Sunday, September 13, 2009

‘Blood Money’ – the multi-million dollar abortion industry



LifeSiteNews in the US reports that a group of film-makers have recently produced a documentary that aims to expose the terrible reality of abortion, focusing on the financial aspect of the multimillion dollar abortion industry.

The film, entitled ‘Blood Money’, includes numerous interviews with leaders of the pro-Life movement, in which they lay out the facts about the abortion industry and the effects that abortions have on women.

It is shown how the pro-abortion lobby has created an abortion industry in the US. One interviewee, who used to run an abortion clinic in Dallas, Texas (and is now a pro-Life speaker) describes how teenagers were groomed to have abortions.

In the UK, organisations such as BPAS, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service carried out 55,000 abortions last year. This is about one quarter of the number of abortions carried out in England and Wales last year. And 92 per cent of abortions carried out by BPAS were on behalf of the NHS, so paid for by the tax payer.

Blood money indeed.

BPAS has been a registered charity since 1968. They claim to be a not-for-profit organisation, but the revenues that they attract can fund executives on fat salaries and pay for advertising to expand their 'business'.

In our ‘human rights’ era, the issue of abortion is presented as a balance of the rights and liberties of the woman (not mother) versus those of the foetus (not the baby).

Except, of course, that the foetus doesn't get a legal look-in and has no rights advocate.

The Bible suggests that what is in the womb is fully human. It does not talk of the ‘foetus’, but of nations, children and sons:

‘And the Lord said to her, Two nations are in thy womb’ (Gen 25:23).
‘...for the children are come to birth’ (2Kgs 19:3).
‘...are there yet any more sons in my womb...’ (Ruth 1:11).

The woman who has conceived is already a mother:

‘...he cometh out of the mother’s womb’ (Num 12:12).
‘...that the mother of my Lord should come to me’ (Lk 1:43).

Sentient life is in the womb:

‘For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil’ (Rom 9:11).
‘...the babe leapt in my womb for joy’ (Lk 1:44).

To abort is to deny the ‘right to life’ to what is fully human and quite distinct from the mother.

This picture is one of the most remarkable photographs ever taken. The tiny hand of a ‘foetus’ reaches out from a mother's womb to clasp a surgeon's healing finger. It is, by the way, 21 weeks old, an age at which it could still legally be aborted – as are around a quarter of a million of Britain’s babies every year.

Blood money indeed.

At least the Conservative Party is pledged to take one small step in the right direction.

74 Comments:

Blogger Gnostic said...

I am not going to decry anyone's right to make a decision about their own body or life. However, I'm all for reducing the time from 24 weeks. It's too far along and premature births of 24 weeks have resulted in a child surviving to lead a normal life.

And then you get something like this:

Two days

Two days? Two frigging DAYS?

13 September 2009 at 09:29  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"I am not going to decry anyone's right to make a decision about their own body or life."
Well that's big of you. What do you mean by "their own body or life"? In the case of an abortion it is some one else's. That is the fact that so many high-minded people will not acknowledge.

13 September 2009 at 09:39  
Blogger Gnostic said...

LBS - when you have been to the same dark place some of these women have then maybe, just maybe, your own high mindedness will look very small. Try your act on someone who has conceived through rape or is in desperate straits and see what happens.

For your information I don't agree with birth control by abortion. There are other, better means available. However, I'm not going to foist MY opinion on another woman just because it makes ME feel better.

13 September 2009 at 10:11  
Blogger Obnoxio The Clown said...

Your Grace may care to read this debunking of the myth of the "Hand of Hope" photo.

13 September 2009 at 11:31  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Please learn to spell 'fetus' correctly. The intrusive 'o' is an example of false etymology. 'Fetus' is correct in both English and American English.

13 September 2009 at 13:36  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Gnostic: it is still some one else's life, not that of the mother.
As for what "dark places" I may have been to, you cannot possibly know about them. Psychobabble will not settle the argument.

13 September 2009 at 13:44  
Blogger Dr.D said...

A people that willingly murders its children in the womb has lost all hope of survival as a people. And murder it is; there is no other word for it.

To speak of women making choices over their own bodies is simply false. They made that choice when they elected to engage in sexual relations. That was the time of decision, not later, when there is a living child in the womb. Society may choose to condone the murder, and thus become accomplices, but this makes it no less murder. And there is judgment for all murders and their accomplices.

13 September 2009 at 13:52  
Anonymous Philip said...

Absolutely right, Dr D

Perhaps stopping tax-payer funding of abortions and NHS money to organisations like BPAS would be an ideal contribution to the massive spending cuts that are needed to get public finances straightened out. Could be quite popular with voters because public opinion is increasingly uneasy with the number of abortions, and agrees spending cuts are needed. And no doubt the reason they value the NHS is for healing the sick and saving life rather than deliberately destroying it.

