03/07/90

Postings from the John Ankerburg Show. This contains a lot of information on why abortion is wrong. It talks about when life begins, how abortions are done, and what are the current arguments on both sides of the story.›

In His Love,

Michael A. Kline, Sr. SSE VDH, Technical Support (804)786-1559 XVDHMAK at VCUVM1 Richmond, Virginia

This is about abortion, and was from the John Ankerburg show. While there is no "dirty language", it is descriptive about what goes on during an abortion, and for the "weak at heart", you may want to delete. since this is the list it is and several have stated it concerns itself with what's going on with medicine, I have included it.

Once again, while some were trying to say, most say this, the people John had on their show were more than qualified to speak. Between 2 of the speakers alone, they accounted for over 85,000 abortions. They should know what they are talking about. This is one of the things I like about John, he usually has people on his show with enough qualifications that they should know what they speak about.

John Ankerburg had a good opening show on abortion. Those interested can see it Sunday nights on the Family channel at 10:30.

It started out with WW I claimed 126,000. WW II claimed 292,131, Korea claimed 54,000, Viet Nam 57,685, Abortion claims 125,000 each month, or 1.5 million a year, and 25,000,000 since 1973.

The series is titled "The American Holocaust: Abortion in the 90's".

The first thing they show is a fetascope, and we are shown a baby in the womb which is 4.5 months pregnant. We are shown the hands, the mouth, the eyes, the lips, the ears. It is a boy, and we are shown the genitals. We are told several facts about the child.

"Science tells us it's the product of human parents. It is alive. It has it's own brain from which brain waves can be detected, recorded, and read. It's organ systems, the internal organs, lungs, spinal cord, and nervous system are all in place. The entire body is sensitive to touch. The digestive system is complete. The heart beats regularly and is pumping up to 25 quarts per day. It has it's own blood type which may be completely different from it's mother. it can suck it's thumb. It moves and feels pain. It's 18 weeks old. If you would ask any child what this is, they would tell you, "It's a baby.".

Then John's crew asked several people from the streets how long abortion was legal. Most of those interviewed, they guessed from 3 to 6 months, with most of them saying 3-4 months.

We know this, but I think it bears repeating, one can abort right up to birth.

Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, MD spoke to some extent on this show. He was Co-Founder of National Abortion Right Action League, and was the director of the nation's largest abortion clinic for 2 years. He bears ultimate responsibility for 75,000 abortions. "But over the past 10 years, I've changed my mind on the acceptability of abortions, owing to the immense technological advances which have been made in the field of obstetrics and fetology, Advances such as ultra sound imaging, fetal heart monitoring, and fetoscophy which have allowed us now to perceive, without question, the unmistakable humanity of the unborn child."

We were then given a brief run down of abortion terms, talking about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester abortions. We were then given data. In the United States, there are 1.5 million abortions done, of which 8% are late abortions. Canada = 65,000 per year with 11% or 7,000 late abortions. In the UK, 170,000 per year of which 30,000 are late abortions. In the United States, there are 120,000 late abortions per year or 400 per day.

If everyone says it is wrong to kill a child 24 hours after birth, it not also wrong to kill a child 24 hours before birth? If a child is viable back to 20 weeks, and can be preserved through modern technology, shouldn't it be protected up to this point.

John addresses the "Pro-Choice". "In fact, those of you who are Pro-Choice, you usually argue that a human life in the womb must have certain characteristics before you will assign to it, the rights of full personhood. Usually you argue those characteristics must be viability, that is the child must have the ability to live and survive outside of the womb, brain waves, heart beat, movement, and feeling of pain. Since science tells us all of those characteristics are there by 20 weeks, then the child fulfills your definition of personhood. The point I'd like to make here is that if the unborn child fulfills all the definitions of both sides at 20 weeks, then shouldn't we be protecting these innocent children from at least that time on? If you agree that we should, you need to know that we're not."

John Ankerburg is now offering a book, "When Does Life Begin and 39 Other Tough Questions to Abortion". This book talks about "Doesn't a woman have the right to control her own body". It points to Biblical passages to all the scriptures that tell us pre birth life is precious. Abortion procedures are described, the pain an aborted child goes through. The tricks of words that pro abortionists use, and what they really mean. This book is supposed to attack all the current arguments being put out by the pro choice movement. The offer is A-2, for $15, and is available from John Ankerberg; PO Box 8977; Chattanooga, TN 378411.

We are then once again shown the beautiful baby shown earlier in the program. We are then shown THIS BABY TORN APART BY ABORTION. This was a gross and disgusting portion of film, taken from "Eclipse of Reason". Even so, I thought it was LONG PAST DUE. Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, MD went on to talk about this particular abortion and what was going to take place. The opening of the cervix, the breaking of the bag of waters, and the "grasping instrument" with which the abortionist CRUSHES and pulls apart the living child within the womb. What was seen through the fetascope didn't last too long because of the blood. You could see some thrashing, and then it was all over for the child. We are shown the forearm with the blood vessels, the hand, fingers, the umbilical cord, and the genitals, and told plainly, "This WAS a little boy". We saw the ear, the nose, the mouth, and we watch the child take a swallow of water. We are told, "These are the tools of the abortionist trade. In a few moments this little boy's life with be semerially extinguished with these instruments."

