Friday, August 05, 2011

Guardian smears ‘pro-life’ charities


'Pro-choice’ (ie pro-abortion) charities in cahoots with The Guardian ought to come as no surprise. But the newspaper’s recent collaboration with ‘Education for Choice’ in a recent article by Ben Quinn is a nasty and malicious piece of work. The charity apparently conducted a ‘mystery shopper’ survey of a number of Crisis Pregnancy Centres or Independent Pregnancy Advice Centres, and (surprise, surprise) found them to be deficient. They sent their findings to The Guardian, who obligingly published.

But in the absence of any actual evidence, His Grace is tempted to say that this story is nothing but a vicious hatchet job based upon grossly exaggerated incidents and wildly distorted ‘evidence’. Under the guise of a neutral presentation of facts, what we have is nothing short of a blatant attempt to discredit LIFE and shut down all abortion counselling which might provide so much as a whiff of ‘pro-life’ information to women considering termination of their pregnancies.

The article (which has been updated and amended) is now entitled ‘Abortion: pregnancy counselling centres found wanting’, with the strap line: ‘Evidence of poor practice and factually incorrect advice discovered following undercover investigation’. But one gets the distinct impression that this is an a priori case of the results preceding the research: a ‘pro-choice’ charity investigating a ‘pro-life’ charity is, of course, going to be neutral and fair: about as fair as a Labour-funded and socialist-staffed investigation into the benefits of living under a Conservative government. And so we read in the opening paragraph:
Women receiving advice from pregnancy counselling centres run by faith-based and anti-abortion organisations are subjected to scaremongering, emotive language and inaccurate information about abortion, according to an undercover investigation by a pro-choice charity.
The objective is manifestly to bolster the dominant position of abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). God forbid that their baby-murdering monopoly might be subject to a little competition from ‘independent’ organisations. We further read:
A survey of 10 centres operated by Christian and anti-abortion organisations found evidence in most of them of poor practice and factually incorrect advice, while the quality of counselling differs widely. Advice ranged from scaremongering – linking abortion with breast cancer, for example – to actions apparently designed to steer women away from abortion, such as showing them baby clothes and talking about "the child".
But His Grace finds this absolutely incredible:
At a Life centre in Covent Garden, London, the undercover researcher was given a leaflet entitled Abortions – How they're Done, which said incorrectly that 85% of abortions are carried out using vacuum aspiration. It stated that "the unborn child is sucked down the tube" and that "the woman should wear some protection. She has to dispose of the corpse."
So, The Guardian is content to publish a story accusing LIFE of producing leaflets which say the woman has to dispose of the corpse? Has Ben Quinn seen this leaflet? Could His Grace please see it? It smacks of the sort of vile propaganda not infrequently directed towards the Jews – you know, the child-killing and baby eating sort designed to inculcate a degree of sub-human barbarism.

LIFE are, of course, members of the BACP (British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy) and so obliged to provide non-judgmental, non-directive factual information about abortion. That can and should include the potential mental and emotional consequences of the procedure. And His Grace can see no reason at all why the terms ‘baby’ and ‘child’ should be prohibited. While this might irk charities like Education for Choice, it is an appalling omission by many ‘pro-choice’ charities that they simply do not present a woman with the alternatives – simply because it is not in their financial interests to do so.

The British abortion industry slaughters 572 babies every day. It is not only booming; the business is as safe and secure as that of tax collectors and undertakers: abortion-providing companies make millions of pounds from the taxpayer through NHS referral. Presently, the Government only funds abortion providers (Marie Stopes, BPAS) if the abortion proceeds. And yet it is these same providers which are entrusted to counsel vulnerable and often emotional women before the procedure is carried out. Unlike the rest of Europe, there is presently no requirement in British law for women to be informed about the alternatives, like adoption.

LIFE are naturally concerned about the Guardian report, and yet the corroborating evidence has not been adduced. Is it video footage? Audio recording? Written notes? Was it one isolated unprofessional counsellor or a systematic breakdown? What was the methodological approach for this research? Is it fair and valid? Could the results be replicated? It is impossible to come to any reasoned judgements about this without knowing what the evidence consists of. In its absence, Ben Quinn has provided us with nothing but a polemic of Education for Choice employees’ feelings (yes, it was all done in-house) with no other objective but to smear LIFE and remove them from the Government’s Sexual Health Forum.

This makes Mr Quinn more a propagandist for ‘pro-choice’ organisations than a professional journalist. It is even more interesting that LIFE’s attempts to elicit the evidence from Mr Quinn have been fruitless. Surely, since he wrote the article, he must be in possession of the evidence, yet he has referred LIFE to Education for Choice, which, he says, is ‘an organisation of good repute’ and he is ‘satisfied about the integrity of its work’. The response of EFC has simply been that they will make their report available ‘soon’.

Education for Choice are nothing to do with choice. They say of themselves: ‘EFC calls for: Young people to have the facts about abortion, whoever they are, whoever they ask, wherever they go.’ Where’s the ‘choice’ in that? Where is any presentation of the alternatives? Do ‘all the facts’ include the mental, emotional and spiritual issues? Education for Choice is a blatant misnomer and purposeful deception: it is as objectionable as any inculcation of religious belief under the guise of scientific inquiry.

His Grace would very much like to hear from Education for Choice. He would be pleased to receive copies of the video footage and/or audio recordings with full transcripts in order that the methodology may be examined and the validity of the results assessed. And he may well be tempted to set up his own ‘mystery shopper’ survey to establish just how much of a choice Education for Choice actually provides to pregnant women. For he more than half suspects that Ben Quinn has been duped. But then, he does write for The Guardian, and so is possibly quite content to be so.

133 Comments:

Anonymous Justin Hinchcliffe said...

God bless you, YG, for this wonderful article.

5 August 2011 at 11:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Every human right is based on the right to life. Once you've given up on that, you can do what you like. Telling untruths about those who threaten your income is a pretty minor offence.

I hope that Pro-Life charities have a similar under-cover operation.

BTW, how can abortion counselling be non-directive if alternative courses to abortion are not raised?

5 August 2011 at 11:42  
Anonymous De_Civitas said...

Your Grace, forgive me for sounding crass but it seems to me that the only way to ensure actual objective good advice is to stop all interest groups running services on both sides of the debate.

Set up a state funded advice service with sensible and collectively agreed advice that takes into account all the factors concerning abortion.

That will stop this unsightly media slagging match that means that those in true need to help are pulled by two equally biased sides whose agendas prevent the unique circumstances and needs of often scared young women and the life growing inside them being put first.

5 August 2011 at 11:44  
Blogger Damian said...

Your Grace,
It surprises this old leftie reactionary to say it, but - who could trust a state-run organisation to provide truly objective advice on abortion in any case? (cf De_Civitas). This topic is now so emotive on both sides that a balanced view is impossible. I fear that means (as in the States) a dirty war indeed, in which the Guardian seem intent on firing a salvo. So let's have a proper debate, and do proper theology for once - something the C of E sp often shies away from.

5 August 2011 at 11:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heaven forfend that "emotive language" should accompany talking to a woman about killing her unborn child. Whatever next - complaints about the BBC running regular adverts for Dignitas in the guise of "documentaries"?

5 August 2011 at 11:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Albert has made a profound statement:

‘Every human right is based on the right to life.’

All human rights must be dependent on the right to life. If they are not: then human rights are meaningless.

5 August 2011 at 11:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

There is at least one nation that has set an historical precedent of the State providing abortion: Nazi Germany.

5 August 2011 at 12:04  
Anonymous De_Civitas said...

@Damian: I take your point that the state is not necessarily the best, most objective, or most effective mechanism to run advice services.

However, it is a lot better than either pro-choice or pro-life groups because framed within the right context and with the appropriate consultation it can set up entrenched terms of reference in which the focus can be brought back to the important issue of the individuals involved.

An american style 'dirty war' on this subject is simply counter productive and greatly detracts from the care and attention given to those in need. Resorting to martial rhetoric or Godwin's Law merely demonstrates why pressure groups and interest groups are not suited to give advice to the vulnerable.

As for 'doing' proper theology I firmly believe that if one is to have Christian moral theology, where ethics are applied within this world then both natural and received revelation should be taken into account. Exegesis of scripture and doctrine without consideration of understandings of the natural world removes it's relevance to applied ethical problems. However, within theology this, as with everything is open to argument and interpretation.

5 August 2011 at 12:15  
Anonymous Paul C said...

De_Civitas: "the only way to ensure actual objective good advice is to stop all interest groups running services on both sides of the debate."

Everybody is on one side of the debate. No-one is neutral.

“There is no neutral ground in the universe; every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan” C.S. Lewis.

Thank you Your Grace for a wonderful article!!

5 August 2011 at 12:20  
Blogger Albert said...

De Civitas

However, it is a lot better than either pro-choice or pro-life groups

As a Catholic, I disagree that anyone should be providing abortion or counselling that might lead to an abortion. However, given that abortion is legal, I think it is better that "service providers" have a clear stance rather than a pretended neutrality.