13 September 2009 at 14:48  
Anonymous dehautenbas said...

Gnostic: "Try your act on someone who has conceived through rape or is in desperate straits and see what happens."

Perhaps we can admire the example of Miriam from this week's press. What a story of love and courage:

Having my rapist's baby the best thing I did

13 September 2009 at 15:15  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world. The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

Words spoken by Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) For more quotes go to: WHO is really TALKING? Yes! The devil! Satan! Hater of all mankind! Liar and the father of lies! Murderer!

13 September 2009 at 17:51  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

It is clear from the evidence presented in the short video that abortion is just another business opportunity, with young women being treated as sources of income. Yet another analogy with the slave trade.

Could it happen here, Your Grace?

Most assuredly. Do you remember in 2004, BPAS was caught out illegally sending women to Spain for late term abortions. Dr John Reid ordered an enquiry.

We are still waiting for the results - somewhere in the long grass I expect.

13 September 2009 at 18:38  
Blogger Gnostic said...

LBS I'm speaking from close experience. Or is that psychobabble too?

13 September 2009 at 19:38  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 September 2009 at 20:06  
Blogger Gnostic said...

dehautenbas: You will receive no argument from me on this score. The mother made a choice many women would find difficult or even impossible. I can only admire her for that. But I will not demonise those who chose otherwise.


Again, I'll make this clear. I do not believe that abortion should be the final word in birth control. I believe that killing an unborn child for the sake of convenience is wrong. There are valid reasons for abortion and the women who hold these valid reasons have my sympathy and understanding.

Feckless women aside, unless you have been there yourself or are close to someone who has gone through hell, how can anyone pass judgement?


Wasn't it Jesus who said: "Let he who is without sin..."?

13 September 2009 at 20:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

I thought a quote from Malcolm Muggeridge might be apt:

The various moral and theological and sociological disputes of the day, however progressively resolved with ecclesiastical connivance, have nothing to say to this spiritual hunger, which is not assuaged by legalized abortion and homosexuality, solaced by contraception, or relieved by majority rule. Nor will it take comfort in the thought that God is dead, or that mankind has come of age, or even in ecumenical negotiations for writing off Papal Infallibility against the validity of Anglican Orders. The only means of satisfying it remains that bread of life which Jesus offered, with the promise that those who are of it should never hunger again. The promise stands.

13 September 2009 at 20:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many moslems do you think have abortions or practice any kind of birth control? No wonder the white man is projected to comprise only 3% of the world’s population by 2100 from 30% in 1900. Yet we still think we’re so clever and civilised. Extinction is just around the corner.

13 September 2009 at 21:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One small step! The Conservatives will do nothing of any consequence to address the issue. They're the same as Labour except for an occasional change of tie colour.

13 September 2009 at 21:21  
Blogger English Viking said...

In 2007 less than 1% of women presenting themselves for abortion were the victims of rape. Your Grace recognises the tiny step proposed by the Tories as a reason to vote for them. The BNP will ban this ritual slaughter completely. Perhaps all good Christians should vote for them?

13 September 2009 at 21:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

How has it come to killing nearly 200,000 babies through abortion every year?

First the Left-liberals, in the 1960s, needed to trash the very idea of God and by doing so getting rid of the idea of judgment and along with that the stigma of shame.

The ‘thing’ that was created, Man, ‘achieved’ independence from the Creator. A created thing declaring its independence is madness. Both the atheist and the Christian would probably agree: for example, robots declaring their independence from Man.

The social permissiveness of the 1960s and the disintegration of moral disapproval gave men the platform to do as they pleased: sex without responsibility.

The feminists, using the social irresponsibility of men as a reference-point (as the model provided by the Bible for womanhood was rejected where could the small minds of feminism turn to?), desired equality with men. That is the capability to be as bad as men. But how could this be achieved? After all men could walk away as they did not become pregnant and give birth.

Abortion provided the answer. The child was to be reclassified as a foetus (merely one stage in human development) and that dehumanisation provided the necessary emotional justification for the killing of thousands of children: for social convenience.

Quick boys; a round of applause for the feminazis who have let men of the hook?

13 September 2009 at 21:27  
Anonymous len said...

I believe it is the duty of Christians to speak out against abortion.
I will be accused of judging but who will speak for the innocents snuffed out in the womb?
Proverbs 31 says, "Open your mouth for the mute,
in the cause of all who are left desolate.

Open your mouth, judge righteously,
and serve justice to the poor and needy.”

13 September 2009 at 21:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It could be described as a design flaw, but it was necessary to make sexual intercourse a major chemical reaction, otherwise nothing would be bothered to go near the parts of the body that are also used for dumping waste products.