The umbilical cord was severed, the life line cut and collapsed, and wrenched from the child's body. The grasping instrument was then used to dismember the child. Piece by piece, the extremities are pulled away, then the back and the torso. We saw the ribs coming out. Can anyone doubt what the child must have experienced? The pieces are stacked on the table in order to reassemble and make sure they "got it all". The head is located, crushed, and removed in pieces. We see this and the white matter of the brain spilling out of the body. Even when it is done, we can see a leg, clearly definable, with the foot still attached.

They then interviewed, Dr. Jay Kelinson who performed the abortion we observed. He HAD DONE about 10,000 or more. He doesn't do them any more. He now will not do abortions for even medical reasons. Dr. Joseph Randall was doing 50 to 60 abortions a day. He was beginning to get suicidal. He stated, "I would be more willing to give my life, than to perform an abortion". Then Dr. Arnold Halpern, former director of a Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic. He never thought of the fetus being a real baby until the heart beat could be heard, etc. From 1982 to 1986 and beyond, we realize that the fetus is really a child.

"There is no difference between a first trimester, a second trimester, a third trimester abortion or infanticide. It's all the same human being in different stages of development. I finally got to the point I couldn't look at those little bodies anymore.

Today, Babies born at 6 months have a 65% chance of survival and 80% chance of being healthy.

The next program will examine. Personhood and How important that society defines the child by what it is, not what it does.

"You know if you don't define the beginning of human life from the moment of conception, you will necessarily define it functionally at some other junction. It will be defined in terms of what the kid or the adult is able to do. It won't be in terms of what the person is, but what the person's able to produce. For example, once his brainwaves start operating then he's a person, once his heart beats he's a person, once he can accomplish this, that, or the other thing, he is a valuable member of society. The necessary consequence is that the minute that the society no longer values what you do, or I do, then that same society may want to get rid of us."

It was a moving program, and I think fits right in with what all was being talked about here.

2nd in series from John Ankerburg 02/12/90 21:45

While there's not much here, I found a few quotations that may provide for some interesting discussion. I prefixed any of my personal comments with "MAKS>".

This quote was from John W. Montgomery, Attorney/Trial Lawyer in USA and England: "You know if you don't define the beginning of human life from the moment of conception, you will necessarily define it functionally at some other junction. It will be defined in terms of what the kid or the adult is able to do. It won't be in terms of what the person is, but what the person's able to produce. For example, once his brainwaves start operating then he's a person, once his heart beats he's a person, once he can accomplish this, that, or the other thing, he is a valuable member of society. The necessary consequence is that the minute that the society no longer values what you do, or I do, then that same society may want to get rid of us."

One of the problems with definition by function is that during a accident or a stroke, you may not exhibit any of these characteristics. What about the comatose, severe stroke victims, illiterate, and downs children? What ever the qualifications, there is a chance that sometime during our life we might not measure up. What then?

Roe vs. Wade stated that a human being is "... a compelling interest to the state" only when it has the capability of "meaningful life." We know how far this goes now, but it could easily be applied to the cases above. Personhood has been defined by what it does, and not what it is.

This has caused all sorts of problems. Viability was 28 to 24 weeks in 1973, now it is 19 to 20 weeks. Because the definition is on function, new technology changes this. Some believe this will be pushed back to 12 weeks. And when available, artificial wombs will make viability right up to conception. Then what do we use for a gauge? If artificial wombs become available(they are calling for 3-5 years), do we then say the woman has the right to terminate the "incubation"? If so, then what does the reason become? If the government pays for this incubation, or if "funding" is taken away, what will the reason be?

The point was brought up that the fetus is not viable, but if left in its "natural" environment, it will live right up to term. If you were taken and placed under water, out of your natural environment, what would be your chances? If the same test, that being that of taking you out of your natural environment, are you viable?

Dr. John Willke MD, Pres. National Right to Life - "Is this being human? Yes, from the single cell stage. How do we know? You get a microscope. 46 human chromosomes. This is not a carrot, this is not a rabbit, and this is a living human member of homo sapiens. This being is human. Is this being sexed? Yes, boy or girl from the single cell state. Is this being alive? Well of course it's alive, and growing. Is this being unique? Yes, never before in the history of the world, and never again in the history of the world will an individual be created who is exactly like this tiny male or female human."

C. Everett Koop, MD, Former Surgeon General - "... Anyone who knows the birth of the first one, Louise Brown, has to recognize that life begins at conception. You can put a sperm and an egg in a petrie dish, and get a human being nine months later, with nothing being added to it, except to put that fertilized egg back into its mother's uterus you know that life begins at conception."

