Thursday, April 18, 2013

Dr Kermit Gosnell – the silence of the mainstream media


From Brother Ivo (WARNING: THIS REPORT CONTAINS DISTURBING IMAGES)

Human beings seem to have a fascination with what might be called ‘the edges of humanity’.

Observed behaviours in the animal kingdom generate theories of how we came to be as we are: we are intrigued by stories or theories about Neanderthals or Bigfoot, and we are often invited to consider that animals are ‘just like us’. Many in the animal rights movement want to blur the distinction between the human and non-human, even to the extent of conferring legal rights upon other creatures of varying degrees of sentience.

There is a similar darker fascination at the other end of the spectrum.

We devour stories about inhuman ‘monsters’ like the Moors Murderers, Jeffrey Dahmer and Dr Joseph Mengele. And when there is insufficient news of the known, we are attracted to speculative accounts of Jack the Ripper, or fictionalise human depravity, thrilling ourselves with characters like Hannibal Lecter.

With such widespread appetite and market for the cruel, the bestial, the chilling and the macabre, it is all the more remarkable that the mainstream media in both the USA and the United Kingdom have passed up on one of the most horrifying criminal cases in recent history. It is the Philadelphia trial of Dr Kermit Gosnell.

It is a story more gruesome than that of Dr Harold Shipman or Mick Philpott, and has so many aspects of shock and horror that it seems almost inconceivable that it has not attracted the attention of the tabloid press which normally falls into a feeding-frenzy when offered such widespread evidence of greed, professional malpractice, illegality, exploitation, ghoulishness and moral vacuity.

According to the Grand Jury Report in The Atlantic the doctor earned over $1.5 million a year running a clinic whose hygienic standards would shame that of a third world slum doctor.

When the FBI entered the premises in 2010, they were shocked to find it had cat faeces on the floor, blood stains on the operating couches and unsterile instruments. He routinely infected patients during operations, some with venereal disease, because he used the same instruments on multiple patients without sterilising them between operations.

There was no tested oxygen machine, the key to the emergency exit had been lost, and the resuscitation equipment did not function.

WARNING: THIS REPORT CONTAINS DISTURBING IMAGES

The unqualified staff he employed have given first-hand evidence of how he set them work with inadequate training to anaesthetise his patients while he wasn't present. His drugs were often out-of-date and his staff, some as young as 15, had to manage with poor or no supervision. One of his staff described the way in which she delivered drugs and anaesthetic on a trial-and-error basis.

One of his patients died and over the years emergency treatment was needed as a result of errors that should not be made by any competent doctor. He had perforated bowels, bladders and wombs with his dirty instruments, leading to serious infection and complications. Despite a steady stream of grossly damaged women to the local hospitals, there appears to have been a conspiracy of silence among medical professionals, public health officials and, now, journalists in print and broadcast media alike.

His clinic had not been visited by health regulators for 17 years. Had they done so, his ‘house of horror’ would have been discovered earlier.

He segregated his waiting rooms, so that the white patients were marginally better managed. That, in today's world, would normally guarantee front-page news.

He photographed his women patients’ genitals on his camera phone, ostensibly for ‘research purposes’ which he never published, and for which he had not received authorisation. He had a particular interest in third-world women who had suffered female genital mutilation: his staff heard him admiring the skill of those whose who had stitched the women's labia together. That kind of thing normally excites the sub-editors, but even that did not have sufficient news-value to bring Dr Gosnell into the mainstream press.

Not even his cavalier management of medical waste shocked the mainstream media. Human tissue was found sealed in plastic bags, refrigerators and jars for no medical or scientific reason.

His staff were corrupted by his standards and callousness. Employee abuse would ordinarily excite some media interest, comment, and inquiry as to how ordinary citizens can be drawn into the kind of blind compliance and moral degeneracy that was once seen in places like Auschwitz and Dachau.

Yet, knowing the facts which were coming in a steady stream of matter-of-fact evidence – much of it admitted by the defendant – the news rooms of America and Britain looked the other way. All of them, including our own national broadcaster, have consistently failed to do their job of reporting the facts and exploring the issues surrounding this case.

Journalists are charged with reporting such stories and then considering what questions of importance arise from them. Sadly, the victims were not celebrities, but mainly poor people of ethnic minority; people of no importance; voiceless because the media refuses to give them a voice.

The greatest victims were babies: 47 human foetuses were found in his clinic stored in refrigerators and household containers in vary stages of decomposition, together with a bizarre collection of babies’ feet.

Dr Gosnell’s specialism explains completely the reason for the media silence: he is an abortionist, and this fact alone accounts for why he enjoyed immunity on both sides of the Atlantic from press attention for much of his trial.

In the news rooms of the western world, the staff have become as indifferent to killing babies as Dr Gosnell's de-sensitised workers and the Kapos of Belsen. They have been recruited into a culture shaped by the ‘woman's right to choose’, so that now they never see an abortion they don't like.

As US commentator Ann Coulter has pointed out, abortion is the one constitutional right that ‘can never’ be shown on national television. We have seen actual executions, and sexual intercourse graphically depicted. Postmortems have been shown, and become the central event of programmes like Silent Witness. Often the malefactors will be deranged Christians.

Brother Ivo is confident that no TV or film executive is planning Dr Gosnell – the Movie.

The pro-abortion lobby has so closed the minds of the shapers of our culture to the facts of abortion that they are utterly incurious when cases like this occur. The BBC is less competent at its job than Dr Gosnell was at his – and he has a collection of babies' feet to prove it.

Fortunately, largely thanks to Twitter, the matter came to the attention of US Congress men and the matter has begun to emerge.

Brother Ivo has read the distressing material so you don't have to, but if you wish to study it, the Grand Jury Report should be found HERE. (Unaccountably this link does not always work). The first British newspaper report came out last Friday in the Daily Telegraph.

Five weeks into the trial the BBC has yet to broadcast on the subject, although on 15 April 2013 an anodyne report appeared on its website.

This low-key response is almost certainly because Dr Gosnell's case takes us to the question of what it means to be human and humane, and this is why it is so important. What he was doing crossed a fundamental line in law and morality between abortion and infanticide.

Abortion prioritises the health of the mother. Dr Gosnell is accused of killing babies after the child was outside of the mother, at a time when the risks of childbirth were passed, though they were now entering the risk-laden world of Dr Gosnell's post-operative care.

These were babies well into the third trimester. They were needy, vulnerable independent human beings, more capable of life (if offered the same care) than many younger premature wanted children. That was the only ‘rational’ distinction between them and other children who have survived birth at 26 weeks and beyond.

Some were born crying and independently breathing: instead of offering care to these new patients to whom he owed an independent physician’s duty, Dr Gosnell cut the backs of their necks, plunged his scissors into the wound, and cut the child's spinal cord. He taught staff to conduct this procedure which he termed ‘snipping’. Some nights, he needed others’ help because he had so many children being born at the same time that one of his staff giving evidence, described the scene of carnage as ‘raining foetuses’.

His defence team are denying the live births. They will doubtless explain the purpose of ‘snipping’ a dead one in due course.

There is a political reason behind the silence amongst a media that subjected President Obama to as little scrutiny as Dr Gosnell. There have been efforts to legislate for doctors to be required to provide full medical treatment to babies who survive abortion procedures. Three times the President has voted against it, imperiously ignoring the possibility that men like Dr Gosnell exist. The US Federal Government provides 45% of the $1billion budget of Planned Parenthood, the US major abortion provider.

They, like the President, are very equivocal about this issue of infanticide as this video demonstrates. The lady struggling to answer the clear and direct questions is Alisa Lapolt Snow, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood giving evidence to a committee of Florida legislators.

Dr Gosnell's trial puts the inconvenient truth of abortion and infanticide plainly into the public domain. It puts the brutal bloody facts to the sanitised language and could prove to be the tipping point in the public debate as ordinary people see for the first time how far the pro-abortion lobby are prepared to go in defending their industry.

There is a reason we talk about the ‘slippery slope’.

There are advocates of late abortion in the UK. Ann Furedi of the largest British Abortion provider BPAS has addressed the issue plainly. His Grace has explored this already.

Secular philosophers like Richard Dawkins are comfortable to champion the Dr Gosnell's infanticide morality, if not his clinical practices. He may limit this to children with incurable disease or disability, but he is clearly closer to Dr Gosnell when it comes to crossing the Judaeo-Christian line that all human life is sacred.

Once the new born may be ‘snipped’, there is no great moral distance to the wider eugenic destruction of the disabled, the elderly or anyone else considered inconvenient.

Dr Gosnell faces capital charges. Under Pennsylvania law, if convicted, he will be kept in humane conditions while his right to life is painstakingly examined by the Courts. He might then be respectfully strapped to a clean gurney, given a pre-med to send him to sleep, and then quietly sent by lethal injection to meet his Maker.

Imagine if he were to be ‘snipped’. Do you think the BBC, Dr Dawkins and the mainstream media would comfortably ignore that, too?

(Posted by Brother Ivo).

195 Comments:

Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Rest eternal grant unto them, O lord, and may perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen.

I've already been following this story on the American news sites with disgust and horror, and can only hope that if any good at all can come out of such an evil, that the good might be the opening of the eyes of a few of the advocates of "late abortion" to the realities of mass murder.

18 April 2013 08:24  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Truly shocking, even to the son of a soldier personally involved in liberating Nazi death camps.
The liberal media is morally bankrupt, it picks and chooses its "causes" according to no particular moral guidelines, just its own herd "morality", which is ever shifting and changing. If there were any truly, truth committed, newspapers or media outlets they would be trumpeting these vile happenings.
We can only pray and work for a change in attitude.
May the God of Justice and Forgiveness deal with any guilty as he, in his wisdom, sees fit.
May the almost born and the truly born be received into the ever loving arms of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All glory to God Most High. Amen.

18 April 2013 08:39  
Blogger IanCad said...

Good for you Brother Ivo

"---the reason for the media silence: he is an abortionist, and this fact alone accounts for why he enjoyed immunity on both sides of the Atlantic --"

As you also said, this has been buzzing around for a while.

Indeed, under the umbrella of "Women's Rights" late term abortionists are a protected class.

Every so often the worm turns. Then there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. The press has field day.

The repulsive Dr. George Tiller, shot by a passionate foe of his vile trade was lauded, I should say deified, by most of the commentators at the time.
The deed, a plain, evil murder, was elevated to the status of an "Assassination" by the more progressive elements of society.

18 April 2013 09:32  
Blogger Albert said...

It's a story that underscores how morally compromised the whole pro-abortionist movement is. We already know of the moral compromise which moves from a "woman's right" to a defence of abortion for any reason - because the child is female, because the child is Jewish - in principle, because the child will be gay. The disabled don't get a look in. But if one opposes abortion because the child is female, Jewish, will be gay, is disabled. Why not just oppose abortion because the child is human?

Serious ethicists - both those in favour and those opposed - have noted that you cannot really have abortion without infanticide. Therein lies the silence of the lambs on this one. Abortion entails a whole range of acts which are almost universally recognised as morally wrong.

Better not to think about it. And the best way to prevent people from thinking about it is not to talk about it.

18 April 2013 12:02  
Blogger ukFred said...

Well said, or rather, thank you for reporting this, Brother Ivo.

18 April 2013 12:27  
Blogger michael north said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 April 2013 12:55  
Blogger michael north said...


Back in the 1970s I saw a poster saying "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Only a very ugly mind could come with such an idea, but it is the pro-abortion lobby itself which has sacramentalised abortion. It is the holy of holies at the heart of their ideology. Even to question it is seen as blasphemous,which is why they go into convulsions when confronted with the reality of what they promote.

18 April 2013 13:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Brother Ivo has read the distressing material so you don't have to…

How very condescending and disingenuous a statement to make and then to go and publish gratuitous pictures bordering on pornographic, of dead babies. Well worthy of the worst excesses of the tabloid press itself, they are not British babies after all are they?: shame on you Ivo.

Obviously the BBC is aware of the trial – it’s not over yet and neither is their interest in reporting; his does not suggest to me that there is some conspiracy afoot within the Corporation to protect the ‘pro-choice’ lobby’s argument.
I have read the deposition and the charges laid before the court, which are serious in the extreme and fortunately somewhat less sensationally emotive as your contribution (as is your entitlement).

The UK law on abortion, albeit interminably contentious and undoubtedly flawed, is the lesser of two inescapable alternatives.

There are occasions such as the case in question which highlights the justification argument for legalised abortion. What this so called doctor entrained, clearly demonstrates the consequences and fate of women and babies at the hands of the back street abortionists if the operation is simply put beyond the limits of the law and strict medical supervision.

The arguments on the morality of abortion will continue as long as men make women pregnant. Abortions will continue to take place as long as women desire them. I would rather have that situation regulated openly and governed humanely for both the woman and the unborn.

Greed, poverty and unaccountability through to the highest levels in US administration, are the undoubted prime motivators in this case; hardly something that justifies I would have thought, associating the name of Dawkins with the issue.

18 April 2013 13:22  
Blogger David Richards said...

Except that Abortion *is* legal and available in Philadelphia. This isn't the consequence of legal restrictions - quite the opposite, as the grand jury findings make clear. Local authorities desire to avoid being seen as not 'pro-choice' was one of the reasons the clinic was not only not inspected for 17 years, but there were repeated failures to investigate complaints - right up to the point a FBI drugs bust forced everything into the open.

And Gosnell was committing actual infanticide - he was killing viable and born babies. Are you suggesting *that* should be legal!

