A Famous Person Has Died...

John Campbell (no, not that one) has done a comic on the media coverage of Michael Jackson's tragic and untimely death which is simply marvelous...

What Did You Say?

The latest two videos...

It's a Dog's Life

WARNING: This post describes scenes of torture in detail and includes a graphic photo.

Diesel (Jack Russell) who was tortured to death

The Otago Daily Times reports of a horrific animal-abuse case committed in Dunedin which has earned the perpetrator the harshest sentence in NZ history for abuse towards animals...

Jeffrey Hurring (19) was yesterday sentenced in the Dunedin District Court to a year in prison. He killed the 18-month-old dog by strangling it, pouring petrol down its throat and then hitting it over the head with a shovel.

Hurring's actions were uttlerly deplorable and have been rightly condemned. But where's the outcry over unborn babies being tortured to death everyday in New Zealand? Below is a description of a Dilation and Extraction abortion which are used on babies between 13 and 18 weeks.

The cervix is dialated and the unborn child is dismembered with plier-like forceps. Force is needed to pull the baby apart. The instrument is used to seize a leg or other part of the body and then, with a twisting motion, tear it from the baby's body. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. The baby's spine is snapped and the skull crushed. After the baby parts are removed, they are reassembled outside the womb to be sure all are removed. - www.prolife.com

Victim of a Saline abortion (19 weeks)

After 16 weeks, the Saline Injection method is often used:

A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.) - www.lifesitenews.com

Click here to read the story of Gianna Jessen who survived one of these abortions and now tours the World exposing the truth of what abortion really is, and what it does to helpless unborn babies. We must all speak up for innocent creatures who are being exploited and abused, whether they be feisty Jack Russells, or pre-born babies.

Larry Baldock on the Question

Larry Baldock cuts through the confusion and misinformation with an explanation of how the petition question came into being. Below are a few excerpts from his must-read article on the NZCPR.

The original question we submitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives back in early 2007 was “should a smack in the context of positive parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?”

Larry and the 390,000 signatures

As required by the CIR Act 1993, the Clerk published the question in the Gazette and advertised the question in all major papers with an invitation for anyone to submit their opinion on the wording of the question over a 28 day period.

Only two submissions were received. One from a couple who stated their opinion that a smack should never be a criminal offence, and the other from the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry’s submission raised four concerns that were considered by the Clerk in consultation with myself and anyone else the Clerk wished to take advice from as required by S9 of the Act. We eventually agreed to change the wording by replacing “in the context of positive parenting” with “as part of good parental correction.”

The CIR Act requires that the Clerk of the House ultimately determine that the wording;

(a) Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and
(b) Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.

At the time the Clerk of the House was David McGee QC who was widely acclaimed as the most experienced and qualified Clerk in the Commonwealth. Upon his retirement as Clerk in 2007 to assume the post of Ombudsman he was given many accolades by MPs for the diligent way he performed his duties.

Surely it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister, Leader of the opposition and Sue Bradford to now be insinuating he did not do his job properly. Especially given that they did not bother to take the time to participate in the submissions on the question when they had every opportunity to.

The words “as part of good parental correction,” simply set the context of an appropriate smack, (reasonable force) rather than the kind of hitting or bashing that might be administered in an abusive (bad) parental situation...

The obvious intent of the question surely is that in the context of good parenting where a smack is not abusive, should a smack be a criminal offence?

Another reason for our use of the word ‘good parental correction is that politicians supporting the new law have constantly been saying that this law was not going to affect ‘good’ parents. They had nothing to worry about.

The real purpose of the law was being hidden as much as possible during the whole debate, and as a result confusion exists amongst the general population about what the new law actually does. The real purpose of the ‘Bradford law’ was to completely abolish any form of physical discipline, for the purpose of correction. This, in addition to smacking, also includes taking a child, against their will, to time out. That is clearly contained in the purpose clause of the new Act, “…by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

Click here to read the full article.

