Articles

The “Not Viable” Argument

 

…One of the common arguments to justify aborting an unborn baby is the argument that the fetus cannot live outside the womb at the time it is being aborted.  It is the “not viable” argument.  A fetus is not “capable of surviving or living successfully”1 outside of its mother’s womb.  It is totally dependent upon her for its survival. The earliest a baby has been born and has survived is 21 weeks and 5 days.2  Thus, the viable argument cannot be even be used about a baby at that stage because it could be viable, rather than “it is not viable”.

…But the argument is bogus to begin with.  The baby is viable in the mother’s womb.  It is only unable to survive if removed too early from where it is developing.  It is viable in the womb and not viable outside the womb.  It is viable in one place, but not another.

…In the same manner, the murdering abortionist is viable in one place but not viable in another.  If the Mafia took the killer out of his cozy abortion clinic, put concrete shoes on him, and dropped him into the depths of the ocean, the abortionist wouldn’t be viable in that situation.  He’s viable in one place, but not another.

…If a baby is aborted by giving it a chemical poison, it was alive and capable of continuing to survive in the womb, but the poison kills it in the very place it should have been nurtured.  It was no longer viable in the very place it once was viable.  If Jim Jones Kool-Aid is given to a person who is an accessory to murder by supporting and sustaining abortion, that person was alive and capable of continuing to survive in the place where he was.  But the poisoned Kool-Aid kills him and he was no longer viable in that same place.

…But here is the over-riding fact that one must always return to – viability doesn’t matter.  The supreme court was wrong in using that as an excuse for murder in Roe vs. Wade and those who parrot that argument are wrong as well.  One doesn’t have the right to murder a human being in the womb just because it wouldn’t be viable outside of the womb.  Abortion is murder and no one has the right to murder another human being.

…Do NOT let the murderers divert arguments from that fact.

 

 

1 https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=Xw#q=what+does+viable+mean

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth

The First Nine Months – a legislative proposal


(If you support the following legislative proposal to teach students in school about THE FIRST NINE MONTHS of each human being’s existence, please contact the appropriate Republican leaders.  Reference this site and article in case they don’t have what I’ve sent them in front of them.)

To whom it may concern:

   I am writing to you because of my sorrow and anger that more than 2500 unborn babies are being murdered by abortion every day in this supposed Christian nation.  I hope you share the outrage that those defenseless human beings are being poisoned, starved, crushed, and torn apart while alive – every day, year on end.

   One reason the abortion murder crowd has gotten its way is the slogans like “Pro-Choice”, which leaves out the fact that the desired choice is to kill their unborn child.  Another reason is the ignorance of people about THE FIRST NINE MONTHS of a human being.  In a video, a 19-year-old girl who had an abortion said she was just getting rid of “a clump of cells”.   One might call you and me “a clump of cells” as well, but we’re human beings and so was the unborn child she murdered.

   I propose that a bill be passed that would mandate a 45 or 50 minute video to educate students in public schools about THE FIRST NINE MONTHS.

  • It would be a science and health video with no side taken regarding the abortion issue. It would simply present science and health information.
  • It should include animation of a sperm fertilizing the egg as in the cover picture of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os18ClgtH0I
  • It should include a video of the spark of life, the dramatic pictures captured of the moment of fertilization:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovzGmRrtVys
  • It should include a number of quotes like this: Professor Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic testified before a Senate committee, in 1981, saying, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception” and “unequivocally, that the question when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact.”
  • It should include defining the terms zygote, embryo, and fetus, with the emphasis that they are states of human life per the above quotes. It should emphasize that just as an adult is a human being, a teen is a human being, a toddler is a human being, and a fetus, an embryo, and a zygote are each human beings.
  • It should include how the new human being develops through those early days and weeks – when it first has brain waves, when its heart first beats, when it first can feel pain, etc. Some of these more critical markers should be later placed in a bar above the abortion discussion so that its capability of pain, etc. can be matched in the abortion discussion.
  • This part of the video should culminate with a newborn baby.
  • The next part must cover abortions, giving a description of each one, telling during what weeks the method is used, matching the baby’s heartbeat, brain activity, and pain capability above the time period of each abortion technique. Descriptions about how a baby is poisoned in the saline method and what it undergoes and looks like must be part of this.  Also, it should include an animation that shows the method of abortion where the abortionist reaches in with an instrument and tears the baby apart such as this: one:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5THDmys8z30

    This video would primarily be for 8th graders.  But in the first year it is in use, it should be shown to the 8th grade through seniors since those upper classes have missed it.  After the first year, it would be shown to each incoming 8th grade class.