18 April 2013 13:45  
Blogger Gareth said...

@ Dreadnaught.

Food for thought. Robberies are going to continue as long as men and women covet other people's possessions. Should that situation be legalised? It could be regulated and governed humanely, for the sake of those who choose to deprive others of their property.

18 April 2013 14:07  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Killing is legal in war according to the Genenva Convention parameters.

Robbery is legal if you call it taxation.

18 April 2013 14:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Well, there you go, Brother Ivo, you've upset Dreadnaught,and that could spell trouble. To wit, here in Canuckistan, pro-life students displayed "gratuitous pictures bordering on the pornogrsphic" at the U of Calgary and were ordered by admin to turn them away from the precious kids who might be traumatised and enraged:

The university maintained that there was a risk of someone responding violently to the pictures, which included pictures of terminated human fetuses and compared abortion to the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide.
“The photos and signs are inherently confrontational and designed to provoke a strong response in anyone viewing them,” Mr. Linder said. He argued that the group was improperly conflating its objection to the non-academic misconduct ruling and the underlying directive that required the signs be obscured.


Dreadnaught, one can debate condescending, disingenuous or pornographic til kingdom come, but gratuitous Brother Ivo's pics are not, as they go to the heart of the issue of what a late term abortion entails. Will you next argue that a written or verbal description is also gratuitous and pornographic? I don't see why not. This attempt to designate such images as "pornographic" and then to have the courts ban them started up in the 80s BTW, but got nowhere, except at the universities, the bastions of free exprression and inclusiveness. You're behind the times as now the drive is to designate them as inflamatory. As things are in Calgary, the pro-lifers have thrown this one to the courts which will now have to determine whether any expression can be banned on someone's opinion that it might lead to violence.

18 April 2013 14:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS above quote from Canada's National Post,

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/17/campus-pro-life-launches-appeal-after-university-reprimanded-them-over-graphic-anti-abortion-display/

18 April 2013 14:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I used the word 'gratuitous' not by way of objecting to the pictures but to the fact that Ivo thought it necessary to alert, lets say 'those of a delicate disposition' to the full content of the deposition then hit them smack in the gob with the pictures.

18 April 2013 14:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught

Killing is legal in war according to the Genenva Convention parameters.

And what are those parameters? Are they analogous to our abortion laws?

18 April 2013 14:58  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Not sure what your point is, Dread. The Bro responsibly issued warnings specifically so that our delicate readers could avoid a gobsmack. He cannot never blamed if a few decide to rip past his prominent caution tape. Your evaluation of the pics as "gratuitous" and as " bordering on the pornograhic" could be construed as an objection.

18 April 2013 15:04  
Blogger Gareth said...

@ Dreadnaught

Taxation is not considered justified by anyone on the grounds that it protects the safety of those who practice it.

Neither is killing in war. On the contrary, those employed to kill others in war are often, for some reason, considered to be taking part in a dangerous activity.

18 April 2013 15:15  
Blogger Jon Gleason said...

Thank you. This is absolutely horrible, but the silence is an abomination.

One statement troubled me: "What he was doing crossed a fundamental line in law and morality between abortion and infanticide."

There is a line in law, but it is hard for me to see any substantive moral distinction between abortion and infanticide.

18 April 2013 15:29  
Blogger scottspeig said...

I have to say, I have not read the article for I do not appreciate graphic pictures that are designed to arouse me to emotional uproar. I did a very quick scrolling view and suffice to say, I don't want to pause to view them - perhaps having an option to read the article without the pictures? Or have a scroll over effect? So I'm with Dread over that.

18 April 2013 16:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Interesting discussion about abortion in India on Radio 4 the other day, including the repercussions of the backstreet type.

18 April 2013 17:23  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Ivo is sorry if the images have distressed: sometimes, however, it is important to deprive opponents of the excuse " We did not really appreciate what was happening".

There are two specific warnings. You had to scroll down to reach the images themselves, passing the reminder on the way.

Dreadnought, instead of delivering an ad hominem attack you might consider how distressing it was to research edit and write such a piece.

His Grace receives the article and has editorial control. Brother Ivo therefore always read his posts in case there has been any adjustment from which he can learn.

Reading this two days after having written it was an unpleasant reminder. A little empathy would not go amiss.

18 April 2013 17:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Well said, Brother Ivo. "we didn't know it was happening" is what people said of the holocaust. Perhaps if pictures had been published it wouldn't have carried on. The fact that these things are disgusting is reason to show them. They look disgusting because they are disgusting.

18 April 2013 17:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Ivo, one does believe there’s enough there to hang the man. Pour encourager les autres, you understand…

18 April 2013 17:59  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Snip him I agree

However I think it is a bit rich to write CENSORED on this blog after censoring my inoffensive, but nevertheless questioning whether Mrs T deserved her State Funeral

Phil

18 April 2013 18:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Interfering with his own spinal cord would indeed be rather satisfying.

Have to agree with you regarding your post yesterday Phil.





18 April 2013 18:36  
Blogger Peter D said...

When we forget God's laws and God's very existence, and forget that no one is the owner of anyone's life, child murder and euthanasia follow.

1.72 billion children have been murdered through abortion during the past 40 years.

Kermit Gosnell decapitated hundreds of babies with scissors after they were born; kept pieces of the babies in jars as souvenirs; and a nurse witnessed a baby screaming during such a procedure. It's disgusting and gut wrenching because those children were, well, children and suffered.

What Gosnell did is illegal because abortion doctors are not supposed to kill babies outside their mother's womb. However, there is absolutely nothing illegal or unusual about decapitating babies or cutting off their hands and feet whilst they are within their mothers; nor nothing unusual about babies writhing in pain and struggling during these procedures.

Here's how the murderer, ooops sorry, abortionist, Martin Haskell described a dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion - the typical late-term procedure:

"Let’s just say ... we left the leg in the uterus just to dismember it. Well, we’d probably have to dismember it at several different levels because we don’t have firm control over it, so we would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip. And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we’re making our initial grasps or if we’re using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we’re starting the procedure. It’s not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first ... prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise."

Just how is this different to what Gosnell did? How is an agonising, 45-minute-long dismemberment better than a quick snip?

No wonder the liberals want to hide this.

18 April 2013 18:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Bro Ivo
As always, a discussion about the rights or wrongs of abortion will if not sooner but certainly later reach impasse when the card of divine omnipotence hits the table. You did not do this, which is why I read as much as I did. My responses were honest representations of my instincts on reading the texts and contextualisation of the images.
I don’t think what I said is an ad hominem attack on you. A criticism of the piece you posted ? Yes.
The photographs of the dead babies were there through your own and your editor’s decision and in my opinion were unnecessary as they were included the deposition to which you linked.
No one as far as I am aware, made you read in to the case or compose and publish this OP. I was unaware that doing so had caused you distress. I read your post and much of the official deposition, where the inclusion of the photographs I assumed would form part of the evidence. Again I ask: would you have included them if they were known to be British? And also, is it at any time proper to show dead naked people of any age in any circumstances?
Albert
I made loose reference to the GC with regard to the fact that even in war there are accepted situations when killing is unacceptable. It was response to a commentor who seemed to be under the impression that I was unaware that abortion involved what many regard as killing an unborn person or that I knew that this case involves acts that went far beyond what is regarded as humane, ethical or legal.
Avi
Sorry about that, nothing more I can to add to what I have already said really.
Gareth
I don’t understand you.

18 April 2013 19:09  
Blogger William said...

Brother Ivo

You certainly have my empathy at having to compile this post. It took me several passes just to try to read it. It is also, I think, the only way of "rehumanising" the unborn child and, therefore, entirely necessary rather than gratuitous.

18 April 2013 19:16  
Blogger William said...

Phil

Yesterday was Maggie's funeral and it doesn't do to discuss how a funeral could have been done better as one is walking out of the church. I am sure that normal service will resume shortly.

18 April 2013 19:20  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Dreadnought,

The nationality of the children certainly never crossed Brother Ivo's mind save that plainly the context is a US trial. If we were dealing with a UK trial like this which was still being hushed up the same call would be made.

Having seen many autopsy photos , Ivo was surprised at his own renewed distaste, but the heartlessness towards little ones is especially provoking.

One aspect that you might care to reflect upon is not only the appalling treatment of the babies but the dehumanising of the staff one of whom was 15. That alone qualifies as child abuse, placing that youngster at risk of significant emotional harm.

Secular/feminist ideology seems to have detached itself from common humanity. Men like Oskar Schindler recoiled from the holocaust but somehow these folk never paused to think "this one should live". How did they become so de-sensitised? That is a separate question from the most important one about abortion per se.

18 April 2013 19:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 April 2013 19:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Bro Ivo

There is very little in you last post with which I do not wholeheartedly agree and indeed, the reports and descriptions that make such distressing reading would have rightly closed down any abattoir.

18 April 2013 19:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ivo. You’ve nothing to apologise for. Dreadnaught is well known to be abortion happy. We need to push these feminist sympathisers out of the way. And there will be NO more backstreet abortions on prohibition of the legal version. You do need to make abortion a capital crime for that. If you are REALLY serious about ending this sorry business, that is...





18 April 2013 20:00  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Dreadnaught, as has been pointed out your argument is suitable to justify the legalisation and regulation of any vile crime as long as there is the chance of it continuing. On the assumption you don't agree with it when it is employed to justify the legalisation of murder or mugging or rape, why on Earth do you accept it in the case of abortion?

18 April 2013 20:13  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

TK
...as has been pointed out your argument is suitable to justify the legalisation and regulation of any vile crime as long as there is the chance of it continuing...

You mean like the church did in its treatment of so called blasphemers and heretics?

18 April 2013 20:34  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Dreadnaught: We don't have to have this discussion if you don't want to, but your response is clearly a dodge which has little or nothing to do with the issue.

18 April 2013 20:57  
Blogger Albert said...

That's not really an argument, is it Dreadnaught? Even if the cases were commensurate, all that would show is that you are in the same condemned boat as those Christians who defended such things.

Is that a boat you want to be in?

18 April 2013 20:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

As I don't believe in the after-life Albert, it is an irrelevance; but as do I believe your comment is kindly intentioned I thank you most sincerely.

18 April 2013 21:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



The Inspector wonders if Dreadnaught even knows why he is pro abortion. He thinks it could linked to the man embracing socialist and feminist moral degeneracy in the 1970s and after that didn’t give it another thought. What say you, cannabis smoker ?



18 April 2013 21:08  
Blogger Roy said...

I couldn't bear to look at the pictures but I don't blame Brother Ivo for including them. Although I had read a brief article about the case by the right-wing Canadian polemicist Mark Steyn, it wasn't until my eye caught, for a few split seconds in each case, the pictures accompanying Brother Ivo's article that the full enormity of what had happened struck me.

I understand the arguments in favour of "a woman's right to chose" and have a certain amount of sympathy with them. After all, if I were a single woman and got pregnant (and let those without sin say that a single woman should not get in that situation) then I would feel quite distraught.

However it is obviously wrong to dismiss a foetus as "just a bunch of cells." When I have my hair cut or when I cut my finger nails or toe nails the clippings could be described as "just a bunch of cells." It is simply barbaric to describe an unborn baby, even at a very early stage in pregnancy, in such terms.

There is also something seriously wrong with the idea that an unborn baby only has any value if it is "wanted" by the mother. What about people at the other end of their lives? Does the value of an elderly person's life depend on whether or not anyone wants him or her?

The Guardian did carry a report on this case at the time the original charges were made over two years ago.

Murder charges for out-of-state doctors who performed abortions in Maryland
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/30/murder-charges-doctors-abortion-maryland?INTCMP=SRCH

It will be interesting to see how long it will be before the Guardian reports on the trial, and whether the BBC will say anything about it at all.

18 April 2013 21:55  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

"Why is this not on the mainstream media?" is a question I find myself asking more and more. I get the real news increasingly from blogs run by pressure-groups.
This revolting case should be casting doubt on the argument "legal abortion will stop back-street abortion". It doesn't.
In Canada there is no time-limit for an abortion. Everything you see here is legal there.
And on the subject of media bias, most of the webpages concerned with the trial of Larry Brinkin have developed strange technical hitches over the past few months. Very difficult to find out what has happened to Larry.
Coincidence of course.

18 April 2013 21:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Dreadnaught , still waiting, that man...



18 April 2013 23:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 April 2013 23:45  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The case for abortion is a trade between obligation and autonomy. The important principle to the pro-abortionist is this: "Participation in sex should not trigger an automatic obligation to any children conceived as a result. Otherwise the autonomy of the adult is not respected." The humanity of the child is thus a secondary issue. The ontological status of the child truly doesn't matter to his case. What matters is the ability of the adult to freely choose or reject the obligation.

Abortion is the ultimate guarantor of the separation between the privilege of sex and the responsibility of children. It establishes personal gratification as the primary purpose of sex. And what else would you expect from a self-satisfied, self-centered, selfish generation? It butchers its own children to establish the right to a cheap orgasm.

carl

18 April 2013 23:47  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Roy and Jack, both of you mentioned my country, Canada. Jack, you're right that there are no term limits for abortion in our laws, although politicians and the medical community swear up and down that late terms are extremely rare and only for dire cases of severe and lethal abnormalities or risks to the mother. Without anyone to independently check on this, we don't actually know if such is the case. Abortions are covered by our national health insurance, meaning they are free, and while initially the idea was that the physician would only perform such if the mother's life or health are at risk, "health" includes psychological, so in practice, abortion here is on demand.