The biochemical pay off for sex is a powerful motivation to get it on boogy woogy. So what can be done? The pleasure factor is so strong that not many people would want anything to be done anyway. For many years guilt was tried as a suppressant, but it has not worked. I am afraid the future is going to be no different on the bonking front, maybe some kind of virus will sterilise the lot of us. Perhaps we should go back to the old ways where every woman is a potential slut who has to prove her chastity at every word and deed on a daily basis or face public condemnation and rumour mongering.

But when you're in the moment, you are in the moment. Nobody gives a dam anyway. We're all nuts at the end of the day. I'm just going to get what I can and not really give two monkeys about the lot of you. How selfish is that? You're all dirty animals.

13 September 2009 at 22:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Without getting into the merits of the argument, the picture used at the end is misleading. The foetus was not alive - it was merely the surgeon pulling the hand out of the womb.
To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

14 September 2009 at 01:08  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace makes a stark point about societies solution to its own media seductions that lead to errant beahviour.

It is all too easy to pour guilt on the associates of murder of the unbourn and yet miss the complete failiure of running education systems that can effectively teach a different narrative on sex than the one that we have had since the 50s or even in more pagan structures .

My sex education film in the 6th form , was a then "modern" movie showing a couple engaged but desiring to do it pre it marriage , the giggles and post teacher questions were all to symptomatic of a group that had known about sex for years and were busily engaged in the sort of rush to confirm sexual adulthood .

The teen disco an all too make or break event in the need for anti parent status.

Educationalists at the time thought it best we knew so as to avoid errors , and so we en mass consumed the fruit of the tree of carnal knowledge.

we now have the parents and grand parents of this era , no one does chaperone , a few fathers make the case for polishing the shotgun in front of the date when he arrives , but apart from that it is the secret world of the teenager with all its drama, tears and music .

We lost moral authority in schools decades ago as soon as society realised that sex sells products and perhaps these days that products sell sex.

finding a way that gives schools back some moral authority to teach marriage to the still juvenile minds , has been repeatedly shot down by liberal educationalists before it got airbourn .

There is no absolute "dont do" version anymore perhaps because by enlarge so many have tasted .
Ask any 20 yrd old what there ideal saturday night might be and it will be alcohol , nightclub and a date/sexual encounter.

want to know about sex theres a phone line same too for drugs in wat we are told is a better and more informed age .

Abortion in the states view is a consequence of the natural way we now live. Parents dont want to be fuddy duddies yet seemingly miss that via state coercion they are underming the family units future.

Iam a little lost who do I blame ?? the inventor of the pill or designer of the mini skirt , the state coercion/promotion of pornography for ecnomic increase , the wet liberal educationalists , the soft church or the all to plyable parental standards now in vogue.

Who indeed is the serpnentine voice in our own indicdual Eden who tells us one bite of the fuit wont really matter ?

14 September 2009 at 01:29  
Blogger ais cotten19 said...

Funny that you would use the OT to try and make your point here. The book of Exodus is very clear that abortion is not murder; a fetus simply doesn't hold the same status as a human being. As long as you want to throw quotes around:

"And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give restitution according to the judge. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life." Ex 21, 22-23

I wonder if the fact that Christians ignore this is intentional. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to Christianity but I wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with the fear of sexually active, unmarried women.

14 September 2009 at 05:20  
Anonymous Pete said...

The OT contains lots of behaviour unacceptable to Christians. Look up the story of Judah and Tamar, or the Crime of the Men of Gibeah and the war of extermination that sparked off. There are even guides on how to perform an abortion in the OT. Fortunately we don't slavishly follow an old book, but a man who was executed by those who did.

14 September 2009 at 08:47  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I would like to point out that the second paragraph in this article should read:

"The film, entitled ‘Blood Money’, includes numerous interviews with leaders of the pro-Life movement, in which they lay out their bias opinions about the abortion industry and the effects that abortions have on women, when these women back up their opinions, otherwise their story is ignored. Obviously if they don't agree then they must be incorrect and so their story is of no value.

14 September 2009 at 08:50  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I find the American columnist Ann Coulter very incisive on this subject.

She redefines the "woman's right to choose" as " the woman's right to have sex with men they do not want to have children by" and as for the liberal mantra " I would not but cannot condemn those who do" she referenced a recent (rare) murder of a late term abortionaist with the subversive comment " I would not kill a late term abortionist myself but hey - who am I to impose my moral values on other people?" It is harsh but a devastating challenge to those who do not protect the unborn.

14 September 2009 at 11:00  
Anonymous len said...

One of the reasons why abortion has become acceptable in our society is because the pro-abortion lobby has been remarkably successful is disguising the true nature of abortion. They have skillfully used language to sanitize the issue. The unborn child has become the ‘product of conception’ or ‘a foetus’. Unborn children are categorised as ‘unviable’ or ‘viable’. Abortion has become ‘a termination’ of pregnancy. By skillfully manipulating language, the abortion lobby has convinced society that there is little harm in ‘terminating’ a ‘foetus’, or removing the unwanted ‘products of conception’. Because abortion is done is secret, behind the walls of an abortion clinic, there is no understanding in society of the real nature of abortion.
I have looked at some of the techniques and the results of abortions on the internet and found the results quite frankly shocking and find it disturbing that any society permits this.

