A matter of life and death

Almost nine million abortions: 550 every day; 3,800 every week; 16,000 every month; 200,000 every year. Every one is a human life.

Peter Saunders, chief executive of the Christian Medical Fellowship, writing in Trtiple Helix,  the CMF magazine on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act,  says there are 100,000 people alive in Northern Ireland today because they don't have a law that allows abortion like we do in the British mainland.

Apparently these figures are not sufficient. The We Trust Women campaign, driven by abortion providers BPAS and approved by the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, wants to decriminalise abortion completely, so that women can have an abortion at any time, for any reason.

No one, says Dr Saunders, would contemplate dismembering a newborn baby and throwing its body parts into a bucket. Yet because the baby is still in the womb, abortion is considered acceptable. Is tthis not discrimination nased on age, size or neurological capacity, just like racism or sexism? It is not, he says, too late to do something about it.

Think about it.

How daughter's death changed an abortionist's life

Dr Anthony Levatino is an obstetrician and gynaecologist who has done more than 1.200 abortions. When he was younger, he married and he and his wife wanted to have children. 

They found they had an infertility problem, so decided to adopt. They found the process difficult, until they found a pregnant 15-year-old who wanted to give up her baby. They adopted the baby girl, and decided to call her Heather.

When Heather was five, she was playing one day in the back yard. Her parents heard a squeal of brakes from the front of the house. Heather had wandered into the road and been hit by a car. She died in her parents' arms in the back of the ambulance.

"People who have children may think they have some idea of what that feels like. I guarantee you," says Dr Levatino, "if you haven't been through that yourself, you have no idea what it feels like, and I pray you never find out."

When he next did a D and E abortion, he looked at the pile of body parts on the table. He didn't see what a wonderful doctor he was helping the mother with a problem; he didn't see her wonderful right to choose; he didn't see the money he had just made in 15 minutes. "All I could see was someone's son or daughter."

 From then on, he did mainly suction abortions. But a change had come that he couldn't take back. "When you finally figure out that killing a baby for money is wrong, it doesn't matter if the baby is this big, this big, this big or this big, it's all the same."

Dr Levatino is the former abortionist interviewed on the videos I mentioned in my last blog post.

"I haven't done any abortions since then," he says, "and I never will."
       

How abortions are done

So British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the UK's biggest abortion providers, have launched their campaign to have all abortion legislation swept away and women free to choose to have an abortion at any time, for any reason.

No other medical procedure, they claim, is so out of touch with clinical developments and the moral thinking of the modern world.

They don't mention, of course, the sudden shock of an unplanned pregnancy; the number of women pressured into abortion by husbands, partners, parents and friends; the increased risk of mental health problems and suicide after abortion. Or the medical complications. Or the fact that abortion kills a baby.

By coincidence, a matter of days after their campaign was launched, a series of videos was published on a new website - AbortionProcedures.com - showing just how abortions are carried out. A former abortionist describes what happens in a suction D and C abortion, a D and E abortion, a late term abortion, and an abortion using abortion pills. 

There are no bloody photographs or pictures of live action; the procedures are demonstrated using animated diagrams. The videos are said to be medically accurate.

The video on D and E abortions has been viewed more than 2,700,000 times in the three weeks since it was placed on YouTube, and some viewers are said to have changed from pro-abortion to pro-life.

You can watch the videos here.
      

Providing 'spare part' babies

Women whose babies develop fatal defects in the early stages of pregnancy will be given advice on going ahead with the birth so the NHS can harvest the babies' organs, according to the Mail on Sunday.

Many mothers opt for an abortion after being told the child has no hope of survival once born. Now, the newspaper claims, mothers will be supported to have the baby at nine months so the child's organs can be taken for transplant.

Speaking of obtaining organs from newborns, transplant surgeon Niaz Ahmad, of St James University Hospital in Leeds, said "We are looking at rolling it out as a viable source of organ transplantation nationally."

At the moment, doctors will not raise the issue of donation first with expectant mothers, but wait for the women to approach the NHS themselves. However, that could change, Mr Ahmad is reported to have said.

A lead nurse has been appointed to co-ordinate efforts to educate NHS staff about talking to parents about such a sensitive issue.