And again, Mr. Koop - "I think the world has known, its biologists anyway, that life begins at conception if you're a baboon, or a dove, or a fox. It's only when you talk about the most complicated of animals, the human being, that people get into this controversy about when life begins. Life begins to biologists at conception."

Dr. John C. Willke - "Yes this tiny being is alive and growing. What is the opposite of alive? Dead! What does abortion do? Kill! This is human, alive, complete, and growing. You did not come from a single fertilized ovum. You once WERE a single fertilized ovum. All you've done is grow up."

Bernard Nathanson, MD, Obstetrician, NY - Asked "At what point do you feel the fetus should be considered a human being?" Bernard: "Well, we can't have points you see. We've discovered that with the use of real time ultrasound we've been able to see the infant breathing in the uterus, it's heart beating, it's thumb going into it's mouth, and as I say participating in all the activities of which we commonly associate with the human infant."

Again, "There is no bar-mitzvah in the uterus, it is merely life beginning when it really begins. Now we've created it in the test tube. We've watched it start. We have seen the spark struck in in-vitro fertilization, when the sperm meets the egg. So the question of when life begins is not longer meta-physical, theological, legal, moral, religious, it is absolutely scientific now and established to begin at conception.

Next week they are going to address the question about if a woman has the right to control her own body.

A woman, name not given (probably to make you tune in next week) - "I think every woman does have the right to control her own body. The question is, does she have the right to control someone else's body? What we say in this country, in a democratic society, is that we as individuals can't attack, much less take the life of another innocent human being. And that's really the issue at stake in this whole issue of abortion. Science demonstrates, and every woman who's pregnant and comes home from the doctor will tell you, that there's another unique human being, living and developing, growing in the mother's womb. So yes, women have the right to control their own body, but they shouldn't have the right to determine the fate of another human being, especially an innocent baby.

John Ankerburg - Do Women have the right to control their own bodies?

This program from the John Ankerburg addressed the above question as well as several others.

The program started out with three quotes from the Pro Abortion side. They were Janet Benshoof, American Civil Liberties Union, Gloria Allred, Feminist Attorney, and Faye Wattleton, President, Planned Parenthood. The quotes were long, so I'll summarize.

Janet: "The fetus is part of a woman. She's the one affected by the pregnancy. It doesn't matter what advances science makes, we will not change our position. Every year, we've become more strongly committed to the fact that "Women must be able to control their own bodies".

Gloria: "The fetus is not a person under the constitution. It has no rights, only a person has right, and only the woman is a person.

Faye: "Keep your dogma to yourself. People must decide for themselves. No one has the right to tell us anything, women must decide for themselves."

Should a woman have the right to control her own body? John asked this question of Susan Smith. This is the person from last week who was unnamed.

Susan A. Smith, National Right to Life Committee - "I think every woman does have the right to control her own body. The question is, does she have the right to control someone else's body? What we say in this country, in a democratic society, is that we as individuals can't attack, much less take the life of another innocent human being. And that's really the issue at stake in this whole issue of abortion. Science demonstrates, and every woman who's pregnant and comes home from the doctor will tell you, that there's another unique human being, living and developing, growing in the mother's womb. So yes, women have the right to control their own body, but they shouldn't have the right to determine the fate of another human being, especially an innocent baby."

Is the child in the mother's womb part of the mother's body? What if it could be scientifically proven that the child was not part of the mother's body? If it were the case than the slogan "Every woman has the right to control her own body" would not apply to the child in the mother's womb.

What evidence speaks to this? There was a long, long quote by Bernard Nathanson, MD, Obstetrician, NY. It was so long, I'll will have to summarize most of it. By the way, Bernard is a Jewish Atheist.

Bernard: "I agree, every woman should have the right to control her own body. Certainly, and no one denies this. If a woman wants to use contraception, that's fine. The problem is, that when a pregnancy implants into the uterus, it's no longer her body - that pregnancy, that baby. We know this from immunology. When ever a pregnancy implants there is a major immunological attack on the pregnancy by the white blood cells and the limphacites(sp) of the mother. The mother's white blood cells recognize the unborn baby as a foreign person, a foreign protein, and it must be expelled. It's not the same as the mother's heart, or kidney or lungs. White blood cells don't try to expel a your own heart. But when something different comes into your body, some other person, for example, or another person's tissue, and organs, then your own body will try to expel this as "non self". --- Lots on how this happens and the like. --- "What I'm trying to get at is, all of these, this immunological data, illustrate precisely, that the pregnancy, the growing unborn child is not of the mother's body, not a part of the mother's body, it's somebody else. The mother really acts as a trustee for this child who is growing inside of her. The child is simply a tenant, an uneasy tenant for 9 months. Now if you had a tenant in your apartment and you didn't like them, you would probably go to court and get an order to evict them, you would not take a shotgun and blow them to pieces." "So this is what it is really all about. I believe strongly that women should control their own bodies, but this growing baby, inside of the woman is not of her body. It's in her body, but it is not a part of her body."