14 September 2009 at 18:40  
Anonymous Propre Director said...

In a submission to BCAP sent to them on June 19th 2009 the PROPRE director describes the BPAS as an instrument of genocide.


STATEMENT:

PROPRE is a family rights group registered at the Prefecture of Ceret in 1994 for the protection of the responsibilities of parents.

PROPRE opposes all attempts as set out in the BCAP proposals to legalise the broadcasting of abortion services on either radio or television taking into account the bogus nature of the claims made and the distorted propaganda routinely presented by organisations such as the BPAS and Marie Stopes.

We do not believe these organizations transmit information. Consequently they should not be allowed to bamboozle the public with their false claims that abortion is a safe operation without risk to the woman. Equally we oppose the fact that British television operates a censorship rule forbidding an abortion operation actually to be shown on tv If the BPAS wants to advertise their abortions, many of which are late term, we feel a film showing a late abortion should be screened both before and after the advert.

Equally full air time should then be given to opponents of abortion and the morning after pill to express their concerns and expose the true nature of the advert.

We do however regret we are having to make any such submission to any organisation connected to the old ASA, which was an industrial conglomerate, a quango serving the purposes of its masters the advertising industry.

Like the British Board of Film Classification the ASA and now CAP is entirely dependent on the industry it serves and whose interests it seeks to protect and consequently is seeking to extend the parameters of advertising to allow increasingly anti social activity by advertisers such as the BPAS.

We call for the abolition of the Committee for Advertising Practice to be replaced by a regulatory framework which puts the public’s concerns first.

Re the British Pregancy Advisory Service we point out the bogus nature of its charitable status, and the disastrous effects on millions of women and generations of unborn babies who BPAS have routinely murdered.

Their effect in practical demographic terms on UK society can be described as the equivalent of a high yield nuclear weapon.

In particular the BPAS had targeted the white UK mostly English middle class and this has led to an increase in racial tension, as nature abhors a vacuum and other ethnic groups who do not espouse the anti family values of the UK Government and advertising industry are not so influenced by the BPAS propaganda

In short the BPAS is an instrument of genocide for the British people.

We believe doctors involved in routinely carrying out late abortions shd be struck off.

It is no part of CAP’s mandate to facilitate and publicise their activities in a non condemnatory context.

We believe the CAP proposals are all a part of a conspiracy to brainwash the UK population into accepting abhorrent proto nazi practices.

We oppose the exclusion from the CAP list of organizations to which its consultation document was sent of many Islamic and Christian and pro life organizations, its ignorance of a pan European dimension, and the attempts by CAP to control the format of the response.

14 September 2009 at 19:43  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Get it right for once len.

It isn't pro-abortion, it's pro-choice because they do not advocate that every foetus (or fetus, however you want to spell it) should be aborted.

And it isn't pro-life it's anti-choice, since they don't advocate the saving of all life just the ones in the womb, but are then quite happy to see people who carry out abortions being murdered (if not doing the murdering themselves then at least quietly congratulating the perpetrator).

So once again you show your hypocrisy by clearly moaning about the manipulation of language while doing exactly the same thing in your very post damning the practice.

15 September 2009 at 11:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Get it right for once Len.

It isn't pro-Jewsih it's pro-choice because they do not advocate that every Jew (or Yid, however you want to spell it) should be killed.

And it isn't pro-Jewsih it's anti-choice, since they don't advocate the saving of all life just the ones in the womb, but are then quite happy to see people who carry out murdering Jews being murdered (if not doing the murdering (the Nazis) themselves then at least quietly congratulating the perpetrator).

So once again you show your hypocrisy by clearly moaning about the manipulation of language while doing exactly the same thing in your very post damning the practice.

15 September 2009 at 11:57  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Forgive me but i'm missing your point.

Are you calling me a Nazi?

Or using my post to make out pro-choice groups are Nazis?

And is there a siginificance in the spelling of Jewish?

Feel free to explain.

15 September 2009 at 12:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

It is an exercise in using the same rhetorical devices that Left-Liberalism employs against those who leap for joy in the womb.

‘And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…’

15 September 2009 at 13:08  
OpenID scottspeig said...

Terry Hamblin,

While you may be correct in stating that 'fetus' is the correct spelling, it is my opinion that British people should not abide by the bastardisation of the Queen's language caused by the lax attitudes of the American people and so 'foetus' is actually correct.

Why they feel the need to call it American english is beyond me. Why do they not just call it American?

15 September 2009 at 16:23  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Fair enough, I hardly think it measures up though, seems like a bit of apples and oranges, but whatever floats your boat.

