What is abortion? Society claims that abortion is a benevolent medical procedure and a "choice" that it makes available to pregnant women that results in the prevention of a child from existing. This is heralded as a "human right", and a sign of a modern and decent society. Is there any Truth to this claim? The answer is no. The current claims regarding abortion are lie-based and utterly malevolent.

Abortion is a societally-sponsored form of genocide on the most vulnerable, pure and innocent of all human life - womb-trapped children. It is the most severe single form of child abuse, and it is sponsored and facilitated by society. It involves the literal murder of a helpless child. It is an utterly malevolent societal policy that targets existing and established human life forms. It is not a legitimate and honest right, but an offering of legal murder to adult female citizen-slaves by society. Abortion shows absolutely no regard for the rights or welfare of the child, as society decrees that the younger a human being is, the more contempt for welfare this child is to be treated with.

In a sane and Truth-based society, abortion would be simply known as murder. I will use the label "abortion" herein only for brevity reasons.

The societally-condoned murder of helpless womb-trapped children is 100% proof, to any thinker with a grip on reality, that australian society is completely sick, corrupt, twisted and malevolent. No other Forbidden Truth subject is necessary to come to this sane conclusion, but I will be using other Forbidden Truths to further hammer the stake of Truth into the monstrous heart of society at other pages on this Truth-based website. This Truth applies to all societies that sponser abortion, whether legal or illegal.

The primary Forbidden Truth here is : abortion and "illegal" murder are both murders - as the actions are exactly the same in both cases. The abortion murders are intentional and pre-meditated mass-murders of children sponsored and promoted by society. Society just changes the label for certain murder-acts for the malicious purpose of promoting and sponsoring some types of murders, while discouraging other forms of murders it finds inconvenient. The purpose of societal leaders in allowing abortion is simply to provide an outlet for the immense suppressed rage and frustration that resides in the True Realities of most female citizen-slaves. In other words, the poison-container concept as we have seen earlier.

The Truth is that legalized abortion increases abortion rates, gives a false sense of decency to the murderer/mother of the child and lowers crime by simply allowing the crime-actions to be committed against the womb trapped child instead of born humans who count in crime statistics. Scientific studies, including but not limited to the Donohue and Levitt Study, were performed over decades by experts at university level have shown that abortion being legalized leads to a significant and sustained drop in crime. This dovetails perfectly with what we embracers of Truth already know about the psychological methods of poison containers. Of course, if one murders a child that does not count in crime statistics instead of an adult human who does we have reduced crime figures. We shall re-visit this aspect of abortion later in this essay, and we will also see how society desperately dismissed these figures because of the Forbidden Truth they threatened to reveal.

Abortionists have the burden of proof and the active position in argument :

Briefly, I would like to point out that some proponents of abortion argue, when backed into a corner, that it is not possible to determine if the womb-trapped child is a human being/person. Actually it is 100% concretely determinable. These Truth-deniers are simply trying the old "grey area" argument because their main argument line failed. However, let us imagine that the answer cannot be determined. That would also result in victory for the Truth, as below :

There are 4 possible outcomes :
1. That proponents of abortion can justify their stance, but we can't know that.
2. That proponents of abortion can justify their stance, and we can know that.
3. That proponents of abortion cannot justify their stance, but we can't know that.
4. That proponents of abortion cannot justify their stance, and we can know that.

The Forbidden Truth is that item (4) is the correct answer. However, we are speculating that item (1) is correct as claimed in the above scenario. So, even IF abortion was not murder (and it is) and abortion was justifiable for society to commit, the concept that it is a "grey area" and we can't determine the answer can only mean that abortion still cannot be justified. One cannot allow society to have a policy where acts are committed that may involve the endangerment of life, either by reckless conduct or by negligence or incompetence. Take an analogy to a car. If we made a new car, and claimed that it "cannot be determined" if the car was safe or not, that would default to the car not being allowed for production and sale. Likewise, if it were the case that abortion could not be determined, then society would be obliged to refrain due to the extreme danger and consequence involved. Their case needs to be proven.

To this, society and the pro-abortionists try and argue "but it is not murder", even though this line of argument clearly came about by pro-abortion claims that it is not determinable if abortion is murder or not. Of course, one cannot argue that abortion being murder is in-determinate and also not a murder. Amazingly stupid and deranged, but this is what we Seers of the Forbidden Truths deal with every day.

The only acceptable win for the Truth-hating abortion proponents would be (2), that abortion was not murder, and that was also provable. Not the pro-abortion argument has any legitimate weight to it, however, as will be proven below.