    I would also suggest a second video that covers some of the same material quickly but perhaps in a more frank and vivid way to be shown to sophomores.  It could also cover other things that occur during THE FIRST NINE MONTHS, including miscarriages.  A stark contrast could be made between the care some unborn babies receive (fetal surgery), how society frowns upon a pregnant woman who smokes, drinks, or uses cocaine (etc.) and damages her baby AND abortion which kills the human being.  In
describing the abortion techniques in this video, it should include that some babies are born alive in spite of abortion attempts.  It should include something as frank as this:

           https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/this-is-so-hard.-oh-god-its-so- 
           hard-nurses-tell-of-aborted-babies-born-aliv

This second video should be shown to sophomores and above the first year it is in use since the upper classes would have missed it.

  Teaching students the scientific fact that a new human being comes into existence at conception, the development of that human in the womb, and the facts of what occurs to those unborn human beings during abortion will be enough to inform those students and persuade many that abortion is murder, without having to say a thing about it directly.
–
  This message is being sent to other Republicans in my state (Texas), to Republican governors in other states (as well as other Republicans in those states and in states governed by a Democrat), and to elected Republican officials on the national level. 

   Please consider this carefully and act upon it quickly so that a new generation will be persuaded that abortion is murder and the holocaust must end.  Pro-life Republicans on the national level will be asked, sooner or later, if they will support an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion when we provide them with the necessary majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House.  If they do not, we will seek others to put in their place.  We’re looking for pro-life Republicans who will act and I hope you will act regarding THE FIRST NINE MONTHS.

The Cause and the Solution

    At the beginning of the twentieth century, laws against abortion existed in each state.  At the time of Roe v Wade in 1973, thirty states still prohibited abortion while twenty allowed it under some extenuating circumstances.1  Roe v Wade was simply the supreme court being political and reacting in a political style to a growing sentiment of support for abortion.  How did that occur?  How did this nation go from being against abortion to so many accepting it with loud voices so that the supreme court heard and found excuses to accept it as well?

    In 1970, Dr. Malcolm Watts wrote an article for the California Medical Association in support of abortion.  He talked about the Judeo-Christian ethic that values all life, and titled his article “A New Ethic For Medicine And Society.”  He wrote, “In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary….  Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.  The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.  The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”2

   In many people with loud voices, a new ethic supplanted the old Judeo-Christian ethic.  A disregard for human life (the unborn) replaced the recognition of the value of each life from conception to the grave.  Dr. Watts explained how.  It was done by separating “the idea of abortion from the idea of killing”, by “avoidance of the scientific fact…that human life begins at conception.”  It was done by “considerable semantic gymnastics”, by rationalizing “abortion as anything by taking life.”

   Many people were deceived by the methods Watts described and are continuing to be deceived as that methodology continues. That’s how the United States has come to murder 60,000,000 babies since 1973. 

   What’s the solution? 

   The solution is the opposite of the deceit used by those who wish to murder the unborn for their own selfish reasons.  Tell the truth.  They separate the idea of abortion and killing.  We must present the facts and join the two since abortion is murder.  They want to speak of sterile procedures.  We must speak of unborn babies being poisoned by a salt solution and writhing in convulsions for perhaps an hour as its skin is burned.  We must speak of the babies being torn apart, limb by limb; of their skulls being crushed; of their brains being sucked out.

   Not only must we speak of this so that the deceived will understand that abortion is not just a medical procedure but the murder of a human being, but we must speak of it everywhere we go, at all times and in all places.  We must speak of it on social media.  We must put up signs along the highways and byways.  We must put it on bumper stickers on our cars.  We must teach it with the clothes we wear.  We must proclaim it on billboards and in ads.  We must saturate this nation with the truth to a greater degree than the deceitful spread their wicked lies.

   Start today in every way you can and keep going until an amendment is passed to ban abortion.  My website is now fully functional and bumper stickers can be ordered there.

   

 

 

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

2 Brennan, William.  The Abortion Holocaust, p.107

Very Little Progress

 


…If one looks at the Gallup Poll concerning pro-life and pro-choice numbers since 1998, there has been very little change. 

   Since 1998:  

        lowest % favoring pro-life – 41% (2006, the latest)
        highest % favoring pro-life – 51% (2009)       

        lowest % favoring pro-choice – 41% (2012)
        highest % favoring pro-choice – 51% (2006)

        largest margin favoring pro-life – 9% (2012, the latest)
        largest margin favoring pro-choice – 10% (2006)        

   A glance at the last two might cause one to think that things have changed and pro-life is on the upswing and the numbers for pro-choice have begun to fall.  But here’s the stark reality:

        Pro-life began in 1998 with 45%; ended in 2016 with 46%.

