Killing Babies

Posted on by

First of all, thanks to everyone who gave advice on marketing. I can see it’s not going to be easy, but you guys have probably saved me from spending a fortune in the wrong places. Yes, I did say all book stuff would go to the blog on the new site but, well, catch-22… I needed advice on publicising a site that’s new and unknown. Asking for advice on that site would have been futile, even though that’s where that post properly belonged.

While I’ve been messing with a new site and Farcebok page, a lot more weird stuff has happened. Notably, the laughable demand by the EU that Venezuela have ‘free and fair Presidential elections’. This, from the EU! None of the top brass of the EU are elected, they are appointed. And they have the cheek to criticise another country’s elections? I think they need to cut back a little on swimming in the wine lake.

The big one, for me, was the news that New York, rapidly becoming the New California, has decided to allow abortion up to the day before birth. Vermont, apparently, is about to do the same.

Disclaimer: I have never been involved in an abortion situation and have no close links with anyone who has. I can’t imagine the kind of thoughts going through the heads of those involved but I’m sure it’s pretty damn traumatic.

That might mean I’m not ‘qualified’ to speak on the subject, in the modern smug-bastard put-down language, but I’m going to anyway.

I don’t like abortion as a concept. That does not mean I am ‘against’ it. It does not mean I’m going to camp out outside abortion clinics and wave a banner saying ‘Down with this sort of thing’. It does not mean I am going to demand abortion be made illegal. It means exactly what it says. I, personally, don’t like it. That’s it. No hidden messages.

I would, in fact, be very much opposed to making abortion illegal. It will just drive women to dodgy backstreet abortionists. No, if it’s going to happen at all, let’s at least leave it in the hands of properly trained medics.

These days we have contraception in many forms. Here in Scotland, the contraceptive pill is free and if you go into the doctor’s, you can help yourself to free condoms. Really. There is no excuse for ‘accidental’ pregnancy.

There is, of course, rape. In that instance, abortion is a woman’s only sensible option since our idiot lawmakers have decided that a rapist has parental and visitation rights of any child that results from their violence. A ludicrous decision that only ensures the raped woman will be pushed towards abortion. Otherwise she has to endure regular visits from her rapist. By law. There are divorced dads who don’t get that right.

Still, an unwanted pregnancy should, at the least, be visible three months in. New York’s law means that even after the woman has felt the baby moving, even after the time when a premature baby has a very good chance of making it, she can choose to kill that baby.

And let’s be clear. At that point, it’s not a foetus any more. It’s a baby. Sure, it’s still inside the woman but it’s fully formed and will likely survive a surgical removal. What then? Do they let it starve or put it down like a dog? It’s going to die in a way that these same people would not allow to happen to a violent criminal. In fact, these same people oppose the death penalty with ‘right to life’ slogans.

In the UK there is a continual push to extend the time allowed for abortion. I think it’s currently at 29 weeks, I might not have that figure exactly right. It’s considered that the developing child is not self-aware at that point and I have to admit I have no idea when a developing foetus becomes aware. I would say though that if it is moving, there is brain function – but I don’t claim to be an ‘expert’ any more than I claim to be brainless in any other field.

New York, and now Vermont, has taken it to the extreme. Or have they? Is this the final point in this branch of Righteousness? They have no final point in any other branch, so why here?

In a few years, will you be able to take your noisy toddler for euthanasia? A few decades more and your basement gamer 30-year-old who won’t move out or get a job… can you send him for organ donation? Well, why not? You can, right now in New York and soon in Vermont, terminate a perfectly healthy, fully formed baby on a whim.

If you have followed Righteous behaviour in every other field they have played in, you know there is no end point to any of their demands. Why would there be one here?

Expect ‘Retrospective Abortion’ in the next few years.

20 thoughts on “Killing Babies”

      • You’re splitting hairs, I think, Sackerson. It is a different genome, naturally, but it is formed from the DNA of both parents, which is why baby might have “dad’s nose” or “mum’s chin” and why, as every new generation is more mutated than the previous one, hereditary diseases are increasing.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply ↓

          • Ah! You are correct, of course. I should concentrate more. It brings to mind Solomon’s ruling (1 Kings 3:16-28) that a baby being claimed by two mothers should be cut in half. Not intending to do it, I imagine, but the real mother offered her child to the woman whose baby had died, thus demonstrating that she was the real mum.

            It also shows the maternal instincts, with the mother of the dead woman so desperate for a child, and perhaps in denial that hers was dead, that she’d steal one. I guess that the ‘maternal instinct’ these days makes feminists gag, like in ‘Brave New World’.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply ↓

  7. I’m vehemently against abortion for any reason. As Robbo says, the mother only has temporary custody and the child is 50% the dad’s, genetically and otherwise, yet I get called a misogynist. I don’t get called a feminist for objecting to gender-selective abortions (which happens in Britain) targeting girls. Strange that. As the pro-choice (pro-abortion) lobby has no reasonable excuses, name-calling, swearing and false logic are all they have left.

    No, it won’t end at ‘terminations’ up to birth; some degenerates have been calling for ‘abortion’ up to two years after birth for many years. A couple of years ago. a 41 year-old Dutchman was euthanised because he couldn’t give up the booze.

    https://metro.co.uk/2016/11/29/alcoholic-41-given-lethal-injection-because-he-saw-death-as-his-only-option-6288974/

    The poll on that link shows that 77% are in favour of giving chronic alcoholics the “option” of ending their life. This is especially worrying because if this becomes more commonplace then the “option” might be removed and alcoholics and drug addicts will have the same choice as the unborn: none.