Any attempt to impose any, even the mildest of legal or institutional limits on abortion in Canada is met with hysteria emanating from pressure groups, boards of education, universities, the national media and two of the three national parties. Arguing against abortion has become risky, as any opposition to it or anything veering slightly off the "woman's right to her body" or "choice" mantras is interpreted as a human rights offense and potentially a form of criminal hate speech. Under such conditions, pro-life arguments are being silenced in schools and universities.

While some polls are said to have shown that the majority of Canadians are pro-abortion, others show popular opposition to abortion on demand, to lack of supervision, to it being covered under the health insurance or to late term abortions. Nevertheless it is nearly impossible to discuss limits, or even to debate when a fetus can be deemed a person from a medical standpoint as the dialogue gets shouted down and no political party wants to touch this "third rail."

As for our brilliant and quite humorous polemicist Mark Stein, he publishes in the US, to stay clear of our politicised Human Rights Commission and our fuzzy Hate Crime laws.

18 April 2013 23:47  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Thank you for posting both the article AND the pictures. This horrible crime needs to be made known far and wide, in all its grim evil. The publicizing of crimes like this will be thing thing that eventually brings us back to our senses and stops the evil of abortion in our world.

Only when we are forced to see these babies as truly human, not as "mere clumps of cells," or some other euphemism, will we wake up to the fact that this is truly murder, plain and simple. Murder, clearly against the Law of God, and condemned from the beginning by our Maker.

18 April 2013 23:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Almost, Carl, almost. Men and now sperm donors as well cannot escape feduciary responsibility if the woman chooses to keep the child.

18 April 2013 23:50  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

My God what this dirty, filthy, weirdo, monster of a man is doing is mass murder. I'm surprised the Daily Mail haven't run this story. It's absolutely shocking. I hope he gets life.

19 April 2013 00:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

The consequences of liberal abortion laws are a long time coming, but they are real none the less. And once those consequences come to fruition, they can't be quickly removed. This is in a very real sense a self-correcting problem - like living off your credit cards. It can't go on forever. The long-term questions will be thus two-fold:

1. How much damage is done in the meantime?

2. What political/cultural power will emerge to force the change?

The end of this situation is inevitable. But the corrective end state has many possible alternatives.

carl

19 April 2013 01:16  
Blogger CSPB said...

I agree with Peter D's comment at 18:42.

From Operation Rescue:

Once in Gosnell’s absence, Cross saw a large baby delivered into the toilet. She saw his little arms and legs moving in a swimming motion as he struggled to get out of the toilet bowl. Cross held her hands 12-16 inches apart to demonstrate to the jury how big the baby was. Adrienne Moton, who was the first worker to testify for the prosecution, snipped the baby’s neck in front of the mother while she sat bleeding into the toilet. Moton then took the body away and put it into a container.


More.

19 April 2013 04:17  
Blogger Flossie said...

Bravo, Brother Ivo, for writing this article and for including the images.

I find it astonishing that some people, three-wise-monkeys-like, throw up their hands in horror about being shown pictures of aborted babies, when the real horror is the fact that these babies are aborted. And people wonder how the holocaust was allowed to happen! The blinkers need to be removed. People do need to be shown what happens when the law and society allow monsters like Gosnell to flourish.

This can't have been an easy post to write. Pro-lifers have been flagging up Gosnell and his like for years, largely ignored by the media and the law - except when the law is used to persecute pro-lifers who use graphic images of abortions, as has happened in the US.

The abortion lobby has been strangely silent since the Gosnell case invaded the public consciousness. Let us hope that this is the beginning of the end of this evil trade.

19 April 2013 08:58  
Blogger ukFred said...

Two thoughts flow from this article. The first is that we can see in the circumstances surrounding Dr. Gosnell's case what happens when we try to ensure that a party to an action (sex) is able to avoid the consequences of that action and how that avoidance can lead to situations even worse than what the person was originally trying to avoid. The second is that evil is not the sole prerogative of Adolf Hitler and his followers.

I know that I will upset some of the more purist contributors by saying that I can see no objection to any woman receiving emergency 'morning after' contraception to prevent implantation of a zygote in her uterus, but once implantation happens, we have a potentially viable new human being who deserves the same level of support in law as any human that has already been born. What is especially evil in this case is the way we have reduced the unborn child to being on a par with the tissue in an agressively growing tumour.

19 April 2013 09:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, you said, The consequences of liberal abortion laws are a long time coming, but they are real none the less. And once those consequences come to fruition, they can't be quickly removed. This is in a very real sense a self-correcting problem - like living off your credit cards. It can't go on forever.

Unlike your previous post, which is bang on, the latter one is not; it seems like a vague hope, rather than a realistic projection. In Canada we've had a no-controls, free for all situation for about twenty years, and apart from some attempts by a handful of Conservative party back-benchers, it's a political non-issue for the majority. I must admit that I'm not a maven on the topic, I know next to nothing about it, as it isn't an issue that comes up in the Orthodox communities, where it's an exceptional rarity requiring serious danger to the health or life of the mother (apparently a rarity nowadays) and one which would involve expert rabbinic approval. Even among secular or liberal Jews, where a child-centred culture still reigns, abortion may be acceptable politically and in the abstract, but it is rarely opted for in practice, a situation which mirrors that of the non-Jewish middle class.

The most that can be hoped for here in Canada, is an introduction of some limits, such as on late terms or on reclassifying abortion as an elective surgery and asking the "patient" to cover the costs. Given the current climate and entrenchment of the "choice" paradigm responsible for the abortion on demand status quo, though, I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

19 April 2013 13:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Me? Wrong?! INCONCEIVABLE!

I agree it won't happen within my lifetime. (In fact, I almost write that as a final line.) But this western attitude of 'Self Over All' cannot sustain a civilization over time. People must pick up certain imposed obligations - chief among them the obligation to conceive and raise children - or the civilization dies. Abortion however stems from the development of an attitude about children as both commodity and competitor. That can't be isolated. It has broad collateral impacts. The West has for example been struggling with birth rates well below replacement for three or four decades. That isn't caused purely by abortion so much as it is caused by the attitude towards children that brought forth abortion in the first place.

Eventually, this lack of children is going to bring about severe decline in both economic prosperity & national power. It must. People are the basis of both, and people are literally running out. Eventually the Gov't must get involved. It will force people to carry that obligation for its own sake. Eventually the anti-mnatalism of the West will be suppressed by Gov't power.

So the questions quickly follow. How steep will the economic decline be? How much political & cultural change will accompany this decline? What kind of politician will emerge to 'fix the priobelm?' How will he 'fix the problem?' Those are all dangerous questions, and none of them are dependent upon the continuation of what we call Western civilization. I think we are seeing the seeds for the rebirth of paganism much like we saw in Germany in the 20's. I don't have any expectation that western civilization will survive its moral dissolution. But the state will not allow this will to sexual suicide to continue. It will eventually act in its own self-interest. The only question is "What kind of state will it be?"

carl

19 April 2013 14:30  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

In Britain, the intent of the law that legalized abortion was that it should be safe, legal, and rare. I believe a similar thing was said in America after Roe v Wade.

So just how did we get from there to here? On both sides of the Big Pond?

19 April 2013 15:34  
Blogger Derek said...

Sister Tiberia asks: how did we get from there to here? The answer is simple and the clue is in the rest of your post.

Given the way society has drifted as Carl has mentioned, if abortion is safe and legal, it will never be rare.

19 April 2013 16:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, well, Carl, you are taking the long term view and treating abortion as a symptom. That be different. And may you live to 120, long life being in your interest, for if we go by the Calvinist eschatology and criteria you've expounded on here from time to time, there will barely a dozen souls good enough to escape the fires... not that I don't consider you qualified for salvation, but your shots at Canada and shmaltz herring are demerit points to worry about.

I'm in the mood for a bit of philosophical speculation, so here I go in two parts.

PARTUS ONEUS

We've been here before, both in terms of antinatalism and population reductions. The difference is that infanticide, rather than abortion and  catastrophic population crashes, rather than gradual reductions took place. Antinatalism appeared several times in history, most recently in 17th and 18th century, particularly in France, and the 14th c Black Plague... or the Blue Sickness as it was called by the contemps... which decimated between a third up to half of Europe's population. In both cases theologists ascribed through disasters to Man's sinful behaviour. Yet the re-emergence of pronatalism doesn't coincide with greater public goodness or holiness, not even by theologians' estimation and the Plague, a function of the appearance of pasturella pestus (sp ?) and the advance of the Little Ice Age, moved in a seemingly indiscriminate manner with little regard for goodness... unless one wants to argue that the people of Bohemia and Poland who escaped the carnage, were inordinately holy.

Cont'd.....

19 April 2013 17:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PARTUS TWOUS

n our time, I argue, the antinatalism and its associated social maladies you mention are a direct result of economic forces. Simply put, children are of economic value in an agrarian economy and lose their value... in fact become prohibitively expensive in advanced industrial and post- industrial ones.

Lest you think me a crude determinist, I'll say that religion can and does over-ride these "forces, " but with the caveat that it does so among the determined and observant... among small communities, such as traditionalist Christians, Jews and Muslims. From my theological neck in the woods, the Torah instructs us to live outside and at times against normal forces and trends, against "nature," hence our clash with modernity. However, G-d's instructions force us to struggle against trends and nature and to find ways to modify our environment and economies to meet the challenge of our faiths. The "salvation" for the secular world lies not in belief or discipline, but in improving the economic base to allow for children, to reduce conflict, crime in iniquities. Time will tell which will prevail. So yes, you may be right, where we will see general civilizational decline in the not too distant future, with pockets of economic and social health among some of the religious and some groups and elites. Or, if you have faith in technology and free market systems, an economic revival spurred by affordable or near-free energy and innovation which will raise the value of children, allow for intact families and restore some measure of civic and personal "goodness" to our civilization. Unless an asteroid atomizes us, the almost overdue Ice Age returns, or the Almighty decides that He's had enough of our nonsense, that is.

19 April 2013 17:17  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Sister Tiberia, a quick guess at your question: Do all that is necessary to make children affordable and even advantageous in our economies.

19 April 2013 17:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

As a man, I feel that ultimately, my personal opinions should rank less than a woman’s on the rights and wrongs of induced abortion.
Those who invoke what they interpret as the will of the god of their religion, may well assume that their argument trumps all others’; I do not accept this proposition: neither do I deny the appropriateness in law, of the more positive humanist elements of a culturally English Christian heritage. In democratic western societies we govern ourselves through the rule of law, debated, established openly and implemented after royal or presidential assent. The laws enacted should to apply to everyone resident in the State; of any religious affiliation or none, until they are appealed or amended.
Democracy should prevail over Theocracy.
As a nation, we have historically already lived through periods of religious extremism the equal of anything today’s Islamists would like to impose. Laws established and applied through superstition, fear and mob rule do not work either effectively, fairly or take in to consideration the primacy in a free society, of the fundamental human right to an unhindered natural life. The obvious question relative to abortion however is which has the superior right to life, the woman or the unborn?
I use the word ‘right’ over the word ‘choice’.
‘Choice’ to me implies a degree of casualness which is inappropriate considering the seriousness for the individual and the broader implications for the human species. As I have stated, abortions will not end if the act is deemed illegal. What would be deemed appropriate in law if a woman induced or attempted to induce an abortion herself? Should this be defined compared to infanticide? I don’t know enough to formulate an opinion that would suit all contingencies.
I tend to agree with the statement of Sister Tiberius. What I would prefer to see initially, is abortion legislation redefined and crucially limited, to the uninfluenced request of the woman and within the time period of the embryonic state of development. I do not accept the right of a woman to a series of proper medical abortion as a routine means of contraception.
Beyond that, I see the preservation of the life of the woman imperative over that of the foetus.

19 April 2013 17:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

With HG's permission:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311684/Savita-Halappanavar-Dentist-refused-abortion-Irish-hospital-died-medical-misadventure.html

19 April 2013 17:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

As a man, I feel that ultimately, my personal opinions should rank less than a woman’s on the rights and wrongs of induced abortion.

This kind of reasoning puzzles me, for surely the question stands or falls on the status of the unborn. That status is unaffected by the sex of the person considering the matter. But if one says we men have less of a say because we are not pregnant, that must undercut the whole pro-choice argument, since the abortion is not carried out on the woman (or she would be dead at the end of it) but on the unborn. Therefore, it is not the right of the mother (on your argument) but the right of the unborn that matters.

Those who invoke what they interpret as the will of the god of their religion, may well assume that their argument trumps all others

Certainly, if there is a God and he is the supreme good, then the conclusion follows that his will should be followed. But the wrongness of abortion does not require a reference to the will of God, but to the truth of the matter.

19 April 2013 17:50  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dreadnaught, you state: The obvious question relative to abortion however is which has the superior right to life, the woman or the unborn? ....I see the preservation of the life of the woman imperative over that of the foetus.

Jewish law and I are on the same side as you then. Assuming that you mean "preservation of life" in the narrow, literal sense.

19 April 2013 17:54  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

The trouble, Dreadnaught, certainly in Britain, is that the debate has become so polarized that it's impossible to even have a discussion. A couple of brave MPs have tried to get the time limit on legal abortion reduced to 20 weeks as a starting point. They failed, and pretty much destroyed their careers doing it.

Until the people who oppose abortion can have the debate without calling the other side "murderers" and the people who are pro-choice can have the debate without accusing the other side of wishing to drag everything back to the days of nightmare back street abortion clinics, nothing will change.