5 Scientific reasons why the child is not a part of the mother's body.

1. A scientific fact that in pregnancy that there are two bodies. There's the body of the woman, and there is another body, that of the child.

2. Many women carry babies whose blood type differs from that of their own. It is medically impossible for a single individual to have two completely different blood types.

3. A female may be carrying in her womb, a male child. One body cannot be both male and female at the same time.

4. Some women deliver infants which may have been dead in the womb for several days prior to delivery. Since one body cannot be both dead and alive at the same time, there must be two bodies.

5. Science tells us that the infant, separate from it's mother, has its own heartbeat, its own brain waves, its own fingerprints, its own different DNA structure...

Professor A. W. Lillie, research professor in fetal physiology in Aukland(sp), New Zealand, known as the "Father of Fetology". He has written, "Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view, that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception." Another doctor, unnamed, "The child is no more a part of the mother's body than the nursing baby is a part of her mother's breast, or a test tube baby is part of a petri dish."

Dr. Norman Geisler, Orthodox Christian Author, Professor of Philosophy, during a debate, "The fetus is not part of her body. The fetus could be male, she's female, has it's own blood type, has its own brain waves from 40 days on. Take a black embryo, and transplant it into a white womb, and that woman will have a black baby. It's not part of her body. It's an individual human being of its own. And THE LAST TIME THE SUPREME COURT SAID SOMEBODY WASN'T A PERSON WAS IN 1857 WHEN THEY SAID BLACKS WEREN'T PERSONS, and it took 11 years to reverse that. We've been 13 years with this tragedy and it's time we reverse it."

Then we look at "EVERY WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY".

First we look at "EVERY WOMAN". John Ankerburg: "Is it really true that those arguing for abortion on demand want every woman to have the right to control their own body? They say yes. But the answer must be no since at least 50% of the babies that are destroyed by abortion are female. Now if these unborn women in the womb are included in the terms "EVERY WOMAN", then obviously every woman hasn't been given the right to control their own body. In fact, this exposes the slogan for what it really is, a prejudicial slogan advocating elitism for powerful women over those women who are not so powerful. If the millions of aborted women could speak for themselves, what do you think they would say? You think that they would agree that abortion on demand has insured for them, the basic right to live and control their own body? If the claim that "every woman has a right to control her own body" is to have any integrity at all, it must include ALL female human beings, that is ALL women, even the unprotected women developing in the womb. "

Here's what Adelle Nathanson said, when I asked her if she thought all women should have the right to control their own bodies, including the right to having an abortion.

Adelle Nathanson, Bernadell, Inc. New York, NY. - "As a feminist, I will not wade through the blood of my unborn sisters and my born sisters to gain my freedom. End of story!"

Looking at "HAS THE RIGHT". John talked about the rights we have. No one has the right to mutilate our bodies. If you drink, you are not legally allowed to drive. You are not allowed in school with active chicken pox. You are not allowed to streak. In essence, we cannot endanger the life of another person by our action.

Looking at "TO CONTROL".

Judie Brown, Pres., American Life League, Wash. DC - "My response to the claim that every woman has a right to control her own body is, that is absolutely correct. The problem is that when a woman makes a decision, with in her free will, to participate in a sexual activity of her choice, she has already made that choice. And if, because of her engagement in sexual activity, she and her partner pro-create another person, procreation does result, at times, in the development of a brand new human being, then her choice has already been made and she is immediately making decisions for herself and for another innocent human person. When those people who claim a woman has a right to control her own body speak out about their "Pro Choice" beliefs, what they are really saying is that they are in favor of the right to deny responsibility of one's actions, even at the expense of another person's life. They are not "Pro Choice" for that innocent baby, they are very much "Pro Death".

Joe Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League, Chicago, IL - "You know it's the most nonsensical thing in the world to say that the new life developing inside the woman's body is her body. It's not genetically her body, possibly it's a little boy baby. The only thing this new body is doing, is residing inside her uterus for 9 months. To say that controlling her body gives her the right to murder one of her children is absolute nonsense. It's legally bad, it's morally bad, it's psychologically wrong, and it's medical nonsense. So, a woman has a right to get pregnant if she wants to or not to get pregnant, but once she is pregnant there are now two bodies. There are two human lives at stake, and no more than she has a right to kill her three year old, does a woman have a right to kill her unborn child."

Looking at "HER OWN BODY".

They took a partial quote from Bernard Nathanson that is shown above about the baby is not part of the woman's body.

