Monsters, Incorporated

In the news last week, I read a story about the "wrong twin fetus" having been "terminated" in Australia. The staff "treating" the woman accidentally killed the healthy baby, not the one who had a congenital heart defect. Notice the demented wording to make more palatable the fact that a mother KILLED her own CHILD in her WOMB, which should be the safest place on planet earth for any baby, but is the most dangerous.

Abortion Practitioner Loses Medical License for Killing Wrong Twin in Failed Abortion

As found on LifeNews:

Miami, FL (LifeNews.com) -- A Florida-based abortion practitioner lost his medical license this weekend after the state medical board evaluated his license. Matthew Kachinas was supposed to do an abortion on one of the twin babies who had Down syndrome but wound up killing the other baby in the failed abortion.

Kachinas injected a chemical to kill the baby in the abortion, but the injection ultimately killed the healthy unborn child.

The Florida Board of Medicine met over the weekend, according to the Miami Herald, and revoked Kachinas' license for that and other cases that have come to its attention where Kachinas engaged in shoddy medicine.

Immediately after the hearing, Kachinas said he would kill himself and was hospitalized at a local mental health facility out of concerns of his well-being, the newspaper reported.

Kachinas was one of the few abortion practitioners in Florida to engage in second-trimester abortions or the practice known as selective reduction, whereby one or more unborn children are killed when a pregnancy involves more than one baby.

The pregnancy in question involved unborn children conceived through in-vitro fertilization. Records show that after the "wrong" baby was killed in the first abortion, a second abortion was done to kill the disabled unborn child as well. The babies were 15 weeks along at the time of the abortion.

The twin who was considered healthy was a girl while the twin diagnosed as having Down syndrome, was a boy.

[...]

There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to say where to start.

1) The hypocrisy of the Florida Board of Medicine to revoke a doctor's license for killing a "healthy" child, but for not even frowning upon the intentional killing of a "disabled" child.

2) What does a "Board of Medicine" have to do with overseeing intentionally taking human life? Isn't medicine about healing people, rather than eugenics and "ethnic cleansing"?

3) The gall of the parents. The article does not say whether or not they still went through with aborting the disabled twin even after the death of the healthy child, but my guess would be they did, since they never wanted him to begin with. To not even be ashamed to come forward with a story like that - "We wanted him to kill our son, but instead he killed our daughter, so now we want to press charges". Chances are, they are trying to recover the money they spent on IVF so they can afford to pervert nature again in the future.

4) This story once again proves my opinion that people who use IVF are obsessed with having a perfect token child to add to their perfectly planned out life, without any regard to the moral implications. Anyone who would intentionally kill most their children just so they can maybe have one, rather than to seek God's blessing in this area, is selfish and unfit to be a parent. This is proven by the fact that these people in cold blood were going to "reduce" their not-so-perfect offspring. This all reminds me of the story I blogged about here (an update on which is soon to come).

5) This was not the first time the doctor "messed up". My guess is that maybe it wasn't accidental. Maybe someone who kills little babies for a living enjoys it so much that sometimes he likes to kill even the ones who were supposed to "make" it.

6) Why does Sarasota Memorial Hospital carry out second trimester abortions for "medical" reasons? Isn't a hospital there to help people? It's amazing how they think size determines whether or not someone is a human being.

This story reminded me of an unrelated case I read about online of a 19-year old girl with Down Syndrome who died following what was likely an illegal, forced late-term abortion at George Tiller's abortion clinic. You can read about this very sad case here.

God help those mothers who have made their womb the most dangerous place in the world for their child to be in. One cannot pervert nature much more than that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited to add: I received a comment from someone preferring not to have their comment published who pointed out to me that the article does, in fact, make mention of the fact that the parents ultimately aborted the second baby as well.

"Records show that after the "wrong" baby was killed in the first abortion, a second abortion was done to kill the disabled unborn child as well. The babies were 15 weeks along at the time of the abortion."

Question and answer, part II

As promised, I wanted to answer some of the canning-related questions that came from this post.

Do you use a pressure canner or just a big stock pot for processing? I saw a pressure canner at Wal-Mart yesterday for about $70, but don't know if that's a good price or not.