        Pro-choice began in 1998 with 48%; ended in 2016 with 47%.1

Eighteen years have passed with virtually no progress.  Let’s face the facts.  What we’re doing is not working.

   Some of us aren’t doing enough.  We’re pro-life. We’re against abortion, but we’re passive.  We’re like small children with short attention spans.  A child gets a new toy and plays with it for a while and then goes on to something else.  We hear something about abortion and we’re roused for several hours.  Then, we go on with our lives.  We must sustain our outrage against the murder of the unborn and do more.  Will you even follow this site for a few months and read upcoming articles to see what you can do?  Or is even that too much?

   Some of us are doing much, but what we’re doing isn’t effective in changing the mind of America.  Some work around abortion clinics trying to change the mind of women about to have an abortion.  I read of one such case just yesterday where a couple changed their minds because a pro-lifer talked with them and persuaded them that their unborn child was precious to God.  That’s absolutely wonderful!  But others continue to stream into murder clinics at the rate of 2500 per day.  Some march in the streets to bring awareness to the cause.  Others pass out literature, send out emails, start petitions, try to influence politicians.  But in the last eighteen years, there has been almost no change. We must do something in addition to what we’re already doing, something different.  Are you willing to follow this site to discover what will work?

   Do it now.  Don’t wait.       

 

 

1 http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

The Murder Party

 

…Why do I call the Democratic Party the Murder Party?  I do so because part of its platform is a plank supporting abortion, the murder of the unborn.

…The following is its 2012 platform statement about abortion:

……..“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a ……..woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and ……..legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.  We oppose any and all efforts to weaken ……..or undermine that right.  Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a ……..woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or ……..government to get in the way.  We also recognize that health care and education ……..help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the ……..need for abortions.  We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to ……..have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and ……..access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a ……..child, including caring adoption programs.”1

…The 2016 platform was even more radical in its stance:

……..“We will continue to oppose – and seek to overturn – federal and state laws and ……..policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde ……..Amendment.”2  

…The Hyde Amendment prohibits using federal money to fund abortions, except in special cases, so that taxpayers who are against abortion are not paying taxes to support what they are morally against.  It was passed in 1976 and the Murder Party would now like to get rid of it so that more women may have the choice to murder their unborn children.  Not only does the Murder Party want your vote, which would sustain the murder of the unborn, it also wants you to help pay for those murders.  Thus, the blood of the innocent would be on your hands in two ways.

   The Murder Party goes to the extreme concerning abortion, even sanctioning the murder in the womb of babies who are viable.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz, when she was the chairwoman of the DNC was put on the spot about aborting babies even to the moment of birth and she said, “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.”  On CNN, Wolfe Blitzer gave her the chance to clarify by asking, “But is he [Rand Paul] right when he says that it’s OK, from your perspective, to kill a 7-pound baby in uterus? Is that your position?”3  Schultz did not indignantly deny that her position was being misrepresent-ed.  Instead, she simply repeated the same basic stance that abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor.  On two separate occasions, Bill Clinton, when president, vetoed acts banning partial birth abortions.

   What is a partial birth abortion?

……..“Partial-Birth Abortion is a procedure in which  the abortionist pulls a living ……..baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the ……..head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the ……..opening to the womb).  The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with ……..a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal ……..tube called a trochar.  He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and ……..removes the baby’s brain with a powerful suction machine.  This causes the skull
……..to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead ……..baby.”4  

   Other abortion techniques during the other two trimesters are just as hideous.  The Democratic Party supports the right of a woman to murder her unborn child in this way or another.  The Libertarian Party is no better, taking a hands-off approach, that government shouldn’t interfere.  Really? Why is it all right for government to interfere when policemen stop a man from killing his hostages and it’s not all right for the government to interfere when a woman and her Hippocratic hypocrite doctor murder that unborn baby?

   At the present time, only the Republican Party is against abortion. 

