Planned Parenthood 3a
Ethics & Morality

After-birth abortion? Planned Parenthood and the art of infanticide

 

Not only has Planned Parenthood perfected the art of aborting babies in a “less crunchy way” in order that the harvest of body parts may be plentiful, but it transpires that they also routinely carry out something called ‘after-birth abortion’. The term is really quite disquieting, for what is an after-birth abortion if it is not the immediate post-natal termination of life? And if it is the immediate post-natal termination of life, it must mean the purposeful killing of a living, breathing baby. In what sense is after-birth abortion not murder?

New undercover footage has been released by the Center for Medical Progress which shows a senior Planned Parenthood employee – Vice President and Medical Director, Dr Savita Ginde – negotiating a deal on foetal body parts, and the spin she puts on the justification of a pricing schedule and the dubious legality of their operation is breathtaking. lt is one thing to sell baby body parts for $30-$100 per specimen “to cover costs”; it is quite another to conspire in a cover-up of a criminal act, and then have your lawyers manipulate the facts to mitigate the public relations liability.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains perform more than 10,000 abortions a year. In this video, Dr Ginde is asked about the supply of intact foetal specimens. Dr Ginde discloses: “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

If a woman delivers her baby “before we get to see them for a procedure”, the baby must be born alive. It has not been injected with a saline solution and mushed up in utero; nor has it been ‘partially born’ in order to have the back of its neck snipped while the head rests breathless in the birth canal. Dr Ginde specifically refers to delivery “before we get to see them for a procedure”.

What lawful procedure may be performed after delivery on a living infant by which its body parts may be harvested whole and intact?

“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush,” explains Dr Ginde, eager to expound the craft of maximising intactness. She also explains that if Planned Parenthood classify the relationship as research rather than business, it is something of a catch-all category which provides the requisite legal latitude: “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing. If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

In the contemplation that they might “get caught” is the tacit admission of malpractice, for one cannot “get caught” doing what is moral and virtuous. Their lawyer must now be consulting with his own lawyers, for he has been implicated by Dr Ginde in conspiracy and cover-up. “He’s got it figured out,” she boasts. “That he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling foetal parts across states’.”

Dr Ginde is then asked directly about the layers of lawfulness: “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?”, to which she replies: “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”

And so Planned Parenthood is not only harvesting the brains, kidneys, livers and hearts of fragmented foetuses dissected neatly on a petri dish; they are procuring intact body parts from living infants. And they all but admit to complicity in murder: “It’s another boy!” yaps the spiritual daughter of Dr Josef Mengele. It isn’t just a foetus without identity; it isn’t merely “a bunch of cells” with no humanity. It’s a boy.

And consider the scale. Planned Parenthood performs in the region of 400,000 terminations a year across the United States. Dr Ginde discloses that around “probably less than 10 per cent” of these are born “intact” in her Rocky Mountains facility. Since, unlike Hebrew women, it is unlikely that there is something peculiar about women in the Rocky Mountains, that they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them (Ex 1:19), we might reasonably estimate that “probably less than 10 per cent” of these 400,000 are born “intact”, and so something just under 40,000 American babies are selected for after-birth abortion every year.

This isn’t parenthood, planned, spontaneous, accidental or otherwise. It is institutionalised infanticide. It is a killing field parading as a women’s health service. It is a concentration camp of suffering, death and darkness. It is an Auschwitz for babies, and a crime against humanity.

  • David

    It seems that there really are no depths to which a post-Christian west will not descend.
    Whilst the media fret about the unnecessary death of a lion, thousands of fully grown babies, ready to meet the world, are being slain by so called “doctors”.
    This is beyond abhorrent – words really do fail me.
    The cruel reality of the baby destruction industry needs fully exposing to the light.

  • educynic

    I am confused about the phrase ‘potential human life’. Is that thing in the uterus potentially human, ie some sort of animal at the moment? Or is it dead at the moment and potentially alive?
    Pah! Perfectly reasonable societies from Spartans to Eskimos have practised infanticide. That’s what we are doing. Why not stop pretending?

    • Martin

      The infant is alive from the point of conception, that is what science tells us.

  • Jon Sorensen

    This is not post-Christian west. This is a Christian nation doing this.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Do you think the people in the film give a toss for Christianity?

    • Albert

      Abortion is allowed in the US because an unelected court said it was (like same-sex marriage) not because the democratic process was followed.

      • Linus

        Same-sex marriage is allowed in Ireland because the people voted for it in a referendum. It’s allowed in France, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries because democratically elected representatives voted massively in favour of it.

        Also, in Australia democratically elected representatives voted for same-sex marriage in the Australian Capital Territory only to have their vote invalidated by unelected judges. Why was that right when the reverse situation in the US is wrong?

        The US constitution is what it is, and it gives the Supreme Court the power to invalidate legislation and define what is constitutional and what is not. That’s the way Americans have decided to govern themselves. Conservatives like it when decisions go their way, and hate it when they don’t. Talk about moral weathervanes. “Democracy is fine as long as it gets me the decision I want, otherwise judicial fiat is better than nothing.” could be the Republican Party’s motto.

        • Albert

          I never said it was right or wrong. I merely said that you cannot define the nation by what the unelected court says.

          • Linus

            Great, so you won’t mind if the US states that banned interracial marriage before Loving v. Virginia reinstate their bans tomorrow? Miscegenation laws were never put to a democratic vote, after all.

          • Albert

            Here’s my view: the Christian nature of a nation is decided by the people who live there. It’s not a constitutional thing, it’s a people thing. So this country is constitutionally Christian, but I don’t think it is actually Christian.

            That a court makes a bizarre constitutional decision does not fundamentally affect its Christianity therefore. Now if local states democractically start banning interracial marriage then that would for me affect whether I think of the US (or at least those states) as Christian.

          • Linus

            It makes sense that a dogmatic Christian would also be a dogmatic democrat.

            The people who wrote the US Constitution had the foresight to realise that democratic majorities can be every bit as tyrannical as any monarchy. So they built checks and balances into the system that prevent democracy turning into populist mob rule.

            One of these checks and balances is an independent judiciary tasked with ensuring the compliance of all legislation with constitutional guarantees.

            Congress cannot impose its will by democratic fiat if by doing so it contravenes the spirit of the constitution as interpreted by the judiciary. It may not agree with that interpretation, and neither may you, but that’s neither here nor there, because that isn’t YOUR job. It isn’t Congress’s either. It’s belongs to the Supreme Court, precisely because it ISN’T elected. If it were, it would be subject to the same populist pressures as Congress and the entire system of checks and balances would collapse.

            Remember that Hitler was elected by a popular vote. If you think that democracy is foolproof, you’re either a naive or a cynical ideologue. I think I know which of the two it is…

          • Albert

            I don’t know why you are arguing with me. I don’t think we are disagreeing. I’m just saying you cannot measure the Christian nature of a country by reference purely to the constitution. It is the beliefs of the people that matter. You may well be entirely right that democractic fundamentalism isn’t a good idea, but that’s the issue here. Good governance isn’t the issue. The issue is someone’s claim above that this somehow shows America isn’t a Christian country.

          • “I don’t know why you are arguing with me.”

            Lol …. He argues with everyone.

          • Sam

            Dude

            In point of clarification: supreme court judges are appointed by the POTUS , but also have to be approved by the Senate…. which unlike upper (or even lower) chambers of the British or other European parliaments, isn’t a rubber stamp body controlled by the executive, but has actual power, because as you say there’s separation of powers. So there is a democratic element here.

    • The Explorer

      Or the post-Christian part of a Christian nation. PP, after all, was the brainchild of Margaret Sanger back in 1921. Nobody would accuse her of having been a Christian.

      • Jon Sorensen

        Just because someone says something it does not mean it. Americans are proud to tell you they are a Christian nation. Their money has God in it. There are no atheists in the House of Representatives or Congress. Almost all are Christians.

        • The Explorer

          Saudi money also has God in it. Doesn’t make it Christian.

        • Isn’t the symbolism on the American dollar Masonic?

    • Jon Sorensen

      Royinsouthwest, I don’t know if “people in the film give a toss for Christianity”.
      Albert, all supreme court unelected judges are Christians. Democratic process was followed by Christians.

      • The Explorer

        All the judges are Christians. Really? Isn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jewish?

        • Jon Sorensen

          Thanks for correcting me. Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg are Jewish. Christians have 6-3 majority.

          • IanCad

            True, but it should be noted that there are no Protestants on The Supreme Court.

    • Martin

      Jon

      No nation was ever Christian, nations have been influenced by their Christian people but that influence is rejected by society today.

      • Jon Sorensen

        Martin, you might want to brush up your history. Scandinavian, central Europe, Vatican, Malta… You might surprise yourself to find many Christian nations.

        • Albert

          Martin is making a theological point. But your position here fails to take account of the precise legal situation in the US.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I don’t know what Martin’s theological point is and why that opinion matters.
            I also don’t know what is “the precise legal situation in the US”.