No one is neutral on this point. At least if these things are done by organisations with stated stances the person receiving the counselling knows which angel is being given to them.

Having said that, it is clearly wrong for counsellors to mislead people, or else not in inform them of the real choices open to them. It is extraordinary that anyone involved in counselling should be able to profit from the abortion. But this is an area where normal forms of reason are disallowed.

5 August 2011 at 12:25  
Anonymous De_Civitas said...

@Albert, I suppose that it is such a polarising debate that each individual involved has an opinion.

And I accept that I have fallen into the trap of reducing beliefs to something that can be put aside, and an assumption that there is some sort of objective ideal reality.

However, the problem that I have with unregulated competition in an ethical market is this:

If I discover that I'm pregnant, I'm scared and confused and I want advice I am having to make up my mind before I even enter a service.

Now counselling professionals hold sincere and deeply held beliefs and therefore I would not expect people to recommend abortion if for those reasons they do not believe it is morally right.

However it is possible for those people to say that: "You should be aware that I do not believe that abortion is wrong and here are the reasons that you might want to consider keeping the child. However, my colleague over there would disagree with me, and you should also consider his advice alongside mine."

The point that I have been trying to raise is that the way the argument is phrased is unacceptable - the Guardian's article is frankly offensive, as is much produced by the pro-life lobby. This should not be considered as some sort of battle where each side chalks up points - it should be about providing advice to those in need of it and part of providing advice is recognising that while you sincerely believe your viewpoint is objectively correct people should be allowed to get advice that takes all points of view into account, advice that is targeted towards the well being of them and their child.

Disagreement is fine, but it can be done with respect, that is what is key. You will never agree with the pro-choice lobby and there is no reason why you should. However both sides should agree that there are points of common ground - namely the common concern that pregnant women have a competent advice service that works for them.

While this is a highly contentious ethical issue with a long history of angry rhetoric on both sides with some sort of external facilitation people can come to a point of respectful disagreement and from there a better form of advice service can be built.

I hope this better explains my point of view.

5 August 2011 at 12:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘[A]dvice that is targeted towards the well being of them and their child’.

Given that there are the ‘rights’ of two people here (the mother and the child): would you agree that the child should be allocated an advocate in his defence?

5 August 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

After all, we provide defence counsel for alleged murderers - then why not for those who are innocent of any crime?

5 August 2011 at 12:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Christians:


It is written:


Open thy mouth for the dumb, and for the causes of all the children that pass.


Douay-Rheims Bible

5 August 2011 at 13:03  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

Although the Guardian article is a scurrilous example of abortionist opportunism it now looks as if LIFE has been let down by a volunteer.

Finally, we completely accept that the LIFE volunteer was wrong to provide inaccurate information on abortion procedures. She acted in clear breach of our policies and procedures, which are carefully designed to safeguard the welfare of our clients. We are looking closely at how to ensure that our staff and volunteers avoid any such errors in the future.

http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/mysteryshopper

Linking abortion with breast cancer is not scaremongering.
Life present a reasoned case in this leaflet and quote research to support their position:

http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/files/pdfs/Flyer_abortion_web.pdf

5 August 2011 at 13:18  
Anonymous De_Civitas said...

@Albert, @D. Sing @anyoneelsewhodisagreeswithme

I admit and accept that I have fallen into the trap of believing that a)people can be objective regarding a sincerely held belief and b)that they should somehow ignore that belief when working the in public field. You are all correct in pointing out that when a sincerely held belief on either side is held then it is pointless to pretend 'objectivity'.

However, I have a real problem with how the current debate is phrased. If I were to be pregnant under the current system I have to make up my mind before going to an advice service which is designed to help me come to a decision. The current debate with all it's martial language is venomous and does not aid any party in continuing in the reactive way it does.

I should also emphasize that at no point have I advocated that the rights of the unborn child should be ignored or that those on your side of the fence should be silenced.

So: councillors who give their time to work in this field on either side should not be forced to accept some imposed consensus and should not have to give advice against their beliefs.

However what they can can say is this: "I do not believe that abortion is the right thing to do, and here is why you might want to consider keeping the baby. However my colleague over here would disagree with me and you may also want to consider his advice." It is possible for advice to be given in such a way that integrity is not compromised and yet the full range of options are equally presented to those who need them.

Neither side will ever agree on this issue however in accepting that you can accept that there is common ground and common focus - the well-being of the mother and the unborn child and when, as a person of sincere belief, you choose to work to aid people there is much that can be done if rhetoric and animosity are replaced with respectful disagreement.

Not only that it is possible that multiple absolute points of view can come together on a course of common concern, the faith communities in this country have shown that on a variety of complex and difficult issues.

The reason I suggested a state run organisation within certain parameters is because a third party can ensure that advice is available from all sides of the table. Unfortunately I do not believe that either lobby has the institutional mindset that would allow this to happen without authoritative intervention - any other bodies that could act as mediators may be better than the government whose objectivity, as has been rightly pointed out, is rather in question here.

5 August 2011 at 13:18  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

The reason for the Guardian investigation may have been the fact that recently Planned Parenthood was investigated by undercover reporters and they found that PP was colluding in sex slavery with sex traffickers. Here's the link: http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-exposed-covering-up-child-prostitution/

5 August 2011 at 13:19  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Your Grace said "So, The Guardian is content to publish a story accusing LIFE of producing leaflets which say the woman has to dispose of the corpse? Has Ben Quinn seen this leaflet? Could His Grace please see it?"

I remember when there was actually a debate going on in this country about abortion and we were told that there were 400,000 back street abortions in Italy per year. This apparently would have mean that every women of childbearing age would have had 3 abortions in her life and that would have had to include all the nuns.

5 August 2011 at 13:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Shecklefree,

The news that abortionists collude with and cover up the sex abuse of minors comes as no surprise. When a bishop does it, it's news because it's gravely wrong. When an abortionist does it - even in a situation in which a girl is being sex-trafficked, no one cares, because abortion is sacred.

5 August 2011 at 13:41  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

De Civitas, Your comments are clearly designed to be as fair and impartial as possible. Would you agree with the proposal that a good way to give clear objective data to a woman considering an abortion would be to show her an unlta-sound scan of her child? That way she wouldn't have to listen to the opinions of others but see what's really there.

5 August 2011 at 14:06  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Shackefree said "Would you agree with the proposal that a good way to give clear objective data to a woman considering an abortion would be to show her an unlta-sound scan of her child? That way she wouldn't have to listen to the opinions of others but see what's really there"

No that is very emotionally manipulative indeed, she might have to have or want an abortion for various reasons and to be shown what is growing inside her will make her feel even more guilt ridden for the rest of her life. But if on the other hand after obtaining the reasons why she wants or needs the abortion and there is a possibility in her life that she could keep the child but does not want to then maybe as a final persuader a scan of her child. It is so emotional for some and others just want to get it over with as soon as possible. I think what women need is more information on alternatives like adoption agencies. Do they advertise in the Marie Stopes clinic waiting rooms?

5 August 2011 at 14:30  
Anonymous Paul C said...

@Marie1797: It is "emotionally manipulative...to be shown what is growing inside her."

Emotional? Yes.
Manipulative? How?! It is reality.

Your Grace, here's how BPAS describes its counselling services:

“Counselling is part of the initial consultation during which you will also have a medical screening so that we can assess your stage of pregnancy and medical history to find out which methods of abortion are most suitable for you.”

So counselling is done to see which abortion is 'best'.

This is where the real problem is. And that is what the "Right to Know" campaign is all about. (http://righttoknow.org.uk/)

5 August 2011 at 14:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Paul,

Quite so. Preventing the mother from seeing the reality of her pregnancy and the alternatives to abortion cannot be claimed by anyone to be non-directive. Merely offering her "which methods of abortion are most suitable for you” is not at all the same thing as giving her a choice.

How have we let abortionists get away with describing themselves as "pro-choice"? They do not give the child any choice, nor, it appears do they give the mother any real choice. But then as they gain financially from the abortion, why would they be pro-choice?

5 August 2011 at 14:59  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

So called "pro-life" so-called "charities" are nothing of the sort.
They are anti-female, msogynistic religious bigots, usually RC bigots.

5 August 2011 at 15:05  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

I forgoit.

For some FACTS of what life was like before "easy" abortion or any proper birth control were available.
[ A state far too many people with imaginary friends want to return to ... ]
Try reading:
"Call the Midwife" by Jennifer Worth.

ISBN 978-0-7538-2383-5

5 August 2011 at 15:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Greg,

So your view is that pro-lifers oppose abortion, not because they think the direct and deliberate killing of innocent human life is wrong, but because they are anti-female (do they only seek to save unborn male children?).

What is your evidence for that?

While we're on the subject, do you accept that a woman can abort a female child for no better reason than that she doesn't want a baby girl?

And as for being anti-women, what about the abortionists who take a fee and keep quiet about the fact that they are aborting the children of girls who are being sex-trafficked, thereby facilitating the income of those who pimp children? Is that what it is to be pro-women? If so, I am proud to be numbered amongst "anti-female, msogynistic religious bigots, usually RC bigots".

