Recently in Culture of Death Category

New York Woman Charged With Attempting to Kill Unborn Baby in Forced Abortion

A New York City woman has been charged in a case that saw her attempt to force her husband's pregnant mistress to have an abortion using one part of the dangerous abortion drug mifepristone. When the abortion failed and the baby was born prematurely, she attempted to kill the infant.

From CNSNews.com:

Fight Climate Change With Free Condoms, U.N. Population Fund Says

The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.

The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: "Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."

"As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic," the report said.

The world's population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations.

The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," the report said [my emphasis].

Interestingly enough, it turns out that imposing measures to limit births among specific groups of people fits the UN definition of genocide.

The propaganda: You know, abortion is all about reproductive freedom and the life and health of the mother and you can't tell a woman what to do with her body and though I'm personally opposed to abortion I support a woman's right to choose and... (ad nauseam).

The truth:

Woman's Lawsuit: She Yelled Stop, Practitioner Continued With Forced Abortion

Hodari, who has killed at least two women in botched abortions, put a for sale sign on his Flint, Michigan center last week and also on his facilities in Livonia and Southgate.

Local pro-life advocate Judy Climer of Flint Right to Life told LifeNews.com that there is a "a fresh lawsuit against him, the clinic and former employee(s)," filed by Caitlin Bruce.

Climer noted Bruce says Hodari forced her to have an abortion after she declined.

. . .

Bruce alleges that she went to Hodari's clinic seeking an abortion, but, before the abortion began, she changed her mind, decided against it and told Hodari. However, Hodari and his assistant forcibly restrained Bruce and held her down, according to her suit.

Bruce screamed "Stop, stop, I don't want this," but her mouth was covered to muffle her pleas while Hodari forced her to have the abortion.

The lawsuit notes six counts against Hodari including lack of informed consent/medical malpractice, battery, fraud, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ethnic/gender intimidation.

. . .

Newman also notes that this is not the first time Hodari has been accused of forcing a woman to have an abortion.

...so I used the Americans United for Life form for sending an e-mail to my senators and congressman. They provide a ready-to-send message although I slightly edited mine. My edited message reads as follows:

I am very concerned about the health care reform proposals currently moving through Congress. None of the bills under consideration in Congress contain language that would sufficiently prevent federal funding of abortion or mandatory abortion coverage; in fact, amendments that would have added such language were defeated in all five committees of jurisdiction. The killing of those not yet born is the antithesis of health care and does not constitute reform.

So far, the plans being considered in Congress either expressly include abortion coverage and funding or delegate to bureaucratic committees the responsibility of determining whether abortion coverage and funding is mandated. Over 70% of the American people oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. U.S. taxpayers should be protected in law from being forced to pay for something they overwhelmingly oppose.

In your consideration of the various health care reform proposals before Congress, I urge you to vote against any bill that does not explicitly exclude abortion coverage and funding. I look forward to watching your votes on this very important issue.

I would encourage everyone to contact their congressmen and senators, either by e-mail, in writing, or by telephone. In our government of the people, for the people, and by the people, "the people" doesn't mean the general population, but rather the people who own the country. It was, after all, the intention of James Madison that our government protect the "minority of the opulent against the majority," and it appears that he was successful in forming such a government. Under such authority our speaking out may not make the slightest difference. We must still make our voices heard.

The Examiner interviewed an abortionist to get his response to the current 40 Days for Life campaign, and it is an interesting insight into the mindset of the Culture of Death. The commentary by Aggie Catholics is also worth reading (and it is from them that I stole the title).

What I find most fascinating is that the atheist abortionist sums up very concisely the Catholic position on the link between abortion and birth control, and—in a very weird, twisted, and ironical sense—agrees with it:

If you consider a fertilized egg a pregnancy, which religious people do, then taking certain birth control pills is just as much an abortion as anything else. It's somewhat interesting that many people who would demonstrate against an abortion service think nothing of taking birth control pills. Ethically, you cannot differentiate between the two [my emphasis].

Hmmm... An atheist abortionist recognizes that contraception and abortion are intrinsically linked together—so why is this something that not a few Christians can't get their heads around?