In some cases, where donation had been agreed, babies could be certified brain dead, but their bodies kept alive by artificial ventilation, so organs removed would be fresh and have more chance of successful transplant.

I have previously expressed the view that brain death is not in fact death and donors would still be alive when the organs were removed.

Dr Trevor Stammers, lecturer in bioethics and medical ethics at St Mary's University College, Twickenham, said "It would be frankly abhorrent if transplant doctors were to ask women whose unborn children have been diagnosed with severe defects to let their baby go to term for the sole reason that its body can be raided for its organs.

"Mothers electing to carry babies with such severe defects to term - because they would love the child for as long as it should live - have, up till now, often been pressured to abort anyway. They have been regarded as foolish to continue the pregnancy. 

"It is concerning that mothers will now be encouraged to go to term with the express intention of the  child's organs being taken. What happens if they change their mind once they see their newborn son or daughter?

"It is a ghoulish suggestion. The concept reduces the baby to nothing more than a utilitarian means to an end - a collection of spare parts - rather than respecting life for its own sake.

"I know those organs can potentially save the lives of others, but at what cost to our humanity?

"The integrity of transplant medicine has already been compromised by using organs from euthanised adults. Raiding the bodies of children born only for their organs will further tarnish the profession."
             

Taking human life without restriction

I suppose it had to come - but it speaks volumes about the hard-as-flint state of our hearts regarding the disposal of unwanted human life.

A new organisation has made its appearance, called We Trust Women. It points out that abortion is still a crime (subsequent legislation did not alter the fact; it simply said that there would be no prosecutions if abortions were carried out according to certain circumstances).

We Trust Women says this harms women, restricts women's fundamental rights - though there has never been a right to abortion - and suggests a woman's body is her own, without making mention of the body of the unborn child. It wants all legislation sweeping away, so that nurses and midwives would be able to perform abortions, women would be able to have abortions - including sex-selection abortions - at any time without reference to doctors, and women would be able to take the abortion pill at home.

The new organisation appears to be largely the work of BPAS, Britain's largest abortion provider. (Ann Furedi, BPAS's chief executive officer, has always been honest about wanting abortion to be legal at any time for any reason.) BPAS is supported by a number of pro-abortion groups - and the Royal College of Midwives.

You might have thought that midwives. being actively involved in bringing new life into the world, might not have been in favour of such an extreme position, but the college has lent its support reportedly without having consulted its members. You can express your concern and request they consult their membership here or here.

The respected group 40 Days for Life, described as the largest internationally co-ordinated pro-life movement in history, uses three methods: prayer and fasting, community outreach and peaceful vigils. It has had remarkable successes in 32 nations.

A number of women from the group Abortion Rights accuses 40 Days for Life of coercion, harassment and intimidation. The women, "representing various denominations of Christianity" - the denominations are not specified - have founded a new organisation, Christians for Choice.

One of the founders, Edem Barbara Ntumy, writes: "I believe being pro-choice and being a Christian are not diametrically opposed." She does not explain how she reconciles the deliberate taking of innocent human life with the teachings of Christ.
       

The BBC and assisted suicide

The BBC, described as a cheerleader for assisted suicide, has again been accused of bias after the broadcast documentary this week of a man taking his own life at a Swiss clinic.

Simon Binner, a British businessman, had motor neurone disease. His wife Debbie was opposed to his taking his own life. "Watching him plan his own death, while I still wanted more time, was overwhelmingly traumatic," she said. "He had rights, but how much of his life was mine?"

The BBC was said to have made last-minute changes to the documentary, How to Die: Simon's Choice, after early copies were released to journalists. Footage of Mr Binner's corpse and scenes involving the drug used were edited after an executive from the Samaritans raised concerns that the BBC might fall foul of guidelines that prevent broadcasters from giving detailed guidance about suicide methods.

Leading blogger Archbishop Cranmer said of the programme: "This wasn't human action morally scrutinised, but political policy advanced emotively. How to Die wasn't so much concerned with how to die as why on earth not? . . .