5 August 2011 at 15:19  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Marie, Most women who have abortions do remain guilt ridden for the rest of their lives. They know what they did regardless of all the support they get from the so called compassionate killers. It is a reality for which they hate themselves and cannot forgive themselves for. In addition, the abortion providers are very poor at offering post abortion conselling because they make their money from the abortion and not from the expensive business of counselling women for the rest of their lives.

5 August 2011 at 15:31  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

You didn’t look very hard Cranmer....

http://www.pregnancyassistance.org.au/ABORTIONS%20-%20How%20They%20are%20Done.pdf


Also Life admits....

“Finally, we completely accept that the LIFE volunteer was wrong to provide inaccurate information on abortion procedures. She acted in clear breach of our policies and procedures, which are carefully designed to safeguard the welfare of our clients. We are looking closely at how to ensure that our staff and volunteers avoid any such errors in the future”.

http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/mysteryshopper

As anyone who has read my previous posts on the subject of abortion will know I consider it to be a procedure of last resort. However the absurd anti-abortion comments seen here, particularly in the light of Cranmer’s recent advocation of capital punishment are simply ridiculous as is the extreme opposing Pro Choice view that abortion is an act without any moral consequences.

What women should be given is the unvarnished truth about abortion not when they are pregnant but before they are sexually active. If they then have an unwanted pregnancy they should be counselled without prejudice, not by religious zealots or by ultra feminists but by practitioners who can advise the woman of all the options open to her, including having the child.

5 August 2011 at 15:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

So some of us would like to back to the pre-967 position eh, Tingey?

It may once have been believed that there were 100,000 illegal abortions per year prior to the passage of the liberal abortion law in 1967. However, CB Goodhart at Cambridge quite reasonably put such vague claims to rest. He first demonstrated that the number of maternal deaths due to abortion (a figure hard to distort very greatly) was far too low to support the figure of 100,000 illegal abortions per year. He then proceeded to calculate the rate of illegal abortions in Britain as whole from the known rate of abortions in one particular locale, where very liberal access to abortion prevailed even under the old law (which did give discretion to the physician to certify that health was at stake). Even allowing for a generous measure of illegal abortion in that one locale, he still came to the conclusion that there could not have been more than about 20,000 illegal abortions per year for the whole of Britain before the enactment of the 1967 law.

Today the figure stands at 200,000 abortions per year.

He also found that after the 1967 law was enacted – maternal deaths shot up.

In other words, the back-street abortionists with their coat-hangers were doing a better job than National Health Service surgeons.

5 August 2011 at 15:39  
Anonymous Jack Flash said...

"I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murdered by the mother herself....

By abortion the motherdoes not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but tp use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest of love and peace is abortion."
Speech of Mother Teresa to the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington D.C. February 1994.

Present; President Clinton and the First Lady, also present Vice President Gore and Wife. All strong supporters of abortion.


When we unpack many of the problems with society, we find a compelling wisdom in her words.
As morality is slowly sacrificed on the alter of greed and self, we plunge headlong into a Hell of our own making. The Blind lead the Blind, the media force feed the populace with lies, and babies are murdered in the womb.
I don't agree with Mother Teresa's theology, but I agree 100% with this speech and take my hat off to her courage to stand for those who are silently killed and disposed of like so much rubbish!

Jack.

5 August 2011 at 15:42  
Anonymous Jack. said...

Should read "destroyer of love and peace is abortion". Apologies.

5 August 2011 at 15:45  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

What's being suggested tantamount to emotional blackmail to those women that really have to abort and those who have made up their minds to. What needs to be ascertained at counselling are the reasons for wanting to and the woman’s family situations first. This is the difference between men's thinking and women's. Men think that by giving a woman a choice of the type of abortion available and showing a pic of the contents of her womb it will make her change her mind.

Friends of mine have had abortions for different reasons. One already had two sets of twins a full house and they were financially stretched. She could not have coped with anymore. Hubby and close family were supportive of her decision. So showing her a pic of what was growing or telling her which method would be used would have only made her even more tearful and guilty. I don't think women are too interested at such a time on the methodology of the abortion as long as it works.

The other was a younger friend 19 who's flyby night boyfriend insisted on her terminating his child and made sure she did, leaving her afterwards. So a counsellor telling her which method was going to be used and showing pics would probably have pushed her over the edge. She didn't want to become a single parent and she had no supportive family. But in both cases had there been an easy route to adoption discussed and available then maybe one or both might have taken this option.

There are many different circumstances behind the reasons for a woman having an abortion and
it's such an emotional time.

5 August 2011 at 15:51  
Blogger dmcl01 said...

Why do people go on about women's rights when it comes to pregancy? When a woman becomes pregnant she has duties to her unborn child.

Damo

5 August 2011 at 16:02  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Why not seperate the 'advice' from the abortion? Have another organisation, with no vested interest, offering impartial and objective non-directive counselling.

The law is not being implemented as Parliament intended. The most frequently used clause of the Act requires two medical practitioners to be of the opinion that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.

Risk of physical or mental injury -not passing distress or discomfort. How many abortions have ever been declined as not meeting this legal requirement?

Abortion has effectively become another method of birth control!

5 August 2011 at 16:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie,

I am quite confused by your comment. You begin by saying

those women that really have to abort and those who have made up their minds to

Those who have simply made up their minds, should surely wish their decision to be an informed decision. So why not inform them? Is it the informed part of the decision you are objecting to?

But you also mention those who "really have to abort", but then you say:

But in both cases had there been an easy route to adoption discussed and available then maybe one or both might have taken this option.

But isn't that the point? We can all accept that women can find themselves pregnant and feel unable to cope with the baby. But it doesn't follow that they need an abortion. Please don't assume that those of us who oppose abortion are incapable of being sympathetic to the mother.

So in the two cases you mention - either adoption was mentioned in the counselling or it wasn't. If it was, the women went ahead with the abortion for invalid reasons - in which case it is highly likely that they will feel terrible remorse. If their children learn what their mother has done, the effect on them could be bad too (lucky it wasn't me in the womb at that time, they might think).

If adoption wasn't mentioned, then the abortionists carried out the abortion without properly informing the woman of the real options. They took the fee though. This ought to be a crime against the woman.

5 August 2011 at 16:19  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

It is a shame when the argument of emotional blackmail is used to stop people from hearing the objective truth. We’ve been here before. In 2008 Planned Parenthood appealed for a stay of South Dakota’s law of informed consent. The law stipulated that a woman be informed that abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being and Planned Parenthood had argued that the law was a violation of free speech. The court ruled that Planned Parenthood had not provided enough evidence to prove that the statement was not true. The state attorney added that ordering a professional to tell the truth is not a violation of the First Amendment.

5 August 2011 at 16:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marie1797

How uncomfortable for the women you give as examples. Possible financial hardship and an unreliable boyfriend.

That's okay though. Just quietly murder the child in the womb and forget it was ever there.

What's wrong with a sense of shame?

5 August 2011 at 16:38  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

Greg Tingey said...
"So called "pro-life" so-called "charities" are nothing of the sort. They are anti-female, msogynistic religious bigots, usually RC bigots."

Have you returned to the Church of Rome Archbishop Cranmer?

5 August 2011 at 16:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"'Pro-choice’ (ie pro-abortion) charities in cahoots with The Guardian ought to come as no surprise."

What's in a name. Is it really pro-abortion? I support the provision of abortion but I hardly look forward it to happening. The opposite camp, because that's really what they are for the most part, are not pro-life so much as anti-abortion. Or perhaps anti-abortion-for-religious-reasons. I'm actually a pro-life, pro-choice person as the recent capital punishment comments show. And some here are anti-life, anti-abortion people as also shown there.

5 August 2011 at 16:57  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Marie1797

Surely you should start with the question. Is abortion a morally acceptable act? Many here would say no it isn’t and that’s the end of it. They don’t care about the problems associated with denying it. I take a different line. I also think that abortion is not morally acceptable but neither is bringing an unwanted child into this world.

The decision to become a parent is the most important one that we will ever make and we should ensure that our kids understand this so that they are fully prepared emotionally and financially when their turn comes around.

The idea that sex should only take place within marriage is barmy. Just say no is not an option. We are biologically programmed to mate and that is what we will do, it was ever thus. But we are in the fortunate position now that women can control their fertility and using contraception can generally avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

The solution is to educate youngsters about contraception and their moral responsibility of avoiding pregnancy. Abortion is a gruesome business at any stage and youngsters should be under no illusion as to what is involved.

However if a woman becomes pregnant and wants an abortion she should not be denied it. In The examples that you quote no amount of counselling will alter her decision but I think a doctor has a moral obligation to inform a woman about the procedure that she is about to undertake.

5 August 2011 at 17:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

To Albert 16:19

“Those who have simply made up their minds, should surely wish their decision to be an informed decision. So why not inform them? Is it the informed part of the decision you are objecting to?”