Hat-tip: Constant Joy
Related articles: Deception from Anti-Smacking Brigade, Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading

Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading

The Herald joins the apparently nationwide attack on democracy by New Zealand mainstream media today, with their editorial entitled "Question not worth the effort of answering". Rather than excercising some journalistic credibility, these media are sucking up to the actions of the larger part of our Parliament. The Prime Minister John Key lambasted the question as "weird", and stated that he will not be partaking in the democratic process by voting in the referendum, while Opposition leader Phil Goff also states that he will refrain from voting.

"People who support the status quo might vote no, thinking that was what the question was reflecting, he indicated," seethed Mr. Key. But why does he think this the case? Who was it that initiated the compromise on Bradford's anti-smacking law which made it so darn hard to understand? The so-called "John Key" ammendment to the bill stated that the police would not prosecute parents for smacking if they believed it to be so inconsequential as to not be in the public interest to proceed.

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

The question is quite clear. It directly addresses the law, rather than the way that the law is currently being applied.  It would be impossible to come up with a question that would satisfy everyone, and while this question is not perfect, it's not nearly so bad as to warrant utter dismissal. For one moment, consider the intent of the 390,000 signatories on the petition. 99% of those signing did so in the belief that there was a difference between a smack and child abuse, and with the desire that families not be intruded upon by government agencies. But the mainstream media is conveniently ignoring this aspect of the petition question. Since the time the petition was launched over two years ago, we have heard only a few complaints about the question, and these mainly from Sue Bradford's direction. However now, just over a month out from the election there is a host of media decrying the petition question at every chance possible.

The Herald editorial concludes, "[It is] a question that is an insult to intelligence. It is not worth the expense or the effort of answering it. A low turnout would be most telling." Engaging in a simplistic form of social engineering, the Herald is sacrificing truth and democracy for the sake of their agenda which is leading to the realisation of one of Helen Clark's goals: family deconstruction in New Zealand.

Timeless Cinematic Moments 17

Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) assists Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) as he pushes his sword into himself in his last service to his emporer. The two lie on the battlefield, the last survivors of a bloody slaughter of the last Samurai in Japan by the new, Westernised Japanese army. The Last Samurai (2003), directed by Edward Zwick (who has also directed Blood Diamond and Defiance, both great films) is masterfully shot but hard to understand.  What's up with the Emporer? However the fight scenes and battles are epic, calling for the rewind button to be pushed more frequently than usual. Looking over Nathan's shoulder, Katsumoto sees a vision of a rare tree in pink blossom, and as the word perfect painfully escapes his lips, he breathes his last. It's a great film, highly recommended. Nothing too dodgy but it does have some swearing and blasphemy. And perhaps best of all, it was shot largely in New Zealand.

ALRANZ & Pro-Life Groups In Agreement

Following the release of the 2008 abortion statistics by Stats NZ, Dr. Margaret Sparrow, President of the Abortion Law Reform Association [ALRANZ] made the following statement,

“We would like to see the abortion law reflecting what happens. We totally agree with the anti-abortion groups who say that it is ridiculous that 98 per cent of abortions in New Zealand are done on mental health grounds, because that is patently a farce.”

I pretty much agree. However it is patently unjust to base legislation on a moral issue like this simply on "what happens". Using this logic, we could pass a law to legalise rape - simply because an extremely large number of rapes were taking place. David Lane of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards made the following comment,

Dr Sparrow was for many years the Director of the Parkview Abortion facility in Wellington and during this time terminated the lives of thousands of unborn children, her statement must be taken very seriously. Dr Sparrow is stating clearly that certifying consultants are using mental health grounds to authorise abortions to provide abortion on demand, abortion on demand is unlawful. The Crimes Act requires that doctors must have good faith in their belief that the continued life of the unborn child represents a serious threat to the mental health of the woman. The failure of doctors to have good faith renders the abortion unlawful. Dr Sparrow’s statement indicates that many unborn children are being deprived of their lives unlawfully. This is a serious injustice and a violation of the right to life of unborn children. It also undermines the rule of law.