          • Albert

            1. It comes down to what is meant by “Christian nation”. This is something Christian theology must decide, and Martin’s theology, I am sure would prevent it being applied to the US.
            2. The legal situation is the one I referred to above: abortion is allowed in the US not because it was passed in a democratic fashion, by representatives of the people, but like same-sex marriage because it was imposed by unelected judges who said it was implicit in the US Constitution. The fact that a legal fiction conjured up by unelected judges permits abortion in the US tells us nothing at all about the Christianity of the nation as a whole. Poland was governed by Nazi laws in the war, and yet it was clearly a Catholic nation.

          • Jon Sorensen

            1. I don’t know why Martin the theologian gets to decide
            this. Christian leaders in the US keep repeating that they are a Christian nation like it or not.

            2. The US a constitutional representative democracy. You can’t vote if someone has constitutional rights. I don’t know why you are hung up on “unelected judges”. That’s what their founding fathers wanted while warning about the tyranny of majority democracy.

          • IanCad

            Absolutely. Elected judges only get re-elected if they can show a “Hang ’em high” record.
            Thus the absurd incarceration rate in the Land of the Free.

          • Albert

            1. I’m not saying that he does, I’m just saying that evidence for something being Christian depends on one’s definition of “Christian”, and therefore, you won’t make a sound argument against him, unless you want to challenge his theology.
            2. Again it comes down to definitions. If by “Christian” you mean a country in which the majority are Christian (and I thought this was your original claim) then what the unelected judges do, makes no difference.

          • CliveM

            If you made an effort to understand, so would then be able to engage from of point of knowledge.

        • Martin

          Jon

          They may claim to be influenced by Christianity but that does not make them Christian nations.

    • The Explorer

      I recommend Gregory Boyd’s ‘The Myth of a Christian Nation’. Illuminating read.

      • Jon Sorensen

        The Explorer, I recommend you go to the primary source. Ask the Christians in the USA and they tell you it is a Christian nation. No need to go to secondary sources.

        • The Explorer

          Well, Boyd is Christian and an American. And he talked to lots of American Christians. I’d say that makes him a primary source.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Boyd is a single person – an anecdote.
            Get the data – ask the USA Christians.

          • The Explorer

            I think this discussion has about run its course: we’re reaching the pantomime yes it is/no it isn’t stage.

            One final question. do the USA non-Christians get a say in all this? Barna etc research suggests they’re a growing percentage of the population. That’s evidence from people who’ve gone and got the data.

          • Jon Sorensen

            The USA non-Christians get their say. But the USA has
            Christian president. House of Representatives, Congress and court systems have overwhelming Christian majority and about 75% of population is Christian. So non-Christians ability to influence is limited. Christians have special privileges they have created for themselves.

          • CliveM

            Special privileges? What?

          • The Explorer

            He must mean the First Amendment: that there shall be no law made in respect of an establishment of religion. When that can be taken to mean special privilege for one group, rational discussion is dead in the water.

          • CliveM

            Yes sadly. It would be nice to have constructive new blood on this site.

          • Jon Sorensen

            CliveM, Special privileges? What?
            Google blue laws. Right to discriminate when hiring for religious organisation. Tax exemption. Double tax offset for pastors…. Just educate yourself.

          • The Explorer

            It’s an interesting point about how far any group is allowed to recruit staff sympathetic to its aims. Would a mosque want to recruit a Christian as an imam? Would Planned Parenthood want to recruit pro-lifers whose intention was to bring down Planned Parenthood? You might interview, if the law demanded it, but you simply wouldn’t appoint unless there was a quotas system in force.

          • Jon Sorensen

            The Explorer, Muslim are rarely qualified as rabbies and imam are rarely qualified running a church. So your example fails…

          • William Lewis

            French restaurants are allowed to hire French only staff. Do you object to this?

          • Jon Sorensen

            EU has some funny rules. Germany had/s similar rules too. Irish pub had difficulties hiring Irish people because preferential treatment. All countries have special privileges for their own citizens, so I guess French rule is ok.

          • The Explorer

            The BBC has a Muslim as head of religious broadcasting. How about the Planned Parenthood bit of my query? The pro lifers could be suitably qualified. Could a Christian with a Phd in philosophy apply to be head of the American Humanist Association? (The Christian might understand humanist perspectives perfectly, but disagree with them.)

          • Jon Sorensen

            Re Planned Parenthood. No, companies do not need to hire people “whose intention was to bring down” the company.

            Christian with a Phd in philosophy can apply to be head of the American Humanist Association. In the US private organisation can set their rules. Christian Boy Scouts enjoy government funding in form of providing camp places and housing AND they are allowed to discriminate against atheist. Great Christian morality!

          • The Explorer

            Let’s put all this together. Christians have the right to discriminate when hiring for religious organisations. But Muslims are not qualified to be rabbis or to run a church. I assume you also accept my actual example that a Christian is not qualified to run a mosque. So Jews and Muslims have the right to discriminate when hiring, just as Christians do.

            I wasn’t suggesting that pro lifers would be stupid enough to declare their intentions to PP. They might even conceal the fact that they were pro lifers. But, as you say, private companies have the right to set their own rules. Presumably, that means the right to discriminate when hiring.

            So, to sum up, Christians have the right to discriminate when hiring: along with Jews and Muslims (and Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists etc),
            Humanists and Planned Parenthood interviewers.

            In other words, birds of a feather may flock together.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Presumably, that means [for private companies] the right to discriminate when hiring”. No they can’t discriminate.

            Humanists and Planned Parenthood interviewers can’t discriminate. Privileged Christians can.

          • CliveM

            Still trying to pretend its a Christian privilege I see.

          • CliveM

            So these special privileges are not open to Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc? These are specifically Christian as you suggest?

            Tell me do atheist charities have to hire Chrustians?

          • Jon Sorensen

            CliveM, “Tell me do atheist charities have to hire Chrustians?”. They do. They are not allowed to discriminate. Churches can hire for example IT people or teachers and discriminate based on their doctrines.

          • The Explorer

            Do they in fact do so? Who is monitoring to make sure there is a quota of Christians on the staff of atheist charities?

          • CliveM

            So no comment about whether the special privileges are Christian or not.

            With regards the right to discriminate, this only applies to religious organisations engaging in primarily religious activities. It does not extend for example to a Christian Homeless Charity, or Muslim for that matter.

            Again this is not a specifically Christian privilege as you try to suggest.

          • Sam

            Being able to practice ones faith is a special privilege to the Taliban atheist types (which clearly has no place in society).

            Example :

            abortion in any circumstances is moral or right because a woman has the right to do as she pleases , but if she keeps the baby and if male, she is morally wrong to circumcise him especially if that’s because of religion. In fact infant male circumcision on religious grounds is akin to paedophilia (that’s what a Taliban atheist said to me this week).

          • Jon Sorensen

            A bit of a strawman Sam. Find out what “Taliban atheist” before making an argument.

          • Sam

            Couldn’t care less.

          • Hi Jon

            Bro got the phrase from me !

          • Jon Sorensen

            Interesting. Comparing people who are against infant circumcision against infants will to Taliban. Sounds like a great comparison and conversation starter.

          • Hi Jon

            I recall David Cameron once called members of his own party “the turnip Taliban”. No different to when my sister Esther refers to her children as “whirling dervishes”. Besides which if you read the post I’d didn’t put all atheists into this category. Quite a few atheists-Jew and gentile- comment on my blog.

          • The Explorer

            Clearly, the word ‘Christian’ is in serious need of definition. That is the main point of Boyd’s book. But we clearly mean very different things by the same word, and this conversation has lost any point it may have had. Let’s end it here.

          • Lord Chatham

            American Christian here. I strongly doubt the 75% is accurate in any real sense of the word Christian. Surely a pound of meat would not be unaffected by 3/4 pound of salt (Matt 5:13), and yet American govt/judiciary/society/culture continues to pull further and further away from the clear teachings of Christ and the Holy Scriptures.

          • carl jacobs

            Wait. You say you are an American but … you use an aristocratic title in your Nick?

            [Stares suspiciously]. 🙁

            You wouldn’t be from Massachusetts, would you?

          • Lord Chatham

            Ha..no California. Paternal grandmother’s maiden name was Pitt, hence the reference to the Great Commoner.

          • carl jacobs

            I used to live in So Cal. East end of the valley up towards the Cajon Pass. But I managed to escape.

            😉

          • Lord Chatham

            I escaped So-Cal too…lived 5 years in Los Angeles before returning home to Silicon Valley. You must have been amazed at the Cajon Pass I-5 firestorm. Quite a series of images…burning cars, boats, etc.

          • carl jacobs

            I am familiar with the location of that fire. I used to live in San Bernardino close up against the mountains. In August we could watch the aircraft drop fire retardant on the fires north of our apartment. They used old WWII aircraft back then. They would come down the slope of the mountains, disappear behind a ridge line, and then re-emerge trailing a huge orange plume. I recently saw a picture of a DC10 flying one of those missions. That was incredible.

            Happiness is … driving east on I-40 at Needles Az with California in your rear view mirror.

