ABORTION : THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT - PT 1
Copyright 1994 - 2009 Endtime Prophecy Org
Published On : June 28, 1997
Last Updated : March 19, 2009
History Of This Series, 1973 Roe v. Wade Ruling, War Against
Life Begins, The Perpetrators, 46,000,000+ Unseen Victims In
USA Since 1973, 1.3 Million Annual US Abortions, Legality Of
Late-Term Abortions, Fetal Viability, Shocking Comparisons,
Fetuses Do Feel Pain, The Hippocratic Oath Condemns Abortion,
Roe v. Wade Not Overturned In 36 Years, Abortion & Politics,
Barack Obama's Position On Abortion, Freedom Of Choice Act,
G. Bush's Efforts To Contain Abortion, Bill Clinton's Record,
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Supreme Court & Appeals Court
Appointments, Child Custody Protection Act & Its Exceptions,
Parental Consent & Parental Notification, South Dakota Bills,
Defining An Abortionist, Right To Privacy Deception & Cover,
Due Process Clause, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights
Introduction :
The following series is the result of a writing project that
spans a period of approximately fourteen years. It began as
a series of online conversations that I had with members of
our BBS, (Bulletin Board Service), during the early to mid
1990's. These various conversations were eventually combined
into a lengthy article entitled "Abortion, Birth Control And
Promiscuity", and published on our Endtime Prophecy Net web
site in 1997. From that time until now, I have occasionally
held other online conversations regarding abortion, via our
Endtime Discuss Group Exchange, (EDGE), Mailing List, our
Endtime Prophecy Org Messageboard, our Armageddon FreeShare
server, and via other online avenues which I've frequented.
At the same time, over the past twelve years since I first
published "Abortion, Birth Control And Promiscuity", I have
also continued to expand my personal understanding of the
abortion issue, and have solidified my position regarding
it.
In light of the new information that I have acquired, since
several years ago, I have been wanting to update my original
article, but just contemplating the sheer magnitude of the
job before me made it difficult to begin. Thankfully, as a
result of recent online conversations which centered on this
same issue, I was finally motivated to put my hands to the
plough, (or more accurately, to the keyboard), and to tackle
this project once and for all.
This series is basically divided into two sections. Without
becoming overly burdensome or filled with weighty, confusing
legalese which perhaps only a legal scholar would be able to
understand, the first part of the series examines the legal
and political aspects of the abortion issue in recent years.
It also briefly and simply explains how the right to obtain
an abortion became the law of the land in 1973. The latter
half of the series changes gears, and addresses some of the
arguments and questions which have been posed by some of the
individuals with whom I've communicated over the years, and
offers Biblical responses to their inquiries and challenges.
Please understand that due to the very depth and complexity
of this issue, this series does not claim to examine every
single facet of the abortion debate. You won't find every
single state law discussed in these pages. You may not find
every single argument, either in favor of abortion, or else
against abortion, examined herein. However, it is my opinion
that sufficient information has been provided here, to assist
you in making an informed and knowledgeable choice regarding
the issue of abortion.
It is my hope and prayer that you will find the following
series enlightening and informative, and that it will have a
positive effect on your life. In addition to reading this
series, I encourage you to avail yourself of the additional
information and files which are to be found in the abortion
section of the Endtime Prophecy Net website. Finally, if you
are blessed by what you are about to read, please consider
sharing the URL to the series with your friends far and wide.
Thank you so much! You may just save an unborn child!
-----------------------------------------------------------
It was thirty-six years ago, in January of 1973, that the
United States Supreme Court made a ruling which is legally
known as 410 U.S. 113. Today, most people know this historic
ruling as Roe v. Wade. With the stroke of a pen, a terrible
war was initiated; the execution of which doesn't rely upon
bombs, or jets, or guns, or tanks, but rather upon a group
of men and women, who when they entered their profession,
took a vow to protect, to preserve, and to save life. In an
utterly bizarre twist of their pledge, and their duties as
the guardians of life, over the past thirty-six years, they
have made a mockery of their chosen profession, and have in
fact been directly responsible for taking the lives of an
estimated forty-six million innocents in the United States
alone; and this is only the figure for acknowledged legal
abortions.