The labels deployed by society as language fascism regarding abortion :

We shall see that abortion is a fundamental part of society, and it is a very sensitive issue to society, due to the collective guilt and denial abortion entails. Due to the sensitive nature of the issue, society actually uses two invalid word-definitions instead of one. Both lies must be completely torn apart, and then the Forbidden Truth can come shining through. The 2 labels are :

- Label #1 : Abortion. A needless word created by malevolent and lie-based societies to give female citizen-slaves the legal authority and moral permission to murder helpless womb-trapped children, while flat-out denying this obvious Truth at the same time. It is used to present the preposterous claim that abortion is somehow not a form of murder, by simply refusing to call it by thesame label. In a sane society, abortion would be simple called murder.

In Truth, there should be no separate term for abortions. Abortions would be simply referred to as murders. One might argue that the term can be used to differentiate between abortion-class murders and other types of murder. As long as there was no lie-based definition or use of abortion, that position could potentially have Truth-based legitimacy. However, we can draw an analogy to other forms of murder. Murders by various different means such as strangulation, beatings, lead-pipes, shovels, use of a hammer etc are not given different and distinct labels. Likewise, there is no reason why there should be a different label for this one different form of murder that is abortion. We could say "She murdered her womb-trapped child" vs "She murdered the man next door to her".

- Label #2 : Fetus. Another needless label. This label is used by societies to promote legal abortion murders by pretending that an unborn human child is not human or somehow sub-human. At the very least, it is considered by individuals to mean there is a meaningful difference between a "born" and "unborn" child. No actual and valid reasoning is ever given for this. Like the god myth, society claims that you have to disprove it's unfounded and unproven logic, despite all scientific evidence and rational philosophical reasoning proving otherwise. So, abortion arguments often rely on the backhanded negation deception. The Forbidden Truth is that a so-called "fetus" is just a very young human child that is developing in the womb. It is alive. It has life, and will (society permitting) grow into a adult human, the lowest form of life on this planet. However, it is still life, and there is no sane or rational argument that there is a difference between a so-called Fetus and a baby/child etc.

The Truth-based and objective terms are "murder" and "womb-trapped child" for abortion and fetus respectively.

Brief overview of what proves the womb-trapped child is a human child :

i. The most principal argument is that of reproduction. The sex act, if it successfully combines the sperm and the female's egg will then attach itself to the "wall" of the womb. This is now a new human life. Reproduction always produces a new and unique member of the same species. A human always produces a new human. A giraffe produces a giraffe. A whole new organism is created - not just a body part.

Is it an apes baby, or a jaguar's baby in the womb??? Perhaps a giraffe is going to come out??? No! It is a human baby that is produced, so it's a human in the womb. Human parents.....human baby in womb....human baby outside womb......human adult. Reproduction produces an entire new life-form of the same species, not a giraffe, not a nose, not a skin cell, but a whole of the same species. There is nothing else it can be.

ii. Scientific biology studies have proven that the new human life in the womb at any stage has a unique DNA to the mother, and indeed all other life on the planet. As recently as 2008, further DNA studies proved that even so-called "identical twins" (that are actually not identical) have non-sequencing differences in DNA. However, we could otherwise rule-out this possibility because the mother and her biological offspring could never be biologically brother or sister.

iii. The new life form in the womb wall grows. If it was dead, it would not grow. It is alive, and as we saw in (i) is human. At this point it is now certainly a new human life form that has "taken". It grows in an unbroken chain into what is always called a human. There is no legitimate and objective way that a specific point of the grow of this life form can be arbitrarily picked-out and then used to suggest that it is not human. An ant is small, but it is alive. Germs are alive. Of course the baby is alive in the womb. How could it develop if it was dead? It is alive.

iv. Biology also proves that it is a new independent organism that biologically functions as a whole life-form, independently of the mother. By this I mean that it is its own biological system operating and controlled by itself. All the mother provides is shelter and nutrients, just as she might after the child is born. The new life form creates itself under it's own rational central organization. The womb-trapped child is a wholly functioning biological unit that works under the control of its own central organization.

v. Single biological cells that are part of an organism or creature have a completely different biological makeup than a whole life form. Cells (parts) act in a limited way, because they have only a specific task and activated function, such a fingernail etc. The womb-trapped child has been studied and proven to be a whole organism, not a cell or body-part.

vi. This new life-form is more legitimate, human and natural than any born human being. This is because the born human is subject to abuse, societal lies, myths, brainwashings, toxic ideologies and so on. Therefore, it is actually Superior to an adult human being.

Of course I can and will answer any other points, or these points more specifically via EMail enquires or challenges.