15 September 2009 at 17:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We should no more concern ourselves with abortions than we do menstruation or the sperm from a mastubatory experience. Foetuses are not babies, they are just a collection of cells with the potential to be so.

Abortions should be the last resort for preventing children because they are a damn sight more dangerous and painful than other methods. Not for some moralistic reason.

16 September 2009 at 17:39  
Anonymous len said...

Pro-choice advocates don't like the use of the word "murder." They maintain that no one really knows when human life begins, and they choose to believe that the idea of personhood at conception is a religious tenet and therefore not valid. It is a human life that is formed at conception. The zygote contains 46 chromosomes, half contributed by each parent, in a unique configuration that has never existed before and never will again. It is not plant life or animal life, nor is it mere tissue like a tumor. From the moment of conception, the new life is genetically different from his or her mother, and is not a part of her body like her tonsils or appendix. This new human being is a separate individual living inside the mother.

16 September 2009 at 17:55  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Anonymous: "We should no more concern ourselves with abortions than we do menstruation or the sperm from a mastubatory experience. Foetuses are not babies, they are just a collection of cells with the potential to be so."
Well that's settled, then. Thanks for telling us what to think, Anonymous.

16 September 2009 at 21:08  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Anonymous: "We should no more concern ourselves with abortions than we do menstruation or the sperm from a mastubatory experience. Foetuses are not babies, they are just a collection of cells with the potential to be so."
Well that's settled, then. Thanks for telling us what to think, Anonymous.

16 September 2009 at 21:09  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Nice to see you using the correct terminology len.

And you are completely entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is and the fact remains that although it isn't a great solution the choice should be down to the individual and they shouldn't be forced to choose based on the opinions of people like yourself who they probably share no common ground with and likewise you them.

So you can bitch and moan all you want about godless heathens and what they get up to but i'm sure at the end of the day they know their situation far better than you do and are making valid choices based on it.

I will agree that there are a small minority of children who are to young to be having sex in the first place which almost think of abortion as a method of contraception. But this isn't the norm for people seeking abortion no matter how much the anti-chioce lobbies want you to belive it is.

But this is a problem brought about by many things, lack of discipline,knowledge, parenting it normally takes place with people from deprived areas, there are many factors but a lack of god is not one of them. To suggest it is would be a non-sequitar arguement, you could just as easily argue it's becuase of a lack of cavier in their diet.

17 September 2009 at 08:33  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

It's quite an amazing feat that the New World Order can use Linguistics to train we ourselves as a people to commit suicide.
All done with spin,
linguistic sleight of mouth,

it's a minor operation,

carried out thousands of times every year,

it's just a clump of cells.

Genocide by stealth, all very impressive.

17 September 2009 at 08:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘[T]he choice should be down to the individual and they shouldn't be forced to choose...’

It is then, from an ethical point of view, difficult to see why it should not be applied to other kinds of activities, e.g., stealing, slandering, abusing, corrupting and so on.

But those who defend the killing do so upon the ground that it is legal to do so.

So then let’s decriminalise the law on rape. So that those undergoing the procedure can do so in nice clean clinics and on white gleaming marble slabs. After all do we really want back street rapes in unsanitary conditions?

17 September 2009 at 09:10  
Anonymous Matt said...

Len, pro-choice advocates like myself don't use "murder" because we don't think abortion is murder. Words matter, as the people posting below you point out, and I don't see why I should use ones which I don't think apply just because you like them. I don't consider a recently fertilized egg to be a human being and there is therefore nothing wrong with aborting it. I think you're completely wrong if that is your view (I don't believe in moral relativism either) and, luckily, in our democracy my side has the law on our side.

(I posted as anon at 17:39 but I've just worked out what the name/url thing is for).

17 September 2009 at 10:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘I don't consider a recently fertilized egg to be a human being and there is therefore nothing wrong with aborting it.’

It seems that what the author is saying is that when he was at the human developmental stage of ‘fertilized egg’ there would have been nothing wrong in killing him.

But if that is so then it is difficult to see why he should not be killed at birth, in childhood, in teenage, in adulthood or old age?

17 September 2009 at 10:30  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

If you feel it is difficult to understand there really is no point to you continuing to try an understand it, give up and let people that understand the situation make their own choice rather than you forcing your choices on them.

17 September 2009 at 12:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Situational ethics'are the stock-in-trade of the Nazi and the Communist.

17 September 2009 at 12:35  
Anonymous Matt said...

"It seems that what the author is saying is that when he was at the human developmental stage of ‘fertilized egg’ there would have been nothing wrong in killing him." - Yes

"But if that is so then it is difficult to see why he should not be killed at birth, in childhood, in teenage, in adulthood or old age?" - No

I think that life begins around the time that a foetus is able to live independently of its mother. It's at that moment it becomes a child.

17 September 2009 at 16:12  
Anonymous len said...

So killing is ok in certain circumstances?

