Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Denying the Humanity of the Unborn


The problem for abortion supporters is that the humanity of the baby can no longer be denied.

by Niamh Ui Bhriain

It must be a strange place, that parallel universe of the pro-abortion campaigner, where killing is dressed up as compassion, and where, in stout denial of all the scientific facts, babies aren’t really human beings.

Pregnant women aren’t really carrying a baby in their wombs you see. Maybe they find them in cabbage patches. Or storks bring them in cute colourful slings.

It’s like reasoning with small, very stubborn, children except these people aren’t cute. They are fanatics – extremists who believe that unborn babies can be aborted until birth. Take a minute to imagine what that involves: the baby’s heart started to beat at 3 weeks; at 8 weeks she was perfectly formed; babies born at 23 weeks have survived outside the womb, but Irish abortion advocates want to ensure that babies can aborted right through all nine months of pregnancy.

It’s difficult to understand this mind set, since it’s so out of kilter with what we normally understand to be required to be a compassionate or civilised society. It’s in our nature to protect children, and to care for those in crisis. It’s natural to recoil at the thought of ending a child’s life.

Yet, this week when Vincent Browne asked abortion campaigners on Tv3 to explain their opposition to any term limits they said that killing babies until birth should be legal in case the baby had a disability or the woman’s circumstances had changed.

In other words, instead of compassion, they called for killing. Instead of addressing women’s needs, they pushed for abortion. They are calling for the opposite of what a really progressive society would do, which is to terminate the crisis and not the child.

In fairness, some abortion campaigners may well be uneasy at the thought of killing a baby this late in pregnancy, but they are committed to an extreme left-wing/liberal ideology which refuses to give an inch in terms of acknowledging the very obvious humanity of the baby.

The problem for them is that the humanity of the baby can no longer be denied – and this has been the case for decades. It's why polls actually show that most Irish people reject abortion-on-demand, and why most people consider the positon of #Repealthe8th groups to be so extreme. (In 2013, Choice Ireland also argued in defence of gendercide – aborting babies because they were girls – an extreme position actually shared by most abortion campaigners but which would be appalling to the vast majority of decent people).

Saying the unborn child is not a baby just won’t work. Too many people have seen ultrasounds, and have marvelled over all the amazing photographs of babies in the womb which pop up everywhere on social media. Too many people have heard their own baby’s heartbeat, or seen their baby waving or smiling in scans, to believe this propaganda.

Abortion campaigners can’t close that window to the womb. So that’s why they try to ignore it, to obfuscate the humanity of the baby with strident claims of competitive rights between “the woman and the fetus”.

But that won’t work either. It would be a very strange and distressing world if women saw their baby as an enemy. Most women with crisis pregnancies don’t do that: they are in crisis and they need support, but sometimes all they are offered is abortion. In this country, most women with a crisis pregnancy go on to have their baby, and those babies are much loved and cherished. No-one regrets giving life to their child.

The recent emergence of videos (below) released by investigative journalists in the US show abortionists callously harvesting and selling baby parts. This horrific footage leaves us in no doubt that the abortion industry knows that this is a baby. They have hardened themselves to deal with that fact because they are making money from selling abortion to vulnerable women.

Deep down, people are opposed to abortion because destroying a human life disturbs us, and because we know that we can do better for women than to simply tell them to get rid of their baby, and then leave them with the all the consequences and the regret and sorrow of that loss.

In the past 14 years we’ve seen our abortion rates drop by a massive 45% in Ireland, so maybe we’re getting better as a society at providing the support that’s needed – though the pro-abortion Labour Party aren’t helping matters by cutting payments to single parents.

We need to do more. Attempts to write the baby out of the abortion debate doesn’t help women and doesn’t help children. The inescapable fact is that, for every baby, their abortion story ends badly, because abortion ends their life. It kills them. And no amount of denial or pretence can change that fact.



Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Hillary Clinton on Abortion and Equality for Women



Sen. Clinton Press Release

January 24, 2005
Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
to the NYS Family Planning Providers

Thank you all very much for having me. I am so pleased to be here two days after the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that struck a blow for freedom and equality for women. Today Roe is in more jeopardy than ever, and I look forward to working with all of you as we fight to defend it in the coming years. I'm also pleased to be talking to people who are on the front lines of increasing women's access to quality health care and reducing unwanted pregnancy -- an issue we should be able to find common ground on with people on the other side of this debate.

We should all be able to agree that we want every child born in this country and around the world to be wanted, cherished, and loved. The best way to get there is do more to educate the public about reproductive health, about how to prevent unsafe and unwanted pregnancies.

My own views of family planning and reproductive rights are heavily influenced by my travels as First Lady. I saw firsthand the costs to women when the government controls their reproductive health decisions.

In pre-democratic Romania, they had a leader named Ceausescu, a Soviet style Communist dictator, who decided it was the duty of every Romanian woman to bear five children so they could build the Romanian State. So they eliminated birth control, they eliminated sex education, and they outlawed abortions.

Once a month, Romanian women were rounded up at their workplaces. They were taken to a government-controlled health clinic, told to disrobe while they were standing in line. They were then examined by a government doctor with a government secret police officer watching. And if they were pregnant, they were closely monitored to make sure you didn't do anything to that pregnancy.

If a woman failed to conceive, her family was fined a celibacy tax of up to 10 percent of their monthly salary. The terrible result was that many children who were born were immediately abandoned, and left to be raised in government-run orphanages.

Now go to the other side of the world and the opposite side of this debate. In China, local government officials used to monitor women's menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives because they had the opposite view -- no more than one child. If you wanted to have a child in China, you needed to get permission or face punishment. After you had your one allotted child, in some parts of China, you could be sterilized against your will or forced to have an abortion.

So whether it was Romania saying you had to have children for the good of the state, or China saying you can only have one child for the good of the state, the government was dictating the most private and important decisions we make as families and as women. Now with all of this talk about freedom as the defining goal of America, let's not forget the importance of the freedom of women to make the choices that are consistent with their faith and their sense of responsibility to their family and themselves.