Society will stubbornly deny the Truth that abortion is murder, using several false, but often sneaky, malevolent defenses. This is the primary argument made - abortion is not the deliberate killing of a human being and thus is not murder.
One of the most extreme and obvious hypocrisies in some modern societies is the accusations made of "killing a baby" if you stab a pregnant human female in the stomach during pregnancy. Here, society now claims that the baby in the womb was "murdered" even though if the mother was to murder the exact same child in the womb herself she would be considered to be undergoing a benevolent and civilized medical procedure. This is another blatant and obvious contradiction, and yet you citizen-slaves accept this lie being not only told to you, but also being made a fascistly and violently enforced societal decree. Another two are the government-forced health labels on cigarettes and being asked to "feel the baby kick". Lets take a look at some of those below (Note : If you have any questions regarding abortion-murders in this context, feel free to EMail Me for the full and correct answers to how abortion is murder.)

One flimsy argument used by society is that the "fetus" is not human, or a human being. This argument makes no sense at all and is insane. Common reasons are : (1) Cannot survive outside the womb, (2) Gets nutrients from the mother, (3) Is a part of the woman's body, (4) The womb-trapped child is not conscious, (5) Is a "human", but does not meet some arbitrary definition of "human being".

(1) So what if this new human life-form cannot survive outside the womb?

Exactly how does that fact render the womb-trapped child not human? How does that change the fact it is a human life? No valid explanation is even given. It is still human and it is still alive. To suggest that it is dead or not human because it is in the womb is utterly insane! Exactly how does being in the womb render a child non-human? It simply can't! The human child is alive in the womb, and it is human. There is no sane reason how its current location could change the objective facts that it is a human life.

Consider if it was insantly removed from the womb at some point. It would live for some time, even if only half a second. How can it be non-human one second and human the next when the child itself is still exactly the same? It simply cannot be.

Lets take an example - a policeman on life support. He can not survive without the machine. I can survive without the machine. I am human. Therefore by their logic a policeman on life-support is not human. Where is the sense in you brainwashed idiots? Think. Both Myself and the policeman are human, regardless of any requirements to stay alive we may not share. What if the policeman woke up? He is still a human being. There is no reason why requiring a womb would change your species or the fact that you are a whole organism or a life.

The real reason behind this argument is simple - women who have abortions and argue (1) are selfish, in denial and don't care about the Truth. They want to murder a child for their personal convience, while denying the reality of what their abortion choice entails. This is why the exact second the child is "viable" or can survive outside the womb matters to them - because they dont have the inconvience or discomfort of carrying the baby anymore. While the child is in the womb, they have to care for it. Once it is born, they may not have to care for it and maybe might be able to start abusing it. That is why the invalid and ridiculous "viability" yardstick is used by such proponents of abortion-murders.

The exact moment that they falsely claim that a child becomes a human being/person (and thus not able to be murdered according to them) is always co-incidentally the same as current "viability" of a womb-trapped child based on current technology. I can assure you, that is not their concern at all. Their concern is to hold onto their legal "right" to murder their biological offspring. If one day technology allowed total viability, they would invent a new objection to having abortion taken away from them, and their lie-based and malevolent societies would be all too happy to play along. This shows us how utterly insane, malevolent and absurd the current state of society, and its claims of justice and morality, are.

(2) How does the requirement for food or nourishment render you non-human? Humans all require nourishment. It would be a lack of requirement for energy or nourishment that might be able to render the child non-human not the other way around.

(3) Already disproven by scientific evidence, and the fact that no body-part can become a whole new human organism. This argument is simply ridiculous.

The Truth is that the womb-trapped child is a new, unique and completely separate life-form. Modern DNA testing and biological study has scientifically proven this. Philosophy and reason already proved it. The mother and the new human life-form have remarkably different DNA in every single case. The variation is as much as 50%. Also, the cells in the new human womb-trapped child only interact and function as a unit in the womb-trapped child, and same for the mother's cells. The child and mother, in other words, are separate biological organized groups of cells. The mother's own immune system even identifies the womb-trapped child as a foreign body and dispatches anti-bodies to kill the intruder. The placenta, a special organ, is used to protect the womb-trapped child from these anti-bodies.

The Forbidden Truth is that the so-called "Fetus" is actually just a new human child life-form trapped in the womb at an earlier stage of development. There is simply no reason why it could be a part of the female's body, and concrete proof exists that it is not a part of another body or organism. Insanely, society even concedes this Truth when it is trying to charge someone with killing a baby in the womb or when it places labels on cigarette packaging stating "Smoking harms your unborn baby". Society only claims that the unborn baby is a "Fetus" that is inhuman when it is granting female citizen-slaves the right to commit unjustifiable outright murder upon their helpless womb-trapped child. How is that for special pleading!

