Infanticide: Incorrectly Called Abortion
According to Webster's Dictionary the definition of infanticide is the murder of an infant. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditated malice [the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause of excuses]. The definition of abortion is, "The expulsion of the human fetus prematurely, particularly at any time before it is viable [capable of living on its own]; miscarriage."
Today, infanticidists [One Who Murders an Infant, per Webster's Dictionary], using a method called Dilation and Curettage, cutting the squirming and resisting baby's body and placenta into pieces with a loop‑shaped steel knife and suck them into a jar. Because it is struggling and trying to escape it is apparent that even the baby knows that it is a human being and is trying to protect its' life. From the jar the baby's body pieces are reassembled on a table to verify that all the parts have been removed. This is a far cry from a miscarriage whereby the human body naturally expels the unborn infant.
We are presenting an argument that infanticide [incorrectly called abortion] is actually the murder of an unborn infant and is NOT a right of privacy due to the mother. It will also set forth the argument that the changing of the meanings of the words describing the positions taken by so‑called Pro‑Lifers and Pro‑Deathers are actually distorting what the issues really are. We will only address situations where there has not been a pregnancy caused by rape or incest, or situations where the mother's life would be in danger if the baby's life is not terminated. Approximately 95% to 98% of all unborn infanticide is for conveniences' sake. Why is a fetus a person in the sense in which a baby is? Since no sane person would say that it is lawful to kill a baby, if it is shown that a fetus is in fact a baby, then killing a fetus would be tantamount to murder! Biblically it can be shown that fetuses in the womb struggled against each other as evidenced by Genesis 25:22.
Here we read (NASB): "But the children struggled together within her; and she [Rebecca] said, If it is so, why then am I this way? so she went to inquire of the Lord." Verse 23, "And the Lord said to her, Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger."
Obviously in order for one of the fetuses to struggle with the other he had to be conscious of the fact that the other fetus was also a human being. Why have strife with a nonentity? It would accomplish nothing. In Psalm 139:13 David states, "For Thou has possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb."
The word covered in Strong's is #5526. The word is "sakak" and means "prop. to entwine as a screen; by impl. to fence in, cover over, (fig.) protect." It is the same word used in Exodus 33:22 which states "and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you [Moses] in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by." Therefore, it can be seen from this verse that protection in the womb is essential.
In Ecclesiastes 11:5 Solomon writes (NASB), "Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things."
The New English Bible adds the words, "and living spirit in the womb" in this verse also.
Luke 1:15 states: "For he [John] will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb."
Ecclesiastes 12:7 states (KJV), "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
When is the spirit given to man ‑ at birth or at conception? Without the "breath of life" man cannot exist. Inside or outside the womb.
Justice Harry Blackmun, speaking for the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, stated in the Roe vs. Wade (1973) decision that the pregnancy may be terminated within the first three months at the mother's discretion [convenience]. If the mother's health has to be protected, then in the second three months the states may restrict, but not prohibit termination of the pregnancy. In the last three months a state may restrict or even prohibit infanticide to protect the life of the fetus, except when the mother's life is in danger.
In effect the seven U.S. Supreme Court justices decided to play God by making it lawful to commit murder. By doing this and in the name of "trying to protect a woman's right to privacy" they violated the very U.S. Constitution they had sworn to uphold. In fact, the Jewish Justice Blackmun could not point to a specific constitutional guarantee to justify the court's ruling.