Then there was a long debate between Dr. Norman Geisler and Paul Kurtz(a secular humanist). I only take excerpts here and there. It was long. Norman gave a long spill about "If humanist are so 'Pro Human', why are they against the unborn when science says they are human from conception?" Paul kept arguing about when a fetus becomes human, and refused to listen to any scientific evidence. All biologist agree life begins at conception, but for the humanist, it must have "potential" to be human. Norman had a good quote, speaking of a fetus, "It's a human life of great potential, it is not a potential life." Paul then started an argument about "imposing standards". Norman's reply: "When you're talking about imposing your moral standard on someone else, and your religious beliefs, that unborn innocent human being is having someone else impose their standards on them and not allowing them to live. I think that's immoral."

John then summarized on what was said.

The next week will deal with the different methods of abortion. They showed a partial clip of the suction method showing the blood going down the tube as a woman was having the abortion, the woman's body shaking in convulsions. (They were discreet.) The suction method is about 29 times more powerful than a vacuum cleaner, and pulls the baby to shreds and out the tube. Then the abortionist must cut and slice the afterbirth off the wall of the uterus. They showed an aide go up and steady the leg of the woman who was having the abortion so that it would not fall out of the stirrup.

Anyhow, that will be next week. For those not squeamish it is on the Family (old CBN) network channel, Sunday nights, at 10:30PM. John's address is John Ankerburg, PO Box 8977, Chattanooga, TN 37411. Phone (615) 892-7722. I am a member of the 30/30 club, and for $30 a month, I get any tapes he shows and any books he writes during the period of time I am a member. Last month I got his personal testimony on VHS. It was entitled, "I led a Campus Revolution".

I hope some of you were blessed by this.

Abortion #4 - Part 1 of 2.

This got to be kind of long, so I broke it into 2 parts. This part concerns itself with the development of the baby itself, and the humanity of that offspring.

John Ankerburg Show, 02/25/90. Opening comments.

John Ankerburg: "90% of the 1.5 million abortions each year take place during the first 3 months of pregnancy. That is the first week through the twelfth week. Pro Choice people argue that a woman has the right to have an abortion, admit that there is now doubt that the child is alive, and that it is human. But because it is small, or not fully formed, they believe that the child is not yet fully human, and not a person. Therefore they think they can kill it. Now in this program, you're going to see the scientific evidence that proves the Pro Choice argument is wrong asserting that the growing child is no more than a blob of tissues or the product of conception. You will see the marvelous stages of a child's development in the womb. You are also going to see the abortion techniques used today to destroy human life.

But, I'd like to begin with a tragic story. A father walked into the delivery room of a hospital, and in a rage, threw his newborn son against the floor, and killed him. This man was charged with murder and put in jail. Ironically, he was punished for an act, namely killing his son, that could have been done by an abortionist the previous day with out any penalty.

When I read this account, I thought, there must be something wrong with our laws. Why is a child only protected 24 hours after it is born and not 24 hours before? Did the child change is some significant way? No. Biologically we know there is no difference with the child. So then, why does the location, inside or outside of the womb, make a crucial difference to its moral status? And let me ask you, do you think there should be a difference in the moral status of say, a nine month old child in the womb as compared to a newborn baby? If you say no, then going back in time, when would you judge that the baby has change so significantly that he doesn't deserve the right to be protected as a living human being? Well to help you answer this question, let's look at the baby as it develops in the womb, through the different stages of pregnancy."

(much on the different stages of development... summarized)

At month 5, the baby has: body is formed, sound provokes him, hiccups, kicks, punches, they relate to moods and emotions. The heart pumps 300 gallons a day. They are viable with new technology. This is why some states, PA for instance, have enacted laws to prohibit abortion past this point.

At 4 months, the baby has: face is taking on expression, hair is growing on its head, eyebrows and eyelashes are present. Heart is pumping blood. At this point, a doctor holds a 4 month aborted fetus up in his hands. I don't know the method used to abort, but the child was perfect except for a crushed skull and a black and blue mid section.

At 3 months: arms, fingers, toes, hands. Is sensitive to touch. Can turn head, curl toes. Genitals are present and already contain premature eggs or sperm. Brain waves for at least 6 weeks, heart for 8 weeks or so.

At 8 weeks: 8-12 weeks. Every organ is already present. Heart beats, stomach produces digestive juices, liver makes blood, kidneys begin, fingerprints are present, eyelids and palms sensitive to touch. It can suck thumb at 9 weeks. At 8 weeks eyes form and darken. Can feel pain from 8 weeks on.

"Science tells us from this time until adulthood the changes in the child's body will only be in dimension and in the refinement of working parts."

The first 30 days: From the moment of conception until death, no new genetic information is added. The genetic coding from the moment of conception is fixed, and determines many characteristics of the individual making them unique. Not a potential human being, but a human being with great potential. (a day by day development of the first 30 days was given for the organs, arms, legs, etc. skipped to keep brief(?)(briefer?))

What does science say about human life in the womb? Is it fully human?

Prof. Micheline Matthews- Roth, Harvard University Medical School "It is incorrect to say that the biological data cannot be decisive. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception when the egg and sperm join to form the zygote. This developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of PA Medical School - "Standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages of development represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, University of Descarte, Paris France - "Each individual has a unique beginning, the moment of its conception."

