link below or scroll down to view all:
Has the Right to Life
is the Taking of Another Human Life
Law Can Truly
& The "Don't Impose Your Morality" Argument
Mother Has No Right to Take an Innocent Life
"It's My Body" Argument
Have Choices Other Than Abortion
is Not a Solution
'Pro-Choice' Position is Deceptive and Untenable
"I Am Personally Opposed, But..." Argument
is a gift from God.
Every individual has the
inalienable right to life. Even the U.S. Constitution speaks of the right to life.
have no right to take an innocent life, even if doing so would make
our life more 'convenient'.
life that is born is no more valuable than pre-born life. Both are made
in the image and likeness of God. The one big difference is that the
unborn can't speak up to defend themselves, therefore they must rely on
others to be their voice.
far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is
absolutely equal to all others...Before the moral norm which prohibits
the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being 'there are no
privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one
is the master of the world or the 'poorest of the poor' on the face of
the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely
equal'." (Pope John Paul II)
life is sacred because from its beginning it involves 'the creative
action of God', and it remains forever in a special relationship with
the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its
beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for
himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being."
(Pope John Paul II)
is no disputing that abortion kills children - it is the taking of
another human life. Abortionists know it, doctors and scientists know it, even the legal system sometimes unwittingly
admits it. One cannot
deny this truth without dismissing all the scientific evidence to the
contrary. Click here for information on the unborn baby
abortion, not only does the death of a child take place within its own
mother's body, but it is done in a violent and gruesome manner. Click
here for information on the abortion procedure
you are not yet convinced that abortion kills children, simply look at a
picture of an aborted baby. Notice the small hands, the small feet, the
fingers and the toes. If you must, watch a video of an abortion and
watch the baby try to dodge the instruments used to kill it. Ask an
abortionist about babies that have come out alive. Look into fetal
development (click here for information on the unborn
baby). There is no
doubt about it, abortion kills a living human being. Abortionists have
even admitted this is true. Click here for more information
human person, no matter how vulnerable or helpless, no matter how young
or how old, no matter how healthy, handicapped or sick, no matter how
useful or productive for society, is a being of inestimable worth,
created in the image and likeness of God." (Pope John Paul II)
right to life does not come from the state. It comes from God alone.
When the seven Supreme Court Justices arrogated to themselves the
'legalization' of abortion, they completely ignored or discarded all the
scientific evidence that the victim was a human being - as if it simply
did not matter that what was to be killed was a living human child.
kind of misinterpretation of the laws of this country could discard the
"inalienable right" (that is: "a right incapable of being repudiated,
a right not subject to forfeiture") of life, indicated in the
Constitution of the United States, in favor of a so-called 'right to
privacy'? Since when does a so-called 'right to privacy' trump the most
basic right to live?
murder based on privacy? Our country has actually granted a 'legal
right' to one person to kill another innocent person simply because she
does not want that person? Where will this lead? Most everyone - including
you and your loved ones - will probably be considered a
"burden" or "inconvenience" for another at some
point. Does that simple fact give another the right to kill you or your loved
ones? Of course not! Allowing abortion is a "slippery
only way such a 'right' could even become 'legalized' is by declaring
the unborn 'non-persons'. They simply ignored or discarded all the
inconvenient evidence that the baby was a living human being. It didn't
matter that they were really persons or that they were really being
killed. They were simply declared 'non-persons.' This 'convenient
labeling', however, does not change the reality - the unborn are no less
persons than you, only smaller in size, despite what the court calls
them. (Click here for more
information) Remember that the last time
seven Supreme Court Justices declared a whole group of people
'non-persons' was when they declared that black persons were not
persons. Slavery was also made 'legal', but that didn't make it right!
Clearly, human laws aren't always just.
is murder. The average person would be repulsed by a mother
killing her 3 month old baby simply because she considers it convenient.
