GODSAIDMANSAID.COM
|
Truth knows no opinion. Truth is absolute. Truth has zero tolerance for contrary positions. Truth is high and lifted up with nothing beside it or above it. The only companion of truth is truth itself and those seeking and conforming to it. God is the source of all truth. To know truth is to know God, which requires the intimate oneness of the new birth in Christ Jesus. One cannot know truth unless one knows God. Jesus Christ, the King of the Jews, said in John 14:6:
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
You can't know truth unless you are born-again. If you haven't yet made the journey of glorious transformation into the family of God, click on to "Further With Jesus" on this website. NOW FOR TODAY’S SUBJECT.
GOD SAID, Exodus 20:13:
Thou shalt not kill.
GOD SAID, II Timothy 3:1-5:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
MAN SAID: A woman should have the right to choose abortion if the baby in her womb is unwanted for any reason. Why should an unwanted and unloved child be brought into this world? Who are these right-wing fanatic Christians trying to force the Bible's morality down our throats?
Now THE RECORD. Abortion is a terrible wickedness that has laid the innocent blood of untold tens of millions of the most defenseless upon our people, our nation, and its land. The Satanic spirit of liberalism proliferates in this blood. Carnal academia, the media, and politics proliferate in this blood. It is their rallying cry: "A Woman's Right to Choose!" It is their unifier. It is the dominant plank of the national Democratic Party. It is their cash cow for national fundraisers and more. Being in favor of abortion is even the litmus test by which the liberals endorse federal judges, including candidates for the United States Supreme Court. The wicked proliferate in the blood of the innocents. To those who think the term "Satanic" (as in the phrase "Satanic spirit of liberalism") is gratuitous, consider this: in reference to Satan, Jesus Christ says in John 10:10:
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Jesus speaks of the rebellious in John 8:44:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
The abortion debate should come to a screeching halt by answering one question: When does life begin? In the debate over embryonic stem cell research, Dr. Kelly Hollowell, who has a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, made this telling statement:
As the nation sits embroiled over the battle of where to draw the line on ECSR (Embryonic Stem Cell Research), the real issue that truly divides us is whether embryonic stems represent a who or a what. In other words, are we talking about people or property?
In this abortion debate, when are we talking about people and not property? We should first define life. Noah Webster's primary definition of life in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language reads:
"In a general sense, that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions." [End of quote]
John C. Willke, MD, and his wife, Barbara H. Willke, RN, long time champions of the pro-life movement, have authored much research on the issue of abortion, one of them being their 417-page tome titled Abortion: Questions & Answers, which was just updated in 2003. Concerning the definition of life, Willke writes:
What simple measure would you use to define Human Life? We would ask: Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or, more simply, he is not dead. Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human. Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman. The only changes are growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature. [End of quote]
Note Webster's definition again:
In a general sense, that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions. [End of quote]
Willke continues:
Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual's life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father's sperm and his mother's ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization," or "fecundation." This is so because this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. Comment∙ The above is not a religious faith belief.∙ The above is not a philosophic theory.∙ The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact. [End of quote]
Natural science, biology, and medicine have all concluded that a person is a living organism from conception. Abortion: Questions & Answers quotes Dr. Liley, known as the "Father of Fetology:"
...the young individual, in command of his environment and destiny, with a tenacious purpose, implants in the spongy lining and, with a display of physiological power, suppresses his mother's menstrual period. This is his home for the next 270 days, and to make it habitable, the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed, the homograft problem, that dazzling feat by which fetus and mother, although immunological foreigners who could not exchange skin grafts nor safely receive blood from each other, nevertheless tolerate each other in parabiosis for nine months. We know that he moves with a delightful, easy grace in his buoyant world, that fetal comfort determines fetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less if it is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be altered by a first signal for a second different one. And, finally, he determines his birthday, for, unquestionably, the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the fetus. This, then, is the fetus we know and, indeed, we each once were. This is the fetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring for before and after birth, who, before birth, can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient. [End of quote]
There is no question in this issue—abortion terminates human life. Dr. Willke states:
Most use the moment of sperm penetration as the "moment of conception." Others wait until their pronuclei fuse at 12-14 hours to say conception is a completed process. In either case, this new human life is complete at the first cell stage. This is then only a single cell? Yes. But a remarkable and unique one. This single cell is now either male or female. This human is unique, i.e., never before in the history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another like this human exist. This being is complete, i.e., nothing else – no bits or pieces – will be added from this time until the old man or woman dies – nothing but nutrition and oxygen.This being is programmed from within, moving forward in a self-controlled, ongoing process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells. This living being is dependent upon his or her mother for shelter and food, but in all other respects is a totally new, different, unique, and independent being. [End of quote]
One should note that this independent, self-directing infant is dependent on its mother for food and shelter in and out of the womb. In the 6th edition of The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, the following excerpt is found:
The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous . . . This cell, the zygote, results from the union of an oocyte (egg) and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being . . . Human development begins at fertilization. [End of quote]
Abortion: Questions & Answers notes important information from extensive hearings conducted in 1981 by the U.S. Senate:
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] 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." (Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee, S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7)On pages 7-9, the report lists a "limited sample" of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception.The report quotes several outstanding authorities who testified personally:
● Professor J. Lejeune, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
● Professor W. Bowes, University of Colorado: Beginning of human life?—"at conception."
