This is a vlog of my 10 March 2010 blog-post entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice"
In upcoming vlogs I'll be building upon this aspect of the abortion debate, in particular:
Showing posts with label pro-life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro-life. Show all posts
Friday, 15 October 2010
Vlog 9: Abortion is a Woman's Choice like Rape is a Man's Choice
Does choice have anything to do with the morality of an action (abortion for instance)? In this video I discuss a common misconception about abortion; that it is justified for simply being a choice... It's complicated stuff, but hang on with me!
This is a vlog of my 10 March 2010 blog-post entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice"
In upcoming vlogs I'll be building upon this aspect of the abortion debate, in particular:
Pro-Abortion vs. Pro-Choice: Which is the correct term to use?
Abortion and Rape
This is a vlog of my 10 March 2010 blog-post entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice"
In upcoming vlogs I'll be building upon this aspect of the abortion debate, in particular:
Friday, 24 September 2010
Hatred & Water-Balloon-Condoms Thrown at March For Lifers in Berlin
Bryan writes,
Besides the 1,800 pro-lifers in attendance; there were hundreds of riot police to protect us from the over 500 pro-abortion protesters who came to interrupt and attempt to attack us.
Our team went early to the site of the march to witness to the pro-abortion protestors and share the Gospel with them. We stood right in the middle of their gathering and just began talking to many of the young people there who seemed to hate us so much.
As the time for the march came closer we made our way to the stage to get prepared for Michel and me to give our talks. I was getting so excited as I was meeting young people from all over the world gathered there to jump start a youth pro-life revolution in Europe.
I was so impressed by the resolve of the pro-lifers as the pro-abortion protesters started to mix into our crowd and begin screaming vulgarities at us. Two lesbians walked to the front of the stage and began to make out in an attempt to shock us; they were just ignored as we kept on with the program.
Police hold the counter-protesters at bay
When I got up to speak the pro-abortion protesters were enraged as they announced an American coming up to speak. When they saw that I looked more like them then the rest of the pro-lifers I think it made them angrier. I shared my testimony about coming to Christ and then an encouraging pro-life message. I fired up the young people, challenging them to make sure that we always have the courage to stand up for Christ and for life.
As the organizers began to pass out white crosses to the pro-life marchers, many on the other side began to steal crosses so they could hold them upside down. As we took formation in the street, the pro-aborts were lining up beside us screaming the most foul and sexual things at the pro-lifers. They were holding the crosses upside down, waving rubber sexual organs and throwing condoms filled with water at us...
Read the full article here.
Friday, 27 August 2010
Abortion – why it needs to be legal” Article Makes Leaps in Logic
Cross-posted from the Exposing ALRANZ blog, below is a fisking of a recent article making the rounds in the pro-abortion blogosphere.
On 13 August 2010, Julie Fairey of The Hand Mirror Blog and Mothers For Choice wrote an article summarising the talk she gave that day on campus at Auckland University, entitled "Abortion: Why it Needs to be Legal". The talk was organised by Kristy Kearny, Alana Marie Chang and Soraiya Daud, leaders of the group, Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland and the Campus Feminist Collective. Steph of the LadyNews blog states that the article is "a beautifully structured argument for why abortion needs to be legal", however this is incorrect as I will demonstrate below.
Fairey sums up her talk as follows:
1. We don’t yet live in a world where we have full control of our fertility
She argues that "A world without abortion will only be possible when we can have full control of our fertility." I could equally state that "A world without car crashes will only be possible when we can have full control of our driving skills." This in no way backs up the claim that therefore, car crashes are ok since they're going to happen anyway. The same can be applied to abortion. The fact that women don't have full control of fertility (Fairey cites rape as one example, and I completely agree with her on this), in no way lends itself to justifying abortion.
Fairey goes on to state that women can only have full control of their fertility if contraceptives (i.e. condoms) are 1) Free, 2) Easy to get, 3) Comfortable to request and use, and 4) effective. Again, this is poor reasoning. I could state that drivers are only going to have full control of their cars once cars are free, easy to get, comfortable to request, and safe... It doesn't make sense at all.
She also states that women will only have control over their fertility once we live in a world with positive empowering attitudes to sex, and a world that has support and respect for parents. Fairey is absolutely entitled to her opinion - but this is absolutely unsubstantiated - women can choose whether reproduction takes place, regardless of attitudes to sex or parenting.
And if not... just kill the foetus. The "every child a wanted child" argument falls down because it is based purely on the subjective value of life that adults project onto the as yet unborn child.
The only time that a woman loses control of her fertility, is when she loses her reproductive rights (in the case of rape), where conception takes place against her will...
Continue Reading
On 13 August 2010, Julie Fairey of The Hand Mirror Blog and Mothers For Choice wrote an article summarising the talk she gave that day on campus at Auckland University, entitled "Abortion: Why it Needs to be Legal". The talk was organised by Kristy Kearny, Alana Marie Chang and Soraiya Daud, leaders of the group, Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland and the Campus Feminist Collective. Steph of the LadyNews blog states that the article is "a beautifully structured argument for why abortion needs to be legal", however this is incorrect as I will demonstrate below.Fairey sums up her talk as follows:
1. We don’t yet live in a world where we have full control of our fertility
She argues that "A world without abortion will only be possible when we can have full control of our fertility." I could equally state that "A world without car crashes will only be possible when we can have full control of our driving skills." This in no way backs up the claim that therefore, car crashes are ok since they're going to happen anyway. The same can be applied to abortion. The fact that women don't have full control of fertility (Fairey cites rape as one example, and I completely agree with her on this), in no way lends itself to justifying abortion.
Fairey goes on to state that women can only have full control of their fertility if contraceptives (i.e. condoms) are 1) Free, 2) Easy to get, 3) Comfortable to request and use, and 4) effective. Again, this is poor reasoning. I could state that drivers are only going to have full control of their cars once cars are free, easy to get, comfortable to request, and safe... It doesn't make sense at all.
She also states that women will only have control over their fertility once we live in a world with positive empowering attitudes to sex, and a world that has support and respect for parents. Fairey is absolutely entitled to her opinion - but this is absolutely unsubstantiated - women can choose whether reproduction takes place, regardless of attitudes to sex or parenting.
"I’m talking about being able to be sure, when that little stick shows you you’re pregnant, that any child that arises could have a safe, healthy home to live in, would have more than enough food and clothing and books and love, and so much more, from the people and the society around it."
And if not... just kill the foetus. The "every child a wanted child" argument falls down because it is based purely on the subjective value of life that adults project onto the as yet unborn child.
The only time that a woman loses control of her fertility, is when she loses her reproductive rights (in the case of rape), where conception takes place against her will...
Continue Reading
Sunday, 27 June 2010
House Minority Leader John Boehner at NRLC
Republican Minority House Leader John Boehner speaking at NRLC.
"Americans love life and we love freedom - they're both intertwined in the American character - without respect for life, freedom is in jeopardy. When we confirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom. There's nothing more defenceless, more innocent - than an unborn baby. If you believe in a right to life, then being quiet isn't good enough - we don't have luxury of being quiet.
...Barack Obama spoke at a PP convention promising support of the Freedom of Choice Act - during his first week in office, 36 Republican Congressman including Boehner wrote to Obama asking him to use his presidency to use initiatives that bring Americans together, not drive them apart - they asked him to withdraw his support from FOCA. They got no response. ...In the 18 months since the letter was sent, we've got our answer - the legislation has been implemented, step by tragic step."