Professor Hymie Gordan Mayo Clinic, before the congress of the United States - "By all the criteria of molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception. Now we can say unequivocally that the question of when life begins is an established scientific fact."

Quotes from C. Everett Koop and Bernard Nathanson confirming followed. Their arguments had been presented before.

MAKS> This just got to be too long, so I split it into 2 parts. The second part concerns itself with the different abortion procedures. I got quite depressed writing it up. It's also sad, that with the qualifications of the above individuals, there will be posts saying they are wrong and don't know what they are talking about. Yet, these individuals didn't say anything for or against abortion, but said the baby was human. Guilt will drive some to say, "No it's not..." Part 2 covers this some as well. <MAKS

Abortion #4 - Part 2 of 2

John Ankerburg Show, 02/25/90. Part 2.

MAKS> Since it got so long, this is part 2. This keeps it smaller and should help it run the networks a little smoother. I've received tons bigger than this, but there were 2 subjects and this was convenient. Part 1 dealt with the infant, being human from conception, human with great potential, not a potential human life. This deals with the techniques, testimonies from 2 who had abortions, and John's closing comments. <MAKS

Abortion Techniques: John C. Willke, MD, President, National Right to Life:

Menstrual Extraction - A tube is inserted into the womb and the baby is "disrupted" and something similar to an early miscarriage follows.

Suction Abortion - 2 weeks-3 months - Vaginal approach, stretches cervix, and inserts suction tube(about 29 times more powerful than vacuum cleaner), which rips the baby apart and pulls it through the tube. Then abortionist cuts and slices afterbirth away from womb.

Dilatation & Curettage - same time perhaps a little beyond - uses a loop shaped steel knife, and slices baby to pieces and cuts afterbirth away from uterus.

Dilation & Evacuation - after 12 weeks - 4 months. - stretches cervix, without anesthetic, seizes the baby's arm or what ever and rips child to shreds and rips out what he can, skull is then crushed and pulled out, then uterus is scraped for afterbirth.

Salt poisoning - 4 months and above - Injects womb with strong salt solution. Recall baby was breathing and swallowing as early as 3 months. The baby breaths and swallows the poison. The baby takes 2-3 hours to die, sometimes convulsing which the mother feels. Then the mother delivers a dead baby. SOMETIMES THEY ARE DELIVERED ALIVE, SOME EVEN SURVIVED TO BE ADOPTED!

Interviewer: "Is there concern over late term abortions?" C. Everett Koop - "No question about that. People are easily led to THINKING ABORTION IS UNIMPORTANT IF YOU USE A SEMANTIC KIND OF SMOKE SCREEN and refer to the unborn baby as a fetus, or an embryo, or some tissues, or the product of conception. Very hard to use those terms to refer to a late abortion that looks just like the baby next door."

Prostaglandin - any phase - causes intense labor, violent contractions, and vaginal delivery at any age the baby is. In the literature by Upjohn, the doctors are given the "COMPLICATIONS" of using Prostaglandin: 1)Cervical incompetence; 2)Uterine Laceration; 3)LIVE BIRTH. Live Birth is given as a "complication".

MAKS> THIS ONE BREAKS MY HEART... <MAKS

Hysterotomy - late term - "This is just like any Caesarian section. The mother abdomen is opened, the womb is opened surgically, pulled apart, and the baby is extracted and taken out. Now, Caesarian sections are very common. After this, the baby is handed to the nurse, who sucks out the phlegm, gets the little kid going, puts her in the warming bed, the incubator, gives the baby all that tender loving care. Not now. THIS LITTLE KID HAS A CONTRACT ON HER HEAD. And so the abortionist takes the baby out, cuts the cord, throws the baby in the basin, and lets her die. And if she doesn't die, maybe a head under water, or the placenta on her face, and choke her to death. You see, the baby, according to the abortionist, must not survive, even though separated from the mother."

C. Everett Koop - "And therefore late abortions are rather an embarrassment to people. And remember that late abortions are very commonly viable. And one of the saddest things to me about the whole abortion business is that what was a few years ago a woman's RIGHT TO AN ABORTION has NOW become the woman's RIGHT TO A DEAD BABY following abortion and I think that's almost criminal."

John Ankerburg: "Now the feminist majority in their film "Abortion for Survival" have shown a Suction Aspiration abortion that takes place in under 2 minutes. In their film they quickly show the contents of the uterus, what they call the "Product of Conception", and then they say, 'You see, this doesn't look like a real baby.' So you may see for yourself what goes on, here's a film clip and the testimony of some ladies that experienced a similar aspiration abortion."

