There are pro-choicers, who say that unborn babies should be killed
in just the first trimester and you have those who say, the first two
trimesters, while still others have no qualms about killing babies
right up to birth.
The word viability keeps coming up. So let’s discuss it.
Dictionaries define viable, as capable of living, developing, or
germinating under favorable conditions.
Since Roe Vs Wade in 1973, when to kill human beings in their
mother’s womb was legalized, the moral degeneracy of our country
has been in a freefall. To alleviate the guilt of pro-choicers and
placate their every need, dictionaries have now added another
definition for viability -- “capable of living outside of the uterus.”
Forget that babies CAN survive where nature and God intended --
INSIDE their mother’s womb.
With this in mind, let us see how this logic works in other areas, but
first we must remember that there’s NOT a scientist in the world, who
could deny that human life begins at conception.
Using the same logic for killing unborn babies -- a logic that pro-choicers
love, let’s use it for killing a fully developed human being. That is, to
kill a human being and say that it is not murder because THAT
human being could not have survived anyhow -- he was out of his normal
environment and conditions were not favorable for his existence.
Now, remember when a baby is torn limb from limb in his/her
mother’s womb the baby is killed in his/her normal environment --
his home. So, naturally that baby, being now dead cannot develop
any further to reach the point of being viable outside of his/her
If you take any kind of life and remove it from its normal habitat, that
life WILL die, even a fully developed human being. All unborn babies
ARE viable if left in their normal habitat -- their mother's womb.
So to accept the proposition that a human being can legally be killed
because said human being if taken out of his/her normal environment
would die, is the most illogical, lamebrained excuse that I have ever
Let me prove this to you. Is man’s normal environment living under
the ocean? No, how long could you hold your breath and stay alive
If someone was scuba diving and was killed, by removing his air hose,
it could not be considered murder. Because that person was not in
their normal habitat -- on terra firma, which does not require scuba
gear to survive.
By the same token, it would then be fair game to murder someone
at high altitudes. Just force them in a plane. At a high altitude -- you
use oxygen, but do not give your intended victim any. Then you can
either shoot him, or he will die from lack of oxygen.
Legally, if you use the same “viable criteria” as for unborn babies,
that pro- choicers use, you CANNOT be held for murder.
WHY -- because that person was NOT viable. He was out of his
normal environment, even though he was forcibly taken; just as our
legal system and pro-choicers do not care if a living human being
is forcibly taken from his mother’s womb -- his normal environment.
So, if one wants to murder someone, do it under the water or at high
altitudes, because in those elements, your intended victim is NOT
viable and you will not be charged with murder.
Outrageous scenarios -- you bet they are, but NO MORE outrageous
for judges and pro-choicers to insist that babies can legally be killed
if they are not viable out of their normal environment -- their mother’s
If a human being is killed, regardless of the environment -- whether
in the mother’s womb, under water or in space -- in its normal habitat
or out -- IT IS MURDER. It is just as wrong to kill an unborn baby
of one day gestation, as killing a baby one day after birth or twenty
years after birth.
When the sperm from the male fertilizes the female ovum(egg) the
DNA has been set. You now have a human being. The rest is a
developing continuum -- zygote, embryo, fetus newborn, adolescent
and adult. To kill this life at any stage, makes you a murderer in the
eyes of God and to be a condoner (pro-choicer) makes you an
Another scenario -- if a person were to kill another person in his
normal environment -- this planet Earth, by tearing him limb from
limb, as unborn babies are killed in their mother’s womb, then take
the body parts to the river, lake, or ocean-- throw them in the water
and say, “I cannot be held for murder, because he could not have
survived in water, even if he’d be alive, because I know for a fact that
he cannot swim. And the perp could get many others to testify that
it is true, the deceased could not swim. He was out of his normal
These scenarios are proposed to show you the outrageous mentality
of pro- choicers. YET, it is exactly this SAME rationale that
pro-choicers want you to accept when unborn babies are killed.
A rationale that satan himself wouldn’t have the guts to use.
FORCE them out of their normal environment, or even kill them
there and then have the audacity to say it is not murder, because
the baby could not have survived out of his mother’s womb.
So, there it is -- viability, just an excuse to kill. The crux of the matter
is that our current legal system and the pro-choicers don’t give a
darn about viability as evidenced in, Planned Parenthood, NARAL
and NOW spending large sums of money to make sure that the late
term partial-birth murders continue to be legal. They don’t even care if
these precious babies feel pain.
Thanks to these people, the word viability is now worthless. It isn’t
worth the paper it’s printed on. They have dismantled it and sent it
to the recycle bin. It means whatever they want it to mean.
All those who say that a woman should have the right to kill her
unborn baby if she so chooses, will have no credible excuse when
they’re ready to meet their Maker, because if they think God allows
for the murder of His precious children, in certain developmental
stages, they will be in for a rude awakening.
God laid down laws for us to follow -- the 10 commandments. One
of which is, “THOU SHALT NOT KILL.” Surely God with His infinite
power, would have been able to look into the future and seen the
aftermath of the Roe-Wade decision, and put an asterisk after it,
to omit the killing of unborn babies. Or let us know in some way, loud
and clear, that the unborn was excluded!
The fact that God did NOT do this, should tell us that God means
what He says, and people should not be trying to look for loopholes
to countermand the Word of God to justify the killing of the unborn
and ease their conscience.
Pro-choicers will not accept God's all-binding Words, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” which
means the killing of a human being. To accept it, would mean that
they have defied God's word and that they are a party to the killing
of 40 million-plus unborn babies since Roe Vs Wade.
To say that, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," does not include unborn babies,
is the same as saying -- “God You have no power -- You couldn’t look
into the future, otherwise You would have put an asterisk after
'Thou Shalt Not Kill,' to exempt unborn babies." This questioning of
God's power is an insult and a direct slap in His face.
I know that many pro-choicers say, “wait a minute, I’m against
abortions and I wouldn’t have one, or allow my wife to have one,
but I still think it should be the woman’s choice. If it’s a sin -- it’s
FLASH -- NO, it’s your sin. We were told by Jesus Christ and the
Holy Bible to help the sinner find his way to God and to sin no more.
And if we do NOT and know that they are sinning -- it will be OUR
sin, for doing nothing.
Show me a person, who claims to be pro-choice and I will show
you a person, who has one foot in hell and the other on a banana peel.
To be pro-choice is to condone evil. To condone evil -- you will not
enter into the kingdom of Heaven. How could you? YOU have aided
and abetted satan in the most heinous sin of all -- the killing of
millions and millions of God's defenseless precious children.
Your pro-choice status propagates the proposition that a women
should have the right to have her baby killed if she so chooses.
This should not be hard for anyone to understand -- should it?
However, beneath the surface with most pro-aborts is the saddest fact of all:
They understand this, but stubbornly refuse to accept it. Otherwise they wouldn't go to such lengths to make up so
many lame excuses to rationalize an absolute wrong into a demanding right.
One wrong does not prove a right; two wrongs don't make a right. Over 40 million wrongs have proved that!