Scholarly, analytical discussion of abortion. Provides facts,
information, and opinions on abortion from a variety of sources.
Discusses the problems that cause abortions, and offers new and
innovative solutions for resolving the abortion conflict. Evaluat-
es current developments such as the confirmation of John Ashcroft
as Attorney General, the election of George Bush as President, RU-
486, partial-birth abortion, parental notification and consent,
the conviction of James Kopp, the execution of Paul Hill, the Laci
and Connor Peterson murders, Holly's Law and judicial nominations;
plus excellent explanations of early embryo & fetal development.
Examines the arguments, views, pros and cons on both sides of the
abortion debate; pro-life and pro-choice. Provides reference mat-
erial and help for crisis pregnancies. Because this web document
has no organizational affiliations to promote, and contains nume-
rous links to other web sites, it is an excellent place to start
a study of abortion. It has also evolved into a center for the
best current thinking on the topic of abortion, including evalua-
tions of the health risks and potential side effects, such as
breast cancer and PASS feelings. This site now brings all the in-
formation together in one place. You should be able to find every-
thing you need here by just continuing to read or by using links.
Go to 2004 Election Section Go to Pregnancy Resource Center
Order the powerful 732 page Print or E-book ($8.95).
(The book is best for locating specific topics and to take with.)
Posted 09/11/2000
Abortion - Certainly a very controversial subject. It seems like
I've been thinking about it forever. But how long? I can say with
certainty that I was personally involved in my more idealistic
days thirty years ago; before that time, although I'm sure there
was concern, no guidepost exists. But even 30 years is a long
time. Since then, other commitments have consumed my life - earn-
ing a living, caring for my family, and other such routine pur-
suits. But the issue has never left my mind for long, returning
to my ruminations time and again at each twist and turn in the
conflict. Over time I have come to feel like the little boy who
saw that the emperor had no clothes. But now I've come to the
stage where I have more time again, and no excuse for not speak-
ing out and sharing my thoughts. I can not in good conscience
continue to be a voice unheard, suppressing what I have to contr-
ibute to the debate. And so I am posting this to the door of the
internet. No matter who you are, I can guarantee you that if you
read this from start to finish, you will see things that needed
to be said but had never been published before this document was
produced, or that had never been said before; and had probably
never entered your own thoughts on this matter - but will enhance
your understanding of the issue. As I go back and forth from one
side of this debate to the other, you may find yourself first
agreeing, then disagreeing, and vice versa, with what I have to
say. But I hope I can lead you through this to the inescapable
conclusions I draw; and to considering the solutions I advance.
I've earned a living for over thirty years by solving complex
problems. One of the first things I had to learn was that you
can't solve a problem until you understand what the problem is.
So let's begin by looking at a couple of typical cases that exem-
plify, or demonstrate, the problem. This is simply setting the
stage, so please bear with me.
For the first example, let's imagine a teenage girl, high school
age, perhaps 15 or 16 years old. She had a boyfriend, but they
broke up. She learned all about how to do sex in class, and did-
n't think it was a big deal. After all, grown ups do it all the
time, just like smoking and drinking; and she sees herself as
being grown up - or at least she wants to be grown up. And at
first she thought her boyfriend was such a neat guy, and they'd
get married soon, and he was so insistent, and she kind of want-
ed to do it too. But now she's missed her period, and she knows
enough to think she might be pregnant. She really didn't think
very much about getting pregnant before, but now she does; and
panic starts to set in. Will she have to miss school? Probably
so. How can she face her friends when they find out? Won't people
make fun of her when she walks around school, obviously pregnant?
Probably so. And how will she be able to support and care for a
baby? There's no chance of getting back together with the boy;
and she's way too young to get married anyway. She was hoping to
go to college, but will she still be able to? And how can she
tell her parents? Will they be furious with her? What are the
consequences there? Can she get an abortion without anybody find-
ing out? Frankly, at this point she's probably also very scared.
But let's leave her for the moment with all these thoughts racing
through her head, and go on to the situation where the girl deci-
des she has to tell her parents. What will their reaction be? Un-
doubtedly, some parents would embrace her and do everything they
could to support her and get her through it. But this probably
isn't typical, and I don't want to get into passing judgments on
what the parents should or shouldn't do at this point. So let's
look at the more likely reaction. They probably would have all
the same reactions the girl had; or for sure think of those con-
sequences and tell her about them if she hadn't thought about
them herself. There might also be a physical reaction - a quick
slap to the head to send her head spinning, or worse yet a beat-
ing. The girl would probably know what to expect. But I have to
believe this would be the exception. More likely, there might al-
so be a string of verbal abuse. Anyway, she would survive this
(I don't recall hearing of any murders over this, although I'm
sure they are contemplated); and we can go on to the next step -
what additional reactions the parents may have. Well, they might
feel that it would be a loss of face for them, too, among their
friends and colleagues and acquaintances. Will people they don't
even know be talking about them? And what does it say about their
parenting skills. Have they failed as parents? There might also
be a financial burden. There will be costly doctor visits, and
time in the hospital. Will the burden of raising the child fall
on them, and are they too old to accept that responsibility?
Now let's look at one more case, an adult single woman, to be
sure we've touched most of the bases. She might already be an un-
wed mother, who can't afford to support and care for another
child. Or she might be a career woman, ambitious and on the fast
track, just testing the water sexually. Or she thought the father
was the right person for her originally - but it didn't work out
that way, and now she's pregnant. It would be really difficult
for her just to tell her parents. But how would it go over at
work? Would the men make fun of her behind her back? She'd be so
embarrassed, and would it ruin her career there? Would she have
to take time off, or quit; and then start over again someplace
else?
If we've never been involved in an abortion type decision, we've
certainly put ourselves in the other person's shoes. Obviously,
we have some very real problems here; a situation of the utmost
gravity. Also, some might say a life hangs in the balance. In
many instances, expediency and panic take over at this point. But
let's stop and consider the situation more carefully. Let's start
by listing the problems an abortion might resolve: embarrassment,
perceived humiliation, an interruption of one's education and
participation in sports, a financial burden, an unwanted respons-
ibility of caring for a child, a detour in one's career, and may-
be some physical or verbal abuse. But at this point we don't have
a single argument for not having an abortion listed; but there
may be a, or some, argument(s) in the back of someone's mind that
haven't been mentioned yet. We know there is a segment of the
population that opposes abortion, for any reason; so let's exam-
ine what arguments they might offer. Their mantra seems to be the
"Right to Life", and their organizations tend to call themselves
this or that "Right to Life" group. An unfortunate choice of
words, I think, because it can be interpreted to imply life at
some future point in time; and words can be very important in a
debate, as we shall see. But they're the underdogs at this point,
so let's be generous and help them out by changing it to the
"Right to Live". On the other side of the debate are the people
who are in favor of abortion. Their slogan is "A Woman's Right To
Choose". It's so completely awesome for its time - probably one
of the greatest slogans ever devised. They tried it out, it work-
ed, they stuck with it over the years, and the idea has carried
the day for them time and again. Very easy to understand, and the
right to life people have never learned how to deal with it. It's
a free country, and I ask you, how could anyone possibly be
against it? I'm most definitely in favor of a woman's right to
choose. But there is a problem with it, which nobody seems to
notice, and that problem is that when a woman learns that she is
pregnant there is another person in existence. Doesn't that per-
son have that same right to choose? Are we going to say that just
a certain privileged class of person has this right to choose to
live or die - and for other people? That doesn't sound fair. That
can't be right. That's not freedom of choice - that's tyranny.
Certainly the other person is not old enough to vote in an elect-
ion, but doesn't that person have the same right to be protected
by society as other children are protected? But wait, you say,
it isn't really a person, it's a fetus. If you went to Planned
Parenthood and were a little uncertain about getting an abortion,
I'm sure that they'd probably reassure you that, yes, it was only
a fetus. So would people at the abortion clinic. Anti-abortion
people would probably engage in an argument over whether a fetus
was a person; but as soon as they do that they accept the implied
position that there is something different from a person that is
called a fetus and they are probably wasting their breath because
they have already compromised their position. So are you begin-
ning to see how important language can be? S.I. Hayakawa talked
about this kind of thing in his book "Language In Thought And
Action"; but it's been so long ago, that the majority of people
probably haven't read it. He went on to head a college in the
California State College system, and later became the U.S. Sen-
ator from California.