(4) This claim is that a human being (or a "right to life") must have consciousness or self-awareness. This is utterly insane. Again, no reason is given as to why consciousness should matter.

The manner in which a child is legally killed during an abortion, whether it suffers pain, whether it knows it is being killed, and whether it is conscious or not when killed is 100% irrelevant to the Truth that it IS being killed. Therefore how can it not be alive before if it was rendered dead? How was it not killed? Of course it was killed by the abortion. Since it was alive, then the abortion resulted in the end of that life, how can any sane person possibly claim abortion is not the killing of children? The child was clearly alive before the abortion. How does self-awareness change that? It simply does not and cannot.

If a boxer was unconscious in a ring after a KO, and the referee shot him dead, would you all say "OK, the boxer didn't consciously know he was alive at the time he was killed?"?? That would still be a murder. A painless and un-expected death is still a death. Whether the child can know or be interested in not being murdered is utterly irrelevant. Another example of this kind is simply that a sniper could kill you instantly unawares to you. But its still a murder.

Another failed, but related, argument is that the womb-trapped child is not conscious in the sense that it is not self-aware. It is difficult to determine if a womb-trapped child is self-aware, although in early stages I would concede that the child is not conscious. Of course, the onus is on the pro-abortion-murder lot to prove the exact time that any self awareness occurs.

So, now the suggestion is that only consciously aware humans are human beings. However, there is absolutely no requirement that a life-form has to be conscious in order to be human. We already know it is a human. Therefore, this argument seeks to change all that, but no reason is ever given as to how a lack of conscious thought at the present (which will change in the future) renders an otherwise proven human being to somehow magically be non-human.

There is not a single legitimate reason why self-awareness should matter. No explanation is ever given as to why it should be the principal and deciding factor, let alone any rational factor at all. The fact is that the womb-trapped child will become self-aware, if it is not murdered. Take a policeman undergoing heart surgery under heavy anasthetic. He is not currently self-aware, he does not consciously think. He is "put under" and wakes up after the operation (as long as all goes well). I Myself have had such an operational procedure where I have been "put under". Its not like being asleep, nor is it like being KO. It's totally nothing, a bit like death or before you were born. You go under, and you come out at the end like no time had passed. You know nothing of the outside world or yourself while "under".

So, it is possible to have a human being unconscious, or an unconscious human being. Therefore, how can they exclude the womb-trapped child as being sub or non-human because it does not have consciousness? They simply cannot legitimately argue so! There was never any argument to show why lack of consciousness renders a human life form non-human.

If abortion is not murder because the womb-trapped child is not aware/conscious, then it also cannot be murder to kill patients during operations. Some might argue that the patient had consciousness before the procedure, but again self-awareness in the past  does not cut it. A dead person had life and self-awareness in the past, but it cannot be murdered as it is already dead. Nor can a dead body be called a human being despite that it had consciousness.

The current and temporary lack of consciousness also would not do it for abortionists, because otherwise one could expect to casually be allowed to murder all hospital patients undergoing operations. We also refer to people "under" during operations as human beings. No, it is the future of the life-form having consciousness that would matter, and both the patient and the womb-trapped child will have a future of human life and self-awareness. Just as a human being on life support who will be OK again in one year is still a living human being that cannot be murdered because he will, or could, become conscious and living again.

Contrast that to the case of an ant. An ant is conscious, but is not a human being. Again we see the opposing case where the proposed deciding factor (consciousness) is present and yet we don't see the same twisted conclusion.

Consciousness does not matter : The womb trapped child is in no way less deserving of life regardless if it is a human being or if it is conscious or not. I only am pointing out the inconsistency of the claims made by society and womb-trapped child murder enthusiasts.

(5) The last resort is the argument that the child in the womb does not somehow fit their own invented and arbitrary definition of what constitues a human being. This is a simple one. They simply invented their definition to exclude the womb-trapped child as being human. All they have done here is take one or more of their failed and disproven arguments and then place that requirement into their definition. In other words, they make the same failed arguement in a different manner, way or form. It is still not a valid argument.