    Article 5 of the the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states that “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law…” Then it lists people the exceptions apply to, such as those who have broken the law, but it also allows for “the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants.”

    A new life has started at conception; the instructions for life are there. People seem to misunderstand that not being fully developed does not mean not being fully human. I have found that this picture opens eyes.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  8. I’m a woman. The emotional effects of abortion are dreadful with regret and guilt for life. I don’t understand the “not self aware” angle. Dementia patients are not self aware, we could just kill them instead of keeping them alive. In the UK abortions are allowed far too late in a pregnancy. I am pro abortion done right at the beginning of a pregnancy, or as a D and C, quick and soon after a missed period/suspected pregnancy/confirmed reading. Otherwise, I’m against. The new N.Y. law absolutely appalled me. With such a choice for couples (I believe it’s a man’s choice too, or should be in all cases except rape) the emotional agony will be almost unendurable. I’m old fashioned and believe partner discrimination before marraige is a virtue, but birth control has given women permission to sleep around with anyone anywhere, any time and to hell with anything else.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • Yes, the “not self-aware” or “not viable” reasons are very bad excuses. How viable is a two year-old without parents/guardians? It isn’t, except in the extremely unlikely event of it being adopted by wolves.

      But whatever age you set for the limit, the truth is that a human being is being erased from history. That’s not anyone’s “right”, not even after rape. You can read accounts of people who were born out of rape who are desperately glad that their mothers chose for them to live.

      One of the problems with making contraception attractive (while denigrating marriage) is that the same people are in charge of abortion. It stems back to the pre-WWII eugenics ideas, but murdering tens of thousands of handicapped people, as happened in 1930s Germany, would have been unacceptable to most people, so they kill them in the womb instead. Marie Stopes concentrated her ‘clinics’ in areas where the ‘lower orders’ lived and thought that various groups of people she didn’t like should be sterilised.

      I was debating with people on a Facebook page belonging to a U.S. organisation that sterilises drug addicts. After many exchanges it was clear that the people who supported this didn’t give a stuff about the addicts (some openly mocking them) and were in to the overpopulation myth and really didn’t want these lower orders reproducing and being a strain on society. Their – on the face of it – charity, was just self-interest.

      And for the politically correct, to suffer is arguably the greatest evil (along with discrimination against chosen groups), so they prefer people not being born and thus avoiding suffering, but we all suffer. That’s life!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

  9. You allow free speech, so here goes.

    The law at the moment allows doctors to perform an abortion up to 24 weeks gestation.

    Most “abortions” are carried out during the first 9 weeks and involves taking 2 pills. The first stops nutrients to the foetus. The 2nd, taken within 48 hrs of the first induces a miscarriage.

    We’re talking over 80% using the pill method and the very silly rules that previously forced mothers to take the 2nd pill at the clinic. Ergo some women discharged the bloody mess in cars, taxis, public transport and even in the street.

    I put in a stack of time researching this and came up with

    http://mullingscot.com/legislative-changes-early-pregnancy-abortion-pills.html

    Now I don’t claim any religion, nor do I knock them either. If backed into a corner I’d probably go with pagan, because I go with the earth mother stuff and all that entails.

    So no I do not go with forcing a woman to endure a full term, even if her intent is to put the child up for adoption, if it was conceived by rape or incest.

    As I am the offspring of first cousins, let me assure you that inbreeding carries a whole bunch of serious genetic problems. My parents didn’t have a clue what that entailed. I do and hundreds of thousands in the Islamic world know that too.

    Nor could I force a woman to go through the whole shebang if her life was at risk.

    But most of all, for the sake of the child, I could not make a woman go to term if she simply did not want the child. That old man who made his daughter have his kids in Austria. That couple in California who had 14 of them and brutalised the lot, or that woman who kept her son locked under the stairs for two years.

    I wouldn’t like it, no Sir I would not.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

    • As I wrote, above: But whatever age you set for the limit, the truth is that a human being is being erased from history. That’s not anyone’s “right”, not even after rape. You can read accounts of people who were born out of rape who are desperately glad that their mothers chose for them to live.

      Further, this oft-used excuse of children being born who weren’t wanted or who are badly treated or the family doesn’t have enough money and so on – this probably applies to most people who have ever been born! Before the snowflake generation was the “free” love generation; put them together and you have a whingeing population who demand sex but don’t necessarily want the real deal, i.e. to be in a loving relationship: wham, bam, thank you Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms. Broken lives/broken society/dead kids/euthanised adults.

      The slippery slope has led to the culling of kids up to the moment just before birth. Even in Britain this can happen with babies who are deemed to have a disability. 9 out of 10 with Down’s are prenatally executed. So much for equality. They can be murdered in the womb, but when alive, we spend a fortune on disabled toilets, wheelchair access, special teachers, etc. It seems to me that one has to give – either the (suspected) disabled unborn are protected or we revisit 1930s Germany, because the before/after birth situations are incompatible.

      My good friend’s friend is married to his first cousin and all their children seem to be normal, but they might be the exception, I don’t know.

      For those who worship the creation rather than the Creator, I came across this website just a couple of days ago: http://www.policepaganassociation.org/

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  11. “Otherwise she has to endure regular visits from her rapist. By law.” So, arsehole goes to visit kiddy, enters home, never seen again! Being a piece of shit, he is missed by no one including his own family, and the uneven spot in the back garden slowly but surely gives in to the garden roller. I have few strong feelings about abortion, save that it should only be in cases of dire necessity, but I am bang against giving rights to scum!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Elizabeth Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.