Report: Abortion

American Pro-Life Encyclopedia

CHAPTER 30. INTRODUCTION TO THE ABORTION ISSUE

CHAPTER 57. ABORTION: WORLDWIDE WAR ON THE INNOCENTS

CHAPTER 69. THE PREBORN AS LIVING BEINGS

CHAPTER 72. THE MIRACLE OF FETAL DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 79. RAPE AND INCEST: THE ULTIMATE “HARD CASES”

==============================

CHAPTER 30. INTRODUCTION TO THE ABORTION ISSUE

“How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesn’t see? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind ...”-- Bob Dylan, “Blowing in the Wind.”

ABORTION!

The single act whereby a woman decisively turns her back upon that quality that makes her totally unique in all of the world -- her ability to become a mother.

The very word “abortion” conjures in one’s mind, unbidden, vivid and bloody pictures of cowardly and secretive murder. So it is understandable that abortophiles refer to themselves as “pro-choice” and attempt to label pro-life activists “anti-choice.”

The pro-abortionists want nothing to do with the word “abortion.” They want the public to forget the term entirely, because they want to sanitize their image. They know that if our nation forgets the word “abortion,” it will also forget about the killing that the word represents.

The Prevalent Anti-Life Mentality.

“How do we account for the thousands here and the millions nationwide who have gone to their little deaths, as if they never were? And will they ever stop haunting us?”-- Editorial entitled “Abortion: Will It Haunt Us?”[1]

“Progress” Towards Mass Death.

American pro-abortionists are well on the way towards achieving their ultimate goal of institutionalized and ingrained abortion on demand for any reason whatever through all nine months of pregnancy.

They are ‘progressing’ towards this objective with the willing complicity of a populace that has a pressing need to forget that a New American Holocaust is happening in its very midst. The people of this nation have been brainwashed to the point where they are offended and even outraged by a photograph of an aborted baby -- but not by the act of abortion itself!

And make no mistake -- our pagan nation most definitely has bought into the anti-life mentality. It has purchased the entire gory package for a very dear price.

Before Abortion ...

As evil an act as abortion is, it cannot stand alone. It must be preceded by a widespread negative “societal attitude” towards human fertility.

No nation has ever legalized abortion without first denigrating the importance of motherhood and flooding its citizens with methods of artificial contraception.

The ‘birth control debate’ raged white-hot thirty years ago, just as the abortion issue does now, but it is currently a completely dead issue, except in those rare instances when a new and possibly dangerous method of birth control hits the market. Most Americans see nothing at all wrong with using various birth control methods to sabotage their own reproductive systems. There is only one branch of medicine devoted to destroying the function of an organ system instead of healing it -- and this practice is flourishing. Most American women have rendered themselves temporarily or permanently sterile by artificial means, and many will never know the joys and the trials of motherhood.

When these various contraceptive methods fail, the resulting gift from God is looked upon not as a child, but as a “contraceptive failure.” So pro-abortionists acknowledge that the primary reason they want abortion on demand is to act as a “backup for contraceptive failures.”

And After Abortion ...

A negative attitude towards motherhood precedes widespread contraceptive use, and contraceptive use precedes abortion. The final link in this deadly chain is the practice of infanticide and euthanasia, which cannot be introduced without first institutionalizing abortion.

An estimated two to five thousand newborn babies are starved to death in nurseries every year.

After all, what is the difference between killing a baby a few days before birth and killing it a few days after birth? While these little newborns suffer unspeakable agony, the euthanasiasts in our midst are campaigning for nationalized health care and cost containment. And we are lately casting a jaundiced eye at those elderly and sick people who are a “burden to society.”

Since abortion must precede euthanasia, the fight against the slaughter of the preborn is also a fight against the killing of the born . Pro-life (anti-abortion) activists know instinctively that they are also helping to forestall the wave of euthanasia that even now threatens to wash over us.

Smooth Progress to Destruction.

The Beginning.

There can no longer be any doubt that, after 1,900 years of constant and consistent teaching against it, the Anglican Church began our long slide down the ‘slippery slope’ when it accepted artificial contraception for “just the hard cases” in 1930, as described in Chapter 42, “Church Positions on Abortion.”

In just 60 short years, we have progressed steadily and inexorably from birth control for “just the hard cases” to birth control for any reason; from abortion for “just the hard cases” to abortion for any reason; and from to euthanasia for “just the hard cases” to euthanasia for a large number of exceptions.

The Solution.

Theologians and secular thinkers may agree on very little, but they do concur that nothing is accomplished without action. It is up to Christians to turn this country around; nobody else is going to do it!

The only valid question remaining for any individual who values human life is not “ Should I get involved?,” but “ Where should I get involved?”

There are many avenues of approach in the battle against abortion.

Some people work by striking at the very roots of abortion: The anti- life and contraceptive mentality, which strives to eliminate both fertility and those children deemed inconvenient or “birth control failures.”

These pro-lifers work on the basics. They teach their children love of life and of God’s marvelous gift of fertility. They learn and teach natural family planning (NFP) to other couples. They distribute pro-life literature in high schools and oppose school-based clinics, secular sex education programs, and condom distribution plans.

This battle against the prevalent destructive sexual attitudes in this country is critical because it attacks the problem at its roots. This is a fight that rarely sees the glare of media publicity.

Many pro-lifers address the other end of the spectrum: Euthanasia. This field is still wide-open. Although the pro-euthanasia people are well-organized, pro-life groups are still re-orienting themselves to deal with this threat. Pro-lifers who oppose euthanasia expose infanticide, work against the starvation of the helpless, and strive to educate the public about the grave danger that ‘death with dignity’ poses.

The euthanasiasts are progressing steadily through the same courts that gave us abortion on demand. The euthanasia ‘rights’ movement is now precisely where the abortion ‘rights’ movement was about 20 years ago. It is currying favor with the media and testing the limits of the law, all the time spewing rhetoric that is a haunting echo of the pro-abortion doublespeak we know so well.

The euthanasia fight is still largely the domain of the experts, and has not yet caught the full attention of the public.

The Current Focus.

As far as pro-life activism is concerned, abortion is ‘where it’s at.’ Abortion represents the significant and conscious point at which the actual killing begins, that point at which activists clash, and where the publicity, friction and heat are generated. Abortion represents that unique junction on the personal, national, and international slippery slopes where the grade turns from a shallow coast forward to an almost uncontrollable plunge into the abyss. The practice of widespread and permissive abortion means that both the individual person and society have thrown off all pretense of humanity and belief in God, and live for the simplest, easiest solution, whatever it may be -- even if that solution involves actual killing.

Pro-lifers have been waiting for almost two decades for the abortion battle to be returned to the states. Now that this is beginning to happen, we have reason to celebrate. But the battle will be long and savage, especially under a Clinton regime, and the only way to gain a decisive victory is to convert the hearts and minds of the people of America -- one by one.

Anyone can fight abortion. Everyone has skills that are critically needed by the pro-life Movement. The battle over abortion already is fully joined. There is certainly no shortage of tasks that need to be accomplished.

All we need are people to accomplish them!

Resources.

Chapter 20 of Volume I lists the names and addresses of more than one hundred nationally-based pro-life activist organizations. Between them, all of these groups cover every possible field of pro-life action.

Chapters 22 and 23 of Volume I describe many excellent pro-life books and periodicals that can inform the rookie or veteran activist on virtually any aspect of pro-life activism.

Anyone considering joining the pro/anti-life battle is urged to contact a national or local pro-life group and begin working in their area of expertise and skill towards the goal of converting this country back to its original Godly values.

==========================================

[1] “Abortion: Will It Haunt Us?” Peoria Journal Star editorial. Also quoted in an article by the same name in the May 16, 1985 issue of National Right to Life News , page 2.

==========================================

CHAPTER 52. A BRIEF HISTORY OF ABORTION

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned.”

-- William Butler Yeates, “The Second Coming.”

Anti-Life Philosophy.

Throughout history, abortion has always been widely and generally available to women for various reasons. The anti-abortion movement is a relatively new phenomenon, having cropped up only since the mid-1800s in this country. The anti-choicers cause a lot of social tension and are out of place when compared to the context of social history in general. These people would have been more at home during the Inquisitions.

Introduction.

The pro-life/anti-life struggle, which seems to be in the news every day now, is not by any means a new phenomenon. The strategies, tactics, arguments, and parameters for both sides were set before the beginning of recorded history. Only the names and the places and the dates have changed.

Abortion in Earliest Recorded History.

There are very few documents on the topic of abortion available to us before the time of Christ. However, those that we can find invariably recognize that abortion is not only deadly for babies and women, but to entire societies as well.

In the 12th century before Christ, more than 3,000 years ago, Provision 53 of the Ancient Assyrian Code stated that any woman who procured an abortion should be impaled upon a stake and left as food for the carrion eaters, whether or not the abortion killed her.

Ancient methods of abortion and birth control -- and their impacts upon societies -- have been discussed for millennia. Aristotle, in his work Politics , said that “The proper thing to do is to limit the size of each family, and if children are then conceived in excess of the limit so fixed, to have miscarriage induced.”[1]

Plutarch remarked on the natural and inevitable results of such policies as he described the decline of Greek civilization in Volume 37 of his Pulibus ; “One remarks nowadays over all Greece such a low birth rate and in a general manner such depopulation that the towns are deserted and the fields lying fallow, although this country has not been ravaged by war or epidemic. The cause of this harm is evident. By avarice or by cowardice, the people, if they marry, will not bring up children that they ought to have. At most, they bring up one or two ... It is in this manner that the scourge, before it is noticed, has rapidly developed. The remedy is in ourselves, we have but to change our morals.”[2]

The theologian Minucius Felix, who lived in the second century before Christ, remarked that “It is among you that I see newly-begotten sons at times exposed to wild beasts and birds, or dispatched by the violent death of strangulation; and there are women who, by the use of medicinal potions, destroy the unborn life in their wombs, and murder the child before they bring it forth. These practices undoubtedly are derived from a custom established by your gods; Saturn, though he did not expose his sons, certainly devoured them.”[3]

Four hundred years later, another theologian, Tertullian, graphically described the already-advanced ‘art’ of dilation and evacuation (D&E); “Accordingly, among surgeon’s tools, there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hood, wherewith the entire foetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of enbruosphaktes, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive ... life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.”[4]

The majority of ancient medical texts gave information on abortion procedures that paralleled the above description and even contained detailed diagrams that could be used for teaching various types of abortion procedures.[1]

Abortion During the Classical Period.

History.

During the classical period, laws restricting abortion varied substantially. Greece permitted both the abortion and infanticide of imperfectly-formed children. Grecian standards regarding young children were quite loose; a child could be killed by exposure (leaving the infant outside to perish from the effects of the elements) merely if the father did not consider it handsome or beautiful enough, if the mother could convince the father that the child did not contribute to the best interests of the family, or if it did not measure up to the physical ‘styles’ of the time.

Plato (427-341 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-341 B.C.) were two of the earliest advocates of eugenics, and approved of the exposure of offspring for the good of society, a view mirrored by Margaret Sanger nearly 2,500 years later.

Hippocrates (460-382 B.C.) dissented from this view. He prohibited abortion in his Oath, which was taken verbatim by physicians until very recently, when the American Medical Association and others quietly and conveniently dropped his prohibition against the murder of the unborn child.

Now that this first step has been taken, euthanasiasts are inevitably pushing to have the entire oath discarded. German euthanasia doctor Julius Hackethal stated at a 1985 Hemlock Society conference; “Sorry my English is not good enough ... I am impotent, English-impotent ... I studied that [Hippocratic] oath exactly. The conclusion of my Hippocratic Oath study is: “A more bad physician’s oath doesn’t exist!” One sentence of the patient-hostile Hippocratic Oath is: “I will never give anyone a deadly poison, not even at their request, nor will I give them any advice as to a deadly poison.” But it doesn’t apply for the last 50 years. Today I judge such an oath to be an act of unmedical patient-hostility, an act of inhumanity” [emphasis in original].[5]

Hippocrates was born on the Greek island of Kos. He formulated an entirely new framework of theories of medicine, including stringent sanctions on abortion, all of which were contained in his Corpus Hippocraticum , a body of 70 treatises on science and medicine. Hippocrates practiced medicine in Athens and died after a long life in Larisa.

The complete original Oath of Hippocrates is shown in Figure 52-1.

FIGURE 52-1 THE ORIGINAL OATH OF HIPPOCRATES

I swear by Apollo, the physician, and Asclepias and Health and All-Heal and all the gods and goddesses that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this oath and stipulation:

To reckon him who taught me this are equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him and relieve his necessities if required; to regard his offspring as on the same footing with my own brothers, and to teach them this art if they should wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation, and that by precept, lecture and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons and to those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath, according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion.

With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my art. I will not cut a person who is suffering from a stone, but will leave this to be done by practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter I will go into them for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and further from the seduction of females or males, bond or free.

Whatever, in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I may see or hear in the lives of men which ought not to be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

While I continue to keep this oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men at all times but should I trespass and violate this oath, may the reverse be my lot.

Lessons From the Greeks and Romans.

The kingdoms of Greece and Rome obtained abortion on demand in precisely the same manner that the United States, Canada, and many other countries did; in ancient Greece and Rome, some women killed themselves with self-administered ‘herbal remedy’ abortifacients. The lawmakers and ancient pro-aborts exaggerated and decried these deaths and passed laws legalizing abortion for any reason up to birth -- and after.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Abortion and the Early Church.

Abortion was not mentioned at all during the first 80 years of the early Christian Church’s existence, because to Jesus and the first Christians, abortion obviously fell under the broad stricture “Thou shalt not kill.” However, by the end of the first century, the Church had declared abortion to be a serious sin. The first-century Didache declared that “You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.”

From this point until 1930, the entire Christian Church in all of its branches condemned abortion without compromise. Athenogoras of Athens, Tertullian, Minicius Felix, Clement of Alexandria, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Basil were just a few of the early Church fathers who clearly and ringingly condemned feticide. At times, various theologians speculated about the time of ensoulment of the fetus, but the actual lawmaking body of the Church remained firm in its condemnation of abortion. In fact, of the more than 8,000 saints formally recognized by the Catholic Church, not a single one has been ‘pro-choice.’

For further information on the stands of current-day churches on abortion, see Chapters 42, 43, and 44, “Church Positions on Abortion.”

Original Jewish law strictly banned abortion except in cases where the mother would die if she carried to term. Those Jewish sects that believe in the divine nature of the Torah still condemn abortion. Those ‘Jewish’ sects that have turned away from the original teachings of their faith are invariably pro-abortion (for more detailed information on the traditional Jewish position regarding abortion, see Chapter 44, “Jewish Faith Position on Abortion”).

The Common Law Tradition.

“The state calls its own violence ‘law,’ but that of the individual ‘crime.’”-- German author Max Stirner.[6]

British and American Tradition.

In general, American legal tradition has rather closely followed that of the English. England observed the laws of the Catholic Church until the 15th century. The Father of Common Law, Henry of Brackton (1216-1272), was the first person to mention abortion in the newly developing tradition of English Common Law. Brackton asserted that “If there is anyone who has struck a pregnant woman or has given [abortifacient] poison to her, whereby he has caused an abortion, if the fetus be already formed or animated, and especially if animated, he commits a homicide.”

In the 16th century, Sir Edward Coke, in his Institutes of the Law of England , modified Henry’s total injunction against abortion; “If a woman be quick with a child, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her womb, or if a man beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body and she is delivered of a dead child, this is a great misprision and no murder; but if the child be born alive and dieth of poison, battery, or other cause, this is murder.”

In other words, Coke considered the abortion of a child past quickening to be a felony offense, but did not mention the status of an offender who killed an unborn child before quickening. In 1765, Blackstone echoed Coke’s view in his Commentaries .

Heartbreak in France. It is fairly obvious that the pro/anti-abortion battle was raging in Europe even as early as the mid-18th century. A member of a French anti-abortion group, Jean Micheleau, had previously forced his lover to have an illegal abortion and then had repented of his crime.

In 1740, he wrote a wrenching pro-life poem to his dead preborn child that still rings true today;

“Upon My Dead Child” Jean Micheleau

“O Thou,

whose eyes were closed in Death’s pale night,

Ere fate revealed thee to my aching sight.

Embryo, imperfect as my tortured thought;

Sad outcast of existence and of naught;

Thou, who to guilty love first owest thy frame,

Whom guilty honour killed to hide its shame;

Dire offspring!

Formed by love’s too pleasing power!

Honour’s dire victim in luckless hour!

Soften the pangs that still revenge thy doom;

Nor from the dark abyss of nature’s womb,

When back I cast thee, let revolving time

Call up past scenes to aggravate my crime.

Two adverse tyrants ruled thy wayward fate,

Thyself a helpless victim in their hate;

Love, in spite of honour’s dictates,

gave thee breath;

Honour, in spite of love, pronounced thy death.”[1]

It is fascinating to note that a famous French novelist who lived at the same time as Jean Micheleau was the first European to propose that abortion be legalized.

This man’s novels were replete with several recurring themes, one of the strongest of which was the pleasure which certain disturbed individuals derive from killing both pregnant women and unborn children. In one of his novels, he describes with great relish the skewering of a pregnant woman with a red-hot iron rod driven through both her and her unborn baby.[7]

The novelist’s name? The Marquis de Sade.

Recent English Law.

The first modern English law written against abortion was the 1803 Miscarriage of Women Act , which banned the use of abortifacient drugs. An 1828 law strengthened the previous statute by banning the use of instruments to cause abortion. In 1861, a landmark English law outlawed all abortions for any reason whatsoever, and any abortion was regarded as a serious felony. This law remained on the books (though modified) for 107 years, until 1968. Its one major modification was the 1929 Infant Life Preservation Act, which permitted abortions only to save the life of the mother.

England began its plunge down the slippery slope in 1938 with the use of a predictable (and totally fabricated) “hard case,” the tactic used all over the world to obtain abortion on demand for any reason. Professional pro-abortionists alleged that a 14-year old girl was lured into a stable to see a horse with a wooden leg (no kidding) and was supposedly gang-raped by four guardsmen. She became pregnant, and went to a crusading pro-abortion ‘doctor’ (Alec Bourne), who gave her a free abortion. He then turned himself in. In the resulting case of law, Rex v. Bourne , Judge Alex McNaghten decided that delivery of the baby would impair the girl’s mental health, and acquitted the abortionist.

Naturally, the guardsmen were never called into court to answer to the charge of rape -- and for good reason. The incident never happened. It is curious indeed that virtually the same fabricated gang-rape story was used by a plaintiff to obtain abortion in demand in the United States thought the Roe v. Wade case.

Apparently there are historians among the pro-abortionists.

This was just the beginning. The Bourne case galvanized the abortion pushers. In 1948, an English court ruled that a doctor could decide for himself whether an abortion was necessary, and this was the practical beginning of abortion on demand in England. Soon, the names of ‘doctors’ who considered all abortions ‘necessary’ were widely circulated, and England’s abortion rate more than tripled in a single year. In 1958, the Court, seeing that abortion on demand was a reality, decided that mental health was a valid reason for abortions.

Finally, Parliament in 1967 passed the Abortion Act of 1967 , which permitted abortion for eugenics or the mental or physical health of the mother, which of course, in practice, meant abortion for any reason at all.

Today, a person cannot enter the field of obstetrics-gynecology in the United Kingdom unless he signs a binding statement that he is pro-abortion. Hospitals hold competitions to see who can perform the most abortions, and tables are published to embarrass those hospitals with low abortion rates.

The British National Health Service does not allow gynecologists to refuse to perform abortions, and conscience clauses are unheard of under the socialized medical system. One doctor was advised that “There is no room for Catholics in this part of the National Health Service.”[8]

The History of Abortion in the United States.

An Honorable Tradition.

The organized American pro-life movement in America has a very long and honorable history. It is more than a century older than the Republic -- at least 350 years old.

Library of Congress archives show that Captain John Smith, who was befriended by the Indian chief Pocahontas, heard evidence against abortionist Dorcas Howard in 1629.[9]

Benjamin Wadsworth, future president of Harvard College, condemned abortion as “Murder in God’s account” in 1712. Primarily due to the activities of organized pro-life groups, New York City passed a law against midwives performing abortions in 1716.

Between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the century, leading pro-life organizations included the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the Society for the Suppression of Vice, the YMCA and YWCA, the Florence Crittenden Society, and the Salvation Army (the latter three groups are now pro-abortion).

Before 1900, the slogan “Adoption, Not Abortion” was even more popular that it is today. There existed literally hundreds of Crisis Pregnancy Centers and shepherding homes for unwed mothers, some with room for more than 1,000 to live at one time. Their names were legion: Some of the largest chains of sheltering homes and CPCs included the Homes of Mercy, Door of Hope, the Life and Hope Missions, the Rescue Missions, Beulah House, the Jewish Home for Girls, the Home for the Friendless, Bethany Home, the Norwegian Home of Shelter, the National League on Urban Conditions Among Negroes, the Association for Befriending Children and Young Girls, the New Shelter for Young Women, the Magdalene Benevolence Society, the House of Mercy, the House of the Good Shepherd, and Boynton Refuge Home.[9]

And, of course, the mainline Protestant Churches condemned abortion with one voice, as described in Chapter 42, “Church Positions on Abortion.”

Early Abortion History.

Pro-abortion people invariably assert that the United States has not always had laws banning abortion, and therefore it should remain legal. This is an obviously disingenuous argument for two primary reasons.

Just because an act was once legal does not mean that it should always remain legal. This is a poor man’s version of stare decisis . Under this logic, slavery should be legalized again because it was once the law of the land, and women should once again be banned from voting.

Secondly, laws proscribing abortion in the middle 1800s were a reaction to a growing problem. Abortion was not perceived as a problem until the 1850s, because at that time, increasingly overt publicity by quack abortionists began to raise awareness on the part of real doctors.

Involvement of the AMA.

Early law generally drew an artificial line at “quickening,” not because abortion prior to quickening was tolerated, but because a reliable pregnancy test had not yet been developed. There was no legal or medical way to prove with certainty that a woman was pregnant --indeed, the woman herself could not know with certainty until quickening, because the generally poor diet of the people often led to extremely irregular menstrual periods.

By the end of the 19th century, pro-abortionists were already agitating for baby-killing. One of the first arguments they used was that life began at quickening, and abortion should therefore be allowed before this point.

This argument was decisively rejected by the American Medical Association (AMA). Dr. Isaac Quimby wrote in an 1887 issue of the American Medical Association Journal that “This fallacious idea that there is no life until quickening takes place, has been the foundation of, and formed the basis of, and been the excuse to ease or appease the guilty conscience which had led to the destruction of thousands of human lives [through abortion].”[10]

In 1859, the Committee on Criminal Abortion of the American Medical Association unanimously adopted the following resolution; “[The American Medical Association] condemns the procuring of abortion, at every period of gestation, except as necessary for preserving the life of either mother or child and requests the zealous cooperation of the various state medical societies in pressing this subject upon the legislatures of the respective states.”[11]

Physicians recognized the haunting signs of post-abortion syndrome as early as 1870, and this was one reason that the AMA continued to vigorously oppose abortion. One doctor noted the pervasive and lingering psychological impacts of abortion as he wrote that “We cannot recall to mind an individual [woman] who has been guilty of this [abortion] crime (for it must be called a crime under every aspect), who has not suffered for many years afterward in consequence. And when health is finally restored, the freshness of life had gone, the vigor of mind and energy of body have forever departed.”[12]

Between 1859 and 1875, 15 states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming) enacted laws that conformed to the above resolution.[13]

By 1875, every state had either adopted new statutes conforming to the 1859 AMA resolutions, or had merely amended existing anti-abortion laws. This meant that, by 1875, every state had laws on the books banning abortion.