They would never say she had a 'right' to do such a horrible thing. This
is the same little child that was, however, only a few months earlier,
inside her womb. What is the difference? In both cases the child is
dependent, in both cases, it is a person. Why is it our laws don't even
allow the indiscriminate killing of criminals, but allow the killing of
innocent children inside the womb?
laws changed to allow abortion decades ago not because the previous laws
were wrong, but because there was pressure from "fringe
groups". The change was not even a mandate of the public (not that
public support could make abortion acceptable). One
former abortionist admitted that they lied about how many people wanted
abortion before its legalization (they said 85% when was 5%) in order to
help change the law. Fortunately now, after so many long decades and
lives lost, there is growing public concern over abortion.
this is because people have seen how abortion hurts women (click here
for more information). Perhaps they have finally realized the fetus is
human (click here for
information). Perhaps they have realized that
there has been a campaign of misinformation (click here for more
information). Perhaps they have come to realize the slogans and terms
used are lies (click here for
information). Maybe they have been shocked to learn of the actual abortion
procedure (click here for
more information) or what is done with aborted babies afterwards (click here for more
information). Maybe people are finally starting to really think about
this issue in a truthful manner. Let's pray what was once inflicted on
us by seven Supreme Court Justices can be stopped soon. If not by our
legislatures or courts, then by millions of educated voters standing up
for truth. Thankfully, we can still change the law in this country.
Let's hope it's very soon since millions of lives are at stake.
State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy
them" (Pope Leo XIII)
law which violates an innocent person's natural right to life is unjust
and, as such, is not valid as a law." (Pope John Paul II)
"Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim
to legitimize." (Pope John Paul II)
killing of the innocent is no less sinful an act or less destructive
because it is done in a legal and scientific manner." (Pope John
"Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases
by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law."
(Pope John Paul II)
"Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are
therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but
also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in
authentic juridical validity." (Pope John Paul II)
"The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim
to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because
society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the
abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext
of freedom." (Pope John Paul II)
"Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent
human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition
to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus
deny the equality of everyone before the law." (Pope John Paul
is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs
when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a
concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act
against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the
person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by
invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact
that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has
moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one
can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it
everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12). To refuse
to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is
also a basic human right." (Pope John Paul II)
by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors,
in communion with the Bishops - who on various occasions have condemned
abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed
throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this
doctrine - I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as
an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since
it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine
is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is
transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and
universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever
can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is
contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart,
knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Pope
John Paul II)
very grave crime is also to be noted, by which the life of
the offspring hidden in the mother's womb is attempted.
Moreover, some wish this to be permitted according to the
pleasure of the mother or father; others, however, call it
illicit unless very grave reasons attend, which they call by
the name of medical, social, eugenic 'indication.' Since
this pertains to the penal laws of the state, according to
which the destruction of the offspring begotten but not yet
born is prohibited, all of these demand that the
'indication,' which they defend individually in one way or
another, be recognized even by the public laws, and be
declared free of all punishment. Nay rather, there are not
lacking those who demand that public magistrates lend a
helping hand to these death-dealing operations, something
which unfortunately we all know is taking place very
frequently in some places. Now as for the medical and
therapeutic 'indication,' to use their words, We have
already said, Venerable Brethren, how sorry We are for the
mother, whose health and even life are threatened by grave
dangers resulting from nature's duty; but what reason can
ever be strong enough to excuse in any way the direct murder
of the innocent? For this is the case in point here. Whether
this is brought upon the mother or the offspring, it is
contrary to God's precept and the voice of nature: 'Thou
shalt not kill!' [Exod. 20:13]. The life of each person is
an equally sacred thing, and no one can ever have the power,
not even public authority to destroy it. Consequently, it is
most unjust to invoke the 'right of the sword' against the
innocent since this is valid against the guilty alone; nor
is there any right in this case of a bloody defense against
an unjust aggressor (for who will call an innocent child an
unjust aggressor?); nor is there present any 'right of
extreme necessity,' as it is called, which can extend even
to the direct killing of the innocent. Therefore, honorable
and experienced physicians praiseworthily endeavor to
protect and to save the lives of both the mother and the
offspring; on the other hand, most unworthy of the noble
name of physician and of commendation would they prove
themselves, as many as plan for the death of one or the
other under the appearance of practicing medicine or through
motives of false pity... [T]o seek to procure the death of
the innocent is improper and contrary to the divine precept