Rarely, if ever, will you see their victims, and much less
hear them; because their lives are snuffed out before they
have even had a chance to come to term, and take their first
small breath. Such is the cruelty and barbarity of legalized
abortion. The tragedy of this war against life, is that it
is relentlessly waged in a nation which claims to be founded
upon Christian principles, which teach us that all life is
sacred in the eyes of our Creator. To this day, this ungodly
war continues to be carried out under a cloak of deception
by its perpetrators, and feigned ignorance by their willing
accomplices, the would-be mothers and fathers.
According to figures that were released in 2001 by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control, and also by the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, the aforementioned figure means that an estimated
1.3 million legal abortions have been performed in the United
States every year for the past thirty-six years. Based upon
that annual average, the prolifeaction.org website provides
the following breakdown regarding at what stage of gestation
these abortions have occurred:
Gestational Age Percentage Yearly Total
Less than 9 weeks 57.9% 752,700
9-10 weeks 20.3% 263,900
11-12 weeks 10.2% 132,600
13-15 weeks 6.2% 80,600
16-20 weeks 4.3% 55,900
21+ weeks 1.5% 19,500
As you can see, this means that just over eighty-eight per
cent of all abortions occur during the first twelve weeks of
a woman's pregnancy. The "Center for Bio-Ethical Reform" web
site provides slightly different percentages. Consider the
following:
Gestational Age Percentage
Less than 9 weeks 52%
9-10 weeks 25%
11-12 weeks 12%
13-15 weeks 6%
16-20 weeks 4%
21+ weeks 1%
While I find all of the above figures troubling, the last one
is the most alarming of all. It tells us that 1% to 1.5%, or
16,450 to 19,500 annual abortions in the United States, occur
after the twentieth week of pregnancy. Folks, we are talking
about a fetus that is five months old, or possibly older. If
nothing else in this series motivates you to strongly oppose
abortion, then it's my sincere hope that this one figure will
give you sufficient reason to want to oppose it. As you can
plainly see, when we discuss the issue of abortion, we aren't
always talking about "just a clump of cells", as many people
ignorantly claim. If you are wondering why it is even legally
possible for a woman or minor teen to obtain an abortion at
such a late stage of fetal development, it is because Roe v.
Wade ruled that a woman can abort her baby for any reason, up
until, in the words of the court document, "the interim point
at which the fetus becomes viable." The Supreme Court defined
the word "viable" as being:
----- Begin Quote -----
"potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit
with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about
seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24
weeks"
----- End Quote -----
The US Supreme Court also held that even after the point of
viability has been reached, abortion must still be available
to a woman, when it is needed to protect her health. That is
why late-term abortions are legally possible within the USA.
I'd like to ask you to stop and think about that total figure
for a moment:
46,000,000 legal abortions in the USA since 1973
46,000,000 unborn children slaughtered since 1973
Consider where you currently live. Consider what percentage
of people living in your area would have to die, in order to
reach such an astounding number. It's really shocking, isn't
it? Why? Because there are not enough people living in your
area, or even in your entire state, to reach that horrific
number. Exactly how large is 46,000,000? Well, let's make a
few quick and easy comparisons. The 2007 population of the
state of California, which happens to be the most populated
state in the USA, was 36.5 million people. That means that
for the purposes of this comparison, the entire population
of that huge state has been slaughtered through abortion, in
addition to about another 25% of the population beyond that,
since abortion became legal in 1973. In other words, roughly
125% of the entire population of California would have to be
slaughtered, in order to equal the number of abortions which
have been performed in the USA, since Roe v. Wade became the
law of the land in 1973.
Here is an equally astounding comparison. According to 2007
population figures, the huge state of Texas comes in second
with over 23.9 million inhabitants. That means that double
the entire population of Texas has been slaughtered through
the act of abortion, since 1973. Let us not forget that this
state is where the Roe v. Wade battle began. Let us also not
forget that the 46 million figure only represents the known
number of legal abortions. How many illegal ones have there
been?
Now can you better comprehend the full scope of this problem?
