Abortion: The Slaughter of the Innocent Part 1
Copyright 1994 - 2017 Bill's Bible Basics

Authored By  :
Bill Kochman

Published On :
June 28, 1997

Last Updated :
March 19, 2009


History Of This Series, 1973 Roe v. Wade Ruling, War Against Life Begins, The Perpetrators, 46,000,000+ Unseen Victims In USA Since 1973, 1.3 Million Annual US Abortions, Legality Of Late-Term Abortions, Fetal Viability, Shocking Comparisons, Fetuses Do Feel Pain, Hippocratic Oath Condemns Abortion, Roe v. Wade Not Overturned In 36 Years, Abortion And Politics, Barack Obama's Position On Abortion, Freedom Of Choice Act, George W. Bush's Efforts To Contain Abortion, Bill Clinton's Record, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Supreme Court And Appeals Court Appointments, Child Custody Protection Act And Its Exceptions, Parental Consent And Parental Notification, South Dakota Bills, Defining An Abortionist, Right To Privacy Deception And Cover, Due Process Clause, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights




Introduction :

The following series is the result of a writing project that spans a period of approximately fourteen years. It began as a series of online conversations that I had with members of our BBS -- Bulletin Board Service -- during the early to mid 1990's. These various conversations were eventually combined into a lengthy article entitled "Abortion, Birth Control And Promiscuity", and published on our Bill's Bible Basics website in 1997. From that time until now, I have occasionally held other online conversations regarding abortion, via our Endtime Discussion Group Exchange -- EDGE -- Mailing List, our Bill's Bible Basics Forum, and via other online avenues which I have frequented. At the same time, over the past twelve years since I first published "Abortion, Birth Control And Promiscuity", I have also continued to expand my personal understanding of the abortion issue, and have solidified my position regarding it.

In light of the new information that I have acquired, since several years ago, I have been wanting to update my original article, but just contemplating the sheer magnitude of the job before me made it difficult to begin. Thankfully, as a result of recent online conversations which centered on this same issue, I was finally motivated to put my hands to the plough -- or more accurately, to the keyboard -- and to tackle this project once and for all.

This series is basically divided into two sections. Without becoming overly burdensome or filled with weighty, confusing legalese which perhaps only a legal scholar would be able to understand, the first part of the series examines the legal and political aspects of the abortion issue in recent years. It also briefly and simply explains how the right to obtain an abortion became the law of the land in 1973. The latter half of the series changes gears, and addresses some of the arguments and questions which have been posed by some of the individuals with whom I've communicated over the years, and offers Biblical responses to their inquiries and challenges.

Please understand that due to the very depth and complexity of this issue, this series does not claim to examine every single facet of the abortion debate. You won't find every single state law discussed in these pages. You may not find every single argument, either in favor of abortion, or else against abortion, examined herein. However, it is my opinion that sufficient information has been provided here, to assist you in making an informed and knowledgeable choice regarding the issue of abortion.

It is my hope and prayer that you will find the following series enlightening and informative, and that it will have a positive effect on your life. In addition to reading this series, I encourage you to avail yourself of the additional information and files which are to be found in the abortion section of the Bill's Bible Basics website. Finally, if you are blessed by what you are about to read, please consider sharing the URL to the series with your friends far and wide. Thank you so much! You may just save an unborn child!

-----------------------------------------------------------

It was thirty-six years ago, in January of 1973, that the United States Supreme Court made a ruling which is legally known as 410 U.S. 113. Today, most people know this historic ruling as Roe v. Wade. With the stroke of a pen, a terrible war was initiated; the execution of which doesn't rely upon bombs, or jets, or guns, or tanks, but rather upon a group of men and women, who when they entered their profession, took a vow to protect, to preserve, and to save life. In an utterly bizarre twist of their pledge, and their duties as the guardians of life, over the past thirty-six years, they have made a mockery of their chosen profession, and have in fact been directly responsible for taking the lives of an estimated forty-six million innocents in the United States alone; and this is only the figure for acknowledged legal abortions.

