Recently Live Action reported the UK Parliament passed a bill confirming sex-selection abortion is illegal in the UK.
I posted this all up on Facebook. Because that’s what I do.
And it wasn’t too long before a couple of guys, one of whom is a good friend I respect immensely, started questioning whether or not this bill was a good thing.
His argument was, more or less, that the bill is illogical in that it declares abortion for one arbitrary reason wrong, while ignoring all the others. In other words, it’s not really logical to say,”It’s fine to kill your baby for all of these reasons, but not for that one. That one is wrong.”
Amid cries of opposition by Britain’s abortion industry, Parliament affirmed Tuesday –almost unanimously– that gendercide abortions are illegal in the UK. The bill to clarify the UK’s law regarding sex-selection abortions was presented by MP Fiona Bruce, who stated last Wednesday:
It is now clear that urgent clarification is needed to put beyond doubt that sex-selective abortion is not permitted in UK law. That is the central purpose of this Bill.
The 1967 Abortion Act is vague and broad about the circumstances under which a woman can legally undergo an abortion in the UK, but one thing is clear: it has no provision for aborting a baby strictly because of its sex.
The ethical problems with euthanasia have been detailed at Live Action News extensively. People with disabilities, people suffering from mental illness, people who were just lonely or old but otherwise healthy, even children — all can be euthanized in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands. That’s not good enough for the assisted suicide lobby though, which continues to campaign for the right to kill increasingly more people, from the disabled to the poor.
This slippery slope is now headed for the United States, with cancer patient Brittany Maynard saying she will kill herself on November 1, and until then, is publicly campaigning for pro-suicide organization Compassion & Choices. This is the same group that advocates for people to “voluntary stop eating and drinking” (VSED), even if they aren’t terminally ill, but simply feel “done”.
“A group of pro-abortion thugs attacked a pro-life demonstration in Melbourne, Australia, over the weekend as groups across the land took place in activities to promote the ‘40 Days for Life Campaign’. The attack was pre-planned and well co-ordinated with a number of adults being assaulted while police looked on.”
The Record said, “Protesters ambushed the annual March for the Babies in Melbourne on October 12, in a violent and ugly display that left several people injured.”
September 25 marked the 34th anniversary of China’s One-Child Policy. Women’s Rights Without Frontiers (WRWF) president Reggie Littlejohn in response wrote an open letter to Chinese president Xi Jinping.
From Littlejohn’s first paragraph:
It will not work to replace it by a ‘two-child policy’ as some of your advisors may be suggesting. Rather, the One Child Policy should be eradicated from the face of the earth, because it has caused more violence toward women and girls than any other official policy on earth, and any other official policy in the history of the world. Your government has boasted that it has “prevented” more than 400 million births through this policy. These births have been prevented through forced abortions, involuntary sterilizations, confiscatory “terror fines,” gendercide and infanticide – all in violation of international human rights law.
It is every expecting mother’s worst nightmare: going into premature labor and giving birth to a baby that cannot survive. Such is the situation that two French parents have found themselves in — only their son did survive. Little Titouan was born four months premature and suffered an intracerebral hemorrhage. Doctors are still unsure about the extent of possible brain damage, but his parents don’t care. They are campaigning for the “right” to kill their baby now.
Tiny Adelaide Caines lived only one hour after birth, but her parents are hoping their precious daughter’s life and death will change the face of the abortion debate in the United Kingdom. Literally.
On December 27, 2013, Emily Caines, 24 weeks pregnant at the time, began to bleed heavily and was rushed to Southmead Hospital in Bristol. The medical center there had a special unit for premature babies, something Emily and her husband Alistair hoped could save their little girl’s life. Emily had already lost her first daughter, Isobelle, in 2011, due to preterm labor which began at 23 weeks, so the couple had rejoiced when Emily’s second pregnancy made it to the 24 week mark.
Countries that allow euthanasia have already fallen pretty far, allowing for children and people with mental illnesses to be killed. But new Lithuanian health minister Rimantė Šalaševičiūtė might have just become the lowest of the low with her new recommendation. According to Šalaševičiūtė, taking care of terminally ill people is just too gosh darn expensive, especially if they’re poor. So the solution is clearly to just kill off the poor people!
Meriam Ibraham, a Sudanese woman who was sentenced to death for being Christian in Sudan, was finally released after a long period of captivity. During her imprisonment, Meriam was pregnant and was forced to give birth to her daughter in shackles.
Her daughter is now two months old, and Ibrahim has spoken out about the birth experience, saying that she believes her daughter may suffer from physical impairment because she herself was shackled at the time of delivery. Due to her bondage, Ibrahim was prevented from being able to deliver her baby normally, which she believes may have led to physical injury in her daughter in the process of giving birth. Ibrahim’s daughter is an American citizen by birth.
Britain’s largest abortion provider is stirring outrage for advising women that sex-selective abortions are not against the law. The Sunday Expressreports that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which carries out 55,000 abortions a year, is informing women that they can legally obtain a gender-based abortion procedure contrary to British law.
According to a pamphlet produced by the service titled Britain’s Abortion Law, What it Says and Why, the organization addresses whether abortions based on gender are legal under the country’s Abortion Act. The answer: “No. The law is silent on the matter.”
No stranger to adversity, England’s Baroness Jane Campbell has been leading the fight for disability rights and against assisted suicide in her country for years. She was born with the most severe form of Spinal Muscular Atrophy and struggled to achieve every normal milestone she has ever accomplished.