No one ever heard those 46 million voices. No one ever felt,
or saw, their pain. They were just gone. They were horribly
burned by a salt solution; sliced up like a worthless hunk
of meat; shredded and sucked up before the evidence could be
seen; and discarded. And America, and the world, continue in
this grotesque, detestable practice year after year, without
blinking an eye. Oh, how God must weep! Speaking of the pain
which fetuses are now scientifically known to feel, you won't
believe what one person wrote to me a few years ago regarding
this sensitive issue. After referring to an embryo as a "ball
of cells", they said:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Well, perhaps the cells do have the ability to feel, but at
that stage of development, it wouldn't have a brain to
interpret such signals. I think the issue of the one-month
old fetus feeling pain is irrelevant."
----- End Quote -----
Either this person was purposely being downright deceptive,
or else they are ignorant of the fact that at least 42% of
all abortions performed in the United States occur after the
first month of gestation; and the longer that a woman waits
to have her abortion, the more likely that the fetus is able
to feel pain as it is being ripped apart by the abortionist.
When U.S. Government figures take public office, they often
place their hand upon a Bible, and swear to uphold the laws
and ideals of the United States, as are set forth in the US
Constitution, and other legal documents. In similar fashion,
most members of the medical profession, upon entering their
chosen field of practice, take a similar oath which is known
as the "Hippocratic Oath". This oath, which is believed to
have been written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, in
4th century BC Greece, sets down in writing the ethics of all
medical practitioners. Translated from Greek, it states the
following:
----- Begin Quote -----
"I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I
take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep
according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me
this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to
share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own
brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients
according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to
anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor
will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a
woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the
disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be
performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good
of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional
ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the
pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or
slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my
profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to
be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and
practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but
if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my
lot."
----- End Quote -----
Please notice the line that clearly states ". . . I will not
give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Clearly then,
as I stated earlier, medical professionals who perform, or
assist in, an abortion, are in direct violation of their own
creed. Could this possibly be one of the reasons why some of
them now even refuse to recognize the oath; that is, because
they know that they have no intentions of fully keeping it?
Every four years, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution and
the laws of the United States, the people of America elect a
new president. At the time that Roe v. Wade became the law of
the land, Richard M. Nixon was the president of the USA. He
was forced to resign in August of 1974, due to the Watergate
scandal, at which time Gerald Ford, then the vice president,
became the new president. From that time until today, there
have been nine four-year presidential cycles; yet in spite of
the fact that thirty-six years have passed, Roe v. Wade has
never been overturned, and we should wonder why this is so.
As is common knowledge within the United States, the issue of
abortion has repeatedly played a central role, and has had a
very direct effect, on who becomes the next president of the
United States. Would-be presidents know that if they want to
assume the office of the president, they must win the support
of their constituents, whether they are pro-lifers, or else
pro-abortionists. Concerning the more conservative Republican
Party, this has usually meant taking a strong stand against
abortion. As recent American history reveals, it was because
George W. Bush catered to the Christian Right, and came out
against abortion, embryonic stem cell research and same-sex
"marriages", that he won the presidential race in 2000, and
then again in 2004, in spite of the fact that he dragged the
United States into the illegal Iraq War, based on deception
and lies.
However, as I explain in the four-part series "Obama, McCain
And The Bush Legacy", despite their high expectations, even
after eight years of the Bush Administration, Christians in
America are saddened to see that abortions still occur on a
daily basis throughout the country. Furthermore, soon a much
more liberal president, who has tried to straddle the fence
regarding abortion, and who has in fact done nothing which
opposes abortion, will be moving into the White House. I am
of course referring to President-elect Barack Hussein Obama.
To clarify what I mean, please consider the following data
regarding Mr. Obama:
1. He supports Roe v. Wade.
2. He voted against prohibiting minors from crossing state
lines in order to obtain an abortion.
3. He voted against notifying parents of minor children who
obtain out-of-state abortions.
4. He is undecided on whether or not life begins at
conception.
5. He voted against banning partial-birth abortions.
6. He stated that we should trust women to make their own
decisions regarding partial-birth abortion.