17 September 2009 at 20:38  
Anonymous len said...

"The real question today is not when human life begins, but, 'What is the value of human life?' The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being." President Ronald Reagan, (1983)

17 September 2009 at 20:46  
Blogger Blanket Of Ash said...

As has been pointed out already, the use of the so-called "hand of hope" is tantamount to an admission that evidence will be suspended in favour of a faith-based agenda. If you have any interest whatsoever in telling the truth to your readers, you will remove it immediately.

See, for instance, Ben Goldacre's view:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/nadine-dorries-and-the-hand-of-hope/

Of course, it's understandably if you wish to use emotional manipulation to shape your reader's opinions.

17 September 2009 at 23:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘I think that life begins around the time that a foetus is able to live independently of its mother. It's at that moment it becomes a child.’

Is that a fraction of a second before the umbilical cord is cut?

18 September 2009 at 07:48  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

D.Singh.

Clearly it must be, but remember the umbilical cord can be cut long before 9 months and the child still survive independently from it's mother.

So please don't start implying that people are saying if we don't cut the umbilical cord we can murder children, or some other sort of distortion of what is being said which is usually how you try to make your point, most of the time it just sounds stupid.

18 September 2009 at 08:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘Clearly it must be…’

How barbaric.

I can just imagine an SS guard at Auschwitz looking at the freight trains of full of Jews arriving and stating with that air of finality that authority affords itself at the end of the barrel of a gun:

‘Clearly it must be…’

18 September 2009 at 09:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Or, in simple terms, on the one hand, the quality of life; on the other, the sanctity of life.

The sanctity of life is, of course, a religious or transcendental concept, and has no meaning otherwise; if there is no God, life cannot have sanctity. By the same token, the quality of life is an earthly or worldly concept, and can only be expressed legalistically, and in materialist terms; the soul does not come into it.

It follows, at the end of our life span, that geriatrics unable any longer to offer in the way of aesthetic, carnal and egotistic satisfaction - in other words by virtue of their years losing out on quality of life - should be subjected to euthanasia or mercy-killing, and discreetly murdered.

On this basis, for instance, Beethoven would scarcely have been allowed to be born; his heredity and family circumstances were atrocious, a case history of syphilis, deafness and insanity. Today his mother's pregnancy would be considered irresponsible and as requiring to be terminated….


Malcolm Muggeridge

18 September 2009 at 09:17  
Anonymous Matt said...

Len, killing is acceptable in some circumstances (in warfare for example, or self-defence), but the point I was trying to make is that I simply don't see abortion as 'killing' any more than I see masturabting as 'killing' my sperm. It's simply a last line of contraception. I appreciate you don't disagree but I hope I've explained a bit why I think that! I just don't think life in any meaningful sense starts as soon as an egg is fertilised.

D.Singh - using Hitler in an argument is the last refuge of poor debater... As for your other comments I've never said I support euthanasia (which I don't as I believe in the sanctity of life) or that I am a eugenicist (which I'm not, personally I wouldn't even contemplate terminating a pregnancy just because I thought the child might be disabled or something).

18 September 2009 at 10:09  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

It's not barbaric at all.

If it requires something else to live then it is living a parsitic existence, it is not a sentient life form that can live on it's own, therefore it is not an individual life, but an extension of another being.

Clinical, I will grant you that, but not barbaric.

And has already been pointed out, to sink into the Nazi name calling is the last defense of the indefensible. But being that you never back up any of your other opinions with rational, logical factual data then i'm not terribly surprised to be honest.

"earthly or worldly concept, and can only be expressed legalistically, and in materialist terms; the soul does not come into it. "

Taking this into account I can only be thankful that laws are set in earthly, materialistic logical and rational grounding so we can use these things to make educated choices on what is acceptable and what isn't, otherwise the truly godly people of this world would be hanging people for not getting on their knees on a sunday to worship.

18 September 2009 at 10:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘If it requires something else to live then it is living a parsitic existence, it is not a sentient life form that can live on it's own, therefore it is not an individual life, but an extension of another being.’

Once more we must address the barbarity of those who issue such repellent statements.

Like the slave owner they must dehumanise: for if slaves were released how could they possibly manage on their own for they owe their ‘parasitic’ existence to the slave owner; like Nazis who dehumanised the Jews and reclassified them as ‘rats’ so the abortionist emulates their thought; like Stalin who dehumanised those not thought of as members of the proletariat – they must be persecuted and their ‘parasitic’ existence shovelled into the depths of the Gulag.

In their barbarity they know no limitation for now it is not just the child in the womb that is to be dehumanised and reclassified as sub-human (‘parasitic’) they take the next step in the ideology of fascism: the child who is dependent (‘requiring on something else to live’) upon his mother for feeding, care, compassion and protection and cannot lie on its own. He needs mother.