There are two ways to can: pressure canning, and hot water canning. Pressure canning is used for low-acid foods such as vegetables (corn, beans), meats, etc. Some people do use pressure cookers as a pressure canner, but canning experts advise against that. I think what Wal-Mart sells is a pressure cooker that is also supposed to work as a pressure canner, but again, I guess there is a difference and it's technically not as safe to use. Because pressure canners are expensive, and I prefer frozen vegetables and meats to canned ones, I only ever do hot water canning (which is only suitable for high-acid foods such as fruits and tomatoes). Fruit jams, jellies, applesauce, canned tomatoes, fruit syrups, canned fruits etc. can all be made in a hot water bath. A pressure cooker could be used for hot water canning, but it is impractical (smaller batches) and unnecessary, so there really is no need to spend $70.

Oh and do you use white sugar, or can you use raw sugar? (Trying to think of health here haha).

This year, I only used white sugar for canning. In the past, I have used honey, as well as fruit juice concentrate for sweetening. There is a different kind of pectin available at the store that is made to be used with fruit juice concentrate (usually white grape or apple juice) or sugar substitute (like Splenda - don't even get me started on that). The package contains all the necessary explanations. It's really pretty much the same, except that you dump in the frozen concentrate instead of sugar. The jelly will not be nearly as sweet, but it does taste very nice. I like apricot jelly and berry jams very sweet, though, so I used regular sugar. I have never used raw sugar in place of the white, but I'm sure that would be perfectly fine.

P.S. How do I get my future wife to make delicious stuff like this??? :)

As with everything in life, you catch more flies with honey. But what on earth are you doing on my blog? And how did you like the apricot jelly?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below are some questions on other topics that I have been asked recently. If I missed yours, I am sorry, it was not intentional. If you have any other questions for me, please feel free to leave it in the comments section, and I will answer it soon.

Let's start with this important question:

Is there ANYTHING you don't know?

For starters, I don't know the name of the person who asked this, since they chose to leave an anonymous comment. Secondly, yes, there are obviously many things that I know nothing about, and probably many other things that I THINK I know but actually am wrong on. But no, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that a C-section rate of over 30% is extremely out of whack.

hi Zsuzsanna. I was wondering what your thoughts on infertility in general are. I know you are vocal about your opposition to IVF. What are your thoughts about IUI, Clomid, etc.? What about adoption? I am not being facetious, I am genuinely curious. (Rachel)

I think infertility is a terrible problem for women to have to suffer, and I honestly feel very bad for those affected by it. However, I also believe that God is the one who opens and closes the womb and gives women conception, as the Bible says so over and over again. If a couple is childless, it is because that is God's will at that time. I am quite certain that God does not need our artificial means of trying to speed along conception. Interestingly enough, the Bible mentions many women that were barren, but after they prayed and asked God (in the case of Isaac, for two decades), every single one of them went on to have children.

Since I have already explained my position on IVF, I will give you my thoughts on IUI and fertility drugs (such as the one you mentioned, Clomid). I don't think it would be sinful per se to use fertility drugs at a normal dosage, but I also would strongly advise against it. Just because something isn't wrong doesn't mean it is good for us. If women have ovulatory problems, the underlying cause should be rectified rather than supplying the body with artificial hormones that are nothing more than a crutch, and will only lead to the woman's body becoming more out of balance hormonally. There are many herbs and other natural approaches to regulate a woman's cycle and restore her health to where she can then conceive naturally. People have commented on here that they tried drugs and IUI unsuccessfully, then tried herbal remedies, and became pregnant shortly thereafter.

As for IUI, I really do not know much about the process, and don't want to speculate. To me it seems that God intended the creation of a new eternal soul to be between a husband and wife, not a doctor in a clinic. God doesn't need the doctor's help.

Many times, people who use artificial means of conception take the fact that they were successfully able to have a child as proof that God condoned of their actions, and even used modern medicine to carry out His will. But there are many instances where people sin (fornication, adultery), and a child is conceived. It doesn't make the actions of the adults involved any less sinful, but the child of course had no part in it and is just as loved by God as any other. God has created the laws of the universe, and among them is that when two people come together, they are likely to conceive. God doesn't just suspend that law every time somebody decides to mess around outside of marriage, but it doesn't mean that He condones their actions.


