This article is taken from the web site: Conservapedia

 Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy,[1] often causing fetal pain. As of 2012, it is estimated there have been over 54 million babies murdered by abortion in the United States since 1973.[2] Abortion is a billion-dollar industry in the United States. Although Planned Parenthood likes to claim abortion accounts for just 3% of its services, according to its 2007-08 budget, it received $1.038 billion of revenue, and half to two-thirds relates to its abortion services. (See Planned Parenthood’s Budget) Dr. George Tiller “estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000.”[3]

All of the arguments for abortion fall flat when given serious scrutiny. Right to choice is a misnomer, since moral people can recognize that choosing to murder is a choice worthy of punishment. Right to one’s body is no excuse for using that body to harm others. A right to privacy should not permit murder, whether in the privacy of one’s own home or own body. And as Thomas Lucente Jr. once pointed out, saying one can’t criticize a woman’s choice to murder her children is the same as saying one can’t criticize the president without being the president.[4] Both life of the mother and rape are rare circumstances accounting for less than 1% of all abortions, with little bearing on the broader “abortion on demand” issue, particularly since all legislation the Pro-Life movement has been putting out recently has included exceptions for them, and many states had laws allowing abortion for such cases before Roe v. Wade – abortion was legalized for other reasons. (See Arguments On Abortion)

Ultimately, this debate is about when a fetus becomes a human being worthy of all applicable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence, for once it is we should not take its life lightly. And when it comes to that, 18,150 abortions occur after the 21st week of pregnancy[5] – the earliest point children can be born prematurely and live.[6] An additional 45,980 abortions occur in the 16th-20th weeks of pregnancy.[5] These are 60 thousand abortions each year that are clearly murder, since the child is at or near the same stage of pregnancy as children born prematurely via C-Section. Furthermore, substantial fetal development occurs within the first 12 weeks (1st trimester) of pregnancy, including brain wave activity at 6 weeks, complete body sensitivity at 10 weeks, and all facial expressions (including smiling) at 11 weeks.[7] By not erring on the side of caution when potentially infringing on the inalienable right to life given by our Creator, the Pro-Choice movement has brought the blood of countless children on their hands, and on our nation’s. (See When Does Life Begin?)

A growing body of evidence increasingly suggests that abortion is linked to Breast Cancer, later premature births, and other health concerns. Millions of women who had an abortion later suffer psychologically or physically from it, and support groups exist to help.[8]  Many victims of abortion find healing by speaking out against, and discouraging, similar harm to other mothers and their children.[9] “Abortion doesn’t solve your problems, it only creates different ones,” warned a full-page ad by women who had abortions.[10] Abortion always ends the life of the unborn child, typically by dismemberment.  Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, future premature birth, mental illness, and other long-term health problems for the mother, as detailed below. (See Health Concerns)

One of NARAL’s founders, Bernard Nathanson, acknowledged that NARAL in the early days of the Pro-Choice movement simply fabricated statistics on back-alley abortions; inflating the actual numbers ten-fold to get abortion legalized. Rather than making abortion rare, the annual number of abortions has increased 1500% since Roe v. Wade.[11] (See History) Gallup polling in 2012 reveals that just 24% of Americans support abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy,[12] even though abortion is allowed in all 9 months. [13] Just 25% believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances, and an additional 13% believe it should be legal under most circumstances. Most Americans believe abortion should usually be illegal save in rare cases.[12] (See Public Opinion)

Abortion in Poland declined by 99% after communism was overthrown (and abortion abolished[14]), and women’s health has dramatically improved there due to fewer abortions.[15]

Statistics on abortion

  • As of 2012, it is estimated there has been over 54 million babies murdered by abortion since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. After reaching 25 percent from a high of over 1.6 million in the year 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million infants murdered by abortion a year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI).[2]
  • Approximately 22% of all U.S. pregnancies ended in abortion.[16]
  • Only about 1 percent each year are attributed to rape and incest.[17] 40% of women ages 15 to 44 have had at least one abortion. 4 out of 10 teen pregnancies end in murder by abortion. Based on the rate of abortion, it was estimated (2000) that 43 percent of American women would  have at least one abortion by the age of 45.
  • 7 out of 10 U.S. women are sexually active (usually as fornicators) but do not want to become pregnant.[18]
  • Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions. 57% of all women having abortions between 15-44 are in their 20’s. 36% of non-Hispanic women are abortions were white, 30% are non-Hispanic black, and 25% are hispanic.[19]
  • 37% of women killing babies by abortion were Protestant, (include those who identified as “Christian” but who did not specify a denomination) while 28% were Catholic, and 20% identified themselves as born-again, evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist (in 2000, some 13% of abortion patients aged 18 and older identified as born-again or evangelical before the question was reworded slightly for the 2008 survey), while 27% gave no religious affiliation, increasing from 22% in 2000. (Protestants were under-represented among those committing abortion in proportion to the total number of Protestants nationwide, and the relative abortion rate for this group was lower than the rate for all women.)[19]
  • Although 66% of women having abortions had some type of health insurance, 57% paid for their abortion out of pocket. Among women with private health insurance, 63% paid out of pocket.[19]

Arguments On Abortion

The following are some common Pro-Choice arguments on abortion, and problems with the reasoning.