            FREEEEDOMMMMMM!

          • Bless you, and welcome to His Grace’s august blog of interminable religio-political banter.

          • Lord Chatham

            Thank you Your Grace!

          • At least he hasn’t called himself Lord Chatham III.

          • carl jacobs

            If he’s from California, he would be more likely to call home myself Dude* Chatham. Or the every more august Gnarly Dude Chatham.

            *pronounced “Dooooood”

          • Maxine Schell

            Non-Christians now have ALL “the say” in U.S.A.

        • Anton

          The primary source is the Bible. If you want to know who is a member of a club, you look at the club’s own criteria for membership. The New Covenant is with the individual and the collective of Christians is called the Church, not the USA or any other nation. American Christians are confused, as Boyd’s book explains very clearly.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Anton, thanks for telling that “The primary source is the Bible”. So, this means that Bible believing Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, JWs, Christadelphians etc are all Christians. Also thanks for pointing out that “American Christians are confused” and you know the truth.

          • Anton

            Have the confidence to read the Bible and think for yourself rather than accepting what Bible believing Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, JWs, Christadelphians etc tell you. Some of them will be, some won’t; we all know of congregations where some people couldn’t care less and others love the Lord. We have to make that kind of call when we are told to marry within the faith. And do thank Greg Boyd also – great book and most influential on my views.

        • carl jacobs

          Jon Sorensen

          You are self-evidently not American. What nationality are you then? And why do you presume to speak with authority about a nation you do not know?

          1. The Supreme Court has held that the US Constitution guarantees the right to commit acts that were illegal in every state of the Union when the US Constitution was ratified. There are no longer “rights” guaranteed in the US Constitution. There are only judges who can re-fashion the words to the document to mean whatever they desire. The concept of original intent is dead. There is now only positive law.

          2. A Christian is not defined as “Someone who says he is a Christian.” Nominalism goes by the name of “Christian” in the US. The same can also be said for functional deism. If you define a Christian as “One who believes in God according to Christian understanding of God, accepts Christian theology as true, and lives according to the presuppositions derived thereby” the number is perhaps one in ten. Christianity is now all but absent from public culture. There are many vague references to “God.” But that is a reference to a vague deistic entity that spans Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and whatever else the speaker wants to imply.

          • Jon Sorensen

            carl jacobs, thanks for sharing your view of US Constitution. This sounds very good: “There are only judges who can re-fashion the words to the document to mean whatever they desire”.

            Thanks for also defining “Christian”. It is clearly different than what is in a dictionary, but well take your word for it.

          • carl jacobs

            Jon Sorensen

            You don’t seem overly familiar with the concept of semantic range in the English language. What is your native language – since it obviously isn’t English.

          • In 1899, Pope Leo XIII identified a widespread heresy among American Catholics, aptly named “Americanism”. It is a watering down of Christian doctrines in order to gain popular support in a liberal democracy.

            Was America ever a Christian nation given it was founded on deism?

          • The Explorer

            Exactly Gregory Boyd’s point: deistic in origin, rather than Christian. Theistic rather than atheistic is the most you can say.

          • Jon Sorensen

            And the US was and is full of deist worship places, not theist worship places. LOL

          • The Explorer

            Deism is theist. It’s just not Christian. ie Deism has a different view of God from Christianity.

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, actually it is. And you would know that if you knew anything about doctrine – specifically the difference between functional and formal doctrine. What is your nationality again?

          • carl jacobs

            a watering down of Christian doctrines in order to gain popular

            [Stares at CoE]

            And this is called “Americanism”?

            Was America ever a Christian nation given it was founded on deism?

            Still bitter about that whole Cornwallis at Yorktown thing, huh? Time to let it go, Jack.

          • Inspired by the French, you found a nation on armed rebellion, universal suffrage and deist ideals, absent the full revelation of Christ, and call it “American Exceptionalism”. No wonder it infected worldwide Catholicism and Christianity more generally.

          • carl jacobs

            Inspired by the French? Your time line is a little bit off. Bitterness will do that to you.

          • You accept the other charges then. This is progress. In time you will come to see the influence of the French too.

          • carl jacobs

            So that’s how you intend to cover up the fact that you misplaced the start of the French Revolution by at least 14 years?

          • Yep …

            These are enlightenment, minimalistic, natural law views of Messrs’ Thomas le Jefferson and Thomas le Paine:

            ” …. the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
            Which added to:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
            This generalised ‘Creator’ has endowed men with rights and liberties; men got them from God. But what God? Nature’s God? Touch Masonic, Jack would say.

    • Tim Bake

      Any thoughts on what to think about the “Migrant Crisis”?
      I am muddled and confused – not even sure what to pray.

      • Orwell Ian

        Try something similar to this prayer of Jehoshaphat:
        ‘Oh, our God …we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You’ (2 Chronicles 20:12)

        • Tim Bake

          Thank you. that is a comfort.

    • Anton

      There is – and never has been – any such thing as a Christian nation, despite pious claims to the contrary – and this shows it very clearly. The New Covenant is with the individual and the collective of Christians is called the Church, whereas nations are components of the world.

    • David

      Only individuals can be truly “Christian”, followers of Christ.
      But when enough of the people in any nation, a clear majority including those in power, are truly Christians, then human made laws are changed to start to reflect the immutable Laws of God. In that sense we can then start to regard a country as reflecting its Christian population.
      But as the percentage of practising Christians declines and, or, their faith cools, then the laws start to diverge away from their formerly Christian influenced forms. At that point non or even anti-Christian practices multiply, as we move towards our current state, a post-Christian west. Although the culture still has ever fainter cultural echoes of the once widespread faith.
      That’s how I see it.
      It is a slippery subject to describe I think.

    • Sam

      It could be the men from planet zog nation doing this , the matter to ask is this ethical, right or wrong and why?

  • Albert

    I really cannot see the problem. If you can kill and harvest an unborn baby just before s/he comes out of the womb, why not just after? What difference does 10 minutes make? Birth makes no difference to the intrinsic value of the child.

    • Jill

      Albert, I totally agree. The only difference is one of location.

      If one condones partial-birth abortion, why not infanticide?

      I for one am glad this has all happened. It might shake a few people out of their comfort zones.

      • CliveM

        People are condoning infanticide. The softening up process has started. Experts are making their pronouncement. We will soon be asked how we can be so cruel, so ‘bronze age’ as to want to ‘force’ a child to be brought up in a family that can’t look after it, or give it the emotional support it needs.

        We hear the arguments on this site in relation to abortion. They just refuse to accept the logic of where this will lead.

        • Saint Sean
          • CliveM

            Thank you . Yes I was not intending to suggest that these arguments are only starting, I agree they have been ongoing for some time. See my other comment with a similar link.

            To be honest your link is better. People need to understand what the direction if travel on this is.

  • Martin

    Actually, like all sin, it is a crime against the God who made each and everyone of us in His own image. It is a condemnation of a society that cares more about a lion than the infant in the womb. Our society has been allowed, by God, to tread on that slippery path that leads to its own destruction.

  • Shadrach Fire

    I do not know about the historical cases of tribes and races that had different attitudes toward infanticide but from a Biblical perspective, I believe that each conception is a miracle of God, as I have put in my prayer, and that there must be more than good reasons to justify any type of fetal desecration.

  • CliveM

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/03/01/yes-we-are-serious-ethicists-defend-after-birth-abortion-argument-in-raucous-radio-interview/

    I couldn’t find the Radio 4 interview with an UK ethicist that I heard, but this makes the same argument.

    Rather exposes the vacuousness of attempting to claim personhood only happens when independent life is possible. Anyone who argues that this won’t happen delude themselves, typically to enable themselves to continue justifying pre-birth abortion.

    If life becomes disposable, soon all life is seen that way. This is evil.

    • IanCad

      You may be thinking of “The Moral Maze.”
      Ann Furedi – Communist head of BPAS.
      Dr Sarah Chan – Medical Ethicist ???!!! Abortion fine and dandy throughout pregnancy. Lord Help Us!

  • IanCad

    Actually, YG the favoured term is “Fourth Trimester.”
    Sounds medically correct and will confuse the masses.

    Cecil would have died unmourned and unknown had he be called “A Carnivore”

  • Dominic Stockford

    This is all so sickening. Where’s the media outcry? Where’s the police investigation? Where’s the social media hounding? Where are the protesters outside their “clinics”?

    “…we are fearfully and wonderfully made…”

    If God had not promised not to send another flood…..

    • Linus

      Your response to what you believe is mass murder is to regret that your imaginary god has promised never again to commit genocide?

      I keep thinking Christians can’t possibly get any crazier, and they’re always proving me wrong. I wonder how crazy crazy can actually get. Between you and Martin, I’m sure I’ll find out sooner or later – although it’s possible there’s no absolute limit and you’ll just keep spiralling downwards into infinity.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Another of your straw men arguments. I didn’t say what you accuse me of. The crazy one must be he who imagines what others are saying, and then criticises their own imaginings.