Equally alarming is the fact that President-Elect Obama has
made it quite clear that one of his very first acts as the
new president of the United States, in addition to dealing
with the current economic crisis, will be to sign into law
the so-called "Freedom Of Choice Act", or FOCA, once the US
Congress has presented it to him for his signature. In fact,
in July of 2007, while speaking to the Planned Parenthood
Action Fund, Barack Obama, then a U.S. senator, stated the
following; and you can be certain that Planned Parenthood is
going to hold Obama to his promise:
----- Begin Quote -----
"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of
Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
----- End Quote -----
While the US Supreme Court has long recognized abortion as a
fundamental right, even though it is not specifically written
as such in the U.S. Constitution, the Freedom Of Choice Act
will make abortion a legally-recognized fundamental right. As
a result, once this horrible piece of legislation is signed
into law by Obama, it will basically invalidate and reverse
any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order,
decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal,
state, or local government that would "deny or interfere with
a woman's right to choose" to have an abortion. As I explain
in "Obama, McCain And The Bush Legacy", currently, hospitals,
clinics and medical professionals can refuse to participate
in, or to facilitate, an abortion, based upon an act of their
conscience. The Freedom Of Choice Act will reverse this right
and will make anti-abortion professionals vulnerable to law
suits, etc., if they fail to perform an abortion upon demand.
Based on the previous points, it seems obvious that no true
Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian can possibly support
the agenda of the incoming president; and his record on gay
and lesbian rights is just as bad, and equally troubling.
But let's return to the efforts of the Bush Administration.
In all fairness, it should be noted that failure to overturn
Roe v. Wade was not due to President Bush's lack of trying to
accomplish this goal. During his eight years in office, Bush
in fact appointed a number of conservative judges to the U.S.
Supreme Court. In one of its more recent rulings in April of
2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the highly controversial
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by a vote of 5 to 4. As you
may recall, this bill was passed by the U.S. Congress, and
signed into law by President Bush in November of 2003. This
important piece of legislation makes it a crime for doctors
to perform any "overt act" to "kill the partially delivered
living fetus". Those who violate this law may face criminal
prosecution, fines and up to two years in prison. While in
office, President Bill Clinton vetoed this bill two times.
And that is not all that George Bush managed to accomplish.
In addition to his controversial Supreme Court appointments,
during his presidency, he appointed sixty-one judges to the
federal appeals courts, the majority of which lean towards a
conservative viewpoint. The appeals court system consists of
thirteen circuits, of which ten are controlled by Republican
appointed judges, according to an October 2008 article in the
New York Times.
During his term in office, President Bill Clinton appointed
sixty-five judges to the federal appeals courts. It has been
estimated that the number of federal judges appointed by the
Republican Party, most of them conservative, will have risen
about twelve per cent; from fifty per cent, to sixty-two per
cent, since George W. Bush first took office. The movement
to advance a "conservative legal revolution" actually began
during the Reagan Administration.
These aren't the only developments which occurred during the
Bush years in the hope of eventually overturning Roe v. Wade.
In 2006, the Child Custody Protection Act, (also known as the
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act), was amended to
title 18 of the Federal Criminal Code; or the United States
Code, as it is also known. This bill makes it a crime for any
doctor to perform or to induce an abortion on an out-of-state
minor in violation of parental notification requirements. The
act also mandates that physicians provide a twenty-four hour
actual or constructive notice to a parent of the minor child
who is seeking an abortion. Violators of this act are subject
to a fine, and could spend up to a year behind bars as well.
However, as passed, this bill does allow for an exception if:
1. the physician complies with parental notification
requirements in the physician's state;
2. the physician is given documentation that a court in the
minor's state of residence has waived parental notification
or otherwise authorized the minor's abortion;
3. the minor provides a written statement that she is the
victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by a
parent and the physician notifies appropriate state
officials of such abuse;
4. the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor
(written notice must be given to the minor's parent within
24 hours after the lifesaving abortion is performed): or
5. a person accompanying the minor provides documentation to
the physician that such person is the parent of the minor.
As tough as it sounds, this act is not bullet-proof, and does
have legal loopholes. But there is more. While these two acts
do make it more difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion,
they don't make it entirely impossible for them to do so. The
reason for this is simple; and that is because abortion laws
differ from state to state. At this current time, there are
forty-four states that have abortion laws which require that
a minor's parents be involved in the decision-making process.