Dr. Sparrow is an anti-life extremist who is calling for abortion on demand in New Zealand. While her solution to the high number of unlawful abortions is deplorable, she is correct that the application of NZ's abortion law is farcical.

Deception From Anti-Smacking Brigade

Deborah Coddington is all over the place in her opinion piece in the Herald on Sunday,

"...this dastardly referendum on smacking, organised by grown men who should know better. In the middle of a deep recession it is costing taxpayers $9 million to ask the loaded question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
Here we go round the mulberry bush. Again. First, a smack is not good parental correction. There is no such thing as a loving smack, just as there is no such thing as a hateful hug."

Deborah claims that the referendum was organised by grown men. Rubbish. Mother of two, Sheryl Savill was the author of the petition question. Further, it was men, women and children throughout New Zealand who facilitated the collection of signatures, just as it was people of all demographics who signed the petitions calling for the referendum. In August 2008, The Press reported that The Ministry of Justice had said a postal referendum could cost taxpayers between $4.8 million and $6.4m. Whether it's the $9m figure that's being tossed around, or something closer to $5m, who have we to thank for this huge expense but Helen Clark? The referendum could have easily and cost-effectively ($1.5m) been conducted at the 2008 election.

Deborah then states her opinion that there is no such thing as a loving smack. I invite Deborah to get out of her office into reality, and speak to some of the many thousands of mums and dads who I have spoken to, who assure me that there is indeed a difference between a smack and child abuse. Sure, some people are angered at the thought of a "loving smack" - but these people are in a definite minority.

Then in today's Press (22 June), Colin Espiner writes that he thinks the referendum question is "misleading, biased, and arguably factually incorrect". He proceeds to take the question to pieces - as many other reporters have attempted to do - examining each piece as if it is completely unrelated to any other part of the question. Despite the ranting and raving from a host of bloggers and reporters that the question is loaded and biased towards a no vote, this is categorically incorrect. "It's a tricky question" whines the Yes Vote group, parroting the recent comments by the leaders of the two major parties. However Espiner got it right when he said that the referendum question is not ambiguous.

Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Contrary to the claims of the left reporters, the question does not imply that a smack is necessarily a part of good parental correction. Rather, it asks if a smack should be a criminal offence when it has been done as a part of good parental correction. To phrase it more simply: was the smack reasonable? If the smack was unreasonable, then it is clear that it was not done as a part of good parental correction. However if a mother gives her young child a smack because they were disobedient, then this is an example of good parental correction.

The vast majority of Kiwi parents love their children, and it brings them no joy to give their children a smack - despite Bradford's claim that "The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children". I have spoken to thousands of Kiwi men who are anti Bradford's bill, and they would be outraged that a public servant would have the audacity to make such a statement.

Rather than attempting to attack the people or the question, it would be good if people were able to debate the two issues that are at stake here: democracy and parental authority.

From One Ex-Abortionist to Another...

Dr. Bernard Nathanson

Dr. Bernard Nathanson committed over 75,000 abortions before eventually being convinced that abortion was murder, and becoming an outspoken pro-lifer. LifeNews.com reports on his comments regarding the killing of late term abortionist George Tiller who was responsible for well over 60,000 abortions.

"I knew George Tiller years ago when I was on the pro-abortion side," he told the Washington Times. "He came to a course I was giving in the technique of abortion in New York in 1970 under the auspices of NARAL. And I did late-term abortions until I changed my opinion as of 1980."

"My switch to pro-life had nothing to do with religion," he told the newspaper.

"Tiller was a church-going man, which doesn't say a whole lot in this country, but one wonders why he never changed his mind based on the scientific evidence. That is where I changed my mind, based on fetoscopies and ultrasound studies," Nathanson added.

"Once we had ultrasound in place, we could study the fetus and see it was a member of our community. If you don't do that, you're just a creature of political ideology. In 1970, there were approximately 1,100 articles on the functioning of the fetus. By 1990, there were 22,000. The data piled up swiftly and opened a window into the womb," Nathanson continued.

hat tip: Semper Vita

Ban the IntelliGender Test Kit

Sitting in an office here in my great-uncle's daughter's husband's psychiatry clinic in Remuera, scoring some free time on the world wide web...