In fact, a child is a child whether it's inside or outside the
mother, whether it's one pound or ten pounds. Size doesn't deter-
mine humanity. I don't think the people who head Planned Parent-
hood or the National Organization for Women or Emily's List are
stupid at all; and they would never go on television or to a pub-
lic forum and argue that a child is not a human being while it's
still inside the mother because they know they would be totally
humiliated and lose the debate with any knowledgeable and equally
prepared opponent. They don't want to look like fools; but be-
lieve me, they know. Instead they brilliantly talk only about
a woman's right to choose, thereby avoiding the real issue - and
lots of people buy into it; especially young people who don't
have the experience to make independent judgments. It allows
people to rationalize their actions.
Still don't agree that a child inside its mother is really a
child, and that that's not really at issue? Well, I got by that
many years ago, but maybe I can help. Years ago, when Life maga-
zine published the picture of a child in peaceful repose inside
its mother on the front cover of the magazine, it was a stunning
revelation for me, and it must have been for a lot of people;
otherwise why would they have put it on the front cover? Today
when a woman becomes pregnant it's commonplace to get an ultra-
sound of the baby to make sure there aren't any problems that
need to be addressed, and to satisfy a natural, and perhaps prag-
matic curiosity about what the baby's sex is. What do you suppose
they're looking at? Ask to see somebody's ultrasound - they'll be
proud to show you. And just think about it - does it make any
sense at all to say a baby inside its mother isn't human, but the
minute it pokes its head out it is? How totally, totally, absurd!
But if you still don't agree, ask your family doctor some very
specific questions: At what point is it possible to hear a baby's
heartbeat? When can you first measure brainwaves? How soon does
a baby start to look like a person? If you don't get direct ans-
wers, if he's being evasive, try another doctor. If that seems
like too much trouble, and you don't want to do you're own re-
search, I can tell you that 6 days after implantation in the ut-
erus the person has developed so rapidly that his heart, brain,
spinal column, and nervous system are almost complete; after 8
days the person's heart has started to beat; and although still
very small this individual has taken control of the pregnancy to
try to assure it's survival - and the mother probably doesn't even
know she is pregnant yet. Sometimes I have observant individuals
challenge the statistics I personally state. That's good, because
I know they're paying serious attention. The difference is due to
the fact that as long as two weeks can go by from the moment of
fertilization until the placenta has completely attached itself
to the uterus, at which time the woman "becomes pregnant"; and
that's often when I begin counting.
The idea that a baby is born at the time it miraculously pops out
of a woman is an archaic notion superceded by modern science. I've
included links to other related sites at the end of this document
that you can go to for more information. Of course there's anoth-
er argument, that a child isn't a child until it can survive out-
side the mother. This is equally absurd. Did you ever hear of
parents bringing a baby home from the hospital, and it got up,
walked to the refrigerator, and fixed itself a sandwich? In fact,
the child will be totally dependent on its parents and other
adults for its survival for several years. When you bring the
baby home from the hospital, please don't set it down in its room
and forget about it and come back to see how it's doing in a week.
Here are some other facts about how rapidly a child develops in-
side its mother, taken from the American Life League publications
"The First Nine Months" and "What They Never Told You About the
Facts of Life": "DAY 30 At one month old, the embryo is 10,000
times larger than the original fertilized egg-and developing rap-
idly." "DAY 35 Five fingers can be discerned...". Keep in mind
that mom probably doesn't even know she's pregnant yet. "WEEK 6
The mother is about to miss her second period and has probably
confirmed that she is pregnant." "WEEK 9 Fingerprints are al-
ready evident....". "MONTH 4 The umbilical cord has become an
engineering marvel, transporting 300 quarts of fluid per day and
completing a round-trip of fluids every 30 seconds." Note, though,
that the baby itself is completely separate from the mother, and
not a part of her body in any way - it is connected by the umbili-
cal cord, which in turn is attached to the placenta, which is the
part attached to the mother's uterus. The baby always has a sepa-
rate blood system, which may even be a different blood type from
the mother. At delivery, the placenta, and most of the umbilical
cord, are simply thrown away. The placenta transfers nutrients
and waste - not blood. The baby produces its own blood, just like
we do. Floating in the amniotic fluid, the baby is something like
an astronaut doing a space walk - actually swimming around, until
it becomes too cramped close to the delivery time. "....feel pain
for the first time...When your mom was 7 weeks pregnant". "By the
time your mother found out she was pregnant, you were: A miniature
human with arms, legs and a heartbeat". "When did you start using
your brain? Fetal electric brain waves have been traced as early
as the sixth week." "...babies as young as 22 weeks after concep-
tion , weighing only 14 oz., have survived premature birth."
".....you'll continue to develop, just like you did in the womb,
until you reach the...age of approximately 23 years!" Hardly just
a mass of cells. The aforementioned publications can be had for
the lofty price of .50 cents and .75 cents respectively.
"While giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy....I
was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen.
...This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering
fingers, feet and toes...The baby was extremely alive and swam a-
bout the sac approximately one time per second, with a natural
swimmer's stroke." Paul Rockwell, M.D. Well, perhaps that's an old
quote, because they rather routinely observe babies grow within
their mother's now - but not first hand like that.
But the "Right to Live" people have found a truly bewildering
array of ways to defeat themselves, shooting themselves in the
foot, so to speak. For example, they talk about the "War on the
Unborn", the "rights of the preborn", "killing the unborn", "the
defenseless unborn", and so on. In other words they are telling
people that they still subscribe to the antiquated idea that a
child is born, or comes into the world, when the doctor delivers
it at the hospital. This might have seemed to make sense in the
Dark Ages, but we live in the 21st century, where they open
people up, take out their defective heart, and put in a healthier
model. We know what happens inside a woman every step of the
way; how the child grows, develops, and matures. It should be
obvious that a child is born when a woman becomes pregnant; de-
pending on when you define the pregnancy as beginning; and I'll
talk about exactly how I define that later. Again, the pro-lifers
are defeated by linguistics; they unwittingly accept the language
of their opposition. Then there's the "you shouldn't bring an un-
wanted child into the world" argument. The answer to this is al-
so a no-brainer. Wouldn't almost everybody prefer to be unwanted
to being dead! At least you have a chance to work at changing the
situation. Also, I've noticed mothers tend to become proud of,
and attached to, their children, once they have the opportunity
to meet them face to face.
Let's take another look at how abortion advocates use mind games
to come out on top in this debate. Say there is a public forum
discussing the issue, or a group of friends sitting around debat-
ing it. It won't go on for long before one of the "liberal"
debaters will ask, "and what would you do in the case of rape?".
If the people taking the pro-life side of the argument are new to
the issue, they may be stumped by this. If it is somebody who has
given the issue some deep introspection, they would most likely
answer that it doesn't matter, they would still oppose abortion.
Tricked again. Because people, and especially the ladies in the
discussion, will begin rolling their eyes and saying "no-way!".
All at once the pro-lifer, probably not realizing it, has been
pulled into debating a very small side issue instead of the broad
topic. Let's face it, he may be correct logically, but in today's
climate he is so politically incorrect that he will never conv-
ince a majority of people. Let it go. The response should be that
pregnancy resulting from rape is such an infrequent occurrence
that we should ignore that circumstance for now and concentrate
on making abortion illegal for the vast majority of other unplan-
ned pregnancies. He can always come back and fight the rape bat-
tle after his goals of stopping the other abortions are achieved.
So let me suggest, the next time somebody tells you they believe
in a woman's right to choose; correct them - "You mean a woman's
right to kill".
The latest slogan I've heard bandied about is "A woman's reprod-
uctive rights". Here again, on the surface of it, it's hard to be
against a woman's right to reproduce; although I think they mean
"to not reproduce". This argument has the same shortcoming as
"the right to choose", and is actually the same argument, just
stated differently. The shortcoming is that once a woman discov-
ers that she is pregnant, she has already exercised her right to
reproduce, and now there is another person who has the right to
start their own family someday - her child. This is just another
right they have dreamed up for their own purposes. Certainly
nothing exists in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about a
woman's "reproductive rights". I think this reveals a disturbing
trend - the pro-abortion activists think that by attaching the
word "right" to anything they can make it a constitutional right;
and most of the supreme court justices follow this same method-
ology. Actually, the founding fathers of this country were very
clear about the rights they held to be indispensable, in the doc-
umentary foundation they laid out and passed on to guide those
who followed them. In the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of In-
dependence they clearly state their views on life: "WE hold these
Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are institut-
ed among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destruct-
ive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Found-
ation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety...".