Abortion is a label, invented by society, given to a specific form of murder. The "abortion" label is used by society to pretend that 'legal' abortion murders and 'illegal murders" are somehow different, but the Truth is both these actions are exactly the same, and carry the exact same consequences of death to the victim. Although I go to length to fault pro-abortion arguments and claims, do remember at all times that the burden of proof is on society to show why abortion is somehow not immoral or not a form of murder. Even if I did not give these refutations, is still resorts to the backhanded negation tactic. There is every reason that the womb-trapped child is exactly that, and is being murdered.
I know that I am a bit repetitive on this page, but this is necessary. Years of repetitive brainwashing have burned lies and false reasoning into the brains of you citizen-slaves and it often takes several very clear explanations for the average brain to see that something is wrong with the claims made by society, let alone see the Forbidden Truth. In most cases not even this can help you citizen-slaves.

The lie-based and malevolent legal/illegal argument and refutation.

Your society tells you that "Abortion is legal. Murder is illegal. Abortion is legal so it must not be murder." and "Abortion must be OK, because it is legal." You fools actually buy this immoral lie! This flimsy and pathetic false logic is so weak as to be laughable. Of course abortion should be illegal if murder is illegal because they are the same thing! Simply legally declaring something different does not make it different. Society just wants to direct murders towards certain victims it wrongly deems to be of less value.

Take societies that have outlawed abortion. Is what an abortion constitutes magically changed in different geographical locations by the declaration of men and law? Of course not. Abortion is either murder or it is not. The womb-trapped child is either a human life or it is not.

What we have here is a trick, which commits a logical fallacy. Just because the label, view, legal declaration, or attitude towards something is different, does not make the thing itself objectively different. This is a "masked-man" type of fallacy. Comparative logic states that only objective properties of the thing in question can be used for comparison.

For example if a born human was alive, and a womb-trapped one biologically proven dead, we could compare the two and conclude an objective difference. We cannot compare two identical pencils and say one is a pencil and the other pencil is not because it is a disliked pencil. That would not make sense, it would just beg the question as to why and how it could be disliked and the other pencil not when they are exactly the same. Likewise, we cannot say the exact same act is different because one is "legal" and the other "illegal".

A "miscarriage" is another event this kills the child in the womb. Firstly, a miscarriage is a natural and spontaneous event. Since abortion-based murder is unnatural, planned and deliberate act, there can be no such legitimate thing as an "induced miscarriage". "Induced miscarriage" is just a ludicrous lie that is used to deny the reality of what abortion entails.

Miscarriages are either accidents, or natural, and thus do not meet the criteria to be abortions or murders. An analogy is to murdering a young man with and axe as opposed to a man dying of old age in another case. One is deliberate and changes the outcome, one is a natural occurrence. Although there may be a great number of accidental miscarriages and natural miscarriages, the Truth is many miscarriages are deliberate. This is evidenced by the large number of human miscarriages, as opposed to animal miscarriages. Even though wild animals have a much rougher life, they do not miscarriage as often as humans. Think about that. The woman who deliberately miscarriages is the same as the abortionist woman but she is often in even more denial over her actions and intention.

This said, we must remember that abortionists, in all their forms, are victim-creations of society. Society can place absolutely no legitimate Truth-based responsibility on these citizen-slaves. We sane thinkers must acknowledge that society is 100% responsible for their behavior and beliefs. We must acknowledge that these creatures are often homicidially enraged because of the trauma and abuse they suffered at the hands of society. We must acknowledge that these humans are usually incapable of rational Truth-based thought.

Like boxing, family unit child abuse and bullying, abortion is presented to woman by society as a means to deal with the fact that most human adults are full of subconscious homicidal rage as a result of their bad childhoods/societal conditioning etc. etc. etc. Societal leaders know that without outlets for their anger, many adult humans would target other workers, that are considered more valuable than children. Therefore, society introduces abortion.

It is My opinion that Australia will legalize all abortions, as it is having to deal with the rising violence it self-perpetuates.

UPDATE - 10th October 2008.
Australia now has legalized the murder of helpless womb-trapped children for the cathartic release of homicidal rage that dwells within most female citizen-slaves.


That's right - female citizen slaves, not content with the right to abuse "their" children, will now be free of all legal jeopardy and be allowed to legally murder children via the abortion and sacred mommy lies. Society is literally sponsoring the murder of children on a massive, grand scale. This is the genocide of children, sponsored by society.

Yet, you creatures would still have the gall to demonize Thomas Watt Hamilton, who walked into a primary school in dunblane, scotland, and killed children there in a mass-shooting event. Yes, society wins again. It has achieved its goal of treating all children as sub-human slaves, and the younger a child is, the more sub-human and worthless society claims a child is.

How can you creatures keep a straight face when labeled "innocent" in the legal system? How can you allow the hypocrisy of demonizing "illegal" child-killers, and then sponsoring "legal" child killers? The actions of the illegal and legal child killer is exactly the same action.