Right to Choose

The obvious question not being confronted is what choice is at stake? The choice to kill another human being to bypass the consequences and responsibilities that should accompany the choice to create another life; in essence the choice to murder one’s own children so sex can be engaged in freely without responsibility or consequence.[20] Sometimes women die from abortion.[21] Since abortion is deliberate and thought about in advance, it is comparable to a premeditated killing.[22]

Rare Circumstances: Life of Mother and Rape

BBC News has an article called “Abortion in self-defence” arguing that abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother’s life and health are at risk, and that this is justifiable self-defense. However, BBC News acknowledges that abortion is NOT justified for the following reasons:

“But supposing the mother is not in physical danger, what then? There are a number of cases where some people argue that a woman should have the right to an abortion, such as: damage to mental health, damage to family, damage to career prospects, damage to financial prospects, damage to plans for her life. The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia. But if we don’t regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn’t have a full right to life, then these cases of self-defence may be arguable.”-BBC News.[23]

However, (A) danger to life of the mother, like rape, is a very rare circumstance that accounts for less than 1% of all abortions[17], (B) all major legislation put out by the Right to Life movement over the past decade has included exceptions allowing abortions for rape and life of the mother (e.g. Mexico City Policy, Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, etc.) and (C) at least 13 states had legislation allowing abortion for rape or life of the mother BEFORE Roe v. Wade[24]– abortion was legalized for other reasons.The bottom line is that apart from such extremely rare circumstances, BBC News acknowledges that “The self-defence argument for abortion seems to fail here, because although a threat to life can be a defence to a charge of killing someone, none of the above would be an adequate defence in a case of homicide, nor would they be regarded as reasons that justified euthanasia.[23] Choosing to kill another person, in other words, is unjustifiable unless the mother’s life is in danger or, debatably,  if rape occurred. In fact, those who bring up cases like rape and life of the mother are doing so because, deep inside, they themselves know that choosing to murder another human being is justifiable only under such extreme circumstances, and NOT for abortion on demand.

The only way to justify abortion apart from such circumstances is, as BBC News says, “if we don’t regard the foetus as a person with a right to live, or if we regard it as a being that doesn’t have a full right to life“.[23] You see, this is not about the right to choose at all, and such a slogan distracts from the real issue – the real issue is whether the fetus is a human being deserving of a full right to life. Because if it is a human being worthy of the right to life, then there is no excuse for “choosing to kill” via abortion on demand.

Right to One’s Body

The Pro-Choice movement likes to say that women should have a right to their bodies. However, such a right should logically not allow one to harm others with that body, including physical assault, murder, rape, or theft, and therefore, this is not an absolute right, but a privilege that is not intended to exceed another’s unalienable rights, including the right to life. As Hugh V. McLachlan of Glasgow Caledonian University pointed out in 1997, there is no entitlement to one’s body and “we have rights duties, liabilities, restrictions anddisadvantages as well as rights concerning our own bodies.

“Consider the assumption at issue in the abstract: ‘That particular X is your X and, therefore, you are entitled to do what you want with it’. As a matter of pure logic, the claim is an absurdity. What if ‘X’ stands for a Thompson Machine Gun? Should we say: ‘That is your machine gun and, therefore, you can do whatever you like with it?’ On the contrary, although there might be some things which you and only you can of right do to and with the gun, if that particular machine gun is your machine gun then it is incumbent upon you in particular to ensure that certain things are not done with it. Is the situation any different when ‘X’ pertains to one’s body or to parts of it? I do not think so.”-Hugh V. McLachlan, Glasgow Caledonian University.[25]

As McLachlan continues to point out, this emphasis on rights neglects the other side of the coin, responsibilities or duties. He gives on pg. 177 the example of an insurance policy, and how using one’s body to commit suicide can invalidate such a contract.[25] Logically, creating another human life should likewise bring responsibly for actions toward that life – how is the decision to create another human life of lesser importance than the decision to sign an insurance contract? Why should one be able to kill a separate person to void the sexual decision to bring about another life, yet not be able to kill oneself without voiding an insurance contract?

“Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one’s right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others.”-Francis J. Beckwith, Christian Research Journal.[26]

Ultimately, the real question is whether the fetus in question is another human being to be accorded unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence, for if so, no right to one’s body should give power to infringe on its unalienable right to life. Your right to your body does not include the right, in other words, to kill others using that body to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of a sexual decision to create another life. That is what in the real world is called “murder” and it is reprehensible. Therefore, the real question is at what point a fetus becomes a human being.

Right to Privacy

To get abortion legalized, the Pro-Choice movement had to argue that women should have a “right to privacy”.[27] However, logically, if the fetus is a human being and thus murder would be committed, privacy is no excuse for such murder. Logically, killing someone in the privacy of one’s own home should no more be an excuse for murder than killing them in the privacy of one’s body. Furthermore, as Judge Henry J. Friendly pointed out in the nation’s first major abortion case, Hall v. Lefkowitz, abortion is actually a complete violation of privacy when you look at it, requiring intervention in a woman’s most private areas by a physician and variety of medical personnel.

A holding that the privacy of sexual intercourse is protected against governmental intrusion scarcely carries as a corollary that when this has resulted in conception, government may not forbid destruction of the fetus. The type of abortion the plaintiffs particularly wish to protect against governmental sanction is the antithesis of privacy. The woman consents to intervention in the uterus by a physician, with the usual retinue of assistants, nurses, and other paramedical personnel, indeed the condition calling for such intervention may very likely have been established by clinical tests… Yet, even if we were to take plaintiffs’ legal position that the legislature cannot constitutionally interfere with a woman’s right to do as she will with her own body so long as no harm is done to others, the argument does not support the conclusion plaintiffs would have us draw from it. For we cannot say the New York legislature lacked a rational basis for considering that abortion causes such harm. Even if we should put aside the interests of the father, negligible indeed in the many cases when he has abandoned the prospective mother but not in all, the legislature could permissibly consider the fetus itself to deserve protection.[28]

Women Choose, Not Men

The Pro-Choice movement likes to say men and fathers should have no say in the abortion debate, only women. However, as Thomas J. Lucente Jr. points out, this is similar to saying one can’t criticize the President unless one is the President.

“The pro-abortion crowd will argue that because I am a man, I should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion, unless, of course, I support the mass murder of 50 million babies in the last 39 years. That’s akin to saying I can’t criticize the president unless I have been the president.”-Thomas J. Lucente Jr.[4]

As Alan Keyes has pointed out, the Pro-Choice movement essentially is arguing for the baby’s rights to be dependent on the mother’s desire for it, making women slave-owners, essentially – this is very different from the Declaration of Independence which says the Creator gives us our unalienable rights, rather than them being dependent upon other people.[29]

“Either you can subscribe to the American creed which says that God endowed us with our rights, or you can subscribe to the abortion creed which says that those rights are the consequences of our mother’s will.”-Alan Keyes, speech at Southern Methodist University, Feb. 24, 1997.[30]
“… abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required… Well, it’s a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will. We don’t recognize what that’s saying? What that’s saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother’s choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power. Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust.”-Alan Keyes, speech in San Francisco, March 3, 2003.[31]

Ultimately, every American has a responsibility to stand up for the rights of other Americans when they are being murdered – regardless of gender. And to say a mother should be able to murder her children whenever she feels like it, apart from the father’s opinions, is simply wrong.

When Does Life Begin?

Logically, we ought to be erring on the side of caution when potentially infringing on another person’s inalienable right to life, rather than seeing how close we can come to committing murder without doing so. Abortion in the U.S. is legal in all 9 months (36 weeks) of pregnancy.[13]

Premature Birth

Even though children can be born as early as 21 weeks after pregnancy[6] the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, reports that 1.5% of the 1.21 million abortions in the United States occur after the 21st week of pregnancy.[5] Therefore, 18,150 abortions occur each year after the earliest point that children can be born prematurely and live. An additional 3.8% occur 16-20 weeks after pregnancy, an additional 45,980 abortions each year that are most certainly murder given proximity to time of premature birth.[5] Why is a baby considered human outside the womb, yet nothing more than a fetus to be aborted at or near the same point in pregnancy if still inside the womb? And what will abortionists argue? That this is “only” 50-60 thousand innocent lives being taken each year?