"When will the BBC sensitively follow a pregnant woman through her BPAS or Marie Stopes counselling? When will they explore the views of her distraught partner as he weeps and longs for a chance to become a father? When will they broadcast the contentious performance and harrowing process of carrying out an abortion, and justify it all to the Guardian on the grounds of it being 'ambitious,' 1compelling,' 'groundbreaking' TV journalism of 'one of the toughest decisions there is to make'? 

"Or is it that changing the law on abortion is simply not on the BBC's political agenda?"

A petition has been organised protesting the BBC's bias and requesting them, in the interests of journalistic responsibility, to air a documentary about someone who is terminally ill and deeply opposes assisted suicide.

You can sign it here 
     .

GM babies: 'Dangerous' research planned

Permission is likely to be given shortly to UK scientists to perform genetic engineering on human embryos using a powerful new technology whose use has been banned in more than 40 countries.

Dr Kathy Niakan, of the Francis Crick Institute in London, made her case for performing genetic modification to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority last Thursday. The authority will give a ruling later this month. Research could begin as early as March.

Philippa Taylor, head of public policy at the Christian Medical Fellowship, points out that there are two types of genetic editing. It can be done to "somatic" cells in an individual patient where sperm and eggs are not affected - a "one off" cure. Or it can be done to "germline" cells in sperm or eggs or early embryos, which would pass the genetic change down through all future children.

Dr Niakan wants to use the new technique, called CRISPR/Cas9, to edit genes in day-old human embryos left over from IVF. She plans to start with a gene called Oct4, using 20 to 30 donated embryos. If this is successful, she plans to test three or four other genes, again using a further 20 to 30 embryos. The embryos will then be destroyed.

Apart from the problem of destruction of human life, any genetic change would be in every cell, including reproductive cells, meaning the changes would be passed on through future generations.

Work on germline cells has until now been prohibited and widely condemned because of the many unknown risks to future generations. The discoverers of CRISPR say the technique should not be used at this time. American scientists have said that creating gene-edited humans is "dangerous and ethically unacceptable."

Why is the UK keen to do this research? Philippa Taylor says there are plaudits and money involved. An American professor says that since the 18th century the British have been fascinated by breeding. Galtonian eugenics sprang from University College London in the 19th century.  

Ms Taylor says the British rejected eugenics after the Second World War, but IVF developers Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards voiced eugenic aims for their IVF research. The discoverers of DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick, were both eugenicists. And there is a group of neo-eugenicist philosophers and biologists pushing a eugenics agenda.

It is not certain that permission for the research will be refused. "The HFEA can never say no to scientists," was the verdict of one doctor.

For a fuller report, see here and here.  
            

Coming back from the brink

John Smeaton is director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. On the blog he writes for the society, he occasionally quotes some remarkable figures.

Like this:

It is estimated that more human beings have been killed by abortion worldwide in the past 40 years than people have been killed in all the wars in recorded human history.

Fearsome.

I have written once before on this blog about American doctor Matthew Harrison.

I told the story of Ashley, the 20-year-old daughter of Christian parents, who was in love with her boyfriend. Unexpectedly, she fell pregnant. Overcome by the circumstances, she went to an abortion clinic.There they gave her a first-stage abortion pill and watched her while she took it. (The abortion pill is a two-stage procedure. The first pill starves the baby of progesterone, which is essential for continuing development. A second pill, given  some 72 hours later, starts labour so the woman ejects a dead baby.)

Immediately, Ashley realised that what she had done was contrary to everything she believed in. She asked the abortionist what she should do if she changed her mind. She was told if she didn't take the second pill the baby would still die. If it didn't, it would be born deformed or seriously defective.

Ashley confessed to her mother what she had done. Her mother took her to a pro-life doctor - Dr Harrison - who felt he should help. It was about 36 hours since she took the pill. If he could flood Ashley's system with progesterone, there was a chance it could out-compete the abortion pill. "I told Ashley and her mother my plan, and told her the risks. This had never been done. I doubted it would work. She didn't care about the risks to her. Ashley was ready to do anything to save the baby's life."

Ashley had progesterone injections twice a week. At full term, she gave birth to a healthy baby girl.

The treatment has now been perfected : 137 babies are said to have been born without complications, and a further 76 women are still pregnant. In the US, an abortion pill reversal kit is now available under medical supervision.