In the late 1800s, the women’s suffrage movement and other feminist concerns were just beginning to exert a national influence. This is significant, because even a century ago, abortion was recognized as a great advance in men’s rights, not women’s rights. It was the woman who got pregnant and who had to suffer through the abortion; she was caught between society’s disapproval and her own conscience. As early feminist Matilda George so rightly put it, “This crime of ‘child murder,’ abortion, lies at the door of the male sex.”[13] As described in Chapter 129 in Volume III on “Neofeminism,” the early suffragettes were almost unanimously pro-life.

Interestingly, a cadre of thousands of professional women, called the “new abolitionists,” sought to ban both abortion and contraception beginning in about 1860. These women, including E. Blackwell, A.B. Blackwell, and Frances Willard, associated free sex with the selfish impulses of men who lacked both self-control and respect for women. The “new abolitionists” believed that a single standard of morality should apply to both men and women.[14]

Curiously (but not surprisingly), some of the strongest advocates of legal abortion then and now are men. This is natural -- pro-abortion men want to be able to sexually exploit women without consequences, and abortion serves admirably to remove the ‘consequences’ of conception -- the preborn child. Abortion has become our country’s great social eraser. It is no accident that the greatest champions of abortion in both major parties in the Senate -- Ted Kennedy and Bob Packwood -- have been in constant trouble for abusing women.

As a sidelight, the Nazis strongly encouraged abortion among “non- Aryan” women before and during World War II. Adolf Hitler’s July 22, 1941 restrictive population control policy stated that “When girls and women in the Occupied Territories of the East have abortions, we can only be in favor of it; in any case we should not oppose it. The Fuhrer believes that we should authorize the development of a thriving trade in contraceptives. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply.”[14]

The German abortion program is described in detail in Chapter 53, “The Holocaust Analogy to Abortion.”

Following the atrocities of World War II in 1948 and 1949, the World Medical Association (of which the AMA was a member), adopted the Declaration of Geneva and the International Code of Medical Ethics which stated “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity ... A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.”[15]

Pre-Roe v. Wade.

The beginning of the modern abortion-rights movement is generally considered to be 1959, when the American Law Institute (ALI) published proposed revisions to existing abortion laws. At the time that this ‘Model Penal Code’ was proposed, abortion was illegal in every state, except in most cases to save the life of the mother.[16]

The Model Penal Code urged that abortion be performed in licensed hospitals when indicated to preserve the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape. This type of legislation would obviously lead to a situation essentially equivalent to abortion on demand.

During the 1960s, the pro-abortion movement constructed its framework of strategies and slogans. These were heady times for revolutionaries and anti-lifers of every stripe, and the modern American eugenics/euthanasia movement also received its initial impetus at this time.

The first influential “thinker” to liken “forced childbearing” to rape was eugenicist Garrett Hardin. He also argued for the absolute right to abort for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy.[17]

Also during this time, the pro-abortionists began their serious drive to take over all three branches of the federal government. On January 29, 1970, National Organization for Women president Betty Friedan and Rep. Patsy Mink (D., Hawaii), testified against United States Supreme Court nominee Harrold G. Carswell at Senate hearings on the grounds that he was “insensitive” to “women’s rights” (i.e., abortion).

So Robert Bork was certainly not the first Supreme Court nominee to get ‘the treatment’ at the hands of hateful Neofeminists.

Sherri Finkbine and Rich Folk’s Abortions. After the “progressive” ALI abortion laws had been proposed, pro-abortionists needed a test case to support their arguments. Sherri Finkbine’s situation was ideal for their purposes. The abortion issue was first defined for many Americans by the intense publicity surrounding this case.

Finkbine, the mother of four, hosted the “Romper Room” television series in Scottsdale, Arizona in the early 1960s. Her stage name was ‘Miss Sherri.’

Her husband brought her some samples of the tranquilizer thalidomide, and she then heard about the fact that many pregnant women who had taken the drug had given birth to babies with missing limbs. At about the same time, she found out that she was pregnant.

She began to fear that her preborn baby would be deformed, and made her situation public. Local courts upheld State anti-abortion laws and said that she could not have the abortion done in a Scottsdale hospital.

So she traveled to Stockholm to have her baby exterminated.

Finkbine has been a pro-abortion crusader ever since, saying in 1992 that “This [question of abortion] shouldn’t be an issue in the political arena. When a woman has to make this kind of decision, she should see her doctor, not her lawyer.”

The thought of possibly having a “deformed child” obviously revolted Finkbine. She stated that she did not want a child who “... sits in the park and has people give him peanuts and things. Had it not been for the abortion, I would have taken care of the four children I had, and the head and torso [referring to her baby].”[16]

Despite projecting a motherly, caring image to thousands of people on “Romper Room,” Finkbine, by her actions, essentially told the public that she could really only relate to perfectly healthy White babies. Any child with any kind of handicap should not come near her, as evidenced by her callous labeling of a handicapped child as a “head and torso.”[16]

Her claim that her preborn baby was deformed was naturally never verified.

The Finkbine case, and the rubella epidemic of 1964 and 1965, inflamed the public with the fear of a flood of deformed babies and helped originate the now-tired (but still effective) pro-abortion argument that only the rich will be able to afford abortions if the procedure becomes illegal.

Just how valuable Finkbine’s help had been to the pro-abortion movement was revealed a quarter-century after the death of her preborn baby when Sarah Weddington, lead plaintiff’s attorney in Roe v. Wade , told her that “It’s a privilege to meet you. If it hadn’t been for you, my job ten years later would have been much more difficult.”[18]

Beginning of the End.

Eight years after the American Law Institute’s ‘model’ abortion law was released, Colorado became the first state to liberalize its statutes, allowing abortion only for the mother’s life and rape and incest. Governor Richard Lamm, who pushed the bill relentlessly, considered it a failure because he would not settle for anything less than abortion on demand (incidentally, Lamm was the same person who gave his famous pro-euthanasia “duty to die” speech in 1986).

During the next five years, the abortion-rights movement was on a roll, and by the end 1970 a total of 14 states had liberalized their abortion laws, as shown below;

· 1967 -- Colorado, California, and North Carolina

· 1968 -- Georgia and Maryland

· 1969 -- Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oregon

· 1970 -- Hawaii, Alaska, New York, and Washington.

When it seemed to abortion supporters that no more states would pass looser abortion laws, they tried twice to legalize baby-killing through the referendum route in 1972. They were thrashed at the polls both times. In North Dakota, they lost by a 79% to 21% margin, and in Michigan, they lost 62% to 38%. After this blow, the pro-aborts became uncontrollably angry, and their hate and bigotry showed clearly.

For example, Anne Nicol Gaylor, in her incredibly-named book Abortion is a Blessing , whined that “Antiabortionists love to refer to the 1972 Michigan referendum, in which a proposition to legalize abortion was defeated 61-39 per cent, but that particular referendum probably only proves that the Catholic Church has a lot of money ... The Catholic Church used its tax-exempt machinery openly for the political purpose of helping defeat a referendum, and of course it won. Tyranny is always better organized than freedom.”[19]

Naturally, Gaylor didn’t mention that the pro-abortion forces spent twice as much money than the pro-lifers during the campaign -- and that many Neoliberal churches fought hard for the pro-abortion referendum.

Apparently, it all depends on whose “tax-exempt machinery” you’re talking about.

At this point, the abortion pushers realized that they could not make progress in any further states. The people were obviously against abortion, and no more state legislatures appeared ready to liberalize their laws. In fact, many of the states whose legislatures had already liberalized their laws conducted polls that showed the people to be heavily against such actions; some states were even on the verge of re- criminalizing abortion.

The Instantaneous Turning Point.

Then came Roe v. Wade . In a single day, seven old men usurped the power of the states and imposed their will on all of society. Bella Abzug and the National Organization for Women weren’t satisfied, however; they stated that they wanted abortion enshrined permanently in the Constitution (via the Equal Rights Amendment) right up to birth, and that they wanted all abortions to be paid for by the taxpayer, at a total cost of more than one billion dollars per year.

Make no mistake: As drastic as Roe v. Wade is, it is still not enough for the Neofeminists, as evidenced by the Draconian Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate even the most trivial restrictions on abortion, such as informed consent, conscience clauses, any level of parental involvement, and 24-hour waiting periods. A recent Ms . Magazine article asserted that “Even with a right to abortion, women cannot have full liberty and equality without the social conditions that assure that their reproductive and sexual decisions reflect genuine and joyful choices rather than reluctant necessities or painful compromises. Roe v. Wade, therefore, does not represent the final realization of the goal of reproductive freedom, but rather a crucial step along the way.”[20]

Recent History.

Since Roe , the abortion debate has been simmering on the front burner. Pro-abortion groups admitted to becoming complacent when they wrongly perceived that they had won the final victory in 1973. Pro-lifers were caught off-guard and remained in a state of stunned disbelief for several years.

However, the pro-life forces began to marshal their strength in the legislative arena by 1975 and in the streets a decade later. One after the other, 37 states cut off free abortion funding. The Hyde Amendment cut off Federal abortion funding for more than 99 percent of the original 275,000 free abortions. Crisis pregnancy centers proliferated. Then, in 1987, Operation Rescue hit the streets, and the battle was truly joined.

In the face of this organized and implacable opposition, the pro- abortion forces could do only one thing: Fall back upon the old, tired rhetoric and lies from twenty years ago. There is absolutely nothing original in their approach. They are totally sterile in imagination. The only advantages they have are a seemingly limitless reservoir of money to draw on, and the willing cooperation of the heavily anti-life media.

Current and typical pro-abortion propaganda emphasizes only the ‘hard cases’ and nothing else. Planned Parenthood’s 30-minute video “Personal Decisions” is a case in point. It stresses that abortion must remain legal, or social anarchy will result. Its ‘typical cases’ for abortion are a rape victim, a 16-year old schoolgirl, a woman with a deformed baby, a first-year medical student who was the ‘victim’ of failed birth control, an abused single woman, and the obligatory destitute Catholic girl (the last case is mandatory in these propaganda pieces to ‘show’ that Catholics get abortions too -- you never hear of a nice Jewish or Protestant girl getting an abortion, of course)!

Recent Church Positions Regarding Abortion.

The major Protestant denominations also banned abortion until the middle of the twentieth century, when some of them relaxed their stands. For information on the current positions of 160 churches with members in the United States, see Chapter 42, “Church Positions on Abortion.” The history of the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is described in detail in Chapter 43, “Catholic Church Position on Abortion.”

Currently in the United States, churches comprising 82 percent of all persons who attend church are pro-life (banning abortion completely or allowing it just for the life of the mother). Those churches that represent a mere 18 percent of the population are ‘pro-choice,’ and many of these are currently reevaluating their positions on abortion.

Necessary Pro-Life Involvement for Victory.

Any pro-life (or pro-abortion) victory in this battle will, of necessity, be only temporary. The pro-aborts are correct when they say that there will always be abortion. There will always be selfish women who put their personal convenience above the very life of someone else.

By the same token, there will always be a pro-life movement because there will always be people ready to defend the most helpless of human beings. However, the pro-life movement will be able to overpower the anti- life forces if and only if all life-loving persons get involved!

For further information on what YOU can do to save lives, see Chapters 25 through 28 in Volume I on “Pro-Life Strategy.”

==========================================

[1] Poem is provided in Moses Moissedes. “Contribution a L’Etude de L’Avortement dans L’Antiquite Crecque.” Janus , 26, 1922.

[2] Plutarch, remarking on the decline of Greek civilization. Pulibus (Volume 37), page 221. Also quoted in Colonel Robert de Marcellos. “Fertility and National Power.” The Human Life Review , Winter 1981, pages 34 to 51.

[3] Minucius Felix, theologian (c. 200-225), Octavius , page 30.

[4] Tertullian, theologian (150-225), Treatise on the Soul , pages 25 and 27.

[5] From the transcript of a speech by Dr. Julius Hackethal entitled “Medical Help By Suicide -- As a Method of Voluntary Euthanasia,” presented at the Second National Voluntary Euthanasia Conference of the Hemlock Society on February 9th, 1985, in Los Angeles, California.

[6] German author Max Stirner, quoted in Jonathon Green. The Cynic’s Lexicon . New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1984, 220 pages, $18.95.

[7] Dr. Kenneth M. Mitzner. “The Abortion Culture.” Triumph , March 1973, pages 20 to 24.

[8] “The New Scandal: Doctor on the Dole.” London Daily Express , January 12, 1973.

[9] Marvin Olasky. “Victorian Secret: Pro-Life Victories in 19th-Century America.” Policy Review , Spring 1992, pages 30 to 37. A fascinating view of pro-life activities in the ‘early days’ of abortion. Many or most pro-life activists will not agree with the author’s plea for a ‘containment’ strategy instead of an ‘abolitionist’ approach.

[10] Raymond Tatalovich and Byron Daynes. The Politics of Abortion: An Overview of U.S. Abortion Policy . 1981, page 21.

[11] Horatio Storer. Criminal Abortion in America . Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1860. Pages 99 and 100.

[12] Sheila M. Rothman. Women’s Proper Place: A History of Changing Ideas and Practices -- 1870 to the Present . 1978, page 89.

[13] James C. Mohr. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800-1900 . New York: Oxford Press, 1978, pages 113 and 200.

[14] Leon Poliakov. Harvest of Hate . Syracuse, New York, 1954, pages 272 to 274. Also see Alexander Dallin. German Rule in Russia, 1941 to 1945 . London: Winchester Books, 1957, page 457.

[15] World Medical Association Bulletin April 1949, page 22 and January 1950, pages 6 to 34. Also see Dr. Leo Alexander’s classic article “Medical Science Under Dictatorship.” The New England Journal of Medicine , July 14, 1949.

[16] Keith J. Grady. “The Value of Life: Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist, 106 S.Ct. 2169(1986).” Hamline Law Review , Fall 1987, pages 623 to 662. Also see Dennis McDougal, Los Angeles Times-Washington Post Service. “Emotionally Charged Abortion Issue Told in ‘Sherri.’” TV Click, The Sunday Oregonian , February 9, 1992, page 26.

[17] Garrett Hardin. “Abortion -- Or Compulsory Pregnancy?” Journal of Marriage and the Family , May 1968.

[18] Conversation between Sarah Weddington and Sherri Finkbine, Quoted in Patricia Myers. “Shades of Gray.” Phoenix Magazine, October 1989, pages 40 to 45.

[19] Anne Nicol Gaylor. Abortion is a Blessing . New York, New York: Psychological Dimensions, Inc. 1975, 124 pages, page 48.

[20] Ms . Magazine “Special Report,” April 1989, page 92.

==========================================

CHAPTER 57. ABORTION: WORLDWIDE WAR ON THE INNOCENTS

“Every child has the inherent right to life.”-- Article 6 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

Women all over the world are struggling to rid themselves of the burden of unwanted children so that they can escape the endless cycle of poverty brought on by misogynist, backwards social attitudes.

In order to accomplish this goal, safe, legal abortion and free or cheap contraception must be made available to all the world’s women -- especially those in developing countries.

Introduction.

“No nation wanting to reduce its growth ... can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion.”-- Stephen D. Mumford and Elton Kessel.[2]

Many pro-life activists who are familiar with the situation in the United States believe that the human race has reached the bottom of the “slippery slope,” and that our respect for human life could not possibly slip any further.

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

The United States suffers far too many abortions, even by pro-abortion standards -- but still accounts for only about three percent of the world’s annual 55 million abortions![3]

Incredibly, abortion has claimed the lives of more than one billion unborn children throughout the world over the last 25 years, as shown in Figure 57-1. The magnitude of the loss of human resources and talent to this hideous slaughter is truly incomprehensible.

FIGURE 57-1 ANNUAL WORLD LEGAL ABORTIONS, 1969-1990

Graph: IN THE LAST QUARTER CENTURY, THE WORLD’S ABORTION ADDICTION HAS KILLED ONE BILLION UNBORN CHILDREN!

Bad as things seem, we in the United States have only just begun the long slide down the slippery slope. Other nations seem to have taken up permanent residence at its foot. We have only to look to these countries to see our own inevitable destination. If we are to save ourselves and our nation -- indeed, if we are to rescue even the last vestiges of our very humanity -- we must heed the stark warnings and the prophecy that their examples provide.

The Communist Abortion Addiction.

“When will those idiots in Moscow realize that the damage done to our women by abortion is quite equal to the harm done by drug addiction and alcoholism?”-- Soviet gynecologist Archil Khomasuridze.[4]

The Former Soviet Union -- World Abortion Capital.

About eighty percent of the former Soviet Union’s unborn children are murdered by abortion, and this slaughter has proceeded unabated in spite of the recent upheavals and ‘counter-revolution.’ Although this is a shocking figure, it is nowhere near as bad as that in some Communist countries which use abortion purely for population control and thereby kill more than ninety percent of their heritage.

The former Soviet Union currently holds the dubious title of ‘world abortion champion,’ recording even more “kills” than mainland China, which has a population four times larger. The Soviet Union suffered an incredible 12.8 million abortions in 1965 out of a total population of 233 million --ten times the current rate in the United States! For more than 15 years, an average of three-fourths of all Soviet women’s pregnancies have ended in abortion.[5] As the abortion mentality sinks ever deeper into the Soviet psyche, this figure has risen to about 90 percent in recent years. The former Soviet Union now commits an average of 20 million surgical abortions per year.[6]

This means that Soviet women have aborted about 350 million of their preborn babies in the last 25 years -- which makes the Soviet Union the only country that has wiped out the equivalent of more than its own population within the last generation.

This Soviet addiction to abortion is the direct cause of many bizarre and sometimes devastating demographic changes. For example, in 1987 the Soviet authorities announced a coercive program to reduce the birthrate among the mostly Moslem people of the Republic of Tadzhikstan, because their families, averaging six children, had created “a demographic situation which is growing complicated.”[7]

This quaint and vastly understated phrase means that Soviet women have been aborting the ‘native’ population out of existence for decades, and the Soviets must now force other populations to bring down their birthrates as well, or they will simply be overwhelmed by their so-called ‘minorities.’

The Soviets are taking the easy way out -- instead of trying to limit their own abortion rate, they are compelling other ethnic groups to emulate the sordid practice of aborting three-fourths of their unborn children.

Some Soviet authorities have finally recognized the gravity of the situation, and are speaking out. According to E.A. Shevardnadze, head of the Georgia Soviet Socialist Republic; “Has anyone the moral right to ignore the fact that so many women are striving to rid themselves of the future generation? In the past year, there were 100,000 abortions in this Republic, twice as many as in 1960. And this is only officially registered abortions. Mostly the basis of not wanting children is frivolousness and egoism. And certain doctors not only do not prevent this, but engage in a crude violation of the law, carrying out the dubious practice at home.”[8]

Romania Goes Through the Cycle -- Twice!

The leaders of other Communist countries have done more than merely decry their abortion situations. Romania, for example, recorded 1,115,000 abortions out of a total population of 19,030,000 in 1965, a world record of 4.04 abortions per live birth -- meaning that four-fifths of all their pregnancies ended in abortion! One-fourth of all women of childbearing age had an abortion each year, and each woman averaged eight abortions in her lifetime. This abortion rate was fully 10 times greater than the current rate in the United States. Romania’s population was on the brink of a steep plunge to extinction.

In 1966, the government outlawed abortion except for cases involving the mother’s life, health, rape and incest, and eugenics. This may appear to be a long list of exceptions, but the Romanians kept strict control over their documentation, and abuse was relatively infrequent. The results were dramatic: in 1967, Romania had a total of 51,700 abortions, a 95 percent decrease over a period of just two years.[5]

But Romania still had not learned its lesson. The Communists once again allowed more and more exceptions, until in 1983, there were 421,000 abortions to 321,000 births. Once again, Romania had one of the world’s highest abortion ratios, with 1.31 abortions per live birth.

Finally, the Communist Party’s Central Committee banned abortion once again on March 7, 1984, and dictator Ceaucescu stated flatly that he wanted four children from every woman (pro-abortionists shout that banning abortion will lead to compelled childbirth, but what they fail to mention is that this happens only in Communist countries).

Romanian women experienced the identical reproductive coercion that Chinese women do, only with the opposite intention -- they received a medical examination after each cycle, and if they were pregnant at the end of the first cycle but not at the end of the second, they were interrogated. Contraceptives were also banned. In fact, people still single at 25 and couples with no children paid an extra five percent income tax. Doctors convicted of doing an illegal abortion a second time received the death sentence!

When Ceaucescu was overthrown in 1989, the incoming government immediately legalized abortion yet again -- for an unprecedented third time! For a little while, pro-abortionists, ever on the lookout for propaganda opportunities, tried to titillate an uncaring American public with garish photographs of ‘unwanted’ children warehoused in Romanian orphanages, and with stories of what might happen if ‘right-wing fanatics’ got their way in the United States.

Faye Wattleton, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of American, was, as usual, in the forefront of the propaganda campaign as she stated in a Humanist magazine; “If you think I’m being an alarmist, look at the history of Romania under Nicolae Ceaucescu. To boost the birthrate, the dictator banned contraception and abortion. Over time, birthrates were virtually unchanged -- but the maternal death rate skyrocketed. Nearly 1,000 Romanian women died each year from illegal abortions -- and those are just the ones who went to hospitals. Countless others, terrified of the law, chose to die at home. Today, in Bucharest alone, up to 30,000 women await hospital treatment for abortion complications. And 40,000 babies have been left orphaned or abandoned. This is the grisly legacy of a state that tried to control its citizens’ reproduction.”[9]

If Wattleton is the most intelligent and honest person that the pro- aborts can muster to lead them, they are in bad condition indeed. To begin with, her figure of 1,000 Romanian women dying of illegal abortions is simply an unsupported echo of the figure used in the United States -- and, like the U.S. number, it is a barefaced lie.

Wattleton also asserted in the above statement that one-fifth of all Bucharest women of childbearing age are awaiting care for botched abortions at any given time.

Only the blindest pro-abortionist would believe such nonsense.

Wattleton and others tried their best to paint Ceaucescu as “typical of the anti-choice mindset.” What they failed to mention, of course, was that the Romanian government did not ban abortion and birth control because it had any particular respect for the sanctity of life, but because it viewed life as a ‘commodity’ to be ‘accumulated for the greater good of the State.’

This pro-abort nonsense and the 1989 propaganda film “The Handmaid’s Tale” both flopped miserably. It was a bad year for pro-abortion propaganda.

China -- Abortion on Command.

Most pro-life activists are familiar with the forced contraception, sterilization, and abortion program in the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese are not particularly bashful about this coercion, and claim that it is necessary for their survival as a nation. The National Organization for Women and other groups praise this program, thereby giving the lie to their assertions that they are not ‘pro-abortion,’ but ‘pro-choice.’ It is estimated that the Chinese now commit 10 to 12 million abortions a year.[10]

For a further description of China’s coercive population control program --and the enthusiastic pro-abortion support of it -- see Chapter 50, “Forced Abortions.”

Europe: The Dying Continent.

Introduction.

The direct cause of abortion is the separation of sex from procreation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the European countries.

The only European country that currently boasts a replacement birthrate of 2.2 children per family is not coincidentally the only European country that still outlaws abortions -- Ireland. In fact, there are only three countries in the entire ‘first’ (developed) world that now reproduce themselves -- Poland, Malta, and Ireland. Significantly, Poland was the only Communist-controlled country that reproduced itself.[5]

However, if the population controllers have their way, this will soon change. The depths to which Poland has sunk was recently demonstrated by the country’s Commission on Health and Physical Culture, which made the astounding claim that the legalization of abortion had completely eliminated not only all infanticides, but all suicides by pregnant women as well![6,11]

Plunging Birthrates.