Wise and visionary thoughts for their times, and I think it still
rings true today. Although the pro-abortionists prefer to scoff
at this; and many of our supreme court justices believe themselv-
es to be above it; I value my heritage and don't intend to ignore
it. Besides, when you stop and consider it thoroughly, you see
that "a woman's reproductive rights" is more a statement of the
problem, rather than the solution. In the view of the Christian
Coalition of America, "....ignored the Founders' self-evident
truth of a Creator-endowed priority of right to life. The liberal
vision of a utopian society of sexual freedom and empowerment un-
dermines the moral basis for a free society. A just society can-
not be founded on the death of children. The 'choice' argument
for abortion on demand also ignores the fact that a child in the
womb is a separate individual with their own inalienable rights.
'Choice' is a diversion from a legitimate discussion of the fund-
amental issue: When does life begin?". So I guess I'm not the on-
ly one who "gets it", although I think that a world with no pre-
marital sex may be another kind of unattainable utopian vision.
Abortionists like to point out that the Declaration of Independ-
ence is not a governing document. No matter, our citizenry deem-
ed the views expressed there so important that they later put
similar language into the Constitution through amendments.
Section One of Amendment XIV (14) states: "...nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the law."
A lot of people also seem to be fooled by a purported need for
population control. This is something that seems to come in and
out of favor every few years, and organizations are formed to
study and deal with it - until they realize that it's really not
a problem at all. If you've lived all your life in the New York,
Chicago, or Los Angeles urban areas, I can see why a person would
think overcrowding is a problem; but if you've ever driven out of
the city into the countryside - say on a trip to Florida - and
seen the vast open spaces in this country; this becomes an ob-
viously exaggerated concern. Why do you think farmers and ranch-
ers have such a tough time making a living? It's because so much
food is produced that it keeps prices at a level that is diffi-
cult to derive a profit from. Any perceived population problems
are political problems - not biological ones. By this I mean the
political structure of a country must be such that it encourages
and allows people to provide for themselves; that is, creates
conditions similar to what we have in the U.S. today. This is
more a tactic to get big contributors to ante up for population
control, so they think they're doing a good deed. Then the money
is used, at least in part, to support abortion.
Then there is the argument about the health of the mother. This
ignores the fact that an abortion is almost always fatal to the
child; although I've heard of a girl who was aborted and survived
and sometimes speaks before groups. Unfortunately, a third of her
generation wasn't so lucky. There's also a group of young people
out in California who call themselves the "Survivors", for ob-
vious reasons.
Even though people in this country profess to be of one religion
or another, and go to church in varying degrees, we are still
basically a secular society and religion is more of a social phe-
nomenon of belonging than someplace people refer to to shape be-
liefs that may be in a state of conflict. The Pope is adamantly
opposed to abortion; and yet Catholics seem to form their own
opinions on this and a host of other issues. The Lutheran church
has split into two branches: one opposes abortion; the other con-
dones it. The Jewish faith is strangely quiet, considering their
own holocaust in Germany. They don't seem to want to concern
themselves with other people's holocausts - kind of like the
world ignored what was happening in Germany during World War II.
To the many wonderful young Christian conservatives who are don-
ating their time and efforts to fighting this battle; keep up the
good work. But I would like to recommend that you leave your rel-
igion at home. People of other faiths often see this as an effort
to convert them to your religious beliefs and it becomes a relig-
ious issue to them rather than a shared concern. I believe this
issue transcends separate religions - it speaks to our very hum-
anity.
But I've gotten off task. I hadn't planned to get into all that
quite yet, but it just sort of came out. I set out to try to
solve some problems. We wanted to see if we could find any argu-
ments against having an abortion, and if there were any other
ways to resolve the problems spawned by an unplanned and unwanted
pregnancy. Let's see what we have on the side opposed to abort-
ion: A child is a human being irregardless of how small or how
young, whether inside or outside the mother; and therefore has
the right to choose to live. Since young children are unable to
express their desire to live, at least until they learn to talk;
it is reasonably certain that, like most of the population, they
would prefer to live rather than be killed; and should be pro-
tected by the law and adult population until they become a legal
adult at 18. This certainly appears to make sense: how could age
or location be the determinant of whether a person is a human be-
ing, and therefore protected by the law? It seems much more accu-
rate to apply a chromosome test to determine a person's humanity;
even then there might be more than one correct result. So it
looks like the "right to live" people are right; even though
they've had their claims rejected by courts all over the country.
On the other hand, before the Civil War, a large majority of peo-
ple in the South believed that slavery was alright (some still
do); so we see an example, not so long ago, in the annals of
human history, of how a majority of people can be very wrong on
an issue.
But this does nothing to do away with the concerns we discussed
earlier; and faced by the people in an unwanted child predica-
ment. But given the conclusions reached above, it no longer seems
equitable to have our child killed to avoid embarrassment. Democ-
rats criticize Republicans for wanting to stop abortion, but not
being willing to vote for the funds and programs to deal with the
problem. I think this is somewhat warranted, though it doesn't
justify having an abortion. As the feminist movement has changed
the way we regard premarital sex, society hasn't adapted to the
resulting problems. I believe massive federal and state funding
is needed to set up programs to deal with the problem of unplan-
ned pregnancies; programs that don't include abortion. However,
I don't believe a government bureaucracy is the answer either.
I think these funds should go mainly to private and religious
organizations to set up these programs. Many of the prototypes
probably already exist in one form or another. Conservatives al-
ready advocate adoption; it just needs to be on a much larger
scale; and obviously isn't going to reach that scale until some
of the other problems are solved. Where there is financial dif-
ficulty, the government should step in and pay for the doctor and
hospital bills without much questioning, except for proof of pre-
gnancy and lack of sufficient income of the person pregnant and
her spouse (if there is one). But once the mother is out of the
hospital, I don't believe the government should continue its sup-
port, because this might encourage some girls to get pregnant.
This is where adoption can play a role, where there aren't other
acceptable options; like parents of the girl becoming caretakers,
or the girl quitting school and going to work to support the
child. Additionally, alternative schools should be set up for
girls who become pregnant, so they can continue their education
without being subjected to the scorn of their peers, and maintain
a degree of confidentiality; and this should be done on a scale
sufficient to handle everybody who wants to get into the program.
And boarding school capabilities should be provided for those who
need it, until they can get on their feet again. Expensive, yes;
but if you're going to put a stop to the scourge of abortion, you
must provide viable alternatives. Further, I would like to pro-
pose that the major faiths opposed to abortion in this country
set aside their differences to unite in common cause to form a
National Committee Against Abortion to find what they can do in
concert to eradicate this curse from our society forever, and
help lead this country out of it's nightmare. Currently we have
Catholics and Jews thinking Protestants are trying to convert
them, and Protestants and Jews thinking abortion is a Catholic
birth control issue. Get it together.
I would like to offer a suggestion that is sure to be especially
controversial, but that I think is worthy of careful consider-
ation and discussion. During a time when people have to import
children from China to adopt, and dead baby parts are regularly
marketed for profit, it seems we could allow, to some extent, the
free market system to place a value on live babies, and allow
people to purchase unwanted children in this country from single
mothers; to encourage them to bear their children instead of hav-
ing an abortion. Instead of having to pay for an abortion, girls
could get paid for having their child. After all, not too long
ago lotteries were illegal. We probably wouldn't want to encour-
age people to have children just to make money, but with 1.2 mil-
lion abortions a year in this country and 2 million people want-
ing to adopt I think there would initially be about the right num-
ber of babies to go around and keep prices within reach for most
people wanting to adopt. Scholarships might be a good means of
payment for kids wanting to continue their education. Of course,
there would probably need to be some rules and regulations; but
not to the point that it would prevent this effort from being suc-
cessful. Perhaps there would need to be a limit on the price that
could be charged - after all we don't want to start a cottage in-
dustry. But we might want to let married women into the program
if they can show that they would otherwise have an abortion be-
cause they can't afford to support another child. In addition to
providing a free enterprise solution to the problem, if there
turned out to be an oversupply, government could step in and pay
for the surplus. They could then put the unneeded children in
places modeled after Boys Town and Hershey. At Hershey they used
to make the kids get up at daybreak to milk the cows.