At abortion clinics in the UK, more than half the abortions are done using the abortion pill. Is it possible that an abortion pill reversal kit could be made available here?
            

Your prayers can save lives

Abortion, previously illegal, was decriminalised by Parliament in 1967. We were told that the Abortion Act would allow previously illegal operations, carried out in dangerous conditions, to be done safely. There would not be a significant increase in the number of abortions. Claims that the act would lead to a large increase in numbers were decried as irresponsible and sensationalist.

The Christian church was asleep. The act was passed in a half-empty House of Commons.

Last year, according to Government figures, 201,567 babies died by abortion in England, Wales and Scotland.That's over 16,000 a month, nearly 4,000 a week, over 550 each day. Over the past 48 years, over seven million babies have died from legally permitted abortion - equivalent to a tenth of the total population.

The number of babies who die from abortion in the UK each day equals two Lockerbie disasters. The number of babies aborted each week is greater than the number of people killed at the World Trade Centre on 9/11. The number aborted in two years exceeds the number of British casualties in the whole of the Second World War.

Of last year's abortions, 98 per cent were carried out for so-called social reasons. Less than two per cent were carried out because of suspected handicap.

Next Tuesday, October 27, is the National Day of Prayer about abortion. Can we arrange a prayer meeting in our town? Can we pray with our church, our house group or our youth group? Can we pray with friends? Can we pray at home? 

You can find information to help with prayer here. 
       

Controversial or not, she won

Lia Mills was 12 years old. When it was announced they were having a speech competition at her school. Lia decided to enter, and wrote a speech for the occasion.

Her teacher said she could give the speech to her class, but she couldn't use it for the competition, as the subject was too controversial. But after hearing the speech in class, the teacher changed her mind and said she could go ahead.

There was one thing, though. One phrase in the speech made reference to God. The teacher wanted that phrase removed.

After an anxious night, Lia said she couldn't remove the phrase, so she would withdraw from the competition. Again the teacher relented.

Too controversial? What do you think? 

You can hear the speech here.

By the way, Lia won the competition.
        

A barrier that should not be crossed

Britain is inching towards legalised euthanasia. Make no mistake, Britain will have legalised euthanasia - unless people get their act together and stand up for the laws we already have.

In Holland, where euthanasia is permitted, it is admitted that people are now being killed without a request on their part. In Belgium, where euthanasia is legal, children are able to ask to be killed, and psychiatric patients are being put to death. It couldn't happen here? Oh yes, it could.

Well financed organisations here in favour of euthanasia have decided that assisted suicide should be the first step. There have been umpteen attempts to revise the law in recent years. All have failed - so far. Lord Falconer's assisted dying bill in the Lords ran out of time in the last Parliament. Labour MP Rob Marris has taken up his cause in the Commons. His bill will have its second reading in the next two weeks.

We are told that a majority of people are in favour of allowing assisted suicide. We are fed with a steady stream of high profile stories of a small number of people apparently in desperate straits. Why should they have to go to Switzerland? Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide when to end their own lives, and have help when they need it?

Hard cases make bad law. Permitting assisted suicide would place intolerable pressure on  elderly and sick who feel they are a burden to relatives.

A group of almost 80 doctors have written an open letter to MPs, published in the Telegraph. "We regularly come across patients who feel a burden to their relatives and to society." Assisted suicide proposals, they say, devalue the most vulnerable in society.

Some families would use the law to exert pressure on relatives. "Most families are loving and caring, but some are not. We do from time to time come across cases where there are signs of subtle pressures being exerted. These are difficult to prove, but they can be very real, and we fear that if Parliament were to legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill people, they would be given free rein." 

The discussion and vote at the second reading of the Marris bill is on September 11. September 11 is a Friday. Some MPs leave early on Fridays to go home or to their constituencies for the weekend. A number of MPs have indicated that they will not be there for the vote. If it passes at second reading, they say, it will still be possible to prevent it from becoming law.

But a victory for the pro-euthanasia lobby at second reading would be a tremendous psychological boost and make it much more difficult to prevent awarding the bill further parliamentary time in the future. Write or visit your MP and point out that it is vital to attend the vote. If you require further information, you will find all you need here or here.