My latest post on JillStanek.com is regarding the IntelliGender test kit which is apparently coming on sale here in New Zealand as soon as 22 June. Below is an excerpt from the article...

The real concern with the introduction of this product is that it will increase the overall number of abortions performed in New Zealand. With her pregnancy at 8 weeks, a woman may not have yet bonded with her unborn child. The level of commitment that she feels to her child is likely to be considerably less than it will be when the child is at 18 weeks. The majority of women appear to accept that the later a pregnancy is, the more undesirable it is to have an abortion. The IntelliGender offers to remove this cause for hesitation by allowing women to learn the sex of their child much earlier on in the pregnancy.

Voice for Life spokesperson Bernard Moran got to the heart of the matter when he said commented that certain ethnic minorities might be more prone to use the test to determine whether or not the pregnancy should be allowed to go ahead. On a pragmatic level, you just need to look at the situation in China if you are unsure about the impact of sex-selection abortions on a country. God has put a system in place that keeps gender number disparity to a minimum, however when we try and do it our way, we're bound to screw it up.

IntelliGender are intentionally refraining from even touching on the darker ramifications of the use of their product. Instead they market the kit as "a fun, affordable and safe way to determine pink or blue!" While there is nothing wrong with the product in and of itself, the potential for misuse outweighs the benefit. New Zealand will be the worse off for allowing the IntelliGender kit to go on sale.

The purpose of this post is to reconcile my call for this product to be banned, with my libertarian convictions, which I believe will make for an interesting discussion. There is a principle that holds that it is not weapons that kill people. Rather, it is the people wielding the weapons are the perpetrators. Again, it is not the bomb-making instructions that are guilty in a terrorist attack, but the terrorist himself. Ultimately, it is not the means of a crime that are guilty or the thing that enables a crime to take place, but the person who uses these means or makes use of the enabler, to carry out their crime.

On this basis, libertarians state that guns, knives, bomb-making instructions or kits should not be legislated against. Neither should writings expressing hatred or inciting violence against a minority or ethnic group be outlawed. There is potential for crimes to be committed through use of these things, however the crimes have already been specified in the law and legislated against. There is a penalty which has been specified for crimes such as homocide and rape, and as such the perpetrators can be legally disciplined.

In the case of abortion however, New Zealand's law is being interpreted in a way that treats the abortion of an unborn child not as a crime, but as a woman's right. This means that there is no legal retribution for a perpetrator of the immoral act of abortion. Since New Zealand's judiciary does not provide protection for the unborn child, an exception must be made to the principle outlined above. The IntelliGender test kit enables women to make an abortion decision based on the sex of her unborn child, and is therefore an abortion enabler. While abortion is still legal in New Zealand, this kit must not be allowed to go on sale since there is no system in place to prevent the abuse of the product.

The post formerly known as "Weekly Joke"

We've got a joke and a handful of videos for this week's I lol'd post...

A man rushed to the jewelry counter in the store where I work soon after the doors opened one morning and said he needed a pair of diamond earrings. I showed him a wide selection, and quickly he picked out a pair.

When I asked him if he wanted the earrings gift-wrapped, he said, "That'd be great. But can you make it quick? I forgot today was my anniversary, and my wife thinks I'm taking out the trash."

And here's two excellent dance remixes...

Why is the rum gone? ...Finally, some humour from the irrepressible Rowan Atkinson that Jono and I were watching on a youtube humour marathon a few nights ago...

This is one of the funniest things I've seen in my life. Check out Mr. Bean's beekeeping skit here.

Harvey Milk and Homosexuality

Sean Penn as Harvey Milk in Milk (2008)

Gus Van Sant is one of my favourite directors, with his film Gerry (2002) and Elephant (2003) being probably somewhere among my top ten favourite films. In 2008 he released a film entitled Milk starring the versitile Sean Penn as Harvey Milk who became California’s first openly homosexual elected official. I walked into the theatre in February not knowing what to expect... a film about the assassination of a homosexual man, directed by an acclaimed director who himself is homosexual.