Do you use two diaper bags and just split the stuff up, or do you use a diaper bag for each kid? Or, did you never have this problem? Lol. Trying to figure out what would work the best.

I don't really use a diaper bag. There are always a couple of diapers and a pack of wipes in my purse, as well as in the stroller, and also in the van. Chances are, wherever I am at, there is always a diaper and wipes within my reach. If the kids need a snack while we are out, I either toss that in the purse, too, or just pack a bag with water bottles, fruit, and a dry snack (like pretzels or goldfish) for everyone. But that's rare because I try to run errands between mealtimes, and avoid feeding the kids in the car.

Have you ever read any of the children's books by Kate Seredy? She was a Hungarian author and several of her books are set in Hungary.

No, but thank you for the tip, I want to check into that. We are currently reading the Little House series for read aloud time with the kids.


Years ago, when my babies were nursing, I, like you, enjoyed feeding them during the night while they lay next to me in bed. It was very comfortable for both of us, and less sleep-disturbing than getting up to sit in a rocking chair. However, the SIDS campaign has made this a big issue, so my daughter, who has recently had a baby (my first grandbaby!) is terrified of keeping the baby in bed with her to nurse at night. The medical community has created such a scare about this, and I am undecided about how much to be worried about it. What are your thoughts on this?

SIDS is such a hot topic, and I certainly am no authority on it. I know that SIDS occurrences are much, much lower in countries where moms naturally take their babies to bed with them. And, as another reader already pointed out, if a baby dies from becoming entrapped or smothered it was not due to SIDS, but another (preventable) cause. I for one certainly think that having baby beside mom is safest for baby and easiest for mom, but there are many who would disagree. I never lose any sleep when I have a newborn, no matter how many times they wake up at night. Our babies never "sleep through the night" uninterrupted until they are fully weaned, but it never bothers me one bit because I can feed them while I sleep. The older kids have all grown up to be great sleepers.

There is also a lot of very interesting information on a relationship between SIDS and the flame-retardant chemicals used in producing mattresses. You can read more about that here. It seems that this could very well be the true cause behind the baby suddenly not breathing, and subsequently dying. It would also explain why having mom close by could be lifesaving, as she acts as the baby's "breathing pacemaker". Mom may also wake up if she subconsciously notices that something is not right with her baby. Please click here to read what I have written about SIDS in the past.

My wife and I have decided to switch traditional roles. Nobody forced us to and we didn't force each other. She works all day and I stay home with the kids and do the housework and cooking and such. I also do have a job which I do from home. Do you gave any thoughts on that?

Yes, I do. But I am only telling you my thoughts because you asked. Regardless of whether or not I think that something is a right choice, it's really none of my business to personally make sure that everybody does the right things in life. While I do blog about a lot of issues in general, I do so to inform people and maybe get them to look at their decisions in a different light. I almost never "rip" on a person specifically or point out the flaws I perceive in them. Not unless they are freaks like this woman.

Back to your question, my thoughts (in no particular order) are: your kids are better off at home than in anyone else's care; God intended for the mother to stay at home an raise the children and did not really leave it up to her personal preferences; I don't think there is anything wrong with men doing housework and cooking if that's what they want to do; glad you have a job you can do from home with your kids there; it's nice that you have such a close relationship with the kids; I would never do what you do but again, it infinitely better than putting the kids in daycare and both of you working outside the home.

The Octuplet Controversy

So much has been discussed about this subject already, I really did not want to add to the whole hoopla. I think it was 100% wrong and selfish of a single mother on welfare to get pregnant, and to do so though IVF (which kills dozens of babies for every living one).

But I would like to set the record straight on some things the media has been portraying negatively:

It was not wrong for someone with 6 kids to want to have more. Of course, there is a big difference between a married mom of 6 becoming pregnant by her husband and a single woman on welfare using IVF for the 6th time. Still, the news media acts as if anyone with 6 children must be crazy for wanting another baby.

