Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim. 2:15

King James AV1611


What God Says About:

Abortion Vs. Pro-Life©

by Glen A. Stocker


Chapter Three - Morals

Morality apart from the, Bible is really a misnomer. As is seen by studying philosophy, there is no real reason for morality of any sort without there being a God and being accountable to Him. So any attempt at speaking about the morality (or immorality) of abortion is vain, apart from the Bible. As will be seen so many times in this chapter, the pro-abortionist or at least the man or woman who claims neutrality on the abortion issue, will claim that the mothers RIGHTS are violated by making the poor darling go through with an "unwanted" pregnancy. This is their focal point, the desires of the mother. Hedonism is so rampant today that, as the Bible correctly states, they are,

"Without natural affection ...and lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God." [1]

In what age would it be thought by God's people that to kill the unborn child is anything less than murder? We have lived to see the day that so-called christian leaders and godly "christians" are saying that abortion (murder) is justifiable and no more than an appendectomy.

Abe Lincoln once asked a man, "How many legs would a sheep have if you called his tail a leg? The man replied, "Five." Lincoln said, "No, the sheep would still have only four legs because no matter how often you call a tail a leg it never becomes one." This is the tactic of the pro-abortionist, to call a baby a fetus, embryo, blob, and other things anything but a child, or baby, as the Bible does. Don't you think that rather instructive? Nowhere in the Bible is the, unborn child ever referred to as anything but child or babe!!

In his book Abortion the American Holocaust, Kent Kelly gives the attitude of the Supreme Court, in its decision in Roe vs. Wade. He states,

The court refused to touch the question of when life begins, but clearly approved the undeniably religious belief that life does not begin at conception. Such a conclusion is drawn from faith in the evolutionary process, as well as a decidedly antagonistic view toward the Biblical concept of life.

He quotes another new version of the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal in the third trimester. That they are endowed by the evolutionary process with certain inalienable rights depending on their viability as a human. being. That among these are the right to death so long as it occurs before the deadline; liberty, if the mother and physician agree; and the pursuit of happiness should they not be one of, the victims of Abortion - The American Holocaust. [2]

So in this the third chapter, dealing with the moral issues surrounding abortion, we will not revert, as the proabortionist does, to semantic arguments, I about the "viability of the fetus" or the "personhood of the embryo," but will use Bible terms such as "child" or "babe" or derivatives of those.



The first of the real bad boogy bears we will tackle is the if UNWANTED CHILD. Let me say this from my own experience as an adoptive parent,' who has researched thoroughly the adoption process, THERE ARE NO UNWANTED CHILDREN. Someone wants them, as is evident from the seven-year waiting lists at Most adoption agencies. You say, "What about the crippled or retarded?" We'll get to those, but right now we will be, dealing with the largest group, by far, of the aborted, babies, therapeutic abortions. Which translates into, "I just don't want to be pregnant right now." We quote again,

An unwanted pregnancy is the early months does not necessarily mean an unwanted baby after delivery. Dr. Edward Lenoski of the University of California has conclusively shown, that 90% of battered children were planned pregnancies. [3]

Now who is kidding whom? The argument is really preposterous. Some of. these planned children who are so egotistical that they actually think they can control their own environment. When the baby comes, they find out how wrong they really are. The baby is not always logical or reasonable!! They Ire unwanted because of their poor condition is really absurd, especially in America, the socialist state! And are you really thinking of the little darling? If so, why kill him? Kelly again states it well that when he says,

If it is a greater tragedy to be poor and unwanted than to be dead, we have much work to do on the present population. A child in the womb is not conscious of being poor or unwanted. Hundreds, of thousands of children living outside the womb are feeling the effects of these conditions every day. Surely, the reasonable course of action, would be, to. begin with actual suffering instead of potential suffering. Of course, it is true that these suffering children have lived outside the womb for a while, but what possible difference could a few months make if the true tragedy is to be poor or unwanted? It should make no difference to those whose reasoning is on the brink of insanity. [4]

Amen and Amen!!