Most of the world’s lowest birthrates are concentrated in Europe (see Figure 57-2 for a comparison of the birthrates of some developed countries). East and West Germany, Italy, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Spain, and other European countries all have birthrates of less than 15 per 1,000 population annually. This means that they have gone far below zero population growth and are beginning the long and agonizing process of societal suicide.

FIGURE 57-2 1990 FERTILITY RATES IN DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

1990 FERTILITY RATE (CHILDREN PER COMPLETED FAMILY)

*** HONG KONG ************** 1.42*

*** GERMANY, ITALY *********** 1.50*

*** DENMARK, AUSTRIA ********** 1.54

*** SWITZERLAND, NETHERLANDS * 1.57

*** BELGIUM ********************* 1.60

*** CANADA, GREECE *************** 1.69

*** SWEDEN, SPAIN ****************** 1.73

*** JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM ********** 1.76

*** FRANCE, PORTUGAL **************** 1.80

*** UNITED STATES ********************* 1.87

*** AUSTRALIA ************************** 1.93

*----------------------- REPLACEMENT RATE= 2.20 -----------

*** POLAND ********************************** 2.21

*** SOVIET UNION ******************************** 2.40

*** PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC) ************* 2.44

*** ARGENTINA ******************************************* 2.78

*** BRAZIL **************************************************** 3.16

*** MEXICO ************************************************************** 3.57

*** INDIA******************************************************************* 3.79

Notes. “Total fertility rate” is defined as the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years (usually taken to mean age 44) and, at each year of childbearing age, they experience the average birth rates for each country. If a country’s population is to be stable, the total fertility rate must be 2.20. The above 25 countries contain 3,250 million people, or 65% of the world’s population.

Reference: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition), 991 pages. Table 1,440, “Vital Statistics, 1989, and Projections, 2000 -- Selected Countries.”

The cause of this self-immolation should be chiseled on their gravestones as a warning to others; a total lack of respect for the procreative function bestowed upon us by God.

The table below shows that the ten mainland European countries have suffered a shortfall in native births of nearly 20 million in the last 20 years, and the trend shows no signs of abating. The direct and indirect impacts of slow suicide on a continental scale are already becoming evident, as violence flares in Germany and other countries in response to a flood of non-native immigrants.

TABULATION OF SHORTFALL OF NATIVE EUROPEAN BIRTHS, 1973 TO 1992

Year	Births Required for Replacement	Annual Births	Shortfall
1968	3,500,000	4,206,000	--
1969	3,564,000	4,096,000	--
1970	3,630,000	3,989,000	--
1971	3,662,000	3,893,000	--
1972	3,694,000	3,799,000	--
1973	3,734,000	3,641,000	93,000
1974	3,775,000	3,490,000	285,000
1975	3,794,000	3,350,000	444,000
1976	3,814,000	3,216,000	598,000
1977	3,846,000	3,181,000	665,000
1978	3,879,000	3,147,000	732,000
1979	3,911,000	3,208,000	703,000
1980	3,943,000	3,271,000	672,000
1981	3,980,000	3,232,000	748,000
1982	4,018,000	3,194,000	824,000
1983	4,058,000	3,162,000	896,000
1984	4,099,000	3,131,000	968,000
1985	4,140,000	3,100,000	1,040,000
1986	4,181,000	3,069,000	1,112,000
1987	4,223,000	3,039,000	1,184,000
1988	4,265,000	3,009,000	1,256,000
1989	4,308,000	2,979,000	1,329,000
1990	4,351,000	2,950,000	1,401,000
1991	4,395,000	2,921,000	1,474,000
1992	4,439,000	2,892,000	1,547,000
Total 20-Year Shortfall:			17,971,000

NOTE: The ten European countries represented above are Austria, Belgium, France, Netherlands, West Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Denmark. Greece is not included.[12]

Case Studies.

Introduction.

By no means is the United States the only nation in demographic trouble. The pattern is simple and invariably the same:

ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION

always leads to

ABORTION

which inevitably will lead to

EUTHANASIA.

Many developed nations offer us stark lessons in this inevitable progression. The only question that remains is: Do we have the wisdom to learn from the mistakes of others?

The following paragraphs describe the terrible situations that four developed countries find themselves in, directly as a result of embracing the free-sex, utilitarian modern ethic.

Sweden.

In Sweden, homosexuality enjoys full legal equality with normal lifestyles. Graphic sex education is given to all children beginning in kindergarten. More than 80 percent of all teenagers have sex before the age of 18, and the average “sexual debut” for boys and girls is at age 14. Contraceptives are pushed on girls before they even have their first menstrual cycle.[5]

The result of this total sexual freedom was entirely predictable. Suicide is epidemic, especially among young people. Over the last 15 years, teenage pregnancy increased 1,600 percent, and pregnancy in girls 14 or under increased more than 1,000 percent. The Swedish Sex Education Association (RFSU) collaborates closely with the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Since 1970, venereal disease has exploded 400 percent, and the rape of girls 14 and under has risen more than 500 percent. The state pays for all of Sweden’s annual 35,000 abortions per year. Doctors are forced to perform abortions or they will lose their jobs and any hope of promotion.

In Sweden, it is illegal for a father to spank his twelve-year old daughter, but it is all right for him to have sexual intercourse with her.

Sweden’s ‘sexual paradise’ is the dream of pro-abortion groups all over the world. Free abortions and contraceptives are lavished upon anyone who wants them, and anyone can engage in any type of sex at any age with no consequences whatever -- except, of course, natural consequences like AIDS, gonorrhea, herpes and syphilis.

Italy.

After a chemical accident released clouds of deadly-poisonous Dioxin in 1976 near Seveso, busloads of Neofeminists invaded neighboring villages and demanded that all pregnant women get abortions. All pregnant women were told that they would give birth to retarded and deformed children. Frightened half to death, more than 75% of the pregnant women in the area crowded into the local slaughterhouses, which welcomed the sudden boom in business.[13]

When the women who did not abort gave birth to perfectly healthy children, the Neofeminist groups suddenly became permanently unavailable for comment. Many of the women who felt compelled to get abortions were angry and bitter enough to attempt to hunt down these Neofeminist liars, who had suddenly made themselves scarce.

In 1978, eight years after divorce was legalized, the Italian Parliament, dominated by Communists and Socialists, approved laws which pay for all abortions. As a result, annual abortions rose from 100,000 to 2,000,000 in less than ten years. And why not? Why not use abortion for birth control if it is free and easy?

As a result of this abortion orgy, Italian births have plunged from 1,018,000 in 1964 to less than 600,000 annually now. The 1981 Report to the Italian Parliament showed that, in some large areas, five out of every six pregnancies end in abortion -- 84.3 percent![14] This is a worse survival rate than that in the Mauthausen concentration camps during World War II!

In Italy at least, the womb is as dangerous a place for a baby to live as Nazi concentration camps were for Jews to live. What a sad commentary on humanity!

And as if this were not enough, the Italian Communist Party is continuing to push for bills allowing sex between adult men and 12-year old girls.

Germany.

Planned Parenthood called itself “Pro Familia” in the former country of West Germany (this is analogous to calling the Nazi Party “Pro Juden!”). “Pro Familia” had free reign in this country since 1952. As a result, this former nation of 61 million people suffered more than 500,000 abortions annually. Additionally, 57 percent of all couples had one child, or no children at all. It is therefore no surprise that West Germany had the world’s lowest birthrate before unification -- 1.2 children per couple, barely half of replacement rate.[5] Also predictable is the world’s highest suicide rate, at 40,000 persons killed per year, four times the enormously high rate in the United States.

The German Catholic bishops reject Humanae Vitae , the 1968 encyclical on birth control and abortion. The world’s most explicit “sex shops” abound in Germany. These shops provide a vast array of “marital aids,” including rubber body parts, inflatable, anatomically-correct adult dolls of both sexes, whips and chains, and even more garish and repulsive items. These shops are everywhere -- and the largest one of all is in the main concourse of Frankfurt International Airport! No wonder the Germans are jaded about sex!

In 1985, for the first time, West Germany was unable to meet its armed forces conscript quota due to its lack of 18-year old boys. Foreign tourists have remarked on the almost total absence of small children in some West German towns.

And visiting American pro-lifers nervously encounter the eerie spectacle of Germans dressing small dogs in expensive clothes and wheeling them around town in custom-built baby carriages, as if trying to meet some compelling but unmet need.

It is as if the Pied Piper of Hamelin has returned for the second and final time, leading all of the little German children down the one-way road to the abortuaries.

Japan.

Japan is yet another of the growing body of countries that have many more abortions than births. This nation of about 120 million suffers more than two million abortions a year, about four times the rate of the United States. It is interesting that Japanese legislators naively consider their abortion laws to be ‘strict,’ but predictably, 90 percent of all abortions are performed under the ‘economic grounds’ exception. This abortion rate gives Japan a subreplacement rate of 1.7 children per completed family.

Japan’s population situation contrasts sharply with that of the United States and Western European nations in several respects. The birth control pill and IUD are banned because of their serious side effects. Teen chastity is encouraged, and ‘only’ 30,000 abortions were committed on teenaged girls in 1991 -- one-ninth the rate in the United States.

The vast majority of abortions are committed on married women, the inverse of the situation in the United States. Additionally, Japan’s total population is actually beginning to decline, due to the lack of immigration caused by the island nation’s considerable linguistic and societal barriers. Other developed countries -- notably the United States, Germany and France -- can maintain their total population by allowing heavy immigration.

Interestingly, Japan has the world’s longest life expectancy, at 80 years average for women and 74 years average for men. This factor, combined with an ever-shrinking working population, will create an extremely critical worker-retiree support conflict within the next 15 years.

Japanese women kill their preborn children at an astonishing rate in order to conform to the hardened public and private mandate that two children are the maximum that any family should have -- for the good of the environment and of society. This coercion is certainly more subtle than that in the People’s Republic of China -- but it is coercion nonetheless.

However, Japanese women at least have a religious mechanism for dealing with their guilt and remorse. Buddhist memorial services for their aborted babies -- which are referred to as “water children sent from dark to dark” -- have become a booming business in Japan.

The ceremonies claim to give aborted (and miscarried) children protection offered by the Jizo Deity, who wards off devils who would otherwise make them his slaves for all eternity.

The standard memorial includes is a wooden slat or small stone tablet with inscriptions such as “Forgive your foolish father;” “Come back into my womb after five years;” “I’m very sorry. I love you, but I couldn’t help it;” and “Please find rest and peace.”[15] Despite this booming business, Japanese government officials deny the existence of post-abortion suyndrome, just as they do in the United States.

The Buddhist temples advertise heavily, and their ads extol the virtues of their competing deities with clever sales pitches that play on guilt and fear. One ad in a large Japanese newspaper features a color photo of a large Buddhist Kanon goddess holding a child in her arms. The accompanying narrative warns; “Beware lest what you did brings misfortune to your family like divorce, all kinds of family troubles; you did away with this child, burying it into terminal darkness and misfortune. Apologize for what you did to this water child just as soon as you can by doing the memorial service; help this water child to become peaceful. Ask the Mizuko Kanon [goddess] to drive away the evil spirits from your water child, to bring it happiness instead of sadness. That is for you the shortest road to your own happiness.”

The Buddhist priests are obviously wise enough to frame their appeal in terms of self-interest -- the same motivation that led to the abortions in the first place.

It is estimated that the Buddhists make a third of a billion dollars annually on these memorial services, supplementing the billion dollars made by Japanese abortionists annually.[15]

We in the United States have begun to imitate the Japanese with grave plots and memorial services for the preborn, despite the fanatical resistance of such anti-religious groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women, who have actually taken pro- lifers to court for daring to attempt to bury the sad little bodies of aborted preborn babies.

Declining Birthrates.

PP in the Lead.

The number one priority of the International Planned Parenthood Federation is world population control. This is its Holy Grail, the highest good, the goal towards which it strives with every breath. In the pursuit of this objective, the organization simply ignores all obstacles that decent people would heed -- such as local customs, religions, and laws.

Planned Parenthood and other population control agencies spread abortion as far and wide as they possibly can, including incursions into many areas where the result is conditions that would make the “back-alley abortions” they complain so much about seem almost like paradise by comparison. An IPPF conference on abortion held in Accra in December of 1973 recommended that the Karman curette should be standard equipment in the medical packs of traditional midwives and paramedical workers who travel about the countryside.[16] And then the same people who systematically violate the laws of a multitude of other nations rave about “400,000 illegal abortion deaths every year!”

We must wonder how many were committed by PP-equipped lay people!

Since it is blinded by its obsession with population control, Planned Parenthood does not hesitate to join forces with governments that systematically violate civil rights on a wide scale. A 1984 London Observer editorial exposed the connection between repressive regimes and Planned Parenthood; “The Salvadorean regime of President Alvaro Magana, the American Government, and the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation are collaborating in a high-pressure campaign to force Salvadorean women from poor families to be sterilized. Although sterilizations are supposed to be voluntary, reports from several areas of El Salvador reveal that the sterilizations are, in fact, compulsory. Salvadorean hospitals, clinics and fieldworkers are set monthly targets for the number of sterilizations they are to carry out ... The sterilization campaign is carried out by the Salvadorean Health Ministry and the Salvadorean Demographic Association, a private agency which is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and receives funds from Britain and the U.S.”[17]

Results of the Campaign.

The population controllers have been wildly successful in many areas by frightening governments with their talk of deadly ‘population explosions.’ European nations, caught up in pursuit of pleasure without consequence, are dying as a result. However, the popcon propagandists have also been very successful in most Asian countries.

Figure 57-3 shows the results of this campaign. Many Asian cultures, which previously bore an average of more than six children per family, are now under replacement rate. Mainland China, Singapore, and South Korea have experienced respective fertility decreases of 60 percent, 75 percent, and 65 percent, and are all at or under replacement rate. All of these countries provide abortion on demand, and even pay for most of these abortions. They seem to have emulated the worst of Western society and are also now abortion addicts.

FIGURE 57-3 FERTILITY REDUCTION IN POPULOUS COUNTRIES

FERTILITY RATE (CHILDREN PER COMPLETED FAMILY)	FERTILITY IN 1990	FERTILITY IN 1960	DECLINE - 53%
MEXICO**************************	3.6	7.0	- 48%
MALAYSIA*****************	2.9	6.9	- 58%
TURKEY***************************	3.7	6.8	- 46%
COLOMBIA*****************	2.9	6.8	- 57%
EGYPT**************************************	4.7	6.7	- 30%
PERU*****************************	3.7	6.6	- 44%
THAILAND**********	2.2	6.6	- 67%
TAIWAN********	1.8	6.5	- 74%
SINGAPORE***	1.6	6.3	- 75%
INDIA*****************************	3.8	6.2	- 39%
BRAZIL**********************	3.2	6.2	- 48%
SOUTHKOREA*******	2.2	6.0	- 63%
SRILANKA***********	2.4	5.9	- 59%
INDONESIA********************	3.3	5.6	- 41%
P.R.CHINA**********	2.4	5.5	- 56%
CUBA*********	1.7	4.7	- 64%

References. (1) Jodi L. Jacobsen. Planning the Global Family (Worldwatch Paper 80). The sixteen countries shown possess 61 percent of the world’s population. (2) United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition). Table 1,440, “Vital Statistics, 1989, and Projections, 2000 -- Selected Countries.”

Figure 57-4 shows historical and projected world and regional population characteristics by area development and gender over the 40-year period 1960 to 2000. The most significant conclusions drawn from this figure are that;

FIGURE 57-4 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED WORLD POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

Population in Millions	1960	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000
North America	199	214	226	239	252	264	275	287	297
Central America	71	83	95	108	122	137	154	173	190
South America	146	168	191	216	242	273	297	327	356
Europe	425	444	460	474	484	492	499	506	512
Soviet Union	214	231	243	254	266	278	292	304	315
Africa	293	330	375	427	491	566	645	751	872
Asia	1,685	1,871	2,112	2,364	2,593	2,831	3,058	3,304	3,549
Oceania	16	17	19	21	23	24	26	28	30
WORLD	3,049	3,358	3,721	4,103	4,473	4,865	5,246	5,680	6,121
Population Distribution by Area Development
More Developed	945	1,002	1,049	1,096	1,136	1,173	1,208	1,240	1,268
Less Developed	2,104	2,356	2,672	3,007	3,336	3,692	4,038	4,440	4,853
Population Distribution by Sex
Males	1,526	1,681	1,863	2,056	2,244	2,443	2,634	2,870	3,099
Females	1,523	1,677	1,858	2,047	2,229	2,422	2,612	2,810	3,022
Growth Rate in Percent
North America	1.5	1.1	1.1	1.1	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.7
Central America	2.8	2.7	2.5	2.4	2.3	2.3	2.3	1.9
South America	2.7	2.6	2.4	2.4	2.3	1.9	1.7	1.7
Europe	0.9	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.2
Soviet Union	1.5	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.7
Africa	2.4	2.5	2.6	2.7	2.8	2.6	3.1	3.0
Asia	2.1	2.4	2.3	1.8	1.7	1.6	1.5	1.4
Oceania	2.1	2.1	1.9	1.5	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.4
WORLD	1.9	2.1	2.0	1.8	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.5
World Parameters
Crude Birth Rate	35.1	33.9	31.6	28.4	27.1	26.0	25.0	23.8
Crude Death Rate	14.5	13.3	12.2	11.2	10.5	9.9	9.3	8.8
Life Expectancy	54.0	55.9	57.7	59.2	60.9	62.6	64.3	65.8
Median Age	19.9	20.8	21.6	22.4	23.3	24.2	25.3	26.4

Reference: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . 1990 (110th Edition). Table 1,440, “World Population.”

1. world population expansion has dropped from a high of 2.1 percent per year in the period 1966-1970 to a current rate of 1.6 percent per year, and is expected to drop even further before the turn of the century.

2. the crude birth and death rates have dropped by one-third in the last 30 years, and the overall world life expectancy has increased by a decade during the same time period.

3. the median age has increased from under 20 in 1960 to over 25 now, and is expected to continue its increase.

Conclusions.

Despite the bleakness of the picture, there is still ample hope for the world. Certain countries, including Japan and Romania, are working diligently to reduce their abortion rates for purely utilitarian reasons. Others are seeing the wisdom of protecting the unborn child simply because each execution is a terrible miscarriage of justice.

One shining example is the Philippines. Former President Ferdnand Marcos, who fully approved of abortion for population control purposes, imported thousands of battery-operated suction machines specifically for killing the unborn in rural villages. Then Corazon Aquino, who is one leader who is proud of her Catholic faith, took office as President of the Philippines.

On December 1, 1986, Philippine voters passed a new Constitution which included the clause: “The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”

World Abortion Availability.

Planned Parenthood and other population controllers enjoy bragging that many or most countries are ‘progressive’ enough to allow abortion on demand.

Not surprisingly, this statement is a gross exaggeration. Only 22 countries allow their unborn citizens to be slaughtered at their mother’s whim. Unfortunately, nearly one-half (49.4%) of the world’s population of five billion resides in only five of these countries -- the People’s Republic of China, India, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Japan. An additional 55 countries provide numerous exceptions for abortion such as eugenics and the mother’s physical or mental health.[18]

The 77 countries that provide abortion on demand, which include three-fourths of the world’s population, therefore provide little or no protection for their unborn citizens.

On the other hand, 66 countries, which include the remaining one-fourth of the world’s population, prohibit abortion entirely or allow it only for rape and incest or to save the mother’s life.

Figure 57-5 provides a summary of the status of abortion in 143 countries which include 96 percent of the world’s population. Figure 57-6 shows the individual status of abortion ‘rights’ in these countries.

FIGURE 57-5 SUMMARY: WORLD ABORTION AVAILABILITY

Criteria for Obtaining Abortions	Countries	Population in 1990	Percent
Abortion entirely illegal	19	194,940,000	3.7
Abortion legal for the following reasons;
Life of the mother only	35	790,610,000	14.8
Life and rape and incest	4	225,400,000	4.2
Life and physical health	13	247,120,000	4.6
Life, physical health, eugenics	5	138,620,000	2.6
Life, physical/mental health	9	56,000,000	1.1
Life, physical/mental health, and eugenics	4	36,780,000	0.7
Life, rape and incest, eugenics	2	16,140,000	0.3
Life, rape/incest, physical health	9	152,330,000	2.9
Life, rape/incest, physical/mental health	1	2,310,000	0.1
Life, rape/incest, physical health, eugenics	5	47,620,000	0.9
Life, rape/incest, mental health, eugenics	1	36,700,000	0.7
Abortion on demand	36	3,345,000,000	62.8
Position on abortion unknown	25	30,065,000	0.6
TOTAL WORLD POPULATION	168	5,319,635,000	100.0

References. (1) Christopher Tietze. Induced Abortion, A World View . The Population Council, 1983. (2) Emily Campbell Moore-Cavar. International Inventory of Information on Induced Abortion . International Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, Columbia University, 1974. 656 pages. (3) Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. National Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . 1988 (108th Edition). Table 1,438, “Population and Area, By Region and Country, 1980 and 1989, and Projections, 1990 and 2000.”