There are those who have to abort out of health reasons and those who are carrying such a disabled child that it would not survive for long after birth, then there are those who are forced to by their pimp and have no say. Others who make decisions to abort will have thought responsibly about how they are going to cope with a new child taking into consideration the wider environment. Finances, support network of family and friends, accommodation and her health. Not on if the hoover method is going to harm her or not or the menstrual regulation will damage her. There are only two choices to have it or not.

“So in the two cases you mention - either adoption was mentioned in the counselling or it wasn't. If it was, the women went ahead with the abortion for invalid reasons - in which case it is highly likely that they will feel terrible remorse. If their children learn what their mother has done, the effect on them could be bad too (lucky it wasn't me in the womb at that time, they might think).”

Correct, and I don't think my friend was or is ever planning to telling her other 4 children about her personal decisions to abort.

“If adoption wasn't mentioned, then the abortionists carried out the abortion without properly informing the woman of the real options. They took the fee though. This ought to be a crime against the woman.”

No Albert, adoption was not mentioned at all that was the point I was trying to make had it (not just a mention but a discussion and advice, even a referral been discussed then I think one or both may have gone along this route. They didn't know it was available to them. The clinic took the fees before the abortion was carried out.

If anything it should be a crime against the clinic not the woman. If however they had been advised and a referral to an adoption agency been given and the woman not attended then you could say that the onus would have rested with the woman. But to class them as criminals for not turning up to an appointment for adoption would not be fair or just either.

5 August 2011 at 17:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Graham,

The idea that sex should only take place within marriage is barmy. Just say no is not an option. We are biologically programmed to mate and that is what we will do, it was ever thus.

Do you mean to say we are incapable of saying no?

The solution is to educate youngsters about contraception and their moral responsibility of avoiding pregnancy.

We've had that for years and all we've had is higher pregnancy rates than in the days when people were expected to just say no.

However if a woman becomes pregnant and wants an abortion she should not be denied it.

But you've just said it's morally wrong. Is it morally right to do what is morally wrong? How can any moral language have any meaning in that case?

5 August 2011 at 17:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marie1797
Didn't know about adoption? Do me a favour!

Graham Davis
Abortion rates have risen alongside contraception, and so have STI's. Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe and ranks way up there in abortions and infections.

But that's okay, we're animals, just biologically programmed to rut.

5 August 2011 at 17:21  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Anonymous,

I am not in the pro-abortion camp, for religious and philosopjical reasons, but I'm not comfortable with declaring Marie's position as one based on craven expediency. She provided real examples of real people and they do not strike me as weakling malingerers aborting for the joy of it and to make in time with a flat belly for the Canary Islands cruise.

There is little to be gained in trying to frighten secular people with religion-based hobgoblins, inexpensive emotional PR dressed as logical and factual arguments. The better, but much more work-intensive method, I still think, would be to secure an economy which values children, to struggle for a society which sees them as the precious and delightful miracles they all are, and to insist on social policies which make having children a rewarding experience rather than a life-wrecking catastrophe or a drain on ones family. Not easy, but whoever is serious about the reducing or eliminating abortion needs to know that short of unlikely legislative bans, forced mass conversions and re-education, or draconian prevention measures and persecutions, really has no hope in affecting this problem by any other means.

5 August 2011 at 17:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

But saying allthat, there are some reckless young girls who are part of the new generation ladette culture who think they can be the same as men. They use abortion as birth control. Those should be targeted with the emotional guilt trip method and made to think about their actions more.

5 August 2011 at 17:23  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie,

adoption was not mentioned at all that was the point I was trying to make

I realise that was the point you were trying to make. As far as I can see, all your argument shows is that abortion should only be acceptable in cases such as

abort out of health reasons and those who are carrying such a disabled child that it would not survive for long after birth, then there are those who are forced to by their pimp and have no say

So where adoption is possible and there are no pressing health issues for mother and baby, abortion is immoral - is that your view?

5 August 2011 at 17:25  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

To Graham 17:03
“but I think a doctor has a moral obligation to inform a woman about the procedure that she is about to undertake. “

There were both informed by their Dr's of the medical procedure that was carried out (vacuum and a D&C not sure if they do that anymore) and a choice of local anaesthetic or being put to sleep with an over night stay given. The latter being more expensive. The 19 yr old chose an epidural as an out patient and said it was like a meat market where she had hers on the day.

5 August 2011 at 17:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

"Presently, the Government only funds abortion providers (Marie Stopes, BPAS) if the abortion proceeds"

A revelation to the Inspector General. He suspects that godless feminists are behind this heartless
condition - the same women who took a knife to traditional family values in this country...

5 August 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Anon 17:21
“Didn't know about adoption? Do me a favour! “

Well in Stevenage Herts and Harlow Essex it was not brought up anywhere at the time and none of us thought about that option. With busy lives and the pressure of an unwanted unplanned pregnancy, and in the 19 yr olds case a “boyfriend” who pressured her into abortion it was overlooked.

Now thinking about it maybe if there was separate counselling as Dodo has suggested and adoption given as an option for the lady to think about and go down I am sure you will find that by accepting this route it will take the pressure off the unwanted pregnancy situation and by the time the 12 wk or 24 wk ( it should be reduced to 20 wks imo) date arrives the woman just might have had time to think and bond with the baby to such a degree that she ends up finding a way to keep it and if not a lucky childless couple will benefit instead at the end.

5 August 2011 at 18:26  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

To Albert 17:25
“So where adoption is possible and there are no pressing health issues for mother and baby, abortion is immoral - is that your view?”

Yes Albert, abortion it is immoral really when you think about it. BUT on the other hand thinking about how the population is exploding and the earth’s resources are diminishing or rather how human beings are mishandling, destroying and wasting the earth’s resources can it sustain an ever increasing population or are we reaching saturation? Therefore, could abortion be classed as a responsible thing to do if one cannot afford and has to rely on the state to feed, house and educate another mouth?

5 August 2011 at 18:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie,

it was not brought up anywhere at the time and none of us thought about that option

I can sympathise with that - though it shows what has happened to our society. Before 1967 adoption would be the first thought, now it is abortion.

adoption given as an option for the lady to think about and go down I am sure you will find that by accepting this route it will take the pressure off the unwanted pregnancy situation

That indicates that the "abortion service" is not in fact working in the women's best interests. Clearly, they are not working in the best interests of the child - or of childless couples. So whose best interests are they working in?

Could it be their own? If it isn't, why after over 40 years of legalised abortion with for many years over 500 abortions a day, haven't they got it right?

The fact that they get paid for the abortion doesn't help to get rid of the feeling that there is something sleezy and self-serving about the whole "industry".

5 August 2011 at 19:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie

abortion it is immoral really when you think about it. BUT on the other hand thinking about how the population is exploding and the earth’s resources are diminishing or rather how human beings are mishandling, destroying and wasting the earth’s resources can it sustain an ever increasing population or are we reaching saturation? Therefore, could abortion be classed as a responsible thing to do if one cannot afford and has to rely on the state to feed, house and educate another mouth

Of course, we could just bump off all the old people and the sick. But a more responsible attitude to sex might be a simpler and more moral solution.

5 August 2011 at 19:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

"But a more responsible attitude to sex might be a simpler and more moral solution."

I with you on this one, Albert. No sex before marriage...

5 August 2011 at 19:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Albert and Marie

But what about keeping up with the Islamic birthrate?

5 August 2011 at 19:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Albert 19:02

Spot on again Albert, abortion is today's thinking not adoption you're right. I took Julie my friend to the Epping branch on the Fri afternoon as her hubby working and
lovely building, very nice ward must cost a bit I thought at the time. It was NHS funded but she also had to pay only a few hundred pounds. They don't really care about the women although the staff were nice. There were 8 in patients in her ward. There must have been other wards and outpatient terminations done too. Next day hubby collected her by 11am with the next lot due in for 4 pm again. She said it's like a conveyor belt.

They have got it right for Marie Stope's bank balance I'd say. She must be minted or the organisation anyway.

5 August 2011 at 19:37  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

I appreciate the contributions to this debate of those who are not religious. They do not see this world as being perfect and so genuinely search for solutions to offer help to people in difficulties. Those of us who do believe in God also do not see the current world as being perfect but we are also wanting to help people in difficulties. However, we take the view that those actions which break God’s law do not in the end produce peace and contentment. We take the view that to do an evil act for the best of reasons is wrong and will eventually produce evil consequences. We also believe that sinfulness changes the world we live in and for example the violence we see on our streets and the social disintegration we see in our societies are the result of sin. I think there is a correlation between the killing we do in our hospitals and violence in our societies. To quote “Rabbie Burns”, Scotland’s national poet “The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley.” Obviously people of goodwill have to make laws to the best of their abilities but if those laws are made in accordance with God’s laws, he will bless our nations and bring us peace. I hope our non-religious people in this debate will recognize our motivations if they are tempted to accuse us of insensitivity. Thank you to those who don't

5 August 2011 at 19:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Now that alone is worth ruling against abortion!