I don't see this debate happening any time soon.

I don't have a solution. I wish I did. Those who know me on this blog know that I fall into the anti-abortion camp. I am also enough of a realist to know that making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will drive it back underground, just as it was in the days before the 1967 Act.

I want support for young mothers-to-be so that they genuinely have a choice to bear the child they are carrying. Financial, physical and emotional support.

I want adoption to be freed from the morass of red tape it is in at present that prevents people even considering adopting a child.

I want the abortion laws in this country to return to where they were intended to be. Not abortion-on-demand in everything but name.

I want real counselling to be available to young women who are looking at abortion, that explores all the options with them and does not turn it into a tick box exercise before the inevitable.

I want people not to flame me for what I've just written.

I don't think I'm going to get any of what I want...

19 April 2013 17:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


It’s going to be a hard fight to ban abortion. You see, in doing so, you effectively cut the ugly head off the ugly feminist body.

In these days of mass communication, we are experiencing a surge in ‘rights’ as we have seen with organised homosexuality. These people are in the ascendance at this time. Nothing can seemingly stop them. But we have to do it, you know. Rescue society from these self interested degenerates. It must be done, whatever the cost, as Churchill would say. Even if we have to split a few skulls in the process…

One observes in this day and age, the angrier the rioter, the more likely he will find he gets his way. And this man has absolutely no doubt whatsoever that any attempt to ban abortion will attract the same ferocity as the poll tax did. So, we either allow ourselves to be content with a society run for the benefit of feminists and, lately, benders, or we bust a few rioting heads, and take back OUR country...



19 April 2013 18:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "So, we either allow ourselves to be content with a society run for the benefit of feminists and, lately, benders, or we bust a few rioting heads, and take back OUR country..."

Have you considered 'direct action'? If I thought kids were routinely being murdered down the road then I'd do something substantive about it rather than merely moan on a blog. What's your plan?

19 April 2013 18:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Direct action is what our rioting protesters do. So, we decent types don’t want anything to do with that kind of behaviour. What we want is the police to meet like with like.

Incidentally, on the subject of abortion, one remembers you were most upset at the prospect of a positive gay foetus test being grounds for abortion. From what you told us about your gay loathing granny, quite understandable. Rather a shame a desire to prevent a fellow gay from receiving the ‘snip’ doesn’t extend beyond your community. Still, you always did view everything from your standpoint....


19 April 2013 18:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 April 2013 18:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Incidentally, on the subject of abortion, one remembers you were most upset at the prospect of a positive gay foetus test being grounds for abortion."

You keep saying that but I have no recollection of it at all.

"So, we decent types don’t want anything to do with that kind of behaviour."

Surely decent people would intervene if a murder attempt was likely? If you passed a school playground and a man was stabbing kids there then aren't you obliged to step up and stop the man, even to the extent of using lethal force yourself? I always find it curious that people who claim that babies are routinely being murdered don't do everything possible to stop it as individuals. Also, surely the doctor and the mother are murderer and accessory to murder, respectively, and they ought to be denounced in no uncertain terms as a matter of justice? It's almost as though people calling it murder don't really believe it is murder at all. But hey.

19 April 2013 18:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, since you're intent on the gay thing *yet again* Inspector, here's a youtube video for you. Watch it beyond 1:20 if you would, and choke on it. :)

19 April 2013 18:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DW4DXOAXF8U

19 April 2013 18:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert
Something I do believe in is to walk in a man's shoes before telling him he's not walking straight. I totally dislike the word 'choice' it's too similar to 'Sophies Choice' a film that moved me to tears.
Avi
I mean 'life' as in the only one I know is guaranteed.
Sister T
The trouble with making a law that will deliver justice in all circumstances is impossible. As Rumsfeld said there are 'unknown unknowns' at least I think I understand what he means and any laws in relation to abortion should accommodate this prospect. Like yourself, I don't have the definitive answer.

19 April 2013 18:59  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Extending "rights" to the unborn might be a way forward.

I don't see that calling them murderers is such a bad thing.

We soon will not be allowed to criticise this choice in any way.

Like we now cannot criticise homosexual lifestyle choice in anyway.

Phil

19 April 2013 19:08  
Blogger Peter D said...

Sister Tiberia asked ...

"So just how did we get from there to here? On both sides of the Big Pond?"

Misguided compassion, Sister, with a decline in a belief in intrinsic evil and its impact on individuals and communities.

Sorry Roy but your comment summed some of it up for me.

"I understand the arguments in favour of "a woman's right to chose" and have a certain amount of sympathy with them. After all, if I were a single woman and got pregnant (and let those without sin say that a single woman should not get in that situation) then I would feel quite distraught."

So the woman is distraught and we want to make her feel better. Fine. However, I doubt Jesus would say: "That's okay; I forgive you; now just pop off to your local abortion clinic and you'll feel better."

We've done the same with sex outside of marriage and homosexuality. Contracetives free for all - at all ages - and now the 'morning after pill'.

Satan just loves Christian compassion for the sinner when it results in acceptance of the sin and avoidance of earthly consequences. He's waiting for the next life for his 'reward'.

The same with contraception and with divorce. I mean, most of the churches, the supposed representaives of Christ on earth, have accepted all these intrinsically evil acts.

Individual 'conscience' and the modern disinclination to accept the Church as authorative, combined with liberalism and human rights is why we are where we are.

We just don't seem to do God or the Devil anymore!

As Margaret Thatcher said:

“There is little hope for democracy if the hearts of men and women in democratic societies cannot be touched by a call to something greater than themselves ... You, the Church, can teach the life of faith.”

19 April 2013 19:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s a difficult one that DanJ0. This man has no objection, religious or moral, about putting a snipers bullet into Kermit. It’s getting away it, and staying well clear of a US gaol, where he would run into great trouble as he would inevitably reveal his belief that a large proportion of the clientele be executed, as they are a continuing threat to any and all that come up against them. God has not put man on this earth to be indefinitely confined.

Interesting you don’t remember your objecting to the gay foetus test. Rather confirms the Inspector’s suspicion that you make up your stance on the hoof, so to speak...

19 April 2013 19:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

Well, actually, change the above. We do Satan nowadays.

19 April 2013 19:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Like we now cannot criticise homosexual lifestyle choice in anyway."

I have some news for you: it's routinely criticised here and elsewhere with little or no comeback. For "cannot criticise", what you really mean is "cannot criticise without people looking at us as though we're throwbacks".

19 April 2013 19:14  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0

"Have you considered 'direct action'? If I thought kids were routinely being murdered down the road then I'd do something substantive about it rather than merely moan on a blog. What's your plan?"

The Bible answers thus:

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

As Christians we are prohibited from vigilantism. Two intrinsic evils do not make a good. We are required to work within the civil law. And I think you'll find there are many Christians openly protesting outside abortion clinics.

19 April 2013 19:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Interesting you don’t remember your objecting to the gay foetus test. Rather confirms the Inspector’s suspicion that you make up your stance on the hoof, so to speak..."

Perhaps you can produce the quote for me? The one showing me "most upset". I may have been caught on a bad day at some point of course but at the moment I'd say it was wishful thinking on your part, manifesting as false memory syndome.

"It’s a difficult one that DanJ0."

I expect it's difficult for someone without the strength of their 'convictions'. Which is rather the point, as it goes.

19 April 2013 19:19  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl Avi

On the kids thing.

I have been working 26 years.

I have paid at least £600K over that time in direct taxes. Forget the 20% VAT and Road Tax, TV license, petrol duty etc.

My schooling and free University probably cost the state about £50K, my wife did not go to Uni and has not paid tax so another say £25K. So £525k profit for the state. Not bad

If my 7 kids each pay half as much tax as me (small chance of that!) then the state makes nearly 2 million in just two generations.

Don't forget I have not counted indirect taxes in Europe they are probably at least another £200K in a lifetime.

Kids are a good investment from he Gov's point of view.

Phil

And I forgot National Insurance. Another Tax..! Any more that I have not thought about?




19 April 2013 19:19  
Blogger Flossie said...

This gets worse. Our own chief abortion provider, BPAS, has Ann Furedi as its CEO, and her comment on the Gosnell case is thus:

(Quote) Having read the PA piece, what seems to be the problem with Gosnell is the conditions and quality of care at his clinic – and the fact that a shortage of later term doctors drives desperate women to pay large sums of money for what sounds like a pretty crap service. What a shame these women couldn't be treated by someone a bit better. His shoddy service must have made what was always going to be an ordeal into an unimaginable nightmare. I don't [think] this case speaks to the morality of later abortion or the moral status of the foetus at all. (end quote)

Is it me, or is there something seriously wrong with this woman?

This was published on SPUC's youth blog.

http://whyiamprolife.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-gosnell-case-and-ann-furedis.html

19 April 2013 19:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Note that I'm not talking about taking justice and punishment into your own hands, Inspector, but rather acting on a moral duty to intervene as I expect most decent people would in the playground example.

19 April 2013 19:20  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

On the new leaders front.

The Romans seemed pretty good.

Good for Christianity anyway.

I vote for the Romans. .... Oh haven't we been there .... recently?

Phil

19 April 2013 19:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. 19:20

Trying to fathom out what appears to be a nonsense from you. What would you have this man do, and when, and where ?


19 April 2013 19:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you're swerving by the look of it. To be expected, of course.

19 April 2013 19:35  
Blogger William said...

Actually I think that discussion abortion on a blog such as this is a very good way of changing hearts and minds. Particularly in light of the powerful piece that Brother Ivo has written. It probably has more impact than say protesting outside a single abortion clinic. Although that's not a bad idea either. However, if a gunman was currently killing children in a playground and I said I think I'll see if I can stop the carnage by commenting on a blog, then that would seem rather silly, much like the comparison, I think.

19 April 2013 19:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There are babies being murdered as a matter of routine, if one takes the professed view to be true, in various and known places around the UK and the so-called murderers are getting away with it day after day, individual baby victim after individual baby victim, with none of the people recognising it as murder bothering to intervene to save any of those individuals. Curious, isn't it? Moaning under a blog article in the hope of changing some hearts and minds seems to suffice, it seems.

19 April 2013 20:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Something I do believe in is to walk in a man's shoes before telling him he's not walking straight. I totally dislike the word 'choice' it's too similar to 'Sophies Choice' a film that moved me to tears.

I quite see the sensitivity of the point you are making. My problem is not so much in seeing what you are saying as in not understanding why you stop where you do. What's it like to be aborted? Why does the argument only apply to the mother?

Moreover, if one cannot morally adjudicate without being in the situation, presumably one cannot morally adjudicate in the even more tragic case, in which a woman suffering from post-natal depression, decides to smother her child. I agree entirely that in terms of subjective culpability the illness makes it impossible to judge the mother, but surely we can still judge the act. And if the act is wrong, are we not morally obliged to defend the child?

It is the very fact that we are not in the mother's shoes, that we are not suffering from post-natal depression, which gives us a moral duty to defend the child, which we would not normally have (because the immediate duty to do that lies with the mother).

So it seems to me that, however sympathetic we may be to the subjective state of the mother, the rightness of the act is not affected, and our duty to the child is only enhanced.

Everything therefore, for me, turns on the status of the unborn.

I admire you for watching "Sophie's Choice". It's a film I can't bring myself to watch. I can't see that it has much parity with abortion though. Is the idea supposed to be that a woman who has wickedly been forced to choose between saving either her son or her daughter is in the same moral universe as someone who is choosing to have an abortion? I can't see how.

19 April 2013 20:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Curious, isn't it? Moaning under a blog article in the hope of changing some hearts and minds seems to suffice, it seems.

Exactly what would you have us do? The hijacking of the moral discourse means that virtually anything that is done that goes beyond reasoned argument is counter productive. There's nothing moral about doing something counter-productive to the moral good.

19 April 2013 20:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. One has been considering your suggested initiative regarding putting an end to abortion by direct action.

You give a fallacious argument. Imagine, what would happen to the ordinary German in NAZI times had they objected to the concentration camp up the road. Whatever it would have been, it would have been the FULL force of man’s law then in place. Thus, it follows that the ultimate in direct action, assassination of abortionists, would itself entail the full force of corrupt man’s law.

The only solution is to purify man’s law, through democratic means. The Inspector is fully convinced that a few images of ‘snipped’ babies published nationwide will be sufficient to get the mass on his side. You see, he has great faith in the British people. One day, they might even be minded to wreak revenge on those who abused their trusting nature and to put them on trial. The damned bastard David Steele, for example...


19 April 2013 21:20  
Blogger David B said...

This has been discussed on my discussion board since someone made a post on it on the 13th
April,

Properly regulated abortion being available to avoid clinics like this seems to be the consensus of opinion there, though one person remarked to the effect that those who think abortion never, or almost never, justified and those who think it sometimes the lesser of evils, and/or something to be decided by the prospective mother (very few people are actually pro abortion) will both view this terrible case as confirming their entrenched positions.

I reckon he is right about that.

David

19 April 2013 21:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "One has been considering your suggested initiative regarding putting an end to abortion by direct action."

Actually, you're being too grandiose there though I can see why you might want to shift the dilemma to something a bit more comfortable. You have the option to intervene to try to save one individual baby, an actual person, irrespective of whether that would change the abortion landscape. However, I understand that not everyone is cut out to be a hero, or a martyr, so perhaps just moaning under a blog article and throwing in a few sideswipes at "benders" is enough for you so sleep easy.