I heard President Bush talking about freedom and yet his Administration has acted to deny freedom to women around the world through a global gag policy, which has left many without access to basic reproductive health services.

This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. Often, it's a failure of our system of education, health care, and preventive services. It's often a result of family dynamics. This decision is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

As many of you know, I have worked on these issues throughout my career and I continue to work on them in the Senate. One of the most important initiatives I worked on as First Lady and am proud to continue to champion in the Senate is the prevention of teen pregnancy. I worked alongside my husband who launched the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in the mid-1990s. This organization, which has proven to be a tremendous success, was really was born out of my husband's 1995 State of the Union address, which declared teenage pregnancy to be one of the most critical problems facing our country. We set a national goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies by one-third over the decade. We knew, though, that this goal could not be reached with a government-only effort. That's why we invited private sector sponsors to join the board and use their organizations to send a powerful message to teens to be responsible about their futures.

Now back when the National Campaign was getting off the ground, I actually came to New York City and gave a speech before high-profile members of the media -- essentially challenging the media to embrace this issue and use its power to send strong, clear messages to teenagers to be responsible. Back then I used the phrase "teenage celibacy" over and over. Of course, no one talks about "teenage celibacy" anymore, but the message remains relevant and necessary today. I think it's a synonym for abstinence.

The good news is that the National Campaign, which has nourished many new and fruitful partnerships like those with Time Warner and with the faith community, has helped achieve the goal that my husband set in his State of the Union in 1995. Between 1991 and 2003, the teen birth rate fell 32.5 percent to a record low. The National Campaign has also conducted and disseminated some critical research on the important role that parents can play in encouraging their children to abstain from sexual activity.

So I'm very proud of the work of the National Campaign. We'll be celebrating its 10th anniversary this year and I will continue working with them to keep the number of unwanted pregnancies among our teenagers falling until we get to zero. But we have a long road ahead.

Today, even with the recent decline, 34% of teenage girls become pregnant at least once before their 20th birthday, and the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any industrialized country. Children born to teen moms begin life with the odds against them. They are more likely to be of low-birth weight, 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade, and significantly more likely to be victims of abuse and neglect. And girls who give birth as teenagers face a long, uphill battle to economic self-sufficiency and pride. Clearly we do have our work cut out for us.

Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this -- and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do. But we should also recognize what works and what doesn't work, and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. I don't think this debate should be about ideology, it should be about facts and evidence -- we have to deal with the choices young people make not just the choice we wish they would make. We should use all the resources at our disposal to ensure that teens are getting the information they need to make the right decision.

We should also do more to educate and involve parents about the critical role they can play in encouraging their children to abstain from sexual activity. Teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to their parents are much less likely to become sexually active at an early age.

But we have to do more than just send the right messages and values to our children. Preventing unwanted pregnancy demands that we do better as adults to create the structure in which children live and the services they need to make the right decisions.

A big part of that means increasing access to family planning services. I have long been a strong supporter of Title X, the only federal program devoted solely to making comprehensive family planning services available to anyone interested in seeking them. Each year, approximately 4.5 million people receive health-care services at Title X-funded clinics. Nearly two-thirds of Title X clients come from households with incomes below the poverty level. And just to remind you, the poverty level is currently set for a family of three at $15,620. So where do these two-thirds of Title X clients go to receive the services they need? Unfortunately, despite the Clinton Administration working to obtain a 58% increase during the 1990s, the Bush Administration proposed level funding for Title X at $265 million for the 2003 and 2004 budgets, and Congress appropriated only $275 million in 2003. So even as our population has grown and the need has increased, the funding has remained stagnant. In fact, if Title X funding had increased at the rate of inflation from its FY 1980 funding level of $162 million, it would be at approximately $590 million now, but because its been held flat and we don't even know yet what the next budget holds for Title X funding. Title X cannot keep pace with basic services, let alone meet the growing cost of diagnostic tests and new forms of contraception.

It's also important that private insurance companies do their part to help reduce unwanted pregnancies. That is why I am a proud co-sponsor of the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage -- the so-called EPICC. The legislation would require private health plans to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services to the same extent that they cover prescription drugs and other outpatient medical services. This bill simply seeks to establish parity for prescription contraception. Thanks to so many of the people in this room and the advocates, the EPICC law is now in effect in New York State having been passed and signed in 2002. It's a real role model for the nation. And it's about equal rights and simple justice. After all, if insurance companies can cover Viagra, they can certainly cover prescription contraceptives.

Contraception is basic health care for women, and the burden for its expense cannot fall fully on all women, many who after all live below that poverty rate, and in many instances above it, but not by very much and have a hard time affording such prescriptions. Just think, an average woman who wants two children will spend five years pregnant or trying to get pregnant, and roughly 30 years trying to prevent pregnancy. As I said earlier, and you know so well, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy in the industrialized world. Each year, nearly half of the six million pregnancies in this country are unintended, and more than half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion.

The use of contraception is a big factor in determining whether or not women become pregnant. In fact, this is a statistic that I had not known before we started doing the research that I wanted to include in this speech, 7% of American women who do not use contraception account for 53% of all unintended pregnancies. So by preventing unintended pregnancy, contraception reduces the need for abortion. Improving insurance coverage of contraception will make contraception more affordable and reduce this rate of abortion. And expanding coverage and resources for Title X will do the same.

Another form of family planning that should be widely available to women is "Plan B," Emergency Contraception. I agree with the scientists on the Food and Drug Administration's Advisory Panel who voted overwhelmingly that Plan B is safe and effective for over the counter use. And I worked to launch a GAO investigation into the process of denying Barr Laboratories' application because I believe the decision was influenced more by ideology than evidence.

