Monday, May 12, 2008

Abortion: the largest cause of death in Europe

“We condemn torture, rape - anything that uses another's body for our own purpose. Shouldn't we show embryos similar respect?”

So asks the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As the Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is debated in detail in the House of Commons, they shall consider ‘saviour siblings’, and animal/human hybrid embryos. And some shall ask why ‘religious bigots’ should seek to impose their irrational views on the enlightened part of society, while those of a religious hue (joined undoubtedly by many concerned non-believers) shall ask why science presumes to instruct legislators and dispense with the conscience.

Dr Williams asserts: ‘Conscientious objections about the Bill are not a matter of blind superstition. They arise from serious concerns about where the direction of some sorts of research might lead society. "Slippery slope" arguments don't settle the question, but they can't be ignored. And I, for one, am grateful that both scientists and politicians are willing to recognise there is a serious debate to be had on these matters of conscience, and more is at stake than just a set of irrational prejudices.”

The Archbishop also notes ‘the pressure from some quarters to take this opportunity to reduce the time limits for abortion’.

And this is to be a very interesting battle, and one which is worthy of cross-party support. But in the blue corner is Nadine Dorries MP with her demand for a reduction to 20 weeks, and in the red corner is a Labour counter-amendment, demanding a reduction to 22 weeks. Never has a division on a point of morality assured such mutual destruction, and it is madness. One might think, if Labour members were really concerned with this, that they would have supported the Dorries amendment, but no. They have made the issue party political, seeking to bring in their own (much less effective) amendment, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And this comes amidst a report that establishes that there is a marital breakdown and an abortion in Europe almost every 30 seconds:

‘Marriage and birth rates are falling dramatically, pensioners now outnumber teenagers, and more and more people are living alone, says the Institute for family policy in a survey of life in the 27 EU countries.’

And perversely ‘one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion’, which amounts to 1.2 million a year - equivalent to the population of Slovenia. This makes abortion the largest single cause of death in Europe.

And so almost one million (920,089) fewer babies were born in the 27 EU countries last year than in 1980. There are six million more over-65s than under-14s in Europe, compared with 36 million more children than pensioners in 1980.

And this demographic time-bomb is suffixed with the observation that ‘the fact that the number of EU inhabitants has increased at all is largely due to immigration’. It transpires that ‘84 per cent of population growth in 2000-2007 is attributable to arrivals from beyond EU borders’.

And one wonders why there are concerns that the EU has passed a resolution announcing that children have a 'right' to abortion (or rather 'sexual and reproductive health and family planning education and services') and that this 'must' be an 'integral part of thje future EU strategy on the rights of the child'.

One wonders if there is any point expending energy in opposing the EU, for it is clearly intent on its own self-destruction.


Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

All this is lost on the Liberals and scientistic charlatans.

It seems our demographic crisis can be attributed almost entirely to abortion.

But let's get this straight, we don't have enough young people in work to support the pensioners, we try to get around this by importing immigrants - frequently Muslim. Muslim immigrants and their descendants claim more welfare then the 'natives'. So immigration isn't a real solution to this problem, it makes it worse and makes bloody Balkanization likely.

There is a way around this: reduce the number of abortions. But seeing as though it is regarded as the most preposterous bigotry to even criticise abortion there doesn't seem to be much that can be done to avoid the awful fate that now awaits the continent of Europe.

12 May 2008 at 11:10  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

As is known to regular readers here - I am not a religious bigot (unless it's as an ANTI-religion bigot, I suppose - but that's almost entirely anti-Islam).

However, I'm entirely opposed to the creation of human/animal hybrids. There is a certain illogicality to legalising human/animal hybrids whilst bestiality remains illegal. Is it possible for an act of bestiality to produce offspring? If yes, then ok to hybrids; if no, then not ok to hybrids ... and that's quite apart from laws on bestiality.

And damn the law: some things are just WRONG!

Saviour siblings. Let's take a random example: I have a child, it is going to need a bone marrow transplant in a few years. Blood type is difficult. So I have another child to provide marrow at the time (I don't know if this is a good example - it just came straight off the top of my head) it is required. It is a painful procedure for the donor. As the adult in the family, I make these decisions on behalf of the child. Have I the right - more importantly, has the doctor the right and does his ethical code permit - to inflict pain on one person to benefit another? That sounds a bit like endorsing torture. If my parents had ever done that to me, then at the very least I would have left home at 16 (15 in my day - as actually happened) and they would never have seen or heard from me again - after all, they didn't want me for me, they wanted me for him. At the very most I might have murdered the bastards and considered it justifiable homicide.

Some things are just WRONG!

Abortions I have no objections to right up the point of independent viability. Most readers here will disagree with me. Fair enough, we'll have to agree to differ. I've already told the story of my own mother ... as regulars will know.