19 April 2013 21:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dreadnaught: I mean 'life' as in the only one I know is guaranteed.

Ha! Glad to know you're a straight shooter. I've had "life" defined to me as the ability to trawl around clubs without having to worry about babysitters.

Phil Roberts: Phil, Phil, why are you doing this to yourself, this accounting? Three kids, private Jewish dayschool, one starting university this fall, elderly relatives in Eastern Europe abandoned by the EU pipe dream, synagogue membership, bat mitzvah coming up, mortgage, Israel trip to visit a son, mountains of food, cars to fuel and look after and the occasional bottle of single malt to relieve the worries..... I refuse to work out even a ball park figure on my head. My heart wouldn't bear it.

19 April 2013 21:29  
Blogger Peter D said...

There is plenty of action taking place by Christians around the world against the outrage of abortion.

"As there was with the concentration camps of the Second World War, there should be outrage and outcry for the 1.72 billion children murdered in the last 40 years. Sadly their cries and those of our other most vulnerable brothers and sisters, the poor, the aged and handicapped, are drowned out amidst the growing waves of relativism, economic development and “rights” without responsibilities."
(Fr Shenan Boquet: Lifesite)

Christians are ever mindful that God as recorded in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't stand back forever.

Saint Paul didn't mince his words. He would call murder, murder, (not a 'termination of pregnancy')and sodomy, sodomy, (not 'being gay')and warn of the inevitable consequences in this life and the next (not play it down to be 'kind' and 'compassionate').

Roman's 1:18-32 sums it up.

19 April 2013 21:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Phil, oh yeah forgot about taxes.

19 April 2013 21:35  
Blogger Peter D said...

Well said, Inspector at 21:20, though I doubt I'd support a call to execute David Steele!

Hate to see you goaded into taking the law into your own hands and ending up in a Court on a charge of serious assault or worse.

19 April 2013 21:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Are you being deliberately obtuse, boy ? The fallacy of the argument applies to you as well as the Inspector. Imagine, the camp down the road holds those pink triangle lads including your homosexual lover. All you have to do is to acquire an SS uniform (...perhaps by seducing a queer SS guard...), go in and lead him out.

But would you ?

19 April 2013 21:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now Now Peter D, we don’t want to presume the outcome to David Steele’s trial, do we...

19 April 2013 21:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's okay Inspector, just do a Cardinal Richelieu and claim that the pen is mightier than the sword. Or perhaps an armchair is more comfortable than a prison cell, truth be told.

19 April 2013 21:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


That’s right, evade....

{SNORT}

19 April 2013 21:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

Alternatively, Inspector, you could always rely on prayer and the inevitable wrath of God. Afterall, there is a somewhat spectaculor biblical precedent.

19 April 2013 22:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

You have the option to intervene to try to save one individual baby, an actual person, irrespective of whether that would change the abortion landscape

Except that you don't. If you physically stop one abortion one day (e.g. by forcing a closure of an abattoir) all that happens is she comes back the next, or goes to a different place. They way you stop individual abortions in countries where is it legal is to try to change the mind of the mother.

You don't do that effectively by "direct action".

19 April 2013 22:08  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

The principle being that it is more sensible to resolve a conflict by the use of words and communication rather than by physical conflict and confrontation

The saying "the pen is mightier than the sword" is attributed is from Edward Bulwer-Lytton's play 'Richelieu'.

“ Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! - itself a nothing! -
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Caesars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! - Take away the sword -
States can be saved without it!”


Persuasion of individuals seems sensible in a liberal democracy governed by the rule of law.

Of course the following is attributed to the historical Cardinal:

"Had Luther and Calvin been confined before they had begun to dogmatize, the states would have been spared many troubles."

19 April 2013 22:26  
Blogger Ivan said...


The reason we don't see too much direct action, is that the media and certain evil politicians, would then use those incidents to proscribe Christians as law-breakers, make a case for even more and "safer" abortions, moan about crazed fundamentalists wanting to control women's bodies, and thus insinuate to impressionable females that their "right to choose" is at stake and that therefore they need to view abortion as a non-negotiable right. In short bringing about the very outcome that said direct action sought to avoid in the first place.

20 April 2013 00:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I think much more emphasis should be put on promoting the value of human life, after all we are unique in that we can do such wonderful things. We are not animals although with some people you wouldn't think so! Our culture has to change in general to promote a less is more attitude when it comes to sex and especially amongst the group/s that have the highest amount of abortions.

Abortion cannot be banned otherwise it's back to the backstreets and people like this monster. But the limit should be amended to 20 weeks now.
Maybe the Inspector would take action and adopt a few of these unwanted babies?

20 April 2013 03:09  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Marie

There are lots of familes very willing to adopt these babies

However, the women involved prefer to murder their children instead.

It really is very simple.

It is called selfishness and this god is worshiped above everything else.

"Abortion cannot be banned" oh yes it can and it should be. As for the promoting the value of human life, if you are in a "useless" group to society e.g. the old the disabled the "might be born disabled" or might be born a girl then your life is worth less to society every day.

Eugenics is very much part of our world.

Phil







20 April 2013 06:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There seems to be a sudden influx of utilitarian calculus now despite the deontological nature of some of this. How curious.

20 April 2013 08:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "But the limit should be amended to 20 weeks now."

What's the relevance of 20 weeks rather than 24 there? Also, what difference would that make if something becomes a person at the zygote stage?

20 April 2013 08:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

There seems to be a sudden influx of utilitarian calculus now despite the deontological nature of some of this. How curious.

If you really think that, then you are very confused.

The fact that I have an absolutist morality, does not mean that I think there is no place for utilitarian calculus, it just means that I do not think utilitiarian calculus can contradict a moral absolute.

For example, I can expect that a government spending my money will spend that money in the most effective way possible provided it does not violate any moral absolutes.

In relation to abortion, let us agree for the sake of argument that the following are moral absolutes:

1. It is always wrong for anyone to do evil that good may come of it.

2. Everyone has a duty to protect innocent human life from conception to natural death.


Believing those propositions, how can I be faulted for not carrying forms of direct action which are either (a) immoral in themselves or (b) fail to protect innocent human life, but actually make it harder to do so? And yet that seems to me to be your complaint.

20 April 2013 11:05  
Blogger David B said...

@Albert

"In relation to abortion, let us agree for the sake of argument that the following are moral absolutes:

1. It is always wrong for anyone to do evil that good may come of it.

2. Everyone has a duty to protect innocent human life from conception to natural death."

I can't agree that they are moral absolutes, or event moral absolutes exist.

Actually I think your 1) and 2) are both badly flawed, from a POV of relative, evolving, morality.

And, hey, isn't it Christian doctrine that there is no such thing as an innocent human life, anyway?

David

20 April 2013 11:35  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Marie

My friend tried to adopt as his wife found it very difficult to conceive (He was 40 and she was 29)but they had a young son and want sibling(s) for him to grow up with.

They had their own home and an household income of around £80K, they had no problems in their past and were members of our Church.

Every stage they were refused or were asked to pay exorbitant fees (adopting from abroad -many thousands of pounds. However, the main problem for the UK seemed to be that the wife was not born in the UK

In the end they gave up.

20 April 2013 12:22  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Sadly I've got three sets of friends who've attempted to go through the adoption process in the UK in the last 5 years.

2 couples gave up part way through the process. 1 couple persevered and eventually adopted an 18 month little boy.

All three couples said never, ever again - a view echoed by a lady at my church who was a social worker for over 30 years and whose opinions on the British adoption system are quite unrepeatable in polite company.

The adoption system in this country is frankly screwed, and not likely to get better in the foreseeable future.

Inspector, there are indeed many couples willing to adopt children. But able to adopt children under our current system...well, that's a different game altogether...

20 April 2013 12:33  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

I didn't ask you to agree with those principles, but with the principles for the sake of argument. Dan was saying that the position held by many here is inconsistent with their principles. I was showing that it is consistent, and that it is in fact logically entailed by those principles. Nothing that you have said answers that case.

or event moral absolutes exist.

I don't expect that's actually true, but if it is, it would mean your morality can be trumped by non-moral considerations, which would rather undermine your morality.

isn't it Christian doctrine that there is no such thing as an innocent human life, anyway?

That's a distortion of the doctrine of Original Sin. In any case, the principle of justice here means the word "innocent" refers to being innocent of anything that would justify killing. That point is tautological, I think. Whether you think it entails the belief that an innocent person should not have their life taken from them tells us only whether you think murder is wrong.

20 April 2013 12:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "Actually I think your 1) and 2) are both badly flawed, from a POV of relative, evolving, morality."

They're too broadbrush to be useful even if one notes the careful word placement in there, and it's their working together that presents the problems of course. One might raise the example of the police officers killing the Boston bomber to illustrate this. In fact, I'd have shot either of them myself before the bombs went off if I knew what they were about to do and there was no other way of stopping them ... as a matter of duty to each of the 'innocent' individuals around them. But perhaps it's a matter of passively sacrificing babies everyday to the actions of murderers in order to be free to moan every so often under blog articles in the hope of influencing majority public opinion in the long term? It must be difficult to sleep at night doing that, even so.

20 April 2013 13:17  
Blogger Albert said...

First of all, I proposed 1 & 2 for the sake of argument. I was showing the position was internally consistent. Neither of you has shown that that argument holds, you've just changed the subject.

As to whether one accepts 1 & 2 neither of you has attempted to defeat them. The situation in Boston is not affected by them. If they are correct, the police would still be within their rights to kill the bombers if that was only way of stopping them from killing innocent people. The principles would not be violated.

20 April 2013 13:37  
Blogger Albert said...

For clarity, by saying "that that argument holds" I mean the argument that said the position was inconsistent.

20 April 2013 13:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Phil
All those groups you mention Phil DO have value, the old and the disabled teach us patience to care and to be less selfish. But, saying that why would you give birth to a disabled baby when you knew it would be so early on through the advanced technology and testing we have now. Why would you knowingly bring forth a new life that had to suffer? And the fact it might die at some stage anyway.

Danj0
The relevance is the survival rates of babies between 20 and 24 wks is a lot higher with the advancement of neo natal care, but saying that again there is the chance that it might not and that of complications setting if too underdeveloped, but these are decreasing.

So a late aborted baby is otherwise healthy, it should be given the same treatments that are given to premature babies. Then when strong enough be given up for adoption. Or as I have said before pregnant women should be given ALL the choices. Not just to have it or not.

Yes the zygote has a soul but if the morning after pill is administered will not have a chance to embed in the womb and grow. It's still immoral killing a live soul, so is abortion up to the 20 wks, but in some circumstances it cannot be avoided. If the bed hopping brigades were taught more about morals,family values and responsibility there might not be so many unwanted pregnancies.

You have got to weigh things up morally and practically to come to a sensible conclusion based as much as possible on that great survival guide the Bible.

20 April 2013 15:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Phil Just caught up with your last address to me, shame that adoption in this country is so difficult a process. That's an important area that has to be looked at by David Cameron. Now there he could make a difference. That would be progress.

20 April 2013 15:55  
Blogger Flossie said...

The Guardian has at last reported on this, but they blame the pro-lifers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/19/gosnell-abortion-trial-pro-life-activists-to-blame

20 April 2013 17:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

"why would you give birth to a disabled baby when you knew it would be so early on through the advanced technology and testing we have now."

why would you give birth to a a baby in a poor household/ one with less than the median IQ/a dwarf?/ one without blue eyes and blond hair/a homosexual (if you had a test for it)/ one that may have ADHD/one that might not like to go camping with you/ or will not get into a Russel Group Uni/ One that might be a single mum/ marry him or her/ in short how are you to chose their life and death based on maybes.

"Why would you knowingly bring forth a new life that had to suffer?" Perhaps Mary should have said no then...!

" And the fact it might die at some stage anyway. " So we should kill babies who might not survive? Why stop there if that is your logic? It always amazes me the NHS spends millions keeping children alive one they are born (sometimes against the parents wishes) but happily kills them if they were a few weeks younger, healthy or not.

" If the bed hopping brigades were taught more about morals,family values and responsibility there might not be so many unwanted pregnancies." There always has been and always will be "unwanted" pregnancies. It is called life. I may have helped along a few unwanted pregnancies in my youth. It seems however, that very few go on to become unwanted children even if the pregnancy is unwanted.

Even then the possibility of starting life unwanted is enough to murder them? I thought that is what the Gospel is for?

Phil



20 April 2013 18:28  
Blogger gungho said...

Less than 2 minutes of Googling & I found several articles in the Guardian, the Independant & the Mail. I also found articles on the BBC website dated Jan 2011 & another dated 15th April 2013 (3 days before your blog), and your criticising media standards for not covering it ? Take a look in the mirror if you want to see poor journalism.

20 April 2013 18:38  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

gungho

And you first read about it where?

20 April 2013 18:44  
Blogger gungho said...

@Dreadnaught - I found a link to this blog on a forum I read. Like it or not, the BBC did publish the full facts on snipping over 2 years ago. I didn't read it then, but it was published.

20 April 2013 18:55  
Blogger Peter D said...

Flossie said...

"The Guardian has at last reported on this, but they blame the pro-lifers."

The journalist, Jill Filipovic, lives on anothet planet!

"Understanding why women went to Gosnell requires understanding just how inaccessible abortion is for low-income women, who are disproportionately women of color, and for rural women."

So Gosnell is a product of the 'system' that conspires against women and really should be seen a hero of poor black, rural women.