I am hopeful that the FDA will come to its senses and announce a new policy making Plan B available. Information about Plan B should be available over the counter, which is exactly what the FDA's Advisory Committee recommended. It should also be made available -- automatically -- to women who are victims of sexual assault and rape. I have to confess that I never cease to be surprised but last week, I joined with 21 of my colleagues in sending a letter to the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women -- that's the name of the office at the Department of Justice -- urging the Director to revise the newly-released first-ever national protocol for sexual assault treatment to include the routine offering of emergency contraception. Right now, this 130-page, otherwise comprehensive document fails to include any mention of emergency contraception, a basic tool that could help rape victims prevent the trauma of unintended pregnancies, avoid abortions, and safeguard their reproductive and mental health. Every expert agrees that the sooner Plan B is administered, the more effective it is. Once a woman becomes pregnant, emergency contraception obviously will have no effect.

Yet nowhere does the DOJ Protocol mention emergency contraception or recommend that it be offered to sexual assault victims. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there are 15,000 abortions a year from rape. How is it possible that women who have been so victimized by violence can be victimized again by ideology? And how can we expect to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies if we lose this most obvious opportunity to help women who may have had an unwanted pregnancy physically forced upon them?

I hope that whatever one believes or whatever side of the aisle one is, in either the NY State Legislature or the Congress, or anywhere in our country, we all at least agree that the Department of Justice must immediately revise its protocol to include strong recommendations about emergency contraception.

And the final building block of our effort to increase women's health includes ensuring that once women become pregnant, they have access to high-quality pre-natal care so that they can bring healthy children into the world.

One bill that provides a comprehensive approach to the problem of unintended pregnancies encapsulates many of these efforts. It's called "The Putting Prevention First Act." It provides a roadmap to the destination of fewer unwanted pregnancies -- to the day when abortion is truly safe, legal, and rare. The Putting Prevention First Act, which I was proud to co-sponsor in the last Congress, increases funding for Title X; expands Medicaid family-planning services to provide access for more low-income women; ensures that health plans that cover prescription drugs also cover prescription contraceptives; funds emergency contraception public-education campaigns for doctors, nurses and women; ensures that hospital emergency rooms offer emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault; and establishes the nation's first-ever federal sex-education program.

A very similar version of the Putting Prevention First Act is being introduced today, one of the first bills introduced by Minority Leader Harry Reid, to lay out the Democratic plan for women's reproductive healthcare. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill and I will work very hard to see that it is enacted. Because I know we can make progress on these issues; the work of the Clinton Administration and so many others saw the rate of abortion consistently fall in the 1990's. The abortion rate fell by one-fourth between 1990 and 1995, the steepest decline since Roe was decided in 1973. The rate fell another 11 percent between 1994 and 2000, from about 24 to 21 abortions for every 1,000 women of childbearing age.

But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and commonsense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states. In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.

I think it's important that family planning advocates reach out to those who may not agree with us on everything to try to find common ground in those areas where, hopefully, emergency contraception, more funding for prenatal care and others can be a point of common ground.

As an advocate for children and families throughout my life, as a lawyer who occasionally represented victims of sexual assault and rape, as a mother, as a wife, as a woman, I know the difference that good information, good education, and good health care can make in empowering women and girls to make good decisions for themselves.

So in addition to the work that lies ahead of us here at home I would just put in a word for the work that we should be doing around the world. It has been tragic to see so much of the good work that provided family planning assistance and resources to physicians and nurses to deliver to women in places where there was no family planning, where in fact abortion was the only means of contraception. But during the 90's we reached out to women and girls in other parts of the world. When my husband rescinded the global gag rule we began to work on behalf of women's health, though the infant mortality and maternal mortality rate is way too high in so many parts of the world. When I was in Afghanistan last year, I met with a group of women and their number one plea was what can the United States Government do to help save the lives of Afghan women who have one of the highest rates of maternal mortality in the world? Is there some way that more education could be brought in so that women could possibly have more control over their own lives? In places I've traveled I've cut the ribbons on clinics - that were partially funded by money from our government and money from private givers in our country -- that for the first time would provide the full range of health services to women and girls. Because of the reinstatement of the global gag rule under President Bush that work has stopped. Those resources have dried up. The lives of so many women and girls have been put at risk. We can do better not only here at home but around the world.

Yes we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion. I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available. But that does not represent even the majority opinion within the anti-abortion community. There are exceptions for rape and for incest, for the life of the mother. Those in the pro-choice community who have fought so hard for so many years, not only to protect Roe v. Wade and the law of the land, but to provide the resources that would effectuate that constitutional right, believe just as strongly the point of view based on experience and conscience that they have come to. The problem I always have is what is the proper role of government in making this decision? That is why I started with two stories about Romania and China. When I spoke to the conference on women in Beijing in 1995 -- ten years ago this year -- I spoke out against any government interfering with the reproductive rights and decisions of women and families.

So we have a lot of experience from around the world that is a cautionary tale about what happens when a government substitutes its opinion for an individual's. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances. But we cannot expect to have the kind of positive results that all of us are hoping for to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions if our government refuses to assist girls and women with their health care needs, a comprehensive education and accurate information.

So my hope now, today, is that whatever our disagreements with those in this debate, that we join together to take real action to improve the quality of health care for women and families, to reduce the number of abortions and to build a healthier, brighter more hopeful future for women and girls in our country and around the world.

Thank you very much.



Thursday, June 5, 2014

Canada Waffles on International Funding for Abortions


Some Canadian grant money funds International Planned Parenthood Federation which is the world's largest provider of abortions. 


By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

NEW YORK, June 6 (C-FAM) The defining feature of Canada’s ambitious multi-billion-dollar international plan to help mothers and newborns is not what it provides, but what it leaves out, namely, abortion.

As Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised a further $3.5 billion dollars to his signature foreign policy health initiative at a Toronto summit last week, abortion advocates renewed their call for him to not “separate abortion from maternal health.”

Harper told the Globe and Mail, “What we have been trying to do since 2010 is build broad public and international consensus for saving the lives of mothers and babies,” he said. “You cannot do that if you introduce that other issue.”