        • The Explorer

          I think all of us who have argued with Linus have had the experience of being condemned for something we never said.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Indeed, which is why I thought I would join you in the fellowship of pointing it out!!

          • CliveM

            Lol

            Master of the straw man argument!

      • Inspector General

        That you can argue a point cannot be denied, so long as you can keep your psychosis out of it. Yes, it’s a tall ask, but do have a go…

    • …. He didn’t promise not to send an asteroid, though.

      • Dominic Stockford

        That’s true Jack, but what form will the Ark take in that case?

        • Dominic, as you know, scripture tells us there will be no physical ark built by man before the end of this age and the return of Christ.

          • Dominic Stockford

            If you’re going to have an asteroid, but not a wiping out of humanity, we have to have a magic beanstalk, or something, to keep Noahs modern equivalent safe….

          • Surely you’ve seen the film. We send a rocket to drop a bomb on it to divert it from the earth. Meantime, the ‘great and the good’ head for underground shelters.

            Jesus advised heading for the mountains … “the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:” He didn’t give any indication man would be able to do anything … “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.”

          • Dominic Stockford

            I think the second coming and a film about an asteroid are getting confused now. There’s no asteroid in the Bible, though the coming of the Son of Man to judge mankind will send the “great and the good” scurrying, looking for stones to hide under, and caves to flee to. Won’t do them any good of course, everything will melt away and be renewed.

            The Final Judgment should terrify people into God’s hands, instead they get even more hardened of heart. The blind….

            Just look at the subject of this article, so horrifying that even those who lived through the trenches of WW1 would blanch at the thought – yet people do it, and defend it.

          • Anton

            “There’s no asteroid in the Bible”

            O Yes there is! Rev 8:8-10.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Star? Opinion…

          • Anton

            Look up the Greek for “star” in Rev 8:10!

          • The love of Christ on the Cross should send people running in tears to God.
            Man is capable of convincing himself that manifest evil, no matter how great, is good. History repeatedly shows us this. This callous murder of the innocent and vulnerable unborn has to be the lowest point of human degeneracy.

          • Lord Chatham

            Agree fully. At the end of time, there will be only 2 kinds of people:

            1) Those who say to God: “Thy will be done.” and
            2) Those to whom God says: “Thy will be done.”

            (Paraphrase of Dallas Willard)

          • Welcome aboard the good ship Cranmer, Lord Chatham.

          • Lord Chatham

            Thank you Happy Jack! Good to be here!

          • Try not to have too much to do with your fellow colonial, Carl ;o)

          • CliveM

            Had to read that a couple of times (ok 6 or 7!!)

      • Anton

        He promised that he would, if you read Revelation 8.

        • Jesus’ Olivet Discourse is certainly suggestive of this.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Mark Steyn writes about Planned Parenthood in his columns ‘I’ve Got A Crush On You, Baby’ and ‘Clumps, Lies and Videotape’.

  • Ivan M

    …crime against humanity… So why are we not able to do anything about it?

    • IanCad

      When the good and true find their voice – after many further outrages – perhaps then. Until that time silence is assent.

  • Linus

    What state of development are these foetuses in?

    If they’re non-viable then they’re dead anyway. Hastening the process is no more morally questionable than harvesting organs for donation from a patient on life support before switching off the machine.

    If they’re viable then I agree that what’s being described equates to infanticide. A foetus that is born and capable of independent life is a human being. That seems unquestionable to me.

    Wasn’t there a case of an abortion doctor being jailed for exactly this kind of thing in the US just recently? If PP is killing viable babies then one assumes the law will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

    It won’t however ban all abortion as a result. Proponents of a ban on all abortions are going to be disappointed if they think this is the silver bullet that will kill abortion stone dead. It may lead to some prosecutions and better supervision of abortion providers. But that’s about it.

    • The Explorer

      Kermit Gosnell?

    • Anton

      The problem is selective enforcement of the law by the State. Most abortions performed in Britain are illegal under the law but it has become custom for the safeguards to be neglected and nothing happens.

      • Lord Chatham

        It’s the exact same in The States. These 4 videos (and counting) released by the Center for Medical Progress show PP and StemExpress employees confessing to numerous felonies, and bragging about their lawyers helping to cover it up.

        Rather than prosecuting this widespread criminal conspiracy via RICO statutes, most of the leftist law enforcement agencies – US DOJ, CA DOJ, etc. – would rather investigate THE COMPANY THAT MADE THE MOVIES instead of the companies confessing to murder.

      • Linus

        Most abortions in Britain are illegal under the law? That’s a big claim. What evidence do you have to support it?

        Here in France a woman an choose to terminate her pregnancy for any reason up to the 14th week of gestation. Terminations can only take place after that point if the woman’s life is threatened by continuing with the pregnancy, or if the foetus has a grave and incurable medical condition or abnormality.

        Two separate and independent medical opinions are required to enable late term abortions, although I don’t know enough about how the process works in practice to know whether mental illness or depression are considered as suitable grounds. If a woman threatens to kill herself if she can’t have an abortion after 14 weeks, is her claim seriously investigated, or just taken at face value? I don’t know, although one assumes that the medical opinions are only given after a serious examination of each case. If not then many practitioners would surely be facing malpractice suits and I’m not aware of any such scandal taking place on any kind of significant scale, although there may be isolated incidents.

        As it stands, and for the reasons I have outlined in other comments, I support this law. A foetus at 14 weeks does not have neural structures capable of sensing and interpreting pain, nor any semblance of sentience that could form a concept of suffering even if the nerve structures were fully or partially formed. It certainly has no ability to survive outside of the womb.

        After 14 weeks it can be argued that neural development is sufficient to cause something that might provoke the first glimmerings of sensation, although to the best of my knowledge this isn’t indisputable until at least the 21st week of gestation. But at 14 weeks there can be no suffering.

        That being the case, and the foetus being neither viable nor capable of sensation, the decision about whether to continue with the pregnancy rests entirely with the pregnant woman. After this point, there is sufficient doubt as to the state of neural development of the foetus to justify a ban on abortion on demand.

        Whether or I would support an abortion after this point depends on a number of factors, but generally, up until the point of viability at around 21 weeks, if continuing with a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, I support her right to abort. After the point of viability it becomes more complex and in general I believe that the existence of a potentially independent life trumps the right of the person carrying it to end it without a very compelling reason.

        Personally I have enough confidence in the medical profession (here in France at least) to believe that late term abortions only happen in circumstances when terminating the foetus is clearly the lesser of two evils. Elsewhere it may be different. I’ve heard claims from English anti-abortionists that doctors there pre-sign consent forms and ask no questions for abortions up until the very last day of gestation, but I have no idea if this is true, or whether it’s just a libellous accusation invented by religionists willing to do anything to stop abortions from happening. Personal experience has taught me that Christians can sink to any depth of insult, calumny and lies to impose their will on others, so it’s much easier for me to give the benefit of the doubt to the medical profession rather than a bunch of zealots. But if proper evidence rather than strident accusations can be produced, then I too would censure any physician who negligently allowed a woman to abort after the time period specified by the law, or who colluded with her to circumvent the law.

        • Anton

          I’ve no wish to go toe-to-toe with you on abortion and I’m glad to be better informed of the situation in France; thank you. Perhaps you noticed that I copped it from other Christians here when I suggested that the onset of cell differentiation, after about 4 days, was the time beyond which I would not countenance the morning-after pill (or of course abortion); I think my fellows in faith are making a false assumption about the relation of spiritual and material. I am using the same criterion as you, in fact, but being very conservative about timing whereas I think if you watch The Silent Scream for yourself you will see that the foetus can feel pain at least two weeks before you suggest.

          Most abortions here are performed for the “sake of the mother’s mental health” when her mental health is not at issue but her lifestyle is. It is illegal to procure an abortion for false reasons. I’d rather that the law be honest and that doctors ask the mother “You want an abortion because you don’t want the trouble of bringing up the baby? OK, it’s your decision and convenience is what I’ll put on the form. Now just go through that door and the nurse will kill your unborn child for you.”

          • Linus

            Reducing the reasons for wanting an abortion to such a simplistic and highly offensive formula is about what I’d expect from Christian “charity” and “love”.

            If you don’t even try to understand what motivates a woman to terminate a pregnancy, which is rarely self-interest in terms as bald as you state it, then you render yourself ridiculous in the eyes of society as a whole, which unlike you, is subtle and intelligent enough to understand that the decision to abort is almost never taken lightly. Is it any wonder Christians are held in such contempt by so many people when they treat women facing desperate and hard decisions so callously?

          • Anton

            I do not agree with your imputations and remind you that it is the decision to have sex causing pregnancy that is too often taken lightly. People must learn that it has consequences. Have you seen The Silent Scream?

          • Linus

            I don’t watch anti-abortion propaganda films. They’re made by zealots pushing an agenda with the express intent of using the most gruesome images possible, which may or may not be genuine, to shock and influence viewers into drawing unwarranted and completely biased conclusions.

            I’m willing to examine facts. I’m not willing to play the game of zealots and demagogues with its misinformation, exaggerations and downright lies.

