, a person with inalienable rights. But wait! If a woman has her
unborn baby killed while he/she is in the womb, by a an abortionist, then this is not murder. This inconsistency
boggles the mind. Once it's murder, which it should be, and then it's not murder. You can't have it both ways just to
condone the killing of unborn babies.
What it comes down to is, you must have a "license to kill."
The pro-choicers have nothing on their side: not the word of God, not science, not compassion, not love, and not
common decency. The only thing on their side is death and misery.
I've often thought: what if a woman is on her way to a killing clinic and about ten feet before she gets to the
door, God suddenly appears to her and only her. She is stunned; she stops in her tracks and falls to her knees. God
does not say anything to her. He just looks at her. She is speechless; she is absolutely certain that this is God,
which was God's plan. After what seemed like a long time, but in reality was only about thirty seconds, God
Now, do you think that this woman would continue to walk into the clinic and have her unborn killed? OF COURSE NOT.
And do you think that if God appeared in this manner to members of the PCKU, that they would continue to condone the
killing of the unborn babies? OF COURSE NOT.
It's all a matter of faith. There are those who probably, might, maybe, or pretend to believe in God and there are
those who do not have to actually see God to put their undying faith in Him.
Therein lies the difference between the Pro-lifers and the pro-choicers. And therein lies the problem. Oh, how this
country needs a spiritual awakening.
BEHOLD, CHILDREN ARE A HERITAGE OF THE LORD AND THE FRUIT OF THE WOMB IS HIS REWARD.
Why do those, who claim to believe in God, continually want to strip Him of his reward and instead, hand it to satan
on a silver platter? Over 46 million times God has been denied his reward and 45 million times satan has received
Frank Joseph MD