promulgated by the words of the Apostle: 'Evil is not to be
done that good may come of it' [Rom. 3:8]. Finally, those
who hold high office among nations and pass laws may not
forget that it belongs to public authority by appropriate
laws and penalties to defend the lives of the innocent, and
the more so as those whose lives are endangered and are
attacked are less able to defend themselves, among whom
surely infants in their mothers' wombs hold first place. But
if public magistrates not only do not protect those little
ones, but by their laws and ordinances permit this, and thus
give them over to the hands of physicians and others to be
killed, let them remember that God is the judge and the
avenger of innocent 'blood which cries from earth to heaven'
[Gen. 4:10]." (Pope Pius XI)
of the specific characteristics of present-day attacks on human life -
as has already been said several times - consists in the trend to demand
a legal justification for them, as if they were rights which the State,
at least under certain conditions, must acknowledge as belonging to
citizens. Consequently, there is a tendency to claim that it should be
possible to exercise these rights with the safe and free assistance of
doctors and medical personnel. It is often claimed that the life of an
unborn child or a seriously disabled person is only a relative good:
according to a proportionalist approach, or one of sheer calculation,
this good should be compared with and balanced against other goods. It
is even maintained that only someone present and personally involved in
a concrete situation can correctly judge the goods at stake:
consequently, only that person would be able to decide on the morality
of his choice. The State therefore, in the interest of civil coexistence
and social harmony, should respect this choice, even to the point of
permitting abortion and euthanasia. At other times, it is claimed that
civil law cannot demand that all citizens should live according to moral
standards higher than what all citizens themselves acknowledge and
share. Hence the law should always express the opinion and will of the
majority of citizens and recognize that they have, at least in certain
extreme cases, the right even to abortion and euthanasia. Moreover the
prohibition and the punishment of abortion and euthanasia in these cases
would inevitably lead - so it is said - to an increase of illegal
practices: and these would not be subject to necessary control by
society and would be carried out in a medically unsafe way. The question
is also raised whether supporting a law which in practice cannot be
enforced would not ultimately undermine the authority of all laws.
Finally, the more radical views go so far as to maintain that in a
modern and pluralistic society people should be allowed complete freedom
to dispose of their own lives as well as of the lives of the unborn: it
is asserted that it is not the task of the law to choose between
different moral opinions, and still less can the law claim to impose one
particular opinion to the detriment of others. In any case, in the
democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system
of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting
the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely
upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practices.
Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is
de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens -
who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers - would
require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual
consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms
which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only
determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may
be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly
separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct. As
a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies.
On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere
the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not
adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing
maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole
limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other
citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public
and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice
requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in
order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and
guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion
should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility
is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal
conscience, at least in the public sphere. At the basis of all these
tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of
present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an
essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to
guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the
decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be
objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and
intolerance. But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which
shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible
practical consequences, are concealed in this position. It is true that
history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of
'truth'. But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have
also been committed and are still being committed in the name of
'ethical relativism'. When a parliamentary or social majority decrees
that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn
human life, is it not really making a 'tyrannical' decision with regard
to the weakest and most defenseless of human beings? Everyone's
conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our
century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be
crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were
legitimated by popular consensus? Democracy cannot be idolized to the
point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for
immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a 'system' and as such is a
means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on
conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human
behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the
morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it
employs... But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values
which it embodies and promotes...The basis of these values cannot be
provisional and changeable 'majority' opinions, but only the
acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the 'natural law'
written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for
civil law itself." (Pope John Paul II)
Is preventing someone from
killing you or robbing you or raping you imposing morality or religion? Of course not! Laws against such actions are
designed to protect us, not impose morality or religion. Just as you -
as an innocent person - have the right not to be killed, the unborn baby
also has the right not to be killed.