However Gus Van Sant did not dissapoint. Touching only lightly and briefly on the more physical aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, the film focused on the dialogue and characters, centering around the numerous campaigns to get Harvey elected to a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Every film is subject to the bias of its creators, and Milk is no exception. However I was impressed at how restrained the film was, in places where it could have lashed out more at the group who were in opposition to Harvey Milk's campaigns. As with any doco-film, you can't take everything at face value, however Van Sant's skillful use of archived footage helps to cement the story in fact.

The vitriol directed at Milk and his supporters portrayed in the film was abhorent, being fueled by a mixture of fear and hatred. While I hold that homosexuality is immoral, I would not advocate legislating against people who wish to engage in a homosexual lifestyle, or who wish to create or consume media which promote such a lifestyle. Neither is it right for homosexuals to be treated differently from straight people.* Those pursuing a homosexual lifestyle are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, however it is clear that this principle was widely considered to be incorrect in the 1970's.

Why should Milk's private and consensual relationship with another man have been considered to disqualify him for a position as an elected official in his city? The anti-homosexual camp hated Milk. They hated him for what he did, what he said, and who he represented. The fear of the unknown can often be fundamental in discrimination against minorities in society, and this was obviously one factor present in the anti-homosexual camp. I have no problem with people being opposed to homosexuality, and openly exposing it for the dangerous lifestyle that it is to individual practicing homosexuals. The plight of children living in homes with homosexual "parents" is also an issue that must be addressed. However simply attacking homosexuals for who they are and what they do - and attempting to demote them to a lower status in society is absolutely not on.

The Government has no jurisdiction to legislate for or against the actions of consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. This principle also applies to consenting adults in a business setting, where money changes hands. Of course things start to get a whole lot more convoluted when the age of the participants is in question - but this is another issue.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

*Naturally, this should go both ways, but I will elaborate on this in a later post.
Any puns perceived to be present in this post are entirely coincidental ;) 

Timeless Cinematic Moments 16

Toms Hanks stars in Ron Howard's Apollo 13 (1995). Packed with nail-biting suspense and significant character development, the movie pulled in two Academy Awards. Alongside a stellar cast is the adept Ed Harris who I must say again, looks very much like an older version of Viggo Mortenson. In this scene, hope is all but lost at the Apollo 13 mission base and it appears as if the capsule must have burnt up in entering the earth's atmosphere. "Oddessy, Houston, do you read me?" The radio crackles and Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) replies, "hello Houston this is oddyssey, it's good to see ya again". The screen at the base displays the capsule floating down towards the waiting aircraft carrier... and you can breathe again.

Click here for an excellent music video of scenes from the movie set to the amazing song Daylight by Brave Saint Saturn.

Prolife Violence In Perspective

LifeSiteNews has compiled a list of facts that should be taken into consideration as we examine the implications of the killing of George Tiller. Below are the first four points from their list...

1. George Tiller is the first abortionist to be killed in eleven years. If you think that's a "trend,” or an “epidemic” as some have said, you're just not a serious person.
2. All of the posturing going on in the pro-abortion movement over the safety of abortionists is a ruse. There are four times as many hairdressers and 150 times as many convenience store clerks murdered as there are abortionists. Where is the “pro-choice” grieving over them?
3. George Tiller made his money performing late-term abortions, which often involves the killing of a viable human being. According to Kansas state statistics, he killed 395 viable third-trimester babies in one year – 2001 – all for “mental health” reasons (which, as we know, is the category for all elective abortions). Not one of those abortions was for a mother’s physical health or for a medical emergency. Americans overwhelmingly believe this disgusting practice should not be legal. If any objective journalist were to look into his practice they would see that most people, and all sane people, are appalled by what happened in his clinic every day.
4. Tiller has been tried on criminal indictments for multiple abuses of his practice, including breaking state laws requiring another medical doctor to verify that certain patients' lives were at risk before performing late-term abortions. This man was no hero or saint, and his being held up as a martyr says more about pro-abortionists than it does about those they are trying to condemn.h

Click here to continue reading the article. For eye-opening documentation of violence carried out by members of the anti-life camp, visit www.prochoiceviolence.com.

hat tip: Semper Vita

Political Spectrum

Dave, Mr. Dennis, Scrubone and Lucia have just taken the Political Spectrum quiz.