5 August 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 August 2011 at 19:50  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Much of the pro-abortion argument rests on the perception, not, in fact supported by medical evidence, that a foetus is unaware and does not have a developed nervous system until it is capable of existing outside the womb. I find it interesting that the ancient Chinese consider the "birth" date to be the date of conception, calculated by working backwards from the date of birth and pretty accurately arriving at the start of gestation. This belief is still current in China.

The perception that the mother's "right of choice" outweighs the feotus' right to life is a modern one, arising out of the neo-Darwinian belief that humans are simply animals and have no consciousness or existence until they are born. Again, numerous medical studies have shown that even at a very early stage - even before limbs or identifiable organs are fully formed, a feotus responds to distress and other stimuli.

Leaving aside the religious question of the existence of a soul, science is thus far unable to give a coherent answer on what it is that makes the difference between a mere "collection of cells" and a developing feotus which responds as described.

As a person of faith, I am deeply disturbed by the drift toward a system which decides arbitrarily that a feotus has no rights and is not a "living being" and is completely at the mercy of the whim of the mother - or, as in the case cited earlier - of a feckless father whose use of his "carnal partner" was inconvenienced by the pregnancy.

Birth control is one thing, it interferes with the conception process and prevents conception, abortion is a different matter entirely.

As for the "Pro-Choice" Charity "investigation" that was a bit like asking an Atheist to comment on the value of the Christian Faith. I'm sure the questions were loaded, leading and carefully recorded so the Grauniad could do its hatchet job. I'm willing to bet though that the leading questions have not been recorded and would not stand up to close scrutiny as being designed to be "balanced" or "fair."

Someone should repay the comliment and send a "mystery shopper" through the Pro-Choice" process and then report how "balanced" they are. But then an ice age is more likley in Hell than that to happen or receive the same exposure.

5 August 2011 at 20:02  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

They did. See my earlier contribution.

5 August 2011 at 20:21  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Following on from Gray Monk’s contribution, Abby Johnson was a director for years at Planned Parenthood who recently defected. She changed her mind when she was asked to hold the ultrasound device so that the doctor doing the abortion could direct the needle at the babies heart. You should read her book because what she saw was the baby desperately trying to escape and the doctor flippantly remarking that he was trying to get away. Now that section of her book is emotional – it make you want to weep.

5 August 2011 at 20:28  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Grey Monk said ...
"Birth control is one thing, it interferes with the conception process and prevents conception, abortion is a different matter entirely."

No,no, no.

The pill, the most common form of contraception, allows conception and the creation of new life. It works by preventing a fertilised egg attaching and staying attached to the mother's womb. Actually, it is a form of early abortion - just like the morning after pill.

There is a natural form of birth control - the Billings method - and nowadays it is very effective. Mind you it does require a period of 5 days abstinence once a month.

5 August 2011 at 20:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The perception that the mother's "right of choice" outweighs the feotus' right to life is a modern one, arising out of the neo-Darwinian belief that humans are simply animals and have no consciousness or existence until they are born."

That's a neo-Darwinian belief? Blimey.

"Again, numerous medical studies have shown that even at a very early stage - even before limbs or identifiable organs are fully formed, a feotus responds to distress and other stimuli."

Many plants 'perceive' sunlight, you know, as time-lapse cinematography shows. Think on that when you eat a lettuce leaf. :O

5 August 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Anon

But what about keeping up with the Islamic birthrate?

Yes, I suspect that the widespread use of contraception and abortion has done more than anything to bring the West under Sharia Law.

5 August 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Shacklefree: "Obviously people of goodwill have to make laws to the best of their abilities but if those laws are made in accordance with God’s laws, he will bless our nations and bring us peace."

I expect proponents of Sharia argue much the same thing unfortunately.

5 August 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie,

Thank you for your comments on this subject. You write from a level of experience that I suspect many of the rest of us (certainly myself) lack.

5 August 2011 at 20:41  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Dodo, you are right, but there in fact "pills" that prevent ovulation and therefore the likelihood of conception.

The bottom line is really that, in a secular society, humans are nothing more than supposedly the most 'intelligent' animals around. As long as the "rights" of the individual are given primacy we will have these moral dilemmas.

Attempts to regulate "morality" always fail, because they lack any "moral" underpinning. It is salutory to remind those in favour of "free will abortion on demand" that the societies which have killed the most citizens in the last 200 years have all been secular and driven by the concept of "Man the God."

5 August 2011 at 20:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Many plants 'perceive' sunlight, you know, as time-lapse cinematography shows. Think on that when you eat a lettuce leaf. :O

Unless I am much mistaken the kind of movements a child shows in the womb are the kinds of movements that help us to see the child is not in fact a plant.

I expect proponents of Sharia argue much the same thing unfortunately

Does the fact that some people have used science to justify immoral acts mean science is not to be trusted?

5 August 2011 at 20:47  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

I just wondered if you will threaten other posters who speak in favour of abortion, and therefore murder, with expulsion from your blog, as you recently (incorrectly) threatened me for suggesting that traitors should be shot?

Perhaps you will simply ignore this question, as you have many others of mine in recent weeks, in the hope that they will go away?

Questions like: Why do you ask people to vote for the Cons, when you admit that Cameron is a liar?

If I (and I dare say you) were the First Minister, GB would be a very different place.

Why do you persist with this Conservative folly?

What, pray tell, is Cameron conserving? (His own arse excepted, obviously)

why do you display such apparent dislike for those that pray a change for the better?

Order me to leave, and you'll never see me again.

5 August 2011 at 20:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Unless I am much mistaken the kind of movements a child shows in the womb are the kinds of movements that help us to see the child is not in fact a plant."

Luckily, that wasn't what I was suggesting at all. Phew. Now we've immediately zoomed to the outer extremities with that, in typical forum fashion, it can only get better from there.

5 August 2011 at 20:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"I just wondered if you will threaten other posters who speak in favour of abortion, and therefore murder, with expulsion from your blog, as you recently (incorrectly) threatened me for suggesting that traitors should be shot?"

Meat is murder too, in a vegan's way of thinking. Anyway, you can hardly complain about a blog owner tidying up his blog comments of nominal incitements to proper, unlawful killing of people. We have internet-oriented laws in the UK in this area you know, arising originally from Godfrey vs Demon Internet.

5 August 2011 at 21:00  
Blogger English Viking said...

Why is it that if an 'embryo' is birthed and survives, at 24 weeks, it is a person, an human, a living soul, but if it is aborted (murdered) at 25 weeks, it was merely a blob of goo, a foetus, a kind of freak, that is best done without?

It is a wickedness that surpasses almost all others to kill a babe in the womb, else force it forth and slay it in the kidney dish.

Your Grace,

I await your most esteemed reply. Your will shall be diligently obeyed.

5 August 2011 at 21:04  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

You have interrupted a conversation (well, I'm still waiting, but perhaps he is indisposed) between two which suppose themselves Christian.

Therefore, I trust you will agree, that your rules, your rights and wrongs, your morals, hold no sway between His Grace and myself?

For example, Noah is told most clearly that he is permitted to eat meat, and the NT states that those who would forbid the eating of meat are not to be trusted.

I note that you are not Christian, and therefore not bound by these rules (in your thinking), so I would be grateful if you did not try to supplant Christian theology with your own, godless, philosophy.

Most grateful, old chap.

BTW I hope you have noticed that I am one of the only posters to correctly pronounce your name.

5 August 2011 at 21:12  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I find it strange how we have become so immersed in popular ,sex liberation culture , yes sex sells things and sex buys things , but we seem to arrived at more of market when discussing ,the subject , of which abortion is part of it.

I have said before that as someone who enjoyed the seemingly guilt free , role of modern man , that sex is so like a commodity these days (and in days gone by perhaps before mass visual image reproduction/transmission processes were invented), that you would struggle to find many people who arent protrayed as odd , if they put a religous value on sex.

Abortion in this context shows how it has become so much part of the culture . In some other countries having baby girls or boys results in planned deaths , depending on the culture of dowry , but in the UK context abortion is showing us somthing of the value of sex over more family centric ways of life .

I have often wondered what the figure would be if we counted the morning after pill induced ones.

In abortion we are perhaps persecuting the end result of a powerfull ideaology , which no one seems able to speak of , as sex seems to one fabian idea we cannot draw away from as a society , in part because abortion and birth control have changed the moral code of sex , in that one can destroy the creative results of sex , so as to make ones own life fit societys norms or inconveience .

It is perhaps more of tragedy that the roles of love , marriage and sex , no longer seem to have any order/imperative in indivduals minds , or that the god derived concience can be shown to be any better than wayward instant gratifiction hedonism.

We harp on about the consequences like as though in another era and yet no goverment has changed , what was basically a side discovery on pharmalogical advances out of reasoned fear of loss to market forces .

5 August 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Luckily, that wasn't what I was suggesting at all.

Obviously that wasn't what you were suggesting. My point though is to suggest that your analogy isn't strong enough to be morally significant.