Pro-abortionist Martha Willing states the opposing view,

In South Korea, which, has always accepted infanticide, abortion and sale of children, American aid attempts to forbid these natural responses to poverty... [5]

What A puddin' head!! NATURAL RESPONSES!! When is selling or killing your child a natural response? Have you, done that when the electric bill is too high?? I can speak with somewhat of an authoritarian view concerning her statement on Korea. I lived there for about, one year, I'll bet that's longer than her, and I did see the sale of babies, the deforming of children by their own parents in order to make them better beggars. I've seen young girls sold to Momma, Sans to be brought up to be her prostitutes. So what does that have to do with killing babies? If they do it, that means we can, too? Is that what you're getting at, woman (I would say lady but can't get myself to insult the few real ladies there are left in this country)? Now Ms? Willing(?) goes on to say,

So long as medicines and vaccines and techniques save life, we praise ourselves and play God by interfering with natural events ... We refuse to decide whom to let. die quietly and whom to prevent from being born. [6]

Now there is a good piece of lunacy!! We are playing God by trying to save lives but she is not by killing them?? Yeah, woman, sure, we believe you!! Your preventing people from being born is not like us "old Bible totin Funnymentalists," is it? if you noticed in her statements she is not averse to infanticide or euthanasia, which means you old-geezers better look out!!

This woman is not alone in her stupidity; in Denmark in 1956 under the Pregnancy Act,

Abortion where t he woman was judged unfit to take proper care of her child. Of the latter indication, Skalts and Norgaard say that "in principle, it, is a social indication, it being the interests of the child, not the woman herself, that are safeguarded:" [7]

Now, there you have it, "kiddo," we are killing you for your own good, your mom can't buy you everything you want and you won't have Van Hausen or Jordache shirts to wear so you'd be better off DEAD!! If you think I have strained the point then you haven't read much. The mentality, (or should. I say, lack of mentality) of these yoyo's is the norm and not the exception. After all, if there is no God, according to most of them, and you are just a product of evolution, then what's, all the fuss about? If you're just an animal anyway, then let's do whatever makes us feel good.!!

If that wasn't enough, here we go again, in Hungary in a 1956 law...

Provides that requests for abortion be directed to a three member committee whose chairman is a doctor. The committee, however, can function only as a rubber stamp, for it must approve the abortion, "if the applicant insists". [8]

Let's have a committee to make sure we don't kill any babies, huh?? America isn't the only knot-head country around, is it?

Next we will look at the terrible menace-to society, the (oh heaven!!) the retarded child!


Surely now, if the kid is not going to be perfectly normal, let's say with at least an IQ of 190 then he would be better off dead, wouldn't YOU!!? We quote again from someone who works in this field,

Though it may, be common and fashionable to believe that the malformed enjoys life less than the normal, this appears to lack both empirical and theoretical support. [9]

That was from a Psychiatrist, now let's see what a mother of Down's Syndrome child has to say,

A mother of a Down's Syndrome child Ms. Delahoyde devotes herself to fighting against infant euthanasia and abortion. She, explains her. belief that in modern society, everything' is geared toward perfection. Some think that death might be the best option for some handicapped children because they think real people are "normal," people. [10]

The crux of the matter is as the woman earlier put it, "they are trying to play God." They want to decide what is "quality life" and "who should live or die." Undeniably there are times when terrible decisions have to be made, but these are the exceptions by far in the abortion issue. These few exceptions are brought to the fore by the pro abortionist to agitate the feelings of the general public into agreeing with them to let several million normal babies be murdered at the whim of (for the most part) fornicating whores. The same ones who are advocating the murder of infants on the ground that they are unwanted and will be a drain on society, are against executing convicted murderers and rapists who cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars a year to house and entertain them. As Bro. Roloff said, "America is an insane asylum run by the inmates."