(tip o' the hat to Mark Shea)

A pro-lifer was shot and killed Friday because, you know, it's only the pro-life nutcases who shoot people. From the article:

Lori Lamerand, president and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood East Central Michigan, also expressed shock and sadness at the news.

"We want to be very clear that we have no idea if this was related to his views, but Planned Parenthood would never condone any sort of violence against anyone, regardless of their views," said Lamerand.

No, Planned Parenthood would never condone violence, except of course violence against defenseless pre-born babies.

That unmistakable mood or note that I hear from Hanwell [an insane asylum], I hear also from half the chairs of science and seats of learning today; and most of the mad doctors are mad doctors in more senses than one.   —G.K. Chesterton

Engagement in abstract philosophical discussion of abortion and euthanasia with their proponents can be a good thing. Such discussion enables us to speak the truth in love to a culture of death and can also help us solidify our own beliefs and understand the deeper reasoning behind them. But it is quite another thing when someone explicitly suggests to you that you kill your own baby.

Several weeks ago a blood screening found that the levels of two proteins in my wife's blood were below the normal values. Comparing those protein levels to women of similar age, weight, etc., the screeners determined that the new George baby had a 1 in 99 chance (1.01%) of having Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder similar to Down Syndrome but much more severe. We were referred for genetic counseling and for a more comprehensive ultrasound that would look for the tell-tale signs of Trisomy 18.

Last Wednesday we had our appointment.

I was skeptical of genetic counseling, imagining that the counselor would suggest to us our "options," and so I went with a well-rehearsed answer to anyone who might suggest an abortion. Said answer contained not much profanity, but enough to emphasize my point. I am like the father in A Christmas Story; I work in profanity like some artists work in oils. However, the genetic counselor never mentioned abortion; instead we discussed family history and the nature of the Trisomy 18 disorder.

We then met with the doctor who had reviewed the results of our ultrasound. He found none of the deformities associated with Trisomy 18 and so reduced the odds by 90%, meaning the baby now has, roughly, a 1 in 1000 chance of having Trisomy 18. One out of a thousand sounds large until you turn it around: the odds are 999 out of 1000 that the baby will be perfectly healthy. We will have another ultrasound in six weeks to get a better look at the heart though everything the doctor could see looked normal. This is good news. We love the baby and welcome him no matter what health problems he may have. But, parents want the best for their children, including the best health, and so we are quite pleased that more than likely that the baby will be perfectly healthy.

The doctor then proceeded to discuss our options. First he suggested amniocentesis, a test which uses fluid drawn from the womb to analyze the baby's genetic makeup. We made it clear that we would not have the amniocentesis; the risk of miscarriage and/or pre-term labor is too high. We also made it clear that regardless of the results of the amniocentesis we would not have an abortion so having the test would be useless in that respect. Regardless, the doctor continued to insist on the amniocentesis and at first I was unclear on his reasoning. He spoke very fast, perhaps I misunderstood. The conversation went something like the following (the words are as close as I can remember to those actually spoken; remember, the doctor went pretty fast):

Like hell we will.

I had expected suggestions of direct abortion so I was thrown when the doctor suggested killing the baby through vaginal labor. I did not have the opportunity to use my well-prepared response. After the fact, I am disappointed that I did not use one single instance of profanity at any point in the conversation. However, there is still some debate between myself and another armchair theologian whether profanity would have been effective.

We armchair theologians have also discussed why doctors tend to insist on amniocentesis. We had come to the conclusion that they simply wanted to sell another test to more thickly line their pockets with cash. We thought Deep Throat had a good idea so we followed the money in our reasoning.

But now, having had first-hand experience, I am forced to change my conclusion. Money is not the ultimate reason doctors insist on amniocentesis. Consider our mad doctor's reasoning: With an amnio we can find out for sure whether the baby has Trisomy 18 and then can then make a more informed decision on whether to let the baby die during labor because we would not kill the child through direct abortion. If money was the doctor's primary motivation, he could just as easily have sold the amnio by suggesting that we could make more informed decisions on how to better care for the baby once it is time to deliver. He makes the same amount of money for the test regardless of the reasoning. Furthermore, if money was the primary motivation, it should be obvious to the doctor that there is far less money to be made in a one-time test than in long-term care for an unhealthy child.