● Professor H. Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception."
● Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University: "It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception." [End of quote]
After conception, it is simply a matter of development that continues within this new individual whose final end would naturally take place in old age when his or her organs cease to function independently.
Dr. Hollowell, in the feature article published in the February 2002 issue of Impact, stated the following concerning life and cloning:
Cloning proves scientifically that life begins at conception – a position to which the author and most Christians philosophically already adhere. Additionally, the insights provided by cloning technology destroy the scientific and legal basis of distinguishing a pre-embryo from an embryo, the popular distinction made at 14 days after conception. This is significant because this distinction determines the handling and treatment of human life less than 14 days old, which is so basic to all Embryonic Stem Cell Research. [End of quote]
Life begins at conception. Therefore, the God-given commandment, "thou shalt not kill," protects the babe who still resides inside his mother's womb.
Some argue that the fruit of the womb is not a living soul until breath flows in its nostrils, citing Genesis 2:7:
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The fact of the matter is that the child breathes in the mother's womb. The following excerpt is from a 1965 issue of Life Magazine:
By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid within his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration.
The scriptures clearly teach life begins in the womb. Psalms 139:13-16:
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Speaking of John the Baptist, the Word of God states in Luke 1:15:
...he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luke 1:41:
...the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luke 1:44:
...the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Another Biblical passage sometimes cited as being in favor of abortion is Exodus 21:22:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
This occurrence is an obvious accidental death, classified as manslaughter, which in Scriptural and general law carries a lighter sentence than murder. According to Noah Webster, manslaughter is "the unlawful killing of a man without malice, expressed or implied. Manslaughter differs from murder in not proceeding from malice prepense or deliberate, which is essential to constitute murder." Consequently, the Scriptures do not require capital punishment in this situation.
Let there be no question that scripturally, life begins in the mother's womb.
Pro-abortionists hide behind straw-man arguments citing the health of the mother, rape, fetal deformity, overpopulation, and other arguments as humane reasons for abortion. It is not suggested that problems which need to be addressed do not exist in some of these areas, but taking an innocent human life is not the solution. Abortion: Questions and Answers addresses these arguments.
Concerning the issue of the health of the mother, Willke says:
It should be obvious to everyone that there are two living humans involved: the unborn child and his mother. For this nation to once again protect its unborn babies, but not to do everything humanly possible to help the mother, would be immoral. The woman with a problem pregnancy must, at the same time, be offered aid in solving her problems, to help her through that distressing time. If, in fact, her very life is threatened physically, then the ideal is to save both. But if, in treating her, the fetal baby is lost, such may be an unfortunate result. Your authors have traveled nationally and internationally for over 3 decades lecturing on this subject, and we have yet to hear of a directly induced abortion needed to prevent her death. There are, of course, good reasons to deliver the baby and end her pregnancy in its late months, but here, hopefully the baby is saved. Never in late pregnancy is it necessary to directly kill the baby by abortion. [End of quote]
Willke continues:
What about toxemia, serious diabetes, etc., in late pregnancy? In these cases, the pregnancy may have to be terminated to save the mother's life. But left alone, both might die. Treatment here is not abortion, but premature delivery. This attempts to save both lives. Is surgery on an ectopic pregnancy an abortion? Some do define this as an abortion, and this is one reason why Right to Life people usually accept a "life of the mother" exception to laws that would forbid abortion. Until recent years, this required surgical removal of the tube, which at times contained a live human embryo which then would die. By the time most ectopic surgery is done, the developing baby is dead and often destroyed by the hemorrhage. In any case, such surgery is done primarily to prevent the death of the mother. This is good medical practice because there is no chance for the baby to survive. [End of Quote]
Rape is also used in defense of abortion. The Jane Roe (real name Norma McCorvey), of the infamous 1973 abortion case Roe vs. Wade claimed she was raped. She incorrectly thought that this would permit a legal abortion in the state of Texas. Fourteen years later in 1987, she confessed that it was consensual sex, "through what I thought was love," she said.