I do not think that it is impossible to give enough love and attention to 14 children. That is, if they are conceived and born under normal circumstances, i.e. children that are spaced naturally. Most parents who have 14 children will have some who are about to leave the home or have already left. They are much less needy than a newborn (let alone eight newborns). Furthermore, many large families homeschool, and practically all of them have a stay-at-home mom. A homeschooled child in a large family gets much more individual, one-on-one attention than a child who only has one sibling but goes to school gets. True, the kid in the large family has to share his parents with his siblings 24/7, but kids in small families who are in school have to share their teacher (not even a parent) for the majority of their awake time with about 25 other kids (who are not even their siblings).

"Octo-Mom" has 10 children under the age of 2, something that is not normally possible, hence she will not be able to care for them as God and nature had intended. Hopefully, there will be people to volunteer and help her out, since the mistakes have already been made and the effort now should be to make the best out of the situation.

I believe that with God's blessing and hard work, anyone can support any size family that God gives them. Again, the emphasis here is children that are given by God, rather than artificially conceived. Stealing from God sounds like a sure way for parents to forfeit the blessings of God.

I do not think that this mom should have "reduced" the pregnancy, i.e. selectively aborted some of her babies in the womb. The mistake was using IVF in the first place, let alone with 6 babies (she said 2 of the eggs split, hence 8 babies).

What is selective reduction?

I copied the following article from here. My comments are added in brackets in red italics.

What is Selective Reduction?

by Pattie Hughes

Selective reduction is a procedure used to reduce the number of embryos in a multifetal pregnancy. This procedure is sometimes used when too many embryos implant in a pregnancy that is achieved with assisted reproductive technology. When too many embryos implant successfully the chance of carrying the pregnancy to term drops significantly. [I agree. Which is why I am against assisted reproductive technology in the first place. It creates pregnancies with an unnaturally high number of babies, which leads to a number of related problems both physical and ethical. However, if someone still goes ahead and goes through with the procedure, I am certainly in favor of keeping all babies. The same technology that got "parents" in this predicament in the first place has become very sophisticated at ensuring relatively safe outcomes even for those pregnancies. There were two sets of sextuplets born at a hospital in our city in the last year. The babies in both cases were well and healthy. I think parents who chose S/R are not so much concerned about the wellbeing of the children as simply not being willing to take home 3, 4, or more babies at the same time. Also, having a baby that needs to be cared for in the NICU is not the glamorous picture of a bouncing pink baby that selfish IVF parents were hoping to show around.]

Selective reduction is generally used for pregnancies with more than two fetuses. [I hope that doesn't mean some people actually choose to kill one of two twins. But nothing surprises me any more.] Preventing medical problems in the pregnancy or the loss of all the fetuses is the reason for the procedure. In some cases, fetuses that are considered to be at greater risk for defects are selected for reduction. [Yeah, because who would willingly pick a lesser, i.e. potentially disabled child? Why take the "greater risk for defects" when you can get a perfect specimen? Are these parents being judgmental of their offspring???]

The procedure is done during the first trimester, prior to the twelfth week of pregnancy. If no abnormalities are present in any of the fetuses, the ones that are easiest to reach are selected for reduction. [Does reading this make you sick?] A chemical, usually potassium chloride, is injected into the selected fetuses.

Following the procedure, the fetuses are usually absorbed by the mother's body. [How can you go to sleep knowing that your body is absorbing the children you killed?] The procedure is not without risk. In some cases, one or all of the remaining fetuses will die as well. This happens in about five percent of cases. Preterm labor is another possible side effect of this procedure. [Wow, that kind of sounds exactly like what happened to Tortua. What a shock! So we aren't allowed to feel bad that she killed 2 babies, but we do have to pity her for the other 2 dying as well or we will be called heartless, cruel, and judgemental. I feel bad for mothers who legitimately lose a baby through miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm labor, or other complications, but not for women whose babies died as a result of their siblings being poisoned in utero.]

Some patients have issues with this procedure, usually for ethical or religious reasons. [That's me!] Selective reduction is a form of abortion. Pro life patients may object to this procedure for this reason. Even pro choice patients may have problems with selective reduction. A couple who has gone down the long, painful road of infertility may not be able to bear the thought of aborting some of their babies. [Well, apparently, some can.]

