Monday, March 24, 2014

Horror wrapped in compassion


Much lip service is paid to women by those who support abortion on demand. Their position, they say, is a compassionate and humane one. Yet all too often women are hurt, or allowed to be potentially put in harm's way thanks to the efforts of these same compassionate, humane people.

So many attempts to have abortion mills regulated like other medical practices have been opposed and thwarted by Abortion supporters that it seems ridiculous at this point to list them. But there are a couple of things that haven't been addressed sufficiently.

First, the so-called War on Women. By liberal standards, the very thought of prohibiting any kind of abortion is an attack on women. Since many conservative Republicans do not condone late term abortions, or abortions for anything other than to save the life of the mother (excuse the term,) they are de-facto at war with women. In war there are casualties, and in the abortion arena there plenty of female casualties.

In an article from The Telegraph dated March 24th, 2014, the head of BPAS, the organization that conducts over a quarter of the abortions committed in the U.K. every year,Ann Fuerdi tells an interviewer that aborting a child because you want a boy instead of the girl in your womb is fine. Its no different, she says, than being permitted to abort in the case of rape or incest. Current British law backs her up, I'm afraid. And the practice of eliminating girls before birth in India and China is no secret. Are these practices not a war on women? Are such acts compassionate or humane?


Second, if we do not recognize the pre born infant as a human being then it must be nothing more than lifeless tissue. What happens to that tissue? British government officials were shocked to discover recently that a great deal of these remains were incinerated for energy creation at hospital facilities. Sound humane?

Again, from The Telegraph,

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.
Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.
If I were to read about such practices in a dystopian science fiction novel set in a post apocalyptic future I wouldn't be as surprised. But this is happening now, in a civilized society. From a search query, Ask.com responded with "all tissue is disposed of in a sensitive way."

But if the remains are nothing more than tissue, what is all the fuss about? Why are officials from the Department of Health going on record as calling the practice abhorrent, calling for an immediate halt to such practices?

Britain's Channel Four says over 15,000 were incinerated at 27 National Health Service hospitals over the past two years. I don't need to read the novel. I'm living in a dystopian world now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10316715/Women-are-legally-free-to-abort-a-baby-because-of-its-sex-says-abortion-charity-head.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10717566/Aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-UK-hospitals.html







No comments:

Post a Comment