Harper’s reluctance to refer to “that other issue” by name reflects the stigma around abortion worldwide, including in Canada, which has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. It is because of this stigma that abortion advocacy groups have made great efforts to fit themselves into the broad maternal health umbrella – and why they protest so strongly at being evicted from beneath it.

Canada is not alone among major donors in blocking aid funding for foreign abortions – the U.S. has done so since shortly after abortion was legalized at the national level by the Supreme Court decisionRoe v. Wade.

When philanthropist Melinda Gates announced her goal to make family planning her signature issue, she explicitly stated that she would not fund abortions. While she has drawn criticism for partnering with organizations that advocate for and provide abortions, Gates has not changed her public stance.

In the same Globe and Mail interview, Gates spoke favorably about Harper’s initiative focusing on pregnancy and childbirth. “Maternal and child health is on the global health agenda, in part, really, thanks to what Canada did.”

She later reflected, “every journalist also focused on Canada’s policy on abortion.” She argued that conflating abortion with other issues stalls progress and undermines cooperation. “I’ve decided not to engage on it publicly—and the Gates Foundation has decided not to fund abortion.”

Many of the editorials urging Canada to fund overseas abortions as a component of maternal health cited the same statistic: that abortions cause approximately 13% of maternal deaths worldwide. The WHO has recently released an estimate saying the actual number may be closer to 8%.

Like the Gates Foundation, Canada’s maternal health initiative prohibits directly funding abortion, but the situation on the ground in recipient countries can depend on the agencies the donor chooses as partners. LifeSiteNews reports that Canadian grant money will go to International Planned Parenthood Federation, the world’s largest abortion provider, but only in countries where abortion is illegal or heavily restricted. Among these countries is Bangladesh, which permits abortion under the name “menstrual regulation” during the first trimester. It is unclear that the funding would be segregated to prevent its use to fund this procedure.

Nevertheless, Canada is not only establishing itself as a global leader on maternal and child health but demonstrating that this work does not require funding for abortion, and inheriting the moral and political controversy that goes with it.

“The fact of the matter is it’s not only divisive in our country and in other donor countries, it’s extremely divisive in recipient countries where it’s often illegal,” said Harper. “There are obviously some organizations that advance that issue but the government of Canada does not advance that issue.”

From here.


Friday, February 21, 2014

Sweden's Hypocrisy Denies Grimmark Work


Ellinor Grimmark
Ellinor Grimark   Photo: Fredrik Persson / TT


In 2011, the European Council adopted a resolution that protects healthcare workers' right to freedom of conscience regarding abortion and euthanasia. Sweden has signed this agreement. But reality paints a different picture. Out of the 47 member states in the European Council, Finland and Sweden are the only two which do not uphold freedom of conscience in practice.

Ellinor Grimmark, 37, is the first midwife in Sweden to report a hospital to the Discrimination Ombudsman (DO) concerning abortion. She claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of her religious beliefs and moral convictions. Newly-graduated, she was fired from her position last summer because she refused to assist abortions. Even though there is a shortage of midwives at the moment, and even though she is willing to take on double shifts, she has been denied a job ever since. One employer had first agreed to hire her in spite of the “complication”, but withdrew the offer when her story began to spread in media.

Read it all here.


Friday, February 7, 2014

UN Tries to Impose Gender/Sexuality Agenda on Catholic Church


The UN watchdog on children’s rights which recently hauled the Vatican over the coals for its handling of sex abuse has today released its recommendations. The report is not only ignorant and misguided, peddling myths for which there is no foundation, but betrays an extraordinary misunderstanding of the nature of the Church and the Holy See, while seeking to impose an ideology of gender and sexuality in violation of the UN’s own commitment to religious freedom.

Although the Holy See has responded diplomatically to the report (see below), promising to look at the recommendations, the Secretariat of State cannot possibly accept them without doing violation to the nature of the Church. By adopting the mythical framework peddled by victims’ advocacy groups and lawyers, and ignoring the evidence put to it by the Holy See on 16 January (see CV Comment here, and Archbishop Tomasi’s speech here), the Committee has shown itself to be a kangaroo court. The Holy See can only now consider withdrawing its signature to the Convention. The Committee has very seriously undermined both its own credibility and that of the UN as a whole.

The 16-page UN report is so full of crass errors and myths that it is impossible to tackle them all. But the principal faults can be gathered under the three headings of 1) ignorance about the Church’s record on abuse 2) misunderstanding about the Church 3) attempt to impose an ideology of sexuality and gender.

Read it all here

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Something wonderful happened in America last week!


Michael Cook, Editor of MercatorNet, tells this uplifting story.


Something wonderful happened in the United States this week: an unborn baby whose life was poised between abortion and adoption was saved by not one but hundreds of offers from people wanting to adopt the child. And it all happened in 24 hours, thanks to quick action by a parish priest and the use of social media.

A young couple were planning to abort their baby who had been diagnosed with Down syndrome at nearly 24 weeks, in a state that prohibits abortions beyond that point. However, they also asked an adoption agency to look for adoptive parents.

Father Vander Woude, of Gainesville, Virginia, heard about it and got someone from his parish to post an urgent appeal on Facebook on Monday morning. "... If a couple has not been found by today they plan to abort the baby. If you are interested in adopting this baby please contact Fr W IMMEDIATELY."

The result amazed everyone: all day long the parish office fielded phone calls and emails from all over the US and as far afield as England, Puerto Rico and the Netherlands. There were over 900 emails alone. A shortlist of three families has been presented to the baby's parents.

Some 80 to 90 percent of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down are aborted in countries like the US and UK, many after 20 weeks, but this story is solid evidence that such a brutal and heartbreaking response to this disability is not only wrong but completely unnecessary. President and founder of the International Down Syndrome Coalition, Diane Grover, told The Washington Times, "There's a lot of people waiting, and we are happy to always help" couples who don't think they can cope with a child who has Downs.



Related reading: Hundreds call to adopt Down syndrome baby, save it from abortion


Thursday, June 20, 2013

Another Media Fact-Checking Failure


Fathers Rights Group protested Enda's house, not pro-lifers; major media fail

17 June 2013


Pro-life groups have criticised the Irish media for their failure to carry out basic fact-checking in their rush to demonise pro-life activists.

Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute said that media reports that pro-life activists had carried out a protest at Enda Kenny's home were "entirely incorrect and had no basis in fact", and that the Irish media had engaged in "sloppy and unprofessional journalism".

In fact, the Fathers' rights group who carried out the protest had posted it on the internet for any journalist who wanted to check the facts.

Ms Ui Bhriain said that reporters had got the facts inexcusably wrong.

"There was no masked pro-life protest at Mr Kenny's home," she said. "This is a false claim, entirely manufactured by the media. If there was a protest because of some other issue, the media need to investigate and establish the facts rather than jumping to conclusions. "

"It is inexcusable that the media are printing misinformation of this sort, and it smacks of a rush to try to demonise pro-life activists," she said.

"The media need to get their act together and politicians need to discuss the reality of this cruel and unacceptable abortion legislation and stop trying to deflect from the issue with unsubstantiated claims and false allegations," added the Life Institute spokeswoman.

"Last week we saw that Fine Gael TDs were upset when attempts were made at the top level of the party to carry out a 'political hanging' of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Now we are seeing similar dirty tricks where baseless allegations and false stories are being circulated in order to try to silence genuine pro-life people who are fully entitled to make their voices heard against abortion," she said.

"The notion of former Worker's Party members, who now run Labour, complaining about imagined intimidation was deeply, deeply ironic," she said, adding that it was no surprise that such people supported the taking of innocent unborn life.

END

Monday, June 17, 2013

Quote of the Week - Richard Dawkins


With respect to those meanings of 'human' that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig.--Richard Dawkins' Tweet

Friday, April 12, 2013

Gosnell Faces Murder Charges in PA


A Philadelphia doctor who performed abortions is on trial for murder. Kermit Gosnell, 72, is accused in the deaths of a female patient and seven babies who the prosecutor says were born alive. District Attorney R. Seth Williams laid out the case in disturbing detail in a grand jury report last year.

When authorities raided Gosnell's clinic in 2010 they found squalid conditions: blood on the floor, the stench of urine and a flea-infested cat wandering through the facility.

Gosnell catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women at the Women's Medical Society

In court, Gosnell's attorney said his client is unfairly being held to standards one might expect at the Mayo Clinic. A jury will decide Gosnell's fate, but what is clear now is that state regulators were not doing their job.

"Unfortunately and tragically in Pennsylvania, facilities were going uninspected for years," says Maria Gallagher, a lobbyist with the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation. Gosnell's clinic went 17 years without an inspection, according to prosecutors.

Read it all here.


Related reading:  The Washington Post, Why the Gosnell trial shocks; Abortion Blindness in the New York Times; Leon Kass: The Meaning of the Gosnell Trial



“There was nothing 'underground' about #Gosnell clinic,” wrote a California-based writer who goes by the handle “Joe the Patriotic.”

“National Abortion Federation, Board of Medicine looked the other way,” he noted.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Planned Parenthood Endorses Infanticide



Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

Read it all here.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Ireland faces its own Roe moment


Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner written by Dr. Eoghan de Faoite


In July 2011, a 32-year-old pregnant woman went to her local hospital in Kilkenny, Ireland, feeling unwell. She was 23 weeks pregnant with her first child and found to be suffering from severe pre-eclampsia. Doctors were concerned that her escalating blood pressure was putting her life at risk; she was told that unless they intervened, she may die.

She and her husband were told that "[the doctors] will do everything they can for the baby, but that [she] is the priority." She underwent an emergency Caesarean section and delivered a baby girl at 23 weeks and five days -- the cusp of viability. The baby girl was transferred to a neonatal intensive care unit, where specialists worked to keep her alive while other specialists stabilized and care for her mother.

After five weeks, Mom was discharged home well. After five months, baby went home as well, becoming the most premature baby to survive in Irish medical history. Irish obstetrical and neonatal care was celebrated in the press. Tributes were paid to the excellent care of the medical teams who intervened to save a sick mother and also did everything they could to save her baby.

Such is the standard of Irish obstetrical practice today. Doctors always intervene to save the life of the mother if she suffers a life-threatening complication of pregnancy (including sepsis) while at the same time doing everything they can to preserve the life of the baby. Such interventions are "never considered abortions," according to the former chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, even if the baby does lose his or her life as a consequence.

These interventions are permissible in Ireland today under current Irish law, which bans abortion. It is this standard of practice, coupled with one of the lowest rates of maternal mortality in the entire world -- far lower than in the United States or the United Kingdom -- that ranks Ireland as a world leader when it comes to maternal health care.

In 2011, members of Fine Gael, now Ireland's ruling party, made a pre-election promise that they would not legislate for abortion. They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. A little over a year later, the party broke its promise by bringing forward legislation to allow for abortion where there is a risk to the woman's life, including the risk of suicide.

At the government's own public hearings on how to "clarify" the meaning of Ireland's abortion law -- as the European Court of Human Rights has requested -- every single obstetrician present testified that not a single woman has died because of our ban on abortion. Every single psychiatrist present testified that abortion is not a treatment for the condition of suicidality.

On the cold, dark, wet winter's evening of Jan. 19, without any media promotion and with little notice, an estimated 35,000 Irish people gathered in Dublin to oppose the government's proposed legislation. In American terms, this would be equivalent to 3 million people attending Friday's March for Life. The event was described as "extraordinary" and "a master class production" by the mainstream press. Reporters commented that the sheer numbers present should give the government "pause for thought" before implementing any abortion legislation.


Related reading: Abortion bill causes furor in Ireland; UN bullies Irish on abortion; Ireland's big abortion debate


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Obama and Human Trafficking


By Sheila Liaugminas

He probably means what he says, or at least we should extend that presumption of goodwill. But he doesn’t say what he means, as proven by the policies his administration has enforced.

Just one of many examples is the remarks he made this week on the public stage.