MAKS> Demo of this abortion begins as the lady's voices go on in the background... <MAKS

Lady One: "When they actually started to do the abortion, it was at that moment, that for the first time, I realized that was my baby that was being aborted, that this whole thing was not just a sickness, as they tried to make it seem, but a child, my own child was being destroyed in that abortion. It was extremely painful physically, and of course I was going through a lot emotional too. As soon as it was over, I just thought 'Thank God, I'm alive.', that was my first thought."

Moderator: "And Cindy, how did you feel?"

Cindy: "Well, physically it was painful. It was VERY painful, and they did not tell you it would be this painful. And, I was scared. I was scared to death, laying on the table, and I couldn't really think of anything, I just had all this physical pain. And I heard the vacuum aspirator, what ever, it was on the floor next to me, I heard this humming noise. And I was thinking 'Oh my God, Cindy, what are you doing? You know your baby, they're taking it from you.' And it's just like Monica said, that's what I'm thinking, I'm hearing this noise, laying there, thinking 'My baby, they're taking it from me.' and it was too late."

MAKS> The abortion finishes. Yeagh. Anyhow, a nurse pours the contents onto a screen, and to the left is a baby, clearly seen in a spread eagle position, dead obviously, and obviously, human, perhaps 1-3 inches in length. The arms had been ripped off, and it was missing most of the head, but the body and legs were just fine. <MAKS

John: "What the feminist majority did not show in their film was a close up view of the "Product of Conception". If they had shown you a close up view of the remains of any abortion done just 42 days after conception, you would have seen small hands, small feet, arms, and legs. You would have seen twisted bodies and crushed heads. Yes, these babies are small, but is that any excuse to kill them? Even the first 30 days after conception when a human life is developing through the early stages of cell division and multiplication, there is no doubt scientifically that it is alive and it is fully human. The scientific facts lead us to conclude that even at this stage, abortion is the pre-meditated killing of human life. What reasons can be given for allowing abortion at any stage? Science has shown us that the growing child is not just a blob of tissues, not part of the mother's body in any way. Rather science has shown us that the child in the womb is an independent human being. Therefore wouldn't you agree that these innocent human beings, these children in the womb, they must be protected? If we value human life at all, how can we allow abortions to continue?"

MAKS> What do I think?

John takes a strong stand, and I perhaps hold it as well. I doubt that I would "kidnap" as it were, any lady to stop her, but if I had a chance to get a law passed that any lady would have to see a program like this before the final decision was made, I think I would.

I think I would also, if it could be arranged, have the woman speak to 1 or 2 that had an abortion, perhaps 1 or 2 that didn't like it, and 1 or 2 that did, or perhaps have video tapes of interviews the woman would watch. An 800 number would be nice, but I presume they exist here and there.

If an abortion were called for, for health reasons, I would want at least 2 doctor's opinions, not related to the problem in any way, perhaps 2 gynecologists and 2 pediatricians. This seems fair, does it not?

Then, before making her decision, she would be shown a sonagram of her child, preferably one that shows movement. Then, let the woman do what she wants, the blood is on her hands.

Dr. Willke made a similar proposal to someone in NOW I believe for much of the above proposal, and they said "No way!".

For the Christian, God is a loving and forgiving God, and in Him is forgiveness and healing and peace. I realize that a woman who may have had an abortion might find this upsetting, but no matter what you've done, God loves you. <MAKS

John Ankerburg - Abortion # 6.

They are starting to repeat themselves. I will leave out that information.

I'm even going to give you an index. If you don't see anything, delete away. You're not going to bother me one bit.

1. How many aboritions are performed when? 2. From which point in time can babies feel pain? 3. Descript of suction abortion, and quotes from "The Silent Scream" 4. Indians were non persons. 5. Blacks were non persons. 6. Infants are non persons. 7. Closing comments.

91% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Half are performed on 8-12 week old babies or 682,500 abortions. All organs are present and functioning at 8 weeks. A baby only grows from this point. 8% or 120,000 abortions take place in the second trimester. 1% or 15,000 abortions take place in the 3rd trimester. These can feel pain as well as children outside the womb.

At what point can babies feel pain? Joseph Randall says from the point of nerve cells a baby can feel pain. This would be from 2-4 weeks, and the nerves are fully in place by 8 weeks. Bernard Nathanson added that 21 weeks probably know which area has the pain.

Bernard Nathanson: "... He will then take the instrument known as the suction apparatus which is opened, it is in a sterile container prior to the actual use of the instrument, and then this will be inserted through the dilated cervix up into the uterus and will then puncture the sack surrounding the child allowing the amniotic fluid to escape. The instrument will then come into direct contact with the child and with a pressure of approximately 55 or so millimeters of mercury applied to the end of this instrument as it is attached to a long thick suction tubing at this end and to the abortion instrumentation, that is the machine at the other end, the suction tip will begin to tear the child apart. The pieces of the body are torn away one by one, until finally all that remains are chards of the body and the head itself. The head will be too large to come through this instrument itself. This will necessitate the introduction of this instrument called a polyp(?) forcep into the uterus through the already dilated cervix and the abortionist will then attempt to grasp the free floating head of the child in the uterus between the rings of this instrument. The head is then crushed, the contents of the head removed, and finally the bones of the head and the abortion is then, effectively at an end."