However, the level of parental involvement varies. The level
of parental involvement can be broken down as follows:
a. In twelve states, a minor can obtain an abortion without
parental consent; however, she is required to notify at least
one of her parents ahead of time regarding her decision. The
one exception is the state of Minnesota, where both parents
are required to be notified of the girl's decision to have an
abortion.
b. In twenty-three states, a minor cannot obtain an abortion
unless she first acquires parental consent from one parent.
The exception to this are, I believe, Mississippi, North
Dakota and Texas, where the consent of both parents is
required before an abortion can be granted to a minor.
c. In two states, Oklahoma and Utah, parental consent and
parental notification must both be provided before an
abortion can be performed on a minor.
d. In nine states, the situation is rather nebulous, as
parental involvement laws have either been blocked by a
particular court order, or else they are simply not being
properly enforced.
e. Tragically, there are six states where there are no laws
concerning parental involvement. These are Vermont,
Connecticut, New York, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. Also
included in this group is the District of Columbia.
As if the situation isn't already loose enough, as we saw a
moment ago, in some situations, the Child Custody Protection
Act does allow judges to issue court orders which permit a
girl to obtain an abortion even without her parents' consent.
For example, in the state of West Virginia, a physician who
can demonstrate that he/she has no financial attachments to
the abortion provider, can perform an abortion on a minor.
There are likewise some states where it is acceptable for
grandparents, or other family members, to be involved in a
minor's choice to have an abortion, instead of the parents.
While the state of Mississippi has very strict anti-abortion
laws, so that only one abortion clinic has managed to survive
there, (at least legally), it is obviously not the only state
where the abortion war is being waged. In March of 2006, two-
term Governor Michael Rounds of South Dakota signed into law
a bill which made it a felony to perform an abortion, unless
it could be proved that it was absolutely necessary in order
to save a woman's life. The general consensus in both camps
was that the purpose of the South Dakota law was to challenge
Roe v. Wade head-on. As was expected, abortion advocates went
on the attack, and the law was ultimately repealed by a voter
referendum in November of that same year.
On November 4, 2008, voters in South Dakota were again given
an opportunity to accept, or to reject, a new amendment which
would ban abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when
there is a serious health threat to the mother. Sadly, this
initiative also failed. The Pro-Life camp has vowed to carry
on the battle another year. Another initiative in Colorado,
which was also on the November 4 ballot, and which would have
defined a fertilized egg as a legal human being, also failed
to acquire a majority vote.
Before continuing, let me mention here that one term that you
will see me using a lot in this series is "abortionists". To
avoid any kind of confusion, when you see this word used, I
am referring to anyone, whether they are a physician, or any
other kind of medical professional, or an organization, or a
woman, or a young girl, or anyone else, who practices, fights
for, supports, promotes or defends the practice of abortion.
If you refer to yourself as pro-choice, then in my view, you
are still an abortionist, because you want to have the right
to choose whether or not to have an abortion; which signifies
that you favor abortion. In short, unless a person is clearly
opposed to abortion, then in my view, they're an abortionist;
because there is simply no sitting on the fence when it comes
to this important issue. Having said that, let's continue.
One tactic which is frequently used by abortionists in order
to try to justify their hideous crime, is to emphasize the
right to privacy issue. It worked quite well for them in the
past, and they are obviously hoping that it will continue to
work for them for years to come. In case you weren't aware of
it, it was precisely the right to privacy issue that resulted
in the Roe v. Wade ruling prevailing thirty-six years ago in
1973. Roe v. Wade determined that at that time, most laws that
banned abortion in the U.S. were in violation of the right to
privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.
The Due Process Clause, which is also referred to as the Due
Process of Law, is the principle whereby the U.S. Government
is obligated to respect all of the legal rights to which a
person is entitled according to the law of the land, instead
of respecting just some or most of their legal rights. To put
it another way, the Due Process Clause provides a person with
the means to enforce their rights against alleged violations
by the government. The Fourteenth Amendment states:
----- Begin Quote -----
"No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law."
----- End Quote -----
By a vote of 7 to 2, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas
abortion laws, and ruled that abortion is a fundamental right
under the Constitution. A fundamental right is simply a right
that finds its origin in the Constitution, or that is implied
by the Constitution. We'll take a quick look at some of these
fundamental rights as we continue our discussion in part two.
Please go to part two for the continuation of this series.
[ CLICK ME ] Go To Part Two . . .