In addition to her physical challenges, Campbell lost her father and her husband tragically at a young age, forcing her to choose between what she calls “a grey prospect predicted and presupposed by society,” and “a brighter future, in which I was empowered to defy all of society’s predictions.”
As a country with a complex tale, Russia has shaken its fist at global powers and held the Iron Curtain in the face of the spectating world but behind government tension, a different stronghold has been long erected in the hearts of its people–one that has bound millions in a notorious cycle of abortion.
Russia’s deep-seated abortion culture, implemented publicly during Bolshevik rule, continues to shape the perception of the value and dignity of human life. In a country where birth control costs more than an abortion procedure, the practice has not only become the norm– it is the top birth control method in the country. Until recently, Russian women reportedly had seven abortions over their lifetime. In 2003, BBC reported there were 13 abortions for every 10 live births; Reuters reported in 2009 that there were 73 abortions per 100 births in Russia.
The latest assault in the war on women comes from the UK, where a judge has forced (via consenting on-behalf-of) a thirteen-year-old pregnant mother to abort her baby. Despite the mother’s adamant stance against the abortion, she was ruled too “damaged” to be able to make the decision on her own. Adding insult to injury, the girl was approaching 14 weeks at the time the decision was made, exposing her to the higher risks associated with second trimester surgical abortions.
Switzerland is a euthanasia advocate’s dream country — and a nightmare for anyone who values life. Switzerland started its path to euthanasia the way most countries do: it was originally legalized for the terminally ill only. As we’ve seen in every single country euthanasia has been legalized in, this did not last.
Now, Switzerland is a euthanasia free-for-all, with anyone being able to choose to kill themselves at any time, for any reason. And not only can anyone choose to undergo assisted suicide, there is no regulation whatsoever for assisted suicide clinics. Despite persistent allegations of abuse and fraud, as well as notorious euthanasia clinic Dignitas making millions off of death tourism by allowing foreigners to kill themselves there, there has been no legislation enacted to get any measure of control over the clinics. There aren’t even any requirements for training of assisted suicide assistants. But hey, if they’re going to die anyway, it doesn’t much matter, right? It’s entirely up to the clinics to regulate themselves.
Dr. Wim Distelmans’s name is not particularly well-known. But perhaps it should be. This is the man who not only practices euthanasia, but has controversially euthanized a transsexual man who called himself a monster, and twins Marc and Eddy Verbessem, who feared going blind. Nathan Verhelst, the transsexual man euthanized after undergoing gender reassignment surgery, was even filmed being killed, with the footage broadcast on Belgian television.
On Monday, The Telegraphprinted a column by David Burrowes, an MP from Enfield-Southgate, that discussed an abhorrent practice by 67 British doctors. (There may be more, but 67 doctors were caught.) These doctors “pre-signed” abortion certificates for women. In other words, before they ever met a woman who came in for an abortion, the doctors would sign their approval for her abortion ahead of time.
They would sign before examining the woman and her medical records, before discovering if she was being forced into the abortion, before finding out if the abortion was being performed for gender reasons – before the doctors knew anything at all about the patient. This practice is a clear attempt to get around Britain’s Abortion Act. As MP Borrowes explains:
[A]bortion is only legal in Britain if two doctors form an opinion in good faith that the legal criteria for termination of pregnancy are met. As it is not possible to form an opinion about a patient before anything about them is known, abortions performed as a result of pre-signed forms are illegal.
A survey released this week by Pew Research Center indicates that 56% of people in countries around the globe believe abortion is morally unacceptable. The study, which surveyed 40,117 respondents across 40 different countries, found widespread opposition to abortion, with a significant majority of respondents calling it morally wrong.
In fact, not a single nation in the 40 countries surveyed had a majority who believed abortion to be morally acceptable.
Wesley J. Smith spotlights another horrifying report out of Belgium. Fresh off of their euthanasia-for-children success, Belgian doctors have decided that being able to euthanize people who consent to it just isn’t good enough. No, they’ve decided that ICU doctors should be allowed to euthanize patients, even if they haven’t received consent.
This statement paper, developed by members of the Belgian Society of Intensive Care Medicine Council, is not about giving analgesics or sedative agents to combat pain or agitation, nor about the so-called double effect, wherein analgesics given to alleviate pain may have the adverse effect of shortening the dying process. The discussion here is about the administration of sedative agents with the direct intention of shortening the process of terminal palliative care in patients with no prospect of a meaningful recovery
… Moreover, we explain our belief in the concept that shortening the dying process by administering sedatives beyond what is needed for patient comfort can be not only acceptable but in many cases desirable.
… Shortening the dying process with use of medication, such as analgesics/sedatives, may sometimes be appropriate, even in the absence of discomfort, and can actually improve the quality of dying; this approach can also help relatives accompany their loved one through the dying process—such a decision should be made with due consideration for the wishes of family members.
Twenty years ago, diplomats from around the world met in Cairo to draft a platform of action for encouraging economic development and meeting the needs of the global population. At that conference, radical special interest groups–including the International Planned Parenthood Federation–sought to establish an internationally-recognized “right to abortion” and impose population control programs upon developing populations. Despite some gains in the outcome declaration, these pro-abortion groups failed to achieve their ultimate goals.
Since 1994, the United Nations has held review conferences to evaluate progress on the Cairo platform for action. Each conference on population and development is basically the same: every year, the same developed regions such as the United States and the European Union try to push population control on developing regions by threatening to withhold aid money or otherwise twisting their arms; the same pro-abortion lobbyists show up to U.N. headquarters to push for more abortion around the world; and the same U.N. agencies themselves are activelycomplicit in this desperate and deadly enterprise.