I took the quiz and it reckons I'm a right moderate social libertarian (Right: 7.27, Libertarian: 3.14). It's fairly accurate, however obviously the biases of the creators will impact the result. I'm actually a couple of squares lower on the graph: consistent libertarianism holds that it is not authoritarian for a government to criminalise abortion, as abortion does not follow Mills' harm principle. Also, as Mr. Dennis pointed out, the questionairre does not distinguish between homosexual marriage as opposed to other forms of official contracts (such as civil unions).

Scrubone is considering making up a chart of where we all sit on the political spectrum, so if you take the quiz, be sure to leave him a comment at his blog.

Viability Argument Shown To Be No Longer Viable

Stuff reports on research just out from Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden, finding that "Extremely premature infants have a 70 percent chance of surviving if they make it through delivery".

"More and more babies are being born pre-term, in part because fertility treatments lead to multiple pregnancies, which in turn are more likely to cause early labor.

But, the researchers said, doctors may assume these very early "preemies" are not going to live, and thus may not offer treatments that could give them a fighting chance."

The study concluded with the following summary,

During 2004 to 2007, 1-year survival of infants born alive at 22 to 26 weeks of gestation in Sweden was 70% and ranged from 9.8% at 22 weeks to 85% at 26 weeks.

Many in the anti-life camp claim that if a baby is not viable outside its mother's womb, then it forefeits the right to life, and can be destroyed and thrown in the rubbish bin in the same way that a cancerous tumour would be treated. This latest study shows that advances in healthcare for extremely premature babies casts doubt on many, many abortions that have and are being performed in the second and third trimesters.

The late George Tiller prided himself in the knowledge that he had killed 60,000 unborn babies, most of these being in the second and third trimesters.

Dr. Alan T Gibson, director of neonatal services at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has charted the survival rate for babies born at 23 weeks over the past 15 years. In 2005, he made the following damning observation,

“Abortions are being carried out at a gestational age at which some hospitals report significant survival rates. I believe that is wrong"

And pro-lifers have been saying this for many years. How can it be right, or even rational for abortions to be permissible in the second and third trimesters - even as far as birth in very rare cases - when it is overwhelmingly clear that babies are able to survive outside the womb at increasingly lower gestational ages?

Click here to read the story of Baby Dana Lu Blessing, my fave premmie who was born at just 24 weeks and is now a healthy young woman, 18yrs old.

Weekly Joke

Right, it's been pretty tough going over the last few weeks... time for a joke.

A well-respected surgeon was relaxing on his sofa one evening just after arriving home from work. As he was tuning into the evening news, the phone rang. The doctor calmly answered it and heard the familiar voice of a colleague on the other end of the line.

"We need a fourth for poker," said the friend.

"I'll be right over," whispered the doctor.

As he was putting on his coat, his wife asked, "Is it serious?"

"Oh yes, quite serious," said the doctor gravely. "In fact, three doctors are there already!"

lol, Isabella clinton has just posted four funny jokes...

Sierra & Savanna

The following is a response to an article written by investigative journalist Barry Yeoman in which Gina Gonzales describes her experience of having her twin baby-daughters Sierra and Savanna killed by abortion. Please read this article (October, 2001) before reading my response so that you have it all in context.

Gina and her husband found themselves in an extremely difficult and painful situation - one that very few couples ever go through. I have the utmost sympathy for this family as they went through this tragic situation. I cannot imagine the grief a couple would experience upon hearing that their unborn child is very ill and has a poor chance of survival. To further complicate the case, the doctors stated that Gina's health was also in severe danger. There are only a few aspects of the article which I question, however these are enough to twist the it into an incorrect and biased account.

"...Sierra's chance of survival outside the womb hovered at around 5 percent—and she was the healthier of the two girls."

It is important to take this ratio for what it is; an educated guess by the doctors. There have been many cases where doctors have declared that a child has no chance of survival but been proven wrong once the child is born and recovers - or is able to live despite her deformities or illness. Baby Faith Hope was born with anencephaly (most of the brain missing) - an extreme deformity but passed away on 23 May, having lived for 93 days. Her mother said that her little daughter was conscious and as responsive as a normal baby. The doctors couldn't believe it. Faith's "quality of life" was very poor - but which of us has the right to determine that this quality of life justifies us ending her life?

"...My doctor also confirmed that Savanna's illness could trigger a rare syndrome in me: I was mirroring some of her symptoms and retaining fluids. My body was extremely swollen and I could hardly walk. If I continued the pregnancy, I could put my own health at risk too."

The key-word here is "could". I am sorry for Gina, and the awful situation she was going through, and the pain that she was suffering from. Her health was not looking good, and she was struggling to walk. But were these grounds enough to decide that both of her unborn babies should die?

"The following day, we called a surgeon across the country who had been recommended by a local specialist because he had developed an experimental procedure to abort one fetus while keeping the other alive. After listening to the litany of complications our girls had, he was frank with us. "I don't want to do this," he said. "It's not going to give you the outcome you're hoping for." Even if one of our daughters beat the 5 percent odds for survival, she could have serious physical and mental problems throughout her life. We hung up the phone and just looked at each other. We knew what we had to do. Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health..."

The 5% figure was arbitrary, as was the decision that "serious physical and mental problems throughout her life" were valid grounds for an abortion. If they had a five-year-old daughter lying on the hospital bed with a 5% chance of survival, and the news that even if she did survive, she may have an extremely poor quality of life, would Gina & John have made a different decision? Gina's health should have been treated as a separate consideration and not bundled together with these claims in order to strengthen the case for an abortion.

"I thought about what my pastor had said, and to me, giving her the most life meant releasing her to heaven rather than having her suffer on earth.

I do not question Gina's belief that her twin-daughters would go to Heaven following their death. However it is imperative that this comforting hope is never used to justify, or strengthen the case for an abortion going ahead.

"Last summer, I learned that outlawing intact D&Es [Intact Dilation & Extraction] is a top priority of anti-choice activists, who in an effort to inflame the issue, call the procedure "partial-birth abortion" because the fetus is removed late in the pregnancy. The most humane and safest option John and I had available to us is being threatened by lawmakers who do not understand our heartache. I used to vote straight-ticket Republican, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for George W. Bush, who used his acceptance speech at the GOP convention to promise to sign a law against "partial-birth abortion."

Gina now proceeds to attack pro-lifers as a whole by labelling them as "anti-choice", and then claiming that they are attempting to inflame the abortion issue. Partial-birth abortion is about as far from humane as you can get. For information on the procedure of a partial birth abortion, click here.

In very rare circumstances, an abortion is a necessary evil in order to reduce the overall amount of suffering. I cannot say whether Gina & John made the right decision, as I was not there, and the case was so complex. However looking at some of the comments in the article it appears that at least one of the baby girls may have survived had her parents and doctors had a greater understanding of the value and importance of life.

Timeless Cinematic Moments 15

Molly Gibson (Justine Waddell) stands in the rain, watching the carriage drive away... with Roger Hamley in it, off for a two year journey of scientific exploration in Africa. BBC's 1999 adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's Wives and Daughters was epic, also boasting the talent of Michael Gambon who deservedly won the BAFTA award for best actor that year. It is Justine Waddell though, who steals the show with her flawless, scintillating performance which leaves you feeling as part of the action as opposed to a spectator sitting on the other side of the screen. I loved Wives and Daughters almost as much as North and South, however there are too many hateful and infuriating characters for it to be quite so pleasant. There's Osbourne, poor tortured soul, and Roger his brother who just doesn't get it. Molly's new sister-in-law Cynthia is affectionate and likeable, but brainless while her mother just needs to shut up!