Category Archives: Abortion

N. T. Wright on abortion, the death penalty, Iraq and 9/11

Posted on by
1

From here:

You can’t reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty. Almost all the early Christian Fathers were opposed to the death penalty, even though it was of course standard practice across the ancient world. As far as they were concerned, their stance went along with the traditional ancient Jewish and Christian belief in life as a gift from God, which is why (for instance) they refused to follow the ubiquitous pagan practice of ‘exposing’ baby girls (i.e. leaving them out for the wolves or for slave-traders to pick up).

Mind you, there is in my view just as illogical a position on the part of those who solidly oppose the death penalty but are very keen on the ‘right’ of a woman (or couple) to kill their conceived but not yet born child…

From where many of us in the UK sit, American politics is hopelessly polarized. All kinds of issues get bundled up into two great heaps. The rest of the world, today and across the centuries, simply doesn’t see things in this horribly oversimplified way…

While we’re about it, how many folk out there were deeply moved both by the reading of the 9/11 victim names and by the thought that if they’d read the names of Iraqi civilians killed by your country and mine over the last ten years we’d have been there for several days?

To summarise:

  1. The execution by the state of a person guilty of the crime of murder is equivalent to the killing of an innocent baby for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the only consistent position is a polarized one where either abortion and capital punishment are both permitted or neither are permitted.
  2. The polarization of American politics is all wrong – except for point 1 above where it is obligatory because it is the Wright kind of polarization.
  3. If you are moved by remembering the deliberate murder of 3000 of your own countrymen, you must be equally moved by the wartime deaths of enemy civilians, even though you tried your best to minimise such casualties. This may appear to be a yet another polarized viewpoint, but it’s fine since it is an example of a number of issues piled into one great Wright-approved heap, not two.
  4. The rest of the world isn’t deceived by American Horrible Simplifications. That’s why, for example, UK sophisticates riot at the slightest pretext, routinely indulge in binge drinking and erect sharia controlled zones  –  all horrible, but at lease not horrible simplifications.

I get the impression that N. T. Wright doesn’t much like America; oops – that’s another hopelessly polarized opinion.

 

Reminders being sent for abortion appointments because the prospective mothers are forgetting to show up

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

Britain’s largest abortion provider said it is introducing reminders because some girls and women had forgotten about their procedures.

Critics said the move, by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), gave a disturbing insight into casual attitudes to abortion.

BPAS, which carries out almost one third of NHS-funded terminations, likened the service, which begins in November, to reminders sent out by dentists before check-ups.

[….]

Stewart Jackson, Conservative MP for Northampton, who supported an amendment earlier this month by Nadine Dorries to introduce independent counselling for abortion, described the initiative from BPAS as “morally squalid”.

If an unborn baby is a non-human with no soul, not bearing the image of her Creator, then dismembering her in the womb and scraping out the broken parts is of no more significance than a tooth extraction, so sending a reminder is simply – practical.

If an unborn baby is a human, then a reminder to keep an appointment to murder could hardly be more morally squalid than the decision to murder or the act of murder.

The pro-abortion contingent can’t have it both ways.

In Canada you can now kill new-borns as well as the unborn

Posted on by
9

A judge has ruled that since we can kill the unborn no matter how far into the pregnancy, we can also kill new-born babies because of “the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers”.

I have to admit, it’s logical: logical devilry.

From here:

An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians “sympathize” with the mother.

“We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.

Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta gave birth secretly in her parents’ downstairs bathroom on April 13, 2005, and then later strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence.  She was 19 at the time.

She has been found guilty of second-degree murder by two juries, but both times the judgment was thrown out by the appeals court.  In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction and replaced it with the lesser charge of infanticide.

On Friday, Effert got a three-year suspended sentence from Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.  As a result, she was able to walk out of court, though she will have to abide by certain conditions.

According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

 

ACLU challenges “Choose Life” license plate

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina filed a lawsuit challenging a specialty license plate that supports the pro-life stance on abortion.  State lawmakers authorized the “Choose Life” plate, although a pro-choice plate was voted down.

ACLU legal director Katy Parker says the state cannot allow only one side of the argument to be heard. “This would be discrimination regardless of which side was being supported by the state,” said Parker.  The ACLU claims the State is engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

The ACLU has a point. To balance things, there should be a pro-abortion plate that reads “Choose Death”.

Abortion advocates know deep down that abortion is murder

Posted on by
3

As this article from Slate notes, people who are otherwise quite sanguine about aborting babies become queasy when it comes to the “reduction” – an obscene euphemism if ever there was one – of twins. The discrepancy is quite illogical.

Our conscience is given by God and, hardened though it may have become, we know that to abort a foetus is to kill a baby; a new reason to abort stirs suppressed misgivings and makes us question whether what we are doing is right.