our rights must be limited when our actions affect others. This is a
matter of natural justice. While we may have a right to free speech, we
do not have a right to yell "fire" in a crowed building,
because others can be hurt. Likewise, while we may have a right to drive
a car, we do not have a right to drive as fast as we want because others
may be hurt. We do not have unlimited rights where other people are
the case of abortion, a living child is murdered. While the mother has
her rights, the child also has rights - including the very right to
life. How would you allow a mother of a three month old child to kill
her baby because it was 'burdensome' to her? Surely you would never
provide legal sanctions for such actions. No mother has the right to
kill her child, even if the child is still in her womb.
is clear that a morality has been imposed on our nation. It is the
'morality' of those who push for abortion, of those who have decided that
the mothers have rights and their innocent children have none. Millions
and millions of innocent children have been killed because their mothers
were given 'rights' and theirs were taken away. They never had a voice
to speak or access to the courts. They are the innocent victims who have
had 'morality' imposed upon them.
and right are often confused. A mother may have the power to choose that
her child should live or die, but she does not have the right to do so.
Most decent people instinctively know that it is wrong to deprive an innocent person of their life, and much more so
realize how wrong it would be to take the life of their own offspring.
It is unnatural and immoral to kill one's own children. Clearly one has
no such right, even if one has the power.
though a child is smaller, it has an equal right to life as its parents
have. You, as a mother, have no more right to kill your child than your
own mother has to kill you. A child has the same right to life as its
mother does, even if it is not yet born.
Click here for more
information on the unborn baby
one's child is a terrible evil and a grave sin (click here for
more information) that one must ultimately answer to God for. Such an action,
rather than giving a woman 'freedom', makes her a 'slave of sin' (Our
Lord Jesus Christ: "Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits
sin is a slave of sin."). Even the sorry results
of abortion prove that it is a bad 'choice' for women. (Click here for
"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and
to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a
perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others
and against others." (Pope John Paul II)
"The greatest destroyer of peace today is
abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the
innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a
mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to
kill one another?" (Mother Teresa)
indicated above, the problem with abortion has nothing to do with the
rights of a woman over her body, but with the rights of the other person
insider of her. Her rights end at her body. She does not have the right
to end the life of the person inside her. The exercise of one's civil liberty
is naturally curtailed when it endangers the life of another innocent
person or even one's self (e.g. suicide).
is not just a "blob of tissue" inside of her, but a living
human baby, a human life. It has its own heart and blood supply and DNA
and organs - and may even be of another sex. It is a totally
different human being from her. She has no more right to kill it then
she has to kill her two month old baby that she considers a 'burden'.
Click here for more information on the unborn baby. What is growing inside her is
not a disease to be treated or a sickness to be cured, but a child to be
loved. In fact, her body was designed for this very purpose.
a woman has the right to control her own body, she does not have the
right to kill innocent children. Far from being denied 'reproductive
rights', a pregnant woman has already exercised her 'reproductive rights'
and she has reproduced. What she wants to do in an abortion is not
exercise her 'reproductive rights', but instead to kill an unborn child.
woman has no right to kill an innocent human being, even if she finds
the other person inconvenient.
a woman is troubled by a pregnancy, she is often led to believe that her
only option is abortion. So called 'pro-choice' persons will rarely provide
her with information on real solutions (e.g. adoption) or
tell her about all the help that may be available to her (click
here). They will probably
never mention all the emotional and health risks associated with abortion
(click here) or about the grisly procedure
itself (click here). They may lie or provide misinformation which may prevent her from
making the right choice for herself and her baby (click here for
information on 'Abortion Misinformation'). Instead, under the banner of
'choice', they will try to lead her directly to an abortion. Since they
make their living off the killing of innocent children, they don't often
want women dissuaded from abortion. Ultimately the woman fails to
realize that there are real choices available to her that are likely to
help both her and the baby. She also may not realize the wealth of help
that others may provide her.