FIGURE 57-6 ABORTION AVAILABILITY IN 143 COUNTRIES AS OF JULY 1992

Country	Pop (million)	Life	R&I	Phy Health	Mental Health	Eugen.	Other
Afghanistan	15.59	XX
Albania	3.27	XX		XX
Algeria	25.71	XX		XX
Andorra	0.05	XX
Argentina	32.29	XX	XX	XX			XX
Australia	16.64	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Austria	7.60	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Bangladesh	115.75	XX					XX
Bahrain	0.51
Barbados	0.26
Belgium	9.90	XX
Benin	4.84	XX
Bolivia	6.73	XX	XX	XX			XX
Botswana	1.28	XX	XX	XX
Brazil	157.94	XX	XX				XX
Bulgaria	8.98	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Burkina Faso	8.94	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Burma	41.28	XX
Burundi	5.47	XX
Cambodia	6.99	XX
Cameroon	11.11	XX	XX	XX
Canada	26.53	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Central Af. Rep.	2.88	XX
Chad	5.05	XX
Chile	13.01
China	1,114.51	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Colombia	32.60
Congo	2.31	XX	XX	XX	XX
Costa Rica	3.04	XX	XX	XX
Cuba	10.55	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Cyprus	0.71	XX		XX	XX
Czechoslovakia	15.70	XX	XX	XX		XX	XX
Denmark	5.13	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Dominican Rep.	7.50	XX
Djibouti	0.34
Ecuador	10.79	XX	XX				XX
Egypt	56.22	XX		XX		XX
El Salvador	5.66	XX	XX			XX	XX
England	39.38	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Ethiopia	51.38	XX		XX		XX
Finland	4.98	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
France	56.18	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Gabon	1.07	XX
Gambia, The	0.82	XX		XX	XX	XX
Germany, East	16.58	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Germany, West	60.98	XX		XX
Ghana	15.23	XX
Greece	10.07	XX		XX		XX
Guatemala	9.25	XX
Guinea	7.27	XX		XX
Guyana	0.77	XX		XX	XX
Haiti	6.51
Honduras	5.29	XX		XX
Hong Kong	5.77	XX	XX	XX		XX	XX
Hungary	10.55	XX		XX	XX	XX	XX
Iceland	0.25	XX	XX	XX		XX	XX
India	850.07	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Indonesia	191.27	XX
Iran	55.25	XX
Iraq	18.87	XX		XX		XX
Ireland	3.52
Israel	4.45	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Italy	57.66	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Ivory Coast	12.07
Jamaica	2.51	XX		XX	XX
Japan	123.75	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Jordan	3.07	XX		XX	XX
Kenya	25.39	XX		XX	XX
Korea, North	23.06	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Korea, South	43.92	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Kuwait	2.08	XX		XX		XX
Laos	4.02	XX
Lebanon	3.39	XX
Lesotho	1.76	XX		XX	XX
Liechtenstein	0.03	XX		XX	XX
Liberia	2.63	XX	XX	XX		XX
Libya	4.21	XX
Luxembourg	0.37	XX		XX	XX	XX	XX
Madagascar	11.80	XX
Malawi	8.20	XX
Malaysia	17.05	XX	XX
Mali	9.18
Malta	0.37
Mauritania	2.04
Mexico	86.89	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Monaco	0.03
Mongolia	2.19	XX		XX
Morocco	26.25	XX		XX
Mozambique	15.83	XX
Nepal	19.16	XX		XX
Netherlands	14.86	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
New Zealand	3.40	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Nicaragua	3.61	XX
Niger	7.69
Nigeria	118.87	XX
Norway	4.21	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Oman	1.35
Pakistan	113.16	XX		XX
Panama	2.42	XX
Papua	3.82	XX		XX
Paraguay	4.66
Peru	22.35
Philippines	66.65
Poland	38.36	XX	XX	XX			XX
Portugal	10.53
Puerto Rico	3.42	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Romania	23.27	XX	XX	XX		XX	XX
Rwanda	7.60	XX		XX
Saudi	16.76	XX
Scotland	10.10	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Senegal	7.74	XX
Seychelles	0.07	XX	XX	XX
Sierra Leone	4.17	XX		XX	XX
Singapore	2.70	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Somalia	8.42	XX
South Africa	36.70	XX	XX		XX	XX
Spain	39.62	XX	XX
Sri Lanka	17.10	XX
Sudan	25.04	XX		XX	XX	XX
Swaziland	0.78	XX		XX
Sweden	8.41	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Switzerland	6.63	XX		XX
Syria	12.47	XX
Taiwan	20.45	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Tanzania	25.99	XX		XX
Thailand	56.45	XX	XX	XX			XX
Togo	3.57	XX
Trinidad/Tobago	1.27
Tunisia	8.10	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Turkey	56.55	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Uganda	17.59	XX		XX	XX
U.S.S.R.	290.94	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
U.S.	250.41	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Uruguay	3.00	XX	XX	XX			XX
Venezuela	19.75	XX
Vietnam	68.49	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Wales	4.12	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Yemen-Aden	2.59	XX
Yemen-Sana	7.16	XX
Yugoslavia	23.86	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Zaire	35.33	XX
Zambia	8.11	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX
Zimbabwe	10.48	XX	XX			XX

References. (1) Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. National Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . 1988 (108th Edition). Table 1,438, “Population and Area, By Region and Country, 1980 and 1989, and Projections, 1990 and 2000.” (2) Christopher Tietze. Induced Abortion: A World View . The Population Council, 1983.

==========================================

[1] Article 6 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted at the 1989 General Assembly of the United Nations.

[2] Stephen D. Mumford and Elton Kessel. “Is Wide Availability of Abortion Essential to National Population Growth Control Programs? Experiences of 116 Countries.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology , July 15, 1984.

[3] Stanley K. Henshaw. “Induced Abortion: A World Review.” Family Planning Perspectives , March/April 1990.

[4] Soviet gynecologist Archil Khomasuridze, quoted in Sisterlife (newsletter of Feminists for Life of America), Spring 1990, page 16.

[5] Father Paul Marx. Confessions of a Pro-Life Missionary . 1988, 353 pages, $10.00 hardback, $8.00 softback. Published by Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879. Telephone: (301) 670-7884.

[6] Jodi L. Jacobson. “Coming to Grips With Abortion.” Pages 114 to 131. In the Worldwatch Institute’s State of the World 1991 Report. W.W. Norton Publishers, London, 1991. Also issued as Worldwatch Paper #97, The Global Politics of Abortion .

[7] ALL News , November 28, 1986 and February 16, 1987.

[8] Seattle Times , Wednesday, January 4, 1984, page A5.

[9] Faye Wattleton. “Reproductive Rights Are Fundamental Rights.” The Humanist , January/February 1991, page 21.

[10] Steven Mosher. Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese . $8.95. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174. Telephone: (703) 586-4898.

[11] Marek Okolski. “Abortion and Contraception in Poland.” Studies in Family Planning , November 1983.

[12] Institut National d’Etudes Demographique (INED). “Short Fall in Births in Europe.” From Population , the bi-quarterly review of the INED, July/September 1983. Percentages from 1982 to the present are exponentially extrapolated using the average percentage for the previous ten-year period (1973 to 1982).

[13] Silvio Ghielmi, “The Strategy Against the Family: The Italian Experience.” The Wanderer , November 17, 1988, page 4.

[14] Greg Burke, “Abortion Entrenched in Italy.” National Catholic Register , January 8, 1989, page 1.

[15] Father Anthony Zimmerman. “Memorial Services for Aborted Children in Japan.” Sorrow’s Reward , January 1989, pages 1 and 2. Human Life International.

[16] Malcolm Potts, Peter Diggory and John Peel. Abortion . Cambridge University Press, 1970.

[17] The London Observer , April 1, 1984. Described in Nancy B. Spannaus, Molly Hammett Kronberg, and Linda Everett (Editors). How to Stop the Resurgence of Nazi Euthanasia Today . Transcripts of the International Club of Life Conference, Munich, West Germany, June 11-12, 1988. Executive Intelligence Review Special Report, September 1988. EIR, Post Office Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390. $150.00.

[18] Emily Campbell Moore-Cavar. International Inventory of Information on Induced Abortion . International Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, Columbia University, 1974. 656 pages. Also see Jodi L. Jacobsen. Planning the Global Family . Worldwatch Paper 80, 1988, 66 pages. $4.00. Order from the Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036. Also see John A. Ross, Marjorie Rich, Janet P. Molzan, and Michael Pensak. Family Planning and Child Survival, 100 Developing Countries . Center for Population and Family Health, Columbia University, 60 Haven Avenue, New York, New York 10032. 1988, 247 pages, $10.00. Table 7, “Legal Status of Abortion,” pages 42 and 43. Finally, see Christopher Tietze. Induced Abortion: A World View . The Population Council, 1983.

==========================================

CHAPTER 69. THE PREBORN AS LIVING BEINGS

“Around the world, we find a systematic campaign clamoring for the destruction of the embryo and fetus as a cure-all for every social and personal problem. I, for one, find it a bitter irony that just when the embryo and fetus arrive on the medical scene, there should be such a sustained pressure to make him or her a social nonentity.”-- Sir William Liley, the ‘Father of Modern Fetology.’[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“It is an advantage to have visited an abortion clinic. Your enthusiastic first-hand account of the process can be impressive. Describe how quick and safe the procedure is, how pleasant the clinic, how relaxed the patient, how the conceptus looks at ten weeks - a small bloody mass, very jelly-like, about an inch long, and weighing about 3/4 of an ounce. Absolutely no arms and legs - no “baby” at all!”-- National Abortion Rights Action League.[2]

The fetus isn’t alive, not as you and I are alive. As the United States Supreme Court held in its landmark decision Roe v. Wade , abortion is performed only on “potential human life,” so the procedure should not be restricted in any way. The rights of real, live human beings must always take precedence over mere potentialities.

Introduction.

“Another cliche [used by doctors to refuse to do abortions] is the timeworn “life has begun and I cannot play god” bit, yet daily each doctor sees nothing unethical in excising a cancer, performing a vasectomy on a requesting male without question, or using antibiotics to frustrate the will of god regarding life and death.”-- Lana Clarke Phelan.[3]

The central issue of any debate over abortion must focus on the status of the preborn child. Any attempt to shift this focus of the discussion to ‘women’s rights,’ freedom, tolerance, or to any other issue even related to abortion, such as overpopulation, is merely a diversionary tactic and should not be tolerated by pro-lifers.

The abortion battle will only be won when all Americans accept the preborn as their brothers and sisters, fully equal to born people in all fundamental rights.

Therefore, any meaningful discussion on the topic of abortion must first exactly define and clarify the status of the preborn.

A rigorous and logical analysis of the biological and social status of preborns can be performed in three simple steps.

(1) The first level of analysis must answer the question: Are preborns alive? There are only two possible answers to this question. Either they are alive or they are dead (there is no other possible classification --the term “potential life,” like the word “pre-embryo,” is an impossibility, an artificial legal construct designed solely to dehumanize the abortionist’s victims and to assuage guilty consciences).

(2) If this strictly biological question is answered in the affirmative (as it must logically be), we must then further classify this living preborn being as either human or non-human . Since every preborn’s mother and father are human, they are therefore inevitably human itself.

(3) If this second strictly biological question results in the living preborn being classified as human, then we must answer the third, and most difficult question: Is this living human creature a person?

The first half of this chapter addresses the foundation of this three- step classification process: are the unborn living beings, or are they dead?

The second half of this chapter presents detailed information on fetal development and the capabilities of the preborn child.

The Pro-Abortion View of ‘Life.’

“Your [pro-life] opposition’s tack is primarily emotional ... Discredit the opposition’s statistics. They are mostly out of date (nowhere near as up-to-date as yours) and mostly distorted ... Remember, they’ll try to hold you to these [when does life begin] arguments because they are about all they have in a meager arsenal ...-- National Abortion Rights Action League.[2]

The Conveniently Blind Eye.

It is ironic and aggravating in the extreme that pro-abortion propagandists ignore the entire body of scientific and biological evidence to make an assertion whose only redeeming characteristic is that it supports their viewpoint.

Of course, pro-aborts really have no choice in the matter; they must ignore the evidence presented by modern fetology, because to embrace such evidence would be a tacit admission that they are murderers! Even Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe v. Wade decision, ducked the question when he stated in his opinion “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.”

Pro-abortionists willfully reject any and all evidence, no matter how conclusive or authoritative, in their drive to keep their consciences dead. For example, Judith Pasternak of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, when informed about a new fetal surgery technique, simply stated that no scientific advance whatever would change her mind;

“Intrauterine, prenatal surgery will no doubt bring joy and relief to many parents whose dreams of a healthy baby were formerly unrealizable. But this technological breakthrough is a medical one, not a moral one; the status of the fetus as patient may be different in degree from the status of the fetus of 10 years ago, but it is not different in kind. For thousands of years, healers have been trying to preserve the lives and health of fetuses whose mothers wanted them; only the sophisticated techniques and the rate of success are new.

“But these [fetal surgery] techniques and this success are new indeed, so dazzlingly new as to blind us, perhaps, to the fact that the moral premise of abortion remains unchanged. The “issue of abortion” remains the issue of the right of the woman to choose whether or not to carry something in her own body. No technological advances can rob her of her right to choose whether or not to keep it there” [emphasis in original].[4]

This is the essence of close-minded arrogance: that one will not learn and will not change because one’s current opinion is too precious to give up.

In essence, what our society is done is adopt a “social” definition of life -- and once this most basic parameter can be defined to fit the situation, nobody is safe -- nobody at all!

Planned Parenthood on Mold.

Of course, such verbal engineering has already begun . As just one of many examples, Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood distributes to its clientele a booklet amusingly entitled “Let’s Tell the Truth About Abortion.” This booklet asks; “Is the fetus alive? Is it alive? Algae is alive, and earthworms, and your appendix. Mold on the bread in the refrigerator is alive. People are not agreed on what a life is ... If you look at pictures of human, chicken, pig, and turtle embryos at the same stage of development, it is difficult to tell them apart.”[5]

Notice that the pamphlet definitively declares that “Mold on the bread in the refrigerator is alive,” then states baldly that nobody knows what life is. Since mold is alive and the preborn are only “potential life,” Planned Parenthood therefore assigns a higher status to mold than it does to a nine-month preborn baby.

Notice also the subtle dehumanization of the unborn by likening them to mold and worms.

Say What?

As expected, when the United States Supreme Court issued its Webster decision in July 1989, pro-aborts immediately went ballistic with claims that women would soon be dying by the thousands in back alleys again. Just as predictably, all of the allegedly ‘educated’ pro-abort rabble began to crawl out from under their flat rocks when they first perceived that their precious abortion ‘right’ was in danger.

In a brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court for the July 1989 Webster decision that began to dismantle Roe v. Wade , 167 pro- abortion scientists and physicians, including 11 Nobel Prize Winners, produced a masterpiece of technobabble that the Court fortunately recognized as a cowardly cop-out. This bogus statement said that “There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth. The questions of ‘when a human life begins’ cannot be answered by reference to scientific principles like those with which we predict planetary movement. The answer to that question will depend on each individual’s social, religious, philosophical, ethical and moral beliefs and values ... The only ‘consensus’ that may be said to exist among scientists on the question of when a human life begins is that science alone cannot answer that question ... Science cannot define the essential attributes of human life any more than science can define such concepts as love, faith, or trust.”

This statement made a number of very important points.

· The ‘scientists’ were essentially saying that “We acknowledge our ignorance and incompetence regarding this subject, but decide in our favor anyhow.”

· Note that, in the first sentence, the ‘scientists’ claim that life may not even begin at birth . Such statements are cropping up more frequently as infanticide becomes more common (and must therefore be justified), and as the debate about euthanasia heats up. These ‘scientists’ are laying the groundwork for a definition of life that ultimately depends on a person’s capabilities and social status.

· Using the ‘logic’ of these alleged learned men and women, it would be possible for a person, consulting his “social, religious, philosophical, ethical and moral beliefs and values,” to decide that an abortionist is not alive. Of course, this type of logic, if used to murder an abortionist, would not stand up in court for an instant. The same logic used to kill tens of millions of preborn baby humans is not only upheld by the courts, it is enthusiastically promoted by them!

· If the alleged best minds in the United States are too frightened to even attempt to answer such a basic question, it is no surprise that our country is falling behind others technologically. These so-called ‘scientists’ vividly demonstrate the principle that there is a vast difference between being intelligent and being smart .

· Finally, we must ask ourselves this question: If 11 Nobel Prize winners thinking together cannot define what human life is, how can they claim that every woman in the country has the ability to do so?

Extending the Limits.

On a more ‘academic’ level, so-called ‘bioethicists’ Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse state in their book Should the Baby Live? that abortion and infanticide, applied even to healthy newborns , are identical, since “... in neither case has the life of the person begun.”

This is the logical next step for those who are too blind to care what life is. ‘Doctors’ and ‘parents’ are now killing newborns by the thousands all over this country because, even though these babies have been born, they do not measure up to the decisionmaker’s high standards.

Anyone for a rousing chorus of “Arbeit Macht Frei?”

The Consensus.

‘Consensus’ is defined by most dictionaries as ‘general agreement’ or ‘the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.’[6]

Figures 69-1 and 69-2 contain just a very few of the many statements made by leading scientists and physicians that support the logical view that life does indeed begin at conception. Please note that there are several quotes from standard medical textbooks in Figure 69-1. This is extremely valuable material for use in a debate. The medical textbooks listed in Figure 69-1 are used by more than half of the medical schools in the United States.

FIGURE 69-1 MEDICAL TEXTBOOK AUTHORS SPEAK ON THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resulting mingling of the chromosomal material each brings to the union that culminates the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual. Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell -- the fertilized ovum. The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual.”-- Bradley M. Patten, M.D. Foundations of Embryology (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill.

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.”-- Leslie Arey. Developmental Anatomy (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers.

“Zygote. This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being ... Development begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte to form a zygote. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote.”-- K.L. Moore. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12.

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”-- J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics . Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23.

“A human being develops from a mass of living material no larger than a pinhead, material contributed by both parents and capable of living and growing for a lifetime ... This genetic makeup was established at the beginning of your life, when a haploid egg and a haploid sperm combined to produce a diploid zygote, your first somatic cell.”-- J.H. Otto and A. Towle. Modern Biology . New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1969.

“The zygote is the starting cell of the new individual.”-- Salvadore E. Luria, M.D. 36 Lectures in Biology . Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, 1975, page 146.

“It is widely accepted and widely taught that human beings as well as other organisms reproducing by sexual reproduction -- this is nothing unique to humans; this is a general biological principle -- start their existence at the time of conception or fertilization, as a single cell, the zygote.”-- Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, M.D., Harvard Medical School, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158 , 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981.

“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”-- E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant ., 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.

“Based on my education and background, therefore, I believe that from the moment of the union of the sperm and the egg in the human species, there is present a new living human being. The human life is there from the moment of fertilization, and its very essence starts early but is not completed until the second decade of life. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood, and that interruption at any point constitutes termination of human life.”-- Alfred M. Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania Medical Professor, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 24, 1981.

FIGURE 69-2 BIOLOGY AND NEONATOLOGY EXPERTS SPEAK ON THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE

“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 a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices [emphasis added].”-- “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society,” 113 California Medicine 67, 68 (1970).

“Individual human life begins at conception and is a progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it. There is no authority in medicine or biology who can be cited to refute this concept. It is not a “theory,” as Justice Blackmun wished to easily pass it off.”-- D.J. Moran, M.D., J.D. Gorby, M.D., and T.W. Hilgers, M.D., “Abortion in the Supreme Court: Death Becomes a Way of Life.” Abortion and Social Justice , Sheed and Ward, 1974.

“From conception the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly-growing individual. At fertilization, a new and unique individual is created which, although receiving one-half of its chromosomes from each parent, is really unlike either.”-- B. Heffernan, “The Early Biography of Every Man,” Abortion and Social Justice , Sheed and Ward.

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being -- a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings ... Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species.”-- Report of the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to the Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981, page 7.

“Life has a very, very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning -- the moment of its conception.”-- Jerome Lejeune, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Fundamental Genetics, Paris Medical University, quoted in the Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158 , 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981. A complete text of his outstanding testimony, which neatly encapsulates the entire pro-life position, is printed as “ In Re New Humans,” in the Summer 1981 issue of Human Life Review , pages 60 to 64.

“The most important person on earth is a mother. She cannot claim the honor of having built the Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not; she has built something more magnificent than any cathedral: a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby’s body. The angels have not been blessed with such a grace. They cannot share in God’s creative miracle to bring new saints into Heaven. Only a human mother can. Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature. God joins forces with mothers in performing this act of creation. What on God’s good earth is more glorious than this: to be a mother?”-- From Mother Teresa’s 1979 Nobel Prize acceptance lecture, quoting Cardinal Mindszenty.

Notice that, in the long run, there is indeed a consensus among scientists about when life begins. No reputable scientist has ever stated that life does not begin at conception. They either say that it does, or that they simply don’t know. If we treat this question like a public opinion poll and discount the ‘don’t knows,’ we have virtually unanimous consent among scientists that, if compelled to select a point at which life begins, that it begins at conception.

As a clincher, the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology and Medicine stated decisively in 1991 that “The Nobel Committee noted that life begins with the activation of ion channels as the sperm merges with the egg in fertilization. All cells have electrical charges within and outside the cell and the difference is known as the membrane potential. Fertilization changes the potential to prevent other sperm from joining the fertilized egg.”[7]

Going All the Way.

Most pro-abortionists now realize that they have lost their battle to keep the preborn ‘unalive.’ Many pro-lifers have noticed that the status of the unborn, which was leaned on so heavily by pro-aborts just a few years ago, is now suddenly being disregarded by them.

The same people who frankly acknowledged that abortion would be immoral if science could prove that the preborn were alive are now saying that it doesn’t matter whether they are alive or not -- now it is humanity or personhood that is the criteria!

It is obvious that, even if the humanity and personhood of preborn babies could be conclusively proven, the pro-aborts would declare these criteria to be irrelevant and would fall back to yet another rationale.

Many pro-abortionists now flatly and unashamedly acknowledge that the preborn are alive, but continue to strongly support the slaughter. This attitude is profoundly frightening to any pro-life person with a sense of history.

For example, Norman Mailer is certainly honest in his attitude towards the preborn; “Let me say something that’s shocking. I am perfectly willing to grant that life starts at conception. If a woman doesn’t want to have a child, then I think it’s her right to say no. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a form of killing.”[8]

Even Faye Wattleton, former director of the largest chain of abortion mills in the country -- Planned Parenthood Federation of America --acknowledges that the preborn “baby” is “new life;” “There are many sperm cells in the [seminal] fluid. If one of them meets an egg cell inside the mother, new life can begin to grow ... If one of your friends is pregnant, ask her to let your child ‘feel the baby move.’ ... A baby grows in a special place inside the mother, called the uterus -- not in her stomach. In nine months it is born.”[9]

It is obvious where the pro-abortionists would like to lead us. While acknowledging the life of the preborn, they suddenly assert simply that, even though they are alive , they have no right to live.

‘Bioethicist’ Peter Seinter encapsulates this premise for us; “Once we free ourselves from a world view depending on some specifically religious premises, it can be shown that the early embryo has no intrinsic value and does not have a right to life. To put the point in a preliminary way, just as we regard brain death as the end of a person’s life, so we should take brain birth as the start of a person’s life [emphasis in original].”[10]

Once again, Planned Parenthood frames the question in the bluntest possible terms; “What is a life? People are not agreed on what a life is. Some believe that a birth of human tissue which is in generally human form but which has no brain (an anencephalic birth) or with only a tiny amount of brain tissue (a microcephalic birth) is not a “life,” even though the tissue is human. Such births can be kept “alive” on machines for a long time. But then, individual organs such as hearts can also be kept “alive” on machines for a long time ... A profoundly retarded and totally unaware birth can live for twenty years or more, if provided with round-the-clock care.”[5]

Of course, should the PP-type eugenics thinkers gain enough power to decree that personhood (or human life) actually only begins at the age of twelve, there are plenty of abortion clinic workers out there who would be perfectly willing to kill trusting toddlers.

Consider a recent interview with an abortuary worker;

Interviewer: “Oh, so as long as you make money, it doesn’t matter?”

Clinic Employee: “As long as it’s food in my stomach, no, it doesn’t matter. It is legal ... It is legal ... It is legal!”

Interviewer: “So if they legalized killing four-year-old children, you would have no problem?”

Clinic Employee: “No, I would not have a problem ... My conscience is very clear ...”[11]

Refuting the Slogans.

“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” -- George Orwell.[12]

Introduction: Beginnings of Life.

The statement that “I don’t know when life begins” is the most cowardly, limp-wristed, and vacuous statement of all, and pro-lifers should treat it with the uttermost contempt. What this slogan really means is that: “I DON’T CARE WHEN LIFE BEGINS!” Any pro-lifer who hears this statement should really nail the person who says it.

Essentially, if anyone says that they don’t know when life begins, they are admitting that abortion might be taking life, but really don’t care one way or the other.

Often, pro-lifers will encounter pro-abortionists who assert that (1) we don’t know when life begins and (2) life begins at birth. The pro-lifer should ask him or her how the two are compatible and consistent: How do they know that life begins at birth?

Parallel Situations.

It is useful to employ the principle of parallelism to consider the following situation, which uses precisely the same logic as that used by pro-abortionists when addressing the preborn.

A demolition crew prepares to knock down an old and decrepit apartment building in the inner city. A crew member approaches the foreman and asks if he should check inside the building to insure that no transients have taken up residence there. But the foreman says “We don’t really know if anyone is in there. Go ahead and knock it down!”

Erring on the Side of Life.

A Boeing 747 jetliner packed with 400 people doesn’t take off if the captain suspects any malfunctions. What would happen if a major drug company marketed a drug without testing it? In matters of public safety, we always err on the side of life!

Our society does not allow behavior that may take life, even if the chance is small. We are not allowed to discharge firearms in the direction of a freeway just because human life might not be taken. We are not allowed to poison Halloween treats food on a supermarket shelf, just because human life might not be taken. And we have many local laws and ordinances that forbid smoking in crowded areas, because second-hand smoke may be injurious to others!

Yet pro-abortionists are saying that abortion should be allowed, just because we might not be taking human life (since they really don’t know when life begins, after all).