Fetal Development

“Modern biology instructs that the genetic code that will dictate the entire future of the fetus is formed as early as the ___ day after conception; the fetus is thus something more than inert matter. The rules of property and of tort have come increasingly to recognize its rights.”-Judge Henry Friendly, Hall v. Lefkowitz.[28]

According to Brian Clowes, Ph.D[7], as cited by the Pro-Life Action League[32], fetal development occurs as follows after conception:

  • 2 weeks: First completed brain cells appear.
  • 3 weeks: Heart begins beating, eyes form; brain, spinal column, and nervous system virtually complete.
  • 4 weeks: Muscle development, arm and leg buds visible, neocortical cells appear, blood flows in baby’s veins separate from mother’s blood.
  • 5 weeks: Pituitary gland forms, mouth, ears, and nose take shape.
  • 6 weeks: Brain waves can be detected.
  • 7 weeks: Cartilage skeleton completely formed, umbilical cord complete, brain coordinates voluntary muscle movement and involuntary organ movement, lips sensitive to touch.
  • 8 weeks: Based on nervous system development, a fetus can likely feel pain, teeth present, all organs present save lungs, taste buds and fingerprints forming, responds to tapping on amniotic sac.
  • 9 weeks: Fingernails form, can bend its fingers around an object and suck its thumb.
  • 10 weeks: All parts of body sensitive to touch; can swallow, squint, frown, and pucker brow.
  • 11 weeks: Breathing amniotic fluid and does so until birth, urination, all facial expressions (including smiling) possible, taste buds complete.
  • 12 weeks: Can kick, turn over, make a fist, hiccup, cry, open its mouth, press its lips together, and practice breathing.
  • 13 weeks: All senses are present, including vocal chords.
  • 20 weeks: Can be surprised by loud external noises.
  • 23 weeks: A fetus demonstrates REM (Rapid Eye Movement).
  • 4 months: Can grasp, swim, and turn somersaults.
  • 6 months: Hair growth on head and eyebrows, eyelashes form.
  • 7 months: A fetus’ hands can support its entire weight.
  • 8 months: Fetus weighs more than 4 lbs., all body systems present.
  • 9 months: After this point, the fetus gains a half lb. each week and 41 of the 45 total generations of cell replication have already taken place.

Given this, it is small wonder that 76% of Americans in 2011 disapprove of abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (See Public Polling)

Health Concerns

Mental Health Risks From Abortion

A comprehensive review of literature, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry suggests that “there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion.”[33][34]

Abortion and Breast Cancer

The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.[35] “A new study coming from researchers in Sri Lanka finds women who had abortions … [had a] 3.42 [increased risk] … compared with those who kept their baby. … The Sri Lankan study is the fourth epidemiological study in fourteen months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, including studies from the U.S., China and Turkey.”[36]  LifeNews also reported in 2009 that a National Cancer Institute researcher admitted there was a link between abortion and breast cancer.[37]  Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy.[38] A study at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center published in 2009 confirmed a 40% increase in risk in breast cancer from abortion.[39][40] Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades.[41]

Walk for Life rally

A new study on breast cancer in Turkey published in April 2009 in the peer-reviewed World Journal of Surgical Oncology found, through a surveying process, that induced abortion was a statistically significant cause of breast cancer risk. The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk….”[42]

Specifically, the study found that Turkish women who received one or more induced abortions had a 66% higher risk of breast cancer than women who never had an abortion.[43] [44]

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic.  Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion.[45][46]  She said, “I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life.  I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate.”[47]  Similarly, an early study published in Japan in 1957 showed that women who have abortions have a much higher risk of breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.[48]

In a peer-reviewed medical journal, Karen Malec observed that:[35]

Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link [between abortion and] breast cancer have been published.  Twenty-nine report risk elevations.  Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations.  Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., a specialist in breast cancer an a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, has explained the physiology and epidemiology of the abortion-breast cancer link.  She made the following observation:[49]

This past August in Minneapolis, Patrick Carroll, director of the Pension and Population Research Institute of London, presented a paper to the largest gathering of statisticians in North America.  He showed that abortion was the best predictor of breast cancer in Britain.  Breast cancer is the only cancer in Britain which has its highest incidence and mortality rate among the upper rather than lower social classes.  Abortion before a full term pregnancy and late pregnancy were the best explanations for this incidence.  He also found that there had been a 70% increase risk of breast cancer between 1971 and 2002 and that for women between 50 and 54 years of age incidence was highly correlated with abortion.