here for more information
of course, before becoming pregnant, a woman always has the choice (and even the duty) not engage
in intimate activities which may result in pregnancy.
a woman is pregnant, she is already a mother. She will either have a
living child or a dead child. Killing her living child will not solve
her problems, but is likely to add to them. It is a fact that many and
serious consequences are associated with abortion. Click
here for more information. It is clear that many women suffer a great
deal after (or during) an abortion. Although the procedure might be
presented as simple, it is actually a ghastly procedure (click
here) that physically hurts the unborn child (click
here) and may cause many negative emotional and physical
complications to the mother, even including death.
here for more information
has been said that "Most
women who are talked out of abortion are grateful, while many who have
an abortion are remorseful."
can abortion be a solution when it takes an innocent human life, causes
so many new problems for women, and when those who have had them regret
them? How could such a serious a violation of God's
commandments ever be a solution?
being evil and wrong, abortion is plainly unnecessary! All pregnancies
will terminate naturally, either by the baby's birth or by it's unfortunate
(but natural) death.
which end with a new, living child bring hope to the world and a new
child to love. Even if the birth mother doesn't want her child (or can't
raise it), someone else will want that child. And, God wants that child!
There is no
such thing as an unwanted child. All children have inherent value even if
their own parents cannot recognize it.
kills innocent children, ruins women's lives, hurts men, hurts society, destroys souls, and offends
God. "Each and every abortion has at least one victim." And, abortion
brings a whole host of evil in its wake...
have been aborted alive and left to die (or starved,
suffocated, drowned, strangled, etc.).
have been used in the manufacture of various products.
have been used for experimentation (even while alive and still able
to feel pain).
leads to euthanasia as life is devalued.
contributes to the real risk of under-population (click
helps contribute to a "darkening of conscience".
ruins the moral fiber of our nation.
here for more negative effects of abortion
takes the life of innocent, living human babies. These unborn babies -
the weakest and most defenseless of all people - have committed no
crime, have no voice, and suffer a violent death in great pain at the
command of their mothers. Click
here for information on the abortion procedure. They never receive
baptism and are discarded like trash.
"...hate what is
evil" (Rom. 12:9)
made all humans in his image and likeness and has given each one an
immortal soul. Abortion - the killing of innocent children in the womb -
is a grave sin that has been condemned since the earliest days of the
Church. Click here
for more information. It may cause the loss of souls and bring down
divine punishment on our country.
horrible crime [of abortion]...will eventually draw down divine
punishment on our nation." (Catholic Bishops of Iowa)
they argue that they are 'pro-choice' and want 'reproductive freedom',
the 'pro-choice' movement really is pro-abortion and wants the freedom
to kill children. They hide their designs behind misinformation (click
here), empty slogans and deceptive terminology (click
here). They say
they want 'freedom to choose', but they really they want freedom to
kill. If they really wanted women to make a 'choice', why will they not
give her all the non-abortion related options? Why do they hide from her
the fact that her baby is a baby? They clearly have only one 'choice' in
you try to argue the issue with them, their position cannot hold. Their
arguments are selfish, weak and illogical. That is because there is no
getting around the fact that abortion kills innocent children. The child
never consented to be killed. The father may not have consented
to the killing of his child. Often, if the mother was truly informed of what she was doing,
she may not consent. Certainly, they can never argue it from the position
of the unborn child. Since science clearly shows that the unborn baby is
a living human being (click here for more
information), they may try to
ignore this inconvenient fact and just act as if the child is a
non-person and hope that no one realizes otherwise.
is often an overemphasis on so-called women's 'rights', as if there were
only one person involved. They encourage her to set aside the rights of her child for her own
selfish desires, as if her 'convenience' was more important than the
life of her child. They act as if the only way a woman can solve her
problems is to kill her children.
one hand, they pretend concern and compassion for women, on the other
hand they encourage her towards the destruction of her motherhood. If
they are so concerned about women, why do they hide information from
them concerning the serious medical and psychological risks of abortion?