A pro-lifer can easily tie up a pro-abortionist by getting him to define precisely when life begins, then asking him what the difference is between a fetus one day before this mythical dividing line and one day after. This is particularly easy if the pro-abort says that life begins at ‘quickening.’

‘Potential Life.’

The term “potential life” never existed before 1965, because it was not needed. But the pro-abortionists found themselves in a difficult position as they mapped their strategy to obtain abortion on demand.

They could admit that the fetus was alive, because this would be an automatic admission that abortion is killing and they supported this killing. They also could not say that the fetus was nonlife (or dead), because the public would intuitively see this as incorrect -- and, even worse, as callous.

Therefore, the term “potential life” was invented.

For the last quarter-century, the term has only been used by pro-abortionists and their shills to achieve and maintain abortion on demand. To embryologists, fetologists, biologists, and geneticists, it is a nonsense term that has no application or use whatever. The term “potential life” will never appear in any medical textbook because such usage would destroy the author’s credibility.

The ‘potential life’ argument can be refuted in a simple three-step process;

(1) show that there is no such thing as “potential life;”

(2) establish that the fetus is not dead; and

(3) conclude, by the process of elimination, that it therefore must be alive.

Bogus Definition.

“Potential life” is merely a bogus term cooked up by the Supreme Court to prop up its ridiculous Roe v. Wade decision. It is universally derided by biologists and fetologists. It is also leaned on heavily by pro-aborts who insist that “life” is a metaphysical term, not a biological term. In other words, every woman can decide for herself whether or not her ‘fetus’ is alive.

Every entity on the face of the earth, animate or inanimate, is either “alive” or “dead” (of course, the descriptive verb “dead” does not necessarily imply that the entity was previously alive). Bacteria, cattle, and people are alive. Clouds, rocks, and corpses are dead. There is no ‘in-between’ term, because either an entity possesses the spark of life or it does not. Just as a woman cannot be “potentially pregnant,” an entity cannot be “potentially alive.”

The argument that there is some in-between area between life and death is used by pro-abortionists and pro-euthanasiasts today just as enthusiastically as Nazis and slaveowners used it in the past. The use of the term ‘potential life’ is absolutely necessary to confuse the issue and prepare the ground for euthanasia on demand.

Given that all things are either alive or dead, the pro-abortionist must now be compelled to concede that the fetus is not dead. After all, if the fetus were dead, the natural miscarriage process would occur, and the woman would lose the child. Therefore, she would not need an abortion in the first place!

Abortionist or Exorcist?

Some pro-aborts insist that they and they alone confer existence upon their preborn baby by some nebulous process of “acceptance.” In other words, if they don’t want the pregnancy, the baby simply does not exist.

If a pro-abort subscribes to this view, the pro-lifer should ask why women need an abortion for a baby that doesn’t exist! If every woman could decide for herself when life began by using a metaphysical process, she would need an exorcism for an unwanted pregnancy, not an abortion!

If the fetus were dead, it would not be growing, sucking its thumb, taking in and efficiently processing nutrients, and excreting. After three weeks, its heart would not be beating and its brain would not be functioning.

Ensoulment = Life?

Many pro-abortionists (including President Bill Clinton) have made the silly assertion that life does not begin until the baby gets its soul -- and, in their opinion, this ‘ensoulment’ invariably occurs at birth.

We must ask people who advance this vacuous argument a few pointed questions. To begin with, there is no way to measure the presence of a “soul” through any scientific method. How, then, do they know that the soul enters the body at birth? What if someone asserts that the soul only enters the body when the person reaches the age of reason -- say, at seven years old? Does that render a six-year old ‘unalive?’

We should also inform “Slick Willie” and his pals that the question of ‘ensoulment’ is a purely religious one -- and for Bill to impose his idea of when life begins on the nation through his executive actions and judicial appointments is a gross violation of the separation of church and state!

Finally, the presence of a soul has never indicated life in a creature. Only the most radical and extreme animal-rights activists will assert that a fly or a pig has a soul. Even though animals certainly do not possess souls they are obviously alive.

What Clinton and his buddies are doing here is falling back to yet another trench in the moral warfare over abortion: They cannot deny that the preborn are alive and human, and so they are deliberately pegging their abortion stand on a question that science literally will never be able to answer. This is a classic use of the tactic of ‘mystagoguery:’ An attempt to render a question so complicated or unreachable that it can never be answered.

Of course, it really doesn’t matter to Clinton and like thinkers when ensoulment occurs. If, through some scientific breakthrough, a person could prove that the preborn received their souls at the instant of conception, are there any pro-lifers out there naive enough to expect that people who think this way would immediately give up their abortion ‘right?’

No way! They would just find some other justification.

Conclusion.

The natural conclusion that stems from the above discussions is that preborn babies indeed fully alive in every sense of the term. Anyone who says otherwise is either deliberately dishonest or deceiving themselves.

A pro-lifer may also want to ask a pro-abortionist if he believes in the morality of fetal organ transplants for Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and other disorders. The pro-lifer should also ask him if he thinks that fetal organ experimentation is ethical. The pro-abort will be compelled by his philosophy to answer “yes.”

It is then easy to point out the obvious conclusion that fetal tissue used for such purposes is obviously alive -- it would be useless if it were dead! How can live tissue come from a non-living organism?

Additionally, the pro-lifer might ask his opponent his opinion of in-vitro fertilization (IVF). After all, if the sperm and egg combined in a dish are not alive, they cannot be implanted in a host uterus. Even at the very early 16- or 32-cell stage, the blastocyst or embryo is very much alive.

When Did Life Begin? -- An Alternative View.

“The [pro-life] opposition will hammer away at life and murder themes - matters of theology and faith, rather than fact and reason. Dispose of these as quickly as possible (avoid the “When does life begin?” discussion) ...”-- National Abortion Rights Action League.[2]

Two Beginnings.

Pro-lifers are sometimes puzzled and sidetracked by pro-aborts who claim that “Abortion is all right because life does not begin at conception. The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Human life actually began millions of years ago!”

This assertion is very easy to handle if it is properly contemplated beforehand.

Many pro-lifers (and pro-aborts too, for that matter) hold the view that life does not begin at conception or at implantation, but instead began millions of years ago. For these people, the question “When does life begin?” can be answered very simply: Human life began with Adam and Eve (for evolutionists, human life began when the first being evolved to the point of humanity). Since that time, the quality named “human life” has been passed down from generation to generation. There is no point at which life suddenly stops and then restarts. The ovum and the sperm are alive. They arise from living building blocks. If they were not alive, fertilization would be impossible.

Pro-Abortion Manipulation.

This reasoning is also used by some pro-abortionists to justify abortion, but this type of manipulation really makes no sense at all. After all, what difference does it make when life begins?

When dealing with the question of abortion under this type of logic, it does not matter when life begins. It may have begun millions of years ago, or just eight weeks ago at conception. It makes no difference when it begins -- the important point to make is that it has begun!

The operative question here is when human life ends . It matters not if life begins at conception, with the first human risen from the apes, or with Adam and Eve; abortion kills a human life.

Since by any possible evolutionist or creationist definition life has already begun, the real question here is actually “When does personhood begin?” The pro-aborts would have us believe that any person can assign personhood based upon their own reasons and attitudes. In other words, there is no concrete definition of “personhood.”

This attitude, of course, is desperately dangerous. If we can define classes of persons out of existence with our personal whims, we have already come far down the road already traveled by the Nazis.

==========================================

[1] Sir William Liley, ‘The Father of Modern Fetology,’ quoted in Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s book The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality . Idea Books, Post Office Box 4010, Madison, Wisconsin 53711. 1985, 192 pages, $9.95.

[2] Looseleaf booklet entitled “Organizing for Action.” Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action League, 250 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10019. 51 pages, no date.

[3] Lana Clarke Phelan. “Abortion Laws: The Cruel Fraud.” Speech presented at the First California Conference on Abortion at Santa Barbara, California in March of 1968 by the Society for Humane Abortion, Inc., San Francisco, California.

[4] Judith Pasternak, Reproductive Freedom Project, ACLU Foundation, New York City, in a letter to the New York Times Magazine . Also quoted in “Worth Quoting.” National Right to Life News , February 3, 1983, page 19.

[5] “Let’s Tell the Truth About Abortion.” Pamphlet distributed by Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood. 1985, 22 pages. Fight Back Press, Post Office Box 61421, Denver, Colorado 80206. Pages 3 and 4.

[6] Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary . Springfield, Massachusetts: G&C Merriam Company, 1974, page 241.

[7] The Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology and Medicine. Quoted in the New York Times , October 8, 1991.

[8] Norman Mailer on the David Frost Show. Quoted in “Norman Mailer Speaks Out on Sex and AIDS.” American Family Association Journal , March 1992, page 3.

[9] Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). How to Talk with Your Child About Sexuality . Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1986, 150 pages. A detailed review of this book may be obtained from Jim Sedlak, Director, Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP), Post Office Box 8, LaGrangeville, New York 12540.

[10] Peter Seinter. “The Ethics of Embryo Research.” 1987 position paper published by the Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University.

[11] “Abortion Clinic Staff Worker Gives Her Excuses.” Life Advocate (publication of Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon), April 1992, page 21.

[12] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language.” The Orwell Reader . New York, 1956, pages 355 and 356.

==========================================

CHAPTER 72. THE MIRACLE OF FETAL DEVELOPMENT

“The last time I saw her, she was just eight cells in a test tube. She was beautiful then, and she’s beautiful now.”-- Dr. Robert Edwards describing Louise Brown,the world’s first ‘test-tube’ baby.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“Explain that you are equally repulsed by the [pro-life] photos, that you are human and love children and babies as much as anyone else ... The pictures they [the audience] have seen must be discredited. They have been magnified so much as to remove the facts from scientific perspective. Really, in early stages, the fetus is smaller than a fingernail, can fit into a walnut shell, and is much like menstrual flow to the naked eye. We would be repulsed by a magnified picture of an eyeball in formaldehyde also.”-- National Abortion Rights Action League.[2]

The First Nine Months of Life.

“It is not enough merely to tell them [pregnant women] that in producing an abortion in the early months they are taking a human life; they must be shown that at this [six week] period the child is already well along in its development.”-- Abortionist Frederick Taussig.[3]

The True Impact of Roe v. Wade.

The United States Supreme Court, in its loathsome 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, stated that abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. One of the greatest triumphs of the pro-abortion movement is that it has convinced the United States public that abortion is illegal beyond the first trimester, as described in Chapter 89, “Supreme Court Decisions on Abortion.”

Look in Your Yellow Pages.

The most effective rebuttal of the pro- abortion allegation that abortion is illegal after the first trimester is as close at hand as your local Yellow Pages.

Almost every phone book in the United States includes advertising by an abortion mill that does abortions to 22, 24, or 28 weeks. Larger cities will have the clinics locally, and surrounding rural areas will almost always have these clinics advertising in their Yellow Pages.

“Collision Course.”

Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has stated that Roe v. Wade is “... on a collision course with itself.” Roe defined viability as when the baby is “... potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial help.” The court then established an arbitrary viability limit of 30 weeks . The Justices were already outdated in their thinking; Figure 72-1 shows that fetal viability was fifty percent at only 28.5 weeks as far back as 1970.

FIGURE 72-1 THE MEDIAN FETAL AGE OF VIABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES (50 Percent Survival Rate)

1950: 33.7 weeks

1955: 31.8 weeks

1960: 30.4 weeks

1965: 29.5 weeks

1970: 28.5 weeks

1975: 27.7 weeks

1980: 27.1 weeks

1985: 26.1 weeks

1990: 25.5 weeks

Reference: B. Ferrera, R. Hoekstra, E. Graziano, G. Knox, R. Couser, and J. Fangman. “Changing Outcome of Extremely Premature Infants ( 26 Weeks Gestation and 750 Grams: Survival and Follow-Up at a Tertiary Center.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology , 1989;161: pages 1,114 to 1,118. This article is analyzed in the January 1990 issue of the Bernadell Technical Bulletin , page 5.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth defined viability as “... that state of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside of the womb by natural or life-support systems.”

This latter definition does not address the question of frozen human embryos, which are certainly capable of being sustained indefinitely by cryogenic life-support systems. By the Supreme Court’s own medico-legal definition, a preborn baby is viable until about three weeks of age, then non-viable until about 24 weeks, and viable thereafter.

Does this make any sense?

Lowering the Limits on Viability.

In 1950, a baby born at thirty week’s gestation had only a slim chance to live. The birth and survival of a “kilogram kid” (a premature baby born at 2.2 pounds) was big news indeed. Now, however, the limits have been drastically lowered; it is estimated that more than one hundred children have been born in this country weighing less than one pound , and most of them are living perfectly healthy and normal lives.

The smallest surviving healthy baby born weighed 380 grams, or about 13.4 ounces. Her mother suffered from life-threatening high blood pressure and a blood clotting disorder, and the infant was delivered 15 weeks early by emergency Cesarian section. The child survived and was discharged after 4 months in the hospital nursery. At 20 months, she was evaluated and was found to have minor eye and ear disorders. She had normal scores for intelligence and psychomotor development. The total cost of her delivery and care was estimated to be $202,109.[4]

Figure 72-1 shows the mean gestational age at which babies have survived birth over the last forty years. The figures shown represent that point at which an “average” baby for that gestational age may be born and have a fifty percent chance of survival.

Figure 72-2 lists the names of about one percent of the babies who have survived extremely early birth, and together with Figure 72-1, clearly demonstrates that the threshold of fetal viability is decreasing in a steady near-linear pattern.

FIGURE 72-2 SOME HEALTHY BABIES WHO HAVE SURVIVED EXTREMELY EARLY BIRTH

Baby’s Birthday	Weeks Gestation	Baby’s Weight (ounces)	Baby’s Name	Source of Information
3/1971	21	21	Kelly Thorman	St. Vincent Hospital, Toledo
7/1971	21	23	Suzanne South	Bethesda Hosp., Cincinnati
1/1972	20	27	Marcus Richardson	University Hosp., Cincinnati
3/1972	22	19	Tracy LaBranch	Battle Creek Enquirer
3/1974	23	20	Tascha Hudson	Brooke Army Hospital
4/1974	24	23	Alicia Ponce	Associated Press
4/1978	23	21	Simmonne Jayette	Montreal Jewish Gen. Hosp.
11/1978	23	17	Mimi Faulkner	San Diego, Boston Herald
10/1979	26	15	Chaya Snyder	Albert Einstein Hosp., NYC
11/1979	26	15	Russell Williams	Long Beach Memorial Hosp.
2/1983	22	17	Ernestine Hodges	San Diego, Washington Post
4/1983	23	19	Faith Materowski	Hackensack Medical Center
6/1983	22	18	Melissa Murray	Victoria, TX, Houston Post
10/1983	24	16	Jamie Baire	Garfield Hospital, Monterey
12/1983	20	16	Melissa Cameron	Sault St. Marie Hospital
6/1985	21	18	Kanya King	Medical World News
5/1986	27	13	Darlene Monroe	Medical Post , Canada
7/1986	22	12	Brandon Spense	Cincinnati Enquirer
10/1988	24	15	Christy Adams	Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Camden
7/1991	22	11	Katy Masner	Kansas City Star , 11/5/91

References: Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke. Abortion Questions and Answers . Hayes Publishing Company, 6304 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45224. Telephone: (513) 681-7559. 324 pages. Also other newspaper articles and news bulletins as noted above.

It is most ironic that most of the hospitals cited in Figure 72-2, which pride themselves on their state-of-the-art neonatal units, also commit abortions. In fact, many hospitals spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting to save the lives of very premature babies, while at the same time aborting babies of the same or larger size in another wing.

However, under current medical technology, we are definitely approaching the lower limit of viability. Below a certain age, the baby’s lungs just are not capable of sustaining life, even with the most advanced artificial assistance; the baby at 24 weeks has skin so fragile that a mere touch can lacerate it.

Certain scientists have sustained very young preborns (12-16 weeks) in artificial wombs consisting of nutrient-rich solution under very high pressure, but the babies have only lived for a short time. The panacea of the artificial womb, if it is theoretically possible, is a long way in the future indeed.

For a discussion of extracorporeal gestation and extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), see Chapter 55, “ In-Vitro Fertilization.”

Milestones of Fetal Development.

“People who say that the heart starts beating 18 days after conception are crazy. At 10 weeks, the embryo still only weighs one ounce, so how could it have a fully formed heart?”-- Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler.[5]

Time Framework.

There are two ways in which people discuss the time period related to milestones in fetal development: Gestational and fertilization age.

Fertilization age is a framework of time based upon the point of view of the unborn child, and begins at the instant of conception. The gestational (or menstrual) age timeline begins two weeks earlier at the last menstrual period, and is figured from the point of view of the mother. The framework most often used in discussions about the development of the unborn child is gestational age.

These terms can be somewhat confusing since they are based upon different starting points. Benchmarks of both are compared below.

LANDMARKS IN FETAL AND GESTATIONAL AGE

	Fetal (Fertilization) Age in Weeks	Gestational (Menstrual) Age in Weeks
Ovulation/ fertilization	0	2
Implantation	1	3
First missed menstrual period	2	4
Preborn heart begins to beat	3	5
Preborn brain waves begin	6	8
All of preborn’s body systems present	8	10
Birth	38	40

Reference: Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. “Clearing Up Confusion.” National Right to Life News , July 30, 1991, page 11.

Scientific and Biological Proof.

As the above quote demonstrates, abortionists, who can (and do) know better since they have been through medical school, routinely lie about fetal development in an attempt to keep women and the public ignorant and thereby lessen the natural loathing people have for the taking of innocent life.

After all, when you make your money slaughtering the most innocent of children, what does it matter that you lie occasionally?

At the age of 24 days after conception, the unborn child already meets even the prevailing legal definition of life. Major milestones of normal fetal development are shown in Figure 72-3. The average heights and weights for preborn babies at each week of development are shown in Figure 72-4.

FIGURE 72-3 MILESTONES OF FETAL DEVELOPMENT

Conception: Father’s sperm penetrates mother’s egg. Genetic instructions from each of the two individuals combine to form a unique individual, barely visible to the human eye.

1st Day: First four cell divisions take place as the blastocyst travels down the mother’s Fallopian tubes towards the uterus.

5-9 Days: Implantation in the uterus. Of the 45 total generations of cell replication that will take place by mature adulthood, eight have already taken place. The blastocyst now consists of about 256 cells.

14 Days: The mother’s menstrual period is suppressed by chemical signals emitted by her own child. First completed brain cells appear.

20 Days: Heart is in the advanced stages of formation. Eyes begin to form. Brain, spinal column, and nervous system virtually complete. Folding of the ectocyst disc occurs. 24 Days: BABY’S HEART BEGINS TO BEAT.

28 Days: Muscles are developing. Arm and leg buds visible. First neocortal cells appear. The neocortex is the seat of complex thinking and reasoning, and are present in no other mammal. Child has grown in size by a factor of 10,000. He or she is now 6 to 7 millimeters long (about 1/4 inch). Blood flows in the baby’s veins, separate from mother’s blood.

35 Days: Pituitary gland forming. Mouth, ears, and nose taking shape.

42 Days: Heart energy output is 20 percent that of an adult’s. Cartilage skeleton is completely formed and ossification begins. The umbilical cord has developed. The baby’s brain coordinates voluntary movement of muscles and the involuntary movement of organs. Reflex responses are present. The baby’s mother misses her second menstrual period.

43 Days: BABY’S BRAIN WAVES CAN BE RECORDED.

45 Days: Spontaneous, voluntary body movements have begun. Milk teeth buds are present.

7 Weeks: The baby’s lips are sensitive to touch, and his ears resemble his family’s pattern. The first fully developed neurons (nerve cells) appear on the top of the spinal cord, beginning construction of the brain stem. This portion of the brain regulates vital functions such as breathing, the heartbeat, and blood pressure.

8 Weeks: Baby is well-proportioned, about 1-1/2 inches long and 1/30 of an ounce in weight. All organs are present, complete, and functioning (except lungs). Heart beats sturdily. Stomach produces digestive juices. Liver makes blood cells. Kidneys are functioning. The stomach secretes gastric juices. Taste buds are forming. Fingerprints are being engraved. Eyelids and the palms of the hands are sensitive to touch. A tapping stimulus on the amniotic sac will result in the baby moving his arms. Of the 45 total generations of cell replication that will take place by mature adulthood, fully two-thirds (30) have already taken place. The fetus now consists of about one billion cells. It also contains more equivalent genetic information than every word communicated by every human being who has ever lived since the beginning of the race.

9 Weeks: Child will bend fingers around an object placed in the palm. Fingernails are forming. Child sucks thumbs.

10 Weeks: All sections of baby’s body are sensitive to touch. Child swallows, squints, frowns, and puckers up brow. If his palm is stroked, he will make a tight fist.

11 Weeks: Baby urinates and makes all facial expressions, including smiling. He is now breathing amniotic fluid steadily and will continue to do so until birth. Fingernails and toenails are now present. Taste buds are now working. The baby will drink more amniotic fluid if it is artificially sweetened, and less if it is given a bitter taste.

12 Weeks: Vigorous activity shows the baby’s distinct personality; babies sleep patterns differ, some babies hiccup constantly, others may cry. Baby can kick, turn over, curl and fan toes, make a fist, move thumbs, open mouth and press lips tightly together. Baby practices breathing.

13 Weeks: Facial expressions resemble those of parents. Movements are vigorous and graceful. Vocal chords are present, and, in rare cases when air enters uterus temporarily, baby has been heard crying. External sex organs are present, and the sex of baby can be determined. Auditory sense is now present.

4 Months: Baby can grasp with hands, swim, and turn somersaults. Mother may first feel baby’s movements. Eyelashes are now present. Rapid Eye Movements (REM), indicative of dreaming, can now be recorded. A very bright light shined on the mother’s abdomen will cause the baby to slowly move his arms to cover his eyes. Very loud music will cause the baby to cover his ears. Connections between the neocortex and the muscles they control are beginning to appear.

5 Months: Sleeping habits are formed, and a loud sound such as a slammed door may startle child. Baby responds to sounds that are of frequencies that exceed adult’s range in both directions. Baby may be soothed to sleep by gentle music.

6 Months: Most babies are viable at this point (24 weeks - about 60 percent of full gestation). Fine hair grows on head and eyebrows. Eyelashes appear. The baby’s weight is about 640 grams (22 ounces), and height is about 23 centimeters (nine inches).

7 Months: The baby’s weight increases to over one kilogram (2.2 pounds). The baby’s eyeteeth are now present. His eyes open and close and explore surroundings. Hands can support baby’s entire weight at this time. Baby recognizes his or her mother’s voice. Of the 45 total generations of cell replication that will take place by mature adulthood, 38 have already taken place. The baby now has about 300 billion cells.

8 Months: The baby’s weight increases to over two kilograms (4.4 pounds), and his quarters become cramped. If born now, the baby has more than a ninety percent chance of surviving and being entirely healthy.

9 Months: In the final six weeks of gestation, the baby gains about an ounce of weight per day. Hormones released by the child trigger labor. The lightest baby ever born to survive healthily weighed in at 10 ounces. The heaviest baby ever born weighed in at 26 pounds and went on to become a heavyweight boxing champion of the world (Primo Carnera). Of the 45 total generations of cell replication that will take place by mature adulthood, 41 have already taken place. The baby now has about two trillion (2,000,000,000,000) cells. The remaining four generations of cell replication will occupy all of the person’s childhood and young adulthood. This means, that, in developmental terms, we spend 90 percent of our lives in utero .