After his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, President Obama today addressed the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting, where he called for an end to human trafficking.

The president also unveiled new initiatives aimed at combatting the practice — which the administration says impacts more than 20 million people around the world.

“It ought to concern every person,” Obama said, “because it is a debasement of our common humanity. It ought to concern every community because it tears at our social fabric. It ought to concern every business because it distorts markets. It ought to concern every nation because it endangers public health and fuels violence and organized crime.”…

In a more emotional moment, Obama shared the real-life stories of a few women who survived the “unspeakable horror” — including Sheila White, a Bronx woman.

“Fleeing an abusive home, [Sheila] fell in with a guy who said he’d protect her. Instead, he sold her — just 15 years old, 15 — to men who raped her and beat her and burned her with irons. And finally, after years, with the help of a nonprofit led by other survivors, she found the courage to break free and get the services she needed.

Stop there. This is a good point at which to examine his administration’s policy toward helping such victims, which nobody did better than the US bishops. But in one of the earlier steps to excise faith-based organizations from the social services they have so long delivered better than government, the department of Health and Human Services (yes, the same HHS that delivered the notorious controversial contraceptive mandate this year) cut out the bishops’ organization from providing aid and relief to victims of trafficking.

“Show me the data” is an urgent request from USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services. MRS has long worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to help refugees, migrating children, and people trafficked to the U.S. for labor and the sex trade. The U.S. Justice Department recently lauded MRS in a brief defending HHS, which is being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for working with Catholics. Said the Justice Department, as reported in the Washington Post, “the bishops have been ‘resoundingly successful in increasing assistance to victims of trafficking.’”

Despite this, a recent anti-trafficking grant application from MRS to continue serving people caught in the 21st Century’s version of human slavery was denied. MRS asks why?

I have been informed that six organizations applied for anti-trafficking grants from HHS’s Office for Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Four scored so low they did not make the cutoff when evaluated by an independent review board. Two applicants scored well. Heartland Human Care Services scored highest and MRS came in second, very close to Heartland, even after losing points for not being willing to refer for contraceptives and abortions. Yet, after finagling by Sharon Parrott, one of three politically-appointed counselors to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, ORR awarded $4.5 million, spread across Heartland, which earned the award, and United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and Tapestri, groups that hadn’t made the grade according to the independent review board.

HHS denies any hanky-panky. Show me the data.

Obama’s high profile rhetoric received higher level scrutiny soon after he delivered it.

Obama announced a new executive order to prevent human trafficking through new regulations for U.S. contractors and subcontractors, including a prohibition on trafficking-related practices such as charging recruitment fees.

Large contract holders will be required to implement awareness and compliance programs, and a process will be created to identify industries with a problematic history.

The order also requires additional “guidance and training” for those responsible for enforcing the new measures.

The announcement, however, drew criticism from Representative James Lankford (R-Okla.), who said that the president has put his own political gain before the good of trafficking victims.

While he says that he “wants to promote awareness of human trafficking,” Obama has a “record of removing the experts at providing these services,” Lankford charged in a statement responding to the president’s speech.

He pointed to the administration’s decision last year not to renew a grant with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services to aid human trafficking victims.

An independent review board gave the bishops’ group superior ratings for their work over several years. However, the group was passed over for a grant renewal, and the funds were instead given to an organization with a significantly lower score.

The decision came after new guidelines for grant applicants indicated that “strong preference” will be given to organizations that offer referrals for the “full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.”

Critics contended that the administration was putting the promotion of abortion before the needs of trafficking victims.

The administration and its party is putting the promotion of abortion before just about all else, as was evident in the DNC in Charlotte. The media aren’t paying attention to this story at all. But that doesn’t change its appalling truth.


From here.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Abortion to Save the Mother's Life



Abortion is called a woman’s health issue, with the right to abortion necessary to protect a woman’s life, in many instances, and physical well-being in many more.  So what percentage of abortions are to save a mother’s life or to protect her health?  Not very many, according to a British study of abortion in that country:
A report to Parliament has revealed abortions performed in the United Kingdom to save the life of the mother are a stunningly low 0.006 percent of procedures.
Read it all here.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Gendercide Coming to America




On Thursday, May 31, the House fell short in an effort to ban abortions based on the sex of the fetus as Republicans and Democrats made an election-year appeal for women's votes.

Representative Marsha Blackburn said: "A vote against ending sex-selection abortion is a vote in favor of gender bias and female gendercide."

My friend Father Rick Lobs has written, "If governmental approval of abortion for sex selection, does not drive collective America to its knees begging God for mercy, probably nothing will. Think of all the females that will be deprived of life by the action of government."

Given the American woman's fixation on frilly and pink, I fear more for the boys.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5WyCnUr6g&feature=youtu.be


Monday, May 21, 2012

Chile Study Exposes Lie of "Safe" Abortion



Recent research from Chile shows that when therapeutic abortion was banned in 1989 after a long period when it had been legal in that country, there was no increase in maternal mortality. None at all. 

On the contrary, maternal deaths continued to decline. Chile today has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world (16 per 100,000 live births), outstripping the United States (18) and, within the Americas, second only to Canada (9). 

Rather than the rogue violator of women’s reproductive health that the UN makes it out to be, Chile is looking this week like a model for countries that really want to save the lives of mothers.


graph mmr
Figure 1. Trend for maternal mortality ratio, Chile 1957–2007.


It’s important to note here what the studyWomen's Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legislation and Maternal Deaths: A Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007, does not claim. It does not say that making abortion illegal caused a decline in maternal deaths. But it shows, importantly, that the 1989 law did not increase mortality. It continued to decline substantially, although other factors were at work in the decline -- notably, the education of women and their ability to shape their own reproductive behaviour. (The latter does not mean quite what birth control fundamentalists mean, as we shall see.)

The study, published in the open access online journal PLoS One, is the work of Chilean and American researchers led by Dr Elard Koch, epidemiologist and a professor at the University of Chile and Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción (UCSC).