Why do they not tell her that the abortion might result in her death -
if not now, than many years from now?
Click here for more information
risks of abortion
fact, there are many inconsistencies on the 'pro-choice' side. For example:
call a fetus a "blob of tissue" when a mother wants to
have an abortion, but sympathize with a woman who has lost her
"baby" by miscarriage.
consider the killing of a two-month-old child to be a crime, but
call the killing of unborn children a "right"
object to women being treated as "property" or a "possession",
but encourage her to treat her unborn son or daughter as if it were
claim a 'right to privacy' when it comes to murdering the unborn,
but live in a world where their every move may be recorded, watched,
fawn all over a mother and her baby at a shower, but act as if a
baby a few months earlier
had no right to exist.
claim to be fighting for a woman's rights on one hand, but viciously
deny an entire class of people's rights on the other hand (about half of
consider it a "right" to kill a baby five months after its
conception, but would be horrified if any mother could go into a
doctor's office to have her five month old killed.
act as if a woman is somehow victimized by being pregnant even
though they know that her own actions resulted in her being pregnant.
object to punishment for persons who have committed no crime, but
they seek the 'death penalty' for innocent unborn babies whose only
'crime' is being 'inconvenient'.
say they want "equal rights for women", but then deny the
world's smallest females any rights whatsoever.
would advise pregnant loved ones not to drink while pregnant so as
not to harm the baby, but tell abortion-minded women that their same
age fetus was "just a blob of tissue" that they had the
right to abort (kill).
want abortion to be 'legal' with no ramifications to the mother or
the abortionist for killing the unborn baby, but they might argue
for severe penalties should a person kill a baby a few months old.
a woman wants an abortion, they call it a "fetus", but
when they or a loved one becomes pregnant with a 'wanted child',
they call it a "baby".
might be strong opponents against violence towards women on one
hand, but think nothing of the tearing off limbs, crushing a skull,
cutting off a head, etc. of a small girl while still in the womb.
would rightly object to the position that a woman's value comes from
whether or not her husband wants her, but then place the entire
value of an unborn baby (male or female) on whether or not its
mother wants it.
talk about "planning parenthood" on one hand, but what
they actually do is plan non-parenthood.
might cry at a funeral for a stillborn baby on one hand, but think
nothing of a baby taken in pieces from its mother's womb on
the other hand.
would rightly object to one's arguing for a 'right to murder', but
that is precisely what they are promoting in actual fact.
call for the 'right' to extract the fetus (a "blob of
tissue" or "product of conception") when a woman
wants an abortion. But were the same woman to have an operation
where a doctor removed the fetus for no reason, they would be appalled
at his actions and saddened her loss of
want women to have 'rights over her body' on hand, but deny the
world's smallest females any rights over her body.
claim to have this 'right' to an abort (kill) an unborn child under
the law, yet the Constitution states that all persons have an 'inalienable'
right to life.
might vehemently deny that the unborn is a 'person' when a woman
wants an abortion, yet when facing death may will some of their
property to an unborn so-called "blob of tissue".
might consider it cruel to simply notify a child that the mother
wants to kill it for her convenience, yet they promote this actual
act in practice.
seek to make the killing of the unborn legal, yet would be appalled if a doctor set up shop to kill 1 year olds.
see, when it comes to the destroying of innocent human life, of innocent
children, there is no sense. It is an impossible position to defend. But
if they don't care about such principles as the right of an unborn child
to live, why should we expect them to care about concepts such as truth?
we can't reason with the 'pro-choice' side regarding every child's right
to live, if we can't show them that abortion is morally wrong, if we
can't show them that their position that one has a 'right' to kill
another human being who is deemed 'inconvenient' is nonsensical and
perhaps we may still be able to convince them that abortion is very dangerous
for the mother. The evidence has been mounting that many have suffered greatly for it
(click here for
more information). If they
really do care about women, perhaps this might be the only way to
convince them of the evil of abortion.