Demographic evidence of abortion causing breast cancer includes the following.  Breast cancer rates are far lower in Western countries that prohibited abortion than in those that promoted it.  Ireland, which virtually bans abortion, reportedly has a lifetime rate of breast cancer of only 1 in 13, nearly half the rate of 1 in 7.5 in the United States.[50]  The rate of breast cancer increases steadily as one travels from Ireland, where abortion is illegal, to Northern Ireland, where abortion is legal but rare, to England, where abortion is common. [51]

In Romania, abortion was illegal under two decades of rule by the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the country enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the entire world during that time, far lower than comparable Western countries. Romania’s breast cancer rate was an astounding one-sixth the rate of the United States.[52]  But after the execution of Ceausescu on Christmas Day, 1989, Romania has taken the opposite approach, embracing abortion to the point that Romania now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.[53]  One Romanian observer decried, “The liberalization of abortions in Romania in 1990, the significant increase of the number of abortions at relatively short intervals, determined a rise in the incidence of breast and uterine cervix cancer in my country.”[54]

Studies on rats, which are an accepted method for identifying causes of cancer in humans,  further confirm that abortion does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer.  As Dr. Joel Brind observed, “Researchers also widely admit to the biological plausibility of abortion as an independent cause of breast cancer, through the estrogen-mediated stimulation of breast growth in the absence of differentiation. This was demonstrated experimentally in rats in the landmark experiments of Russo and Russo.”[55] Additional scientific information on the abortion-breast cancer link is available at BCPInstitute.org.

An expert (Dr. Lynn Rosenberg) hired to defend abortion felt compelled to admit, under cross-examination, that a woman increases her risk for breast cancer by having an abortion compared to carrying her pregnancy to childbirth:[56]

Question by the attorney: ‘So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she carries the pregnancy to term, [is that] correct?’
Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: ‘Probably, yes.’
Question: ‘Looking at that another way, let’s compare two women. Let’s say both got pregnant at age 15– one terminates the pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to get married and have two kids, say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?’
Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: ‘It’s probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15.’

Despite the overwhelming evidence — and inescapable logic — for abortion increasing breast cancer, promoters of abortion cite flawed articles in an attempt to deny the link. The flaws in these articles are exposed in the Harvard abortion study and “Legal Implications of a Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer” by Andrew Schlafly in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.[57]

As Dr. Lanfranchi has explained:[58]

Well-documented breast physiology accounts for the fact that oral contraceptives and abortion are risk factors for breast cancer.  There is an effort to suppress this information by federal agencies and those in academic medicine.  Without this information, women cannot make a fully informed choice about their method of fertility control or about whether to maintain an unplanned pregnancy.  Medical ethics demands that they be informed.

Pro-choice should include informed choice.[59]  Yet efforts continue to suppress awareness that abortion increases breast cancer.  Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute’s “study” of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed as explained in  National Cancer Institute on Abortion.

Just as organizations denied or failed to disclose the connection between smoking and lung cancer, many organizations aligned with liberal politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection.

The Smellie’s double crochet abortion tool was used to grab and forcibly remove the fetus from the womb.

Abortion Causes Future Harm with Premature Births

“At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs).”[60] Premature birth tragically causes brain damage, and an array of other severe, lifelong injuries ranging from Cerebral Palsy to blindness, or even death, and few mothers would knowingly increase the risk of that happening.  “There are at least seventeen (17) studies that have found that previous induced abortions increase preterm birth risk” and thereby increase debilitating Cerebral Palsy in children.”[61]

In 2008, the generally pro-abortion British medical journal, The Lancet, admitted that a procedure often used in abortion increase the risk of premature birth:[62]

“For example, greater public and professional awareness of evidence that repeated uterine instrumentation–eg, uterine curettage or endometrial biopsy–is associated with increased risk of subsequent preterm birth might over time influence decision-making about the procedure.”

Researchers Rooney and Calhoun observed:[62]

Large studies have reported a doubling of [early premature birth] EPB risk from two prior IAs.  Women who had four or more IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of [extremely early premature births] XPB, an increase of 800 percent.  These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.

Demographic evidence of how abortion increases premature birth includes the following:

  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): “[T]he abortion rate for black women has been approximately three times as high as that for white women (range: 2.6–3.1) since 1991″[63]
  • Science Daily’s report on a study by the Washington University School of Medicine: “African-American women are three times more likely to deliver babies three to 17 weeks prematurely than Caucasian women”[64]

In 2002 an article entitled “Preterm Birth: A Continuing Challenge” noted that premature births are abnormally high in the United States, citing a study that observed that a previous abortion is a “risk factor for both infertility and preterm birth.”[65]

The rate of premature birth is elevated by the same amount as the abortion rate, as expected if abortion increases the risk of premature birth.

Other Health Risks from Abortion

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that:[66]

“While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.”

