The Logical Results of Abortion

Once you permit the killing of the unborn child, there will be no stopping.  There will be no age limit.  You are setting off a chain reaction that will eventually make you the victim.

Your children will kill you because you permitted the killing of their brothers and sisters.  Your children will kill you because they will not want to support you in your old age.  Your children will kill you for your homes and estates.

If a doctor will take money for killing the innocent in the womb, he will kill you with a needle when paid by your children.  This is the terrible nightmare you are creating for the future.


Dr. R.A. Gallop, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.  Cited by John Powell, S.J.,  Abortion: the Silent Holocaust, pg.134

Oh, The Irony of the LEFT!

Liberals support the "right" of an abortionist to kill a woman's unborn baby; of the state to terminate life (euthanasia); and the intentional destruction of human embryos for scientific research (embryonic stem cell research), but don't support the death penalty for convicted murderers because they say that is cruel, unjust and inhumane.  The advocates of "choice" claim "innocent" people could unfairly die.

Gregg Jackson, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, p.142

Murderer Margaret Sanger

As the champion of the proletariat, Stalin saw to the slaughter of at least fifteen million Ukrainian kulaks.  As the popularly acclaimed Il Duce, Mussolini massacred as many as four million Ethiopians, two million Eritreans, and a million Serbs, Croats, and Albanians.  As the wildly lionized Fuhrer, Hitler exterminated more than six million Jews, two million Slavs, and a million Poles.  As the founder of Planned Parenthood and the impassioned heroine of feminist causes celebres, [Margaret] Sanger was responsible for the brutal elimination of more than twenty million children in the United States and as many as one and a half billion worldwide.

George Grant, "Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood," p.46 (1992)

Ramifications of Roe V. Wade

Today’s quote is quite lengthy, but entirely necessary if the reader is to get the full depth of understanding of the subject.

[The Supreme Court ruling on abortion] is not only arbitrary medically but legally.  The ruling set up an arbitrary absolute by disregarding the intent of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.  Quoting Professor [Joseph P.] Witherspoon:

Thus, the failure of the Court in Roe v. Wade to have examined into the actual purpose and intent of the legislature in framing the fourteenth amendment and the thirteenth amendment to which it was so closely related and supplementary thereof when it was considering the meaning to be assigned to the concept of “person” was a failure to be faithful to the law or to respect the legislature which framed it.  Careful research of the history of these two amendments will demonstrate to any impartial investigator that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the proposition that the principal, actual purpose of their framers was to prevent any court, and especially the Supreme Court of the United States, because of its earlier performance in the Dred Scott case, or any other institution of government, whether legislative or executive, from ever again defining the concept of person so as to exclude any class of human beings from the protection of the Constitution and the safeguards it established for the fundamental rights of human beings, including slaves, peons, Indians, aliens, women, the poor, the aged, criminals, the mentally ill or retarded, and children, including the unborn, from the time of their conception.

Supreme Court Justice White in his dissent to the Court’s action stated, “As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”  Upon this arbitrary ruling medically and legally, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on this subject of abortion of almost every one of the states in the union.

Further, this arbitrary decision is at complete variance with the past Christian consensus.  In the pagan Roman Empire, abortion was freely practiced, but Christians took a stand against it.  In 314 the Council of Ancyra barred from taking of the Lord’s Supper for ten years all who procured abortions or made drugs to further abortions.  Previously the Synod of Elvira (305-306) had specified excommunication till the deathbed for these offenses.  The arbitrary absolutes of the Supreme Court are accepted against the previous consensus of centuries, as well as against past law.  And (taking abortion as an example) if this arbitrary absolute by law is accepted by most modern people, bred with the concept of no absolutes but rather relativity, why wouldn’t arbitrary absolutes in regard to such matters as authoritarian limitations on freedom be equally accepted as long as they were thought to be sociologically helpful?  We are left with sociological law without any certainty of limitation.  

By the ruling of the Supreme Court, the unborn baby is not counted as a person.  In our day, quite rightly, there has been a hue and cry against some of our ancestors’ cruel viewing of the black slave as a non-person.  This was horrible indeed—an act of hypocrisy as well as cruelty.  But now, by an arbitrary absolute brought in on the humanist flow, millions of unborn babies of every color of skin are equally by law declared non-persons.  Surely this, too, must be seen as an act of hypocrisy.

The door is open.  In regard to the fetus, the courts have arbitrarily separated “aliveness” from “personhood,” and if this is so, why not arbitrarily do the same with the aged?  So the steps move along, and euthanasia may well become increasingly acceptable.  And if so, why not keep alive the bodies of the so-called neo-morts (persons in whom the brain wave is flat) to harvest from them body parts and blood, when the polls show that this has become acceptable to the majority?  Dr. Willard Gaylin (1925- ) discussed this possibility in Harper’s (September 1974) under the title, “Harvesting the Dead.”  Law has become a matter of averages, just as the culture’s sexual mores have become only a matter of averages.  

As the Christian consensus dies, there are not many sociological alternatives.  One possibility is hedonism, in which every man does his own thing.  Trying to build a society on hedonism leads to chaos.  One man can live on a desert island and do as he wishes within the limits of the form of the universe, but as soon as two men live on the island, if they are to live in peace, they cannot both do simply as they please.  …

A second possibility is the absoluteness of the 51-percent vote.  In the days of a more Christian culture, a lone individual with the Bible could judge and warn society, regardless of the majority vote, because there was an absolute by which to judge.  There was an absolute for both morals and law.  Bu to the extent that the Christian consensus is gone, this absolute is gone as a social force.  Let us remember that on the basis of the absoluteness of the 51-percent vote, Hitler was perfectly entitled to do as he wished if he had the popular support.  On this basis, law and morals become a matter of averages.  And on this basis, if the majority vote supported it, it would become “right” to kill the old, the incurably ill, the insane—and other groups could be declared non-persons.  No voice could be raised against it. . . .

Here is a simple but profound rule:  If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.

Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, p.221-224 (1976) (emphasis in the original)

Liberalism's Control of Life

Liberalism rejects the notion that God gives life and resents the notion that God controls death.  So liberals would seize that power and make matters of both life and death into questions of human choice.  We now understand why abortion and euthanasia have to be such major themes on the Left’s political landscape, in spite of the fact that polls repeatedly show that America is far from sanguine over the expanded practice of abortion.  In other words, the Left does not endorse abortion to win elections; it endorses abortion because that is its very purpose.  It is part of its religious principle, if you like.

We can also find the exception that proves the rule.  The Bible does give society one measure of control over life:  It authorizes capital punishment for certain crimes.  If human control over life and death, generically understood, were the underlying principle in the Left’s position on abortion and euthanasia, then wouldn’t liberalism fight for capital punishment as a logical extension of their principle?  Either society should have control over life and death or it should not.  But instead the liberal position opposes the death penalty at every turn, even, if the criminal himself desires to be executed.  This moral repugnance for imposing capital punishment is best explained by our hypothesis.  The biblical model says that we should welcome new life and revere elderly life, but the lives of murderers should be taken.  Liberalism turns this policy on its head: New life and elderly life, if unwanted, inconvenient, or medically challenged, should be taken while murderers should be spared.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "America's Real War," p.61