"Anti-abortion terrorists have succeeded in scaring a good number of doctors, nurses and staff out of working at abortion clinics, either by flat-out shooting doctors and bombing facilities or by engaging in extended harassment and intimidation campaigns. Ninety percent of abortion clinics report experiencing some type of harassment."

How shocking that people want to protest against the murder of children.

"Twenty-six states have mandatory waiting periods, where women are treated like incompetent children and forced to go home and think about their requested abortion for 24 or 48 hours."

Truely terrible; one's heart bleeds. They have to think about things for a few days. Reprehensible.

"Anti-abortion ideologues have also succeeded in passing laws that require doctors to tell women outright lies about abortion that no reputable medical organizations back – for example, that abortion causes breast cancer, that fetuses feel pain or that women who terminate pregnancies have long-term mental health problems."

How shocking that they should be made to consider the child's suffering or possible future health issues they might face. Unheard of.

"One in three American women will terminate a pregnancy in her life. Many of these women could be helped by universal healthcare, contraception coverage, sexual health education, affordable daycare and a variety of other policies routinely promoted by feminists and opposed by pro-life Republicans. But instead of giving women the tools to both prevent unintended pregnancy and care for wanted children, the "pro-life" right dedicates its money and effort making abortion more difficult and more dangerous. The goal isn't the promote life; it's to punish women."

Oh yeah; very good point! I mean 1 in 3 women all need this help. Its everyone else's fault and everyone else's responsibility. Protecting the unborn is really about punishing women.

Is she actually paid for writing this?

20 April 2013 19:59  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

None of the above hold any valid reasons not to give birth Phil. It's the unknown.
As science advances it should only be allowed to abort after 20 wks if a baby is severely disabled, nothing else.
An acquaintance of mine had a termination at five and a half months of her severely disabled son. I think she had an injection in the womb and a subsequent still birth. She already had one son and is now trying for another child.
I don't see anything wrong with this, it wasn't a light decision she and her husband made.

20 April 2013 21:38  
Blogger Peter D said...

Marie 1797 said ...

"An acquaintance of mine had a termination at five and a half months of her severely disabled son ... I don't see anything wrong with this, it wasn't a light decision she and her husband made."

Marie, it was a gravely immoral act whatever the circumstances and no matter how difficult the decision. Life is life and no one is the owner of anyone else's life.

20 April 2013 22:47  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Marie1797 20 April 2013 03:09: Maybe the Inspector would take action and adopt a few of these unwanted babies?

I vote for that. At least two. Preferably Black African. That bachelor has been squirreling away too much disposable income and could send both to Eton on what he's been frittering away on single malts and curry take-outs.

21 April 2013 02:45  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Marie

I will always remember my wife being screamed at by her mother to have an abortion for our 5th child. "It will ruin your life" was shouted at her among other things. A number of people also told her or hinted that she should do this including health professionals, who also suggestes strongly that one of us should be sterilised.

He is phyically fine but only average ability in school, predicted mostly GCSE grade C, which is a lot worse than his older siblings but this is the extent of the "disability" that concerned everyone.

On a side issue, he knows the Bible backwards, loves God with all his heart and has only had one goal in life since he was around 8 years old and that is to lead a church. He is now 16, if he came to your Bible Study you would be amazed.

It was difficult to swim against the tide of opion at the time though.

Phil



21 April 2013 04:41  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Marie

one last distubing thing connected with above

A year or two after the the incident above my wife had to go to hospital for a test. Ou local Med Centre rang to ask us to take my wife's mdeical file as the hospital had requested it.

Reading it in the car on the way up the suggested abortion was documented and a very dark picture was painted of us by a midwife and doctor about our failure to agree to medical advice and seek an abortion.

It was suggested that Social Services, medical staff and others should monitor our family.

Needless to say these papers and a number of others connected with the birth were "lost" on the journey.

We were never informed about the suggestion of Social Services (SS) being involved, but our local Headteacher told us off the record that he had been asked to give his opinion of our family.

The thing is we still don't know if we are being "monitored" by the SS or not and we will not be fully able to relax until our youngest aged 3 becomes an adult.

Phil




21 April 2013 04:59  
Blogger DWW said...

What a truly terrible & vile state of events. I don't often agree with this blog's editorial stance but I do on this matter- thanks for raising the issue.

21 April 2013 10:53  
Blogger Flossie said...

Phil - kudos to you and your wife for going ahead with the pregnancy. It is chilling that you should be 'watched' for making this decision. I was offered an appointment to see a psychiatrist when I had my last child somewhat late in the day, 18 years after my first, and refused a termination. I declined! What kind of society thinks there is something wrong with people who refuse abortions?

21 April 2013 10:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Avi. It is to the Inspector’s lasting regret that he failed to find a suitable and like minded woman with whom to have a family. Also, we should remember the countless husbands whose wives refused to give them children. This man has two close friends to whom this has happened. Both were involved in their career and business in their younger days and both were expecting ‘happy news’ somewhere along the line which never came. It was only as they approached their 50th did it really strike home their loss.

Two large houses populated with cats and dogs and wives devoted to their pets. An empty existence really. One recommends to any younger men reading this who are on the verge of commitment to do what was never required until the last few decades. Obtain a surety from their intended that she is family minded.

21 April 2013 12:28  
Blogger michael north said...


When those who oppose abortion start using terms like "personhood", they are playing into the hands of the necrophiles. (Obama bandies the word around.) Humanity isn't a matter of philosophy; it is a matter of hard, biological science. If your DNA is human, you are human, and have the rights that are supposed to go with that. Furthermore, a foetus is genetically distinct - an individual - from the moment of conception.

The real question is not whether a pre-birth child is human, but whether being human actually matters. There are plenty today who think it doesn't.

21 April 2013 12:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

Well done for doing the right thing. What a disturbing world - the SS start observing you because you don't kill your fifth child. Are they lacking intellectually or morally, I wonder? The ironies are endless.

21 April 2013 14:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie,

An acquaintance of mine had a termination at five and a half months of her severely disabled son. I think she had an injection in the womb and a subsequent still birth. She already had one son and is now trying for another child.
I don't see anything wrong with this, it wasn't a light decision she and her husband made.


So you know a couple who killed their son because he was disabled. And you can't see anything wrong in that?

I'm always interested in the way pro abortionists speak of how it is such a difficult decision to make. I really cannot understand the logic of this. Either the unborn is a human being or not. If it is a human being then the decision is easy: you don't kill them. If it isn't a human being, then there's no moral problem.

When pro-abortionists admit that it's hard, they are effectively saying "I know the truth is this is immoral, but I want to do it anyway." It's women like that who suffer mental trauma in later life - compounding the tragedy.

21 April 2013 14:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

In an objective moral sense, the abortionist is as the child molester or murderer for hire or the friendly camp doctor looking for twins. He conspires with another to kill the helpless for the sake of money - or worse - for the sake of ideology. In a just civilization, he would be tried, convicted, and hung by the neck until he was dead. Alas, we are not a just civilization. The abortionist has become instead the silent carrier of modern civilization's night soil. Well paid is he, but also saturated with a perpetual fecal stench. Unborn children have become offal to be discarded - the necessary if unpleasant byproduct of self-indulgence, and someone has to carry the bucket.

So then, since the abortionist is such a murderous creature that he reduces unborn children to the equivalent of human waste, then why do we not take 'direct action' against him? For surely he has warranted the bullet in the brain. If we are willing to defend the innocent from murder then why not the unborn innocent? Does this not reveal a tacit admission that even we recognize a difference between born and unborn? Are we being inconsistent?

Well, let's consider the fearsome responsibility of taking upon ourselves the choice to kill. Normally the state is given the authority to kill. The citizen is not judge and jury. He therefore cannot on his own initiative kill someone for what he has done. Neither can he kill someone for what he might do. "Vengeance is mine" says the Lord. "I will repay." This requires us to bear the burden of injustice. This isn't my most favorite revelation of all time, but revelation it is none the less. By nature, we seek vengeance, but we do not seek it with the eyes of Providence. We must trust the God is just and will do what He says. As much as the abortionist might deserve it, we have not the authority to repay him.

But what about exigency? If we encounter a criminal posing imminent threat to a third party, we are justified in using deadly force. Should this not also apply to the abortionist? But how does this circumstance of exigency arise? There is in abortion no equivalent to walking into a convenience store and encountering a robbery in process. A man doesn't find himself just hanging around an abortion clinic. The imminent threat would occur at that part of the abortion that actually kills the child. He would have to be in the procedure room at that moment. How is that going to occur?

Perhaps he could wait outside. Perhaps there is a window in the procedure room, and a well-placed sniper shot could do the deed. But this is called "lying in wait. " It reveals a prior intent to kill that cannot be present in a case of exigency. The shooter premeditated to kill but simply chose a moment convenient to his understanding of morality. That is murder disguised as exigency.

The circumstances of performing abortion make the realization of exigency impossible to achieve. Anything else is cold-blooded murder. We may see the abortionist walk the streets but we have no authority to deal with him. Surely however he will be dealt with. Woe to the man who dies with such blood on his hands. Or perhaps he will repent. Perhaps the blood will be washed from his hands by Another. This ultimately is why we are not allowed to take vengeance upon ourselves. We see dimly, and into the future not at all. We do not understand the implications of our actions. It becomes instead an exercise in trust, and trust is a hard master.

carl

21 April 2013 15:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Phil from what you write here about your son he seems hardly disabled and nothing like the deformed foetus that was growing inside the body of my acquaintance, who was later informed by medical staff that he would also be to a large extent brain damaged and would suffer.

Albert
They went home and did research on what they were told he had (she did tell me the name but I've forgotten) coming to the conclusion that it was kinder for him if they let him go. They had thought about the moral aspect of killing a baby. They had weighed up the strength of their relationship and consulted the wider families, they took into consideration the financial situations and the wider environment and researched the support they might expect to get from the local authorities. Believe me they thought it through.

Avi
Ha ha yes I can see the Inspector with a couple of black African boys trotting along beside him. But he'd probably send them away to boarding school for a bit of peace, and employ a nanny for the rest of the time who he'd have cooking curries for when he came in frm the “Mouse & Wheel”

21 April 2013 16:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Would anyone like to take this on?
I know that I would opt for but be interested to hear alternative pov.

If a woman is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy would it be moral to abort the foetus to save the woman's life?

21 April 2013 16:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

If a woman is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy would it be moral to abort the foetus to save the woman's life?

Yes. That is an example of the only circumstance that justifies abortion. In an ectopic pregnancy, there are only two possible outcomes: the child dies or both the mother and child die. Either way, the child is dead. So you act to save the mother.

Some RCs have argued that the 'blame' attaches to a 'defective' Fallopian tube, and thus assert that the Fallopian tube be removed. The child is therefore killed as a secondary result of a palliative treatment, and the so the act of killing is not intentional. This to me is transparently thin moral evasion.

carl

21 April 2013 17:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What hoops the anti-choice people jump through to avoid the consequences of holding their principles. One sees much the same thing with some animal-rights advocates, crying "meat is murder!" until they're put on the spot themselves.

21 April 2013 17:22  
Blogger michael north said...


carl jacobs @ 17.09

I don't see moral evasion. It is a case of what is termed "double effect". If conjoined twins are separated in the certainty that one will die as a result (while both would die if nothing were done), that is the same, and something that makes the news from time to time.

21 April 2013 17:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

CJ
Some ectopic pregnancies (admittedly rare),can be helped to bring forth a viable baby.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2658086/Miracle-baby-who-grew-outside-the-womb.html

21 April 2013 17:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 April 2013 18:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

No hoops. A man can be killed before, during, or after an event. He can't justifiably be killed before the event because he is not yet guilty. He can't justifiably be killed after the event because only the state has the authority to execute such judgment. If there is an exigent circumstance that would allow an abortionist to be justifiably killed during the abortion, then I would suggest such a circumstance be described. I can't conceive of it.

You can't kill someone just because he does something evil. Knowing he did it isn't sufficient. Expecting that he might do it again isn't sufficient. You don't have that authority. You have to observe the threat of imminent harm. As a matter of fact, according to civil law, you are not allowed to brandish a weapon on the expectation of imminent harm. Assume a man is walking toward me with a club. You cannot draw & shoot until he is close enough to reasonably threaten you. You learn these things when you take a 'concealed carry' course. I don't know about others. I take these things seriously - both on civil and religious grounds. Choosing to kill a man is a fearsome responsibility.

There is another more practical aspect as well. Being justified to kill in principle is not the same as being compelled to kill in practice. To assassinate the abortionist is to remain anonymous. Killing under the asserted condition of exigency means you are voluntarily surrendering yourself to the punishment the state will inflict. For the state does not consider abortion to be murder, and so it will not recognize your claim of exigency. The killing of the abortionist thus becomes an act of total sacrifice. There are not many people who would make such a sacrifice for another - whether that other person was born or unborn. This does not indicate a difference in the nature of the victim, but rather a difference in the nature of the law. People will defend the born because the law will justify them. They would also defend the unborn should the law justify them. But it will not.

At the end of the day, the abortionist is dead. The exigency is denied. The shooter is imprisoned. And the dead abortionist's co-conspirator simply finds another abortionist. Nothing has actually been accomplished. It is the 'Vom Rath' problem. The death inflicted becomes symbolic and pointless and actually counter-productive.

carl

21 April 2013 18:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hmmm. Some things were not meant to be. That’s how it is, and no blame...