Parliament has never hitherto been willing to condone doctors' taking innocent human life. That's a barrier that should never be crossed. What we need is good quality care, not killing.

The law has only to be changed once. If it changes, it will change forever.
         

'They taught that they weren't alive'

Stojan Adasevic was an abortionist in Serbia. He worked five days a week, and did 20, 30 or 35 abortions a day. He performed 48,000 abortions, although some say the total was closer to 60,000.

After a time, he started having a recurring dream. In the dream, children and young people were playing in a beautiful field. They ran away from him in fear. A man stared at him in silence.

One night the man spoke. "Why don't you ask me who the children are?" he said. "These are the ones you killed with your abortions." Adasevic would wake up in a cold sweat.

Then one day he was aborting a baby three or four months old. It was the woman's ninth abortion. As he started the procedure, the amniotic fluid flowed out.

He went in with his abortion forceps and pulled out a hand, which he placed on the table. The hand fell on some iodine which someone had spilled. As the nerve endings touched the iodine, the hand began to move.

"It's moving by itself," he thought.

He went in again and pulled out something else. Let it not be a leg, he told himself. It was a leg. He went to put the leg carefully on the table, but there was a bang behind him, and he dropped it. It fell next to the hand, and the leg too began to move by itself.

He went in again, and began to crush everything inside the uterus. When he took out the forceps, they were holding a beating heart. He watched as the heart continued to beat, slower and slower, until it stopped.

He decided he would never do an abortion again. When he told the hospital, they cut his salary by half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter university.

"They taught that life began with the first cry," he says. "When a baby cries for the first time. That up to that moment, a human being is like any other organ in a woman's body, like an appendix.

"That's why, immediately after birth, children were taken and their heads submerged in a bucket of water. A child would take in water instead of air, and never cry. Terrible, but that's how things were."

Stojan Adasevic is now a pro-life advocate. You can see more details of his story here.
       

Convenient excuses

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider and promoter of abortions in the United States, performing some 400,000 abortions a year - one abortion every 94 seconds. Recently a series of videos has been released of secretly filmed footage of interviews with Planned Parenthood executives.

They appear to show that Planned Parenthood sells body parts from aborted babies. (American law says "It shall be unlawful.for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human foetal tissue for valuable consideration.")

The latest video to be released appears to demonstrate that Planned Parenthood is guilty of after-birth abortion.

 Two interviewers posing as representatives of a foetal tissue procurement company want to know how many babies are aborted intact. "Probably less than 10 per cent," says Dr Savita Ginde, vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood, Rocky Mountains. "Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we are able to see them for a procedure, then we are intact."

The website Anglican Mainstream prints the following quotation from Dr Francis Schaeffer:

"Christians have largely shut up their Christianity into a small corner of life, Sunday church or their Bible studies instead of realising that the Lordship of Christ is to permeate the whole spectrum of life. They have coasted along complacently, often serving up such dogmas as 'you can't mix religion and politics,' or 'you can't regulate morality,' or 'we just need to pray and witness to people' - when what they really meant was 'we just don't want to be disturbed.' They were content in their 'comfort zone.'"
     

A matter of life and death

Three sets of circumstances seem to have found their way into the news in recent days.

The first happened at Marie Stopes abortion clinic in Ealing, West London. After suffering an abortion, a woman is said to have collapsed on the floor, hyperventilating due to bleeding from a tear in her uterus. She was discharged a few hours later. She fell unconscious in the taxi and was pronounced dead at hospital.

A doctor and two nurses have been charged with manslaughter by gross negligence.

The second occurred at Peckham in Lopdon. A woman who was 32 weeks pregnant was attacked in the street and kicked in the stomach. She was critically ill in intensive care. The baby died.

A 21-yar-old man, said to be the woman's ex-boyfriend, was charged with destroying the life of a child capable of being born alive.

The third circumstance was an announcement that so-called emergency contraception is now legally available nationwide to girls under the age of consent.

The drug, called ellaOne, can be offered under the NHS to any girl of reproductive age if it is stocked at the pharmacy. It is said to be effective up to five days after sexual intercourse.