Read more here.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Blind Chinese Dissenter Fights Mandatory Abortion


Chen Guangcheng, the “barefoot lawyer" has exposed one of China’s most hideous human rights abuses and he has challenged the Obama administration to truly make human rights – in the President’s words -- "a core national security interest and core moral responsibility."

Chen may be blind; he may be poorly educated; he may be a peasant – but he has outsmarted the world’s two most powerful governments. Neither of them wanted the one-child policy exposed to the glare of the world media. But now it is being discussed around the globe.

Forty-year-old Chen is a man of remarkable courage and intelligence. Blind almost from birth, he was raised on classic tales of courageous heroes fighting corrupt officials. He came from a poor family and only began school when he was 17.

In 1996 he began to lobby for rights for the disabled in Shandong Province, about 500 kilometres south of Beijing. He was so successful as a “barefoot lawyer” that local people took their grievances to him. He gained a national reputation by leading protests against illegal taxes, polluters, and discrimination against the disabled.

Local officials had already started harassing him when he launched a protest against illegal implementation of the one-child policy. He documented abuses and worked with victims and lawyers to organise a class-action suit against family planning officials in 2005. This failed, but his reputation grew.

Then local officials revenged themselves. They charged him with "wilfully damaging public property and organising a mob to disturb traffic". In 2006 he was sentenced to jail for four years.

In 2010 Chen was released but, together with his wife and son, he remained under illegal and sometimes brutal house arrest. Making his guards look like a bunch of Keystone Cops, Chen escaped on the night of April 22. Supporters drove him to Beijing.

From his hiding place Chen has released a YouTube appeal to Premier Wen Jiabao asking that officials who attacked his family be prosecuted and that the government prosecute corruption cases according to the law. Appealing to the law may seem quixotic, but if the draconian family planning laws had just been obeyed to the letter, women would have been spared some of the horror of forced abortions and sterilizations.

Horror is not too strong a word. Activist Annie Jing Zhang, of Women’s Rights in China, told a US Congressional hearing in 2009 that some towns display slogans like “Pregnancy with permit”, “When you are required by policy to get abortion, but if you don't, your house will be destroyed, your buffalo will be confiscated”, “Abort it, kill it, terminate it. You just cannot give birth to it” or “We would rather to have blood flow like a river than to allow one extra baby to be born”.
Chen ends his YouTube appeal by saying:

“Premier Wen, many people don’t understand these illegal actions. Is it the local Party officials who are disobeying the laws, or do they have the support of the central government? I think that in the near future, you must give the public a clear answer. If we have a thorough investigation and tell the truth to the public, the results will be self-evident. If you continue to ignore this, what will the public think?”

Chen’s audacious ploy discomfits the US as well. Although President Obama recently set up an Atrocities Prevention Board, his administration has been reluctant to question the notorious one-child policy of its biggest trading partner. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in 2009 that human rights shouldn’t interfere with practical concerns:

"Successive administrations and Chinese governments have been poised back and forth on these issues, and we have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis."

And Vice-President Joe Biden gave a speech at Sichuan University last year in which he spoke so diplomatically about the one-child policy that he seemed to be endorsing it: “Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I’m not second-guessing -- of one child per family”.

Now it’s time for the Obama Administration to show some courage of its own in standing up for Chen and his family. Essentially his demands are modest. All he wants is the protection of Chinese law. Even his activism against the one-child policy has been focused on getting officials to observe the informed consent enshrined in the law, not to overturn it.

Besides, it is possible that reformers in the upper echelons of the Communist Party like Wen Jiabao actually welcome Chen’s move. The hardline chief of security, Zhou Yongkang, who orchestrated the persecution of Chen, has already been rattled by the purging of party princeling Bo Xilai. Sympathy for Chen weakens his own position.

In any case, it is becoming increasingly clear that the one-child has been a disaster for China, as The Economist recently pointed out. China’s burden of elderly is growing, and the proportion of younger tax-payers is shrinking. Already there are labour shortages. Notwithstanding its current strength, China is a country which will grow old before it grows rich. Chen is a reminder not only of his government’s brutality but its folly in defying the laws of economic growth.

Chen Guangcheng’s fate now depends upon negotiations between two governments who both wish that he would step under a truck. But there is a way to support him. Nominate him for the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Population Award “outstanding contributions to increasing the awareness of population questions”.

In the past the prize has been given to odious family planning apparatchiks and to dictators like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Indonesian President Suharto. Its inaugural recipients, in 1983, were Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, after her notorious campaign for forced sterilization in the 1970s, and Qian Xinzhong, an architect of China’s one-child policy.

An avalanche of nominations for Chen Guangcheng would show that the world has finally repudiated one of the most despicable, senseless violations of human rights ever implemented by a government against its own people. Click on this link to download an official nomination form.


Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Abortion Bill Causes Furor in Ireland



BELFAST, April 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Clare Daly's bill in Ireland proposes to overturn the Republic of Ireland’s constitutional protections for the unborn, and includes a provision penalizing pro-life sidewalk counseling with one year in prison.

The so-called Medical Treatment Bill, tabled by Socialist Party Teachta Dála (TD) Clare Daly, is the first ever private members’ bill backing abortion to be introduced in the Dáil Éireann (Irish Parliament). It would legalize abortion up to birth in cases where the woman’s life is in danger, or if she is threatening suicide.

Pro-life advocates have pointed out that there is no evidence that abortion is necessary to protect women’s lives, and that life-saving treatment for pregnant women is already available.

Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute said that the Bill was based on a “fundamentally dishonest claim that abortion is needed to protect women’s lives. This claim amounts to the worst type of scaremongering, and polls show that it is rejected by the majority of Irish women.”

“The record shows we are safer without abortion,” she said, “so why are this group of politicians trying to introduce abortion in our name? It’s unacceptable to misrepresent Irish women - and the truth about abortion - in this way.”


Bernadette Smyth, the head of Precious Life, the group that has fought the UK government’s attempts to impose abortion by stealth in Northern Ireland, has called on all Irish people, north and south, who want to keep abortion out of the islands, to oppose the bill.