A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates associated with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.[67]In England, the “Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.”  The medical royal college warned that women who have abortions may be at risk of mental health problems.[68]  A New Zealand study found that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.[69]  The researcher in this study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it. [70]

The study concludes with the following statement:

These findings are inconsistent with the current consensus on the psychological effects of abortion. In particular, in its 2005 statement on abortion, the American Psychological Association concluded that “well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low…the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age” (American Psychological Association, 2005). This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion (Cougle et al., 2003; Gissler et al., 1996; Reardon & Cougle, 2002). [70]

Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand study stated:

It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures.” [71]

Another study published in the OB/GYN Survey detailed long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortions.[72]

Suicide rates among women who had abortions are six times higher than women who gave birth in the prior year. Overall, deaths from suicide, homicide and accidents were 248% higher after an abortion, as found by a 13-year study in Finland of its entire population.[73]

In the United States, only one state (Missouri) requires that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion.[74]  In the other 49 states, an abortion patient can and often is left without prompt medical care by the treating physician.

One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks.  She “became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse.” The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.[75]


The perverse and cruel atheist Marquis de Sade advocated induced abortion.[76]

Please also see: History of abortion

Abortion was an extremely harsh punishment in the Old Testament, imposed against those who have “rebelled against” God:

“Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” (Hosea 9:16)
“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” (Hosea 13:16)
“Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.” (2 Kings 15:16)

The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity.

The Journal of Medical Ethics article declared concerning the atheist and sadist Marquis de Sade:

In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade’s writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.[77]

Population control is based on pseudoscience and ill founded economic assumptions.[78]

Adolf Hitler and Abortion

For more information see: Abortion and Adolf Hitler

‎In 1942 Adolf Hitlerdeclared:

In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman’s health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. [79]

After World War II, the War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten Nazi leaders for “encouraging and compelling abortion,” which the tribunal considered a “crime against humanity.”[80]

Hall v. Lefkowitz

Hall v. Lefkowitz was a court case on November 4, 1969[81] during which Roy Lucas, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama Law School, and his self-founded James Madison Constitutional Law Institute, sued to challenge New York’s abortion laws. A three-judge court presided which included famous judge Henry Friendly. Friendly wrote a draft opinion in the spring of 1970 declaring government had right to regulate abortion and protect a fetus, contrary to the later Roe v. Wade ruling. However, shortly thereafter the New York legislature amended state abortion law to allow abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, and Hall’s case was dismissed as unnecessary.[28] Read some of Friendly’s arguments made years before Roe v. Wade.

NARAL’s Lies About Back-Alley Abortions

Bernard Nathanson, one of NARAL’s co-founders, described how he and the organization fabricated abortion statistics and used slogans to sway the public during the early days of Roe v. Wade. {{cquote|I remember laughing when we made those slogans up. We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical. We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization.[11]

Roe v. Wade

Prior to 1973 abortion was illegal in most of the United States, though a few states (such as Hawaii and New York) allowed it with restrictions.[82] The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade[83] decision ruled that abortions are lawful under the U.S. Constitution up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb, and an accompanying decision issued the same day captioned Doe v. Bolton essentially legalized abortion in the unlimited discretion of the abortionist at any time during pregnancy, up to and including birth.  Conservatives immediately criticized these decisions as examples of Judicial Activism.

Present Day

In 2008, worldwide there were approximately 115,000 abortions done per day.[84] In 2008, approximately 83% of all abortions were performed in developing countries and 17% occurred in developed countries.[84]

States may regulate abortion, such as requiring a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors.  Abortion clinics often fail to comply with the health standards of surgical facilities, and States can require compliance (but often do not, resulting in discomfort and harm to the victims of abortion).  Many abortionists lack hospital admitting privileges at nearby facilities, so women having complications must go on their own to emergency rooms to see physicians unfamiliar with what actually happened.  For any other operation the cost of treating complications is included in the cost of the operation, but for abortions the abortion clinics take their money and typically do not pay for the care of complications.

The more pro-abortion the State regulations are, the larger the number of abortion clinics it will have.  Arizona, though a pro-life State, has a regulatory system that results in twelve abortion clinics operating within its borders.  In contrast, Mississippi has only one abortion clinic, and Missouri has only two.

Reasons Given For Abortions

Primary reasons women reported for undergoing abortions

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is not a conservative or pro-life organization, conducted a poll of more than 1,200 patients undergoing induced abortions at 11 large-scale abortion facilities in the United States. The women were asked to identify reasons for seeking abortions, and identify the primary motivation. An additional 38 women at four sites were interviewed in-depth.[85]

The poll omitted any reference to whether the women were able to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before choosing to have an abortion.  For the vast majority of women who have abortion, the reason is a lack of knowledge about the unborn child as displayed by an ultrasound. Because a large part of their campaign funds are bankrolled by the abortion industry, liberals are frequent opponents to laws making available ultrasound treatment for patients not certain of the decision. Some physicians have been reported intimidating and pressuring patients to continue with an abortion after the patient has had a change of heart, either on the operating table or before surgery. One doctor, who was also employed as a spokesman for a prominent liberal pro-abortion think tank, reportedly forced a patient to undergo the procedure in order to fill a quota on insurance claims.