So, what happens to unwanted children who are institutionalized
like this? Well, at Hershey, an alumnus of the Hershey orphanage
grew up to become the CEO of Hershey Foods. All he really needed
was a chance - and to be alive. And guess what? The kids don't
have to milk the cows anymore. But the reaction of the other
alumni to the change was mostly opposition; apparently they had
found memories of getting up early to milk the cows and felt it
was a character builder. If you were to delve into this further,
you would find many other success stories. From my own personal
experience, years ago I worked with a distinguished gentleman
who was an accountant, an especially hard worker, and a graduate
of Boys Town. What I'm advocating, is a political, or structural,
solution, instead of a biological one; that our society should be
able to work out.
"Sadly, today adoption is chosen by less than two percent of the
1.3 million single women who unexpectedly become pregnant each
year. This is tragic considering that there are over two million
screened and qualified couples waiting to adopt these children."
John C. Willke, M.D.
Recently, I found out that a government official overseas had
actually tried to implement this approach:
"In 2001, as Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's new
government took power, Minister Rocco Buttiglione proposed pro-
life legislation which aimed at encouraging women in crisis
pregnancies to decide against abortion. The proposal would have
seen women choosing to carry their children to birth given funds
to off-set child rearing costs for the first year of the babies'
lives. Moreover, the law would have required the biological
father's consent for abortions in the cases of minors.
'Many women have abortions because they can't afford (a child).
We propose to help them financially,' Buttiglione said at the
time. 'Others do so because their partners abandoned them or made
them feel guilty, or because they have a difficult relationship
with their parents. We propose individual or family therapy to
support them in these difficulties.'
Source: LifeSiteNews.com, a production of Interim Publishing
Publish Date: August 12, 2004 Online at:
http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040813/1".
Nor do I think we should let the guys off the hook just because
they're not the ones who get pregnant. They obviously played a
part in this. Given today's DNA based identification techniques
it should be easy to identify the father and hold him responsible
for helping to support the child if the girl decides to keep the
baby and she elects to pursue this course. Then if he fails to
comply off he goes to a special facility for guys in the same
predicament. Not because he's been bad, but because people have
to be held accountable for their actions and we have to get a
handle on this thing and stop the killing.
In sex education classes the emphasis should be taken off of "how
to" and placed on "why not"; and the problems that can result,
including the points I've mentioned above.
Establishment of the date of birth should also be changed by leg-
islation making it the date that a woman and her doctor agree is
the closest to the date the pregnancy commenced, or that science
can determine. If no scientific test exists to establish the sex
of the child at this early stage of development, this precludes
choosing a name; however, in lieu of this, a social security num-
ber could be assigned as an identifier for the individual. This
would then establish a legal existence, accountability, and equal
protection under the law. In other words, if no delivery of the
child was reported nine months hence, and there was no evidence
or record of a miscarriage occurring at a hospital, a missing per-
son investigation would have to be initiated. I realize this is a
radical change in the way people think about a child being "born".
But it really isn't that difficult. One of the definitions The
American Heritage Dictionary gives for the word "born" is "Brought
into existence; created". So, you see, it really does make sense.
Additionally, "fetus" is the Latin word for "young one" or "off-
spring". So something has been lost in the translation - or lack
of translation. It would be clearer and less misleading to use
the actual English terminology, rather than such a harsh sounding,
impersonal, and confusing term as "fetus". "young (y¾ng) adj.
young·er, young·est. 1. Being in an early period of life, develo-
pment, or growth. 2. Newly begun or formed 3. Of, belonging to,
or suggestive of youth or early life", from the American Heritage
Dictionary, which is the one I happen to have on my computer. So,
instead of saying "the fetus" in Latin, we would refer to "the
young one", in English. Instead of talking about the "fetal stage
of development", it would be more proper and easily understood to
say "the younger stage of development"; unless the person happens
to be an expert in Romance languages. "Youngest" would be quite
proper, too. Try it, after a while it will come naturally and
you'll start to like it. Problem is, right now, nobody else will
know what you're talking about, so there has to be some kind of
official transition. But it sure sounds a lot better than "fetus".
The media also needs to accept some responsibility and reevaluate
their role in this, as an educator of our children; intended or
not. The other night my wife rented a movie, and we watched "Home
Is Where The Heart Is". It is a wonderful movie, and I encourage
anyone who hasn't seen it yet to do so. It has a lot of good mes-
sages to convey, but I found myself wondering about the appropri-
ateness of a bedroom scene toward the end of the movie. Not be-
cause I'm against bedroom scenes per se; I think they have their
place. But this one seemed misplaced. Up until then the movie had
painted Forney (despite his name) as someone who probably would-
n't know what to do if he had the chance; or wouldn't even want
to out of respect for the girl. Not only was it out of character,
but it wasn't even a "good" sex scene; as if they were following
a formula that required them to put it in. I thought it would
have been more effective and realistic if they had just embraced
and kissed passionately, and he had blurted out that he loved her
etc., and would she marry him, but she didn't have to answer just
then. It got me thinking that the pendulum had swung too far from
sexual repression to sexual liberalness. Then I started wondering
about the episode where the two Christians kidnapped the baby....
"Even when sex isn't directly portrayed in the media, most kids
will tell you that there's a constant implication that everyone
does it, apparently without consequence." Psychologist Lynda
Madison, writing for TV Guide, June 23, 2001 issue.
The feminists so want to be the equal of men in all they do, and
I have no problem with that. But they should also take pride in
what they can do that men can't; which is to have children, the
most important role in continuing our species.
A culture that encourages sex, and then leaves women to make this
horrible decision on their own, is unfair to them, and a bonanza
for the mass killers like Planned Parenthood.
I don't blame abortion on the girls and women who go to the abor-
tion clinics. I think that in most cases we can assume that they
don't understand that they are taking the life of their child and
can't otherwise deal with the problems an unwanted pregnancy
brings. Perhaps they are also encouraged by their parents
(they've had children, they probably understand what they are
proposing). Perhaps they know their clergy condone it. The
society they live in seems to approve of it; it's thought to be
legal by some, depending on how you interpret the law, and which
law is applied, and whether you submit to bad laws. There are so
many pressures, how can they withstand them?
That's why it's also essential that we not only offer the carrot,
as I've done above, but also apply the stick, so that our society
sends no mixed signals on this issue, but very clearly says to
everybody that abortion is wrong, that abortion is against the
law, and that abortion is murder. I also propose that any legisl-
ation passed to support the above programs, and any anybody else
can come up with, include the following punishments for this of-
fense. A year of incarceration in a facility designed for that
crime for any woman convicted of having an abortion - 3 months
longer than the pregnancy would have lasted. As for the abortion
doctors, they have no excuse. They see their handiwork every day.
How could they not know? Greed has closed their eyes. They are
serial killers, who should be tried as such, retroactively, with
the expected outcome well deserved capital punishment. Over 1.2
million abortion-murders are performed in this country every year;
the latest figure I have seen is 41 million since Roe vs. Wade.
And who is ultimately responsible for this atrocity? Yes, atroc-
ity. And who knows how many worldwide? In the genocide in Rwanda,
only 500,00 were slain. In our own Civil War, about 620,000 were
killed. In Cambodia, 2,000,000. In Nazi Germany, 6,000,000 Jews
and Gypsies and the handicapped were sent to their deaths (can you
imagine a Nazi officer appearing before the Nuremberg war tribun-
al and saying "they weren't really people, they were Jews", like
we are being told by today's society that children aren't human;
or that the extermination of 6 million people was acceptable be-
cause it was legal), under Mao, in China, 20,000,000, and so on.
We have surpassed all these milestones. And who do we have to
hold responsible for saying this was legal, and opening the door
to it? Obviously, the Supreme Court, who have upheld the "right"
to abortion and cleared the way; who have had peaceful demonstra-
tors and their priest, demonstrating in a pre-approved location
outside the court, arrested, because they didn't want people to
hear their point of view. The majority of justices (Steven
Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg*, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter,
and John Paul Stevens) couldn't even find it in their hearts or
minds to ban partial-birth abortion; a procedure where in an
otherwise normal, full term, on time, delivery, a hole is poked
in the baby's head, its brains are vacuumed out, and the remain-
ing pieces sold according to prices on a parts list (you didn't
know that?). There was a gulf so wide between these judges and
their colleagues that the minority called the decision:
"illogical" and "indefensible"; "in which the mere invocation of
'abortion rights' trumps any contrary social interest", "a parti-
cularly virulent strain of constitutional exegesis"; "inclination
to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to
speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue"; "policy-judgment-
couched-as-law"; "visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-
born posterity is quite simply absurd"; and "Justice Scalia scof-
fed at the idea that 'a 5-4 vote on a policy matter by unelected
lawyers' should trump the will of 30 state legislatures". The
Presbyterian Theological Seminary aptly called it "Supreme Arrog-
ance". To make such a horrendous mistake is unjustifiable and in-
excusable. They have brought disgrace to the Supreme Court and to
the nation. They deserve contempt - not respect. The justices who
voted this into being are obviously unfit to sit on any court;
should be disbarred; and given the choice of resigning or being
impeached. This is another way to change the makeup of the
court, rather than just waiting for someone to retire. And it
would help to insure that future justices act responsibly, pro-
fessionally, and uphold the constitution; rather than just using
their influence to forward the latest social scheme. Given the
climate today, what better means of measuring a person's ration-
ality, objectivity, and competence, than beginning with their
views on abortion? Obviously, there is something amiss in the way
we select Supreme Court judges. There are different kinds of in-
telligence, and being erudite and having a high IQ and polit-
ical connections evidently doesn't guarantee that someone will
make good decisions.