The fact that we have, nevertheless, embarked on this new horror is, yet again, a testament to the depths of evil to which we are prepared to sink for the sake of mere convenience.

What’s worse than an abortion? Half an abortion.

It sounds like a bad joke. But it’s real. According to Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, demand is rising for “reduction” procedures in which a woman carrying twins keeps one and has the other aborted. Since twin pregnancies are generally safe, these abortions are largely elective.

Across the pro-choice blogosphere, including Slate, the article has provoked discomfort. RH Reality Check, a Web site dedicated to abortion rights, ran an item voicing qualms with one woman’s reduction decision. Jezebel, another pro-choice site, acknowledged the “complicated ethics” of reduction. Frances Kissling, a longtime reproductive rights leader, wrote a Washington Post essay asking whether women should forego fertility treatment rather than risk a twin pregnancy they’d end up half-aborting.

 

How many police officers does it take to arrest one 69 year old grandmother?

Posted on by
2

Six, including a deputy sheriff. In fairness to the police officers, she was armed with a pretty menacing placard.

From here:

TORONTO, August 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – LifeSiteNews reporter and managing director Steve Jalsevac was live-blogging and taking photos from the Mogentaler abortion mill on Hillsdale Ave in Toronto this morning as pro-life activist Linda Gibbons was arrested.  Gibbons has spent 8 of the last 14 years in jail for breaking a 1994 ‘temporary’ court injunction which forbids pro-life presence outside various abortion centers in Toronto.

Gibbons arrived at the Morgentaler abortion mill this morning shortly before 9am and was arrested just after 11am.  As is her normal practice Gibbons paced back and forth silently in front of the mill carrying a sign with a live baby’s photo reading: “Why Mom When I have so much Love to Give”.

She spoke to several women entering the centre to offer them aid to carry their pregnancies to term.

Six police officers took part in the arrest, including the sheriff and deputy.  Gibbons was read the injunction and led to the squad car peacefully.  While in years past she sat immobile allowing the officers to carry her to the vehicle, the 69-year-old grandmother walked with them this morning.

 

 

Rev. Debra Haffner, Unitarian Universalist sexologist and abortion enthusiast

Posted on by
8

I’m still trying to untangle whether for a Unitarian Universalist sexologist, when it comes to sex, Unitarianism takes precedence – in which case one has sex with a singularity – or Universalism, one must try to have sex with absolutely everything.

In the case of Rev. Haffner, I suspect the latter since she boasts that she has counselled thousands of women faced with unintended pregnancies to view abortion as a “moral” decision: presumably the sex was neither unintended nor particularly selective.

In a stunning example of weasel reasoning, devious Debra tries to make the case that we should abort unborn babies because life is sacred. Rather than being intrinsically sacred, life is only imbued with sacredness when it is our intention that it should be sacred – leaving us free to finish off anyone whose sanctity coefficient doesn’t make the grade.

It is because of my religious beliefs that I am unwavering in my support for abortion, family planning and sexuality education. It is because life is sacred and parenthood so precious that no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term. Millions of people ground their moral commitment to abortion in their religious beliefs. We understand that the sanctity of human life is best upheld when it is created intentionally. As religious leaders, we seek to create a world where abortion is safe, legal, accessible, and rarely a decision that women and couples need to face.

 

 

Political cowardice on abortion

Posted on by
2

From here:

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak appeared to shy away from his previous anti-abortion position Monday, saying he doesn’t plan to re-open the issue if he wins the Oct. 6 provincial election.

When he was running for the PC leadership in 2009, Hudak’s representatives told the Association for Reformed Political Action he is pro-life and had signed a petition calling for the defunding of abortions and to support doctors who don’t want to perform the procedures.

But Hudak seemed reluctant to confirm he had signed a petition when asked about it by reporters Monday.

“I may have signed a petition from my riding in that respect, but listen, let me be clear: we are not reopening this debate,” said Hudak. “Just like the federal Parliament, we would not be reopening that issue.”

By not reopening that issue, Hudak has placed political expediency – the will to power – above confronting the greatest evil present today in Canadian society.

In the struggle to preserve civilisation, that puts Canada somewhere behind Russia.

Pathetic.

Doctors claim abortion is safer than having a baby

Posted on by
1

From here:

Pregnant women should be told that having an abortion is safer than having the baby, according to medical chiefs.

The advice, which would be given to women considering terminations, has caused anger, with anti-abortion campaigners accusing doctors’ leaders of forcing an “absurdly liberal agenda” on women in a vulnerable situation.

The draft guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is for all doctors, nurses and counsellors advising women contemplating terminations.

Of course, there is a 100% fatality rate for the babies.