……..“Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, ……..we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a ……..fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human ……..life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the ……..Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”5

…All the other parties support murder in one way or another.  And those who support the Murder Party are themselves accessories to murder, guilty of murder as well, and the blood of the murdered is on their hands.
1 http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

2 http://www.lifenews.com/2016/09/28/networks-hide-attempt-by-hillary-clinton-and-democrats-to-force-americans-to-fund-abortions/

3 http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/14/cnn-asks-top-democrat-if-its-ok-to-kill-a-7-pound-baby-in-abortion-heres-her-answer/

4 http://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/facts/pbafacts.html
5 http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

Two Facts – The Second

Two facts (not preference and opinion like most of politics) must forevermore affect the votes of those who still have a heart and soul.  The first is that abortion is murder.  The second is that any support of the Democratic Party (which endorses the murder of the unborn as part of its platform) makes one an accessory to murder and guilty as well.  The first fact is proven here:

Two Facts – The First

The second fact:

Supporting the Democratic Party that endorses the murder of the unborn as part of its platform makes one an accessory to murder and guilty of murder as well.

One of the planks in the platform of the Democratic Party wholeheartedly supports the right to abortion.  The following is from their 2012 party platform:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v.
Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her preg-
nancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.
We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her
family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or
government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and
education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and
thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and un-
equivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing
affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to
programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a
child, including caring adoption programs.”1

To support the Democratic Party with contributions, or just by one’s vote makes one an accessory to murder.

……….“Aiding and abetting in a murder means that you were an accessory
……….to the crime. While you may not have been part of the actual crime,
……….you had knowledge of the crime before or after it was committed, you
……….may have assisted in it commission through advice, actions, or
……….financial support.”2

……….“A person who aids and abets stands to be sentenced with the same
……….punishment as the actual perpetrator under federal law, and many
……….states follow the same guideline.”3

Many religious people who are against abortion still vote for the Democratic Party.  In the 1996 presidential election, 43% of evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton.4  In the 2016 presidential election, 45% of Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton.5  If all the religious who are against abortion would vote against the Democratic Party because of the murder of the unborn, more pro-life congressmen would be elected and no pro-choice presidents would be elected.  The supreme court would have fewer liberals on it, increasing chances that Roe v. Wade would be overturned.  If religious voters voted against the Democratic Party for that single reason, they would influence others.  Eventually, an amendment to ban abortion would be passed.  At the moment, however, a person who is somewhat on the fence about abortion might look at all the religious people who don’t mind voting for it and think that it is all right for them to vote for it, too.  Voting for the Democratic Party helps sustain the holocaust against the unborn.  If a man drives the vehicle when a second man goes into the liquor store and murders the clerk, the first is an accessory to murder.  If a voter drives the political vehicle in which abortion murder is the plan, he’s an accessory to murder as well.  Only politics can end the murder of the unborn.  One either supports it and continues it with his vote or helps to ban it by voting for the only party that would end it.

As shown previously, our government’s laws mean that one who supports a murder is an accessory to murder, to be sentenced with the same punishment as the murder because he himself is guilty of it.  God’s law is the same.

……….“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of
……….Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he
……….has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does
……….not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do
……….not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting
……….participates in his evil deeds.” (II John 9,10)

In the first century, a Christian traveler was often invited into the home of another Christian to stay.  The apostle John said that if one helps a false teacher in this way, or even gives him a greeting (such as “God be with you”), he participates in his evil deeds.  Those who support the cause of candidates favoring abortion participate in the evil of abortion and are accessories to murder.

   The religious in this country who oppose abortion and then vote for the Democratic Party because of some trivial reason (all is trivial compared to murder, opinions versus fact) are guilty of hypocrisy, something Jesus roundly condemned when He saw it in the Pharisees (Matt.23).  They are guilty of saying and not doing.  Jesus said this of the Pharisees before repeatedly calling them hypocrites, “  therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them” (Matt.23:3).  Many say they are against abortion and then act in such a way that supports and sustains it.  They say things, but do not do.

The Babylonians destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and killed, or took into captivity, those in Judah.  Israel in the north had already been destroyed and taken into captivity by Assyria.  When their captivity was over, some who remained came back to Jerusalem and settled again.  God spoke to them through the prophet Haggai, saying, “Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses while this house lies desolate?” (Haggai 1:4).  They had built their houses and were comfortable in them while the temple had not been rebuilt.  And, in their comfort, they said, “The time has not come, even the time for the house of the Lord to be rebuilt” (Haggai 1:2).  They put themselves first and God second and God was not blessing them.  Many who are against abortion have been comfortable in their own houses and have been mostly passive while the slaughter of the unborn goes on and on.

The time has come to arise and fight, and stop the holocaust instead of being an accessory to murder and voting for the Democratic Party.