FIGURE 72-4 AVERAGE FETAL WEIGHT AND LENGTH BY GESTATIONAL AGE

Weeks of Gestation	Fetal Weight, Grams	Fetal Weight, Lbs-Oz	Fetal Length, Inches
8	1	0 - 1/25	1-1/2
9	2	0 - 1/12	2-0
10	4	0 - 1/6	2-1/2
11	7	0 - 1/3	3-0
12	14	0 - 1/2	3-1/2
13	25	0 - 1	4-1/4
14	45	0 - 2	5-0
15	70	0 - 3	5-3/4
16	100	0 - 4	6-1/2
17	140	0 - 5	7-1/4
18	190	0 - 7	8-0
19	240	0 - 8	9-0
20	300	0 - 11	10-0
21	360	0 - 13	10-1/2
22	430	0 - 15	11-0
23	500	1 - 2	11-1/2
24	600	1 - 5	12-0
25	700	1 - 9	12-1/2
26	800	1 - 12	13-0
27	900	2 - 0	13-1/2
28	1,000	2 - 3	14-0
29	1,175	2 - 9	14-1/2
30	1,350	3 - 0	15-0
31	1,500	3 - 5	15-1/2
32	1,675	3 - 11	16-0
33	1,825	4 - 0	16-1/2
34	2,000	4 - 6	17-0
35	2,160	4 - 12	17-1/2
36	2,340	5 - 3	18-0
37	2,500	5 - 8	18-1/2
38	2,775	6 - 2	19-0
39	3,000	6 - 10	19-1/2
40	3,250	7 - 3	20-0
41	3,500	7 - 11	20-1/2
42	4,000	8 - 13	21-0
43	4,500	9 - 15	21-1/2

Conversion Factors.

1 pound = 453.6 grams 1 ounce = 28.35 grams

1 meter = 39.37 inches 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters

Reference: Enfamil disc entitled “Fetal Dimensions.”

Of all the stages of development that the preborn child progresses through, the one that seems to define life for most people is the time when the heart begins to beat.

As early as 1961, researchers, during a therapeutic hysterectomy, obtained a 7-1/2 week preborn baby measuring 23 millimeters (about one inch) from crown to rump. This baby survived independent of the mother for twenty minutes. During this time, the researchers used electrocardiographs to directly measure its strong and regular heartbeat, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that a preborn baby does have a heartbeat by, at the latest, seven and one-half weeks.[6]

This means that the vast majority of all abortions in this country are committed after the heart of the preborn child begins to beat.

The Abortionist’s Attitude Towards Third-Trimester Abortions.

“A fetus is nothing! You won’t get me to say I’m sorry for the fetus. Abortion is much more important than the life of a child that doesn’t exist.”-- Abortionist Howard I. Diamond.[7]

Introduction.

It is very interesting indeed that many pro-abortionists who say that life begins at quickening also support third-trimester abortions. Pro-aborts will say that these late abortions account for ‘only’ one percent of all abortions, and they will be correct.

However, one percent of 1.6 million is 16,000 third-trimester babies being dismembered or dumped in stainless-steel buckets every year -- or about seventy per business day . Since pro-aborts are compelled by their curious philosophies to defend all abortions -- even those in the third trimester -- this propensity can be used to uncover their extremism in public.

When dealing with third-trimester abortions, the anti-life mentality is uncompromising and absolutist for two very good reasons;

(1) the anti-lifer strives to be free of God and actually is striving (whether consciously or unconsciously) to transform himself into a ‘little God.’ To admit that any anti-life practice is inhumane or unethical would be to admit fault and culpability. This and other strange characteristics of the anti-life mentality are described in Chapter 2 of Volume I.

(2) the Neofeminists are acutely and properly aware of the principle of “reverse incrementalism;” that is, they are compelled to defend these most reprehensible abortions, because if they ‘lose’ abortion for the third trimester and for sex selection, for example, they will surely ‘lose’ abortion in other categories as well (perhaps this phenomenon could be called the ‘slippery ski-lift’).

The Reality.

Many or most pro-abortionists will deny that third-trimester abortions even exist. However, Census Bureau statistics, which themselves are based upon Alan Guttmacher Institute figures, show that about one percent of all abortions are performed in the third trimester.[8]

In light of the fact that fifty percent of all babies are viable with medical help at the beginning of the third trimester, we see that a minimum of eight thousand viable babies are put to death in this country each year (the current age of fetal viability is shown in Figure 72-1).

Although there are very few abortuaries that kill preborn babies past the 24th week, these few mills commit the vast majority of such grisly procedures. Some abortuaries advertise for abortion well into the third trimester in the Yellow Pages. Atlanta’s Midtown Hospital, which does abortions to 26 weeks and beyond, is a typical example.

A lot of attention was focused on the notorious Wichita third-trimester killer, George Tiller, during Operation Rescue’s 1991 “Summer of Mercy.” It is significant that 6,000 pro-aborts held a counter-rally in Wichita during OR’s missions. Their ardent support for third-trimester abortions was displayed by a plane towing a banner that read “WE LOVE YOU, DR. TILLER!”[9]

The “Dreaded Complication.”

Occasionally third-trimester abortions result in what doctors commonly call “the dreaded complication:” A live, crying, viable baby.

Abortionist Enrique Gerbi of Detroit Memorial hospital performed an abortion in October 1984 which resulted in the live birth of a 29-week girl. He shrugged and said that “It happens all the time. This is not the first time, and it won’t be the last. It happens all the time.”[10]

Dr. David A. Grimes, veteran Planned Parenthood abortionist, estimates that from 500 to 3,000 babies survive prostaglandin and hysterotomy abortions every year .[11]

The prevalence of such incidents has given rise to particularly grisly abortion procedures whose purpose is to insure a dead baby. These include the dilation and extraction (D&X), where all of the baby is delivered except for the head. The abortionists then punctures the baby’s skull and sucks its brains out.

This is a real abortion procedure, described in detail in Chapter 61, “Methodology and Aspects of Abortion.”

A “botched abortions” can lead to a curious breed of litigation: The “wrongful life” lawsuit. “Wrongful life” suits are filed on behalf of a child alleging that he should have been aborted. In contrast, “wrongful birth” suits are filed by parents that claim that their child should have been aborted.[12] Such litigation has literally inverted the traditional legal theory of “wrongful death” to create the “anti-tort” of “wrongful life.”

Whatever the terminology, the very existence of the terms “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” indicates just how far down the slippery slope our legal system has already plunged.

Neofeminist Support.

Judith Hole and Ellen Levine’s book Rebirth of Feminism neatly summarizes the radical Neofeminist’s attitude towards third-trimester abortions; “... any woman who wishes to terminate a late pregnancy undoubtedly has a very good reason and should have the right to do so. In addition, they argue that the concepts of “quickening” and “viability” are based on religious doctrine and ancient myths about when “life” begins. Any woman who believes in them will not seek an abortion beyond the time dictated by her beliefs. All women, however, should not be required to follow one doctrine.”[13]

Note carefully that this logic is used to justify all abortions, even those committed for convenience, for any reason or for no reason at all. Such a statement could even be used to justify infanticide. The original logic used by the Neofeminists has simply been extended to cover the disposal of viable babies.

The Massachusetts Experience.

In 1989, anti-life Massachusetts legislators pushed a so-called “Prochoice Amendment” to their state’s Constitution. In order to make this Amendment more palatable to many of their colleagues, sponsors asserted that third-trimester abortions would only be allowed to save the life of the mother.

Incredibly, Neofeminists strongly condemned this exception on the grounds that third-trimester abortions should be available for convenience reasons (i.e., economics, to avoid embarrassment, etc.).

Some of the statements by the local radical press in opposition to this Amendment outlined this extreme position. Marlene Fried baldly summed up the basic Neofeminist position in the simplest possible terms as she claimed that “The most basic aspect of abortion rights [is] a woman’s right to decide, at any point in pregnancy, for any reason.”[14] And the Revolutionary Communist Party insisted that “There are many different reasons why women get abortions. And they are all valid.”[15]

The most revealing opposition to the “Prochoice Amendment” was generated by the Reproductive Rights Network of Boston (R2N2). This organization stated that; “The Reproductive Rights Network of Boston believes that it [the ‘Prochoice’ Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution] dangerously narrows reproductive rights, and undermines the very movement we’re trying to build, by limiting abortion rights to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy ... This represents an alarming compromise of the basic feminist principle that abortion is fundamentally a woman’s choice ... Restrictions in late abortion also uphold a disturbing concept that has gotten play in the media and the legislature: that there are morally reprehensible abortions ... Our priority now must be to expand the notion of reproductive rights and to strengthen our message. This is certainly not the time to voluntarily shrink our own demands.”[16]

Stubblefield Strikes Out.

In 1985, prominent abortion supporter Dr. Philip Stubblefield, past president of the National Abortion Federation, suggested lowering the upper limit on abortions to 22 weeks. He was certainly not at all concerned about the agony inflicted upon viable babies; he simply wanted to take one small step towards cleaning up the abortionist’s filthy public image.

However, Stubblefield was shouted down when he formally presented his proposal to other leading pro-aborts. Abortion lawyer Janet Benshoof of the American Civil Liberties Union demanded that there be upper gestational age limit, stating as fact that abortion on demand “... is a precondition for all other legal and constitutional guarantees of women’s equality.”[17]

Despite his questionable motivations for banning third-trimester abortions, Stubblefield appears to be unique among hard-core abortionists. Dr. Frank Chernak summarized the callous opinion of other late-term abortionists toward third-trimester killing in the New England Journal of Medicine ; “Prenatal death does not constitute a harm, nor does the prenatal termination of the fetus’ life through induced abortion constitute an injury.”[18]

What Does It Matter?

Pro-life activists should know by now that the status of the unborn as living, as human, as persons, or as developed babies is completely irrelevant to pro-abortionists. All that matters to them is that they be allowed to continue to commit genocide in peace.

The most powerful weapon the pro-aborts have in their arsenal is confusion. When confronted with any information on the unborn at all, they will squirt verbal ink like cuttlefish and will do anything to confuse rather than clarify the issues.

The following pro-abortion quotes demonstrate that viability is not important to those who kill the babies -- only the ability to divert attention is.

Writer Nancy Rhoden says that “The compromise forged in Roe v. Wade was, and can remain, an acceptable one. But it can do so only if the Court recognizes, when it becomes necessary, the limited ethical relevance of fetal viability.”[19]

Janet Benshoof of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote that “The increasing tendency to view the fetus as an independent patient or person occurs at the cost of reducing the woman to the status of little more than a maternal environment ... We need to refocus the right to abortion as one not defined by the fetus or by technological advances, but rather one that is tied to women’s constitutional right to privacy, autonomy and bodily integrity.”[20]

Some pro-abortion diversionary arguments are so silly they should be made into a gag poster. As expected, the most illogical and anti-scientific ravings originate with self-identified Humanists -- yes, the same people who pride themselves on their rational outlook. For example, Sherry Matulis, during her 1991 “Humanist Heroine Award” speech, snarled “And although a rose is a rose is a rose, you will never hear anti-choice proponents raise their voices against spontaneous abortion. You will never see them picket or march on Washington or take any other action to try to stop or even lessen this spontaneous “holocaust.” And you will certainly never hear them decry their God with his big abortion mill in the sky for this wanton destruction of “innocent life” -- this “mass murder” of up to 80 percent of all those fertilized eggs they refer to as “unborn children.” Because to discuss it -- to really examine its implications -- is to put the lie to all their mystical twaddle.”[21]

The Solution?

Pro-abortionists have successfully clouded the central issue in the argument over the moral and legal status of preborn babies --the discussion over their personhood and viability. Therefore, a mechanical or philosophical resolution of the abortion question is now literally impossible, since the various qualities of the unborn child can simply be redefined or defined out of existence. Fundamental words that used to have concrete meaning -- among them “life,” “humanity,” and “personhood” -- have no fixed reference point in the featureless moral landscape of the social engineers, and drift wherever the currents of convenience take them.

The loss of this foundation has led to a plethora of well-intentioned but physically impossible suggestions for “solutions” to the abortion problem. These recommendations do not address the status of the unborn, and so will never suffice to put even the smallest dent into the abortion Holocaust.

Some people, including Dr. Bernard Nathanson, have suggested that the abortion question will be resolved by allowing unwanted embryos or early fetuses to be removed from the woman’s body and grown in artificial uteri. However, the state cannot force the removal of bone marrow or blood from a person, even to save another’s life; it is unrealistic to expect that it will do so in the case of early preborn babies. Additionally, the pro-aborts will fight this development tooth and nail with their most powerful weapon to date: the “right to privacy,” as Janet Benshoof has implied.[20]

A Clear Danger to the Abortionists.

“You must learn to turn your eyes away.”-- Albert Speer, the architect of Adolf Hitler’s Jewish Extermination Program.[22]

Introduction.

The greatest weapon in the pro-life arsenal is not the photographs of mangled aborted late-term preborn babies -- although these are still very powerful and useful.

The greatest persuader that the pro-life movement has is beautiful full-color photos of preborns peacefully floating in their mother’s wombs.

The abortionists know this. While they snivel about “shocking anti-choice propaganda featuring aborted fetuses,” they also fanatically oppose the public display of any representation of living preborns. There is a very good reason for this apparent hypocrisy: The abortionists so fear the public seeing the truth about fetal development that they will go to almost any lengths to obscure or censor the truth.

The remainder of this section outlines just a few of the more blatant attempts by pro-abortionists to keep the truth about fetal development from the public.

Keep ‘Em Ignorant.

Debate is perhaps the only forum where pro-lifers and pro-aborts may meet on a “level playing field” and actually talk about the issues related to abortion. However, even in this setting, pro-abortionists try to censor the material that pro-lifers use.

This is evident upon examining anti-life debating manuals.

For example, a debating manual issued by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) entitled “Organizing for Action” states on page 29 that “Another set of questions involves the opposition. Has your audience seen anti-abortion propaganda? Are you debating a Right-to-Lifer? Is the opposition bringing slides or pictures? Try to insist that they not be allowed to ... Find out if your opposition is bringing audio-visuals. Try to insist that you will only speak if they do not.”[2]

This is a common theme in pro-abort publications. Perhaps the best example of this type of cowardice is contained in mega-abortionist Warren Hern’s book Abortion Practice ; “Television interviews, in particular, should focus on the public issue involved (right to confidential and professional medical care, freedom of choice, and so forth) and not on the specific details of the abortion procedures.”[23]

Hern goes even further to say “In Colorado, the pro-choice community has decided after some period of disagreement and discussion to refuse all invitations to debate ... we respond to all requests from schools for educational presentations concerning abortion. If the sponsors want both sides presented, however, the presentations must be made on different occasions. We insist that visual aid materials not be presented by either side.”

Censorship NOW.

In 1989, Human Life of Washington (the state Right to Life affiliate) placed a series of ads on Washington Transit Authority busses. These ads consisted of a photograph of a 17-week old unborn baby swimming in its mother’s womb with the caption “ENJOY LIFE. GOOD THINGS COME IN SMALL PACKAGES.” The objective of the ads was not to stop abortions, but to warn the public about the effects of alcohol and substance abuse and diet on fetal development.

The Reproductive Rights Task Force of the Seattle Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) immediately initiated a telephone harassment campaign directed against Washington Transit, claiming that the photos and ads were, in NOW’s lofty opinion, “too graphic.”[24] The Washington Transit Authority quickly broke its contract with Human Life and obediently pulled the ads.

A NOW spokeswoman explained that “NOW works to promote and protect the human rights of women. It is in keeping with the work that we do that we protest advertising the intent of which is harmful to the health and well-being of women, and which deprives women of their full rights as human beings.”[25]

When asked how the advertising was “harmful to the health and well-being of women,” and how it “deprived women of their full rights as human beings,” the NOW people refused to answer.

In other words, NOW does not even want the public to know basic facts about human reproduction, because the sight of a healthy unborn baby might make some women change their minds about abortion!

Pro-Abortion Vandalism.

Delaware Right to Life rented six billboards from Reagan National Advertising in October 1990. The billboards featured a photograph of a beautiful unborn baby with an inoffensive pro-life message. Within two days, all six billboards were torn apart and the pictures of the unborn babies were vandalized. Obscenities and the slogan “THIS IS A PRO-CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOD” were spraypainted on the wreckage.[26]

In response to this aggressive censorship, Lou Jacquet of the newspaper Dialog wrote that “The pro-abortion movement has to destroy pro-life billboards to keep people from learning the ugly facts about what abortion involves ... One of the recurring problems facing those who favor legalized abortion is the growing body of knowledge providing beyond a doubt how vital human life already is well before actual birth occurs ... It’s not the kind of information pro-abortion activists can afford to acknowledge. So they’ve taken to a simple solution -- tearing down and spraying over billboards. Aren’t these the same folks who call pro-life activists who picket abortion clinics ‘uncivilized?’”[26]

This is certainly not an isolated incident. More than 100 pro-life billboards have been destroyed or heavily damaged all over the country since 1985 by skulking pro-abortionists -- exactly the same people who complain so loudly about clinic burnings.

Pro-Abortion Technological Regression.

At the October 1989 annual conference of the National Abortion Rights Action League, pollster Harrison Hickman stated that “Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as technological advances that show pictures of the fetus.”[27]

The new and promising field of fetal surgery is also very worrisome to pro-abortionists, who recognize that there is a paradox in performing surgical procedures on an entity that isn’t supposed to exist. Judith Pasternak of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project is only one of the many pro-abortionists desperately trying to downplay the significance of in-utero fetal surgery; “But these [fetal surgery] techniques and this success are new indeed, so dazzlingly new as to blind us, perhaps, to the fact that the moral premise of abortion remains unchanged. The “issue of abortion” remains the issue of the right of the woman to choose whether or not to carry something in her own body. No technological advances can rob her of her right to choose whether or not to keep it there.”[28]

These examples show that the pro-abortion cause actively resists the discovery of new scientific evidence. This is analogous to the Flat-Earth Society ridiculing information showing that our planet is actually roughly spherical in shape.

Information Please.

“Chronically, antiabortionists represent abortion as involving an elephantine fetus about to walk and talk, when, in truth, the typical abortion has more in common with a menstrual period.”-- Anne Nicol Gaylor, Abortion is a Blessing .[29]

Introduction.

The amount of information stored in any single cell of the human body is prodigious. In fact, if a person attempts to describe this data in terms of ‘megabytes’ or ‘gigabytes’ he is usually met by an uncomprehending stare, even from those who understand the dimensions of such measurements.

Therefore, it is very revealing to compare the amount of information in a human cell to that found in a standard that virtually everyone is familiar with: The Encyclopedia Britannica .

Anyone fortunate enough to own the current set of the Encyclopedia has at his fingertips about 30,500 pages and 27.5 million words of information in 33 bound volumes. This is an amount of information equivalent to about 300 megabytes.

If a person set about reading this set of books at a standard speed of 300 words per minute for a regular 40-hour week, it would take eight months to complete the task.

The following paragraphs compare the amount of information found in the human cell and the developing fetus to that in the Encyclopedia Britannica and other measures of the written word.

The Fertilized Egg.

According to medical and genetic textbooks, the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) in a single fertilized human egg carries as much data as 50 sets of the 33-volume Encyclopedia Britannica .[30]

These fifty sets of encyclopedia are equivalent to 1,373,625,000 words which, if typewritten in a single line, would stretch for 14,453 miles, more than halfway around the world.

For those with an affinity for computers, this is equivalent to about 15,000 megabytes of data. This information would fill 41,700 5-1/4 inch (360 kilobyte) floppy disks, or would make a stack of such disks 280 feet high, about as tall as a thirty-story skyscraper.

If a person read this mountain of information at 300 words a minute for a standard 40-hour week, he would begin on college graduation day and not finish until retirement at age 58 -- a total of 37 years!

And all of this data is packed into a one-celled organism barely visible to the unaided human eye.

The Blastocyst.

After conception in the Fallopian tubes, the new human being travels slowly down the tube towards the uterus. Its development has already begun. In fact, by the time the blastocyst has implanted in the uterus, it has undergone eight cell divisions of the 45 required to achieve full adulthood at age 18.

The blastocyst, which consists of about 256 cells, contains as much information as the main library in a large American city. This library would contain more than 3 million volumes with a total of about 350 billion words.

If these books were stacked on top of each other, they would make a pile fifty miles high. If this information were typewritten in a single line, the line would extend 3.7 million miles, or from here to the Moon and back eight times.

For computer freaks, this is equivalent to 3,840,000 megabytes of information, or 3.84 terabytes.

The Individual at Eight Weeks.

By the time the unborn child is eight weeks old, he weighs 1/30 of an ounce, and is comprised of about one billion cells. He has already undergone 35 of the 45 required cell divisions to achieve adulthood.

The amount of information contained in this baby’s body is almost incomprehensible. It is equivalent to 1.4 billion billion words, or a typewritten line 15,467 billion miles long, enough to reach four light years to Proximus Centauri, the star closest to our Sun. It is equal to 15 million terabytes, or 15 million million megabytes.

How large is this amount of information?

It is equal to every word spoken by every one of the more than 100 billion human beings who have walked this earth since Adam and Eve; PLUS every written word in every copy of every book, newspaper, magazine, periodical, newsletter, love letter, and communication of every description that has ever existed on this earth.

And yet this unspeakably miraculous body is torn apart 150,000 times a day, all over the world, and is flushed into sewers all over the planet as garbage by abortionists and mothers who could not care less about God or the miracles He creates.

==========================================

[1] Dr. Robert Edwards describing Louise Brown, the world’s first ‘test-tube’ baby, quoted in Donald D. DeMarco, Ph.D. “Trapped By Choice! Biotechnology and the Repudiation of “Pro-Choice” Ideology.” ALL News , May 1990, pages 28 to 30.

[2] Looseleaf booklet entitled “Organizing for Action.” Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action League, 250 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10019. 51 pages, no date.

[3] Abortionist Frederick Taussig, The Prevention and Treatment of Abortion , 1910. Quoted in William May’s review of William B. Imber’s book Abortion and the Private Practice on page 13 of the November 6, 1986 National Right to Life News .

[4] H.G. Ginsberg, M.D., Jay P. Goldsmith, M.D., and Charles M. Stedman, M.D. “Survival of a 380-Gram Infant.” New England Journal of Medicine , June 14, 1990, Volume 322, No. 24:1,753.

[5] Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler, quoted in Lynda Hurst. “Pro-Abortionist: Decision is Woman’s, Abortion Doctor Says.” The Toronto Star , November 29, 1973, page E1.

[6] Reuben Straus, M.D., Ralph H. Walker, M.D., and Morris Cohen, Ph.D. “Direct Electrocardiographic Recording of a Twenty-Three Millimeter Human Embryo.” The American Journal of Cardiology , September 1961, pages 443 to 449

[7] Abortionist Howard I. Diamond of Beth Israel Medical Center. Quoted in Norma Rosen. “Between Guilt and Gratification: Abortion Doctors Reveal Their Feelings.” New York Times Magazine , April 17, 1977, page 78.

[8] United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . 1990 (110th edition). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

[9] Steve Otto. “Choice Supporters Rally, Assail Operation Rescue.” People’s Daily World , August 31, 1991, page 7.

[10] Leslie Bond. “Another Abortion Survivor at Detroit Memorial Hospital.” National Right to Life News , July 31, 1986, page 7.

[11] David A. Grimes. “Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States.” Alan Guttmacher Institute, Family Planning Perspectives , November/December 1984.

[12] Lisa Andrusko. “A Fact of Life: Is Abortion Legal Only in the First Three Months of Pregnancy?” National Right to Life News , January 23, 1986, page 1.

[13] Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism . Quadrangle Books: New York, 1971. Page 288.

[14] Marlene Fried. “Pro-Choice Agendas After Webster .” Against the Current , November/December 1989, page 20.