*Ruth Bader Ginsburg - "Former counsel of the ACLU and as such
was a consistent champion of the ACLU's extremist legal agenda".
Alliance Defense Fund, February 2003.
*"As an ACLU lawyer in 1977, Ginsburg had helped draft a legal re-
port that recommended lowering the age of sexual consent nation-
wide to 12 years. Human Events was the first to report on her rad-
ical legal writings in support of legalized prostitution and ped-
ophilia (see July, 1993 issue.)" Human Events, Week of May 26, 2003
"Group of GOP Lawmakers Asks Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg To
Withdraw From Future Abortion-Related Cases
(Kaisernetwork) A group of 13 Republican members of the House of
Representatives on Thursday in a letter to Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the judge to recuse herself from any
future cases relating to abortion because of her connection with
the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Los Angeles Times
reports (Los Angeles Times, 3/19).
'Defining and defending women's reproductive rights has been a
hallmark' of the fund's litigation and legislative advocacy,
according to its Web site (NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
Web site, 3/19).
In the letter, the lawmakers -- Reps. Joe Pitts (Pa.), Dave Weldon
(Fla.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Sue Myrick (N.C.), Kevin Brady
(Tex.), Barbara Cubin (Wyo.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Todd Akin (Mo.),
Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Roscoe Bartlett
(Md.), Steve King (Iowa) and Chris Smith (N.J.) -- wrote that
they are concerned that Ginsburg has 'loan[ed] her name and
presence' to the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture
Series, which is co-sponsored by the NOW fund, because the fund
often files briefs with the Supreme Court.
The lawmakers wrote, 'As legislators, we believe your actions call
into question your ability to rule with impartiality on any case
involving abortion.' Ginsburg in a speech last week defended her
relationship with the NOW fund and said that Supreme Court
justices try to avoid withdrawing themselves from cases because
such a move could result in a tie vote on the court (Los Angeles
Times, 3/19). Source: Kaisernetwork Publish Date: March 19, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040319/3"
"Congressmen Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Dave Weldon of Florida
are among a group of Republican representatives that have written
Ginsburg in the wake of her recent speech to a women's legal group.
Their letter notes that the Internet home page of the NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund highlights the speaking engagement and
has photographs of Ginsburg standing next to the president of the
organization.
The lawmakers' letter points out to the justice that NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund, which was established in 1970 by the
founders of the National Organization for Women, is commonly known
to engage in lobbying on behalf of pro-abortion activists. NOW
Legal Defense regularly submits briefs to the Supreme Court on a
variety of cases.
The GOP congressmen say both the court's code of conduct and
federal law caution jurists about involvement in activities that
cast doubt on impartiality, and they say Ginsburg should therefore
remove herself from any cases related to the abortion issue.
Such conflicts of interest on the high court are troubling, not
only to lawmakers, but to citizens concerned about sanctity-of-
life and civil rights issues. A spokesman for a leading pro-life
group warns that if society fails to protect the most basic civil
right of all -- the right to be born -- then feminists and pro-
abortion groups will continue to demand the so-called 'right' to
kill unborn children." From: "Congressmen Request Justice's
Abstention After Pro-Abortion Ties Revealed", AgapePress, March
26, 2004, By: Fred Jackson, Rusty Pugh, and Jenni Parker
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040329/3
So, this is the caliber of person President Clinton, and the Dem-
ocrats, nominate to the Supreme Court. That's because, the only
way they can get an agenda of abortion and pedophilia approved is
through the courts. The Ashcroft Justice Department has cracked
down on pedophilia, but can't do anything about abortion because
the Supreme Court legalized it. Legalized prostitution is still
on the agenda of international feminists. I'm not going to expand
on that further, or make any effort to convince you of it, because
it's a different subject. But I mentioned it to give you an in-
sight into how these views are often associated. Abortion is the
issue that most concerns me - because it kills people.
"Top UNICEF official calls for legalized and unionized prostitut-
ion On Tuesday, a high ranking UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) of-
ficial called for the legalization of prostitution Speaking at
the annual session of UNICEF’s Executive Board, Urban Jonsson,
UNICEF Eastern and Southern African Regional Director urged that
UNICEF take actions to 'de-criminalise sex-work and facilitate
the organisation of sex-workers.' Jonsson's comments are sure to
fuel the growing suspicion that UNICEF has departed significant-
ly from its central mission of protecting poor children from dis-
ease, hunger and death. There is a feeling among many that UNICEF
has ventured more into promotion of what some see as a radical
notion of women’s rights, especially under Executive Director
Carol Bellamy." Written by Douglas Sylva, Phd., for FRIDAY FAX
June 6, 2003, Volume 6, Number 24, C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human
Rights Institute), 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427 New York,
New York 10017 Just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up.
And what of President Clinton, that stalwart defender of a
woman's right to kill her offspring? He's no dummy, I think he
knew the truth too, but thought his political advantage lay with
the pro-abortion crowd. Frankly, I thought the whole impeachment
business was pretty silly; trying to catch him on some technical
violation of the law. What they should have been impeaching him
for was using the federal government to support abortion. And
what happens when somebody shoots up an abortion clinic or abort-
ion doctor to try to save the children he is butchering? Presi-
dent Clinton sends out an FBI team to find the shooter, compl-
etely ignoring the serial killer/abortionist and the mountains
of evidence in the filing cabinets. To the FBI I would like to
say "Next time, just say no!". Or don't say anything and don't
do anything. Don't put yourself in the same category as the Nazi
SS. What should he do? He should pardon the person who did the
shooting, bring him to Washington, pin a medal on him in front of
the TV cameras, and give him (or her) a parade down Pennsylvania
Avenue! And then we had Vice President Gore guaranteeing every-
body he would continue the Clinton support of the abortion atro-
city.
Dick Armey, on Bill Clinton: "the most successful adolescent I
have ever known . . . (He) was basically like a prep guy saying:
'Where's the next Party? I love this job. Look at the parties.
What a great limo.'" From a column in Human Events by Marvin
Olasky, "The Week of December 23, 2002". On a more somber note:
Gary Bauer, on Bill Clinton: "For eight years Clinton ignored the
danger that was gathering around us. Now we face a very perilous
situation today." CWF - End of Day -- February 19, 2003
There is a new Civil War going on in this country, much more vio-
lent than the first one, in the 1860's, and the fatalities are
much higher. The violence is propagated almost entirely by the
side called the "Abortionists", and its savagery is so intense
that its defenseless victims are literally pulled apart while
still alive, and the remaining pieces then butchered and sold for
the highest price. The rules of engagement require that the de-
fenders can only demonstrate at distances too great to save the
victims, and if they themselves should in any way engage in viol-
ence or intimidation they are immediately arrested and thrown in-
to jail or prison with no certainty that they will ever be releas-
ed. By the time you finish reading this, I think that you will
agree with what I have just said. Worldwide, abortion is the most
catastrophic atrocity ever perpetrated by mankind.
What have we become? Is ours a sick society? We have turned on
ourselves; we mutilate and murder our own children. Where have
our values gone? As we destroy our most precious commodity, we
destroy ourselves. Our leaders hide behind slogans and phrases
like pro-choice and pro-life and refuse to debate or even discuss
what is really going on! Can it be possible this is happening in
America? Yes, it is possible, and it is happening, at the rate of
1.5 million abortion-murders each year. Who will be next, if this
is allowed to continue? Ever notice the handicapped always seem
to oppose abortion? Watch out, Stephen Hawking. Frankly, I'm a
little nervous myself, with the Clinton administration, where
might makes right. But maybe the cause could use a martyr. I'll
probably be branded as mentally unstable. Maybe that's good, be-
cause I can take an insanity plea. But where could I find a psyc-
hiatrist who would lie? When will voluntary euthanasia go to man-
datory for those swelling the social security roster? Well, it
won't happen as long as the baby boom generation can vote. But
that's the problem with our youngest citizens. They can't vote,
or even say what they think, so they can't sway the politicians;
who make decisions based on what they think the polls tell them
the masses want; instead of trying to lead based on principles.