They then showed the movie "The Silent Scream". For those of you familiar with it, being one of the more popular films, a fetus is shown on a live sonogram and is shown trying to kick himself away from a suction tube. They pause the sonogram as the tube hits the baby and starts to tear it apart where you can see the baby's mouth wide open "clearly in a silent scream". You see the baby kicking and kicking until there is nothing left to kick and only the head left. The head was crushed and pulled out. Bernard concludes "Now all we see remaining, are simply the chards, the broken fragments, the pieces of tissue, which document that there was once a living, defenseless, tiny human being here."

They showed a 6 week fetus floating in water being stuck with a pin jumping at the pain. Then they showed an 8-9 week old fetus. It is said they only "react" to pain and don't really feel it. Yet, if an accident took your ability to feel pain, would you be eligible for "abortion"?

Dr. Jerome Lejune, world famous genetic researcher, "Each individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception. If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen."

John Ankerburg: "Now you may be surprised to learn that those who are Pro Abortion will agree with the scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. But though they agree that this being is alive, and it is human, they do not believe the child should be legally categorized as a person, and therefore they feel free to kill it.

Now this is not the first time in American History that we have made an arbitrary distinction between biological category of a living human being and the legal category of person. At one time in our history American Indians were not recognized as legal persons. The reason for this was, we wanted their land. If we did not grant them the protection of our constitution, then we would be able to take by force, anything which belonged to them. So we denied that they were legal persons entitled to the right to own property. As a result, we were able legally to take their land from them.

Next in our national lists of non-persons were black slaves. In this case we declared these human beings were really the property of their masters. The Supreme Court arbitrarily denied the biological category of human life, and replaced it with a new legal definition of personhood. On this basis, blacks were ruled to be non persons in the Dred Scott decision of 1857. What we wanted from slaves was their labor, so we denied that they were persons denied the right to liberty. Now we view that period of our history with shame. But we must remember that slavery at that time, as abortion is now, was a very profitable practice. Slavery was accepted socially, condoned by many churches and clergy, and in addition it was ruled to be legal by the United States Supreme Court.

But there's one more example. In 1973, another group of human beings were added to the non person's list, namely the unborn children in the womb. What do we want from these children? Well, we want the money that we can get from killing them. We want to use their bodies for research, their cells to revitalize ours. We want the space that they would take up in this world. We want the time, money, and food we would have to give them, the convenience we would have to give up for them. In essence, we just don't want them around. So what have we done? We have legally redefined them and denied that they are persons. And on that basis, we have denied them their right to life.

Our constitution declares that "No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Yet in our history, we have denied all three of these for the sake of convenience, economics, and expedience. In our own day unborn human beings have been denied life. In 1857, black human beings were denied liberty. Before that Indian human beings were denied the right to property. History has proven that we were wrong about the Indians and about the blacks. We cannot wait for history to prove that we were wrong about the unborn children in the womb. If personhood is arbitrarily bestowed by society it views invaluable, if as history has shown, society is changeable in its judgements, we ought to carefully consider which class of human beings might next be given the status of non persons. Could somebody arbitrarily rule that we are non persons, because they want our property, because they want the result of our work, or simply because they want to get rid of us?

There is a tremendous parallel with the decision itself and I think this was brought home to me when my forth boy who was 9 came home from school, and was asked to write a paragraph on the Dred Scott decision. We looked in the encyclopedia and a variety of books, and I found an interesting statement by Chief Justice Tanney. He said in essence "Look, we're not making slavery compulsory. Every American citizen has the right to choose whether or not to own a slave, but the abolitionist should not impose his morality on the slave owner." And I turned to my son and said, "Mark, that sounds reasonable to me, does it sound reasonable to you?" and he said "noooo". And I said, "Why not?" and with that infinite wisdom that God gives to 9 year old boys but somehow withholds from Supreme Court Justices, my son said, "Because a slave is a human being."

In conclusion, we have seen that it's an established fact that life begins at conception. We've seen that science tells us its an established fact that the unborn child can feel the pain of abortion as early as 8 weeks and on. Yet each year, we still allow 817,500 innocent human children to feel the ultimate pain of their life being taken from them. Their silent scream, and the writhing agony that they experience can now be seen by us on our television sets, but will that be enough to cause us to act and stop this horrible torture?

Pro abortionist refuse to listen to the scientific facts about human life. Like other selfish and greedy people in the past, for reasons of convenience, economics and expedience, they are trying to persuade us once again, that the biological scientific category of what constitutes a living human being can simply be ignored. All we have to do is redefine unborn children as non persons and on that basis they say we can kill them with out penalty. Hopefully, we'll see through this smoke screen and not permit abortions to continue."