Among reasons provided to the women as part of the poll, the two most common selections were “Having a baby would dramatically change my life” (74%) and “I can’t afford a baby now” (73%).[85]  Concerns about their own health were mentioned by only 13% of the women, while only 12% mentioned concerns about the baby’s health, though only 3% and 4% respectively gave those as their primary reason for seeking abortion.[85]

Interestingly, only 14% indicated “husband or partner wants me to have an abortion” as a reason, down from 24% in a previous survey in 1987.[85] This contrasts with research on women post-abortion, among whom 64% reported feeling pressured by others to abort, and may indicate pressure to abort comes not so much from husbands now as other relationships.[86]

What is often ignored in studies of why women submit to abortions is an ambivalence by some in early pregnancy. Such ambivalence typically resolves when the mother becomes more aware of her unborn child, as displayed by an ultrasound.[87][88][89]

Public Opinion

Public polling, as seen below (sourced from Gallup[12]), reveals that Americans are increasingly calling themselves Pro-Life (50%) and continue to say abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances (59%) such as rape (75%) and life of the mother (83%).

Legal or Illegal

According to Gallup’s most recent poll (May 3-6, 2012), 20% of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal, and 39% believe it should be legal only in a few circumstances, a combined 59% that believe it should always or usually be illegal. 25% believe abortion should always be legal, and 13% believe that it should be legal in most circumstances, a combined 38% that believe  it should always or usually be legal. 4% hold no opinion. The percentage of Americans which believe abortion should always or usually be illegal has varied from a low of 51% (Sept. 6-7, 1994, and Sept. 22-24, 1995) to a high of 62% (May 2-5, 2005). Gallup has polled the question 33 times since it began asking in 1994.[90]

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

Currently, 50% of Americans describe themselves as Pro-Life, 41% describe themselves as Pro-Choice, and 4% as Mixed/Neither, as of the most recent poll (May 3-6, 2012). The percentage of Americans describing themselves as Pro-Life has varied from a low of 33% (Sept. 3-6, 1995) to a high of 51% (May 7-10, 2009). Gallup has polled the question 41 times since it began asking in 1995.[12]

By Trimester

Gallup has asked the following question four times from 2003-2011: “Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy. How about — [RANDOM ORDER]?”[12]

1st Trimester

The following results were given for “In the first three months of pregnancy” (1st Trimester):

Polling Date Should be legal Should be illegal Depends (vol.) No opinion
2011, June 9-12 62% 35% 2% 1%
2003, January 10-12 66% 29% 3% 2%
2000, March 30-April 2 65% 31% 2% 2%
1996, July 25-26 64% 30% 4% 2%

2nd Trimester

The following results were given for “In the second three months of pregnancy” (2nd Trimester):

Polling Date Should be legal Should be illegal Depends (vol.) No opinion
2011, June 9-12 24% 71% 3% 2%
2003, January 10-12 25% 68% 4% 3%
2000, March 30-April 2 24% 69% 4% 3%
1996, July 25-26 26% 65% 7% 2%

3rd Trimester

The following results were given for “In the last three months of pregnancy” (3rd Trimester):

Polling Date Should be legal Should be illegal Depends (vol.) No opinion
2011, June 9-12 10% 86% 2% 1%
2003, January 10-12 10% 84% 4% 2%
2000, March 30-April 2 8% 86% 3% 3%
1996, July 25-26 13% 82% 3% 2%

By Circumstances

According to the most recent Gallup poll (June 9-12, 2011), the following percentages of Americans say abortion should be legal under each circumstance:[12]

Circumstance Should be legal Should be illegal Depends (vol.) No opinion
When the woman’s life is endangered 83% 13% 1% 3%
When the woman’s physical health is endangered 82% 15% 1% 2%
When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest 75% 22% 1% 2%
When the woman’s mental health is endangered 61% 35% 2% 2%
When there is evidence the baby may be mentally impaired 51% 46% 2% 2%
When there is evidence the baby may be physically impaired 50% 45% 2% 3%
When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child 36% 61% 1% 2%

Pro-Life Initiatives

According to Gallup’s most recent poll (July 15-17, 2011) these proposals by the Pro-Life movement have received the following public support levels. Those marked “(2005)” were polled most recently on November 11-13, 2005. Those marked “(2003)” were last polled on January 10-12, 2003.[12]

