Crime of our time – A case against the mass murder in our midst

Officially and tolerated by society one-tenth of all people will be killed in the long term. But how can we debate it?

It doesn’t matter how you call it or how you describe it. Murder is murder. And that’s why I am going to call it by its name: Abortion is murder. Why it is murder and why the most arguments for abortion are duplicitous I try to show in this article. And I also want to give hope to those women who have aborted and now suffer the bad consequences on which information is often withheld.

First the numbers and facts

If one trusts the Federal Statistical Office of Germany even though there was a declining number of abortions, they were still always above 10%. Cases of criminal indication like an abortion because of rape make up mostly less than 1% of all abortions. Worldwide it seems to be even worse. The numbers are especially shocking if one considers that Germany has a fully developed social system and nearly every German can afford contraceptives.

The arguments pro abortion

There are basically two types of arguments in favor of abortion. The first one touches the humanity of the unborn. Proponents argue that the unborn is not yet a human being and even more so no person. That’s why one should not call abortion murder. Here, the border can be drawn individually and arbitrarily. Being eager about objectivity many abortion proponents justify their position with reference to the development state of the unborn. That there is still development potential for fetuses nobody will argue. But don’t have new born babies also still much potential for development? Isn’t for example puberty also an important step of development for the human life? You quickly see that even with reference to the level of development the borderline stays blurred and can therefore be set to one’s own desire. Why should, for example, certain already available organs define a human being? Why should birth define a human being? Why should the height define a human being? Should such arbitrary standards suffice to exploit the weakness of a living being to get rid of it? Why not giving life a chance to fully unfold?

In the end, the debate about abortion is discriminating against human beings mostly because of the following factors: Size, level of development or age, surroundings and dependency. While nowadays discriminations and dehumanization due to, for example, ethnicity, sex, origin, disease and disability are rightly so proscribed, there is still discrimination going on against the vulnerable unborn utilizing the categories listed above. They are, as for example skin color, no reasonable criteria to link being human or one’s value to it. That’s why those criteria are only used with regard to the unborn life. And here the whole hypocrisy of many abortion proponents becomes apparent:

Discrimination due to whereabouts

If we allow all abortions before the event of birth, then we discriminate against human beings because of their surroundings. Only because someone still lives in the mother’s womb he has no right to live. With the same absurd arguments, one could also justify taking the right to live from, for example, all people being in a football stadium. Maybe we can even find some proponents for that absurd idea amongst some hooligans.

No absurdity is to strange that you wouldn’t find at least some people to champion this idea.

Discrimination due to dependency

Some people argue that the unborn has no right to live as long as it cannot live on its own independent from the mother. According to this view abortion has only to be abolished as soon as the unborn could theoretically survive as a preterm birth. But this is again very arbitrarily decided since no infant can survive on its own even after birth. Why don’t we then set the border of legal killing of children not up to an age of 3 years? Or why not defining dependency under financial aspects? Some plagued parents support their child even when it’s in its 20th semester of its university studies of sociology. Why don’t we then argue for a post-natal abortion for those cases as well? Or what about the disabled, elders and diseased? Those people are often dependent on others as well? Why not also just killing them if they mean to much inconvenience? Correct! It would be absurd and cruel!

And precisely the way that a society treats its weakest members — senior citizens, the sick, the poorest, those who suffer some sort of handicap, and unborn children — says much about the level of its civilization than its material wealth, the height of its buildings, the quality of its infrastructure, or its military might.

~ Sebastián Piñera

Discrimination due to age

The legislator often orients itself in decisions regarding the abortion issue by the weeks of pregnancy. But here one could also easily ask: Would I make the same decision if the affected wouldn’t be and embryo or fetus but a 2-year-old child? If not, then I am discriminating against age or – like said above – against level of development.

Libertarians and abortion

The second main line of argument touches the rights of the mother. Even though the rights of the unborn are also acknowledged the rights of the mother are regarded as higher. The following arguments are often expressed by Libertarians and are also used by other groups which in other issues do not care so much for property rights and individualism. That’s why I will here only deal with consequent (thus Libertarian) ideas:

Property rights

It is argued that the woman’s property rights of her own body are violated by the child which, therefore, allows the mother to basically “kick it out” of her property. But here the question is raised what the body means and if this argumentation isn’t too simpleminded especially when we take natural givens in to account. The body could, for example, be defined as the space someone takes up. But then we have to consider that the body of the child is also space taken up by the child and which, therefore, doesn’t belong to the mother’s body. This space which is defined as the body of the child belongs to the child. To deny the property rights of the child is only possible if one dehumanizes the child with the discriminations discussed above. Furthermore, if one argues that the whole content of the mother’s womb belongs to the mother’s body then one could utilize the same line of argument to prove that the mother itself belongs to the state since she is living inside the space of the state. Or talking in terms of an anarchist society: Your house belongs to me because my property of land completely surrounds your real estate.