[15] “Women Are Not Incubators!: The Assault on Abortion Rights.” Revolutionary Communist Party of the United States, Revolutionary Worker , November 6, 1989. Also distributed as a special reprint booklet, page 6.

[16] Reproductive Rights Network of Boston. “R2N2 Opposes Coalition’s Amendment.” Sojourner: The Women’s Forum , April 1990, page 8.

[17] Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. “Public Revulsion to Late Abortions Worries Pro-Abortionists.” National Right to Life News , November 21, 1985, pages 5 and 9.

[18] Frank Chernak, et al ., “When is Termination of Pregnancy During the Third Trimester Morally Justified?” New England Journal of Medicine . Volume 310, No. 8, page 502.

[19] “Late Abortion and Technological Advances in Fetal Viability.” Nancy K. Rhoden. “Some Legal Considerations.” Family Planning Perspectives , July/August 1985, pages 160 and 161.

[20] “Late Abortion and Technological Advances in Fetal Viability.” Janet Benshoof. “Reasserting Women’s Rights.” Family Planning Perspectives , July/August 1985, pages 162 and 163.

[21] Sherry Matulis. “Why Abortion Must Remain the Law of the Land.” The Humanist , July/August 1992, pages 35 to 37 and 49. Extracted from her 1991 “Humanist Heroine Award” speech.

[22] Albert Speer, the architect for Adolf Hitler’s Jewish Extermination Program. Quoted in ““Civility” and the Right to Life.” Free Speech Advocates newsletter of May 1989.

[23] Warren Hern, M.D. Abortion Practice . New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1984. Page 323.

[24] “Pro-Life Ad Pulled From Seattle Buses.” Portland, Oregon Catholic Sentinel . November 3, 1989, page 22.

[25] Living World , Volume 5, Number 2, page 28.

[26] “Billboards Carry Pro-Life Message.” Voices for the Unborn (Feasterville, Pennsylvania), October 1990, page 10.

[27] Human Life of Washington State. Human Life News , January/February 1990, page 1.

[28] Judith Pasternak, Reproductive Freedom Project, ACLU Foundation, New York City, quoted in “Worth Quoting” on page 19 of the February 3, 1983 National Right to Life News .

[29] Anne Nicol Gaylor. Abortion is a Blessing . New York, New York: Psychological Dimensions, Inc. 1975, 124 pages. Page 42.

[30] Dennis J. Horan. Villanova Law Review , February 1977. The total amount of information communicated since Adam and Eve were created has been contained in 12 billion hardback and softback volumes averaging 180 pages and 55,000 words apiece; 500 billion newspapers, magazines, periodicals and newsletters of every description, each averaging 45 pages and 25,000 words; and 100 billion people having spoken an average of 7,500 words per day for an average 45-year lifespan. This is a total of 12,331,910,000,000,000,000 words of communication transmitted in every form since human life began on Earth.

==========================================

Resources and Further Reading: Fetal Development.

Joan Lowery Nixon. Before You Were Born . Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana, 46750. 28 pages, 1980, $3.95. This is an excellent pro-life book that is basic enough to read to small children.

Pro-Life Action League. “The Pocket-Pac Pro-Life Presentation.” This invaluable aid to sidewalk counselors consists of eight 3-1/4 inch by 4-1/2 inch glossy color photographs of unborn children. The live babies are at 6, 8, 12, and 18 weeks, and the photographs show four victims of suction, D&E, saline, and hysterotomy abortions. These $5 sets are available from the Pro-Life Action League, Suite 210, 6160 North Cicero Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60646. Price includes postage and handling.

Thomas Verny, M.D., with John Kelly. The Secret Life of the Unborn Child . Collins Publishers, 100 Lesmill Road, Don Mills, Ontario. 1981, 245 pages. The author has written perhaps the first work on “prenatal psychology,” demonstrating that the unborn child feels and experiences the outside world through the filter of the mother, and that he responds according to his own unique personality. This interesting book also shows how the character of the unborn child is formed by his experiences.

Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke. Abortion: Questions and Answers . 1985, 315 pages, $2.95. Order from Hayes Publishing Company, 6304 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45224. Also available in state and local Right to Life offices. Has extensive basic information on fetal development.

=================================================================

CHAPTER 79. RAPE AND INCEST: THE ULTIMATE “HARD CASES”

“How I am grieved by the indignities I have suffered, and revolted by rank smells

How I despise the nomad land and hate the nomad sky!

When I became pregnant with a Buranian child, I wanted to kill myself. Yet once I bore it, I found the love of mother and child.

His looks are strange and his speech is different, yet my hate turns into love.

Deep inside, I feel the tug of my heartstrings. Morning and evening he is with me.

How can I not pity that which my womb has borne and my hand nurtured?”

-- Lament of an ancient Chinese noblewoman who was kidnapped and raped by barbarians.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

“Legal abortion provides the only humane disposition of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.”-- The National Abortion Rights Action League.[2]

Rape and Incest -- The Initial ‘Wedge.’

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong.”-- H.L. Mencken.

In every one of the 56 countries that now have abortion on demand, the initial step taken by the pro-abortion forces was intense lobbying for abortion in the so-called ‘hard cases’ -- fetal deformity (eugenics), and/or rape and incest.

Any attorney will acknowledge that “hard cases make bad law,” but that hasn’t stopped anti-life people all over the world from using the classic ‘hard cases’ to introduce first artificial contraception, then abortion, then infanticide, and finally euthanasia.

Once the pro-abortionists secure abortion for the ‘hard cases’ of rape and incest, they use the situation to point out the “inconsistency” in existing laws in order to justify abortion on demand.

No Apologies!

“Opponents of abortion rights walk a fine line within their own movement when they condone any abortion. Based on their own definition, they are guilty of being accessories to “murder” in certain circumstances by accepting rape and incest exceptions.”-- ‘Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights.[3]

As correctly pointed out by one of the most rabidly pro-abortion groups in the world, the ‘Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights, pro- lifers must never apologize for fighting rape- and incest-justified abortions. If we even begin to think that preborn lives are disposable for any reason other than to save another human life, we set the life of the preborn below that of other human beings -- and this is what started our nation and our world on the road to abortion on demand in the first place!

As former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson has said so eloquently, “If a part of a human community were not at stake, no woman should be required to undergo the degradation of bearing a child in these [rape and incest] circumstances, but even degradation, shame, and emotional disruption are not the moral equivalent of life. Only life is.”[4]

How Many Pregnancies Are Caused By Rape?

“A pregnancy conceived by forcible rape would probably head the list as the most often unwanted, but it is such an unlikely event that it is not really relevant to an understanding of the reasons why women define certain pregnancies as unwanted.”-- Pro-abortion writer N. Lee.[5]

Introduction.

From an ethical and logical standpoint, the number of pregnancies caused by rape and incest in this country is an issue that simply is not relevant to the moral case against these exceptions. Either all unborn babies are worth saving, or none of them are.

However, it is very useful to be able to show just how rare rape- and incest-caused pregnancies really are, because the pro-abortionists have succeeded in convincing the public that the number is extremely large. A 1990 national Wirthlin poll found that the average guess at the number of abortions performed for rape and incest was 21% of the total number of abortions in the United States.[6]

Calculations.

Since the definition of rape and the reporting procedures for such crimes vary widely from one jurisdiction to another, it is difficult to precisely pin down the number of pregnancies that result from rape each year.

However, it is possible to make an accurate estimate by taking into consideration Federal Bureau Investigation reporting percentages and known fertility factors that affect both the rapist and his victim.

Figure 79-1 shows calculations of the estimated rate of rape-caused pregnancies in this country using statistics from the Census Bureau and various leading researchers. This rate of rape-caused pregnancies is then used to calculate the total number of resulting pregnancies in this country over the period 1973 to 1992 as shown in Figure 79-2.

These calculations show that, on the average, about 550 women per year become pregnant as a result of rape. Using this figure, this means that, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, an average of 0.04% (one twenty-fifth of one percent) of all abortions have been performed for rape -- or one out of every 2,500!

FIGURE 79-1 CALCULATION OF PREGNANCY PROBABILITY DUE TO RAPE

Sociological, Physical, or Demographic Factor	Possible Rape-Induced Pregnancies
Assume an initial sample rape victim population of 100,000.	100,000
Factors Affecting the Woman’s Fertility.
About one-third of all rape victims are postmenopausal or have not yet reached menarche (first menstruation), and are therefore generally sterile.
Of those victims that are of childbearing age, 47 percent have been rendered permanently sterile due to elective surgery or environmental effects.
Finally, about 40 percent of all non-sterile women of childbearing age are temporarily sterile due to contraception use.
This means that (100% - 33%) X (100% - 47%) X (100% - 40%) = 18.9% of rape victims were fertile at the time of the attack.[A] 100,000 X 21.3% =	21,300
A woman is fertile only three days out of a typical 28-day cycle.
Furthermore, even if all conditions are ideal and both man and woman are fertile, and intercourse takes place on every fertile day , pregnancy will take an average of five months (or a total of 15 fertile days out of five 28-day cycles) to achieve.[B,C] 21,300 X (15/140) =	2,280
Factors Affecting the Rapist’s Fertility.
Men in the United States have an infertility rate due to natural or surgical causes of about 25 percent.
However, as a class, rapists have a much higher degree (57%) of erective or ejaculatory dysfunction serious enough to render them sterile.[D,E] 2,280 X (100% - 57%) =	980
Rape is legally defined as penetration only; ejaculation need not be accomplished. Of those nonsterile rapists achieving penetration, only about half deposited sperm.[D,E] 980 X 50% =	490
CONCLUSION: These calculations show that, on the average, 490 per 100,000 women who are raped become pregnant in the United States. This is equivalent to 0.490 percent, or about one-half of one percent.

References. [A] R.B. Everett and G.K. Jemerson. “The Rape Victim.” Obstetrics and Gynecology . 50, 1977, page 88. Also data based upon telephone communications with Dr. Charles Pratt, Survey of Family Growth Division, National Center for Health Statistics, April 4, 1978, and Planned Parenthood-World Population on April 4, 1978. Summarized in testimony by Congressman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., (R-Va.) on July 25, 1983, and reprinted in the next day’s Congressional Record . Also see United States Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States . 1990, United States Government Printing Office. Table 99, “Contraceptive Use By Women, 15-44 Years Old, By Age, Race, Marital Status, and Method of Contraception: 1982.” [B] R. Pearl. The Natural History of Population . New York: Oxford University Press, 1939. Pages 72 to 79. [C] V. Seltzer. “Medical Management of the Rape Victim.” Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association . 32, 1977, page 141. [D] C. Groth, A. Nicholas, and Ann Wolbert Burgess. “Sexual Dysfunction During Rape.” New England Journal of Medicine , October 6, 1977, pages 764 to 766. [E] M. Dahlke, et al . “Identification of Semen in 500 Patients Seen Because of Rape.” American Journal of Clinical Pathology . 68, 1977, page 740.

FIGURE 79-2 PREGNANCIES CAUSED BY RAPE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973 TO 1990

(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Year	Reported Rapes	Rape Reporting Ratio	Estimated Total Rapes	Pregnancies Caused By Rape	Legal Abortions Performed
1973	37,662	55.5%	68,000	333	744,600
1974	40,008	52.8%	76,000	372	898,600
1975	41,501	56.2%	74,000	363	1,034,200
1976	43,222	54.1%	80,000	392	1,179,300
1977	47,829	53.3%	90,000	441	1,316,700
1978	50,590	48.8%	104,000	510	1,409,400
1979	57,958	50.5%	115,000	564	1,497,700
1980	63,599	51.4%	124,000	608	1,553,900
1981	63,038	55.7%	113,000	554	1,577,300
1982	59,967	52.8%	114,000	559	1,573,900
1983	61,019	47.0%	130,000	637	1,575,000
1984	66,367	56.0%	119,000	583	1,577,200
1985	71,060	61.0%	116,000	568	1,588,100
1986	73,453	48.1%	153,000	750	1,475,000
1987	73,456	53.2%	138,000	676	1,510,000
1988	75,441	55.8%	135,000	662	1,550,000
1989	80,045	51.1%	157,000	769	1,610,000
1990	77,920	60.1%	130,000	637	1,575,000
AVERAGES, 1973 to 1990 (18 years)				554	1,402,550

CONCLUSIONS: An average of 554 rapes result in pregnancy each year. An average of 1,402,550 abortions are performed each year. If every rape-caused pregnancy ended in abortion , 1 out of every 2,532 abortions would be performed for rape. This is 0.0395 percent of all abortions (just under four one hundredths of one percent).

IMPORTANT: Note that this table takes into consideration not only those rapes actually reported, but those that are not reported as well. The calculations performed by the United States Census Bureau divide the reported rapes by the reporting ratio to arrive at the total number of annual rapes committed in this country.

Calculations and References.

Column (2): Figures are from Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. National Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States , 1990 (110th Edition), 960 pages. Table 289, “Forcible Rape -- Number and Rate, By Selected Characteristics: 1970 to 1988.”

Column (3): Figures from the Statistical Abstract , unnumbered table entitled “Police Reporting Rates for Personal and Household Crimes: 1975 to 1987,” page 168.

Column (4): Column (2) divided by Column (3). This calculation yields the total number of estimated reported and unreported rapes committed in this country by year.

Column (5): Figure 79-1 shows that the calculated probability of pregnancy from rape is about 490 per 100,000 assaults. Therefore, total pregnancies resulting from rape would equal Column (4) X 0.0049.

Column (6): Figures are from the Statistical Abstract . Table 100, “Legal Abortions -- Estimated Number, Rate, and Ratio, By Race: 1972 to 1985.” Numbers of abortions for other years in this table are extracted from Centers for Disease Control and Alan Guttmacher Institute datasheets.

Verification With Studies.

This number has been verified by several studies performed in the late 1960s. These studies, which are summarized in Figure 79-3, show that about one in 1,238 rapes result in pregnancy. Although 20 years old, the studies are entirely valid, because the basic parameters (as shown in Figure 79-1) remain the same. No similar studies have been performed since 1970, because the liberalization or elimination of abortion laws have rendered the question of rape-induced pregnancies largely moot.

FIGURE 79-3 RESULTS OF STUDIES REGARDING THE FREQUENCY OF RAPE-INDUCED PREGNANCY

Rapes	Pregnancies	Ratio
54,000	80	1 out of 700 [1]
86,000	22	1 out of 3,900 [2]
14,400	0	--- [3]
914	21	1 out of 44 [4]
117	0	--- [5]
524	3	1 out of 175 [6]
155,955	126	1 out of 1,238 (0.08%)

References. Note that all of these studies are more than 15 years old. No comprehensive studies of this nature have been performed since the late 1960s, because the liberalization or elimination of abortion laws has rendered the question of pregnancies caused by rape largely moot. [1] Registrar General’s “Statistical Review of England and Wales for 1969.” London: 1971, H.M.S.O. Cited in R. Gardner, Abortion, the Personal Dilemma (Eerdmans, 1972), page 169. [2] B. And J. Willke. Handbook on Abortion . Hayes Publishing Company, 1979, page 40. [3] “Illinois State Medical Society Symposium on Medical Implications of the Current Abortion Law in Illinois.” Illinois Medical Journal , May 1967, pages 677 to 680. [4] Of 1,100 women raped in the District of Columbia from July 1969 to December 1970, 914 victims were followed up for 12 months. 21 became pregnant. 15 had abortions and one miscarried. C.R. Hayman, W.F. Stewart, F.R. Lewis, and M. Rant. “Rape in the District of Columbia.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology , 1972; 113:91-97. [5] R. Everett and G. Jimerson. “The Rape Victim: A Review of 117 Consecutive Cases.” Obstetrics and Gynecology , 1977; 50:88-90. [6] H. Fujita and W. Wagner. “Referendum 20 -- Abortion Reform in Washington State.” In J. Osofsky and D. Osofsky. The Abortion Experience: Psychological and Medical Impacts . Harper & Row, 1973.

In summary, if this page, from top to bottom and from edge to edge, was an area representing all abortions performed in this country annually, the square below would proportionally represent all abortions performed for rape;

Verification: The Louisiana Experience.

The state of Louisiana requires the most comprehensive reporting on abortions in the country. Therefore, its records are the best source for determining how frequent (or infrequent) abortions for rape really are.

In Louisiana, the abortionist must fill out a form entitled “Report of Induced Termination of Pregnancy” (Form #PHS 16-ab) for every abortion he commits. The form notes at the top that “Failure to complete and file this form is a crime.”

Item 9d on this form is entitled “Reason for Pregnancy Termination.”

The Office of Public Health of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals compiles these statistics. Over the 14-year period 1975 to 1988, 202,135 abortions were performed in Louisiana. Of these, the reasons were listed for 115,243 of them.

The reasons for these abortions are listed below;

JUSTIFICATION FOR LOUISIANA ABORTIONS

Mother’s mental health	114,231 (99.12%)
Mother’s physical health	863 (0.75%)
Fetal deformity	103 (0.09%)
Rape or incest	46 (0.04%)

This means that, in Louisiana, 1 out of every 2,483 abortions is performed for rape or incest. This number, which is statistically very reliable due to the large sample population, almost precisely confirms the results of the calculations described earlier in this chapter.

The state of Missouri has noted similar ratios. In 1980, the state operated under court and Executive Orders to pay for rape and incest abortions for poor women. Not a single claim under these headings was submitted during the entire year.[7]

Pro-Abortion Liars.

“[My mother] finally approved of her unwanted one, whom she had borned so long ago in such great pain and sorrow and humiliation ...”

“Some people disclaim their natural heritage. I always name my origin. It didn’t hold me back and neither has my color. I was born in poverty. My father raped my mother when she was 12. Now they’ve named a park for me in Chester, Pennsylvania.”-- Ethel Waters.[8]

Overview.

Every pro-life sidewalk counselor is familiar with the scene of woman after woman waltzing into abortion mills, each claiming that “I was raped, so my abortion is OK.”

It is almost certain that they are lying, because the figures above show that even a high-volume abortion mill that performs 5,000 abortions a year would see, on the average, about 2 genuine rape-caused pregnancies each month .

Lying in the United States.

Women who are willing to kill their own children for convenience obviously see lying as a relatively small crime. Rebecca Chalker and Carol Downer admit in their A Woman’s Book of Choices that “Before abortion was legal, women sometimes got abortions by claiming that they had been raped.”[9]

The Hyde Amendment.

Concrete statistical evidence of these persistent lies was provided by the Hyde Amendment’s varying effects upon the level of Federal funding of abortions since 1977. This Amendment cut off Federal funding for convenience abortions, and paid for 17,983 abortions to save the life of the mother and for rape and incest in Fiscal Year 1981.

In Fiscal Years 1983 and 1984, only abortions to save the life of the mother were allowed under the Amendment, and the average number of abortions paid for during these two years plunged to 411.

This means that about (17,983 - 411) = 17,582 abortions were performed for claimed “rape and incest” under the Hyde Amendment in 1981.

This brings up a very interesting point. To begin with, about 20 percent of all women in the United States qualify for federal abortion funding under this Amendment due to their low incomes. Figure 79-2 shows that the estimated average number of both reported and unreported rapes in this country during these two years was about 124,500.

If this number is divided by five in order to find out approximately how many low-income women were raped during these years, we arrive at 24,900.

In other words, these low-income women are claiming that (17,500/24,900) = 70 percent of all of their rapes resulted in pregnancies!

To take this analysis one step further, Figure 79-1 shows that about 0.49 percent of all women who are raped actually become pregnant as a result of the act.

Therefore, the number of women who claimed that they were raped to get a free Federal abortion was (70 percent/0.49 percent) = 143 times the number that were actually raped.

In other words, more than 99 percent of them lied to get a free taxpayer-paid abortion!

For more information on the Hyde Amendment and on Medicaid funding of abortion, see Chapter 60.

Lying All Over the World.

The phenomenon of women lying to obtain abortions is certainly not unique to the United States. Just as a bogus gang-rape was used as the basis of the Supreme Court decision to usher in abortion on demand in the United States, a girl who claimed that she was a victim of a gang-rape drove the first wedge into Britain’s protective abortion laws in 1938.

According to sworn testimony, professional pro-abortionists alleged that a 14-year old girl was lured into a stable to see a horse with a wooden leg (I am not making this up) and was supposedly gang-raped by four guardsmen. She became pregnant, and went to a crusading pro-abortion ‘doctor’ (Alec Bourne), who gave her a free abortion. He then turned himself in. In the resulting case of law, Rex v. Bourne , Judge Alex McNaghten decided that delivery of the baby would impair the girl’s mental health, and acquitted the abortionist.

Naturally, the guardsmen were never called into court to answer to the charge of rape -- and for good reason. The incident never happened.

At the other end of the world, a New Zealand commission that liberalized that country’s abortion laws recommended against a rape and incest exception since the likelihood of false reports and the difficulty of checking them would render the exception utterly meaningless.[10]

The Impacts of Lying.

When an abortion law is liberalized to allow exceptions for rape and incest, the number of women claiming rape just so they can get a free abortion invariably multiplies by a factor of two or five or even ten. Just as inevitably, all available rape-crisis resources are overwhelmed by the sudden explosion of referrals. Women who were really raped will be victimized a second time because of these liars, and agencies and the public will eventually begin to regard even genuine claims of rape as “crying wolf.”

Additionally, these callous and uncaring women will stretch law-enforcement agencies to the limit. The results may be twofold: When the lying woman is quizzed regarding her “rape,” she may feel pressured to come up with a name -- any name, and innocent men will be prosecuted and even jailed (although this result may be welcome to the Neofeminists who claim that “all men are, by their very natures, rapists”). Secondly, the chances of real rapists being caught will drop drastically, and these predators will be free to rape and rape again.

In just one of thousands of cases of false rape accusations, an 11-year old girl accused her mother’s boyfriend, Ivie Cornell Norris, of raping her repeatedly. Cornell was convicted and sent to prison. After he had languished there for more than a year, the girl admitted that she had lied. Her story was based on an episode of the television program “21 Jump Street,” which had depicted a rape.[11]

Norris’ life was destroyed; he lost his job, his freedom, his reputation, his girlfriend, and all of his savings over this spurious charge. This is typical of the impacts on a man who is imprisoned on a false rape charge. Neofeminists know full well that Norris’ story might be repeated thousands of times annually if women try to get abortions under rape and incest exceptions. But, since they could not care less about the impacts of their decisions on men, the Neofems cannot be expected to promulgate any kind of safeguard against this terrible abuse.

The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1988 required women who claimed to be victims of rape or incest to report their crimes before getting a free abortion from the state. The reporting of rapes jumped significantly the very first month the law was in effect, and police reported that some women admitted that they were reporting rapes just to get a free abortion.[12]

When large numbers of pro-abortion women start lying to get their free abortions, the situation makes it next to impossible for law enforcement agencies to find and prosecute real rapists. As Ferris B. Lucas, Executive Director of the National Sheriff’s Association, said in 1983; “We do, however, wish to comment on the provisions that would allow federal funds to be paid for abortions performed for treatment of rape or incest victims only. The wording would lead a person desirous of an abortion to make false reports to law enforcement agencies which would have to be checked and investigated to some length. These crimes are not easy ones to prove or disprove and resultantly require many manhours of investigation. American law enforcement agencies are presently overburdened and do not have this vast amount of time available.”[13]

This explosion of uncaring liars first occurred in Colorado, when the Model Penal Code abortion law revisions were passed 1967. This law allowed abortions only to save the life of the mother for rape and incest, and for the mother’s health. Of the 1,850 legal abortions performed in Colorado the first year under this law, 18 percent (or 333) of the mothers claimed to be rape victims.[14] According to the statistical analysis performed earlier in this chapter, it is probable that at least 330 of the 333 were lying. This percentage is buttressed by the fact that, in all of these cases, not a single rapist was arrested or even identified , a statistical impossibility in light of the fact that more than half of all rapes are committed by men that the victim knows.