The next "pig in the poke" is the incidence of rape and resultant pregnancy. This is used as a good scare tactic, it goes something like this, "Yeah, you say your against abortion, but wait till your-wife or little girl gets raped and gets pregnant,then we'll see how you feel?" Then I am supposed to say, "Oh my, yes, by all means deary, go ahead and kill 1,500,000 kids-that will fix everything!!" Even in the unlikely event that someone does rape your wife or girl, and in the even unlikelier event that they become pregnant, why do you think killing an unborn baby will cure everything? Yes, rape is a terrible thing, a lot of people go through terrible things every day, unfair things. But as I said before, what has that got to do with murdering an unborn child? If it is established that the unborn is a human being, and it has, Biblically and Biologically, then why kill an innocent third party? But let's. read a few facts, shall we? F.D. Mecklenburg, M.D. states,

Although frequently cited by pro-abortionists, pregnancies resulting from rape are so rare as to be virtually non-existent. There are several contributing factors to this. In addition to the pure mathematical odds against pregnancy resulting from a single random act, medical research indicates that an extremely high percentage of woman exposed to severe emotional trauma will not ovulate. The rape itself, therefore acts as a psychological "birth control." [11]

And add to this the statistics of births, due to rape, and you will find that statutory rape is usually included. Statutory rape is usually not forcible rape. Any girl seventeen or younger who has had intercourse can be classified as having been raped. The idea being, she was too young to give legitimate consent.

A study done by J. Kuchera for the Journal of the American Medical Association states,

A scientific study of 1,000 cases of rape treated medically right after the rape results in zero cases of pregnancy. [12]

There you have it, like a dead dog in your front yard, facts are facts. Rape is not an issue, nor should it be an issue of much importance when discussing the abortion question.



Let's go on to some of the other arguments from hysteria. We will be quoting from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, whom we've already quoted from. He is an atheist and a Jew. He had performed or had performed under his supervision at least 75,000 abortions. He is now a pro-life advocate. He covers several topics in this particular quote, it will be left in tact so that the reader can get a clearer perspective of what he is saying, we now quote from Dr. Nathanson,

Those who classify a fetus as "mere tissue" are using a line of argumentation which is "biological nonsense," unworthy of the people who have advocated it.

Concerning the "woman and her doctor theory" - the view that they alone should decide on abortion. He quotes another author who says,

Abortion is no more a medical issue because doctors do it then is capital punishment a matter of electrical engineering because an electric chair is used.

He speaks of the "unwanted child" syndrome,

If anything, the statistical reports would lead one to conclude that liberal abortion laws, not strict ones, foster child abuse... Child abuse has risen noticeably since abortion was legalized, and so have illegitimate births, despite the availability of abortion as an alternative... If a fetus is carried to term it will be "unwanted" only for the nine months between conception and birth. It need never be "unwanted" because of the hopeless shortage of babies available for the long list of childless couples who earnestly want to adopt them.

Of the "coat hanger" argument. He admits that back-alley abortion was one of his early motivations in the pro-abortion cause. Now pay attention to his comments here:

In the moment we generally emphasized the dram of the individual case, not the mass statistics; but when we spoke of the latter, it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?

He goes on to give the correct figures,

...In 1967 before abortion was legalized, the federal government listed only 160 deaths from illegal abortion. In 1972, the last year before the U.S. Supreme decision opened the abortion door, there was a total of 39 deaths from illegal abortions. Certainly, even 39 women are important among the tens of millions in America. But it is absolute insanity even for the guardians of our "human resources" - to shout for the lives of 39 women in 1972 and say nothing of the lives of 1,500,000 babies murdered in 1980.

Dr. Nathanson speaks to the issue of "cost benefit." He refers to the view championed by Washington that it is cheaper for society to destroy babies at $100 apiece by abortion than to take responsibility for aiding poor woman and children. He says,

Are we supposed to consider such pragmatism of fetus elimination to be liberal and humanitarian? ... This may be good politics but it is hardly exemplar social morality. It reeks of the Pentagon's "body count" thinking of the Viet Nam era. Certain human issues are too grave to be handled in this way and must be shielded from a cost-effectiveness theory. Abortion is one of them. [13]

Those are the views of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D., former director of the world's largest abortion clinic, founder of the most effective pro-abortion movement in America, supervisor of the deaths of 75,000 human beings. He ought to know what he is talking about, shouldn't he? 