5 August 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "Therefore, I trust you will agree, that your rules, your rights and wrongs, your morals, hold no sway between His Grace and myself?"

Ah, you're thinking His Grace was solely making a moral point rather than at least partly a legal one? Perhaps he was. If I were he then I would be making the legal one too, or at least deleting comments like that.

"I note that you are not Christian, and therefore not bound by these rules (in your thinking), so I would be grateful if you did not try to supplant Christian theology with your own, godless, philosophy."

You have described me, albeit as part of wider society, as an advocate of murder. Therefore, back at you with the supplanting thing. It's not unreasonable that I respond since I am not an advocate of murder. I have the law on my side too, the real one I mean.

"BTW I hope you have noticed that I am one of the only posters to correctly pronounce your name."

I have, thank you. Including the zero!

5 August 2011 at 21:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"My point though is to suggest that your analogy isn't strong enough to be morally significant."

It was simply that what might appear to be the actions of a conscious, experiencing thing may not be at all.

5 August 2011 at 22:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

In the case of the plant, the 'perception' is completely distributed, being at the cell level. Well, at least as far as we know. I suppose there may be a consciousness, which is related to or part of an eternal being with a special type of existence which we can't describe, overlaying the plant but in a separate dimension which we don't know exists but might be useful in explaining plant perception in some vague way.

5 August 2011 at 22:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

English Viking

Welcome back.

Did you enjoy your walk in the woods?

5 August 2011 at 22:22  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Albert why is it do you think that adoption has become old fashioned and outdated in general? Is it because society wanted to move away from the unmarried mothers stigma of the 50's and 60's? Well it's gone too far now. women who want to or have to give their children up for adoption should not be stigmatised and thought less of than those who choose to be single mothers and have many children by different fathers with the state picking up the tab.

Adoption should be as much of a 21st century buzz word and choice as abortion in order to balance things out a bit. AS Carl said the other day a “change in the political/social consciousness” is required not only for immigration but on other levels too.

I love this blog and all it's communicants, it's so thought provoking and illuminating, I try and translate what is suggested and discussed into real life situations.

5 August 2011 at 22:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem here is that the provision of information and the provision of counselling are two separate functions and should not be confused. Counselling should be about helping the client find the best solution for themselves once they have all relevant information. That might be continuing with the pregnancy and keeping the baby, or adoption or abortion.

Counselling is always about the client; it is not and should never be about the counsellor imposing a personal agenda. Counsellors who cannot accept this, whatever side of the fence they are on, should recognise their limitations and not work in this field.

And I trust all those on this thread writing in support of full information being given to women considering abortion, include information on the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

5 August 2011 at 22:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie

why is it do you think that adoption has become old fashioned and outdated in general?

I worry it is because it is more personally costly than abortion. Abortion gives the impression of quick fix (though whether women really think it is that I couldn't say). But adoption is personally costly. There's the cost of being pregnant. The cost of giving birth. The fear that one will be too attached to the child when it is born. What will friends and relations say? Better that it never happens.

I think abortion gives the impression that a woman can behave as if she never fell pregnant. She wishes life could return to normal - much in the same way as we wish that when a loved one dies. Abortion gives the impression that life can return to normal, at limited cost.

IMO once the child is conceived, she has a responsibility (as does anyone who can help). It is not the kind of responsibility that says she must look after the baby herself, but that she (and those who can help) should seek to ensure the baby is looked after.

5 August 2011 at 22:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Anon

Counselling is always about the client

Not completely no. What about a child protection situation? IMO abortion is a child protection situation. That places a completely different complexion on things.

5 August 2011 at 22:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Marie1797

I completely agree with your points about adoption and how it
has slipped from public consciousness.

Is it because we live in a fast paced, throw away society? A culture that is about bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger bank accounts and the credit card and debt.

Parenthood itself has become devalued. Rather than being one of the reasons for marrying or forming life long partnerships, it is deferred in favour of consumption and career advance. Once the 'time is right' the number of the children is decided - income, career, finance, social and economic advancement etc.

Sexual relationships outside of marriage, extra-marital affairs included, are casual and exclusively for pleasure. Within marriage the "consequences" are avoided.

In this climate is it any wonder abortion is growing? Might this negative view of parenthood also cause adoption to decline as a choice for a pregnant woman? Why carry the child, a sign of 'failure', and have to face handing him or her over to a stranger?

In the days before the pill and the legalisation of abortion, the unplanned, pre-marital pregnancy was disapproved of and carried stigma. There would be real and pressing reasons to seek out a illegal person to abort a child.

Adoption of babies was more common too with children either taken away or the mother handing over her child because she was just unable to raise a child.

Both options required painfull thought and painful actions. It is not so anymore.

5 August 2011 at 23:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Albert, your belief that abortion is a child protection issue is just that, your belief. Holding it would, in my opinion, make you an unsuitable counsellor to help a woman explore her options and reach the right decision for her.

Counsellors should always discuss the limits of confidentiality with potential clients. This includes what course of action will be followed if the counsellor is told or suspects current, on-going child abuse as defined by the law.

5 August 2011 at 23:27  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Have as many kids as possible, because the State at some point has to decide who's kids votes they need.

The State has a place in advising, I just don't trust their advice.

I we cannot support our own, then WHY do we have Socialism?

5 August 2011 at 23:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I know that I am vile.

I have said things that I had naught.

In my heart, I am a very bad man.

I am so very sorry.

Really.

For all that I am, was, will be or hope to be,

Christ has paid.


How terrible that I should put Him up there.

6 August 2011 at 00:07  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

English Viking

Don't be silly, you're hot heated and to the point. Not quite an erudite style but wouldn't the world be boring if we were all the same reasonable, logical people? As you know I'm not adverse to the odd unrestrained comment.

As you helpully pointed out to me, it is bad form to criticise and challenge the host of this blog. In any event the odds are stacked against anyone trying!

Back to abortion. You asked Mr Cranmer:

"I just wondered if you will threaten other posters who speak in favour of abortion, and therefore murder, with expulsion from your blog, as you recently (incorrectly) threatened me for suggesting that traitors should be shot?"

See what's wrong with this is, like it or not, foetus have no rights in law. None. Whereas, the people you were exhorting be summarily executed have rights of a trial,representation and, even if found guilty, will not be executed by the State.

You just cannot go around being so brazenly intollerant of other cultures, creeds and races. And you certainly cannot encourage 'direct action'.

We all crucify Christ on a daily basis by our failures. He knows, understands and forgives.

6 August 2011 at 00:28  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

My walk was pleasant. If you count - 23 as pleasant. I am such a puff, I could not take what Scott thought was a bagatelle.

How very nice that you should enquire.

I swing, very often, between doing what is good in this life, and jumping to the next, in a brutal fashion.

Again, how nice, that a person, whom I have in times past been more than a little spiteful to, should enquire after my well-being.

Before I became Christian, I had a lot of bad thoughts.

After (becoming Christian), it got a lot, lot worse.

God bless you Dodo; You are the same as me. A big-mouth for your religion.

One day, we'll know which one of us was correct - if any.

6 August 2011 at 00:36  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Albert said ...

"IMO abortion is a child protection situation."

I quite agree - in a morally ordered world this would be self evident.

However, the law confers no rights on a foetus and so there is no child to be protected.

6 August 2011 at 00:37  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

English Viking

Christ brings peace.

'Bad' thoughts or 'good' thoughts, they all play a part in our spiritual growth. At least you can recognise the difference and the need to change. That's the real difference once Christ is with you.

6 August 2011 at 00:45  
Blogger English Viking said...

Why is it wrong to indiscriminately attack, maim and kill an adult, when it is OK to literally cut a little baby to bits?

His Grace has asked me not to post links:

Perhaps he will let the truth slip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I

6 August 2011 at 00:50  
Blogger English Viking said...

I have some,really bad vids, of little ones chopped up in the name of 'choice'.

If His Grace will permit, I will post.

And people think I'm mad!

For a man to face another, knowing one will die, is one thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNNlRM765q8&list=FL6VciOwAUVsI&index=30

For a man to kill a baby is another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66VsbouZSes&feature=related


Surely we must lay down everything to protect a little one?

Oh, I forgot, I'm vorboten.

Your Grace,

I await ypur answer.

The longer you procrastinate, the more you appear irrelevant.

6 August 2011 at 01:14  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

If Jews and Gentiles want to resist the Banksters, then we have live by nature.

It makes no sence to spend money on abortion and money on ivf, when the Socialist State cannot cope.

6 August 2011 at 02:29  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

English Viking, You seem to view yourself as a sinner. Join the club my friend.

6 August 2011 at 04:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "However, the law confers no rights on a foetus and so there is no child to be protected."

There's an inherent problem giving equal rights to life to the mother and foetus when the foetus cannot exist independently of the mother for much of its development and their wellbeing has dependencies.

The law is not quite a ruthless as you say though the practice is probably not as strict as originally intended.