Rarely, if ever, will you see their victims, and much less hear them; because their lives are snuffed out before they have even had a chance to come to term, and take their first small breath. Such is the cruelty and barbarity of legalized abortion. The tragedy of this war against life, is that it is relentlessly waged in a nation which claims to be founded upon Christian principles, which teach us that all life is sacred in the eyes of our Creator. To this day, this ungodly war continues to be carried out under a cloak of deception by its perpetrators, and feigned ignorance by their willing accomplices, the would-be mothers and fathers.

According to figures that were released in 2001 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and also by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the aforementioned figure means that an estimated 1.3 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States every year for the past thirty-six years. Based upon that annual average, the prolifeaction.org website provides the following breakdown regarding at what stage of gestation these abortions have occurred:
Gestational Age        Percentage      Yearly Total
Less than 9 weeks      57.9%           752,700
9-10 weeks             20.3%           263,900
11-12 weeks            10.2%           132,600
13-15 weeks             6.2%            80,600
16-20 weeks             4.3%            55,900
21+ weeks               1.5%            19,500
As you can see, this means that just over eighty-eight per cent of all abortions occur during the first twelve weeks of a woman's pregnancy. The "Center for Bio-Ethical Reform" web site provides slightly different percentages. Consider the following:
Gestational Age        Percentage
Less than 9 weeks      52%
9-10 weeks             25%
11-12 weeks            12%
13-15 weeks             6%
16-20 weeks             4%
21+ weeks               1%
While I find all of the above figures troubling, the last one is the most alarming of all. It tells us that 1% to 1.5%, or 16,450 to 19,500 annual abortions in the United States, occur after the twentieth week of pregnancy. Folks, we are talking about a fetus that is five months old, or possibly older. If nothing else in this series motivates you to strongly oppose abortion, then it's my sincere hope that this one figure will give you sufficient reason to want to oppose it. As you can plainly see, when we discuss the issue of abortion, we aren't always talking about "just a clump of cells", as many people ignorantly claim. If you are wondering why it is even legally possible for a woman or minor teen to obtain an abortion at such a late stage of fetal development, it is because Roe v. Wade ruled that a woman can abort her baby for any reason, up until, in the words of the court document, "the interim point at which the fetus becomes viable." The Supreme Court defined the word "viable" as being:

----- Begin Quote -----

"potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks"

----- End Quote -----

The US Supreme Court also held that even after the point of viability has been reached, abortion must still be available to a woman, when it is needed to protect her health. That is why late-term abortions are legally possible within the USA.

I'd like to ask you to stop and think about that total figure for a moment:

46,000,000 legal abortions in the USA since 1973

46,000,000 unborn children slaughtered since 1973

Consider where you currently live. Consider what percentage of people living in your area would have to die, in order to reach such an astounding number. It's really shocking, isn't it? Why? Because there are not enough people living in your area, or even in your entire state, to reach that horrific number. Exactly how large is 46,000,000? Well, let's make a few quick and easy comparisons. The 2007 population of the state of California, which happens to be the most populated state in the USA, was 36.5 million people. That means that for the purposes of this comparison, the entire population of that huge state has been slaughtered through abortion, in addition to about another 25% of the population beyond that, since abortion became legal in 1973. In other words, roughly 125% of the entire population of California would have to be slaughtered, in order to equal the number of abortions which have been performed in the USA, since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land in 1973.

Here is an equally astounding comparison. According to 2007 population figures, the huge state of Texas comes in second with over 23.9 million inhabitants. That means that double the entire population of Texas has been slaughtered through the act of abortion, since 1973. Let us not forget that this state is where the Roe v. Wade battle began. Let us also not forget that the 46 million figure only represents the known number of legal abortions. How many illegal ones have there been?