The circumstances are different, but all have one thing in common - a lack of respect for unborn life. Some years ago, it is most unlikely that any one would have happened. Now the process of change is almost complete.

Soon I will be the criminal. For trying to force women to have babies. For daring to question a woman's "right to choose." For standing up for the lives of innocent unborn babies.
          

Doctors should 'always care, never kill'

Brittany Maynard was the 29-year-old woman who chose assisted suicide in Oregon rather than suffer a slow decline because of a brain tumour.

Before her death she made two videos which went viral on YouTube. Not surprising, says the bioethics group BioEdge, as a professional story-telling consultant was employed as part of a multi-platform media campaign directed by a public relations firm on behalf of the assisted suicide group Compassion and Choices.

BioEdge quotes Ryan T. Anderson, of the Heritage Foundation:

"Allowing physician-assisted suicide would be a grave mistake for four reasons. First, it would endanger the weak and vulnerable. Second, it would corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship. Third, it would compromise the family and intergenerational commitments. And fourth, it would betray human dignity and equality before the law. . .

"Doctors should help their patients to die a dignified death of natural causes, not assist in killing. Physicians are always to care, never to kill."

Here is a video by Maggie Karner, a woman with exactly the same complaint as Brittany Maynard, pleading with her not to take her life, but live. It is worth watching. You can see it here.
        

Yells, jeers - and tears

A pro-life counsellor tells why she does what she does.

She was helping others look after an open-air pro-life display. Three young women decided to sit nearby and started yelling and making fun of hem. One of them shouted "Hey, I wanna talk to you, anti-abortion person."

She went over. The woman couldn't put her words together, stringing together question after question. "OK," she said, "just tell me why you're here. Like why do you hate abortion?"

As the woman grew more and more upset, the counsellor could tell the woman had had a personal experience with abortion. "Well," the woman said, "I think women should be able to kill it if they don't want it."

"So you think it's human then, and you recognise abortion is killing something?"

"No, it's just blood. Seriously, I know. I had an abortion." She grabbed her phone and held it to the counsellor's face. "See, it's just blood."

She had taken a photo of her own aborted baby. The baby was 15 weeks old. She turned to another photo. "Actually, you can see a leg and a foot in this one." You could, too.

The counsellor began to cry. She apologised to the woman, and said she couldn't help it. The woman's eyes welled up with tears too.
 
The counsellor gave the woman her telephone number and the address of a pregnancy counselling centre she could  contact for help when she was ready.
 
"I am confident that she will seek post-abortion healing," said the counsellor. "I trust God will take care of her. I will pray for her every day, as I know she is grieving.

"This is why I do what I do."
     

A remarkable change of opinion

Fiona Bruce, a former lawyer, entered the House of Commons as a Conservative MP in 2010. She is pro-life. In November last year she proposed abortion law should be clarified to make it clear that abortion purely on the ground of the child's sex is illegal.

The Abortion Act did not specify this, because scans to determine sex were not available when the law was passed. The Government insisted that sex-selective abortions were illegal, but the British Medical Association and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service said such abortions were sometimes justified. Sex-selective abortions were happening.

Ms Bruce's bill was passed by 181 votes to 1. Quite a majority. The BBC said it was unlikely to become law because of a lack of time.

On February 23 this year, Ms Bruce proposed the measure as an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill. The amendment was defeated by 292 votes to 201. A review of sex-selective abortion was agreed on instead.

What happened in the meantime?

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper wrote to Labour MPs saying new legislation was not needed, and attempts to outlaw abortion on grounds of gender could have "troubling consequences."

Labour MP Robert Fiello said "It is concerning that an amendment that clarified what should be the law anyway is meeting with such vehement opposition. The reasons they have given are scaremongering nonsense."

 "Given how modest the amendment was, the sudden defeat was very strange indeed," wrote Dr Tim Stanley in the Telegraph. A number of charges had been made by MPs against the amendment that were based on either misunderstandings or outright falsehoods. "On the day of the vote, according to sources present, Ms Cooper stood by the entrance to the lobby telling MPs that 'We are voting no on this one.'"