It is illegal for someone to abort a foetus except on the grounds specified. That is, abortion has not been legalised, rather there have been legal defenses provided.

6 August 2011 at 07:51  
Blogger len said...

EV this might be of interest to you.

The Holy Spirit asked me to withdraw from 'discussions' with Dodo.No explanation was given but I obeyed.

Then yesterday the Holy Spirit gave me revelation.Which was;
Satan reigns in the 'area of the flesh' and that is why he attempts to pull Christians back into this area.
When we are 'in Christ'Satan cannot follow us and has nothing with which to accuse us .
Satan therefore encourages discord and division.It is a trap we can all easily fall into and I battle with this myself.
It is a very fine line between defending the faith and being pulled back into the 'flesh'(which all Christians battle with and only Christ can subdue.


All the best EV and Dodo.

6 August 2011 at 08:30  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Danj0, It may be true to say that the law in this country does not confer rights on a foetus but that does not mean that there is no child to be protected. Human law over the centuries has been very fickle legalizing, in different places, such things as the Caste system, slavery and human sacrifice. However if we look with objective eyes and observe an ultrasound picture of the foetus we can see it sucking its thumb and futily attempting to avoid the doctors needle. It clearly knows what is coming and tries to escape.

6 August 2011 at 10:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Shacklefree: "It clearly knows what is coming and tries to escape."

Hmmmmmmmmm.

You realise that before a certain stage of development there is no forebrain at all, right? And at others there is no brain at all, right?

Now, one might imagine a floaty consciousness thing from the moment of conception existing in another dimension beyond the reach of science but, really, we're talking about how we go on in the real world here with a diverse population.

The forebrain is where we locate higher-order stuff like cognition. The brain stem is associated with reflexive functions, like breathing and heartbeat. That is core stuff from our very distant evolutionary past.

6 August 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Anon,

Albert, your belief that abortion is a child protection issue is just that, your belief. Holding it would, in my opinion, make you an unsuitable counsellor to help a woman explore her options and reach the right decision for her.

But your belief that abortion is not a child protection issue is just that, your belief. Holding it would, in my opinion, make you an unsuitable counsellor to help a woman explore her options and reach the right decision for her.

There's no neutrality on this one and it is dangerously naive to imagine there is.

6 August 2011 at 11:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

There's an inherent problem giving equal rights to life to the mother and foetus when the foetus cannot exist independently of the mother for much of its development and their wellbeing has dependencies.

But the child cannot exist independently after birth either. Therefore, if equality of right to life rests on the capacity for independent existence, you would have to deny it to new-borns and probably extend infanticide quite a long way through childhood. Which of course is what the most consistent pro-abortionists do say.

It is illegal for someone to abort a foetus except on the grounds specified.

But given that one of those grounds is that the pregnancy must be a threat to the woman's health, abortion is, for all practical purposes available on demand up to a certain gestation limit.

That's pretty ruthless - especially when you factor in the fact that it allows the child to be killed if the child is disabled.

6 August 2011 at 11:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually, the best I can suggest is to dig out and read some medical-oriented links, rather anti-abortionist ones, about brain development and work out what exists at certain points and what is happening where.

Also, look at adult behaviours in other animals we interact with, such as dogs, and see how we interpret them on a day to day basis, such as licking means love for us etc, and consider what they actually mean.

I need to scoot I reckon before that American Catholic anti-abortion propaganda merchant rocks up again with his scrapbook and deliberate misquoting. I haven't any patience with that.

6 August 2011 at 11:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Albert: "But the child cannot exist independently after birth either."

I seem to be having problems presenting nuanced meanings with you these days, and not particularly that nuanced either. I'll leave what I wrote exactly as it is I think.

6 August 2011 at 11:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

I seem to be having problems presenting nuanced meanings with you these days, and not particularly that nuanced either. I'll leave what I wrote exactly as it is I think.

Funny that. You do tend to do that. Instead of choosing to strength or defend your position by clarifying it, you blame me and run away. I wonder why.

6 August 2011 at 11:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"I wonder why."

Ha. The answer is I have no patience walking you through your tangents so you can look for an opportunity, any opportunity, to try it on. Cannae be arsed most of the time now. Didn't I make that pretty clear last time when you admitted what you were actually about? On yer way.

6 August 2011 at 12:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Perhaps it's me that's being unclear here, now. What I'm inviting you to do is to express the general moral principle that enables you to say that the mother and child have unequal rights because of the question of the dependence of the child.

Otherwise, you leave the impression of being guilty of special pleading, in favour of the mother.

Didn't I make that pretty clear last time when you admitted what you were actually about?

What I admitted last time was that I was interested in seeing whether, after so many unpleasant comments towards other people, your own position stands up to rational analysis. That's what's a stake on this one again.

6 August 2011 at 12:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"That's what's a stake on this one again."

Oh I really don't think so. Jog on.

6 August 2011 at 12:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Oh I really don't think so. Jog on

Well Dan, I am unaware of any moral principle which says our rights diminish according to our dependency. Normally, we treat the dependent with greater care and compassion. But you seem to want to turn that on its head. So what is the moral principle you are defending?

6 August 2011 at 12:47  
Blogger English Viking said...

Len,

Thank you.

Romans 7 v 24

6 August 2011 at 18:20  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...

"The Holy Spirit asked me to withdraw from 'discussions' with Dodo.No explanation was given but I obeyed."

The same Holy Spirit who prompted you to deny the Word of God as written by St Paul? The same Holy Spirit who led you to doubt the Triune nature of God?

6 August 2011 at 19:10  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

English Viking

Roman's 7:24

6 August 2011 at 19:12  
Blogger len said...

EV, that is precisely it!.

6 August 2011 at 21:32  
Blogger len said...

Oswald Chambers: "Until we are born again, [this is] the only temptation we understand. But by regeneration we are lifted into another realm where we face the kind of temptations Our Lord faced... Satan does not tempt us to do wrong things, he tempts us in order to make us lose... the possibility of being of value to God... Temptation is a suggested short-cut to the realization of the highest at which I aim--not at what I understand as evil, but towards what I understand as good... [At this point Satan] does not come along the line of tempting us to sin, but on the line of shifting the point of view, and only the Spirit of God can reveal this as a temptation of the devil."

6 August 2011 at 21:39  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

To those it may concern ...

Let's break this down a little bit.

As a Roman Catholic I walk with Christ and have a personal relationship with Him as my saviour and brother. That's the central tenet on my faith. The rest springs from it.

I follow the 'rules' of the Catholic Church because I believe that's what Christ wants me to do. I believe this because I believe He said it.

So what are these rules that make the Church full of 'Pharisees'? In addition to living a Christian life, I am to receive the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, attend Mass on Sunday, receive Holy Communion at least once a year and to internally accept and follow the dogmatic doctrines and authoritative teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

I accept and I comply. Not a heavy cross to bear in serving Christ. I may not always understand the Church's teachings or its doctrines, yet I accept them. There are aspects of Roman Catholicism, in practice, that I do not fully agree with. People are people and have different needs at different times. Ritual, group prayer, asking for the intercession of Mary and the saints, splendid art and music, pilgrimages etc. all play a valid part in my religion. However, they are not mandatory. At its core it is quite simple.

Does any of this put distance between me and my personal relationship with Christ? Not at all. I witness to Him. I see Roman Catholicism as He lets me see it, in both its glory and poverty. Yet I believe it is still His Church, as human and broken as it has been and in its continual struggle against evil. I remain a member and will unto death. I will defend it from unfounded challenge.

I know the Roman Catholic Church will withstand evil and that with Christ I will too. How do I know this? Because Jesus told us.

6 August 2011 at 23:56  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Sorry to spoil the new-found peace, but:

Sacraments, confirmation, mass and Holy Communion.

Please explain where these things are requisite to a good Christian life, as laid out in the NT.

Ta very much.

Perhaps I should merely trust in the Christ, and forget all this other 'stuff''? I mean, if He had wanted salvation by works, He would have said so, surely?

7 August 2011 at 00:32  
Blogger English Viking said...

Len,

You'd be surprised how close we are.

The supposed difference comes mostly from your ability to control your mouth, an ability I sadly lack.

7 August 2011 at 00:35  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

English Viking

They are part of the Church's teaching and I accept them as such. They don't get in my way of my walk with Christ and I believe He gave authority and leadership to His visible Church.

I also believe all the doctrines and Sacraments of the Church have a biblical foundation. You don't. It's pointless batting back and forth, quoting scripture and disagreeing on interpretations. Neither one of us will accept the doctrines of the other.

7 August 2011 at 01:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If the Holy Spirit is having a quiet word with Len then why doesn't it to the rest of you? Or does it ... only it says different things because you lot differ on some very core things? It seems very odd to me. The nitty gritty of Len discussing with Dodo here seems rather trivial compared to whether the Pope is God's representative on earth or whether scripture is all one should use. Doesn't that bother you? It would to me if I were getting a radically different message in my personal relationship with god.

7 August 2011 at 08:20  
Blogger The Worker said...

Christians do not differ on the core essentials, Mr DanJ0.