Old people. When I was growing up, old people died in their own homes - essentially, when they could no longer look after themselves properly, they died. That is nature's way - indeed, nature in the raw is actually harsher than that: death from old age is almost exclusively a human thing. In the wild, growing older and slower inevitably results in one of two things - death from starvation or deaath from predation. Personally - even though I do not believe in any form of afterlife - when I can no longer feed myself, and a little later on wipe my own backside then it's time to die. Goodbye. The only exception to this is if I have an accident and that condition is thus only temporary. But if it isn't going to get better - time to die. Far too many of us are kept alive far beyond our natural time.

My father died at home (not in an Old People's home). My mother in hospital. One uncle at home. Two aunts at home. Three out of four grandparents at home (remaining one is in her nineties and lives ... at home, alone, just as she likes it. She and her children tried to put my great-grandmother in a Home when she was in her late eighties ... three days later: knock on the door, there she was "I'm not staying there" she said "It's full of old people" (ironically, she was older than any of them). At 93, she one day
declared loudly that she'd had enough, went to bed, and was dead a week later. I suppose you lot would have medically intervened to keep her alive? For what? To make YOU feel better (that's not aimed specifically at readers here but at the whole Western world ... which is not a geographical entity.

What if young people don't want to dedicate their lives to looking after older people? Is the economic system going to be used to compel them to? I'm 55, and will soon be one of those old people. I don't WANT strangers looking after me ta v. much. Indeed, when I think it's time to go, I know exactly where I want it to be, and there will be no other human being within miles of me (and, I think and hope, no one will ever find the body - the wildlife can have me). Only one person, a brother, in the world knows where that is, and he can't do anything about it - he's an Australian; and he knows that if he did do anything to cause anyone to intervene, then he would have lost me anyway, except that my love for him would have turned into something else.

Why are you all so afraid of death? What is the point of being afraid of the inevitable? Face it - you are going to die. Fear is pointless. When you keep old people alive beyond their time - it's your own fear of death you are hiding from, not theirs.

After WW2 there was a baby boom, causing a population boom way beyond the level that can be sustained from our little bit of the Earth. This has inevitably led to and elderly boom, which is inevitably leading to a dying boom and a reduction in that excessive population. All perfectly normal and natural. Let it happen - let our population reduce.

All these people we are importing to "look after our elderly" - does anyone suppose they aren't themselves going to one day be elderly? Only now there'll be ever more of them. What do we do? Keep importing more and more people? What's the limit? 100 million? Billion? More?

During WW2 we couldn't feed 45 million and were nearly starved into submission. I suggest we stop these medical/research obscenities; stop our obsessio with keeping people alive beyond their natural span; and let our population shrink down to a sustainable level.

I hope that isn't all incoherent and/or inconsistent - it's straight off the top of my head (though I've thought these things for many years) and I'm not going back and proof reading.

And I believe - I KNOW - there is no life after death. I still don't fear death, and neither should anyone else, most especially those of you who use the "Afterlife" crutch.

12 May 2008 at 13:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are Not wiping themselves out, they are creating a new fEUdal System, Elite on top of a divided Populace.

They are creating a new race of People called EUropeans.

Think about it, 6 Million abortions, Dawn Primorolo wants to Sterilise British Schoolgirls, Certain groups may of course be exempt from this on religious grounds of course.

This is what One worlder Jack Straw had in mind when he said 'the British are not worth saving as a race'
Join the Dots People,
Sterilise British Schhoolgirls

6 Million Abortions.

They are creating a new race of People.

Demographic decline of the British and Europeans
We, the EUropean Elite are Creating a New Race of voters called 'Europeans'
we can count on the Immigrant vote to keep us in.

To my way of thinking this is a deliberte policy of Genocide.
There ought to be a way of taking people out of Circulation if they pose a significant risk to our Society.

12 May 2008 at 14:53  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Children have a "right" to abortion. Do unborn children have a right to be aborted?

12 May 2008 at 19:31  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

I immediately turned to the references you cited. In the account of the EU Directive it is stated that:

"Abortion rates are lowest, in Western Europe and fairly low in Northern and Southern Europe. In these geographical areas, most abortions are legal and the incidence of abortions has been low for decades".

200,000 abortions in the UK each year; one in five pregnancies resulting in termination. This is low?

The Great God Moloch is clearly insatiable.

It would be interesting to see the statistics - of the 4 in 5 pregnancies that actually result in new British citizens, what proportion are from immigrant parents from outside the EU.

12 May 2008 at 19:35  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

Ah Grumpy ... there you go - asking the forbidden question.

12 May 2008 at 20:48  
Blogger sexy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

14 January 2009 at 07:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older