There are some things you can do to avoid the need for selective reduction. [It's called being normal and doing what married people do.] You can find a pro life infertility specialist. These doctors don't use selective reduction and avoid implanting more embryos than could be carried to term. Discuss this possibility with your doctor if you are a pro life infertility patient. The best way to avoid the need for this procedure is to avoid becoming pregnant with too many babies in the first place. [Translation: You would have to start thinking about someone besides yourself.]

Birth control pills, IVF, and abortion

For years I have been telling women that all forms of hormonal birth control lead to early, "silent" abortions of their babies by not allowing the newly conceived child to attach to the walls of the womb. Instead, these babies are "washed out" when the woman's monthly cycle starts.

This includes the pill, mini pill, hormone injections, implanted rods, patches, and hormone-releasing IUDs. (Non-hormonal IUDs have the same effect by poisoning the womb through the metal that is used.)

The reaction is almost always the same: disbelief, and then rejection or apathy. They hide behind "If it really did that, how could so many women be using these birth control methods? How could so-called Christian doctors prescribe these? Why have I never heard of this before?" etc.

I found the following article on Yahoo News surprisingly honest. I quote:

DENVER - A proposed state constitutional amendment defining a fertilized human egg as a person was certified Thursday for the November ballot, moving Colorado a step closer to an election battle over abortion rights.

[...]

Opponents say the proposed amendment could affect birth control because the most widely used form of contraception works by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus. [emphasis added]

They also say the measure could deter in-vitro fertilization and stem cell research and bar doctors from treating women with some forms of cancer. [who are being treated with embryonic stem cells]

Of course, this is what the opposition had to say:

"Defining an egg as a person in our constitution and statutes isn't science-based and makes bad public policy," said Crystal Clinkenbeard, a spokeswoman for an organization called Protect Families Protect Choices, which opposes the measure.

Nobody said anything about "defining an egg as a person". An egg in and of itself does not begin dividing into more and more cells and become a growing a human being. This measure is aimed at fertilized eggs, which is really not an egg but a newly conceived human being.

My goal is not to make anyone feel bad who has used hormonal birth control in the past. Sadly, many women are ignorant of the medical facts behind it. I myself was guilty of this and took the pill for two months when we first got married, which is probably what caused the loss of my first pregnancy. I guess I should have been researching what I was popping in my mouth every day a little better. Although I discontinued taking the pill before I knew of its true effects (we actually WANTED kids right away, as soon as I was covered by my husband's health insurance), I was still shocked when I did find out how it really worked a few months later.

What gets to me is people who find out about how hormonal birth control works, and then choose to ignore the facts out of convenience. Could all those women please put the emotion aside, take their head out of the sand, and read up on the medical facts behind the pill? Is having babies really that bad that you have to knowingly KILL them? Do you really just need to save all your money for the mall, a new car, a bigger house and fun vacations? Do you care about anyone beside yourself?

The truth won't go away no matter how long you choose to ignore it.

Is IVF wrong?

IVF stands for in vitro fertilization. "In vitro" comes from Latin and literally means "within the glass". As the term suggests, fertilization i.e. conception takes places in a petri dish as opposed to "in vivo" (Lat: "within the living"). Babies conceived this way are sometimes referred to as "test tube babies".

The process basically involves this:

(1) The mother's ovaries are stimulated through hormone injections to release more than one egg per cycle.

(2) The eggs (approx. 20-30) are surgically extracted, prepared by stripping the outer cell membrane, placed in a dish, and adequately stored until the father's "sample" is obtained.

(3) The father is given a containter and sent to a discreet room at the clinic (equipped with the corresponding "toys") in order to provide the necessary seed. Alternatively, single women and lesbians with fertility problems use frozen samples from a male donor.

(4) The IVF specialist doctors up the contents of Dad's dish before dumping them onto the contents of Mom's dish, and the majority of eggs are fertilized.

(5) The babies are left to develop in the dish for several days while being observed. Some grow at a normal rate, some grow slower than expected, and some "arrest in growth" - a euphemism for dying.