            The title of the film you recommend tells me everything I need to know about what its message is going to be. I’m no expert on foetal neural development, but I know enough to know that the motivations of those who claim a 12 or 14 week old foetus has the capacity to feel and interpret pain are highly dubious and ALWAYS driven by underlying religious dogma.

            So I won’t be viewing your film. It won’t be an impartial analysis of the reality of abortion, but rather a partisan attempt to convince me that the overwhelming consensus of opinion among biologists is wrong, because God or the Bible or some other spurious and unprovable force says so.

            This is why the anti-abortion lobby will never succeed. It has little or no science on which it can base its wild claims, so it resorts to sensationalist shock tactics, which merely backfire on it as decent people are revolted by the animus, hatred and zealotry on display.

          • Anton

            It is difficult to count the reactions of a 12-week-old foetus as propaganda. You are eminently capable of viewing those reactions and ignoring the commentary, and the age of the foetus that was killed has not been challenged. By not viewing it you put yourself in the same category as those Catholic philosophers who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope at the moons of Jupiter because they said they were theologically impossible (not on a biblical basis, I assure you).

            About 98% of abortions in England are done for “the sake of the woman’s mental health”. Do you genuinely believe that 98% of all women wishing to have an abortion are mental health risks if they give birth? Or would you tend to think that abortion is being used as post hoc contraception? If so, do you find that acceptable?

            I am not trying to force you to my position but I hope that you will see the hypocrisy in the present situation.

          • Linus

            By refusing to view your propaganda clip I am declining to be drawn into what is no more than an attempt on your part to proselytize for your beliefs.

            My position on abortion is based on a consensus of medical opinion as to the ability of a 14 week old foetus to experience pain. It is not based on some random clip put together by anti-abortionists with the sole idea of “proving” what they want to be true in order to influence others to think like them.

            I doubt this film of yours would “stand up in court”. In order for it to do so, you’d need some pretty exhaustive documentary proof that what it shows is what you say it is, including sworn statements from reputable and impartial medical professionals.

            To put it bluntly, your dogmatic opposition to abortion makes you an unreliable witness. How far are you willing to go to stop women from having abortions? Bending the truth? Outright lies? I don’t know. Do you?

          • Anton

            If the foetus in The Silent Scream was significantly more developed than at 12 weeks then pro-abortionists would have been all over that video. As it is they ignore it – obviously, because it is embarrassing. If you do not view it then you are making your decisions without some significant information from one side of a highly polarised debate. That is not a good basis for deciding. You are eminently capable of evaluating the images while ignoring the commentary.

            It is good that we agree over late-term abortions, but please answer my questions: Do you genuinely believe that 98% of all women wishing to have an abortion are mental health risks if they give birth? (About 98% of abortions in England are done for “the sake of the woman’s mental health”.) If abortion is being used as post hoc contraception, do you find that acceptable?

  • Orwell Ian

    The line between abortion and infanticide is being deliberately blurred. If they are stretching abortion to termination minutes after birth then why not hours or days? Where will this end? About a year ago there was a paper published in which some “eminent” medical expert said that “termination” of children should be allowed up to the age of 2 years. The “justification” was that “they were still not fully developed.”
    This trend of killing and body part harvesting is as disturbing as it is sickening. What next? Making even more money by encouraging pregnancies and abortions to meet body part harvesting targets?

  • carl jacobs

    Once unborn children were defined as objects instead of persons, it was inevitable that people would find use value in their exploitation. What these kinds of videos make manifest is the obvious deception in defining an unborn child as an object. An arbitrary line of “personhood” is declared, This arbitrary line serves the interest of adults. It is one thing to know the line is arbitrary. It is another thing to see it. The abstract becomes concrete.

    This is why abortionists hide ultrasounds from women, and why the abortion industry hides its grisly trade behind locked doors.

    • David

      Indeed.
      Having performed that mental trick, reclassifying the human as non-human there are no limits.

  • Over 30 years ago, Saint Pope John Paul wrote in Evangelium Vitae:

    “… we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, (between) the “culture of death” and the “culture of life”. We find ourselves not only “faced with” but necessarily “in the midst of” this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.”

    The “Culture of Death” describes intrinsically evil behaviour resulting from a perverse mentality. It is the attraction our culture has with sin, lust, and death and its affirmation. Our culture not only permits but promotes as good such things as abortion, euthanasia, suicide (assisted or otherwise), war, vengeful capital punishment, contraception, human cloning, human sterilization, embryonic stem cell and fetal research, IVF, homosexuality, promiscuity, infidelity, and divorce.

    These behaviours all devalue human life in favour of wanton desire. When we do not value human life, how can we value people or innocent life in the womb or, for that matter, dependent children? We have replaced rational, moral reasoning with emotionalism and sentimentality to justify and cover sin.

  • preacher

    Even leaving aside any ‘ Christian ‘ concerns, I cannot think how this equates with any decent moral people. This evil trade is a stain on civilised society – no matter what,if any beliefs are held. This is simply a sequel to Burke & Hare. But worse, as they only dug up the already dead, rather than butchering the living for profit.
    These soulless ghouls are as bad as the Nazis – or worse, at least the Nazis were crazy idealists, whereas these are not idealists, just mercenaries.

    • sarky

      Burke and Hare murdered to sell the bodies (as was pointed out to me on a previous thread).
      Can I ask a question without getting bombarded? Why does this cause you distress, when god sanctioned infanticide in the bible doesn’t even get a mention?

      • avi barzel

        ?

        • sarky

          What I’m trying to say is many children and infants died due to the direct orders of god in the bible, let alone those that died in the womb in the flood.
          How can this cause such feelings of disgust, yet the stuff in the bible is just brushed off. Seems a bit hypocrital.

          • avi barzel

            The direct orders were for tribal genocides in specific and exceptional cases. The Flood was the destruction of all humankind minus a family and selected animals. If you want to throw in infanticide, I guess you can, along with assault with deadly weapons and environmental destruction. Both have been explained as measures by God to avert greater disasters or to save humanity. Neither case cancels our duty to obey the commandment not to murder.

          • sarky

            What if stem cell research could save humanity?

          • The Explorer

            Isn’t there a difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells (uncontroversial, and as ethical as donating blood)? I know very little about the topic, but the adult version would seem to be the way ahead.

          • avi barzel

            Yes, significant difference, where adult SCs are essentially unusable in most applications. Research is now allowed for a promising method to take embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo.

          • The Explorer

            What are umbilical stem cells?

          • avi barzel

            Essentially stem blood cells useful in very few cases of rare genetic disorders…a dozen since private cord cell banking began…which is why ethical physicians don’t recommend it.

          • Lord Chatham

            One of the promising ways is via direct reprogramming of human cells. This creates “induced pluripotent stem” (iPS) cells which contain the properties of human embryonic stem cells by direct reprogramming of adult cells.

            Here is a 2007 article covering two major studies which demonstrate you can achieve the scientific good without destroying the embryo:

            http://www.stemcellresearch.org/blog/human-pluripotent-stem-cells-without-cloning-or-destroying-embryos/

            Another method is 3D bioprinted versions, which actually far exceed anything PP can produce in terms of scientific usefulness:

            http://www.organovo.com/deb-nguyen-12-2013-podcast

            There is also the creation and use of “immortalized cell lines”, discussed here by the National Institute of Health (US):

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4169710

            At the risk of appearing a shill for The Federalist, have a look at this excellent article – Don’t Let Planned Parenthood use “Medical Research” to Whitewash its Baby Body Parts Atrocities:

            http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/22/dont-let-planned-parenthood-use-medical-research-to-whitewash-its-baby-body-parts-atrocities

          • avi barzel

            Thank you for your time on this! Had no idea we’re so far ahead! I’ll be reading up.

          • Where do they source the embryos and what happens to them thereafter?

          • avi barzel

            No idea. A guess would be amniotic fluid or uterine lining and so they would be born normally.

          • Hi happy Jack

            When I was 19 ,I wrote a very long (draft ) sci find novel , about 170,000 words. The idea was that vampire like aliens needed human blood to survive and bred humans for this purpose, they also used body parts to sell to other aliens who liked human organs to eat, but the twist (for various reasons) was that the human governments went along with this as did the voters. I asked a friend for their view and they said that humanity wouldn’t ever get that barbaric and I should change the plot to evil aliens stealing humans to get their blood and organs with the protagnist stopping the nasty aliens.Now a decade later….

          • Inspector General

            HG Wells beat you to it Hannah. (The Time Machine). That harvest was initiated by a siren, but to update date that, perhaps a text message would do, summoning the chosen and telling them where to report. A new twist could be the senders of the text were their own children. An interesting take on abortion and the right to do away with whatever was inconvenient…

          • Dig it out and update it. Man, unless restrained, externally or internally, is by nature evil and seeks his own desires and comforts. Many just go along with evil for a quiet life.