21 April 2013 18:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

That's truly amazing. I had no idea such things were possible. The ideal solution is of course to remove the child to a safe location where it might grow in peace. My understanding was that such procedures were beyond the capability of modern medicine.

carl

21 April 2013 18:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

michael north

There is no evidence that the Fallopian tube is defective. There is no reasonable expectation that an ectopic pregnancy would happen would re-occur. The Fallopian tube is not being removed because it is defective. There is in fact no medical reason to remove the Fallopian tube at all. Neither is it a happy coincidence that the Fallopian tube is removed before the ectopic pregnancy becomes life-threatening. The purpose of the procedure is to remove the child in order to prevent the death of the mother. It is abortion by any other name.

To assert otherwise is moral evasion. What else should I call it?

carl

21 April 2013 18:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

When it comes to the several disabled foetus, one is of the opinion that God is not as averse to us doing ‘what should be done’ as we think he is...

21 April 2013 18:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Agreed CJ but don't like the word 'miracle' well I wouldn't would I ;-)

21 April 2013 18:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie,

Believe me they thought it through.

Yes, but the key point in your paragraph was this one:

They had thought about the moral aspect of killing a baby.

No amount of thinking it through alters the fact or justifies the fact that they killed their baby because he was disabled.

What about if the baby had been born and then the disability had been discovered? Would it have been acceptable to kill the baby then, just because they had "thought it through"? Of course it wouldn't. The only possible excuse for an abortion is, pure and simply, that the unborn is not human. However, it's pretty hard for anyone to think that he is not human after five and half months.

In the end, they killed their baby for being disabled. Your description indicates they did this knowing that that is what they were doing. It is morally indefensible.

One can be sympathetic to the tragedy of the circumstances without changing the truth of the matter. One can also sympathise with a couple because the moral depravity of the age means such an action is supported. But the truth is, they killed their baby for being disabled, and you can expect a range of mental and emotional trauma to kick in as a result.

21 April 2013 18:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I'm sorry, I think you are not quite right here. The issue with double effect is that the the child dies as the indirect, unwanted consequence of an act (removing the tube) which is proportionate (it's done because of the risk to the mother) and in itself morally neutral or good. If one removed the child directly, it would be murder.

This is simply how a moral act works. Take a comparison, a pregnant woman needs chemo which we can be morally certain will result in the death of the child. Can she have that? Yes she can. The death of the child is an unwanted indirect side effect of a good action. It happens all the time. We cannot control all the consequences of our actions. We can do acts which are good in themselves and for which we have a good intention - i.e. we are no intending the evil (in this case the death of the child).

What you cannot do is take the child's life to save the mother. That is doing evil that good may come of it - but I know you're a bit of a liberal on particular piece of scripture...

21 April 2013 19:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Sorry, in the first paragraph, I mean if one killed the child directly, it would be murder.

21 April 2013 19:06  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert,
Surely the degree of disability needs to be taken in to consideration. Without prior knowledge of this how can you maintain your position without asking WHY this child or these parents?

A club foot or hare-lip etc, is not a valid reason to abort but it is not the same as a brain developing outside the skull: or if Elizabeth Fritzel had been asking for your help in obtaining an abortion?

I rather hoped you would have responded to the 'Wisdom of Solomon' question of the life of the unborn or the life of the mother scenario.

21 April 2013 19:23  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sorry - you did respond - crossed posts.

21 April 2013 19:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

In terms of the sympathy one feels for the parents then yes, the degree of disability needs to be taken into consideration. In terms of the morality of the act, it makes no difference. An ill, disabled or vulnerable person is deserving of more care, not less, and certainly not killing.

The only exception to this - as I have said - is if the unborn isn't human. I suppose someone might say that if the brain is growing on the outside of the skull perhaps they are not human. If they are not human then that is a different moral question.

21 April 2013 19:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

No Albert, they are human. They are alive - someone has to make a decision; count yourself fortunate that it is not you. I'm afraid no amount of sympathy will compensate.

Can you imagine how a man and a woman would feel if confronted by a mob of ignorant(of the facts)'pro-lifers' outside the clinic as witnessed in the US?

Of course the vile acts as reported by Ivo are truly criminal and in no way can be representative of the otherwise moral legitimacy of medically supervised abortion.

21 April 2013 20:01  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

You don't seem to take into consideration the terrible pain and suffering let alone the many operations such a severely disabled baby would have to endure. This is the other moral dilemma that was also considered. You seem quite happy to see unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted upon a soul just in order that he not be aborted.

21 April 2013 20:12  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Marie

"Phil from what you write here about your son he seems hardly disabled and nothing like the deformed foetus that was growing inside the body of my acquaintance, who was later informed by medical staff that he would also be to a large extent brain damaged and would suffer. "

The point is we did not really know how he would turn out because we refused further tests.

OK another example

I had a friend in school who lost the use of his legs. He certainly suffered. But he lived a very successful life as a computer programmer. He got married but could not have children.

If this sort of disability could have been detected in the womb then we should allow termination then?

I know where you are coming from, I just don't know where we draw the line. Maybe disabled does not cut it for me

Phil


21 April 2013 20:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

I agree mostly with what you say.

What Danjo is on about I think is e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's dilemma

"[That if a madman were] driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver."

He was of course, justifying the act of attempted assassination of Nazis.

I think I see DanJo's point. The moral dilemma is very similar

Phil

21 April 2013 20:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I was going to mention the attempted assassinations of Hitler earlier as it goes but decided not to. I'm just playing devil's advocate, you understand. I'm not actually advocating violence, I'd rather people accepted the other horn of the dilemma.

21 April 2013 21:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

... or argue successfully that it's a false dichotomy of course.

21 April 2013 21:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

Morality and accepting life belongs to God, is NOT about the 'feelings' of parents or them having 'sympathy' for the life their child might live.

The evil of abortion is always an offence against God. Our destiny is life eternal, this is where we should keep our focus, not on the pain and suffering of this life.

21 April 2013 21:09  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Let's look at a starker choice.

First of all, let's consider a terrible situation that could happen to any parent - the moment where a hospital tells them that there is no hope for their child which is on a life support system and asks for their permission to turn off the life support. Can anyone consider that the reaction of the Catholic friend to these parents would be anything other than love, support, comfort?

Now, let's take the same situation. Same parents. A scan at 20 weeks has just diagnosed that their much wanted, much hoped for baby is anencephalic - the brain has not developed. There is no question about the diagnosis. The woman is already in a dangerous pregnancy where she has been warned that to continue the pregnancy risks her own life. She has two children already. The child she is carrying cannot live for five minutes outside the womb. Her body in this case is acting as the life support system.

What does the Catholic friend say then?

Think very hard before you answer this.

21 April 2013 21:22  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

To save this debate being side tracked by the particular diagnosis and the three cases of survival in an unconscious state historically documented, let us also assume a major heart defect and other organs malformed or absent. All the medical advice is unanimous - this child cannot survive birth.

21 April 2013 21:29  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Sister T

You are talking about a one in a million scenario.

No one in ten million

Agreed, that abortion is probably the correct moral choice here.

But it is still a one in ten million scenario

Phil

21 April 2013 21:47  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Sadly, it's far from a one in a million case. Anencephaly occurs in roughly 1 in 10000 births. Nor is it the only situation where a child can be accurately diagnosed as non viable in the womb.

I'm no supporter of abortion, Phil, as you well know. And this sort of situation is actually becoming more common rather than less, because pre-birth diagnosis is becoming better, and because a lot of women are having children later which produces a higher risk of abnormalities, some of which will not be viable.

I've had this debate with two priests as well. Both of whom considered that Canon law simply was not written to deal with this situation, and indeed was written before the technology existed that made this degree of pre-birth diagnosis possible.

21 April 2013 21:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Phil

What Danjo is on about I think is e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's dilemma

What DanJ0 is on about is this: "If you pro-lifers actually believed that abortion was murder, you would kill an abortionist today in order to prevent an abortion tomorrow. Since you won't do this, you tacitly admit that you don't actually believe abortion is murder." That is the dilemma he believes he is presenting. By this logic, I should kill a child molester today in order to prevent a child molestation tomorrow. I should access the nearest sex offender website in order to hunt down and kill every listed child molester on the reasonable expectation that they will all re-offend. But by what authority would I do this thing? I am not the Law. The sword was not given into my hands. That's why I appealed to exigency. That is the only justification I have for employing deadly force as a private citizen.

"[That if a madman were] driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver."

Your example does not track. This is the very definition of exigent circumstance. You are acting under the immediacy of the threat of imminent harm. You should adjust your example thus. If you knew a man had deliberately driven a car into a crowd to kill as many people as possible, would you be justified after the fact if you shot him in the head as retribution for his crime. If you knew a man planned on the morrow to drive a car into a crowd in order to kill as many people as possible, would you be justified in killing him before the fact? If you answer "Yes" then I am going to ask you for an authority. But I already know that you will not be able to cite either Law or Scripture in defense of you position. So to what will you appeal?

carl

21 April 2013 22:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

The issue with double effect is that the the child dies as the indirect, unwanted consequence of an act (removing the tube) which is proportionate (it's done because of the risk to the mother) and in itself morally neutral or good.

This isn't like chemotherapy. You are inventing a false medical condition (a defective Fallopian tube) in order to bootstrap an otherwise unnecessary palliative treatment (removing the Fallopian tube) so that you can claim the death of the child as an unintentional secondary effect. Except the death of the child isn't unintentional. It is the required treatment. You are removing the Fallopian tube not because it is defective but because there is an unborn child growing within it. The simple fact that you assert a contrary motive does not change the moral content of the act in question.

What you cannot do is take the child's life to save the mother. That is doing evil that good may come of it - but I know you're a bit of a liberal on particular piece of scripture...

So you suggest instead that we find some way of killing the child while pretending that we aren't doing so. As if this little Kabuki dance has some moral significance. Let your yes be yes, Albert. Don't hide behind obvious subterfuge.

carl

21 April 2013 22:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Phil
I do realise the slippery slope argument here, there is also the other side that more women would out of despair abandon their severely disabled babies for the state to take over its care should it live.

As advancements are made there should have to be a cut off level of severity of disability that would qualify for the choice of a late termination if there isn't already.
Wanting to abort simply because the baby has no legs or might have a genetic disposition to develop a disability later on in life or other such should not qualify. They could be aborting another Stephen Hawking!

21 April 2013 22:48  
Blogger Peter D said...

Sister Tiberia

Is a lack of cognitive function and probability of brevity of life really a moral reason to kill a child in the womb? Does this child have a life of less meaning or purpose than others?

It can never be morally justified to directly cause the death of an innocent person no matter the age or condition of that person.

This child during his or her brief life after birth should be given the comfort and palliative care appropriate to all the dying.

As for women having children later in life and thereby increasing the odds of their child having disabilities, well, I'm sorry, but the answer to this is glaring obvious.

The basic Catholic principle of do no evil even if good can come from it, is not a matter of Canon Law, sister, and the response of these two priests surprises me.

21 April 2013 23:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

Carl said ...

"You are inventing a false medical condition (a defective Fallopian tube) in order to bootstrap an otherwise unnecessary palliative treatment (removing the Fallopian tube) so that you can claim the death of the child as an unintentional secondary effect."

Do you know what happens to a fallopian tube during an ectropic pregnancy? They result in the wall the tube stretching and rupturing. resulting in the death of both mother and child.

The use of methotrexate is one treatment. This will kill cells and constitutes a direct attack on the growing child in the tube, and is a direct abortion.

Cutting along the fallopian tube where the child is embedded and "scooping out" the living body of the child leaves the fallopian tube largely intact but is a direct attack on the child.

A morally acceptable approach involves removal of the whole section of the tube on the side of the woman's body where the unborn child is lodged. The section of tube around the growing child either has or will have become pathological, and constitutes a mounting threat with time. This threat is addressed by removal of the tube, with the secondary, and unintended, effect that the child within will then die.

There's no moral equivocation in this. The difference lies in how the baby dies. There is always a difference between killing someone directly and allowing someone to die of indirect causes.

We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being, though we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life that comes with trying to properly address a life-threatening medical situation.

22 April 2013 00:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 April 2013 00:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Peter

Your claim of moral differentiation is based upon a fabrication - that the threat to the mother's life is located in the Fallopian Tube itself. That is a pretense. An evasion. A prevarication. A subterfuge. A Lie. The tube is not the source of the threat to the mother's life. The threat emerges from the fact that there is a child developing in the tube. You tacitly admit this in your post by describing methods of treatment that leave the Fallopian tube intact and properly functioning. The only reason you would advocate removing the Fallopian tube is to remove the child inside of it. Yes, this changes how the child dies. But it doesn't change the agent by which the child dies. Nor does it change the motivation for the procedure. It is still a direct attack because the tube is only being removed to kill the child. There is no other medical justification for its removal.

carl

22 April 2013 00:45  
Blogger Peter D said...

Carl

"That is a pretense. An evasion. A prevarication. A subterfuge. A Lie."

Unjustified words.

No, its a way of saving the life of the mother by removing the fallopian tube which, if left unattended, would rupture and kill her. The other two methods of saving her life directly attack the child in the fallopian tube and are immoral.

Left untreated, the fallopian tube would become increasingly pathological. This is the direct threat and removing it the moral solution.

More to the point, do you accept the Catholic principle of doing no evil even though a good may result from it?

Do you support abortion where a mother's life is at risk?

22 April 2013 01:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Peter

Left untreated, the fallopian tube would become increasingly pathological.