More rules, more criteria now need to be stated before that child born or unborn can be admitted into the family of the human race.

They believe they are enlightened yet encourage darkness to close the eyes of the child.

18 September 2009 at 12:36  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

And there you go twisting everything around yet again and sounding like a fool.

You know damn well I was talking about a child in a parastic sense of a symbyosis with it's mother. Being that if it is removed from it's host or mother before it is able to live on it's own. I didn't talk about being able to provide for itself like you try to make out in your nonsense posted above. I clearly made the distinction of being able to exist on it's own.

Parastic does not mean sub-human so I'm not sure where you dig that correlation from. While I admit that pregancy in itself doesn't ideally fit in the parastic catagory (being the benefit of one species due to the cost on another species, problem being that both are the same species in a pregnant reltionship but this is the only thing that stops it fitting into the definition of a parastic relationship. Really pregnancy is it's own clasification along side parastic).

So come back when you can actually discuss facts and what is being said until then you input is generally useless because you only read what you want to see.

Typical from somebody that suffers a closed mind brought about by religious dogma.

18 September 2009 at 13:46  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Come to think of it maybe you didn't understand that I was talking about it in that way.

Either way the quality of your reply speaks volumes about your mind.

18 September 2009 at 13:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘You know damn well I was talking about a child in a parastic sense of a…’

To stop there would be inconsistent of you : what about euthanasia for the old, the sick and the dying.

But why stop at ‘the fraction of a second’ before the umbilical cord is broken? What difference would that make? None. Barbaric.

‘While I admit that pregancy in itself doesn't ideally fit in the parastic category…’

Ah! An inglorious retreat! Reeling under the pressure of a Marxian-style critique (for the very technique you Left-liberals use, attributing guilt by association, is now used against you).

‘but this is the only thing that stops it fitting into the definition of a parastic relationship.’

So its not in a parasitic relationship? Make your mind up. Desist limping from one mere opinion to another..

‘Facts’ – are we take it that your posts are pregnant with facts? Examine thyself, said Socrates.

18 September 2009 at 14:05  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Tell me why there is any point debating with you when you take nothing I say in it's entirety but pick and choose snippits to paste together into something that was never said in the first place.

I explained the nature of a parastic relationship and pointed out that the only thing stopping preganacy falling into the definition of a parastic relationship is that the two species in the realationship are the same.

So yes it is a parastic realationship in simplistic terms but pregnancy is by definition a parastic relationship in it's own seperate bracket from the normal definition of a paratisc relationship.

You constantly show yourself up with these childlike debatig tactics. There was and is no retreat from me.

No matter how hard you believe that sticking your fingers in your ears and making up conversations in your mind to aid your opinion is a good way to win an argument i'm afraid in the real world where people don't put their faith in magic and fairies it just isn't

Once again the quality of your reply speaks volumes about the quality of your mind.

18 September 2009 at 18:56  
Anonymous len said...

Any society that actively promotes abortion can hardly draw back at euthanasia,.
And then ,who decides on what quality of life is permissible before, 'terminating 'it?
Who decides?
Who?
and on what basis?

18 September 2009 at 20:42  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Any society that actively promotes abortion can hardly draw back at euthanasia,.
And then ,who decides on what quality of life is permissible before, 'terminating 'it?
Who decides?
Who?
and on what basis?"

Firstly, can you please tell me what society "actively promotes abortion"? I'm to this day unaware of any billboards or siding at a football game advertising "Hey you, why not have an abortion".

I have never once heard of people saying to someone that has just announced they are pregnant, "Hey that's great, but have you thought of an abortion? Everyones having them, they're grrrrrrrreat!".

No, people don't say that because abortion is not "actively promoted". To suggest otherwise is a downright lie, guess you have one more to tell the preist about on Sunday.

And then you go on to compare abortion to euthanaisa?

They are hardly comparable situations len. But you ask who has the right to choose?

Well in cases of euathanasia the choice would be down to the individual who is choosing to die. If the person is undable to make a choice due to incapacitation and they are being kept alive artificially then I guess the choice should go to those closest to them to allow an educated desicion to be made on what the person would want. But that person was fully alive and self-aware and up until that point was a lifeform capable of living by itself.

In the cases of abortion, when the fetoeus is not of an age where it can survive without being biologically connected by means of a symbiotic relationship with it's mother then it should be the mother who makes the choice (I admit the father should be permitted to discuss the situation, but as it is the womans body she should have ultimate choice over the situation).

Who should not decide these situations is people that put their faith in unbelievable belief systems based on unprovable points which share no common ground with the people in these situations having to make the decisions for themselves.

19 September 2009 at 10:01  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Any society that actively promotes abortion can hardly draw back at euthanasia,.
And then ,who decides on what quality of life is permissible before, 'terminating 'it?
Who decides?
Who?
and on what basis?"