Now can you better comprehend the full scope of this problem? No one ever heard those 46 million voices. No one ever felt, or saw, their pain. They were just gone. They were horribly burned by a salt solution; sliced up like a worthless hunk of meat; shredded and sucked up before the evidence could be seen; and discarded. And America, and the world, continue in this grotesque, detestable practice year after year, without blinking an eye. Oh, how God must weep! Speaking of the pain which fetuses are now scientifically known to feel, you won't believe what one person wrote to me a few years ago regarding this sensitive issue. After referring to an embryo as a "ball of cells", they said:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Well, perhaps the cells do have the ability to feel, but at that stage of development, it wouldn't have a brain to interpret such signals. I think the issue of the one-month old fetus feeling pain is irrelevant."

----- End Quote -----

Either this person was purposely being downright deceptive, or else they are ignorant of the fact that at least 42% of all abortions performed in the United States occur after the first month of gestation; and the longer that a woman waits to have her abortion, the more likely that the fetus is able to feel pain as it is being ripped apart by the abortionist.

When U.S. Government figures take public office, they often place their hand upon a Bible, and swear to uphold the laws and ideals of the United States, as are set forth in the US Constitution, and other legal documents. In similar fashion, most members of the medical profession, upon entering their chosen field of practice, take a similar oath which is known as the "Hippocratic Oath". This oath, which is believed to have been written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, in 4th century BC Greece, sets down in writing the ethics of all medical practitioners. Translated from Greek, it states the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

"I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

----- End Quote -----

Please notice the line that clearly states ". . . I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Clearly then, as I stated earlier, medical professionals who perform, or assist in, an abortion, are in direct violation of their own creed. Could this possibly be one of the reasons why some of them now even refuse to recognize the oath; that is, because they know that they have no intentions of fully keeping it?

Every four years, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States, the people of America elect a new president. At the time that Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, Richard M. Nixon was the president of the USA. He was forced to resign in August of 1974, due to the Watergate scandal, at which time Gerald Ford, then the vice president, became the new president. From that time until today, there have been nine four-year presidential cycles; yet in spite of the fact that thirty-six years have passed, Roe v. Wade has never been overturned, and we should wonder why this is so.

As is common knowledge within the United States, the issue of abortion has repeatedly played a central role, and has had a very direct effect, on who becomes the next president of the United States. Would-be presidents know that if they want to assume the office of the president, they must win the support of their constituents, whether they are pro-lifers, or else pro-abortionists. Concerning the more conservative Republican Party, this has usually meant taking a strong stand against abortion. As recent American history reveals, it was because George W. Bush catered to the Christian Right, and came out against abortion, embryonic stem cell research and same-sex "marriages", that he won the presidential race in 2000, and then again in 2004, in spite of the fact that he dragged the United States into the illegal Iraq War, based on deception and lies.

However, as I explain in the four-part series "Obama, McCain And The Bush Legacy", despite their high expectations, even after eight years of the Bush Administration, Christians in America are saddened to see that abortions still occur on a daily basis throughout the country. Furthermore, soon a much more liberal president, who has tried to straddle the fence regarding abortion, and who has in fact done nothing which opposes abortion, will be moving into the White House. I am of course referring to President-elect Barack Hussein Obama. To clarify what I mean, please consider the following data regarding Mr. Obama:

1. He supports Roe v. Wade.

2. He voted against prohibiting minors from crossing state lines in order to obtain an abortion.

3. He voted against notifying parents of minor children who obtain out-of-state abortions.

4. He is undecided on whether or not life begins at conception.

5. He voted against banning partial-birth abortions.

6. He stated that we should trust women to make their own decisions regarding partial-birth abortion.

Equally alarming is the fact that President-Elect Obama has made it quite clear that one of his very first acts as the new president of the United States, in addition to dealing with the current economic crisis, will be to sign into law the so-called "Freedom Of Choice Act", or FOCA, once the US Congress has presented it to him for his signature. In fact, in July of 2007, while speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack Obama, then a U.S. senator, stated the following; and you can be certain that Planned Parenthood is going to hold Obama to his promise:

