Often in this fight I have been utterly flabbergasted at the approach of those who support killing the children.  Their arguments are as illogical and unsupported as any lie charlatans have used through the ages.  Here we’ll look at just a few.

A.   It’s a child, but:

1.   it would probably be abused
2.   the mother’s happiness is more important
3.   the mother’s contribution without the child is more important
4.   the child would probably not live long enough to contribute to society (i.e. the child is flawed)

And the reality is:

1.   The truth is that abused children are statistically ones who the parents originally wanted - not the product of rape or incest; and not subject to an
      absentee parent.

2.  No one’s happiness over-rules another’s right to life.  (If it does, we need to let Charlie Manson out of prison and arm  him.) Really!  Follow the logic.
     It pleases Mom to kill, so we want to make sure she can?!  I think this clear evidence that God confuses the thinking of the determined disobedient.
     (See Romans 1)

3.  If we are actually going to argue lack of contribution as reason to kill, why stop with our children?   Why not set a standard of acceptance and pick
     someone to run the “Who Can We Get Rid Of"committee.  Hitler would have loved it.  Oh, that’s right!  Hitler already tried it!  Wake up! This is no
     different than the holocaust in its logic.  We’re just picking victims who can’t speak for them-selves and are largely invisible to society.

4.  Just because someone may die doesn’t give society the right to kill them.  Consider it this way.  We all die.  Not one of us lives forever, anymore
      than any of us is perfect.  By this justification, we should all be exterminated.

What you may not know is that mothers are sometimes told their children are “flawed” when they are not.  We know this because some have gotten independent sonograms revealing perfect children.  Others, unfortunately, didn’t find out until they their dead child.  Even if the child is not 100%, many of these “horrible” problems can be repaired.  In addition, mothers who allow their children to live regardless tend to deal with their loss better than those that also have to carry the weight of having killed their own child.

B.  The Life is in the Breath

1.  The argument is that because God breathed life into Adam, a child is not alive until he/she draws breath; the changes that occur immediately after
      birth are considered proof.

And the reality is:

1.  God breathed life into Adam as a beginning.  However, He did not come back to breathe life into Moses or David or, for that matter, me.  God, who
      made all things to procreate, put the "breath" in the blood, making the "breath" transfer from mother to child like everything else the child needs.

a.  Gen 9:4 " Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."
b.  Lev 17:11 "For the life of the creation is in the blood . . ."
c .  Deut 12:23 "Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life . . ."

2.  Using "lack of breath" as proof against life brings up classification.  If not alive, then simple logic dictates one must be dead.  Yet, no dead thing grows.
      No dead heart beats on its own.  Limbs do not move nor do organs function on dead bodies.  There is no question that great changes take effect
      directly after birth.   However, a great many more take effect long before birth.  Take a look at “In the Womb”.

C.  It’s Legal.

1.  If the government says it’s all right, it must be.

And the reality is:

1.  In our nation it has been legal to:

a.  own other human beings
b.  not allow women or people of color to vote

2. Today it is legal:

a.  to take away your property for the good of the area – “imminent domain”
b.  to kill a helpless spouse – “Terry Shiavo”
c .  for a hospital or doctor to refuse care based on “quality of life”

Leaving any kind of health care decision solely in the hands of the government is risky at best.   I worked in downtown Dallas when the decision was made to “release” many of those in institutional care.   I’m still haunted by the frail images I saw walking the streets afterwards; many were still in their pajamas.   Helpless men and women, many elderly, wandered aimlessly.   Some slept on the sidewalks or lounged around business entrances.   The governments’ decision to do this may have made financial sense, but it certainly wasn’t beneficial to the health of those citizens.

D.  It’s a kindness.

1.  “We don’t do anything cruel or unkind to these children.  They are “better off”.

And the reality is:

1.  There is nothing kind or uncruel about killing anyone, let alone a helpless child.  These children feel the pain they are forced to endure.  They fight to
     survive; moving to avoid the instruments of death, grabbing at the doctors’ hands.

     Some years ago a pro-abortion doctor filmed one in progress.  It's my understanding he was trying to prove there was nothing to it.   He was so
     horrified by what he saw that he became a staunch pro-lifer.

As far as being “better off” goes, if you’ve read “The Darkness”, you know I don’t buy into the “they’re in a better place” ideology.  But even if I did, it’s the same twisted logic that could be applied to all of us.  Heaven will be a much better place, but that doesn’t give anyone the right tosend anyone there before the Lord, Himself, calls them home.

E.  It isn’t human.

1. “It doesn’t become a real human until after it’s born.”  (I’ve even heard the argument that no child is human until he/she reaches the age of two.)

And the reality is:

1.  Let’s just say, for illumination’s sake, I buy into this nonsense.  Just what exactly is it they think women birth?  I mean, sheep birth sheep, cats birth cats,
     etc.  But we are to believe human mothers birth some unspecified critter?  I guess it’s all in the wrist, or more accurately, the tongue.  That is, whenever
     man decides to lie, any ole’ thing will do.

None of these arguments pass the true test of basic decency: “Would you want it done to you?”  I dare say not one of those who work to keep abortion legal would find any of these “reasons” acceptable if it were their life on the line.

The fact is abortion is about money, power, and a sickening thirst for blood.   Abortionists and their staff are well paid hired killers, with some procedures reportedly running as high as $19K.   Abortionists, themselves, are generous with pro-abort politicians.   They know that if this issue is ever honestly, that is to say with uncorrupted facts and figures, put forth to the people, it would be a thing of the past.

Donation eager pro-abort politicians have no problem lying to their constituents.  Just think for a moment on the "I'm pro-life privately, but not publicly" nonsense.  More than a few laugh all the way to the bank at our inability/unwillingness to hold them accountable.

Evil men have long considered the ability to kill the innocent the ultimate expression of power.  Via abortion they can and do murder thousands in broad daylight with complete immunity.

One only has to watch the antics of an abortionists for a short while to realize there is definitely some perverted pleasure in killing the children.   Tiller has been seen relishing the idea of "eating" the children off the aborted baby photos.   He's joked about wearing a skull necklace to represent their deaths.  And I've personally seen Sela go in the gates gleaming with wicked anticipation.

Make no mistake about it abortion is a dirty, ugly business that clearly and deliberately preys on women at a vulnerable point in their lives.  Those who perform it routinely exhibit a funamental lack of respect and appreciation for all womankind.  Their goal is not, nor has it ever been, the betterment of women.  No, their goal is much more sinister and self-serving.