They have in common a faith in Jesus Christ and His message. They also share essentially similiar beliefs on what leading a Christian life means.

7 August 2011 at 11:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Worker: "Christians do not differ on the core essentials, Mr DanJ0."

Christians used to burn other Christians alive essentially for not agreeing. Partly, I suppose, pour encourager les autres. Would you do that over mere detail?

7 August 2011 at 12:14  
Blogger len said...

The problem with 'Christians' is that if they were never 'born again' they cannot hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. They can(unfortunately ) be guided by all sorts of 'other spirits' and 'walk in the flesh'which is another term for following their 'natural impulses'.

And those who are genuinely 'born again'can disregard the voice of the Holy Spirit and 'walk in the flesh' (I include myself in this!)
The following by Oswald Chambers says this a lot better than I can put it.

7 August 2011 at 13:46  
Blogger len said...

"Quench not the Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 5:19

The voice of the Spirit is as gentle as a zephyr, so gentle that unless you are living in perfect communion with God, you never hear it. The checks of the Spirit come in the most extraordinarily gentle ways, and if you are not sensitive enough to detect His voice you will quench it, and your personal spiritual life will be impaired. His checks always come as a still small voice, so small that no one but the saint notices them.

Beware if in personal testimony you have to hark back and say - "Once, so many years ago, I was saved." If you are walking in the light, there is no harking back, the past is transfused into the present wonder of communion with God. If you get out of the light you become a sentimental Christian and live on memories, your testimony has a hard, metallic note. Beware of trying to patch up a present refusal to walk in the light by recalling past experiences when you did walk in the light. Whenever the Spirit checks, call a halt and get the thing right, or you will go on grieving Him without knowing it.

Suppose God has brought you up to a crisis and you nearly go through but not quite, He will engineer the crisis again, but it will not be so keen as it was before. There will be less discernment of God and more humiliation at not having obeyed; and if you go on grieving the Spirit, there will come a time when that crisis cannot be repeated, you have grieved Him away. But if you go through the crisis, there will be the pæan of praise to God. Never sympathize with the thing that is stabbing God all the time. God has to hurt the thing that must go;(end of quote)

Sorry for straying from the original topic Y G )

7 August 2011 at 13:48  
Blogger The Worker said...

Osward Chambers - a man of God throughout his short life. His writings are wonderfully uplifting and empty of critical and hostile attacks on other Christians.

7 August 2011 at 17:53  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Marie1797 said...So a counsellor telling her which method was going to be used and showing pics would probably have pushed her over the edge.

Marie: In reality it is abortion that pushes women over the edge (and the baby with her). Just look at the relative mortality rates for post abortive women due to suicide etc. Please read the testimonies of post abortive women at http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/ . As regards "showing pics", photos like this are all over the internet. She will inevitably see one anyway.

8 August 2011 at 16:36  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said... I need to scoot I reckon before that American Catholic anti-abortion propaganda merchant rocks up again with his scrapbook and deliberate misquoting.

Are you referring to me? If so thanks for the plug. I do hope you like the new site design.

8 August 2011 at 17:48  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

To CSPB
Don't get me wrong I'm not in favour of abortion but in some cases needs must.

Don't you think a woman already knows that she is killing a little human being especially if the woman has already brought children into the world. And I would imagine that troubles and sorrow would ensue if a young woman could not conceive again after having an abortion.

But I don't think in this country suicide is solely down to the guilt of having an abortion there will be other issues and problems attached. I think the site Rachael's Vineyard is making a feast out of it and capitalising on magnifying the guilt trip out of all proportion. My best friends in-turn had other friends who also had abortions and not just the one either and were fine. Of course there must be times in their lives when they think back, wonder and maybe cry to themselves but life goes on.


I think young women should be taught to be more responsible and that could be by also showing them as part of sex education in school the details of various abortions. But saying that when infatuated with a young lad they often think it wont happen to them. So when an unwanted pregnancy happens, they should be informed of all the options including adoption and not just the clinical methods available.

When our society changes and stops supporting this throwaway culture then I think abortions will decrease too.

8 August 2011 at 17:50  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Marie1797 said... "Don't you think a woman already knows that she is killing a little human being especially if the woman has already brought children into the world."

Marie,
I know many women who erroneously believe that a foetus it is merely a "blob of tissue". A foetus contains over 10^20 molecules and has the same order of complexity of an adult human.

"But I don't think in this country suicide is solely down to the guilt of having an abortion there will be other issues and problems attached."

However, many studies exist providing nearly irrefutable evidence that women who abort suffer depression, relationship problems, PTSD, elevated risks for abusing drugs, alcohol and committing suicide. These studies do take into account other factors. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/28/nat-6733/


"I think the site Rachael's Vineyard is making a feast out of it and capitalising on magnifying the guilt trip out of all proportion."

Can elaborate upon this statement or is it just a thought? I have met many women (including women in their 70's) who admit their lives have been destroyed by abortion.

"My best friends in-turn had other friends who also had abortions and not just the one either and were fine."

Just as some who smoke do not immediately suffer cancer. Bear in mind that post traumatic stress disorder can have a delayed onset. Often guilt is deeply suppressed. A Christian would worry about their "spiritual" health as well.

"I think young women should be taught to be more responsible."

If by responsible you mean practice the traditional virtues of modesty and chastity, I agree totally. But that might be difficult to arrange in UK public schools in which many teachers are themselves enmeshed in the current pagan culture.

If, on the other hand, you mean that students should be taught about birth control, statistics show that abortion and STD rates rise the more that contraception is promoted. The majority of women having abortions do so after a contraceptive failure. Moreover, as I have noted in previous threads, so called "pill" itself can act as an abortifacient by preventing implantation after fertilization. It is also extremely harmful to women and the environment. See the http://thepillkills.com/ for details.

8 August 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I don't think it's wise for organisations like yours to emotionally blackmail or instil all sorts of extreme fears into women about abortion and the possible after effects they may or may not experience when a lot of it is untrue and exaggerated. That's not a very Christian thing to do either now is it.

Neither do I think you should fixate on it and keep it in the minds of women who have had it done ensuring they never forget and therefore stopping them moving on is just as damaging. Will it stop an accident happing again possibly not, will it stop them having further unwanted pregnancies in the future possibly not.

Whilst it's nice to join a sympathetic community to share problems, yours is cashing in on their misfortune and is rather bleak. Have the counselling, but buy the books and the DVD's, watch the you tube videos, buy the music, go on the weekend, attend the conferences and iron the cardi is extremely unhealthy.

I think Danj0 has summed you up in a nut-shell.

8 August 2011 at 21:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abortion on demand is a fundamental right in a civilised society. The problem in this country is the number of babies being born to feckless scum who'll leech off the state for their entire lives; it is not the number of foetuses being aborted. It would be better that the women didn't fall pregnant but abortion is the next best thing.
I'm afraid I think there's something mentally deranged about you anti-abortion crackpots who equate the rights of a thing the size of a finger nail with those of a human being.

9 August 2011 at 07:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I see the usual pig ignorance on this topic has begun:

‘Abortion on demand is a fundamental right in a civilised society.’

The Termination of Pregnancy Act 1967 S.1 states that a pregnancy may be terminated if: ‘ two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith’.

Where is the right?

9 August 2011 at 09:33  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

To Marie1797,

You say (without evidence) that "I don't think it's wise for organizations like yours to emotionally blackmail or instill all sorts of extreme fears into women about abortion and the possible after effects they may or may not experience when a lot of it is untrue and exaggerated."

I cited two organizations. LifeSiteNews (in Canada)and Rachel's Vineyard, which now has branches worldwide. Can you please give me examples in which they systematically say something which is untrue or exaggerated?


You also claim that you do not think I should "fixate on it and keep it in the minds of women who have had it done ensuring they never forget and therefore stopping them moving on is just as damaging. "

Even if "I" ceased to "fixate" on the ongoing killing of the unborn — which I cannot in good conscience, current attempts to censor the pro-life position such as the jailing (for ten years) of Linda Gibbons in Canada and of Edward Atkinson in the UK are about as futile as trying to hide the sky. Do you believe in free speech?

The proven way to help both women and their babies is to make abortion illegal.

Finally, I would recommend that you do not place too much credence in the words of an anonymous troll.

9 August 2011 at 14:53  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Oh, and I forgot http://www.thepillkills.com/

9 August 2011 at 18:11  
Anonymous Angel eyes said...

Anonymous wrote... "I'm afraid I think there's something mentally deranged about you anti-abortion crackpots who equate the rights of a thing the size of a finger nail with those of a human being."

Whether you are pro life pro choice or somewhere in the middle WE ALL STARTED OUT THE SAME WAY. Yes at one time every one of us was in a womb and every one of us was at one time the size of a fingernail...
Surely anonymous you must be at least a little bit grateful that you are here to give your opinion and that you're not one of the statistics. How many of those finger nail sized human beings I wonder would have liked to have a say in this debate?

13 August 2011 at 14:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older