----- Begin Quote -----

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

----- End Quote -----

While the US Supreme Court has long recognized abortion as a fundamental right, even though it is not specifically written as such in the U.S. Constitution, the Freedom Of Choice Act will make abortion a legally-recognized fundamental right. As a result, once this horrible piece of legislation is signed into law by Obama, it will basically invalidate and reverse any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" to have an abortion. As I explain in "Obama, McCain And The Bush Legacy", currently, hospitals, clinics and medical professionals can refuse to participate in, or to facilitate, an abortion, based upon an act of their conscience. The Freedom Of Choice Act will reverse this right and will make anti-abortion professionals vulnerable to law suits, etc., if they fail to perform an abortion upon demand.

Based on the previous points, it seems obvious that no true Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian can possibly support the agenda of the incoming president; and his record on gay and lesbian rights is just as bad, and equally troubling.

But let's return to the efforts of the Bush Administration. In all fairness, it should be noted that failure to overturn Roe v. Wade was not due to President Bush's lack of trying to accomplish this goal. During his eight years in office, Bush in fact appointed a number of conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. In one of its more recent rulings in April of 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the highly controversial Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by a vote of 5 to 4. As you may recall, this bill was passed by the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President Bush in November of 2003. This important piece of legislation makes it a crime for doctors to perform any "overt act" to "kill the partially delivered living fetus". Those who violate this law may face criminal prosecution, fines and up to two years in prison. While in office, President Bill Clinton vetoed this bill two times.

And that is not all that George Bush managed to accomplish. In addition to his controversial Supreme Court appointments, during his presidency, he appointed sixty-one judges to the federal appeals courts, the majority of which lean towards a conservative viewpoint. The appeals court system consists of thirteen circuits, of which ten are controlled by Republican appointed judges, according to an October 2008 article in the New York Times.

During his term in office, President Bill Clinton appointed sixty-five judges to the federal appeals courts. It has been estimated that the number of federal judges appointed by the Republican Party, most of them conservative, will have risen about twelve per cent; from fifty per cent, to sixty-two per cent, since George W. Bush first took office. The movement to advance a "conservative legal revolution" actually began during the Reagan Administration.

These aren't the only developments which occurred during the Bush years in the hope of eventually overturning Roe v. Wade. In 2006, the Child Custody Protection Act, (also known as the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act), was amended to title 18 of the Federal Criminal Code; or the United States Code, as it is also known. This bill makes it a crime for any doctor to perform or to induce an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements. The act also mandates that physicians provide a twenty-four hour actual or constructive notice to a parent of the minor child who is seeking an abortion. Violators of this act are subject to a fine, and could spend up to a year behind bars as well. However, as passed, this bill does allow for an exception if:

1. the physician complies with parental notification requirements in the physician's state;

2. the physician is given documentation that a court in the minor's state of residence has waived parental notification or otherwise authorized the minor's abortion;

3. the minor provides a written statement that she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by a parent and the physician notifies appropriate state officials of such abuse;

4. the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor (written notice must be given to the minor's parent within 24 hours after the lifesaving abortion is performed): or

5. a person accompanying the minor provides documentation to the physician that such person is the parent of the minor.