Another argument for killings kids is that it represents the "Woman's Right to Choose." I believe in freedom alright, but not when it causes the needless death of another. Some women want their own way so much that they will kill to get it. Mr. Kent Kelly states concerning this,

In many circles, feminists rally to the Pro-abortion cause as another expression of women's rights. [14]

This, again, is an argument from the brink of insanity. If the true cause is the glory of womanhood, why, is it selective women's rights instead of protecting all women equally? Since the Supreme Court abortion decision of 1973, an average of 80,000 women in each of the 50 states will never have the right to choose anything. That many female babies have-been murdered in their mothers' wombs. Eighty thousand militant feminists in each state in the Union could rock the political world on any subject. However, the truth of the matter is that if all those little ladies could be brought back to life, they would not support abortion as representing a woman's right to choose.


Another argument given is that a majority of Americans favor abortion. That is debatable. But even if it is true, so what?? Do we hinge our right to live on the vote of the America public?? Kent Kelly states,

If the right to life may be eliminated on the basis of public sentiment, then any other right may be taken away by majority decision. No right is more basic. No right is more obvious. Only someone on the brink of insanity would want his right to live put to a vote of the majority. [15]


Another argument is the "Population Explosion Myth." Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. states,

Today we constantly hear about the suffering people of an overly crowded. India. While there is little doubt that many people in India do suffer from a lack of food, this is not necessarily because of the number of people inhabiting that vast land. India has less people per square mile than England, West Germany or Taiwan... There is actually not a "population problem" as such today, as all the people of the world could fit side-by-side into Greater Jacksonville, Florida. What we do have is a problem of food distribution and the availability of natural resources.

Nick Eberstadt of Harvard's Center for Population Studies found that...

The world's population growth peaked at 1.9 per cent around 1970 and is now down to 1.7 per cent. In Western Europe the growth-rate has dropped 50%, in North America 30%, in China 30%, and in India 10%. Interestingly, demographer Donald Bogue in a Population Reference Bureau paper estimated that only 4.7% of the decline in the world fertility rate could be attributed to family planning efforts. Currently, the U.S. fertility rate is 1.7 (a rate of 2.1 is necessary merely to maintain a population replacement level) . And the decline in fertility in this country is most pronounced among blacks, American Indians and Mexican-Americans (25% of native American women have been sterilized with monies earmarked by treaty agreements for medical needs, and 35% of all Puerto Rican women have been sterilized).

What this dramatic decline in the fertility rate means is that in the not too distant future, there will be a disproportionate number of elderly compared to the number of youth. Because this will place a tremendous economic burden upon the non-elderly to care for our older citizens, there will be a growing advocacy of euthanasia. [16]


The next argument is. the call to "Save the Mother!!" This argument is used as a call for abortion, when it really is a matter of survival of any. The logic (or illogic) of the baby killers goes something like this,

If the issue is right-to-life, who has a right to live? Why is the mother, more important? If God determines destiny and He chooses to have the child live and the mother die, who are you to intervene? [17]

The argument is one of sarcasm. The-real way it is put is, "Surely you Bible-toters accept abortion when the woman's life is in danger." Note the way they put it, in danger. We quote again from someone who deals with this on a regular basis. Dr. Joseph P. Donnelly was former medical director of Margaret Hague Hospital in New Jersey. From 1947 to 1961, there were 115,000 deliveries at his maternity hospital with no abortions. Dr. Donnelly says:

Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. [18]

Dr. Bernard J. Pisani, Professor of Obstetrics an Gynecology at the New York University School of Medicine said:

Medical reasons for provoking abortion are just about non-existent. In fact, no basis on pure medical grounds ever really stands up. [19]

Again, Dr. John L. Grady, former Chief of Staff at Glades General Hospital in Florida, says,

Thousands of physicians across the United States. each of whom has cared for hundreds of mothers and infants during their respective years of practice, state firmly they have never in these thousands of pregnancies seen a single instance where the life of the infant had to be sacrificed to save the mother, nor have they seen a situation where a mother has been lost for failure of the physician to perform, an abortion. In fact, in more than 13 years of obstetrical practice, I never lost a mother from any cause. Moreover, during that time, at the public hospital where I was a staff member there were thousands of babies delivered and, to my knowledge, not a single therapeutic abortion. Thus, with today's advanced medical knowledge and practice, a "therapeutic" abortion is never necessary, because competent physicians, using the latest medical and surgical techniques, can preserve the lives of both the mother and the child. [20]

All of these physicians work daily with delivery of babies, they have "hands on" experience. They know more, of what they are talking about than a bunch of quacks who make a living off of killing babies!! The "Save the Mother" syndrome has been used by pro-abortionist as a tool to generate sentiment in favor of lax abortion laws.