Firstly, can you please tell me what society "actively promotes abortion"? I'm to this day unaware of any billboards or siding at a football game advertising "Hey you, why not have an abortion".

I have never once heard of people saying to someone that has just announced they are pregnant, "Hey that's great, but have you thought of an abortion? Everyones having them, they're grrrrrrrreat!".

No, people don't say that because abortion is not "actively promoted". To suggest otherwise is a downright lie, guess you have one more to tell the preist about on Sunday.

And then you go on to compare abortion to euthanaisa?

They are hardly comparable situations len. But you ask who has the right to choose?

Well in cases of euathanasia the choice would be down to the individual who is choosing to die. If the person is undable to make a choice due to incapacitation and they are being kept alive artificially then I guess the choice should go to those closest to them to allow an educated desicion to be made on what the person would want. But that person was fully alive and self-aware and up until that point was a lifeform capable of living by itself.

In the cases of abortion, when the fetoeus is not of an age where it can survive without being biologically connected by means of a symbiotic relationship with it's mother then it should be the mother who makes the choice (I admit the father should be permitted to discuss the situation, but as it is the womans body she should have ultimate choice over the situation).

Who should not decide these situations is people that put their faith in unbelievable belief systems based on unprovable points which share no common ground with the people in these situations having to make the decisions for themselves.

19 September 2009 at 10:02  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
I humbly suggest you re-read his Grace`s article.

20 September 2009 at 17:24  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Why of course, i'll go an do it now.

Oh I see now, obviously with the picture being presented from the point of view of the anti-choice lobbies then the data they have given is obviously 100% true. I mean whatever reason would they have for distorting the facts and presenting the evidence in a bias manner using inflammatory language and making unfounded claims.

Get a grip len and think for yourself for once instead of just thinking what you are told to.

21 September 2009 at 08:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I see Glovener is still plugging his pro-death (kill babies) agenda.

Of course this would undermine criticisms he raises against such issues as the death penalty as he would, I am sure, wish to remain consistent.

21 September 2009 at 08:58  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Remind me first of all of the objections I raised?

After that remind me how the two are even comparable.

Or will you just avoid answering either questions like usual and reply instead with some flippant statment accompanied with no factual evidence except your own flawed opinion.

21 September 2009 at 13:37  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Or make your accusations and not even reply at all I suppose.

23 September 2009 at 13:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner,

On its own it is not a sign of mental ill health if you seem incapable of re-reading what you yourself have written.

Nor, I suggest, is it a sign of mental ill health to begin talking to yourself on a public message board without any reference to another correspondent.

But when there appears to be evidence that the two are combined in the same individual; then I think there is a case for that individual to be stretchered off to the psychiatrists couch.

23 September 2009 at 13:38  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Continue believing you are correct. I am not about to scour every article on here to find out what exactly was written if you don't even have the decency to point me towards exactly what you are using to base you opinion.

Especially when you have already shown time and time again that you happily take things out of context and quote only the parts that on their own seem to back you up completely on purpose in order to try and prove your point.

But to suggest I am the one that needs my head seeing to when you are the one with the imaginary friend is but a tad laughable.

23 September 2009 at 16:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Rather than repeatedly use the phrase 'back up' in your writings; why not use the word 'support'.

It would add a touch of elegance to your posts; Old Boy.

23 September 2009 at 22:25  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

You can give a top hat and a cane to a lunatic but he is still a lunatic.

I see stilll that no "support" is forthcoming though?

24 September 2009 at 00:06  
Blogger Simon Spanner said...

With regards to 'de-bunking' the photo,

The surgeon - featured in the photo - Dr Bruner said,

"The baby did not reach out, the baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on"

The reality of being anesthetized, whilst in hospital having major surgery, is not really de-bunkable.

Samuel Alexander Armas, also referred to as the cluster of cells by some, is alive and well, and the good Dr Bruner's work that day was 100% succesful.

The photo is also 100% genuine with regards to the accuacy of the baby's age, Samuel was a mere 21 weeks old at the time.

The female journalist who took the photo, she just had to make it more exiting, as if Dr Bruner's life saving surgery needed it.

She had to spruce up the anesthetized baby's arm flopping out of the mother's surgical entry incision, and having to be re-inserted. Click went the camera, I presume 'the grasp' was a reflex re-action, or was it the JFK 911 aliens upto their tricks again ?

So contextualy, our man Cranmer, (IMO) was using the photograph to make it crystal clear, that 'aborting' 24week old children, is a flesh-crawlingly disgusting act of ignorant, THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO, barbaric evil.

With photos like this, of 21 week old Samual, THEY DO KNOW WHAT THEY DO, and yet they still do it, and have the gall to 'lecture' from upon high about it.

I think this blog is so popular, because it practises what it preaches with reqards to freedom of speech and 'mod' deletions. Unlike it's allegded competitors, courage is visable.

25 September 2009 at 23:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older