–

************************************************************

 

 

1 http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

2 https://www.quora.com/What-does-aiding-and-abetting-in-a-murder-mean

3 https://www.reference.com/government-politics/sentence-aiding-abetting-70e37f22c477f64

4 https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/the-history-of-the-evangelical-vote-in-presidential-elections/

5 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

Two Facts – The First

  Much of politics is preference and opinion, with one person giving weight to one set of arguments while another accepts the opposing set of arguments.  In the 2016 presidential election, some were more offended by what Donald Trump said and did than what Hillary Clinton said and did.  On the other side, some were more negative about Clinton’s words and acts than Trump’s.  Some liked the idea of reducing government regulations; some wanted all the regulations kept and desired even more.  Some see the value in laying a pipeline; some see the problems.

   Out of all the different issues, two facts (not preference and opinion) must forevermore affect the votes of those who still have a heart and soul.  The first is that abortion is murder and the second is that any support of the Democratic Party that endorses the murder of the unborn as part of its platform is an accessory to murder and guilty as well.

   The first fact:

   At conception, the fertilization of an egg by a sperm results in a new human life, a unique individual. That’s a scientific and medical fact.  Even many abortionists agree that abortion is killing, murder, the taking of a human life.

   Dr. Jerome LeJeune, who was a pediatrician and professor of genetics in Paris, testified before a Congressional subcommittee, saying, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being” and that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence…. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” 1

   Moore and Persaud, in their book on embryology, wrote, “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)…. his highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”2

    In an article for the California Medical Association, Dr. Malcom Watts wrote, “…it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous until death.”3  The source where this was found says it was a pro-abortion piece.

    Dr. Bertran Wainer, an abortionist who founded an abortion clinic said, “Abortion is killing. Nobody can argue with that. When the fetus is inside the uterus it is alive and when the pregnancy terminated it is dead – that by any definition is killing. … I think abortion is the destruction of something which is potentially irreplaceable, human and of great value, which is the tragedy of abortion. But it is not of greater value than the woman seeking the abortion.”4

   Professor Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic testified before a Senate committed in 1981, saying, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception” and “unequivocally, that the question when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute.  It is an established scientific fact.”  “…it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”5
      
    W.J. Larsen, in a book about human embryology, wrote, “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”6

   Carol Everett was the administrator of four abortion clinics and owned two.  She said, “Every woman has these same two questions: First, ‘Is it a baby?’ ‘No’ the counselor assures her. ‘It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)’ Even though these counselors see six week babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes that are closed like newborn puppies, they lie to the women. How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth?”7

   In their book on embryology, O’Rahilly and Muller wrote, “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”8

   Before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1981, Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard Medical School testified that a human life begins at conception and supported her testimony by references to more than twenty embryology and medical textbooks.  She said, “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”9

   An abortionist said, “I can now say openly that I do think I am ending a life every time I do an abortion, but I do it as someone who has certain skill which is put at the disposal of a woman who does not want her pregnancy to continue.”10

   Bruce Patten’s textbook on embryology states, “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)…. The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”11

   Notice their words: it is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…scientific fact, which everyone really knows…Abortion is killing. Nobody can argue with that….  …the question when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute.  It is an established scientific fact.  …It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.

   Thus, C.W. Kischer, who was a professor of anatomy and human embryology could make the sweeping statement, “Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).… We exist as a continuum of human life, which begins at fertilization and continues until death.”12

    What is killed during an abortion is a living, unique human being and is thus murder.

 

***********************************************************************

 

1 http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session April 23-24, 1981.

2 Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company,  Philadelphia.
come from here: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/scienceabortion.html

3 http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/how-are-abortions-done

4 Miriam Claire The Abortion Dilemma: Personal Views on a Public Issue (New York: Insight Books, 1995) 59

5 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981. http://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/ ,
Part was found above and part was found the book: The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time By James Porter Moreland, Norman L. Geisler   p.34,35

6 Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York.
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/scienceabortion.html

7 Carol Everett “A Walk Through an Abortion Clinic” ALL About Issues magazine Aug-Sept 1991, pg. 117  http://liveactionnews.org/is-it-a-baby-clinic-workers-respond/

8 O’Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York.  http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/scienceabortion.html

9 http://clinicquotes.com/scientists-speak-before-the-senate-human-life-begins-at-conception/

10 Anonymous “Personal View” British Medical Journal 1984, 289: 1377
http://clinicquotes.com/abortionist-ending-life/

11 Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3) http://liveactionnews.org/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/

12 Christine Watkins, editor The Ethics of Abortion (New York: Greenhaven press, 2005)
http://clinicquotes.com/embryologist-everyone-knows-life-begins-at-conception/