There may be a one in a million case, in which case the thing to do is to try and save both. If it is impossible, then do all you can to save the mother. Why? As, I said before, if the mother dies, they both die!! 


Another nonsensical platitude given by the baby killers is that it reduces disease!! The little darling might be prone to cancer, heart disease, or some other disease!! So let's rub him out! These types of arguments border on complete stupidity. If we aborted every baby that "might" come up with a disease, who would be left? Dr. Hymie Gorden, Chairman of the Dept. of Medical Genetics Mayo Clinic Minnesota says,

Talk about breeding out genetic diseases is a lot of nonsense. Seriously affected persons are unlikely to marry and have children; the genes are passed along by carriers* For instance, there are 40 carriers for every person with sickle cell anemia ... if every victim - of this disease were eliminated, it would require 750 years just to cut the incidence in half; to stamp it out altogether would require 200,000 abortions for every 500,000 couples. Because each "normal". person is the carrier of three of four bad genes, the only way to eliminate genetic disease's would be to sterilize or abort everybody. [21]

It is absurd to see what extent these hedonists will go to get what they want. It is reminiscent of dealing with politicians. If they can't dazzle you with wit, they baffle you with bull.

Let's continue with more of the latter from the looney bin. They say it is just a good method of birth control. Why, no fake jake? Ain't you the brilliant one? If you kill people off, you'll have less people!! Now, there are many reasons given for controlling the population: not enough food, can't afford them, don't want them, and so on. Dr. Lewis L. Bock, Chief of the Personal Health Section State Division of Health Services, Raleigh, N.C., says,

Our abortion statistics show that people are choosing this as a major form of birth control. That to me, as a physician and a person, is barbaric. The major tragedy is that it is the affluent and middle class people who are looking to abortion as a birth control method. [22]

This is enlightening, is it not? Those "poor ole black folk" shouldn't have' to raise all them kids! So let's kill 'em off! But, the truth is, it is the ones who CAN afford the kids who are having these kids killed just to keep from having them. COSMETIC ABORTION "It might change my hormones and give me acne!!" How dreadful!!

To underscore it even further Dr. C. Everett Koop. M. D., Surgeon General of the United States, and former Surgeon-in-Chief of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia - says,

When doctors are willing to become social executioners for millions of babies, we must examine what motives are used to justify their actions. Usually, reasons given include preserving the life of the mother, the expectation of a defective child, rape, and incest. Even if these were valid reasons, they would account for only 3% of all abortions, A full 97% of abortions occur for matters of convenience and economy. [23]

Then what is the real reason for abortion? It's spelled M-O-N-E-Y. One of Dr. Nathanson's medical acquaintances earned $185,000 in eighteen months working ONLY ON THE WEEKENDS!!! That was in 1979, you can imagine what it is now!! In the yellow pages of Dallas, TX, abortion clinics are listed under "Birth Control." An investigation by the Chicago Tribune in 1978...

Found many clinics in that city operating with "doctors" who had no license to practice medicine. These people, in countless instances, were performing "abortions" on women who were not pregnant. This, of course, is not an example of "murder for profit," but the profit motive is much in evidence." [24]

Now isn't that a new leaf to turn over. What they did was to give the young girl a pregnancy test, then tell them it is positive when it wasn't, then give them a fake "abortion" and charge them a bundle of dough!! Only in America!! Barnum was right, "A sucker born every minute," they seem to be coming every second or so now days.

Under United States law, unborn children have sued and been awarded damages for, injuries from accidents (Torrigan v. Watertown News Co., 352 Mass., 446). Unborn children have inherited property, qualified for social security payments, and won damages after dying in the womb by means of suites filed in their behalf ("Abortion, the Practice of Medicine, and the Due Process of Law," UCLA Law Review 233, 1969). "Murder for fun" has no legal, logical, or moral leg to stand on. [25]

Here's a good example of morality if you ever saw it.