(6) Only the embryos growing at a normal, healthy rate will be considered for transfer to the mother's womb. This may be anywhere from a couple of babies to a dozen or more. Most people will end up with 4 to 6 "viable" embryos. Of course, in almost all cases no more than 2 or 3 babies are implanted for fear of becoming pregnant with multiples.

(7) Overall success rate is about 27% per cycle, meaning that the mother only has a one out of four chance that any baby will actually "catch on", grow, and be born, while the rest die. Unused embryos can be discarded or stored in liquid nitrogen for as long as the parents wish (for another IVF attempt or another pregnancy later on).

The question is: Is this procedure morally right? Just because it is technically and scientifically possible, should Christians be participating in it?

My answer is a vehement, resounding NO! Oh, that's that word that our ungodly society doesn't like to hear any more. They like to think that they can do whatever they want to do, and nobody will tell them otherwise - especially not God. The reasons why I feel this way? Read on:

- Murder: Intentionally subjecting your child to a situation in which he only has an extremely thin chance of survival is murder. If I were to load a revolver tonight, load it with 4 out of 6 bullets, spin the barrel and then fire one shot at each of our four children, what would be their chances of survival? For sure, at least two would die, but probably three would. In this example, there is a 33% chance of one child surviving - for IVF, it's 27%. Would I be arrested if I did this? Would it be considered intentional murder since I purposefully loaded less "blanks" than I needed for all children to survive? Could I rightfully say: "Well, God decides who is going to live and who is going to die!"? I am well aware of the fact that miscarriages occur naturally, and I have had a couple myself. But that still only means that I have lost 2 out of 6 children. Compare that to the 1 in 4 chance that at least one of the 20 or so babies that are conceived will survive. If God decides to kill one of my children, does that mean I can kill as many as I like?

- Perversion: If you don't find the above procedure revolting and disgusting there is something seriously wrong with you. And what's up with involving a third party in the procreation process? So the doctor is impregnating the wife of another man?

- Playing God: This is revolutionary: If people don't get pregnant, it's because God doesn't want them to have a child. Am I saying that infertile couples are bad parents? No, not at all! Some of the nicest people I know are still praying for a child. God may have other reasons that we cannot understand. But I do think that ALL parents having children by way of IVF are bad parents (see points above), and that their children would have been better off if they were never born because their parents are twisted and will expose them to who knows what.

My personal experience in meeting IVF parents and children is limited because all of our friends are obviously devoted Christians. But the parents I did meet were more or less ridiculous, and seemed completely incompetent and overwhelmed. I have also doubted the paternity of some of these children, partly due to one of the parents compulsively pointing out similarities to the supposed Dad way more than normal parents would. I am not saying hat mix ups are common, but they certainly must occur sometime, somewhere. So maybe it's just a subliminal fear in the back of their mind that makes them so bent on proving that Dad is in fact the biological father. Not a chance I want to take!

In spite of all this, many Christians are ignorant of the IVF process. They may condone it because they don't know the facts, and are afraid to look into it because someone they love has committed IVF. I have heard of pastors condoning the process, either motivated by money or influence.

So I was all the more surprised by this article that a friend of mine sent me :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Albert Mohler: All involved with IVF responsible for "human tragedy"

A leader of the evangelical movement in the United States recently came down hard on the effects of in vitro fertilization on his blog, decrying the destruction of millions of embryos for the sake of IVF, reports John Connolly, LifeSiteNews.com.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the primary school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world, called the destruction of embryos in IVF a tragedy, after reading a report in the London Times that over one million human embryos have been killed in IVF procedures.

"Human embryos are being produced, almost factory-like, and then routinely destroyed or indefinitely frozen," he observed. "This phenomenon might be described as an unintended complication of the IVF technology. Nevertheless, all involved in this technology are responsible for this vast human tragedy, intended or not."

"Far too many evangelicals seem to turn a blind eye to this reality," he continued. "While we celebrate the birth of a child and the gift of life, we cannot blind ourselves to the harsh and grotesque reality that this technology also means the destruction of human life. Many evangelicals fail to see what many proponents of human embryonic stem cell research have noted - a glaring inconsistency in condemning the destruction of human embryos through stem cell research, while ignoring or dismissing the destruction of embryos in IVF clinics."