          • DanJ0

            I usually keep away from abortion threads these days because of the high emotions displayed. However, I think it’s worth making a comment on this bit as I have on previous threads. If Christians truly believe that tens of thousands of children are being murdered in the UK every year in abortion clinics then why are they not on the streets with flaming brands and pitch forks in their millions? It’s a curious thing. I don’t think I could live with myself if I thought that but went along with the evil in practice because I preferred a quiet life instead.

          • CliveM

            DanJo

            Yes you make a good point. Of course some Christians do protest and some in the States have even gone as far as to fire bomb and kill.

            I suppose it’s that that would make me wary. If you think emotions on a blog can get overwrought (ok I’m guilty as well) can you imagine what would happen with such a crowd?

          • Two little barbs slipped in there, Danjo.

            “If Christians truly believe …” and “… preferred a quiet life instead.”
            Let’s leave to one side the suggestions that Christians don’t really believe abortion is murder or, if they do, then they prefer to do nothing for the sake of peace and quiet.
            The legitimate question is: what action, both individual and collective, should Christians take to resist abortion?

          • DanJ0

            If I know with certainty that someone is on their way to murder a child and I couldn’t persuade the authorities to do something to stop them then as a last resort I suppose I ought to kill the murderer to protect the child. Luckily, I don’t think abortion before the third trimester is murder myself.

          • Really? You believe that to be a Christian response?

          • DanJ0

            I’d have thought it would be difficult to argue that one shouldn’t do that in the circumstances. Perhaps you can make the case otherwise.

          • There’s the concept of “reasonable force” to begin with i.e. using only sufficient force to prevent the murder. And attempts at persuasion would, of course, come first. Plus, Christians are obliged to act within the law. So, if it was necessary, and if it was “the last resort”, and only sufficient force was used, then it would be legitimate to kill an attacker on a child as it would be within the law.

            This article will provide you with answers to your questions legitimate and illegitimate laws, Christian conscientious objection to unjust and immoral laws, and the use of force as a method of resistance.

            http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/when-is-it-okay-to-disobey

            Happy reading.
            If you have any questions, then do get back to Jack.

          • DanJ0

            “So, if it was necessary, and if it was “the last resort”, and only sufficient force was used, then it would be legitimate to kill an attacker on a child as it would be within the law.”

            Except the law of the land denies that a first trimester foetus is a child (in the way a toddler is anyway) but most people here seem to disagree. People are claiming that a foetus in the womb is the equivalent of a toddler, and if a toddler was under mortal threat from someone then I expect just about everyone here would protect the toddler’s life to the point of taking the threatening person’s life if necessary to do so.

            From the article: “Secondly, when circumstances justify acting outside the law, we are never justified in committing acts of violence or otherwise violating human rights.”

            This is the crux of the matter. If self-defence or the defence of a vulnerable person was prohibited in law then I doubt very much whether most people here would agree that it is never justified to use violence to defend oneself or defend the vulnerable person.

          • Remember the first requirement in the article:

            ” … the Church first of all calls us to do everything we can within the law to correct injustices. That is why we must be politically active and fully utilize our democratic system to change laws that fall short of the very purpose of law.”

            The outlawing of self defence never will become law, will it? The issue with abortion is that the law, supported by a majority of citizens, considers it legitimate within certain defined parameters to kill what is, objective speaking, innocent human life which ought to be protected. As the article says:

            “In our day, the most egregious example of the failure of civil authority to maintain the common good and protect human rights is in the legalization of abortion and euthanasia.”

            The crux of it is, Jack believes, given in Evangelium Vitae:

            “Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

            Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pt 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God—to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty – that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rv 13:10). In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it.”

            Besides, did you notice this section from the Catechism:

            2242

            “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

            When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the gospel.”

            Whilst a child in the womb isn’t a “citizen”, depending on the nature of the regime and a number of other factors, violence in defence of innocent life isn’t entirely ruled out in all circumstances. Arguably, one could mount a moral defence for violent intervention to save life but not, Jack believes, in a liberal democracy.

          • DanJ0

            I don’t see that any of those quotes will do. Conscientious objection is all very well but my ethical dilemma is not a refusal to act but an obligation to act. Also if the law doesn’t recognise that a first trimester foetus is a child then it will consider the killing of an abortion doctor as murder but one surely ought to ignore that as an unjust part of the law and act anyway. Finally, doing everything one can democratically within the law (but where are the millions on the streets protesting?) doesn’t save any of the individual ‘children’ being ‘murdered’ on a daily basis in the meantime. Surely each life demands an immediate intervention?

          • Well, if you were a Catholic and honestly believe your conscience demands this from you, despite Church teaching to the contrary, then you have a decision to make – submission to the authority Church or acting on your conscience. However, you wouldn’t be acting as a part of or on behalf of the Catholic church. Objectively speaking, the doctor is a murderer; subjectively he probably believes he is doing good and legally he is acting within the law. If you feel cool about topping him, then off you go.

          • DanJ0

            There’s no need for me to top him because I don’t think the foetus is a child, at least until a certain point in his development. I am suggesting that Christians and others who truly think the foetus is a child are obliged to act to protect each foetus as though it is a child.

          • … and Jack has replied to that proposition.

          • DanJ0

            I’ve made the point well enough now so I won’t assume the role of Grand Inquisitor.

          • grutchyngfysch

            I am suggesting that Christians and others who truly think the foetus is a child are obliged to act to protect each foetus as though it is a child.

            Unless I’m mistaking you, your suggestion is that Christians should in some sense use force (not necessarily equating that with killing the abortionist) to prevent the murder of the unborn child.

            That would be true if Christians were authorised to use force to enforce justice separately from the State, but we’re not – the State bears the sword (Romans 13:4).

            A Christian who, for instance, entered an abortion clinic to subdue a doctor, would not be acting justly – they would be taking the law upon themselves.

            When the law of the land violates the principles set out for us by God, we are certainly obligated not to assist that law – and to stand up to it and publicly oppose it. When man commands what defies God, our response has to be “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

            You’ll note, though, that Christians are not called to be disobedient – just to be obedient to proper authority. So in the unlikely event that I were required to assist in an abortion, I would refuse. A vigilante may save the life of an infant in an immediate situation, but the cost is damage to order. In an isolated case that seems incredible, but in the context of a culture of death, order is a casualty that cannot be afforded. After all, were the law changed to forbid abortion, we would expect and require that those who breach the law would be punished.

            So in the round: we have an obligation to fight against abortion, to campaign, to support women considering one to remove the reasons many use to justify murder, but we also have an obligation to doing so in a way that upholds order, that upholds law.

          • grutchyngfysch

            As my reply is already long, I’ll append this as a tangent, since I’m not sure how interested you may actually be – but here’s three examples:

            William Wilberforce argued that the trans-atlantic slave trade was unambiguously evil, and therefore behaved as though he had a moral obligation to seek its end. He did not, however, round up a posse to assault slave ships to free slaves – nor advocate that other individuals do so. The fault lay in unjust law, not in improper distribution of force to enforce the law. By tirelessly advocating for a change in law, he was able to achieve the end of the trans-atlantic slave trade, not just the freedom of a few bought at the cost of order.

            Martin Luther King Jr again you’ll be familiar with – no need to spell out the details – but outside self-defence, even the moral evil of systemic abuse, and even actual crimes of violence were not sufficient in King’s eyes to abandon his adherence to the law (see for instance the Letter from Birmingham Jail). Like Wilberforce, he wanted to see justice done across the land.

            In both examples, neither individual was against the use of force by the State. King wanted to live in a land where the police would arrest, instead of assist, lynch mobs, and where the courts would strike down instead of uphold race laws. Wilberforce likewise sought to ensure that the Royal Navy would be used to lawfully use force against slavers.

            Third and final example: Moses. Moses did murder someone who was beating a slave, thereafter hiding his body – and he ended up as a fugitive from justice for decades. Whatever Ridley Scott’s epic might suggest, Moses saw justice delivered in Egypt not when he went round personally attacking every slave driver, but when the Highest Authority exercised judgement against Egypt. That’s ultimately what obedience to proper authority is about – a recognition that there is an Authority above authorities, that justice will be demanded at every level of Creation, and that peace is not built on injustice, either at the level of the law of the land, or the conduct of the individual believer.

          • DanJ0

            It’s an interesting position that you’ll stand by while thousands of children are murdered (as Christians see it) without seeing the need to intervene so that civil order is preserved. Perhaps it’s no wonder there are not millions of Christians and others on the streets en masse protesting the murders every weekend.

          • grutchyngfysch

            DanJ0, we do see the need to oppose abortion – just not with force as vigilantes. If we did, you would no doubt be writing on here about how much of a danger religion represents in causing people to take the law into their own hands.

            And at least in my part of the world, there are Christians on the streets most days protesting abortion.

          • DanJ0

            There’s a nuance here. I’m not advocating vigilantism to punish people after the fact but to intervene to stop a murder just before it happens. Most people would do that as a matter of course because they’d feel obliged to protect the vulnerable. If someone declined to intervene to stop a murder because it would cause a public order issue then I daresay most people would raise an eyebrow at the very least.