They're obviously more interested in personal gain than what's
right.
A couple of days after the 5-4 Supreme Court decision on partial-
birth abortions I was in the barber shop and the national evening
news was on the TV. They were doing a report on preemies, and the
probability that they might have developmental problems. They
showed several children that had been born prematurely and had
disabilities. But guess what? Most people probably didn't think
anything of it, but they didn't show any children who were born
prematurely but were doing fine or even excelling; even though
their own statistics showed that that was the case for the major-
ity of premature births. So already the ultra liberal media was
beginning to move up the ladder with their killing philosophy. I
suppose a logical extension of this approach would be to include
mothers who drank or smoked or took drugs while they were preg-
nant, and ultimately to deliver only perfect, no-defect, babies.
Lately I've noticed it's become fashionable to disparage Presid-
ent Reagan's intelligence. I'm not personally aware of any anec-
dotal evidence about anything he said or did, or any other kind
of evidence, that would indicate this is true. I'm not sure how
this got started - maybe someone just says something with the
implied assumption that everybody knows that. Anyway, there were
a couple of things about him that especially impressed me.
Early one Sunday morning I set out to get a Sunday paper. There
seemed to be nobody else out and about at that early hour. When
I reached the commercial thoroughfare from my side street, I
looked to my right and there was a black limo parked about half-
way down the block, in front of a small Republican campaign head-
quarters. Reagan had been running for governor of California,
and I knew he was going around thanking the volunteers. Not
particularly enamored of such things, I turned left and walked
in the other direction. When I reached the middle of the block
across the street from the store I was headed for, I turned to my
right and looked to see if any traffic was coming. Standing just
outside the headquarters, by himself, was the new Governor of
California. For a split second our eyes met, as if he wanted
to shake my hand too; and in that instance I understood what was
meant by charisma. Later, after I had time to ponder it, I real-
ized the Kennedys had had it too.
The other trait that President Reagan had that impressed me was
that he always seemed to do the right thing, to make the right
decision. And I certainly don't remember any incidents like at-
tacking American civilians with a tank because they were defend-
ing their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms ("the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"), and burn-
ing them up in their church! Do you? Or using the full power of
the federal government in support of the abortion industry. Or
using armed force with automatic weapons to return a small boy,
whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom, to Cuba to be
brainwashed by Castro's police state like his father and the rest
of the Cuban populace (what a strange twist of fate). Or not res-
ponding when the Cuban government shot down two American planes
in international waters. Or applauding when the Russian govern-
ment shot up their own parliament building. Or creating a scandal
that rocked the nation and distracted the government for months.
But I guess it's where you put the emphasis. The church people
become a "cult" with "guns". They should apply those resources to
get illegal guns held by criminals in our big cities off the
streets. A friend of mine and his family put their mattresses on
the floor and sleep there on New Years Eve because of all the
wild gunfire; and there's somebody murdered every day. Just the
other day there was a girl shot to death in her bed from the
street while she slept. So why were they so bent on confiscating
the guns of people with no criminal record who posed no threat
to anybody if they were just left alone? Then they couldn't admit
they made a mistake, and continued to make matters worse. It
brought to mind the lynching of Joseph Smith in Carthage, Illin-
ois, June 27th, 1884. Smith was the founder of the Mormon
Church (Church of Latter-day Saints); which was also founded
in this country and has continued to thrive despite his premature
death. More recently, I was reminded of it by the disturbing
church burning scene in the movie "The Patriot". At least the
people at Waco were having children, instead of killing them -
which is the policy of the mainstream Methodist church; except in
the case of partial-birth abortion. Have you forgotten "Thou
shalt not kill?" They seem to think themselves above the ten com-
mandments. The refugee case was presented as a custody case
(Did Hillary or Janet Reno put that spin on it?). Why should Bill
pay any attention at all to what Castro has to say about it? Or
was Elian the victim of a movement to reestablish trade with
Cuba? Castro certainly knew how to play it. Maybe it was a comb-
ination of these reasons. The planes shot down were piloted by
"Cuban" Americans. The Parliament was filled with the bad guys, I
guess; kind of like Republicans.
So there is a pattern of poor judgment here, and an attack on our
rights as a free people - both figuratively and literally: the
sanctity of the church and people to worship as they see fit; the
safety of our homes; the right of law abiding citizens to bear
arms as a restraint to governments; even the sanctity of life it-
self, without which a nation can not be considered truly civiliz-
ed. When something tragic happens, I always want to look for the
root cause - not just at what is being currently reported. A lot
of today's problems have roots in the past, if only we can make
the connection. In both the Waco and refugee cases the situations
should have just been left alone. Where there was only a minor
problem at first, government intervention forced a major confron-
tation that had tragic consequences. Not only did a lot of people
- women and children - die at Waco; but it was followed by the
Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City that caused even more
fatalities. I know most people couldn't understand the connect-
ion; but the motive for the courthouse bombing was very, very,
very clearly what happened at Waco. For instance, why do you sup-
pose the bomb went off on the anniversary of Waco? It was the
other shoe dropping. On the other hand, two wrongs don't make a
right, and I want to make it clear that I am in no way condoning
or supporting what occurred at Oklahoma City.
And it is quite possible that if Cuban Americans had been flying
their planes over the waters between Cuba and Florida looking for
refugees in trouble they would have spotted them and called for
help and the drowning never would have occurred. That administra-
tion seemed to have to impose their judgments on others; and the
most tragic and heartbreaking example of this is government sup-
port for abortion. Again, they could have just left it alone, and
so many lives would have been saved. It bothers me how people
dutifully fall in line and accept things that need to be given
more thought and questioned more thoroughly.
In contrast, President Reagan unified us and made us proud of our
government. In his acceptance speech for the Republican presiden-
tial nomination, he showed he cared about people with his deep
concern over the genocide going on in Cambodia. Ronald Reagan's
son wrote, not too long ago, "I am reminded of a challenge issued
by my father.., during his final week in office: '...When Roe v.
Wade goes - as I have faith it must - the way of Dred Scott and
'separate but equal', a new debate will rise in... our land. And
the voice that I believe must be heard and, in the end, shall be
heard over all the others is the voice of life...'. Dad's chall-
enge was that we prepare now to be part of that 'voice of life'
in the great debate ahead, and he asked: 'Can I count on you?'".
President Reagan knew that this was an issue which ultimately
could have only one possible resolution.
President Reagan cared so profoundly about the abortion issue that
while President he wrote a distinguished essay called "Abortion
and the Conscience of the Nation", which was published in Human
Life Review. There's more about that further down in the document.
I miss the days when I thought I could vote Democrat or Republi-
can; but to say you are a Democrat today - to vote for a Democ-
rat today - is tantamount to saying you favor infanticide; so
closely have their positions on this issue become associated with
the two parties. There are also some Republicans I can not vote
for, for the same reason; and to straddle or try to ignore the
issue raises serious questions about someone's qualifications to
lead this country. But, as Mary Lou Gartner stated so well, writ-
ing for LIFEPAC of Pennsylvania, "The Republican Party was born on
the principle that no human being should be considered the prop-
erty of another, and on a repudiation of the Dred Scott decision
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Abortion is the 'right-or-wrong' issue
of our times. We should parallel the words of Abraham Lincoln to-
day and say: 'The Republican Party looks upon abortion as a wrong
and the Democratic Party does not look upon it as a wrong. That's
the crucial difference between the two parties.'" I hope the
Republican Party "stays the course", and I wish African Americans
would pay a little more attention to history.
I had to become very knowledgeable about the abortion issue be-
fore I learned that not all Democrats are pro-abortion. They are
so quiet and few in number that they are totally overshadowed and
dominated by their noisier brethren. But they do have some influe-
nce in the Congress. Still, I like Ann Coulter's idea that the
Democrats should change their name to the "Abortion Party". It
better reflects the fact that the party is in the abortion indust-
ry's pocket; and totally under the control of radical leftists.