Proposal Favor Oppose No opinion
(2003) A law requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure 88% 11% 1%
A law requiring doctors inform patients about possible risks of abortion before performing the procedure 87% 11% 2%
A law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion 71% 27% 2%
A law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done 69% 28% 3%
A law making partial birth abortions illegal except for life of the mother 64% 31% 5%
(2005) A law requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion 64% 34% 2%
A law requiring women seeking an abortion be shown an ultrasound image of her fetus at least 24 hours before 50% 46% 3%
A law letting pharmacists and health providers opt out of medicine/surgical procedures resulting in abortion 46% 51% 4%
(2005) A constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except to save the life of the mother 37% 61% 2%

Abortion Alternatives

Optionline provides consultants that connects individuals to nearby pregnancy centers that offer the following services: free pregnancy tests and pregnancy information; Information about the risks of abortion and the morning after pill; medical services, including STD tests; early ultrasounds and pregnancy confirmation.  In addition, some of these centers provide information regarding free housing to women who are facing housing concerns.[91]

The primary alternative to abortion is adoption. Liberty Godparent Foundation is a Christian organization focused on improving the lives of unwed pregnant teens, babies and adoptive families by providing two alternatives, The Liberty Godparent Maternity Home and Family Life Services Adoption Agency.[92]. Catholic Social Services provides adoption assistance to people of all beliefs in addition to supporting families in need.

Planned Parenthood’s Budget

Planned Parenthood likes to claim that abortion accounts for just 3% of its services.[93] However, an examination of its finances reveals that much if not most of its income relates to abortion.[94] According to Planned Parenthood’s 2007-08 budget, it received $1.038 billion of revenue from the following sources:[95]

Revenue (millions) %
Health Center Income $374.7 36.1%
Govt. Grants & Services $349.6 33.7%
Contributions & Requests $244.9 23.6%
Other Operating Revenue $68.9 6.6%
Total Revenue $1,038.1 100.0%

Planned Parenthood’s reported $374.7 million of revenue from “Health Center Income”. Given that it reported performing 305,130 abortions[96], at an average cost of $450 (which lines up with statistics from the National Abortion Federation[97]), approximately $137.4 million of that $374.7 million Health Center Income came directly from performing abortions per analysis by Live Action.[98]

Since much of its money comes from Government Grants and Services or Contributions and Requests ($595.5 million) likely related to abortion, in addition to this $137.4 million of direct abortion revenue, it appears probable that as much as half to two-thirds of Planned Parenthood’s revenue relates to abortion.

Targeted Demographics

Women in China

Forced abortion caused by China’s One-Child Policy leads to deaths of mothers[99], as well as “gendercide”.[100] Because men tend to be higher wage earners, many families choose to abort their female children, opting instead for males.[101]  Photos in 2012 of these forced abortions led to national outrage and calls to end China’s One-Child Policy.[102] The sex-selective abortion policy has led to a huge gender disparity in China, 122.66 boys for every girl born, the highest ratio in the entire Asia Specific region[103], and resulted in 32 million single males.[104] Logically this is a driving force behind human trafficking, prostitution, and the female slave trade which occurs near China.[105]

Minority Communities

According to Cybercast News Service: “An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities.”[106] (photo obtained from Flickr, see Creative commons license agreement)

“Each day 1,786 African American children are aborted.” According to the U.S. Census of 2006, African Americans are at 1.96 birth rate which is beneath the replacement level of 2.1. [107] At the continued rate, racism by abortion will decimate the black population of the U.S.

According to writer George Grant, the author of Killing Angel:

“During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods…Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools….None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.” [108]

Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 were 42.7% of its total abortions. [109].  However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.[109]

According to Cybercast News Service: “An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities.”[110]

Political Support of Abortion

The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.[111] EMILY’s List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion.  EMILY’s List candidates also oppose regulations such as:

  • Providing health information to abortion patients;
  • Requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and
  • Providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.

Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY’s List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. “EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates,” its above-referenced website declares.

There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life.  Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles.

Pro-Life Democrats

See also: DFLA#2009-2010_Obamacare_Influence

While most Democrats support abortion, a growing number have been affiliating with Democrats For Life of America, also known as Pro-Life Democrats. ObamaCare in 2009-2010 would have passed rapidly if not for their influence, since Democrats had a Supermajority allowing them to pass anything without a single Republican vote. However, 40 Pro-Life Democrats, led by Congressman Bart Stupak signed a letter refusing to let ObamaCare pass without reforms on the abortion issue, and fought the bill from June 2009 to March 2010, in an attempt to add the Stupak Amendment to the bill (which was added to the House bill but removed in the Senate despite attempts by Sen. Ben Nelson to add it there as well).

Politics and Demographics

See also: American atheism and Global atheism and Decline of atheism and liberal

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America:

High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the ‘Redeemer Nation’ to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.[112]

Ultrasound images

About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their fetus (unborn child) decide not to abort.[113]


Leave a Reply