Exaggerated Numbers.

Women are not the only people who lie about rape-caused pregnancies.

At the Labor/HEW Appropriations Bill Conference Committee Meeting on September 15, 1976, rabid pro-abort United States Senator Edward Brooke stated that the Uniform Crime Report showed that more than 50,000 forcible rapes occurred in the United States annually. He then said that it was the opinion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that only ten percent of all rapes are reported. Then he pulled a convenient number out of the air and said and that two percent of all rapes resulted in pregnancy.

He concluded by claiming that these numbers “proved” that there were 10,000 rape-caused pregnancies in the United States every year.

Dr. Willard Cates, Chief of the Abortion Surveillance Unit, Center for Disease Control (CDC), who is himself pro-abortion, replied to this fabrication three weeks later in an October 7, 1976 letter by saying that “I know of no good studies documenting this [10,000 figure] ... We don’t want this type of misinformation attributed to CDC.”[15]

Pro-abortion groups, of course, are in the forefront when it comes to trotting out doctored public opinion polls and bogus statistics. National pro-abortion groups continue to make impressive claims as to the number of women who become pregnant due to forcible rape. These numbers have ranged up to 12% of all rape victims or a total of 20,000 rape-caused pregnancies each year -- a factor of exaggeration of at least 4,000 percent!

These pro-abort organizations occasionally quote studies that ‘prove’ the above figures. However, they dishonestly manipulate the figures in two ways;

· When they quote government figures that show that a certain percentage of rape victims have unwanted pregnancies in a certain year, they deliberately quote those figures that include those unwanted pregnancies that were not a result of the rape ; i.e., they had become pregnant as a result of voluntary intercourse with their boyfriends or husbands. The pro-aborts even include women who were pregnant at the time they were raped in their figures.

· The pro-aborts also quote figures from other pro-abortion organizations and from rape crisis centers that have done unscientific ‘surveys’ or ‘studies’ of women who have given reasons for wanting to get abortions. As described elsewhere in this chapter, the women who obtain abortions for ‘rape’ are almost always lying. Additionally, a very high percentage of the women who appear at rape crisis centers and claim that they were raped are also lying. But these claims are not even investigated in a cursory manner.

The Question of Incest.

“Do women get pregnant through rape? Yes, they do. If we define rape as intercourse by any man forced on an unwilling women, then the pregnancies number in the thousands ... The poor victim of rape might receive an abortion for $200 and medical care for a few hundred. If she gets neither, that’s the value of her life.”-- Planned Parenthood.[16]

The Pro-Abortion View.

Abortion for incest is the detestable twin sister of abortion for rape. Pro-abortion people believe that a woman or girl can ‘erase’ the child conceived of incest just as easily as they can ‘erase’ a child of rape.

From an immediate and short-term point of view, of course, this is absolutely true. But pro-abortionists are notoriously short-sighted. They believe that an abortion closes the matter, and then everyone lives happily ever after. They have only one solution for all possible problems that a woman might have: Abortion!

There is one aspect of incest that is missing from the crime of rape: An abortion will remove the preborn child, but the assailant remains. In fact, it is often the assailant who insists upon the abortion to cover up his own crimes.

Incest-Caused Pregnancies.

Although incest usually involves repeated intercourse over a period of up to ten years, it has a very low probability of pregnancy -- less than one percent.

This is due to several factors.

Most cases of incest currently involve one to three acts of intercourse, and are promptly reported or uncovered. This has not always been the case. Until about 1970, incest resulted in as many as 20 percent of the victims becoming pregnant before incest treatment programs and self-awareness training became widespread.

According to Robert Carroll of the Santa Clara County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program in San Jose, California, and Dr. George E. Maloof, a psychiatrist at the Community Mental Health Center in Daly City, California, the incest rate per victim (not per incident of felonious intercourse) is “less than one percent.”[17]

The Christopher Street program in Minneapolis reported four cases of pregnancy in 400 cases of incest, or about one percent. Santa Clara County’s incest treatment program, run by Henry Giaretto, reported less than one percent pregnancies (12 instances) in 1,500 cases of incest. And Washington State’s incest treatment program reported no pregnancies whatsoever in more than 600 cases.

If the results of these four studies are combined, we see that the probability of pregnancy due to incest (per girl, not per case of intercourse), is 16 out of 2,500 cases (one out of 156, or 0.64%).[18]

Abortion As a Coverup for Incest.

Abortion is the best possible coverup for incest. Perhaps this is why groups of organized pedophiles and pederasts -- including the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) -- are stridently pro-abortion. NAMBLA insists that taboos against incest are ‘antiquated’ and ‘outmoded.’[15] There is absolutely no reason for an organization consisting of child molesters to advocate abortion except to cover up the most damning evidence of their crimes.

It is common for Planned Parenthood and similar groups to use ‘hard case’ stories in their literature, debates, and presentations. These people will often talk of twelve- and thirteen year old pregnant girls (and sometimes, nine- and ten year old girls) who are sexually active or pregnant. Planned Parenthood, of course, supplies abortion, contraceptives, and, above all , confidentiality to these young girls.

We might ask Planned Parenthood who it thinks the male parties to such sexual activity are. Certainly they are not nine- or ten-year old boys! These girls are almost always the victims of (step)father/daughter or big brother/little sister incest. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion and pro-homosexual organizations, by their advocacy of abortion, are directly helping many incestuous relationships to continue.

For example, Wardell Pomeroy, who wrote a sex education book that was endorsed by Planned Parenthood, claimed that “We find many beautiful and mutually satisfying [sexual] relationships between fathers and daughters. These may be transient or ongoing, but they have no harmful effects ... Incest between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying and enriching experience ... When there is a mutual and unselfish concern for the other person, rather than a feeling of possessiveness and a selfish concern with one’s own sexual gratification, then incestuous relationships can -- and do -- work out well. Incest can be a satisfying, non-threatening, and even an enriching emotional experience, as I said earlier.”[19]

And SIECUS (the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States) alleges that “Most pedophiliacs (people who are sexually interested in minor children) are gentle and affectionate, and are not dangerous in the way childmolesters are stereotypically considered to be.”[20]

Finally, Valida Davila of San Diego’s homosexual/pederast/pedophile Childhood Sensuality Circle, makes the ultimate claim: “We believe children should begin sex at birth. It causes a lot of problems not to practice incest.”[21]

Fetal Deformity.

The primary concern voiced by geneticists in cases of incest is fetal deformity. However, the vast majority of incest cases occur between stepfathers and stepdaughters, so there is no increased probability of fetal deformity in such cases.

It is extremely difficult to measure the frequency of deformity in babies born of incestuous relationships between genetic fathers and daughters, because such babies are rare. They are rare because pregnancies are rare, and the vast majority of these pregnancies end in abortion, usually at the insistence of the father. Therefore, conflicting study results are to be expected because the sample population is so small.

Swedish psychiatrist Dr. Carl Olstrom has heavy experience in the study of fetal deformities resulting from incest, and says that “There is no evidence to support the assumption that children resulting from incestuous relationships [with a father or mother] run a greater risk of being malformed than other children.”[22]

However, three much smaller studies showed serious birth defects in up to one-fourth of all children that were a product of bloodline incest, an incidence that is about fifteen times the expected normal frequency.[23]

From the standpoint of pure eugenics, we must ask ourselves two questions; (1) “Are handicapped people as valuable as those who are not handicapped?,” and, if the answer to the first question is “No,” we must ask ourselves the second question: “Are we willing to kill a minimum of three perfectly healthy children for every one that may have a handicap?”

The Psychological Aspects.

Pro-abortionists sometimes remind pro-lifers of children with hammers. Everything looks like a nail to such a child.

The pro-abortionist’s ‘hammer’ is their beloved surgical procedure. To a hard-core pro-abort, no other solution is possible. This is why Neofeminists have attacked crisis pregnancy centers and have even condemned adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Abortion is just as inept a solution for incest as it is for rape or any other reason -- especially from the psychological point of view. Incest expert R. Bruce Sloan, M.D., states that “The psychiatric basis for terminating the life of an unborn baby incestuously conceived has absolutely no scientific merit and derives from a blind adherence to a legal formulation espoused by abortion promoters now including organized psychiatry.”[24]

Georgia Early struck at the heart of the matter when she said that;

“When incest is involved, allowing abortion in pregnancy cases of minors tends to compound the exploitation of the innocent victim and protect the perpetrator from exposure so that he may continue his illegal and immoral acts without fear of discovery.”

“To rehabilitate child abusers, it is necessary to work on their feelings of self-esteem, their memories of themselves being abused as children, and to get them to see their own children in a new way. Abortion sidesteps this very involved process because the child incestuously pregnant is taken for an abortion and then returned to the home where the abuse occurred. Abortion also perpetuates the generational violence where the abused child becomes the child abuser.”[25]

Rape = Wedge for Full Abortion Funding.

“I could never, ever have an abortion. Even if I were raped by a man who was a drug addict, I’d have the baby. And I’d keep it!”-- Actress Brooke Shields.[26]

Women As Helpless Tools.

It comes as no surprise that pro-abortion strategists are using rape victims as unknowing tools to drive wedges into existing laws barring funding for rape and incest victims. As described in Chapter 17 of Volume I, “Pro-Abortion Propaganda Stories,” these people have no qualms at all about heartlessly using women, no matter how difficult their situation, to advance their agenda.

During the time period 1987 to 1990, pro-abortionists vigorously attacked the Federal ban for funding rape-caused abortions, causing President George Bush to veto such bills twice.

But the real agenda of the pro-death legislators was not to obtain abortion funding for rape and incest victims; it was to gain political capital.

Admissions from the Pro-Aborts.

Speaking for leading pro-abort Congressman Les AuCoin [D.-olt], legislative aide Ron Fitzsimmons revealed the true anti-life strategy behind trying to get abortion funding for rape. In a January 1990 briefing to pro-abortion activists, he said that the objective of the 1990 session was to write a very loosely-worded “rape and incest” exception to the Hyde Amendment. This exception was intended to be open to abuse, so pro-life congressmen would have no choice but to vote against it and the President would have no choice but to veto it.

The pro-abortionists would then trumpet the “insensitivity” of the President and the pro-life congressmen in an attempt to discredit them and defeat them in the November elections. As Fitzsimmons said during the briefing session; “It’s hard to ignore the rape and incest victims. But I can speak for my boss, he felt that in the long term what we want is full Medicaid funding. And the only way we’re going to get that is to get the votes in, for people who will vote that way.”[27]

Is Abortion for Rape Ethical?

“All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.”-- Gaius Julius Caesar.[28]

How Many Victims -- One Or Two?

There is no question that rape is traumatic. But why pile trauma upon trauma by insisting on abortion to ‘remedy’ rape?

As with any other problem pregnancy, the woman’s problem is not that she’s pregnant. The main problem is how others treat her . Rape and incest victims have always unjustly been victims of the “Scarlet Letter Syndrome,” but ‘treating’ this problem of societal perspective with abortion is like saying that the woman is a hopeless case or ‘damaged goods.’

What is more caring -- to sneer at her problem and just tell her to ‘get rid of it,’ or to respect the life within her and give her whatever real help she needs?

Abortion = Infanticide for Many.

According to experts at the University of British Columbia’s Department of Psychiatry, “Whatever may be the case at the conscious level, at a much deeper level, abortion is regarded by many women as infanticide.”[29]

Obtaining an abortion may not be much of a problem for a hard-core, heartless pro-abortion Neofeminist, but what about a woman who truly believes that abortion is the killing of a human being?

According to various polls, more than sixty percent of all women in the United States believe that the unborn are human beings (see Chapter 76 for documentation regarding this “attitude tracking” public opinion poll).

In summary, the tragedy is the rape -- not the child that is conceived. Contrary to what pro-aborts apparently believe, two injustices do not equal a right or a healed life. The greatest pain of the first injustice lasts nine months, but the pain of the abortion ‘remedy’ lasts a lifetime.

Some may answer that the woman has a right to be free from assault. This is true, of course, but in the case of abortion for rape, the assault has already happened. Just as the woman has a right to be free from assault, so does her unborn baby. Allowing her abortion for rape under this argument is like saying that anyone who is assaulted can find remedy by going out into the street and punching the first person he or she sees.

The Eugenics Argument.

Some self-proclaimed pro-abortion genetics ‘sexperts’ insist that rape-caused pregnancy must end in abortion because the child (if male) will turn out to be a rapist, as well.

This is utter hogwash. Nobody has ever even attempted to perform a study that examines the allegation that the tendency to commit rape or any other crime is hereditary. Psychiatrists and psychologists agree that the making of a criminal is primarily due to environmental effects.

Many pro-abortionists are so racist, they see dark skin as a sort of a birth defect. For example, lobbyists for the Medical Association of Georgia urged Governor Lester Maddox to pass an initial rape and incest exception for abortion, asking him how he would feel “... if a White girl got raped by a Negro and then became pregnant.”[30]

In any case, how many persons think that there should be capital punishment for rapists? Obviously, not too many. If this majority of people do not favor capital punishment for the obviously guilty rapist, why then should they favor it for the innocent child, who has committed no crime whatever?

Try This ...

Pro-life debaters might like to try this theoretical question: Take a newborn baby conceived by rape or incest and lay him next to a newborn conceived in a loving marriage. Then ask a pro-abortionist if they could tell you which one was the result of a rape by comparing their appearance and behavior.

Then try this second question: Would a pro-abortionist think less of an adult neighbor who was conceived by rape than he would of another neighbor who was conceived within marriage? The answer (if the pro-abort still retains a shred of human kindness) should be no. Regardless of the answer, ask if the pro-abort would kill his neighbor merely because he or she was conceived as a result of rape? After all, that is what a woman is doing in cases of abortion for rape and incest.

Pro-abortionists say that they want abortion for rape and incest instances based purely on the circumstances of the baby’s conception. This is the same as saying that children conceived out of wedlock are somehow less worthy than those conceived within marriage.

These children used to be called “bastards,” and they carried a heavy load of shame and discrimination throughout their lives. Now our solution is much simpler. We just kill them.

This kind of appeal is particularly powerful when addressing high schoolers, since 50 percent or more are now ‘illegitimate,’ and most are painfully aware of the fact.

Pregnancy Prevention.

“By denying abortion to a victim of rape, they [pro-lifers] in a sense become participants in the rape.”-- Planned Parenthood.[16]

Progesterone Injection.

As described above, only a very tiny percentage of women who are raped actually become pregnant. The problem is that many of these women will not know if they are pregnant until several weeks after the assault. One solution that is often suggested by social service agencies is to go to a hospital emergency room for an injection of the female hormone progesterone. The woman might alternatively take several birth control pills for a ‘morning after’ effect.

However, these courses of action will affect a woman’s body in three ways: Suppression of ovulation, thickening of the cervical mucus, and prevention of implantation. The first mode of operation is non-abortifacient, the second is moot, and the third is definitely abortifacient in nature.

Diethylstilbestrol (DES).

At one time, the standard postcoital treatment for rape and incest cases was the administration of diethylstilbestrol (DES) to prevent pregnancy. However, DES has been shown to cause unpleasant side-effects, not only to women but to their daughters as well.

DES is believed to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus, and is thus an abortifacient. Dr. William A. Lynch states that “On all available evidence, DES administered to rape victims prevents implantation of the fertilized ovum.”[31]

Many pro-aborts contend that a ban on abortion would prevent the administration of post-rape therapies such as those listed above. However, pro-lifers could use the same logic advanced by pro-aborts when they advocate menstrual extraction techniques: Anti-abortion legislation, including the various Human Life Amendments, would not affect the administration of DES or other drugs postcoitally to rape and incest victims, because there must be proof that an unborn child exists if the physician is to be legally protected. Such proof is always tenuous at best within three days following intercourse.

The Bottom Line.

The vital question here for pro-lifers is this: When does the actual merging of the sperm and egg take place? Pro-life researchers say up to a day, while pro-abortion researchers insist that conception can take place in as little as seven minutes.

Unfortunately, neither side has really hard evidence to back up its claims, although research is continuing.

==========================================

[1] “The Unwanted Child -- 195 A.D., China.” National Right to Life News , May 1978, page 6.

[2] Looseleaf booklet entitled “Organizing for Action.” Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action League, 250 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10019. See Emily C. Moore, Ph.D. “The Major Issues and the Argumentation in the Abortion Debate.” Pages 33 to 43.

[3] ‘Religious’ Coalition for Abortion Rights. Booklet entitled “Words of Choice.” 1991, Washington, D.C. Page 24.

[4] Bernard Nathanson, M.D. Aborting America . Doubleday, 1979, page 239.

[5] Pro-abortion writer N. Lee. The Search for an Abortionist . University of Chicago Press, 1969, page 149.

[6] Results of a 1990 Wirthlin poll described in “The Week.” National Review , December 3, 1990, page 12.

[7] “Medicaid-Funded Abortions for Rape and Incest: The Issue That Isn’t.” Newsletter of Missouri Citizens for Life.

[8] Ethel Waters, quoted in testimony on July 25, 1983 by Congressman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., (R-Va.), and reprinted in the Congressional Record . Part of an excellent pamphlet printed by the American Life Lobby entitled “Rape and Incest Exception Not Needed and Unwarranted.” Available for $1 from ALL, Post Office Box 490, Stafford, Virginia 22555. Telephone: (703) 659-4171. Also see Ethel Waters. His Eye Is On the Sparrow , pages 277 and 278.

[9] Rebecca Chalker and Carol Downer. A Woman’s Book of Choices: Abortion, Menstrual Extraction, RU-486 . Four Walls Eight Windows Press, Post Office 548, Village Station, New York, New York 10014. 1992, 271 pages, $13.95. Page 39.

[10] Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion . New Zealand, 1977.

[11] “TV Program is Source of Made-Up Story.” American Family Association Journal , April 1990, page 4.

[12] Andrew Sheehan. “New Abortion Law Brings More Reports of Rape.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , June 25, 1988, page 5.

[13] Ferris B. Lucas, Executive Director, National Sheriff’s Association, July 18, 1977. Quoted by Congressman Thomas J. Bliley (R-Va.) in July 25, 1983 testimony printed in the Congressional Record .

[14] Described in Eugene F. Diamond, M.D. “Rape and Abortion.” Linacre Quarterly , August 1980.

[15] Quote by Dr. Willard Cates, and NAMBLA information, from Basile J. Uddo. “On Rape, Incest and the Right to Life.” Human Life Review , Summer 1984, pages 55 to 66.

[16] “Let’s Tell the Truth About Abortion.” Pamphlet distributed by Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood. 1985, 22 pages. Fight Back Press, Post Office Box 61421, Denver, Colorado 80206.

[17] Telephone conversation with Robert Carroll on April 5, 1978. Quoted by Congressman Thomas J. Bliley (R-Va.) in July 25, 1983 testimony printed in the Congressional Record . Also see the report on the presentation made at the Symposium on the Psychological Aspects of Abortion at the Loyola University School of Medicine, November 1, 1978. Quoted by Congressman Thomas J. Bliley (R-Va.) in July 25, 1983 testimony printed in the Congressional Record .

[18] G. Maloof, M.D., “The Consequences of Incest.” The Psychological Aspects of Abortion . University Publications of America, 1979, page 74.

[19] Wardell Pomeroy. “A New Look at Incest.” Variations Magazine, 1977, pages 86 to 88, and Forum Magazine, November 1976, pages 84 to 89.

[20] Robert O. Hawkins. “The Uppsala Connection: The Development of Principles Basic to Education for Sexuality.” SIECUS Report , January 1980.

[21] Valida Davila of San Diego’s Childhood Sensuality Circle, quoted in John Leo. “Cradle-to-Grave Intimacy.” Time Magazine, September 7, 1981, page 69.

[22] Carl Henry Olstrom, M.D. Medical World News , February 4, 1967.

[23] Mary Meehan. “Facing the Hard Cases.” Human Life Review , Summer 1983, pages 19 to 36.

[24] R. Bruce Sloan, M.D. New England Journal of Medicine . Quoted in G. Maloof, M.D., “The Consequences of Incest.” The Psychological Aspects of Abortion . University Publications of America, 1979, page 74.

[25] Georgia Early. “Incest, Sexual Child Abuse and Abortion.” Life Advocate , May/June 1980.

[26] Brooke Shields, quoted in the Los Angeles Times , August 10, 1991, and in “Brooke Shields Says She Could Never Have Abortion.” American Family Association Journal , October 1991, page 16.

[27] Richard Doerflinger. “Hyde Amendment to Be Examined By Congress Again.” The [Portland, Oregon] Catholic Sentinel , November 9, 1990, page 7.

[28] Gaius Julius Caesar, quoted in The Conspiracy of Catiline by Sallist in the 1st Century B.C. Also quoted in Jonathon Green. The Cynic’s Lexicon . New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1984, 220 pages, $18.95.

[29] Ian Hunt, M.D., University of British Columbia’s Department of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Association’s Psychiatric News , March 3, 1978.

[30] Sagar C. Jain and Laurel F. Gooch. Georgia Abortion Act of 1968: A Study in the Legislative Process . 1972: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pages 56 and 57.

[31] William A. Lynch, M.D. Linacre Quarterly , August 1977.

==========================================

Resources and Further Reading: Rape and Incest Exceptions.

Two organizations that help rape or incest victims regain control of their lives without resorting to murdering their preborn children are listed below.

Life After Assault League (LAAL)
1336 West Lindbergh
Appleton, Wisconsin 54914
Telephone: (414) 739-4489

Fortress International
Post Office Box 7352
Springfield, Illinois 62791
Telephone: (217) 529-9545

Lynda Allison. Lisa Said No . Hazelwood, Missouri: Word Aflame Press. 1989, 188 pages. Reviewed by Ed Hurlbutt on page 53 of the August-September 1989 ALL About Issues . The story of how a young girl chooses life over death after being sexually molested.

Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D., Dennis J. Horan, and David Mall (editors). New Perspectives on Human Abortion . Frederick, Maryland: Aletheia Books, University Publications of America, 1981. A superb compilation of essays by the most experienced pro-lifers in the land, dealing with virtually all of the basic issues involved in taking human life. An excellent primer for any pro-life activist. Articles include Makhorn and Kolan, “Sexual Assault and Pregnancy.” This article discusses the “Scarlet Letter Syndrome” as it applies to rape and incest victims.

Robert G. Marshall and Charles Donovan. Blessed Are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planning Parenthood . Ignatius Press, San Francisco, $19.95. Reviewed by Mary Meehan on page 5 of the November 29, 1992 National Catholic Register . This volume provides lots of detail on the Planned Parenthood connections with racist eugenics, the effort to capture the Black leadership, and its ability to tap into hundreds of millions of dollars of tax and private money.

Lothrop Stoddard, Ph.D. The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921. Reprinted in 1971 by Negro Universities Press, Westport, Connecticut. A classic racist book that clearly and vividly demonstrates the kind of thinking that led to eugenics, the current-day racist abortion program in the United States, and the Nazi mentality.

Jack C. Willke, M.D. “Assault Rape and Pregnancy” (3 parts). National Right to Life News , July 17, August 21, and October 9, 1986. An outstanding encapsulation of all of the important points surrounding the rape/incest debate. This series, which is must reading for anyone who hopes to seriously debate or research this issue, is available in the archives of most state and local Right to Life chapters.

Kay Zibolsky. How You Can Live Again -- After Assault . Wilson, North Carolina: Star Books, 1989. 93 pages. Reviewed by Judie Brown on page 45 of the May 1989 issue of All About Issues . The story of a victim of rape and how she recovered and is reaching out to other victims.

=================================================================