During the presentation of the National Right to Life Legislative Leadership Award to Boehner, an old man stood up and started yelling, trying to ask the Minority Leader a question - he shouted "God strike you dead!" at Darla St. Martin who was emceeing the session. Officials got him seated. However after the applause as he was walking out he started screaming again about how the Republican party lets down the pro-life movement, "See with your eyes..." He also claimed that when Darla asked him to speak to Boehner later that she was breaking the First Amendment. I am fairly confident that he is a strongly anti-incrementalist pro-lifer, possibly associated with American Right to Life and the Personhood movement.
However a very good session over all. You can read Boehner's full speech here.
"Americans love life and we love freedom - they're both intertwined in the American character - without respect for life, freedom is in jeopardy. When we confirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom. There's nothing more defenceless, more innocent - than an unborn baby. If you believe in a right to life, then being quiet isn't good enough - we don't have luxury of being quiet.
...Barack Obama spoke at a PP convention promising support of the Freedom of Choice Act - during his first week in office, 36 Republican Congressman including Boehner wrote to Obama asking him to use his presidency to use initiatives that bring Americans together, not drive them apart - they asked him to withdraw his support from FOCA. They got no response. ...In the 18 months since the letter was sent, we've got our answer - the legislation has been implemented, step by tragic step."
During the presentation of the National Right to Life Legislative Leadership Award to Boehner, an old man stood up and started yelling, trying to ask the Minority Leader a question - he shouted "God strike you dead!" at Darla St. Martin who was emceeing the session. Officials got him seated. However after the applause as he was walking out he started screaming again about how the Republican party lets down the pro-life movement, "See with your eyes..." He also claimed that when Darla asked him to speak to Boehner later that she was breaking the First Amendment. I am fairly confident that he is a strongly anti-incrementalist pro-lifer, possibly associated with American Right to Life and the Personhood movement.
However a very good session over all. You can read Boehner's full speech here.
2,000 Pages of Really Bad Stuff
General Session on Day 3, "2,000 Pages Plus of Really Bad Stuff” of the National Right to Life Convention featuring Douglas Johnson speaking on abortion coverage and Burke Balch, J.D. speaking on rationing in the Health Care Act.
Douglas Johnson is speaking on abortion coverage in the Health Care Act.
One of the ways the pro-abortion lobby has always sought to increase the number of abortions is to have government subsidies for abortion. It is estimated that there are over one million people alive today because of the Hyde amendment. They think that's a bad thing; we think that's a good thing. Within 3yrs of Roe v. Wade (1973), the Govt. was paying for 300,000 abortions/yr - the Courts found that this was a just application of the law. In 1976, Hyde amendment came in prohibiting Federal money going towards abortions. This amendment expires every year and so comes under attack but needs to be renewed every year.
In 2007 Barack Obama was asked how "reproductive healthcare" would be covered in the Health Care Bill. “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. It is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose… It will be a plan that will provide ALL essential services, including reproductive services."
The Executive Order which is claimed to prevent abortion funding. USA Today reported that both sides of the debate agree that the order was meaningless. National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson referred to the order as "a transparent political fig leaf," and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood called it a "symbolic gesture".
Burke Balch, J.D. is speaking on rationing in the new Health Care Act. Federal law now limits what individuals are allowed to spend out of their own funds for their health care insurance. "We should not have a two tier health care system." Do you even things out by helping those who can't afford adequate health care by limiting the health care available to those who can afford it? "This is what the Act does."
Rationing Procedure:
Govt. website box states: "about 25% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in their last 60 days of life" - but we don't know when people are going to die, we're trying to save them. "Toward the end of life, too many people receive ineffective, expensive medical treatments" - California Health Care Foundation
Health care spending as a percentage of personal consumption expenditures has been rising steadily since 1940. Also, private food, clothing and shelter expenses have been steadily dropping. The reason that we've been able to put more money into healthcare to date, is that we've put less resources into other things. America could ensure decent health care for all. Currently we have private sector cost-shifting - it imperfectly covers people who are uninsured. "We could achieve good healthcare for all without rationing." The fundamental, worst elements are not going to come into affect until 2014. Need a pro-repeal president and senate and 60 senators to beat a filibuster (41 Senators). "We are not hopeless. What we have to do now is educate Americans about the grave danger this law poses to our family members."
One of the ways the pro-abortion lobby has always sought to increase the number of abortions is to have government subsidies for abortion. It is estimated that there are over one million people alive today because of the Hyde amendment. They think that's a bad thing; we think that's a good thing. Within 3yrs of Roe v. Wade (1973), the Govt. was paying for 300,000 abortions/yr - the Courts found that this was a just application of the law. In 1976, Hyde amendment came in prohibiting Federal money going towards abortions. This amendment expires every year and so comes under attack but needs to be renewed every year.
In 2007 Barack Obama was asked how "reproductive healthcare" would be covered in the Health Care Bill. “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. It is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose… It will be a plan that will provide ALL essential services, including reproductive services."
The Executive Order which is claimed to prevent abortion funding. USA Today reported that both sides of the debate agree that the order was meaningless. National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson referred to the order as "a transparent political fig leaf," and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood called it a "symbolic gesture".
Rationing Procedure:
- Independent Payment Advisory Commission. It's aim is to push private healthcare spending down, so that it does not keep up with the rate of medical inflation. Recommednations every two years. Department of Health and Human Services is going to impose "quality and efficiency" standards... "under what circumstances is it efficient/appropriate for someone to receive a kidney transplant?". HC providers must comply with these guidelines (caps on private spending on healthcare), or else they will lose insurance contracts. This limits and micro-manages the healthcare you can get.
- Medicare Limits - $529 cut from Medicare. Will the govt. allow senior citizens to make up the difference from their own private funds? Currently older Americans are allowed to add their own money if they choose, in order to get insurance plans less likely to ration - these are known as Medicare Private Advantage Plans. However under the Obama health law, HHS given standardless discretion to reject any Medicare advantage plan.
- Exchange Limits on What People Can Pay for Insurance. First state-based insurance exchanges. Govt. officials will exclude health insurers whose plans inside or outside the exchange allow private citizens to spend whatever govt. officials think is "excessive or unjustified" amount on their own health care insurance.
- Shared Decisionmaking. Funding to non govt. groups to develop "patient decision-making aids" to help patients, caregivers or authorised representatives to decided with their health care provider, what plans are best for them. They're going to "establish regional shared decision making resource centers to provide technical assistance to providers to develop and disseminate best practices". In other words, re-education...
Govt. website box states: "about 25% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in their last 60 days of life" - but we don't know when people are going to die, we're trying to save them. "Toward the end of life, too many people receive ineffective, expensive medical treatments" - California Health Care Foundation
Health care spending as a percentage of personal consumption expenditures has been rising steadily since 1940. Also, private food, clothing and shelter expenses have been steadily dropping. The reason that we've been able to put more money into healthcare to date, is that we've put less resources into other things. America could ensure decent health care for all. Currently we have private sector cost-shifting - it imperfectly covers people who are uninsured. "We could achieve good healthcare for all without rationing." The fundamental, worst elements are not going to come into affect until 2014. Need a pro-repeal president and senate and 60 senators to beat a filibuster (41 Senators). "We are not hopeless. What we have to do now is educate Americans about the grave danger this law poses to our family members."
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Live-Blogging from the National Right to Life Convention
Currently in Communications 201: "Putting Communication Skills Into Action Through Events and Advertising" with Derrick Jones and Cheryl Ciamarra. Picking up on many tips and tricks for handling media and public relations - will be useful to take back to New Zealand to benefit Prolife NZ. Caught up with Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com today which was great. Hoping to catch up with some more pro-lifers tonight in town.
Confronting the Abortion of Children with Down Syndrome
Eileen Haupt is speaking on "Confronting the Abortion of Children with Down Syndrome" at the 2010 National Right to Life Convention.
Chances of conceiving a DS baby increases with maternal age. All chromosomes are normal. DS was named after John Langdon Down who in 1866 gave a name to the characteristics associated with DS people. 1930s, researches suspected DS might be caused by a chormosomal abnormality. 1959, the "extra chromosome" discovered by Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a French geneticist. This opened up a whole new field known as cytogenics. Modern treatment of DS: institutions, involuntary sterilisations, disabled were rounded up, experimented on and killed during Nazi Germany. In 60s and 70s in America, DS began to be raised at home. Routine use of amniocentesis for the purpose of aborting them. We have a schizophrenic treatment of people who are DS. Lejeune's discovery was meant for good, but now it is used to seek and destroy pre-born DS babies. He was ostrasised from the medical community for his pro-life views.
Mothers are put under incredible pressure to abort their preborn babies with DS.
Prenatal testing: Screening tests (show the "risk" of baby having DS) and Diagnostic tests (can tell you definitively if baby has DS).
Ramifications of "Improved" Testing: this will result in more mothers choosing abortion. Accurate and non-invasive tests; it's much easier now to discover DS much earlier in the pregnancy... "before they've even felt their baby kick".
"A simple blood test that could save the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year." - a comment on the new DS testing. They're happy because with the old kind of testing there was a risk of the pre-born baby dying from amniocentesis - no consideration is given to the pre-born babies who are diagnosed as DS and subsequently killed by abortion.
Where do the DS Advocates stand? Sadly, the National Down Syndrome Society and National Down Syndrome Congress take a neutral stand on the abortiong of DS babies. They also partner with American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and others. However parents with DS children, shocked at the figure that approx. 90% of DS diagnosed babies are aborted, start blogs and are active in their communities. The International Down Syndrome (IDS for Life) and Keep Infants with Down Syndrome (KIDS) were established.
Methods used to abort DS babies. Because DS cannot be definitively diagnosed til 2nd Trimester, they are aborted in 2nd trimester, usually between 16 - 20wks.
In Italy a mother had a selective abortion to abort the twin that was diagnosed with DS. However the babies switched positions and the non DS baby was aborted - the mother then went back to have her DS baby aborted as well. A U.S. case, a doctor lost his license for accidently aborting the wrong twin baby - the non DS baby.
The missing factor in this prenatal testing is love. "The one thing that prenatal testing can't tell you, is how much joy your special child will bring" - Eileen Haupt
Why the heck are Down Syndrome babies being aborted? There is a waiting list to adopt children with DS.
Chances of conceiving a DS baby increases with maternal age. All chromosomes are normal. DS was named after John Langdon Down who in 1866 gave a name to the characteristics associated with DS people. 1930s, researches suspected DS might be caused by a chormosomal abnormality. 1959, the "extra chromosome" discovered by Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a French geneticist. This opened up a whole new field known as cytogenics. Modern treatment of DS: institutions, involuntary sterilisations, disabled were rounded up, experimented on and killed during Nazi Germany. In 60s and 70s in America, DS began to be raised at home. Routine use of amniocentesis for the purpose of aborting them. We have a schizophrenic treatment of people who are DS. Lejeune's discovery was meant for good, but now it is used to seek and destroy pre-born DS babies. He was ostrasised from the medical community for his pro-life views.
Mothers are put under incredible pressure to abort their preborn babies with DS.
Prenatal testing: Screening tests (show the "risk" of baby having DS) and Diagnostic tests (can tell you definitively if baby has DS).
Ramifications of "Improved" Testing: this will result in more mothers choosing abortion. Accurate and non-invasive tests; it's much easier now to discover DS much earlier in the pregnancy... "before they've even felt their baby kick".
"A simple blood test that could save the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year." - a comment on the new DS testing. They're happy because with the old kind of testing there was a risk of the pre-born baby dying from amniocentesis - no consideration is given to the pre-born babies who are diagnosed as DS and subsequently killed by abortion.
Methods used to abort DS babies. Because DS cannot be definitively diagnosed til 2nd Trimester, they are aborted in 2nd trimester, usually between 16 - 20wks.
In Italy a mother had a selective abortion to abort the twin that was diagnosed with DS. However the babies switched positions and the non DS baby was aborted - the mother then went back to have her DS baby aborted as well. A U.S. case, a doctor lost his license for accidently aborting the wrong twin baby - the non DS baby.
The missing factor in this prenatal testing is love. "The one thing that prenatal testing can't tell you, is how much joy your special child will bring" - Eileen Haupt
Why the heck are Down Syndrome babies being aborted? There is a waiting list to adopt children with DS.
The Future of Planned Parenthood: Building the Abortion Empire
Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. is speaking on "The Future of Planned Parenthood: Building the Abortion Empire Through Mega-Clinics and Chemical Abortion".
How Planned Parenthood and the Family Planning Association Make More Money on Chemical Abortions
Mifepristone pills cost $90 each. Initially, abortion mills committing chemical abortions would give the woman three misoprostol pills and then give them one Misoprostol pill (prostaglandin @ $1 each) afterwards to expel the dead child. This made the cost approximately $270. However to raise their profit margin, Planned Parenthood gave women just one Mifepristone pill, and two Misoprostol pills afterwards which achieved essentially the same result - it would kill the child and cause it to be expelled from its mothers uterus - but making Planned Parenthood a higher profit margin.
Planned Parenthood says "It's not about abortion"
Cecile Richards has stated that 97% of PP's activities are focused on reducing pregnancies.
In 1990: 129,155 out of 1608,600 (8%)
In 2007: 305,310 out of 1206200 (25.3%)
Planned Parenthood has many profits connected to abortion - add-on expenses.
Abortion sales contributes over a third of Planned Parenthood's income.
Standard prices:
pregnancy test: $10 - $20
packet of pills: $15 - $25
abortion: $413
Break-down of PP's patients:
abortions: 305,310
prenatal patients: 10,914
infertility clients: 318
adoption referrals: 4,912
Planned Parenthood is very politically active...
There's two Planned Parenthoods: Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Cecile Richards heads up both of these organisations. She has no medical background. In 2006 she said,
Questions & Comments from the Audience...
"Birth control pills are Planned Parenthood's bread and butter. Even on the days they don't do abortions, they're still selling the pills."
"How is it that Planned Parenthood that receives 330 million from the Govt. each year, then allowed to lobby?"... "Truth is, it's because they're Planned Parenthood." They're just playing the books carefully.
This was another darned good session. Very useful information for us Kiwis as the Family Planning Association is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood.
How Planned Parenthood and the Family Planning Association Make More Money on Chemical Abortions
Mifepristone pills cost $90 each. Initially, abortion mills committing chemical abortions would give the woman three misoprostol pills and then give them one Misoprostol pill (prostaglandin @ $1 each) afterwards to expel the dead child. This made the cost approximately $270. However to raise their profit margin, Planned Parenthood gave women just one Mifepristone pill, and two Misoprostol pills afterwards which achieved essentially the same result - it would kill the child and cause it to be expelled from its mothers uterus - but making Planned Parenthood a higher profit margin.
Planned Parenthood says "It's not about abortion"
Cecile Richards has stated that 97% of PP's activities are focused on reducing pregnancies.
In 1990: 129,155 out of 1608,600 (8%)
In 2007: 305,310 out of 1206200 (25.3%)
Planned Parenthood has many profits connected to abortion - add-on expenses.
Abortion sales contributes over a third of Planned Parenthood's income.
Standard prices:
pregnancy test: $10 - $20
packet of pills: $15 - $25
abortion: $413
Break-down of PP's patients:
abortions: 305,310
prenatal patients: 10,914
infertility clients: 318
adoption referrals: 4,912
Planned Parenthood is very politically active...
There's two Planned Parenthoods: Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Cecile Richards heads up both of these organisations. She has no medical background. In 2006 she said, "Planned Parenthood has 860 health centers around the country in 50 states. We have more members, more employees and staff, than the 50 state Democratic parties combined. We have the potential to swing the vote in 2006, 2008 and 2010, and that’s a lot of power. So the question is what are we going to do with it? The answer is: We’re gonna use it. We’re gonna marry our current reality as the largest reproductive health-care provider in this country with our opportunity to be the largest kickass advocacy organization in this country.
We’re gonna channel our strength, our outreach, our power; work with our pro-choice allies to help progressive voices win in America. We’re revving up online; we’re putting volunteers on the phone and on the doors. We’re taking on the opponents of choice in the states and the districts where they live. Planned Parenthood has gotta become more political so that health care can become less politicized."
Questions & Comments from the Audience...
"Birth control pills are Planned Parenthood's bread and butter. Even on the days they don't do abortions, they're still selling the pills."
"How is it that Planned Parenthood that receives 330 million from the Govt. each year, then allowed to lobby?"... "Truth is, it's because they're Planned Parenthood." They're just playing the books carefully.
This was another darned good session. Very useful information for us Kiwis as the Family Planning Association is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood.
Gearing Up for the Mid-Terms
Karen Cross, political director for NRLC, David N. O'Steen Ph.D., executive director of NRLC and Daria St. Martin, assistant executive director of NRLC are speaking in a session on "Preparing for the Next Round - 2010", the midterm elections in the U.S.
4.5% voted for McCain and 0.5% voted for Obama on the issue of abortion in the 2008 election. 10% voted Republican on economy compared with 24% who voted Democrat for economy.
In 2006, 22% said Iraq was the most important consideration in voting, compared with 3% for abortion.
2008 Election polling:
Those who had pro-life beliefs: 53%
Those for whom abortion was the "most important" issue and they voted for candidates who oppose abortion: 4.5%
58% would like to repeal the Health Care Act as opposed to 35% who do not.
O'Steen says, If you see three children drowning, and they're in three separate directions and you can only save one, you jump in the water and swim as fast as you can to the closest one. This same principle should be applied to where we direct our efforts in fighting abortion. Do we wait until we can save all babies from abortion at one go, or do we save them as we go?
4.5% voted for McCain and 0.5% voted for Obama on the issue of abortion in the 2008 election. 10% voted Republican on economy compared with 24% who voted Democrat for economy.
In 2006, 22% said Iraq was the most important consideration in voting, compared with 3% for abortion.
2008 Election polling:
Those who had pro-life beliefs: 53%
Those for whom abortion was the "most important" issue and they voted for candidates who oppose abortion: 4.5%
58% would like to repeal the Health Care Act as opposed to 35% who do not.
O'Steen says, If you see three children drowning, and they're in three separate directions and you can only save one, you jump in the water and swim as fast as you can to the closest one. This same principle should be applied to where we direct our efforts in fighting abortion. Do we wait until we can save all babies from abortion at one go, or do we save them as we go?
Friday, 25 June 2010
Planned Parenthood’s War Against Children
Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger believed that children oppressed women - she called this "sex servitude" - women are oppressed by their fertility. She said, "The most far-reaching social development of modern times is the revolt of woman against sex-servitude." She believed that women have a eugenic duty: "Within her is wrapped up the future of the race - it is hers to make or mar."
Sanger had a naive belief in the promiscuous lifestyle - everyone will be more happy if they have more sex. This would result in a need to reduce population. New York City Planned Parenthood ran a fundraiser entitled "Summer, Sex and Spirits" at which free pole-dancing lessons were given out.
"For Planned Parenthood, pregnancy is the ultimate sexually transmitted disease
"Planned Parenthood thinks that by teaching young girls to use birth control pills, they will become 33-year old women who will reliably take the pills on a regular basis... We know that this is not a good job to be giving young girls - especially when their parents are not even aware this is going on."
The United States' Largest Abortion Chain: In 1991, Planned Parenthood had 99 clinics compared with 911 other clinics. By 2009, Planned Parenthood had 817 clinics, compared with 304 other clinics. This was largely due to PP's introduction of chemical abortions.
RU486 (Chemical) Abortion: Faking the Body Out
Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. is speaking
The process of an RU486 abortion is:
Still a baby, still an abortion:
Mothers who have had RU486 abortions have reported seeing tiny fists, eyes, aborted babies lying in toilets or on the floor of the shower - this is because mothers are given the misopristol at the abortion mill, and then go home and wait for the drugs to kill their pre-born child. Once this has taken place, the prostaglandin pill is taken (this costs about $1), which brings about the expulsion.
RU486 was approved for use in the U.S. in September 2000. Guttmacher states that chemical abortions were at 6% of all abortions in 2000, 70,500 in 2001 and 161,100 in 2005. O'Bannon states that the numbers will be much higher now in 2010, however we are unsure as to a close estimate. Back in New Zealand, ALRANZ is bemoaning the lack of chemical abortions, and are strongly backing the FPA's bid to become a Chemical abortion provider.
Below is an account of an RU486 abortion written by an abortive mother on 29/4/2001:
This was a great session on a disgusting and disturbing subject.
The process of an RU486 abortion is:
- Anti-progestin or anti progesterone is taken
- Shuts down baby's life support system
- Baby shovels and dies
- Menstrual process initiated
- Prostaglandin (PG) forces baby out
Still a baby, still an abortion:
- 3wks - 5wks: nervous system forming, heart beginning first beats
- 5wks - 7wks: baby's face, arms and legs are distinguishable
- 7wks - 9wks: child's ears, fingers, toes formed; nearly an inch tall
- bloodier and more painful than advertised - "you lose more blood from a RU486 abortion than from a surgical abortion". Chemical abortion wounds are larger than those of surgical abortions, and they stay open for longer.
- takes longer than a surgical abortion
- short window of time within which to kill the child
Mothers who have had RU486 abortions have reported seeing tiny fists, eyes, aborted babies lying in toilets or on the floor of the shower - this is because mothers are given the misopristol at the abortion mill, and then go home and wait for the drugs to kill their pre-born child. Once this has taken place, the prostaglandin pill is taken (this costs about $1), which brings about the expulsion.
RU486 was approved for use in the U.S. in September 2000. Guttmacher states that chemical abortions were at 6% of all abortions in 2000, 70,500 in 2001 and 161,100 in 2005. O'Bannon states that the numbers will be much higher now in 2010, however we are unsure as to a close estimate. Back in New Zealand, ALRANZ is bemoaning the lack of chemical abortions, and are strongly backing the FPA's bid to become a Chemical abortion provider.
Below is an account of an RU486 abortion written by an abortive mother on 29/4/2001:
I am 23 years old and I would say, very careless about protection. I am the mother of three children although I've been pregnant more times than that. I would be a hypocrite to deny that I've been pro-choice. I thought the "abortion pill" was a more humane way to terminate and so I used that method. I remember going over paper work that told me that because the pregnancy was very early, there wouldn't be a visible embryo and it would "seem" like a normal period. That information was then confirmed by the ultrasound technician as well as the counselor. The pregnancy was in the seventh week.
After receiving the drink of methotrexate, I left for home with a prescription for pain medication and a packet of misoprostol tablets. Five days later as instructed, I inserted the tablets and waited. A few hours later severe cramping began as well as a gush of "pregnancy tissue" . While cleaning myself up, I noticed something silvery attached to the tissue. I looked closer only to realize that I was staring at my aborted child. I could see the protrusion on it's chest where just six days ago, a heart had beat. The eyes were beginning to form already. No one told me that this might happen, in fact, I was guaranteed that it wouldn't . I'll never be the same again.
p.s. this is an actual photo, taken by me.
This was a great session on a disgusting and disturbing subject.
Pro-Life Conversion - On Love and Incrementalism
J. David Franks, Ph.D is a Catholic theologian who is speaking on "Pro-Life Conversion: Cultivating Serious and Intelligent Solidarity with the Most Powerless".
Part 1: Love and our Duty
Franks states that libertarianism cares only about "my choice" and puts it above everything else. This is patently incorrect, as libertarianism limits the choice of the individual with the freedom and choices of every other individual. He states, "Libertarianism is a pro-choice ideology," and then speaking about love, "We resent love because it means we can't remain in our libertarian cocoon." Libertarians for Life would disagree with this claim.
"The weaker the person, the greater their claim on us"
This is a very good point, and a brilliant principle to help us prioritise our campaigns for social justice. Perhaps his quote could be rephrased, "The weaker the person, and the greater the crime being committed against them, the greater their claim on us." Abortion fits this definition perfectly.
"Abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are intrinsically evil and are linked by the same objective - the killing of an innocent person. Whereas the death penalty, war and climate change are issues which it is acceptable to disagree on."
"We can't outlaw every crime. We don't outlaw a crime if it would create greater social disorder... but we can't apply this to abortion."
This is a confusing and unprincipled approach to the reasoning for legislation on abortion. Abortion should be outlawed because it takes away the life of an innocent and helpless human-being - let alone the fact that this takes place without their consent.
Franks stated that if given the choice of voting for one of two pro-abortion candidates, an individual should vote for the one which will be either best for the pro-life side, or most detrimental for the pro-abortion side. In choosing between a pro-life and a pro-abortion candidate, he stated that it is only very rarely that it would be acceptable to vote for the pro-abortion candidate - for instance if such a vote would give a more pro-life party the majority in parliament.
Franks holds that refraining to vote is not an acceptable option, stating that citizens have a duty to vote for the best of the options presented to them. He backs this up with the idea that man is a social creature, and that it is therefore his responsibility to participate in society. I disagree, because if society is unappealing to an individual, they should not be under any obligation to participate in it - let alone express their support for something they do not believe in.
Part 2: Pro-Life Incrementalism
Pro-life purists refuse to support any law or politician that seeks to reduce the number of abortions taking place, and will only support a policy that will ban 100% of abortions. Pro-life incrimentalists on the other hand are prepared to support a great number of small advances in the cause of defending the pre-born. Pro-life incrementalists are achieving results:
To get the votes we need to protect the unborn will require a seismic shift in public sentiment. This can be achieved through ongoing incrementalist legislation which keeps the debate alive and grants increasing rights to pre-born people.
"I want to use as many bridges as I can"
Part 1: Love and our Duty
Franks states that libertarianism cares only about "my choice" and puts it above everything else. This is patently incorrect, as libertarianism limits the choice of the individual with the freedom and choices of every other individual. He states, "Libertarianism is a pro-choice ideology," and then speaking about love, "We resent love because it means we can't remain in our libertarian cocoon." Libertarians for Life would disagree with this claim.
"The weaker the person, the greater their claim on us"
This is a very good point, and a brilliant principle to help us prioritise our campaigns for social justice. Perhaps his quote could be rephrased, "The weaker the person, and the greater the crime being committed against them, the greater their claim on us." Abortion fits this definition perfectly.
"Abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are intrinsically evil and are linked by the same objective - the killing of an innocent person. Whereas the death penalty, war and climate change are issues which it is acceptable to disagree on."
"We can't outlaw every crime. We don't outlaw a crime if it would create greater social disorder... but we can't apply this to abortion."
This is a confusing and unprincipled approach to the reasoning for legislation on abortion. Abortion should be outlawed because it takes away the life of an innocent and helpless human-being - let alone the fact that this takes place without their consent.
Franks stated that if given the choice of voting for one of two pro-abortion candidates, an individual should vote for the one which will be either best for the pro-life side, or most detrimental for the pro-abortion side. In choosing between a pro-life and a pro-abortion candidate, he stated that it is only very rarely that it would be acceptable to vote for the pro-abortion candidate - for instance if such a vote would give a more pro-life party the majority in parliament.
Franks holds that refraining to vote is not an acceptable option, stating that citizens have a duty to vote for the best of the options presented to them. He backs this up with the idea that man is a social creature, and that it is therefore his responsibility to participate in society. I disagree, because if society is unappealing to an individual, they should not be under any obligation to participate in it - let alone express their support for something they do not believe in.
Part 2: Pro-Life Incrementalism
Pro-life purists refuse to support any law or politician that seeks to reduce the number of abortions taking place, and will only support a policy that will ban 100% of abortions. Pro-life incrimentalists on the other hand are prepared to support a great number of small advances in the cause of defending the pre-born. Pro-life incrementalists are achieving results:
- Parental involvement laws correlated with a 16% decline in the minor abortion rate.
- Partial-birth abortion ban
- Legislating against abortions in which foetuses feel pain. Pro-abortion advocates may think that we want for foetueses to be anesthetised before they are aborted... In Arkansas, Kansas, a foetal pain awareness act was passed requiring that women seeking an abortion on a foetus at 20 weeks and over should be asked if they wished for their child to be injected with pain killers. In the year following the passing of this act, 600 women were offered the pain relief for the murder of their pre-born children. Upon hearing of this option, 300 of the women decided not to go ahead with their abortion.
To get the votes we need to protect the unborn will require a seismic shift in public sentiment. This can be achieved through ongoing incrementalist legislation which keeps the debate alive and grants increasing rights to pre-born people.
"I want to use as many bridges as I can"
National Right to Life Convention 2010
Time to Ban Sex-Selective Abortion
India: In India as many as half a million unborn baby girls are aborted each year because of their gender. This works out as a sex ratio at birth to 130 boys to 100 girls - the normal ratio is 106 boys to 100 girls - by adulthood, this will have usually dropped down to 100:100. In some areas, 7/10 pre-born girls are killed before birth.
China: In China, there are 117 boys born for every 100 girls. "As soon as the one-child policy began, it began to have a devastating effect on little girls - reports started to come in of little girls dying mysteriously." "midwives reported that they were receiving instructions that girls born where a first child had already been born, the girl was to be killed." Sex-selective abortion goes on all throughout Asia. A recent UNFPA report says that at last 60 million girls are "missing" because of sex-selective abortion, infanticide and neglect. In China, only-sons are known as "little emperors".
The Chinese Communist Party claims that, "Sex-selective abortion is an offshoot of "feudal ideas" that modernization will soon extinguish" However the reality is that in China, sons provide support for their parents in their old age. The ultrasound technology is fueling the historical preference for sons.
Mosher shows the audience photos of a young Chinese woman taken by force and given an injection into her uterus, an abortifacient drug - once her dead child was expelled, it was returned to her in a garbage bag - she was given the job of cremating it as she had conceived it illegally.
The practice of aborting baby girls is a testimony to the low value placed on female life. Each sex selective abortion degrades women. While a narrow view of economics would say that fewer women means that women are more highly valued, in fact, sex-trafficking is on the rise in Asia. Prostitution and homosexuality are on the rise in China also. Single men are contributing to a rise in gang activity and violent crime.
Back to the United States: In the 1990s, advertisements for sex-selective abortions were found in the New York Times. "It is legal to abort a child in the United States for any and all reasons." 86% of Americans believe that an abortion should not be done for reasons of sex-selection.
A simple bill is required to "ban abortions for the purpose of sex-selection", however this is being halted by people such as Nancy Pelosi.
"The pro-abortion lobby is attempting to defend the indefensible."
Sex-selective abortions; "One of the bitterest icons of our post-feminist age."
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Planned Parenthood and ACLU Gang Up on Pro-Lifers in Nevada
"A ballot initiative by human rights group Personhood Nevada has been thwarted by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and local Judge James Russell. On Friday, January 8, Judge Russell ruled that the fourteen word amendment did not encompass a single subject, although it is comprised of merely a handful of words and one of the most succinct ever to be filed in that State.
The proposed amendment reads, “In the great state of Nevada, the term ‘person’ applies to every human being.” The Judge’s decision declares that the people of Nevada are not entitled to vote on this matter, and that the State’s very own policies and procedures to amend the Constitution through ballot initiatives should not be applied to this specific civil rights amendment.
Judge Russell was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "The issue to me is, are we adequately informing voters on what they're voting on. There's no way for the voter to understand the effects of the initiative."
Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia-Jones was disturbed by the Judge’s comments. "Judge Russell is being disingenuous," he remarked. “There is a very simple way for the voter to understand the effect of the initiative, namely, read the 200 word description that immediately follows the 14 word ballot text. That 200 word description includes: ‘This amendment codifies the inalienable right to life for everyone, young or old, healthy or ill, conscious or unconscious, born or unborn.’ Judge Russell is abusing his power and jumping the gun by prejudging the effect of the law."
The good news though, is that Planned Parenthood and their Labour union ally, the American Civl Liberties Union will fail, because in 2008...
"Planned Parenthood sued to prevent the Colorado ballot initiative from moving forward, claiming that it was not a single subject issue, and lost the lawsuit. The initiative, although longer than the Nevada initiative, was found to be a single subject and allowed to proceed."
Olaf Vancura, President of Personhood Nevada commented, "We are determined that no matter how long it takes, we will not be silenced. The personhood petition will be approved, and we will protect all human life in the state of Nevada.”
And back in New Zealand...
I am now getting used to the underhanded tactics of pro-abortion advocates. Instead of debating the issue of abortion, they so often either attack pro-lifers (with the ad hominem fallacy), or attack pro-lifer's freedom to speak. An example of the latter is currently unfolding on the campus at the University of Auckland, where the feminists and pro-abortion advocates on campus are joining forces to shut down the pro-life group that has recently been founded there. A Facebook group entitled
Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland has been set up. The group includes members such as ALRANZ spokesperson Alison McCulloch and AUSA Women's Rights Officer, Soraiya Daud. This group has made the following defamatory and untrue statement about Prolife Auckland:
"They are a hate group who accuse people who have obtained abortions or have helped people obtain abortions as murderers. University should be a safe place. It will not be if they affiliate."Pro-life leader Brendan Malone has covered this at his blog here and here. While Prolife Auckland has now successfully affiliated with the Students' Association, the pro-abortion activists on and off campus continue to fight - not their message, but their right to exist on Campus.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Exposing the Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ
On 5 November 2009, I purchased the domain name, www.alranz.org.nz, and made a simple spoof website which you can view here (note, graphic image). On 8 February 2010, President of the organization, Dame Margaret Sparrow emailed me, claiming that the website was unethical and unacceptable, and requesting that the site be taken down, stating:
Dame Margaret SparrowSparrow claimed that the photo I had used as the background for the website was "pornographic". However the definition of pornography is that it is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the sole purpose of sexual excitement. Does Sparrow find the photo of this murdered baby sexually exciting? Because I sure as hell don't.
In my response, I stated, "As an active member of the pro-life movement in New Zealand, I currently have no intention of taking the website down, as it serves to expose ALRANZ for its awful agenda of decriminalising abortion in New Zealand." ALRANZ and its lawyer subsequently drafted up a nine-page document and a dossier of archived documents relating to ALRANZ and pages printed from the web, presenting a case against me, claiming that my registration of alranz.org.nz was an unfair registration.Speaking of my "history of opposition" to ALRANZ, the document stated the following:
[1] I absolutely stand by my statement that Sparrow is an anti-life extremist. She has murdered countless innocent pre-born babies with her own hands during her time as an abortionist, and now, in her retirement years, works tirelessly to further liberalise NZ's abortion laws, to allow for greater access to abortions, for a wider range of reasons, and later into the pregnancy. [2] However the claim that I highlighted the quoted comment is a gross misrepresentation, taking the quote out of context. I did not highlight that comment; rather I highlighted an account from a woman who had had an abortion, from which the above sentence was taken; the strong implication being that I personally endorse this comment. Pro-life stalwart, Brendan Malone has written an article on another instance of this statement on my blog being contorted and made to seem like something that it never was, by this pro-abortion group, ALRANZ. Brendan summed up the article, stating,
I chose not to contest my right to the domain name, due partly to having been very busy with many other pro-life activities such as the successful 2010 South Island March for Life, and also being quite happy with allowing ALRANZ to foot the fairly substantial legal fees. ALRANZ spent $2025, the fee for having an independent expert hired by the Domain Name Commission to decide on the case. They also spent at least $136.35 purchasing similar domain names on 25 February 2010 (3 NZ domain names at $31.45 each and 3 international domain names at $14 each). With a total of 6 extra domain names that they previously did not need, this is going to cost ALRANZ an extra $136 per year, as domains incur an annual fee. I spent a mere $31.45 purchasing the domain name alranz.org.nz, however it has cost ALRANZ at least $2161 in initial outlay, not including their lawyer's fees. This is two grand less per year that the pro-child killing lobby in New Zealand has at their disposal, for the purpose of promoting their lowly, despicable cause. And I really couldn't care less about ALRANZ getting the alranz.org.nz domain name, because I've just set up...
At the Exposing ALRANZ website, the spotlight will be shone upon the activities and agenda of this organisation, as well as profiling the people within it, and the radically pro-abortion, anti-woman policies which they are lobbying for. I am not opposed to abortion law reform, in fact I believe that NZ's abortion law (and application of the law) needs to be reformed to reflect the majority opinion that killing pre-born children is not a core health-service, and to protect the right to life of our Country's pre-born children. As long as ALRANZ pursuses pro-child killing abortion law reform, I will oppose ALRANZ. I will not go away, and I will not shut up about this, because as a former foetus, I have a duty to speak up for them, because they sure as heck cannot speak for themselves, and ALRANZ is taking advantage of this; their platform is built on the knowledge that the people they are advocating to be killed cannot yell out "don't kill me, I'm alive!".
"I object to the pornographic photo posted on the website alranz.org.nz making a link to our website alranz.org It is clear that someone has maliciously purchased the website alranz.org.nz as an attack on our website alranz.org."
Dame Margaret Sparrow
In my response, I stated, "As an active member of the pro-life movement in New Zealand, I currently have no intention of taking the website down, as it serves to expose ALRANZ for its awful agenda of decriminalising abortion in New Zealand." ALRANZ and its lawyer subsequently drafted up a nine-page document and a dossier of archived documents relating to ALRANZ and pages printed from the web, presenting a case against me, claiming that my registration of alranz.org.nz was an unfair registration.Speaking of my "history of opposition" to ALRANZ, the document stated the following:
"Mr. Moore is well-known as an active opponent of our Association through various groups including, but not limited to, ProLife NZ (www.prolife.org.nz) and Stop Family Planning (www.stopfamilyplanning.org.nz) and via a blog at http://www.starstuddedsuperstep.com. He frequently attacks the Association, in particular its president, Dame Margaret Sparrow. For example:
[1] Labelling Dame Margaret "an anti-life extremist"
[2] Highlighting the following comment on his blog: "Margaret Sparrow should be hung, drawn and quartered"
[1] I absolutely stand by my statement that Sparrow is an anti-life extremist. She has murdered countless innocent pre-born babies with her own hands during her time as an abortionist, and now, in her retirement years, works tirelessly to further liberalise NZ's abortion laws, to allow for greater access to abortions, for a wider range of reasons, and later into the pregnancy. [2] However the claim that I highlighted the quoted comment is a gross misrepresentation, taking the quote out of context. I did not highlight that comment; rather I highlighted an account from a woman who had had an abortion, from which the above sentence was taken; the strong implication being that I personally endorse this comment. Pro-life stalwart, Brendan Malone has written an article on another instance of this statement on my blog being contorted and made to seem like something that it never was, by this pro-abortion group, ALRANZ. Brendan summed up the article, stating,
"This is simply another classic example of the pro-abortion tactic of using misinformation to slur those who refuse to support the notion that killing unborn human beings is morally, socially and medically acceptable."
I chose not to contest my right to the domain name, due partly to having been very busy with many other pro-life activities such as the successful 2010 South Island March for Life, and also being quite happy with allowing ALRANZ to foot the fairly substantial legal fees. ALRANZ spent $2025, the fee for having an independent expert hired by the Domain Name Commission to decide on the case. They also spent at least $136.35 purchasing similar domain names on 25 February 2010 (3 NZ domain names at $31.45 each and 3 international domain names at $14 each). With a total of 6 extra domain names that they previously did not need, this is going to cost ALRANZ an extra $136 per year, as domains incur an annual fee. I spent a mere $31.45 purchasing the domain name alranz.org.nz, however it has cost ALRANZ at least $2161 in initial outlay, not including their lawyer's fees. This is two grand less per year that the pro-child killing lobby in New Zealand has at their disposal, for the purpose of promoting their lowly, despicable cause. And I really couldn't care less about ALRANZ getting the alranz.org.nz domain name, because I've just set up...
At the Exposing ALRANZ website, the spotlight will be shone upon the activities and agenda of this organisation, as well as profiling the people within it, and the radically pro-abortion, anti-woman policies which they are lobbying for. I am not opposed to abortion law reform, in fact I believe that NZ's abortion law (and application of the law) needs to be reformed to reflect the majority opinion that killing pre-born children is not a core health-service, and to protect the right to life of our Country's pre-born children. As long as ALRANZ pursuses pro-child killing abortion law reform, I will oppose ALRANZ. I will not go away, and I will not shut up about this, because as a former foetus, I have a duty to speak up for them, because they sure as heck cannot speak for themselves, and ALRANZ is taking advantage of this; their platform is built on the knowledge that the people they are advocating to be killed cannot yell out "don't kill me, I'm alive!".
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice.
I am a strong proponent of freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of expression; of freedom in general. However one person's freedom ends where another's freedom begins. I do not have the freedom to take your life against your will; that is contrary to the meaning of freedom. Pre-born babies are not asked for their opinion before the suction tube is inserted into their mother. As saline-abortion survivor Gianna Jessen has said, "if abortion is about women's rights, then where were mine?"
It is clear that every non-coerced action we make is a choice. That a given action was a choice has no bearing on its morality. Rape is a choice. Men have a choice whether they rape a woman or not, however it would be outrageous for me to suggest that somehow, because this is a choice, that it makes rape an acceptable activity. The fact that it's a choice has nothing to do with its morality, therefore I would be stupid to bring up "choice" as an argument in favour of decriminalising rape. There is only one correct choice, and that is the choice not to commit rape.
The two questions we must ask, - and answer before we make a decision about abortion are: 1) Whose choice are we taking into consideration, and 2) Which choice is the correct one?
1) The decision whether to abort a foetus or not affects two people: the mother and her pre-born child. Therefore, as with all contracts, both parties must have their choice respected. If one of the parties' choice is ignored, then the decision will be unjust. We cannot know what the baby's choice will be, as we are currently unable to communicate with pre-born children to ask them whether they wish for their life to be terminated or not. If a foetus gave consent to its destruction, I would support abortion in this instance. Realistically speaking however, a foetus not only lacks the rational capacity to make such a decision, but we would be unable to ascertain its decision even if it were able to make one. Therefore, as with all contracts, we have an obligation to err on the side of caution, and postpone killing the pre-born child until such time as it is able to consent to its death. This may all sound fairly cold and heartless, but consider: how many people do you know who would agree to your proposition of killing them? None.
If a mother, or a relative, friend or doctor of the mother wishes to kill the pre-born child, this wish is superceded by the natural rights held by the foetus - to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2) Which choice is the correct one? I absolutely support a woman's right to choose - given that she makes a moral choice. Nobody has the right to choose to harm another person without their consent. The correct choice is life for the baby.
The pro-life group that I work with in New Zealand has a popular t-shirt that reads "Unborn babies are pro-choice too". This statement is not only untrue, but it is also unverifiable. As far as I can tell, pre-born babies are not yet of a rational capacity to even contemplate whether they wish to die or live. Their natural bodily functions are all crying out "live", however they have not yet grasped the concept of the desirability of living within their own minds. Therefore they do not have the ability to choose one way or the other. In saying this, pre-born babies do have other thoughts, such as recognising the sound of their mother's voice... The statement is unverifiable because we cannot be 100% sure that all babies would advocate for choice - were they able. It is possible that there may be some pre-born babies - who, if asked, (were the technology available) - if they supported upholding choice on the issue of abortion, who would respond that they do not. All that aside, with our t-shirts we've made a well-educated guess that were pre-born babies able to respond, that they would support choice. It follows that the vast majority of babies would support the non-abortion choice, as very few humans - when asked, will volunteer to have their lives ended.
In summary: Choice has nothing to do with morality, therefore choice does not impact on the acceptability of abortion. A choice is only permissible if it does not take away the choice of another person.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
NZ Child Killing Lobby Feeling the Heat
The pro-abortion lobby in New Zealand is coming under pressure from a growing number of people and groups speaking out against the injustice of abortion.
The Herald reported on Friday, 19 Feb:
The new guidelines state that doctors must tell mothers concerned about their pregnancy, that abortion is one of the options. This is the first time this issue has come up in New Zealand, and comes hot on the heels of the recent assault on freedom of conscience in Victoria, Australia which requires pro-life doctors to refer women to pro-abortion doctors if they themselves are not willing to recommend that the mother has her pre-born baby killed by abortion.
And Stop Family Planning, supported by many pro-family and pro-life organisations is maintaining the pressure on the Family Planning Association who have applied to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a licence to kill pre-born babies up to 9weeks. Representatives from StopFPA and Prolife NZ have requested a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, and planning is under way for future marches in the Country's major cities.
Right to Life is heading back to the Court of Appeal on May 4-5 following the Abortion Supervisory Committee contesting several findings of Justice Miller. One of his comments was that,
Right to Life is a non-profit organization that seeks to be a voice influencing legislation in New Zealand on behalf of those who have absolutely no chance of themselves altering the law which concerns them. The Crown (The Abortion Supervisory Committee) has virtually unlimited funds with which it can fight the findings of Justice Miller in the High Court in July 2008.
Abortion takes the life of a helpless and innocent pre-born human person, without their consent being asked for, or given. Death by abortion is often painful to the child it is killing, and can cause medical complications and lasting psychological trauma to the mothers of the killed children. The abortion industry in new Zealand has been growing more and more arrogant, with calls from retired abortionist Margaret Sparrow and her little organisation, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand - for abortion to be completely decriminalised as it is in Victoria, Australia. ALRANZ also supports the killing of late-term disabled babies. Now the tide is turning the other way, as New Zealanders acknowledge that our abortion rate (aprox 18,000 every year) is unacceptably high, and that it is outrageous that girls of any age may have their baby killed by abortion without her parents giving consent, or even being given notification.
The Herald reported on Friday, 19 Feb:
"Anti-abortion doctors have gone to court to challenge new Medical Council guidelines on how physicians with personal objections to abortion must deal with patients. One of the doctors is believed to be Mary English, a Wellington GP and wife of Deputy Prime Minister Bill English..." (continue reading)
The new guidelines state that doctors must tell mothers concerned about their pregnancy, that abortion is one of the options. This is the first time this issue has come up in New Zealand, and comes hot on the heels of the recent assault on freedom of conscience in Victoria, Australia which requires pro-life doctors to refer women to pro-abortion doctors if they themselves are not willing to recommend that the mother has her pre-born baby killed by abortion.
And Stop Family Planning, supported by many pro-family and pro-life organisations is maintaining the pressure on the Family Planning Association who have applied to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a licence to kill pre-born babies up to 9weeks. Representatives from StopFPA and Prolife NZ have requested a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, and planning is under way for future marches in the Country's major cities.
Right to Life is heading back to the Court of Appeal on May 4-5 following the Abortion Supervisory Committee contesting several findings of Justice Miller. One of his comments was that,
"there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.”
Right to Life is a non-profit organization that seeks to be a voice influencing legislation in New Zealand on behalf of those who have absolutely no chance of themselves altering the law which concerns them. The Crown (The Abortion Supervisory Committee) has virtually unlimited funds with which it can fight the findings of Justice Miller in the High Court in July 2008.
Abortion takes the life of a helpless and innocent pre-born human person, without their consent being asked for, or given. Death by abortion is often painful to the child it is killing, and can cause medical complications and lasting psychological trauma to the mothers of the killed children. The abortion industry in new Zealand has been growing more and more arrogant, with calls from retired abortionist Margaret Sparrow and her little organisation, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand - for abortion to be completely decriminalised as it is in Victoria, Australia. ALRANZ also supports the killing of late-term disabled babies. Now the tide is turning the other way, as New Zealanders acknowledge that our abortion rate (aprox 18,000 every year) is unacceptably high, and that it is outrageous that girls of any age may have their baby killed by abortion without her parents giving consent, or even being given notification.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Family Planning Association Comes Under Fire in Wellington Pro-Life March
On Friday Stop Family Planning held their third march expressing opposition to the Abortion Supervisory Committee granting the Family Planning Association an abortion licence. The march was supported by Family First, Right to Life, Family Life International and Prolife NZ.
Accompanied by two police cars and two policemen on motorbikes the crowd of around 200 marchers made their way slowly from Civic Square to the steps of Parliament. The march was held at lunchtime, with thousands of workers in the CBD walking past the protest on their lunch-breaks. Several passers-by joined in the march and were given one of the many placards we had available. The rain eventually set in, however we pressed on - Simeon and I took turns on our new megaphone, informing observers of the purpose of our march and general information about abortion in New Zealand. We made such statements as,
"New Zealand already has an unacceptably high abortion rate; 18,000 abortions every year, and the Family Planning Association wants to commit even more... is that ok?"
"Did you know, under New Zealand's abortion law, a child has to have a permission slip from their parents for the school nurse to give them a panadol, however that same child can have an abortion without their parents' notification, or consent... is that ok?"
The marchers left no doubt in anyone's minds, with their vocal response, "NO!"
It was great to see such a big turnout, in particular with young people joining in the protest against the FPA's attempts at expanding abortion coverage and availability to young women throughout New Zealand. We are now gearing up for two more marches, details will be available soon on the Stop Family Planning website.
Meantime, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand's spokesperson Dame Margaret Sparrow speaks for her dwindling and ageing membership (of under 200), where she incorrectly states that,
Naturally, we are building on the work STOPP has been involved in in the States, however we are an entirely grassroots-based campaign, with no money or advice coming in from the States at this time.
What's wrong with the FPA getting the license? Women and girls of any age, with or without their parent's knowledge or consent would be able to go into an FPA abortion clinic and receive counselling on their crisis pregnancy. Since the FPA is pro-abortion and has a vested interest in women choosing abortion as they will gain financially, there will be a strong emphasis on the benefits of going ahead with an abortion. (read more)
click here for more photos of the march
Accompanied by two police cars and two policemen on motorbikes the crowd of around 200 marchers made their way slowly from Civic Square to the steps of Parliament. The march was held at lunchtime, with thousands of workers in the CBD walking past the protest on their lunch-breaks. Several passers-by joined in the march and were given one of the many placards we had available. The rain eventually set in, however we pressed on - Simeon and I took turns on our new megaphone, informing observers of the purpose of our march and general information about abortion in New Zealand. We made such statements as,
"New Zealand already has an unacceptably high abortion rate; 18,000 abortions every year, and the Family Planning Association wants to commit even more... is that ok?"
"Did you know, under New Zealand's abortion law, a child has to have a permission slip from their parents for the school nurse to give them a panadol, however that same child can have an abortion without their parents' notification, or consent... is that ok?"
The marchers left no doubt in anyone's minds, with their vocal response, "NO!"
It was great to see such a big turnout, in particular with young people joining in the protest against the FPA's attempts at expanding abortion coverage and availability to young women throughout New Zealand. We are now gearing up for two more marches, details will be available soon on the Stop Family Planning website.
Meantime, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand's spokesperson Dame Margaret Sparrow speaks for her dwindling and ageing membership (of under 200), where she incorrectly states that,
"...many of the ideas (and probably a lot of the money) come from the U.S., where Stop Planned Parenthood looks a lot like Stop Family Planning."
Naturally, we are building on the work STOPP has been involved in in the States, however we are an entirely grassroots-based campaign, with no money or advice coming in from the States at this time.
What's wrong with the FPA getting the license? Women and girls of any age, with or without their parent's knowledge or consent would be able to go into an FPA abortion clinic and receive counselling on their crisis pregnancy. Since the FPA is pro-abortion and has a vested interest in women choosing abortion as they will gain financially, there will be a strong emphasis on the benefits of going ahead with an abortion. (read more)
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Pro-Abortion Van-dalism Backfires
The highly active Kapiti branch of Voice for Life recently purchased a van and had it painted bright green and sign-written with various pro-life messages. The van is available for use by pro-life groups and youth-groups throughout New Zealand. On Monday, 8 Feb the van was vandalised by someone who wrote with a vivid marker, "This Vam [sic] is abusive" and further writing on the van claiming that the actual size of the pictured ultrasound scan of an aprox 20week foetus was about the size of a 10 cent coin; clearly uninformed.
"Find your own van to scribble on," Simeon Brown said to the Kapiti Observer who ran an article on the incident. The abortion debate is not going to be won by either side in this manner. I am strongly supportive of people on either side of the issue to thoroughly consider the others' points, and to approach the issue without preconceptions or slanted worldviews.
"Find your own van to scribble on," Simeon Brown said to the Kapiti Observer who ran an article on the incident. The abortion debate is not going to be won by either side in this manner. I am strongly supportive of people on either side of the issue to thoroughly consider the others' points, and to approach the issue without preconceptions or slanted worldviews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)