The fallopian tube is not swelling because of some defect in the tube itself. It will not rupture because the tube itself is pathological. It is swelling and will eventually rupture because a child is growing within its confines, and the tube was not designed for that eventuality. If the child is not removed from the fallopian tube, the mother will die. There is no treatment that does not involve removing the child from the fallopian tube, and (excepting Dreadnaught's comment) there is no way to do this without killing the child.

So you say "Let's declare the fallopian tube defective, and remove it." This "coincidentally" extracts the child from the mother's body and saves her life. It also kills the child. But what is the defect in the tube that warrants its immediate removal? The fact that a child is implanted within the tube does not indicate a defect in the tube. Remove the ectopic pregnancy and the fallopian tube will likely function normally for the rest of her life. So what is the defect? You are in fact playing a shell game. The defect is the incorrect placement of the child.

More to the point, do you accept the Catholic principle of doing no evil even though a good may result from it?

How the child dies is irrelevant. You haven't changed the moral nature of the act by killing the child through the needless removal of an otherwise healthy organ from her body. You are pretending to change the nature of the act. This is a terrific example as to why I find so much of RC apologetics and argumentation so frustrating. It turns on meaningless semantic differences.

Do you support abortion where a mother's life is at risk?

This is a meaningless question because 'risk' is not quantified. I know a mother of four who nearly died from her fourth pregnancy. She assumed the risk to her own life and continued on with the pregnancy. Her youngest child (and only daughter) is now a fine young woman. I don't know the level of risk she assumed, and so I would not judge her decision either way. As a rule, I do not believe that one person can be compelled to die for another.

carl

22 April 2013 02:05  
Blogger Peter D said...

Carl

We will just have to differ on our interpretation of this matter. As I said, the intervention is directed at the fallopian tube, the rupture of which would kill both mother and child, and not directly at the child.

"As a rule, I do not believe that one person can be compelled to die for another."

I agree with you. Freely choosing not to offend God is not "compulsion". It would have no moral meaning if it were so.

So then, would do you accept the Catholic principle of doing no evil even though a good may result from it?

22 April 2013 11:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Quite evidently, Inspector, the current dating convention. does not serve your purpose. I know little of church culture, but in our synagogues young and not so young visitors appear from time to time and let it be bluntly known to all that they seek an honourable match. It works remarkably well, as assisting in a successful match for marriage is a great blessing. Also, whilst His Grace has taken time off to meditate on existential issues, he may no notice your use of this space as a dating site. Pip, Pip as you'd say...

22 April 2013 13:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

In the ectopic pregnancy example, the death of the child is not intended or desired. It is not done directly, it is neither the means nor the end. Therefore, morally, I cannot see how you are right.

You remain stuck on the physical outcome, but, as I have indicated, it is impossible to judge an action this way, since all of our actions have indirect consequences, many of which will be harmful. That does not make those actions sinful.

This distinction is essential theologically. Otherwise, you would have to say that on account of natural evil, God commits sin, because of the evil that accidentally and indirectly arises as a result of his good actions (causing things to be with all their powers etc.). But God is not guilty of sin. Therefore there is a moral difference between the direct object of an act, and the indirect unwanted consequence.

In making this distinction between direct and indirect, we are not making a "meaningless semantic difference" we are drawing the only logical conclusion we can from the nature of the act, viewed as a moral act, rather than just a physical event.

Incidentally, even if the fallopian tube is not faulty (i.e. it was not the cause of the ectopic element of the pregnancy), it remains a tube with a fault in it, for a fault can mean anything with something in the wrong place at the wrong time. An eye with a cataract in it is still a faulty eye, even if the rest of the eye is working normally.

22 April 2013 13:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Marie,

You don't seem to take into consideration the terrible pain and suffering let alone the many operations such a severely disabled baby would have to endure. This is the other moral dilemma that was also considered. You seem quite happy to see unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted upon a soul just in order that he not be aborted.

Well, what if the disability had been discovered only after birth, would you accept infanticide then? If your answer is no, you are making the same moral judgement as me - that the suffering does not justify the violence against the child's life. In this case, the only way to justify the abortion is say that the child was not human after all. Then there is arguably no problem, but at five and half months, that seems a bit of a push. So which position would you go for?

22 April 2013 13:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Sister Tiberias,

I've had this debate with two priests as well. Both of whom considered that Canon law simply was not written to deal with this situation, and indeed was written before the technology existed that made this degree of pre-birth diagnosis possible.

It's not a question of Canon Law but of moral theology (incidentally Canon Law was written after scans were invented, and thus written at a time when these diagnoses could been done prior to birth). The principle is that you cannot do evil that good may come of it. It doesn't matter how you construct the example, that principle is fundamental to a defence of human rights, to a defence of the right to life, to the defence of human equality, to the defence of the idea that each human being is an end in himself and never a means.

Think very hard before you answer this.

You don't need to say that, as if you are coming up with something new. Those of us who maintain the Catholic position on this are counter cultural. We are likely to have thought it through, including such examples. It is those who belong to the fast food McAbortion culture who don't think things through.

Of them it needs to be asked whether, if one generalised the principle and applied it outside the particularly tragic case they are using it for, they would still accept it - such as if one of their born children was to be killed to save someone else and their dependants. I have no difficulty answering that question. Do you? Though shalt do no murder is not an invitation to a debate. It is a command of the highest good and the highest truth.

22 April 2013 13:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


Albert
Those of us who maintain the Catholic position on this are counter cultural. We are likely to have thought it through, including such examples. It is those who belong to the fast food McAbortion culture who don't think things through.

Grist to the mill as it were:-

I know this is drifting on to the zone of legality vs morality, but I think its worth a consideration in this debate. I maintain that if the circumstances contained in my link below are accurate, an abortion in this case could not possibly be construed as 'murder'.

The water is further muddied by the argument that a Country can be a religious entity whose status as such was interpreted as supplanting a legal provision.

The woman and her baby died having been denied an abortion by the medics in Ireland because, as her husband was told, 'this is a Catholic Country' of an already miscarriage in progress. How can this be morally right?

If there was ever any question of murder, in my view the charge should be laid against the decision taker or, if it was hospital policy, then of corporate manslaughter at least.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/15/irish-abortion-law-blame-death

Sorry I can't stick around to continue the discussion but I appreciate your input.

22 April 2013 14:36  
Blogger Jon said...

Adoption takes a long time, but it's not exorbitantly hard to get through the process, in my experience.

There are two sides to the process, the part by which people are approved to be parents (which ought to be lengthy since we are being entrusted with someone else's child) and the part by which children are found homes.

This second part can usefully be divided in two again, into the part where the birth family is reviewed for their ability to properly care for the child, and a second part, where, should the birth family be found wanting in the first part, the child is found an alternative family.

The only part where speed is of the essence is the second part of the second leg - i.e. once a child has been approved for adoption, an appropriate family be found as quickly as possible. It is only right that the process of taking a child from their family be carefully considered (except where the child is in immediate danger and pre-emption is necessary).

Adoption from abroad is fine, Sister T, but there are plenty of kids in the UK who need good homes. Also at issue was probably the age of your friend. Most agencies dislike placing children with parents more than 40 years their senior as they look to ensure a settled adolescence without further unnecessary "bereavement" (as separation from birth parents is often considered a form of bereavement in the way that children deal with it).

22 April 2013 16:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

I think the case is particularly tragic. It is, however, hard to get to the bottom of the case partly because it is so complicated ("The real problem was the inability to terminate prior to Mrs Halappanavar developing a real or substantive risk to her life," Dr Boylan said. "By that time it was effectively too late to save her life" - very paradoxical), and partly because of the rush politically to exploit the poor woman's death.

The water is further muddied by the argument that a Country can be a religious entity whose status as such was interpreted as supplanting a legal provision. The woman and her baby died having been denied an abortion by the medics in Ireland because, as her husband was told, 'this is a Catholic Country'

This is not the case. Firstly, the full quotation is 'This is a Catholic country and this is the law’. In other words, it is about the law and not about trumping the law with Catholicism as you suggest. Secondly, it's not actually clear what was said - the consultant did not say it, so it is unlikely to be relevant. Thirdly, it seems the law was followed - at least that's what the expert witness consultant said. So the only thing we can learn at this point is that the Guardian is probably not the best place to get a balanced and truthful picture (look carefully at the article and you see the legal expert does not say what the headline says he says - but what's truthfulness worth to people who believe in killing?).

On the other hand, every Catholic commentator I have read has suggested that life-saving treatment would have been acceptable in this case, under double-effect. This, certainly seems to be the view of the Bishops of Ireland (albeit that their document, written before the inquest speaks in general terms).

If all this is true, then Savita Halappanavar lost her life because the law does not in fact reflect Catholic teaching. Why is the law stricter than Catholic teaching? The answer is obvious: in just about every other part of the world, abortionists have exploited loop-holes in the law (given to deal with cases such as these) to enable the killing of children in other circumstances. If that kind of thing didn't go on, I am sure the Irish law would have been clearer and Savita Halappanavar together with millions of children would still be alive. It's an interesting example of "the end justifies the means" results in unforeseen tragedy.

That point of course, won't be discussed - it's hard enough to get people to discuss the terrible cases that this blog post is about - let alone other crimes such as sexist and racist abortions - both of which are entailed by the "pro-choice" lobby.

22 April 2013 17:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Are you offering to be a Shadchan, for Mr Inspector? Will he find the right lady? I hope so...

22 April 2013 18:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh no, Miss Hannah, I make the worst of shadchans, with a zero success rate and possibly mangled bodies in my wake. It is a mitzvah best handled by the Shul rebbetzin and those ladies who somehow know everyone in the congregation and evrything about them. My shabbat kiddushes are spent lookin after the scotch and herring table.

22 April 2013 18:16  
Blogger Peter D said...

Dreadnaught

Savita Halappanavar’s death was caused by a rare infection and was nothing to do with any kind of “denied abortion”. The fact she was “refused” an abortion did not play any role in her death is not being properly reported.

The pro-abortion lobby doesn't know quite what to say.

22 April 2013 18:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

My shabbat kiddushes are spent lookin after the scotch and herring table.

Good plan. A guard is necessary lest someone try to eat it unawares.

carl

22 April 2013 18:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

My difficulty is that I don't recognize any meaningful differentiation between the 'direct' approach and the 'indirect' approach. Both approaches are intended to perform the exact same task. You can't hide that fact with a bunch of arm-waving about a defective fallopian tube. But for the ectopic pregnancy, you would not be removing the fallopian tube. You cannot provide any medical justification for its removal beyond that fact that it houses a developing child that cannot be allowed to continue to develop.

I dislike euphemism intensely. This 'indirect' approach is a euphemism for abortion. The intent of both procedures from beginning to end is to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnancy would kill both mother and child if allowed to continue. You would cut out the fallopian tube only because it contains the child. Not because it is defective or septic or cancerous or anything else. Only because it contains the child, and the child must be removed. That is the fundamental moral reality. All else is evasion.

carl

22 April 2013 18:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, Plato's (?) "who shall guard the guardians" springs to mind. Very apt in my case.

22 April 2013 19:32  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

I see your point regarding an exigent circumstance obliges one to act.

However, in Bonhoeffer's case he was justifying exactly the act you describe

"f you knew a man had deliberately driven a car into a crowd to kill as many people as possible, would you be justified after the fact if you shot him in the head as retribution for his crime. If you knew a man planned on the morrow to drive a car into a crowd in order to kill as many people as possible, would you be justified in killing him before the fact? "

The Nazis had killed innocents and were probably going to kill again. It was against the law but he seemed to use this example to justify as a Christian what they were going to do. In his case try to assassinate Hitler.

I do not believe therefore that Bonhoeffer was confining these actions to just exigent circumstances.

The state does this all the time on our behalf. If a state believed (say 80% chance) that an scheduled airliner had an atomic bomb on board and was headed for its capital it would shoot it down despite the 20% chance that it was wrong. (Also e.g. Iraq WMD fiasco)

In the US if you saw a man killing 5 random unarmed people in the street one after another, with a gun you would feel justified in getting your gun out and killing him before he shot the 6th and 7th person even if he has not yet pointed his gun at a 6th?

Interesting moral dilemma (Esp for a Christian) and not something I have thought about very much before.

Phil




22 April 2013 20:41  
Blogger Peter D said...

Phil

We're into the area of when it is justified to actively resist a State, including the use of force.

22 April 2013 22:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

You can't hide that fact with a bunch of arm-waving about a defective fallopian tube.

I didn't. I gave a full answer to the question and then spoke about the defectiveness of the tube "incidentally".

My difficulty is that I don't recognize any meaningful differentiation between the 'direct' approach and the 'indirect' approach.

Well, I have given a variety of reasons, moral and theological, to say that the differentiation is real. I cannot see that you have answered that. All you have shown is that you cannot see it - and yet you call it evasion. The distinction seems to me to be very clear and logically necessary. The distinction only disappears when one thinks only in terms of the outcome, which, as I have argued (without response) is morally, philosophically, practically and theologically inadequate.

23 April 2013 09:27  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

I think Carl is also hung-up on intention as well as outcome. The intention being to save the life of the woman by removing the defective Fallopian tube without directly killing the child growing within it.

23 April 2013 18:52  
Blogger Albert said...

That's interesting Peter, because I think the intention bit is the easier part to understand. I salute your attempts to make the same point!

Who's the cardinal in your picture?

23 April 2013 21:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

It's Saint Peter Damian. A fine man, philosopher and theologian - and, of course, a bit of a 'protestant' in his time.

23 April 2013 23:25  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older