I define myself as a conservative intellectual. Conservative, be-
cause that's how I think others would classify my views. Intel-
lectual, because I develop my own ideas and opinions, and don't
accept conservative dogma. I get a lot of Republican literature
in the mail, because you have to register as something; and when-
ever they ask me my opinion, I'm very free with it, as you might
guess. But when they ask me if I'm a Republican, I always check
the no box, because I don't blindly accept whatever policy decis-
ions they come up with. Well, you know, intellectuals, thinkers,
are often thought to be strange, because they don't conform to
society's norms; and I do some strange things. For example, I col-
lect books, on the cheap, on things I'm interested in. What's
even stranger, is that when the boxes of books pile up enough, I
have no problem with letting my wife build me another barrister
bookcase. I hope that someday I'll have time to actually read
them.
Anyway, it's very interesting just to read the book club re-
views, and one of my latest acquisitions is "The Monk In The
Garden". More specifically, it's about peas, and the lifetime he
spent raising them. Apparently, this wasn't much appreciated at
the time, and there's even speculation he might have been excom-
municated if he had been a more assertive type of person. Some
time after his death, the ramblings he had recorded on his peas
were rediscovered, and today he is regarded as the father of gen-
etics. Here was someone I could identify with, because for many
years I had been an avid gardener myself. It got me outside, til-
ling the soil was good exercise, I enjoyed planting a wide var-
iety of seeds, nurturing and protecting the plants, and of course
the harvest. It's kind of amazing, actually, how quickly the
the plants grow once they spring from the seeds. By the time I no
longer had time to garden, my fruit and nut trees were mature
enough to give me a similar satisfaction. Sometimes trees are
pollinated by the wind, sometimes by bees, and some are self-pol-
linating. I've had especially good luck with peach trees. In good
years the trees are covered with blossoms, and once fertilized,
the peaches develop quite rapidly. The fleshy part of the peach,
that we eat, of course surrounds the pit, which contains the seed.
The peach seed, like my garden seeds, and Gregor Mendel's peas,
contains the complete genetic makeup, or code; the chemical blue-
print, that developed after fertilization; and would be needed
to grow a new tree (assuming that after fertilization it develop-
ed normally). So here's the point I've been leading up to: it's
basically still a seed; a seed in an egg-like envelopment; no-
body would argue that a peach is a peach tree. Please don't hate
me Judie Brown, but I believe that a fertilized egg is only a
seed until it is presented with the conditions that will stimul-
ate it to start growing. In other words, I don't believe human
life begins until the blastocyst plants itself, takes root,
securely attaches itself to the womb; and begins to receive the
nourishment that it has to have to grow. This position also makes
it much easier to find common ground with people who believe in
a variety of birth control methods, but have reservations about
abortion.
I can think of a parallel in the animal kingdom also. Although I'm
not going to pretend to be an expert on chickens, as I remember it
the hen lays the eggs, and then the rooster fertilizes them. But
even though the eggs are fertilized, when we're having breakfast
we don't say we're having chicken for breakfast - we say we're
having eggs for breakfast. The eggs would have to be sat upon, or
incubated, to turn into chickens. It's just common sense.
Or, let's look at it using yet a another analogy. Let's imagine,
for a moment, that I'm a neophyte research scientist trying
to create human life outside the womb. I have very powerful micr-
oscopes, and very tiny instruments. With the left robotic arm, I
pick up an egg harvested from my wife (in reality she would never
let me do this experiment - maybe she has more sense than I do),
and place it in a tiny petri dish. With the right robotic arm I
pick up a sperm and place it in the same petri dish. I then pick
up my miniature dish and tilt it so that the contents roll off in-
to a miniature mixing bowl. Next, I turn on the blender and mix
for ten minutes. All the elements are present that make up a hum-
an being; but at the end of this process, do I have a human being
or do I have a scrambled egg?
Let's look at it from a third angle; an entirely opposite perspe-
ctive. I'll be the experimentor, and you'll be the experimentee.
I'll have you go stand in front of a wall, about six feet from me.
Then I'll pull out a .357 magnum pistol, and shoot you through
the heart. Would you then be a living person, or a dead person?
"That's totally ridiculous", you say, "obviously I'd be dead.
What's your point?" Then I would say "Everything is genetically
present that defines you as a person, and that's what some people
use to prove that a zygote, and then the blastocyst, are people,
even though the blastocyst will never grow beyond about 100-150
cells if it never manages to attach itself to the womb; and there
are a lot more cells than that still in your body even though you
claim to be dead." "That's completely absurd", you say, not real-
ly picking up on my argument, "without my heart to pump blood to
my brain I would be considered clinically dead in short order".
"That's the point, I say, you would consider yourself dead when
your heart and brain stopped functioning. Then how can you claim
that a blastocyst that hasn't yet implanted in the uterus and has
no trace of a heart or brain is a living person, on the other end
of the spectrum?" Silence. You just sit there and ponder the turn
of events. Then, it strikes you: "Yes, you say, but the zygote is
potential human life, and that's not true of me, because I just
died!" "Well, I say, the zygote, or even the blastocyst, is far
from a sure thing. My wife was pregnant four times, and one of
those pregnancies ended in a miscarriage. At the time, the doctor
told us that 1 in 7 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Potential
human life is not the same thing as actual human life. Just be-
cause an egg is fertilized doesn't mean it will be able to attach
itself to the womb. It may just wash out, or not develop normally;
and, as a result, the woman will never even become pregnant. How-
ever, even though you're clinically dead, doesn't mean that all
possibility of being a living person has passed. I'll dial 911,
we'll rush you to the hospital, and they should be able to salv-
age enough living cells to deposit in a tissue bank. Then, in a
few years, we'll have you cloned. Why not, you probably won't
even remember that I shot you! Despite this, I do agree with you,
that you are a dead person, even though you could be reborn at
some future time. But, by the same line of reasoning, I do not
agree that a blastocyst is a living person, just because it might
become one someday." Crazy, huh? But I think it helps show that
this question of when human life begins is not as clear cut as
some would have us believe. There's room for some compromise here.
I think there may have to be some objectivity involved to get a
consensus to eliminate abortion, and get a majority to agree on
legislation to resolve this issue. We desperately need to get more
agreement - more people on the same page. That's why I keep coming
back to these paragraphs.
I know it's not good science, and that they're extreme examples.
But I think it's sufficient reason to send some self-proclaimed
ethicists back to their drawing boards.
For the sake of brevity in discourse I'll phrase it one more way.
Every cell in our bodies carries our complete genetic code. But
we don't call them people, because we know that they are only a
very small part of the entire entity we call a person. They lack
very important attributes, like a brain and a heart. On the other
hand, once the blastocyst has completed its attachment to the ut-
erus, which is necessary for a woman to know that she is pregnant,
stem cell differentiation takes place with extreme rapidity. I've
already mentioned how soon the heart and brain begin detectable
functioning (they may be operating earlier, but we aren't able to
measure it). Further down, I cite a reliable source, that states
that "500,000 brain cells are forming every minute". If it were-
n't for the credibility of the source it would be difficult to
believe something we can't possibly comprehend. But I did find an
occurrence in nature that was more comprehensible to me. Last sum-
mer Cardinals built their nest right outside our dining room win-
dow. What colors! I instantly grabbed my camera, thinking I would
be able to document this for several weeks. And of course the baby
birds were so cute when they hatched out, and it seemed like they
were about 50% outstretched jaw, begging to be fed. Again, it
wouldn't count as good science, but it seemed like only a couple
of days before they were physically full grown and had flopped
out of the nest. I'll never know if mamma bird found her one
chick. But it was a very visible, outside the body, demonstration
of how quickly these developmental processes can progress.
I'm emphasizing this because I don't think pro-life forces should
be squandering their time and resources trying to convince every-
body that life begins at fertilization, or in opposition to blast-
ocyst research - and this is the only way I have a chance of get-
ting them to consider my views on this matter. It just hurts their
future credibility when they are arguing against abortion in the
more urgent, crucial, and winnable, pregnancy period debate.
We should structure our strategy around a top-down approach, from
the least difficult goal to obtain to goals that will be harder
and will take longer to achieve. For example, beginning with par-
tial-birth abortion, then moving on to third trimester abortions,
then parental and spousal approval, and so on. Each decision we
can prevail in will save thousands of lives. Exactly when a human
being's personhood begins is potentially a much more difficult is-
sue to get agreement on, and intertwined with strong religious be-
liefs and practical considerations. We don't want them whispering
in the halls of Congress "you know, they believe taking birth con-
trol pills is abortion". The opposition would love us for that,
and I doubt the American public would ever buy into it; or there
would be a huge black market in birth control pills, and a lot of
very angry people. A lot of pro-life groups I follow and support,
are, I believe, making this mistake. My concern, in this case, is
also that the science follows the lead of Church doctrine. That's
not bad if they're right, but they are human beings just like you
and I. I'm well aware that because of this view several pro-life
organizations don't consider me to be pro-life. Despite this, I
haven't seen any arguments that would cause me to change my mind,
and that continues to be my opinion. They seem to me to be a bit
too doctrinaire and intolerant of the views of others. What do
you think? Part of the value of this web site is its independence.