As tough as it sounds, this act is not bullet-proof, and does have legal loopholes. But there is more. While these two acts do make it more difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion, they don't make it entirely impossible for them to do so. The reason for this is simple; and that is because abortion laws differ from state to state. At this current time, there are forty-four states that have abortion laws which require that a minor's parents be involved in the decision-making process. However, the level of parental involvement varies. The level of parental involvement can be broken down as follows:

a. In twelve states, a minor can obtain an abortion without parental consent; however, she is required to notify at least one of her parents ahead of time regarding her decision. The one exception is the state of Minnesota, where both parents are required to be notified of the girl's decision to have an abortion.

b. In twenty-three states, a minor cannot obtain an abortion unless she first acquires parental consent from one parent. The exception to this are, I believe, Mississippi, North Dakota and Texas, where the consent of both parents is required before an abortion can be granted to a minor.

c. In two states, Oklahoma and Utah, parental consent and parental notification must both be provided before an abortion can be performed on a minor.

d. In nine states, the situation is rather nebulous, as parental involvement laws have either been blocked by a particular court order, or else they are simply not being properly enforced.

e. Tragically, there are six states where there are no laws concerning parental involvement. These are Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. Also included in this group is the District of Columbia.

As if the situation isn't already loose enough, as we saw a moment ago, in some situations, the Child Custody Protection Act does allow judges to issue court orders which permit a girl to obtain an abortion even without her parents' consent. For example, in the state of West Virginia, a physician who can demonstrate that he/she has no financial attachments to the abortion provider, can perform an abortion on a minor. There are likewise some states where it is acceptable for grandparents, or other family members, to be involved in a minor's choice to have an abortion, instead of the parents.

While the state of Mississippi has very strict anti-abortion laws, so that only one abortion clinic has managed to survive there, (at least legally), it is obviously not the only state where the abortion war is being waged. In March of 2006, two- term Governor Michael Rounds of South Dakota signed into law a bill which made it a felony to perform an abortion, unless it could be proved that it was absolutely necessary in order to save a woman's life. The general consensus in both camps was that the purpose of the South Dakota law was to challenge Roe v. Wade head-on. As was expected, abortion advocates went on the attack, and the law was ultimately repealed by a voter referendum in November of that same year.

On November 4, 2008, voters in South Dakota were again given an opportunity to accept, or to reject, a new amendment which would ban abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when there is a serious health threat to the mother. Sadly, this initiative also failed. The Pro-Life camp has vowed to carry on the battle another year. Another initiative in Colorado, which was also on the November 4 ballot, and which would have defined a fertilized egg as a legal human being, also failed to acquire a majority vote.

Before continuing, let me mention here that one term that you will see me using a lot in this series is "abortionists". To avoid any kind of confusion, when you see this word used, I am referring to anyone, whether they are a physician, or any other kind of medical professional, or an organization, or a woman, or a young girl, or anyone else, who practices, fights for, supports, promotes or defends the practice of abortion. If you refer to yourself as pro-choice, then in my view, you are still an abortionist, because you want to have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion; which signifies that you favor abortion. In short, unless a person is clearly opposed to abortion, then in my view, they're an abortionist; because there is simply no sitting on the fence when it comes to this important issue. Having said that, let's continue.

One tactic which is frequently used by abortionists in order to try to justify their hideous crime, is to emphasize the right to privacy issue. It worked quite well for them in the past, and they are obviously hoping that it will continue to work for them for years to come. In case you weren't aware of it, it was precisely the right to privacy issue that resulted in the Roe v. Wade ruling prevailing thirty-six years ago in 1973. Roe v. Wade determined that at that time, most laws that banned abortion in the U.S. were in violation of the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Due Process Clause, which is also referred to as the Due Process of Law, is the principle whereby the U.S. Government is obligated to respect all of the legal rights to which a person is entitled according to the law of the land, instead of respecting just some or most of their legal rights. To put it another way, the Due Process Clause provides a person with the means to enforce their rights against alleged violations by the government. The Fourteenth Amendment states:

----- Begin Quote -----

"No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

----- End Quote -----

By a vote of 7 to 2, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas abortion laws, and ruled that abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution. A fundamental right is simply a right that finds its origin in the Constitution, or that is implied by the Constitution. We'll take a quick look at some of these fundamental rights as we continue our discussion in part two.

Please go to part two for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .


BBB Tools And Services


Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.