Instead, he rationalized the decision on the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment's [an Amendment which came straight from Satan's throne] Due Process clause; and on the medical ethics and standards of another Jew, Dr. Edelstein. It will be shown further on in this report the fallacy of this kind of thinking because one's right to privacy can extend only to the point of infringement on someone else's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Abortion has become an overt means of child sacrifice which the Jews have instituted under their de facto laws. Which is simply a covert means of child sacrifice which has been part of their infamous "ritual murders, which Jews have been accused through the ages." In this practice, the Jewish abortion doctors and nurses take; "the blood of the sacrificed Christian (child) is mixed with flour to make the unleavened bread (known as Haman Ears, Haman Cakes and etc., in remembrance of the slaughter of thousands of White Israelites as recorded in the book of Esther in the Bible. The only book in the Bible the name of Yahweh never appears. The only Jewish book in all of the Bible, the claims of the Jews and their lackeys notwithstanding) eaten at (the Jewish) Passover." [1]
Thus, we can clearly see that the practice of abortion, which conforms very well with the Jewish ritual of child sacrifice to idols such as Molech, which is condemned by Almighty God in the Scriptures as an abomination. However, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud recognizes such sacrifice as normal: "giving one's seed to Molech is not idolatry." [2] Molech was a god of the Canaanites and Babylonians, and Babylon is the bedrock of the Jewish Talmud and Jewish tradition. This deity was the center of child sacrifice. Plus the fact that the Jewish Talmud teaches that the extermination of Christians is a necessary sacrifice to God. [3]
Proof of the above came most unexpectedly in March 1990, when an unprecedented display of Jewish contrition and humility was witnessed in York, England. There were four days of religious occasions, including some in York Minster, in memory of Christian Children who were crucified, tortured and bled to death all over Europe in Medieval times to satisfy Jewish religious rituals!
Justices White and Rehnquist, the two dissenting voters, probably stated it best when they said: "the majority's judgement was directed by its' own dislikes, not by any constitutional compass. In the absence of guiding principles, they asserted, the majority justices simply substituted their views for the view of the state legislatures whose abortion regulations they invalidated." These state legislators were elected by a majority in each state to present their constituents' view of anti‑death.
The Declaration of Independence states; "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."
When are the men that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence created? The day the human being leaves the womb or the day of conception? Obviously the human life begins at conception, because if you do not have conception you will never have the human being. If the human life begins at conception, then the human life has certain unalienable rights.
These are rights that are incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred whether or not the individual can speak for himself. Speaking in general terms the right of one individual's privacy ends where the actual life of another individual starts. For example, if one's next door neighbor is strangling his three year old son in his house do we reason to ourselves "that is none of my business; it is his son; and he has the 'right of privacy' to do whatever he pleases to his son" or do we take action to prevent the potential murder from occurring, because the "right to life" is a higher right than the dad's "right to privacy."
Distorting Word Meanings
In the abortion [infanticide ‑ the right to Murder a baby] conflict we have two groups each "for" their particular issue. One is called "Pro‑Life" and the other is called "Pro‑Choice." Neither group, as named, is directly opposed to the other. Defining these two groups in general terms "Pro‑Life" is not the opposite of "Pro‑Choice." However, in fact the "Pro‑Choice" groups are actually Pro‑Death [Pro‑Murder], since they maintain that murder is a "choice." By calling the Pro‑Death group "Pro‑Choice" one could get a distorted view of what the "Pro‑Choice" group really represents. When it comes to murder there are no-choices. A choice to do wring to another human being is no choice at all! If you are for something, you are against its opposite. If you are pro‑life, then you are against someone having the "choice" to murder an infant. Since the death is the opposite of life, the reverse would also be true. If you are pro‑death, you would be anti‑life [not "Pro‑Choice"].
Speaking in general terms we are all "pro‑choice," which is the opposite of compulsion. Everyone believes that each individual has the right or freedom to do what they want. However, the freedom of each individual to do what they want extends only to the point of infringing on someone else's "life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness [property]." Thus, we see that individuals that are pro‑life [opposed to murder] are also actually pro‑choice [opposed to compulsion] to the extent those actions do not infringe on someone else's "life liberty, or pursuit of happiness [property]."
However, pro‑life proponents believe that a choice to do wrong [murder an unborn infant] is not a choice at all. Infant murder outside the womb or inside the womb is wrong. Pro‑Death proponents are "Pro‑Life" when it comes to their life, but cannot respect the life of others. And they will take your life if you oppose them, and they get the chance. Make no mistake about it. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the development and life of an infant in the womb when they allowed the states the freedom to regulate or prohibit infanticide in the last six months of pregnancy. Why regulate or prohibit infanticide in the womb if the infant is not a human being?