"Poll after poll shows women are more pro-life than pro-abortion."
However, "Unless our efforts to stop abortion in America are co-
ordinated--unless we all work together as a team--the carnage will
continue unabated." Jane Abraham - President, Susan B Anthony List
Some legislation has been passed to only affect elective abortion.
"'Elective abortion' is defined......as not including the use of
drugs and devices intended for use as contraceptives...not includ-
ing cases that necessitate 'the termination of the woman's preg-
nancy to avert her death.'" The Ryan Report, January 2001
This is one way of being sure laws don't apply to birth control.
Another way to do the same thing is to pass laws against "abort-
ion-on-demand"; because no one could demand an abortion without
first being pregnant. Continuing on with this investigative reas-
oning, I think it is correct to say that all human life begins at
the moment of fertilization, but that it is incorrect to say
that a human being exists at the moment of fertilization. Let me
explain further. The blastocyst journeys down the Fallopian Tube
and into the Uterus and successfully attaches itself. It then de-
velops very rapidly into a human being, who lives to be ninety
years old. I would think it accurate to say that individual's life
began at the moment of fertilization. But if the blastocyst just
floats downstream, is unable to attach for some reason, and then
flushes out, I would say that a human life never existed, or ever
developed, and therefore can not be traced back to the moment of
fertilization. Well, think about it. It's not an easy concept.
Furthermore, since a woman doesn't know she's pregnant until im-
plantation occurs, and consequently wouldn't seek an abortion un-
til then; the only purpose of defining conception as occurring at
the moment of fertilization (some biology books define it at as
being at implantation) in a Life At Conception Bill would seem to
be an attempt to ban birth control and morning after pills accord-
ing to Catholic teaching (either pill "might" prevent implant-
ation) - and I find that disturbing.
Here, again, we see language playing an important role. The terms
pregnancy and conception can have different meanings to different
people. For instance, for someone not too into biology, or who
has had a conservative Catholic upbringing, they don't think twice
about the meaning of the word "conception" - it implies fertiliz-
ation to them. However, since 1965, the American College of Ob-
stetrics and Gynecology has held that "Conception is the implant-
ation of the fertilized ovum." Out in California pro-abortionists
are drafting legislation that specifically states that human life
begins at implantation - not fertilization; which makes absolute-
ly no sense from their point of view because it is an admission
that what they want to kill is indeed a person - but they're too
focused on their fear of losing their right to birth control pills
to see the contradiction at this juncture. Likewise, the term pre-
gnancy implies different things to different people. To me, the
beginning of pregnancy logically occurs when the mother receives
the chemical message from her child that says "I'm locked in mom",
and her body begins to make changes to accommodate that presence;
such as the cessation of ovulation that causes her to miss her
period, changes in her breasts to prepare for feeding, and so on.
Other people would consider the start of pregnancy to begin at
the same time as fertilization, even though the mother has no way
of knowing what has occurred at that point. So it's much more pre-
cise to talk in terms of fertilization and implantation. However,
implantation, beginning perhaps 3 to 7 days after fertilization,
is itself not very precise, because it can go on for a week from
the time it begins until it is complete. And if fertilization oc-
curs in the uterus, implantation will not occur at all. But at
some point beginning during the implantation period an explosion
of growth commences with such rapidity as to be difficult to com-
prehend as being possible for a living organism.
Scripture says "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you". But
even if you believe this it can not mean the moment of fertiliza-
tion, because if fertilization occurs in the womb a person can
never form and there would be no one to have ever known.
Likewise, "embryo" is another slippery and loosely used term. The
American Heritage Dictionary, which is the one I happen to have
on my computer, and also have confidence in, defines embryo thus-
ly: "In human beings, the prefetal product of conception from im-
plantation through the eighth week of development." In other
words, under this definition, you couldn't have an embryo without
a uterus to implant into, you couldn't have a person without an
embryo, and all the talk about frozen embryos, embryo farms, em-
bryonic stem cells, embryo research, embryonic people, and so on,
becomes nonsense; just as it does under my theory that the blast-
ocyst is only the seed and can never be more than that until the
placenta plants itself in the uterus and takes root there and be-
gins to send nourishment to what now very quickly becomes the em-
bryo. What is really being debated then, is what can be done with
the pre-embryonic stage (blastocyst, or seed), and not what can
be done with the embryo, or embryonic person. Without a uterus,
the blastocyst isn't going to become a person under current tech-
nology, because the placenta is a marvel of engineering that we
haven't been able to duplicate yet - as I understand it. I don't
pretend to be an expert in these things, and I keep waiting, and
looking for, the arguments that will undermine what I've said a-
bove, but it's going on three years now and I haven't found any-
thing that would even begin to unravel my reasoning. That does-
n't mean that I'm campaigning for "embryo" research though, be-
cause the advances that have been made so far with stem cells,
and which are truly remarkable, have all come from adult stem
cells, according to what I've seen; and for which it is claimed
can be turned into any other type of cell. After all, that's the
definition of what a stem cell is. Plus, umbilical cord blood
stem cell treatments are beginning to show promise, too. But no-
body is claiming that clusters of umbilical cord blood, or adult,
stem cells, are separate people.
But the truth about what constitutes an embryo is being ignored
publicly by people I know know better. The reason for this dis-
honesty, I believe, is sometimes religious, and sometimes politi-
cal. Religious to advance church teaching and curry favor within
the church; and political to gain favor with voters who by large
pluralities oppose and fear cloning. But I'm not sure these ex-
planations cover the whole spectrum of reasons; I suspect there
may still be factors involved that I don't yet understand.
As I approached the publication of my book, for which this web
site will be the centerpiece (due out in early spring of 2004, at
which time I will place an order link at the top of the document),
I felt the need to be more scientific in my explanation, so that
people wouldn't think this was just conjecture on my part. After
three failed attempts to buy a used medical textbook on half.com,
I was able to purchase the following book: "Williams Obstetrics",
20th Edition, by Cunningham, MacDonald, Gant, Leveno, Gilstrap,
Hankins and Clark; a commonly used medical textbook first publ-
ished in 1902 and updated on a regular basis since then. My edit-
ion was published in 1997. I chose this book because it was re-
commended by CBR (much more about them later). CBR uses it when
somebody in the media, or otherwise, claim that their aborted em-
bryo and fetus pictures are inaccurate or fake; by referring the
person to the book and then threatening to sue them if the alleg-
ations are repeated. So far, they haven't had to sue anybody. Of
course the book's objective isn't to make the same point I'm mak-
ing, so I have to try to work around the medical terminology and
pick out what's relevant to the issue I'm discussing:
"Early Human Development Definitions. The definitions that fol-
low are taken from Moore (1973, 1988).
Zygote: The cell that results from the fertilization of the ovum
by a spermatozoan.
Blastomeres: Mitotic division of the zygote (cleavage) gives rise
to daughter cells called blastomeres.
Morula: The solid ball of cells formed by 16 or so blastomeres.
Blastocyst: After the morula reaches the uterus a fluid filled
cavity is formed converting the morula to a blastocyst.
[According to this all you get without a uterus is a morula, and
definitely not an embryo.]
Embryo: The embryo-forming cells, which are grouped together as
an inner cell mass, give rise to the embryo, which usually is so
designated when the bilaminar embryonic disc forms. The embryonic
period extends until the end of the seventh week, at which time
the major structures are present."
So my contention is that a ball of cells, apparently 16 in this
example, does not constitute a person. Moreover, a study of blast-
ocysts described in the book used samples taken from the uterine
cavity - not grown outside it - although I won't say it would be
impossible to do that. The caption for a picture in the book says
"C. 107-cell blastocyst found in uterine cavity about 5 days aft-
er conception". The book seems to use the term conception rather
loosely, depending on what it is talking about. The 107-cell
blastocyst is then described in the text: "8 formative cells (em-
bryo producing) were surrounded by 99 trophoblastic cells." So
here we have 8 cells that some people would ha