Dr. Mohler has been recognized by such influential publications as Time and Christianity Today as a leader among American evangelicals. Time.com called him the "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S."

Mohler hosts a daily live nationwide radio program on the Salem Radio Network., and is a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention. He has served in several offices, including a term as Chairman of the SBC Committee on Resolutions, which is responsible for the denomination's official statements on moral and doctrinal issues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What's the point of this all? Next time a lady tells you she is trying to get pregnant and considering IVF, please explain this process to her and advise her not to do it.


To hear a sermon on this subject, please click here.

For more written information, please visit this site.

"And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul." - Psalm 106:15

"Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity." - Deuteronomy 28:41

"Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?" - Ezekiel 16:20, 21

"Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood." - Psalm 106:37, 38

The Great American Holocaust

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade

48,589,993

Total Abortions in the U.S. since 1973
(according to National Right to Life)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some more statistics for the U.S. (obtained from here):

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.
Who's having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.
Who's having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.
Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.
Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
At what gestational ages are abortions performed:
52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
Abortion coverage:
48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.
© Copyright 1998, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
© Copyright 1997, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
© Copyright 1995, Family Planning Perspectives
© Copyright 1988, Family Planning Perspectives

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The greatest advocate for legal abortions in the United States has been the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. It is interesting to note that this organization was started in the early 20th century by a radical feminist called Margaret Sanger with the intent to legalize birth control (which was then still against federal law) and abortion, eradicate "inferior" races (which to her primarily meant African Americans), and to promote mass-sterilization and immorality in general. No doubt, birth control has led to the need for legal abortions because it has allowed fornication and adultery to flourish, thus leading to many more unwanted pregnancies that had to be ended in order for nobody to find out.

Please click here to see an interesting publication put out by some members of Planned Parenthood. WARNING: The content is graphic and should not be viewed in front of children or within their hearing.

Please click here for a copy of Sanger's famous pamphlet, Family Limitations, in which she basically explains what a burden children are and how to induce an early abortion (immediately after conception, before "being late") through widely available substances such as quinine and bleach.

Some of her most bizarre quotes are:

But it is far more sordid to find yourself several years later burdened down with half a dozen unwanted children, helpless, starved, shoddily clothed, dragging at your skirt, yourself a dragged out shadow of the woman you once were.

A free race cannot be born to slave mothers. A woman cannot choose but give a measure of that bondage to her sons and daughters.


No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.


She goes through the vale of death alone, each time a babe is born. As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it.


The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.


Woman must not accept; she must challenge. She must not be awed by that which has been built up around her; she must reverence that woman in her which struggles for expression.


Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.

The only good thing I can think of about this evil woman is that she died all alone and abandoned in a nursing home in Tuscan, Arizona in 1966.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What boggles my mind the most is how many Christians believe and practice what this woman was arrested for less than 100 years ago. As she suggested, they have no more than 2 children, and they wait for at least 2 years after getting married before having them. Worse yet, modern day Christians rely on the chemicals contained in hormonal birth control devices (pill, injection, ring, etc.) to induce their early abortions. This may seem more sophisticated than using bleach, but it is just as wicked and despicable. Just as women back then were made infertile through the use of these substances, women today find themselves not being able to conceive when suddenly they wish to do so once it fits their timetable. Today, we have fertility methods to help us along with that, many of which (most notably in-vitro fertilization, i.e. "test tube babies") contribute to the death of many times more children. Isn't it ironic that the number of women having an abortion this year is approximately the same as that of women seeking fertility treatment? We have gone from God saying, "I kill, and I make alive" to putting ourselves in the place of God, where we now say, "I kill, and I make alive".

So if you thought that the number at the very top was appallingly high, multiply it several times to account for all the early, non-surgical abortions brought on by hormonal birth control and in-vitro fertilization. And if you are using either one of those, you are part of the problem, and have no right to stand in judgment of anyone having a surgical abortion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works.

And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.

Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.

Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

Psalm 106:35-40