However, the child is growing in the womb of the mother and gets nourished by her body so that one could still argue that the child is assaulting against the property rights of the mothers since it lives in her “parasitically”. Here, the child unknowingly offends the Libertarian non-aggression-principle. But otherwise, except in the case of rape, the mother implicitly accepted these known results and further possible health risks with deciding to have a sexual intercourse. And even in the case of rape one could still reply that it is for sure wrongful but that the father (in this case without consulting the mother) accepted the consequences in place of the mother and that this is in fact a major point of the crime. As well as the inflicted injuries and pains are in causal relationship with that criminal act, so the 9-month period of pregnancy is another natural consecutive symptom which amounts to the offense of the rapist. But this, in consequence, doesn’t justify to now also violate the rights of the child. If someone has to pay with his life, then rather the rapist.


Even if the woman took the risk of possible health issues in a pregnancy she would still have the right to terminate the pregnancy for her own safety. This argumentation creates an analogy to self-defense in which one may fight off an aggressor deadly. But even in self-defense it is only allowed to avert the threat and to accept the possible death of the aggressor. But in case of abortion we deal with directly intended killing while the health risk for the mother is often over-estimated. But is the analogy of self-defense even justified? Since according to the circumstances given above the woman has at least accepted the possible and now occurring consequences. A better analogy would for the abortion in such a case would therefore be: The woman has a harmful organ dysfunction and is now killing an innocent child in order to get access to its organs as donor organs. The mother has no right to kill a child for her health. It doesn’t matter if it is her child or the child of a stranger.

Right to choose

A very stupid argumentation (pro-choice) says that the mother should just decide for herself how to deal with this issue. But this is too simple since one just dismisses all points mentioned above and pretends as this would be a good compromise for all parties. But this simply ignores the point of the pro-life group that in case of the right to live and the property rights of the child there is no room for any compromise. The pseudo-concession that one doesn’t need to commit abortions when it’s not accepted is as senseless as: Just don’t rape if you don’t like rapes. The victim’s case is just ignored.

The right to one’s own body does not include a right to abort as the right to move one’s own finger at the trigger of a gun doesn’t mean that one has the right to shot one of his fellow human beings.

The often-forgotten consequences for the mother

Often not known of but very real are the ramifications of an abortion for the mother. Besides the general dangers for health of the mother during the procedure of the abortion there is also the post-abortion syndrome. Thus, 36.5% become an alcohol problem after abortion. 40.6% start taking drugs. 55.8% become suicidal. 66% end the relationship to the father of the unborn child. 82.3% lose their self-esteem. 88.2% suffer of depressions. And even 92.6% have strong feelings of guilt.

When you want to commit an abortion, you need to be aware of what you are also doing to yourself. There are surely terrible things that cause you to want an abortion. But do you really want to murder your child for those reasons? There are baby hatches and you can even put your baby up for adoption. Maybe you already need help during your pregnancy? Then click HERE!

You have aborted?

Did you already abort and feel guilty now? Rightly so! But there is hope for you. You don’t need to despair. The God and creator of all life who has also made your life and the life of your child, this God had also created an escape from guilt. He became man in Jesus Christ to be equal to us in all things except that He never burdened Himself with guilt. That’s why He can carry your guilt for you. That’s also why He died on the cross. Christians know that He has carried all their guilt on that cross. He has basically taken the guilt and punishment of the Christians on Himself. When you believe in Jesus Christ and when you bring your guilt to Him and turn to Him you can, therefore, receive forgiveness of your guilt. Because if the highest lord of this world forgives you then you are forgiven absolutely.

Final pleading

When we Germans let it happen, yes even accept, that every year around 100,000 of the most innocent of innocents and the most vulnerable of the vulnerable are killed by their own family even before they saw light for the first time then our country’s society is sick. Then we also haven’t learnt anything from our history. Then it is absolutely just that our society perishes. Dudes, don’t sugarcoat it anymore. It is not a termination of pregnancy! It is murder, 100,000-fold mass murder! It is time that we turn back and appreciate and save life and punish murder again.

Do you also come to the next March for Life in Berlin? Or do you maybe want to share your story with us? Then please write down below in the comments!

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *