Archive for the ‘abortion’ Category

All hail the Obamessiah!

November 5, 2008

US Republican presidential candidate John McCain just conceded, and liberals all over the States have gone berserk, weeping and falling to the ground to worship the new President. It really is that stomach churning. And I’m not exactly a Republican kinda guy…

What is interesting is that in NZ’s Scoop website coverage, the first thing Gordon Campbell wrote about after the announcement of Obama’s presumed election (always wait for the official result – remember 2004?), was abortion. Namely, the US President’s ability to appoint new Supreme Court judges, and the impact Obama would have on the Roe vs Wade abortion legalisation decision.

Obama is rumoured to want a Freedom of Choice Act, similar to the legalisation moves recently passed in Victoria, Australia; removing all reference to abortion being the taking of a human life (current laws allow that unborn child’s life to be taken, but claim it is justifiable, so makes it legal). Will Obama listen to the pro-life voices, or will he trample on human rights of the most vulnerable?

Advertisements

Freedom of religion? Not in Victoria!

September 25, 2008

Update: Sadly, this ‘abortion as a human right’ bill has been passed by the State of Victoria in Australia. Abortion is now considered to be an entirely legal action – no longer even considered the ‘acceptable’ taking of a life, it is not even deemed the taking of a life anymore. It seems some Australians think unborn children not worthy of recognition as humans. Which begs the question – what do Victorians consider the point where life begins, and why?

—————

I shouldn’t be surprised, but am, at how venal the anti-life bigots are. The state of Victoria in Australia has passed (in its Lower House; they also have an Upper House) a draconian pro-abortion law that actually forces doctors & nurses to perform an abortion – even if abortion is against their religion – if the mother’s life is “at risk”. What is deemed “at risk” is subjective, of course.

(3) Despite any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered medical practitioner is under a duty to perform an abortion in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
(4) Despite any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered nurse is under a duty to assist a registered medical practitioner in performing an abortion in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.

Interesting to note that the law itself revises the Crimes Act to change the definition of ‘serious injury’ to include:

15(2)(b) the destruction, other than in the course of a medical procedure, of the foetus of a pregnant woman, whether or not the woman suffers any other harm;”.

So, you’re guilty of causing serious injury if you destroy an unborn child, but not if you kill the child by aborting them… And causing serious injury to who? The Crimes Act is all about injuring people – this is a tacit admission the unborn child is human – just not one we are too concerned about when the mother doesn’t want them, but concerned if the mum does want to keep her/him. Nice.

The stunning thing is the vile stream of verbal vomit that spouts forth from those anti-life campaigners. No Right Turn posits this is Catholics somehow ‘killing’ a mother whose life is at risk from the continued pregnancy or birth of her child. Total lies!

Any doctor & nurse has a duty – which no religion opposes – to try and save both mother and child. What anti-lifers want is for Catholic hospitals, doctors & nurses to be forced to kill the unborn child to ‘save’ the mother’s life, while ignoring the option of trying to save both lives.

Pure bigotry – the anti-life campaign is openly stating that freedom of religion is now ‘trumped’ by their imposed standard of the ‘wishes of the mother’, i.e. the convenience of the mother.

While the tiny proportion of mothers who genuinely face risk to their life from continued pregnancy or birth are in an unenviable position (which includes a friend of mine), I support the medical staff who uphold the Hippocratic Oath and do everything in their power to save the lives of both mother and child.

Otherwise, the logical corollary is for those getting treatment for cancer caused by passive smoking, say, to force the doctors to kill their smoker family members who ‘posed the risk’ to the patients life (by causing the cancer, and probably continuing to smoke and pose the risk). Crazy? Yep, and that’s the anti-life position.

I hope the Victorian Upper House has the brains, courage and compassion to vote down this evil law for ‘abortion on demand’ that tries to overrule our long established human rights freedoms – the right not to be killed, and the right not to be forced to break our religious beliefs.

Will the anti-life religious police crucify doctors & nurses who won’t obey? Or just throw them in jail to rot? What humanitarians…

Dodgy Doc forces murder?

February 24, 2008

An interesting – and disturbing – comment from one of the women abused by dodgy medical doctor Roman Hasil when he was at Wanganui hospital.

One woman who aborted her child told the Listener: “I basically had to murder somebody because some bastard put me in that situation. It won’t go away.”

So, this poor woman acknowledges her abortion of her unborn child as murder, but (understandably) blames the bungling surgeon whose failed operation allowed her to become pregnant. 

While I feel immense sympathy for her, is it not strange she is so angry over a failed non-lethal (for her) operation, yet was able to – in her own words – murder her own child?

Chilling resonance with the Manurewa tagger murder – the disproportionately harsh outcome (murder in each case) gets little criticism, while the minor event (tagging or bungled gyno op) that triggered the worse event gets slammed.

Make no mistake – Dr Hasil should be struck off and jailed in my view, and was largely responsible for her pregnancy (not wholely, as no such operation can be fully relied upon). What amazes me is her ability to recognise her act of murder, while deflecting most of the attention onto the inept doctor whose actions led to it…

Disturbing that unborn children are seen as so remote from the rest of humanity that they can be acknowledged as killed with no apparent emotion or follow-up.

Even more disturbing is that those who advocate most strenuously for nil violence to children (e.g. Green MP Sue Bradford), are the first to claim a women’s right to kill their unborn children for convenience (not disrupting the mother’s life)…