          • grutchyngfysch

            Sure there’s nuance, I hope I indicated clearly enough with the first comment that I knew you weren’t seeing it through a prism of extreme force or nothing – but I was looking at it as practically as I could. What would it actually look like to intervene in an abortion?

            You could stand at the front of the abortion centre and confront those going in with what was happening – that’s what the majority of anti-abortion campaigners do. But beyond that? You have to use some sort of physical restraint or damage to property – you could cut of the power (although only to dedicated and exclusive providers of abortion, since nobody wants to blackout a hospital) I suppose, but otherwise you have to step in and stop the suction tube, or restrain the medical staff.

            I’m happy to use a different word if you can suggest one, but I couldn’t honestly think of any practical action to take once legal intervention is out of the question which wouldn’t fairly reasonably fall under the category of vigilantism when conducted extra-judicially by a private citizen.

            Edit: Sorry, should also say that I don’t think there’s any easy or obvious analogy available in modern culture – including a toddler being attacked in a street. Which is why I think a lot of us use analogies with cultures where child sacrifice was unremarkable and endemic.

          • avi barzel

            An unlikely hypothetical situation for which we should tolerate partial birth abortions, infanticide and trade in body parts? We are not God and we can’t make exceptions under self-defined rules of situational ethics; murder is murder. Killing is only justified in selfdefence only against the attacker or the direct cause of the danger even when unintentional, such as a fetus undeniably endangering its mother’s life (not lifestyle, finances, happiness or vacation plans). We are obligated to find other solutions.

          • sarky

            I totally agree, although there are thoseon here who would deny the mother her life in the situation you explained.

          • avi barzel

            I believe their position is not, of course, to kill the mother in favour of the child, but to not interfere on behalf of the mother by killing the fetus, effectively treating both lives equally. In all fairness, and fortunately, such cases are rare. The legal basis of the Judaic position where the mother’s life takes precedence is based on primacy and full person staus of the mother, self defense, and preference for the passive party, where the fetus which threatens the mother’s life is treated as an unintentional attacker, a persuer (rodef).

          • Hi

            What if killing all the lions like Cecil could save humanity?

          • avi barzel

            HAHAHAHA! I like it!

          • big

            save the lions …….

          • Anton

            You can get stem cells elsewhere.

          • Hi

            Because like most religious leaders don’t use these things as a pretext to murder. Yesterday when a fundamentalist Jew tried to kill gay Jews at a gay event in Jerusalem , stabbing 6 people, our Chief Sephardi Rabbi said :

            “I am praying from the bottom of my heart for the full recovery of those who were injured and in the face of this type of hatred I call on the entire Jewish people to return to unity in kindness and tolerance.”

          • sarky

            Sadly Hannah, there are others who secretly applaud that type of behaviour.

          • alternative_perspective

            Seriously sarky, you dishonour yourself and you show a lack of intellectual honesty. Trying reading for instance, Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copeland. Do some research for yourself for once and stop the lazy and ignorant sarky retorts. Your moral obfuscation on the topic is frankly sickening.

          • sarky

            Apologies, my obfuscation is unintentional. I am just asking a question.

      • preacher

        Brother, to add to the other responses which I feel are sufficient in themselves. If you insist on bringing God into the equation.
        1,
        God is the giver of life, thus He owns all living things & has the sole right to decide who lives & who dies.
        2.
        God does not kill for financial gain.
        3.
        God doesn’t hide His actions – thus you can question His actions !.
        4.
        May I ask if you feel distressed when you see evil happening, like I.S murdering defenceless people, or film of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Belsen or Auchswitz or do you just shrug & say nothing?.

        Blessings. P.

        • sarky

          You could be right. I have mentioned before that I have had to watch some horrendous stuff as part of my job. I thought that I could still be shocked but maybe not. When you have watched someone eating a baby, then the planned parenthood stuff doesn’t affect you in the same way. When you have seen children blown into their constituent parts, this stuff can be shrugged off.
          im not cold hearted, I’ve just seen way too much to be bothered by this and to believe that their is a loving god who looks out for us.

          • Inspector General

            What is your damned job then, Mengele’s assistant?

          • sarky

            Some people actually collect images and videos of this stuff. I try and stop them and stop them sharing it, amongst other things.

          • Inspector General

            You’re a policeman then.

          • preacher

            Bless you for your honesty brother. I have travelled a similar road & became very hardened prior to my conversion.
            My prayer for you is that the God I believe in & you currently doubt exists. Will touch you, remove the hardness of heart & the things that caused it & renew & soften you as only He can.

            Blessings. P.

      • Inspector General

        Sarky, you rotter. If you agree with abortion just come out and say it instead of relying on absurd nonsensical alignments…

      • Anton

        Can you give me the passage(s) please?

        • sarky

          They are there, just research it. Avi has explained the context of the passages further down the thread, doesn’t sit any easier though.

          • Anton

            You made the claim; you provide the passages.

            In case you think I am being legalistic my purpose is to get you to read them rather than merely find them.

          • sarky

            I have?

          • Anton

            Where you wrote, above: Why does this cause you distress, when god sanctioned infanticide in the bible doesn’t even get a mention?

  • Lord Chatham

    Other than His Grace’s eloquent prose, the best writings on this matter come from The Federalist (.com). They expose the hypocrisy of the US mainstream media (NYTimes, Washington Post, etc) in refusing to investigate these clearly criminal acts by PP. The Washington Post so thoroughly regurgitates PP talking points in their “coverage” that you might wonder if they are simply acting as a press-release agency under the guise of journalism.

    Just as the pro-slavery forces of the Confederacy found it necessary to sacrifice the First Amendment (via gag rules) to preserve their murderous way of life, so the genocidal tyrants at PP count on the suppression of free speech by their sycophants in the Leftist Media.

    As always, in war, the first casualty is always the Truth.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/planned-parenthood-tells-reporters-to-suppress-coverage-reporters-happily-agree/

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/16/the-bad-worse-ugly-media-coverage-of-planned-parenthoods-organ-harvesting-scandal/

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/ideas-for-reporters-struggling-to-cover-planned-parenthood/

    • IanCad

      M’Lord, Whilst heartily endorsing your first paragraph I have to counter your second.
      Believe me, Lincoln suppressed the right to free speech in his War of Northern Aggression.
      The victors write the histories.

      • carl jacobs

        Believe me, Lincoln suppressed the right to free speech in his War of Northern Aggression.

        Pray, do tell me what you are referring to.

        • IanCad

          Carl,
          We could start with suspension of Habeas Corpus. A clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, and later declared as such by The Supreme Court.
          His stifling of dissent by means of his blatant disregard for the First Amendment – closing newspapers, including the Chicago Times. Arresting peaceable protesters. The incarceration of a congressman even, for his criticism of the war.

          • carl jacobs

            All of these issues that you mention relate the the power of a President to conduct a war. Lincoln took extraordinary measures to prevent sedition from influencing the war in favor of the Confederacy, and we today should be grateful that he did. But that is a separate question from the constitutionality of Lincoln’s exercise of power.

            Every student of American History is told about Marbury vs Madison – the case whereby the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the right to review law. But the President is just as much a valid interpreter of Constitutional law as the Court. And the Constitution is far from clear who holds the power enumerated in Article 1, Section 9. It is manifestly not the case that the power is reserved to Congress simply by virtue of its location in Article 1. Lincoln’s understanding is constitutionally credible, and he had the institutional power to enforce his understanding. It is a certainty that other Presidents would appeal to Lincoln’s precedent if the need to suspend habeas corpus ever arose again – no matter what subsequent court decisions might have been written.

            Southern sympathizers objected to Lincoln’s interference with their efforts to aide the Confederacy. But there was a rebellion ongoing, and Lincoln had broad war powers to successfully prosecute the war. It is to the benefit of the US that he possessed the skill and the foresight and the courage and the political acumen to do so.

          • IanCad

            Carl,

            Chatam’s statement indicated, to me at least, that the Confederates were solely chargeable with a breach of the constitutional protections.

            Now, what you have written is perfectly valid – I’d love to see the reaction were President Obama to boldly declare that his understanding of the law is on a par with the Supreme Court – even though that is so.

            I do not agree with your last sentence. It was a brutal war that could have well been avoided.

            I accept your assertion – in a recent comment – that the war was, indeed, fought over the issue of slavery, with only a slight modification: That would be the “Expansion” of slavery.

          • carl jacobs

            Ian

            the war was, indeed, fought over the issue of slavery

            This is a slight misstatement. I said the war was caused by slavery. The war was fought over Union. The North did not fight to free the slaves. The North fought to preserve the Union.

            That would be the “Expansion” of slavery.

            To the deep South, there was no difference between the survival of slavery and the expansion of slavery. Lincoln’s election triggered secession because Lincoln was adamant that slavery would not be permitted in the territories. That meant no more slave states, and the eventual loss of blocking majorities in the Senate and the Supreme Court. In addition, the border states were starting to discuss manumission. That was the vital interest that drove South Carolina to secede in Dec 1860. The Deep South feared both a relative and an absolute decline in the number of slave states, and the prospect of being walled in with a hostile slave population. The specter of race war was never far below the surface.