According to extensive calculations reported in Abortion: Questions & Answers, one-tenth to two-tenths of a percent of actual reported rape cases actually end up in live births. According to a study done on October 25, 1971 and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), a study of 1,000 rape victims whom where medically treated with hormones right after the rape reported no pregnancies. Dr. and Mrs. Willke on rape:
Why not allow abortion for rape pregnancies? We must approach this with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act—that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation. [End of quote]
On the subject of handicapped children, Dr. Willke said:
But isn't it cruel to allow a handicapped child to be born—to a miserable life? The assumption that handicapped people enjoy life less than "normal" persons has been shown to be false. A well-documented investigation has shown that there is no difference between handicapped and normal persons in their degree of life satisfaction, outlook of what lies immediately ahead, and vulnerability to frustration. In a series of 150 unselected spina bifida patients questioned as older children, all were asked whether their handicaps made life not worth living, and should they have been "allowed to die" after birth. Their unanimous response was forceful. Of course they wanted to live! In fact, they thought the question was ridiculous. [End of quote]
There is much research in Dr. and Mrs. Willke's book concerning deformity and all issues pertaining to abortion. It is definitely recommended reading. Life begins at conception. Therefore, terminating the life of a handicapped babe, in or out of the womb, would typically be the same—an act of murder.
The bogus argument of an overpopulated world has long been put to rest. A 1998 United Nations report stated this about current trends:
If the world trends in declining fertility continue as they are now, the world population could peak at 7.5 billion in 2040. It will then drop by 120 million a year through 2050. After this, it will decline about 30% per generation. [End of quote]
According to the U.S. Census Bureau:
Eighty-three countries are now below replacement fertility levels. These encompass 2.7 billion people, 44% of the world's total. [End of quote]
That means the death rate is greater than the birth rate. There is no global population problem.
The killing of babes in their mothers' wombs has become a multi-billion dollar industry even to the sale of body parts. Again, Abortion: Questions & Answers:
A commercial industry? Yes, price lists are available. One eyeball is $100.00. A hind quarter is $450.00. A liver is $150.00. An intact brain is $950.00. For details on this, contact Life Dynamics, P.O. Box 2226, Denton TX 76202.
Galatians 6:7:
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
The evil sowing of abortion is producing a bumper crop of devastation and death. It is not possible to disobey the commandments of God without suffering the curse of that disobedience, which is just another proof that God is, and that He authored the scriptures.
This is the end of "Abortion (Part One)." Part Two, God-willing, will follow. Let it be known: abortion is premeditated murder. GOD SAID, Exodus 20:13:
Thou shalt not kill.
GOD SAID, II Timothy 3:1-5:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
MAN SAID: A woman should have the right to choose abortion if the baby in her womb is unwanted for any reason. Why should an unwanted and unloved child be brought into this world? Who are these right-wing fanatic Christians trying to force the Bible's morality down our throats?
Now you have THE RECORD.
References:
King James Bible
Hollowell, K., Ph.D., "Ten Problems With Embryonic Stem Cell Research," Impact, 2/02
Howe, H.L., R.T. Senie, H. Bzduch, P. Herzfeld (1989) et al., Int. J. Epidemiol., 18:300-4
"Life Before Birth," Life Magazine, April 30, 1965, p. 13
Liley, A., "A Case Against Abortion," Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, Ltd., 1971
Moore, Persaud, Saunders, The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, 1998, pp. 2, 18
Olsson, H., et al., Cancer, 67:1285-90
Pike, M.C., B.E. Henderson, J.T. Casagrande, Rosariol, C.E. Gray (1981), Brit. J. Cancer, 43:72- 6