Perhaps the leading force in population control, however, is Planned Parenthood. Its, Margaret Sanger advocated situational ethics and birth control "to create a race of thoroughbreds" (BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW, November 1921). This forerunner of Hilter's eugenics movement also proclaimed that the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. (WOMEN AND THE NEW RACE). Today, Planned Parenthood doe's not use such forceful language, but rather more subtle terms, like advocating the need for "genetic counseling." [26]

Planned Parenthood put out a supplement to FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES entitled, "Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, by universality or Selectivity of Impact:"

1) Universal Impact-restructure family, encourage increased homosexuality, educate for family limitation, fertility control agents in the water supply, encourage women to work.

2) Economic Impact-tax policies: marriage tax, child tax, additional on parents with more than one or two children in school.

3) Social Impact-compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except, for a few who would be allowed three, confine childbearing to a limited number of adults, stock certificate type permits for children, discouragement of private home ownership, stop awarding public housing on the basis of family size.

4) Measures Predicted on Existing Motivations-payment to encourage sterilization, abortion and contraception, along with allowing certain contraceptives to be distributed non-medically. [27]

That is what a mess of your and my tax money is going for right now. The Planned Parenthood Federation gets grants and subsidies from the government to carry out these and other programs. Such as the school based health clinics, where a girl can go and get transportation to an abortion clinic, without parental knowledge or consent, having the abortion and return in the same day with no one knowing but a few of the school officials.

I will close this chapter by quoting a well known lecturer in medical schools. He "asked one of his classes what they would recommend in the following case:

The father had syphilis
"The mother had TB
"They had four children already
"One was blind.
"One was born dead.
"One was a deaf mute.
"One had TB.
"The mother was pregnant with her fifth child.
"Almost without exception, the medical students indicated that they would recommend abortion.
"The lecturer then stated, Congratulations! You have just killed BEETHOVEN." [28]

Abortion is murder, pure and simple to all but the amoral. To all who have honestly looked at the facts, there is but one Biblical, Biological or Moral conclusion, and that is abortion is murder.

For those of you who are still skeptical, you should at least take the honest position of President Ronald Reagan, when he advocates, if you are not 100% sure that the baby in the womb is not a living human being, you are bound to be anti-abortion. The logic is simple, if it is not human, what have you done? If it is a human being and you abort him, what have you done? Amen.

"If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death -and those that are ready to be slain: if thou sayest, behold, we knew it not-doth not He that pondereth that heart consider it?" [29]

There is no neutral ground.


Second Timothy 3:3-4. [1]

Kent Kelly, Abortion, (Southern Pines: Calvary Press, 1981), 45. [2]

Kent Kelly, p. 78. [3]

Kent Kelly,. p. 91. [4]

Martha Kent Willingy, Beyond Conception (Boston: Gambet Inc., 1971), p. 82. [5]

Ibid. [6]

Russel Shaw, Abortion on Trial, (Dayton: Pflaum Press, 1968), p. 82. [7]

Shaw, p. 145. [8]

Kelly, p. 79. [9]

Bender and Leone, p. 115. [10]

Kelly, p. 78. [11]

Kelly, p. 79. [12]

Kelly, p. 70-72. [13]

Kelly, P. 89. [14]

Kelly, p. 90. [14]

Kelly, pp. 115 and 116. [16]

Kelly, p. 93. [17]

Kelly, p. 94. [18]

Kelly, p. 95. [19]

Kelly, p. 96. [20]

Kelly, P. 80. [21]

Kelly, p. 81. [22]

Kelly, p. 83. [23]

Kelly, p. 104. [24]

Kelly, p. 103. [25]

Kelly, pp. 119 and 120. [26]

Kelly, p. 121. [27]

Kelly, P. 13. [28]

Proverbs 24:11-12. [29]

 -Page Navigation-

Webmaster Notes | Introduction/Biblical Facts | Biological Facts | Morals | Conclusion | Bibliography