            It was a brutal war that could have well been avoided.

            The only way the war could have been avoided was to allow expansion of slavery into the territories. Lincoln wanted to isolate slavery and let it die a natural death. The South knew this. They started the war to prevent that exact outcome. This was not a war that Lincoln wanted. It was a war forced upon him by the demands of the Peculiar Institution.

          • IanCad

            We’re not too far apart here Carl.

            Slavery/Union. One without the other and there would have been no war. The tariff issue was largely settled; although still cited in some quarters as a major cause.

            One factor rarely mentioned was the over-confidence of the Union. They outnumbered the Southrens by three to one (four if the Border States are included.) Northern industrial might dwarfed the opposition. Thus the prospect of a long, drawn out struggle was not on their horizon.

            I will add that, depite the huge difference in numbers, both armies fielded about the same amount of fighting men. Later the Union Army had a two to one advantage. These figures would lead me to believe that the Northerners were somewhat less enthusiastic in their mission than were the hot blooded boys from Dixie.

            Better songs from down south as well.

          • carl jacobs

            Better songs from down south as well.

            I don’t know. Lorena is considered a Southern song, but it was popular on both sides. And I like I’m a Good Old Rebel but that strictly speaking was a post-war song. As a general rule, I preferred the Northern songs. Vacant Chair, Battle Cry of Freedom and (although it isn’t politically correct) Marching through Georgia.

            In truth though I liked the Irish songs best of all. They were more imports than war songs but they were universally good. I once got in a lot of trouble for teaching my five year-old daughter “It’s all for me Grog.” Some women types didn’t find that amusing at all.

            😉

          • IanCad

            Carl,
            I must admit I based my preference, primarily, on Lorena It was part of the score for Ken Burns’ excellent Civil War documentary, although taking a back seat to the rather lovely Ashokan Farewell.

            No one can write songs like Paddy.

          • carl jacobs

            Ian

            I refused to watch that series at first. It was on PBS and I was certain it would be highly politicized. But my mind was changed when I read some reviews by sources I trusted. That series was why I decided to become a Re-enactor. It is a truly excellent series.

            And you are right about Ashoken Farewell also.

            carl jacobs
            Late of
            Company G
            24th Iowa Volunteers

          • IanCad

            Can’t think of a finer regiment for a Confederate to hand over his sword.

  • Inspector General

    Inspector General back. He’s been on safari, in Southampton of all places, looking to kill named things that moved. Nearest he got to a lion was the hotel cat. Good clean shot from one’s elephant gun. Blew the blighter in half…

    Anyway, it’s about time there was open season on abortionists (again). Those who procure abortions for themselves, it might be said, will not be passing on their evil to the luckless child. Ironic isn’t it. Those dead children would have been raised to consider abortion a damned good idea, but won’t be around to enjoy the experience. If by some chance it was a ‘wanted’ child’s sibling that was exterminated and they found out about it at later stage, that may well annoy to rouse incredible anger. Here’s hoping it does.

    It’s a bloody mad world out there without the saving grace of Christ Almighty, and even then, it can only but keep you the individual sane…

    • Royinsouthwest

      Southampton is probably a after destination for safaris than Kenya at present. Do you think many tourists will come to see the wildlife?

      • Inspector General

        Isle of Wight’s your best bet. Got as far as Shanklin. Reports that the inhabitants around that town are displaying unpleasant symptoms of in-breeding appear unfounded. The Inspector was told he was lucky he wasn’t in Ventnor…

        • Anton

          I am told that, a generation ago, a grey squirrel was spotted on the ferry from Portsmouth to Ryde. Greys have never made it to the Isle of Wight where all the squirrels are red squirrels. The captain declined a request to turn back by island official Dr Quantrill to turn back saying he had a schedule to keep. The boat was met at the pier head by a crowd of local guns who had been whistled up, and they chased this squirrel all over Ryde pier and eventually shot it. Those were the days!

          All this is from 30-year-old memory and if anybody can improve the details I’d love to hear.

          • Inspector General

            Quite believable, that man. Should a grey be suspected of being on board any vessel coming in, the skipper would be obliged to scuttle his vessel in deep water, while the local inhabitants patrol the beaches with flaming torches lest the poor unfortunate make it to shore…

          • Anton

            My cat would do the job better…

          • Inspector General

            Just a thought, but ‘grey squirrel’ isn’t a euphemism for an adherent of one of the so called great religions, is it?

          • Anton

            No. Are you perhaps thinking of that scene in one of Jon Ronson’s TV documentaries where an angry bunch of B’nai B’rith Jews confront David Icke saying that his rants against shape-shifting lizards who secretly rule the world are an obvious code for Jews, and he equally vehemently insists that he really means shape-shifting lizards? You couldn’t make it up…

          • Inspector General

            Still remember how that odd ball managed to get another woman into his household, as well as his wife. If one is not mistaken, he managed to eke out his {Ahem} ‘energies’ between the two of them. If one is mistaken, do put the Inspectorate right on the matter…

          • avi barzel

            Who knows what Icke means, he made odd alusions and dropped hints about Zionists looking reptillian, probably because he doesn’t have the balls to come out, but the bottom line is that not every lunatic, especially extremely silly ones, should be challenged by the B’nai Brith.

            And it gets weirder; neo-Nazis have accused Icke of being a Jewish plant sent to distract the Goyim by blaming Jewish conspiracies on fictitious reptillians, which they claim is a clever Jewish mythology. Hisssss….

          • Anton

            As I said, you couldn’t make it up…

    • big

      ah yes , lions and christians they dont mix well, shame really …… all gods creatures at the end of the day….

    • Powerdaddy

      Maybe one could pray for the souls lost to abortion, but the one in question is you, so the that instruction isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on is it?

      Let’s be having you sunshine. ..

      On what criteria are you judging the true from the false When reading the bible?

      • Inspector General

        When in possession of a higher understanding of man’s purpose, it is not necessary to go about one’s business clutching the bible.

  • Royinsouthwest

    People with socially liberal views are often in favour of pretty explicit sex education. They also tend to be in favour of abortion but I get the impression that they are not so keen on explicit information about abortion.

    Wouldn’t it be a good idea if sex education included explicit information about abortion? After all it is difficult to make the right choices if one doesn’t have the right information. Explicit information about abortion might make young women think twice about the risks of unwanted pregnancies and might also make young men think about the consequences of making young women pregnant.

    • Anton

      Yes it would be a bloody good idea. Literally.

    • DanJ0

      I agree.

      • Royinsouthwest

        I’m glad we agree on this subject but I’m not surprised since unlike many people who describe themselves as “liberal” in their outlook you tend to be quite consistent in your views.

        • DanJ0

          I’m that not much in favour of pretty explicit sex education, to be honest, but certainly with abortion, I think women ought to know what the consequences of their decision are. I’d rather there were far fewer abortions than there are now.

  • Anton

    Here is the half-hour film The Silent Scream about abortion:

    Details, from the YouTube blurb:

    Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child’s pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a “silent scream” as her body is torn apart…This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.

    Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists’ tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a “silent scream.” The child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to “dehumanize” the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby’s head as “number 1.” The abortionist crushes “number 1” with the forceps and removes it from the uterus…. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

    • IanCad

      I will follow your link, although I may need a stiffener before doing so.
      Entirely different, but I’m still chuckling over “I’m a Dentist.” I watched it three times.

      • Anton

        I knew a bloke who, when his dentist leant over him to take out a tooth in the army, grabbed the dentist’s crotch and said “Now we’re not going to hurt each other ARE WE?”

  • Maxine Schell

    Most U.S. Abortions are ” Babies killed in the womb” for the convince of the mother.
    When my children were in my womb I was never as inconvenienced as I was when the got to be teen-agers. (But that would be murder)

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Great article about an exceptionally sickening facet of Western “civilisation”. The first thought that comes to mind is whether most people are too hard-hearted to care or are they just plain ignorant of what happens in these human slaughterhouse ? I agree with those who say we should expose these horrors through the use of graphic images and video. We did it with the Nazi death camps, and other acts of unspeakable inhumanity. The sale of organs from slaughtered babies, whether pre or post birth, represents a new low for an already fallen civilisation.

  • VivM

    Sadly I think there’s no media outcry because the press know no one cares. No one cares because anything at all is permissible in the cause of ‘medical research’ which is an even bigger idol than ‘the planet’.

  • len

    There is a another Holocaust going on and it is taking place in abortion clinics and Medical Laboratories with medical experiments which would be worthy of’ Dr Josef Mengele’.
    Man has become god now and decides what is’ moral’ and what is’ good’ and babies in the womb or the test-tube have become ‘lumps of meat’ and are treated as such.
    Mankind sickens and disgusts me..

  • Benton Marder

    But, there is big, BIG money in baby parts. One of the ghouls repeatedly said that she wanted a Lamborghini. These cars cost big bucks, y’know. Really big bucks. The more sedate ghouls might prefer a Maybach, which also cost big bucks.