Smyth and other Precious Life members, as well as the Irish groups Youth Defence and the Life Institute, joined hundreds in a demonstration today in Dublin demanding the defeat of the Medical Treatment Bill.
“Clare Daly is attempting to hoodwink the public that her Bill isn’t actually about legalising abortion,” Smyth said.

She warned that the bill is “even worse” than the 1967 Abortion Act that ushered in the current abortion regime in the UK.

Its provisions, Symth says, would even allow doctors to perform an abortion without the woman’s consent and allow abortions on underage girls without their parents’ or guardian’s consent. It would also force doctors to refer women to abortionists.

It attacks democratic freedoms as well, she says, in targeting pro-life groups or individuals who want to talk in public to abortion-minded women. The bill would make it an offense to talk to a woman going for an abortion with the intention of changing her mind, imposing prison terms of up to a year and fines of up to £2000.

Rebecca Roughneen of Youth Defence, said the demonstration was an effort to bring before the parliamentarians the fact that the majority of Irish women were sick and tired of being misrepresented by small groupings of pro-abortion campaigners.

Youth Defence has launched a campaign against claims by the abortion industry lobby that because of the current law, women are being refused “life saving medical treatment.” Women in Ireland, she said, are never denied genuine medical treatment during pregnancy, even in those cases where it might have the unintended secondary effect of causing the death of the child, however rare those cases may be.


Related reading: UN Bullies Ireland on Abortion

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Argentina Expedites Abortion in Rape Cases


NEW YORK, March 30 (C-FAM) In a surprising ruling, the Supreme Court of Argentina has declared abortion is a woman’s right in case of rape under international law. Under the ruling health service providers would be required to provide abortions “immediately and expeditiously” when a woman claims that her pregnancy is the result of rape.
 
The Court affirmed a lower court ruling that the Argentine penal code allows women to obtain an abortion in case of rape and without a judicial order. The case involved a 15-year-old-girl who claimed she became pregnant as a result of rape by her mother’s husband.

Though Argentina’s Constitution is silent on the rights of the unborn, legal professionals and government officials are nonetheless shocked by the decision. As recently as 2001 the same court recognized the right to life of unborn human beings from the moment of conception in the Portal de Belen decision that banned the morning-after pill.

The Argentine court argued it was bound to interpret its penal code to “harmonize” its national laws with what they consider to be Argentina’s international treaty obligations. By itself this is not controversial in Argentina where international law is incorporated into the Constitution and judicial activism is typical.

The court found an international right to abortion in cases of rape in the recommendations to Argentina by UN treaty bodies charged with monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the general opinions of the World Health Organization.

Legal scholars and other experts say such an interpretation is erroneous. According to the San Jose Articles, a document drafted by more than 30 experts in international law, no UN body can claim that abortion is a human right in any circumstance because there is no international law recognizing abortion. No international treaty even mentions abortion. When UN bodies claim an international right to abortion they exceed their mandate.

Legal experts point out that in fact, UN treaties contain provisions that should be used, if at all, to protect the unborn from abortion. Instead, the Argentine court painstakingly went through several treaty provisions to deny that international instruments should be used to protect the rights of the unborn.

Prior to the Argentine decision, the only Latin American court to ascribe any binding authority to UN treaty body opinions that create a right to abortion was the Supreme Court of Colombia in a 2006 ruling. The high courts of Chile, Mexico, and Peru have refused to accord any binding authority to these opinions of UN treaty bodies.

The decision’s aftermath will be even more significant than the decision itself. Unlike the rulings of the US Supreme Court, the highest court in Argentina can only decide individual cases, and these do not create binding precedents. But the decision can gain more importance if it is opposed or endorsed by politicians, lower courts and the media.

The governors of the provinces of Mendoza and Salta reacted by denouncing the Court’s decision as erroneous and invalid because it gives UN bodies more authority than they have.

The ruling has inevitably galvanized abortion advocates. A draft bill that would legalize abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is already being proposed in the Argentine legislature. It is uncertain whether the bill will appear before the legislature. A similar bill failed during the last session.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

NYT 'Who-Cares-What-the-People-Believe' Abortion Bias



An February 21 article in the New York Times on the current push to see abortion legalised in Ireland has reported that "anti-abortion groups are confident that their views are still held by a majority in Ireland."

The report by Carol Ryan, quotes the Life Institute's Niamh Uí Bhriain as saying that "There is deep-seated opposition to abortion in Ireland". Referring to the push to have abortion introduced by legislation rather than putting the matter to the people, Ms Uí Bhriain said: "If pro-abortion campaigners believe that Irish people are behind a move to legalize abortion, bring on the referendum."

The Life Institute spokeswoman said that the Irish people were especially opposed to having outside parties deciding our abortion laws.

"At this time, when the E.U. and I.M.F. are actually running our country and we have lost every bit of sovereignty, the last thing people want is an outside agency making an intrusive judgement," said Ms. Bhriain. "What we are seeing here is abortion campaigners using external courts in a bid to have abortion imposed on Irish people. If our laws make us different from everyone else in the European Union, I am glad of that difference."

Source: Youth Defence

Saturday, March 3, 2012

If not Abortion, why not Infanticide?



If abortion, why not infanticide? This leading question is often treated as a canard by supporters of abortion. However, it is seriously argued by two Italian utilitarians and published online in the prestigious Journal of Medical Ethics this week.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, in the UK.

They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it "after-birth abortion" rather than infanticide.

Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. "We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk." This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in "after-birth abortion" it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.

To critical eyes, their argument will no doubt look like a slippery slope, as they are simply seeking to extend the logic of abortion to infanticide:

"If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn."

How long after birth is it "ethically permissible" to kill infants? Guibilini and Minerva leave that question up to neurologists and psychologists, but it takes at least a few weeks for the infant to become self-conscious. At that stage it moves from being a potential person to being a person, and infanticide would no longer be allowed. ~ Journal of Medical Ethics, Feb 23