Her office claimed she had not said this, but confirmed that she was strongly opposed to the amendment, and also favours putting "buffer zones" around clinics to stop people protesting outside them. (A campaign named "Back Off" has been organised to prevent people offering help to women approaching clinics. Not all women want abortions. Some do not see any other option.)

In the two weeks since the vote, I have pondered the change of mind. The abortion lobby generally favours abortion at any time for any reason. I am forced to the opinion that those in favour of abortion consider any attempt to change the law an attack on their efforts to achieve that goal. .
       

Government to vote on genetically modified babies

The Government is trying to legalise the creation of genetically modified babies. To prevent mitochondrial disease, it proposes creating modified embryos from a minimum of three parents, which would then be implanted by IVF. The proposal is expected to be voted on in the House of Commons this Tuesday, February 3.

Genetic modifications are expected to be passed on not only to the child, but to all future descendants. There is no way of knowing what the long-term effects might be.

The procedure will necessarily involve the destruction of living human embryos.

The procedure is currently prohibited by international law. We would be the first nation in the world to permit it.

The Department of Health is claiming widespread approval for the proposal, despite its own consultation having shown a majority of the public opposed to the idea.

It is not too late to send an e-mail to your MP, asking him or her to vote against the measure.

Ypu can see further details here or here.
       

First birthday for baby saved from death

Mrs Mhairi Morris, of Crawley, West Sussex, was 20 weeks pregnant when her waters broke. She was taken to East Surrey Hospital, where a consultant told her her baby was a "non-viable foetus."

She says the consultant told her there was nothing he could do about it, and she would have to go to theatre. Mrs Morris felt so long as the baby was alive, she had to give him a chance. When she declined an abortion, the consultant rolled his eyes.

Doubting her resolve, Mrs Morris researched her condition on the internet, and found it was possible to carry on with her pregnancy. She was placed under the care of a woman consultant, who "kept writing 'termination of pregnancy' on my notes."

The baby was born at 25 weeks. He is now a beautiful, bright-eyed boy, and has just celebrated his first birthday.

An NHS Trust official said Mrs Morris had been given a range of options.

With abortion being so easily available, it seems the nation has lost its respect for human life.

Suppose assisted suicide were legalised. Then where would we be? 
    

Mother pleads for child to die

A 12-year-old girl has died in hospital after having food and drink withheld - with court permission. It is the first time a child not on life support and not suffering from a terminal illness has legally been caused to die.

Nancy Fitzmaurice was born with hydrocephalus, meningitis and septicaemia. She could not walk, talk, eat or drink. She needed 24-hour hospital care and was fed and watered by tube.

Her mother, Charlotte Fitzmaurice (36), of Ilford, said "Simple things like birds singing and hearing children play would put the most beautiful smile on her face. She loved Michael Buble, and when I slurped my tea she would give out a hearty chuckle." 

Nancy had apparently developed neurological problems and screamed with pain, despite painkillers.

The mother told the High Court "My daughter is no longer my daughter, she is now merely a shell. I truly believe she has endured enough. For me to say that breaks my heart. But I have to say it."

Justice Eleanor King, granting permission for nutrition and hydration to be withheld, said of Nancy "In her own closed world she has had some quality of life. Sadly that is not the case now."  It took 14 days for Nancy to die.

Said Charlotte: "Watching my daughter suffer for days while they cut off her fluids was unbearable. She went in pain. All I wanted was for my daughter to die with dignity with me holding her hand. Although I will live with the guilt forever, I know I have done everything I can for her and she is at peace.

"Although I know it was the right thing to do, I will never forgive myself. It shouldn't have to be a mother's decision to end a child's life. I believe hospitals and parents should be able to decide without mothers or fathers going to court."

Said Dr Andrew Fergusson, of Care Not Killing: "It is never ethical to speed up the process of dying by any intervention which has the primary intention to end life. Weakening laws that protect the sick, disabled and elderly would put vulnerable people at risk."

ASAN, an American charity, said "Euthanasia of people with disabilities is an extremely dangerous and wholly inappropriate solution to inadequate pain management. In cases where painkillers are insufficient, a number of alternatives for pain management exist."