those people who simply have been misled by "party line" in
favor of 'a woman's right to choose' without much thought, perhaps we
may still be able to also reason with them and show them that abortion
kills another human being and that it is wrong. We may educate them
about fetal development (click
here), about the campaign of misinformation (click
here), about the empty slogans (click
about the gruesome abortion procedure itself (click
here). We can also
can inform them of the grave abortion-related risks (click
here). Perhaps there is still some chance that they can see things from
the victim's point of view. Or, maybe they might be convinced by the
many persons who have changed positions (from 'pro-choice' to pro-life) when all the facts were
brought before them. If nothing else, maybe the thought of their final judgment
and the accounting they will have to make to the awesome Judge
on the last day might change their mind.
may be said that a society shows itself just to the extent that it meets
the needs of all its members, and the quality of its civilization is
determined by the way in which it protects its weakest members."
(Pope John Paul II, 2002)
is therefore a service of love which we are all committed to ensure to
our neighbor, that his or her life may be always defended and promoted,
especially when it is weak or threatened." (Pope John Paul II,
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness
into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and
sweet into bitter!" (Isa.
if someone was to say to you, "I am personally opposed to your murder, but I can't impose my morality on anyone"? What if the
entire law changed so that you could be murdered 'legally' at the will of any
other person - would you even want to go outside? The entire "I am
personally opposed, but..." argument makes no sense! Murder is
murder and one can't be "personally opposed, but..."! How can
you be "personally opposed" to murder and not want it to be
stopped, to not be 'legal'? Would it be okay if you saw the same mother
kill the same child when it was one month old? Of course not. Then you'd
never dream of saying "I'm personally opposed, but..."! Would you not call the police and want the mother arrested? How then can you
ignore the taking of unborn life because you don't want to "impose
morality"? You must know that there are moral wrongs that are
absolute. You must know that murder is wrong.
it may give you to courage to take a stand if you realized that the
mother herself is often hurt as a result of an abortion (click here for
information). Society is also hurt. If you cannot stand up for the
innocent baby, can you at least stand up for the mother or society?
Since abortion tends to expand, it will lead (and has led) to infanticide,
euthanasia, etc. Is there not one victim that will make you take a
stand? Someday the victim could be you or a loved one.
if you consider that abortionists aren't motivated by
"morality", but by money? They "make a killing" from
killing innocent children! They want abortions to continue and they have
no qualms about imposing their 'morality'. These people deliberately
take thousands of lives each year for a profit - sometimes their 'work'
is 'unsuccessful' and the babies come out alive. Sometimes they kill the
babies while they are being born. After an abortion, they may
sell or simply throw away the baby! Click
here for more information on abortion procedures. In the face of all
this, how can you remain silent? How can you remain only "personally
people have to take a stand to stop this killing! Members of Christ's flock
know that we are supposed to be our "brother's keeper", that we are supposed to assist
others in need. We are also called upon to be courageous
and proclaim the truth, even to admonish our erring brother. The apostles
had no problem "imposing morality", nor should we
fear to proclaim the truth and resist error. If we are silent, we appear
to accept - and we may even be guilty of sin.
that there are new victims of abortion each day - thousands and
thousands of innocent victims more
each day. They have no voice and need you to speak for them. Please rise up and
defend your younger brothers and sisters!
We do not condone violence or illegal activities.
no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them"
that there will be no more victims of abortion!
that all your relatives - and the relatives of all people - will see the light of day!
Want to See the Results of
here and scroll down to view prayer counter for the unborn. Each
number represents a child killed each day in the U.S. by abortion.
about praying for them? Consider making a prayer commitment using this
is a Grave Sin
Its Risks & Aftermath
Abortion By Its True Name
Love in the New Testament
New Testament Teachings
Scripture / Parables
Catholic Dogma Ever Change?
the 1917 Code of Canon Law Still Applicable?
find what you were looking for?
above is provided for informational purposes only and is not
comprehensive. We make no guarantees regarding any item herein. By using
this site you indicate agreement to all terms. For terms information,
see "Important Notice" above and click