Since they have allowed the states to regulate or prohibit infanticide in certain cases we find that the real question the seven U.S. Supreme Court Justices raised is "When does the infant become a human being in the womb?" and not "is the infant a human being in the womb?" If they wanted to ask the question "IS the infant a human being in the womb?" then they would not have regulated the state on the last two trimesters. So we must conclude that the learned justices recognized the fact that the fetus is a human being: therefore, they knew abortion [infanticide] was/is murder but they gave women the right to do so for a limited period of time if they so desired! Thus the Justices have been guilty of being an accomplish to the murder of literally millions of babies since 1973!
Another proposed dilemma in this issue is the question of freedom vs. order. Does the freedom of a woman to "do what she wants with her body" take priority over "the killing of unborn babies" [order]? Missing from the dilemma is the issue of "the freedom of the baby." Most Pro‑Death advocates seem to forget that the woman had the choice of abstaining from sex or using birth control methods to prevent conception.
These women lost their freedom of having the abortion at the time of conception. As a result of the seven Supreme Court justices determination that "freedom of the woman" takes priority over "freedom and life of the baby," we have had, since 1973, over 26‑million innocent unborn babies murdered. This is equivalent to the sum population of more than 12 U.S. states or approximately 1/10th of the current U.S. population.
Irrationality of Supreme Court Decisions
John Ankerberg and John Weldon in their book "When Does Life Begin?" pointed out the irrationality of the Supreme Court's decision. They stated: �Animals are now guaranteed more legal rights and protections than unborn children...The very same Supreme Court which made possible the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn human babies stopped the construction of the $116‑million Tellico Dam in Tennessee merely because it might cause a three‑inch fish known as the "snail darter" to become extinct! We can do horrible things to the pre‑born that we are legally prohibited from doing to dogs or even hamsters! Of course the Queers do not want any harm to come to the hamster, they like to cram them up each others ass for an exotic thrill! How sick can one get?
Doctors were charged to both save life and to destroy it. All laws attempting to prohibit abortion after viability have been declared unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court does all 'that two doctors be present when viable [babies able to live outside the womb] infants are aborted; one to kill the baby through abortion [infanticide] and one to care for the infant should the first doctor fail to Murder the Baby!' Further, if during an abortion procedure the child is killed while in the womb, no law is broken, but if that same child is removed from the womb and Murdered outside the woman, the physician is liable to a charge of murder!"
Right to Live Denied
The other legal rights of the unborn were maintained; only their right to live was denied. In property and inheritance law Anglo‑American jurisprudence has scrupulously maintained the rights of the unborn, accepting that human lie begins at conception. All of us are familiar with "wrongful death" lawsuits against persons who accidentally injure unborn children to the point of their death. "To this day, the law recognizes unborn children as persons entitled to all these rights."
In fact, criminals who have assaulted pregnant women have been successfully prosecuted for murder when the unborn child has been killed. Nevertheless, the law regards the unborn as a non‑person when a mother is willing to destroy it.
In conclusion, we see that regardless of the terminology used by either side the living being has its life abruptly ended in infanticide. No matter how much it may fight to stay alive in the womb it is certainly fighting a hopeless battle. Probably not one of the seven Supreme Court Justices that voted "Pro‑Death" realized that if their mother had made a Pro‑Death choice when she was pregnant with them, then they would have never enjoyed the life they had/have.
The same holds true for the doctors, nurses and mothers who go through the process of infanticide. Someone was gracious enough to give them the opportunity to live, so why can�t they allow the same opportunity for the unborn? Who has opposed abortion, the murder of the unborn, in America since our beginning as a few colonies? Who arrested the abortionist [Murderers] and either executed them or put them in prison? If you would only bother to study history a little you would find that the vast majority of the abortionists are Jews, of whom Jesus said: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets...and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets...Ye serpents, ye generation (Race) of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" [4]
We have presented colonial governmental documents of 200 to 350 years ago, yet we need not go back that far, we need go back only two generations to find our government enforcing Christian Laws. What a change! Why do you think the anti‑Christs continually cry out the phrase, "separation of church and state" until its meaning is completely distorted. It has become a catch‑all phrase, by the enemies of Jesus Christ and America, in an attempt to eliminate all Christian influence upon anything involving state or civil affairs. There is no such thing as �separation of Church and State!" Because all laws are based upon someone�s morality! They are either Christian or they are anti-Christian; There are no others!��