To insist on amniocentesis in order to decide whether to kill a child—my child—points to a motivation much darker than the love of money: the desire to rid the world of the "undesirables." Whether the doctor is conscious of such a motivation I cannot know. Perhaps he has been subconsciously influenced by the prevailing cultural wind, perhaps he has been educated beyond his intelligence. I do not pretend to know, and certainly cannot judge, the state of the man's soul. I can simply find no other plausible explanation for his suggesting that I kill my baby than his wanting to dispose of a sick child.

Regardless of whether the mad doctor was conscious of anything at all, his counsel was the same. He suggested that we could participate in a premeditated, willful act intended to deliberately cause the death of another human being. Without a formal legal or medical training to distort my powers of reason, such an act sounds to me very much like murder.

The doctor's suggestion that killing the baby through vaginal labor instead of through abortion implies that somehow such an act would no longer be murder. But this idea is in no way justifiable. In an abstract philosophical discussion, we would say that the means do not justify the end. Both the end and the means must be independently justifiable or the act is still immoral. In more concrete terms, killing the baby in a different way is still killing the baby—deliberately, willfully, and with intent.

There are some who may attempt to excuse the doctor for simply "doing his job" and providing his patients with all their "options." This, ladies and gentlemen, is Grade A, first class, with a cherry on top bullshit. God does not excuse evil and Divine Law is not relative to one's vocation. That I am a programmer does not excuse me for committing acts from which an accountant would be prohibited. The commandment is not "Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless of course you have a professional obligation to sleep with another man's wife." Nor did God tell his people, "Thou shalt not steal, unless of course it will help you grow your business." Rather, the commandments are absolute: Adultery is always wrong. Stealing is always wrong. Murder is always wrong. To counsel murder is evil.

The intent to rid the world of the unfit found a unique application in Europe in the 1940s. Over six million Jews and several million other persons were murdered for the purpose of creating Nietzsche's Übermensch. The same mentality is active today: kill the babies and old people who are no longer productive and no longer contribute, those who can no longer maintain a high "quality of life," the "useless eaters." Those who commit such acts and those who counsel the same do so because they refuse to see the intrinsic dignity in every human being, even those with a 1 in 1000 chance of having genetic disorders that will most likely kill them in their first year after birth. All human life has an intrinsic worth, even the mad doctor's.

In keeping with the very German theme of our conclusion, I offer this sentiment to anyone who would suggest that I kill my child: Leck mich am Arsch!

It is in part because of its unwavering stand on moral issues that I love the Catholic Church. In the video below, Francis Cardinal Arinze, former prefect and now prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in a Q&A session addresses the problem of "pro-life" politicians voting in favor of abortion.

(I actually like the idea of the Pope sending twelve Swiss Guards to arrest them all.)

As it happens, killing babies may not be required for stem cell research after all:

Two teams of Chinese scientists have made a major advance in mice in the development of a new kind of stem cell that doesn't involve destroying embryos.

This new type of stem cell, called iPS for induced pluripotent stem cells, is derived from skin cells and has been used to produce live mice.

Studies of these cells were released Thursday by two competing scientific journals, Nature and Cell Stem Cell.

The scientific community can repair cartilage and tendons in horses and in humans by injecting the patients with their own stem cells. We can grow living mice from stem cells made from skin. The results from stem cell research that does not involve the killing of babies are quite real. We have yet to hear of even promising results from embryonic stem cell research.

But regardless of the failure of embryonic stem cell research, the culture of death and the dictatorship of relativism insist that we, that is to say we American taxpayers, must fund the destruction of living human beings in order to continue in unproven research that may yield theoretical results. The reasoning? There are very many persons in the scientific community and in the pharmaceutical industry who stand to make untold sums of money from embryonic stem cell research. Thus their rhetoric waxes romantic as they insist that science must progress unrestrained into a brave new world—damn the consequences. I am afraid, however, that we may not be so brave once we have found our way to the new world; for we shall find ourselves terrified of what we have created. If we do not, then we are fools.

In another example of the "water found to be wet" results of many recent scientific discoveries, it turns out that, contrary to the opinion of the pro-abortion camp, unborn babies may really be human.

We already knew that the unborn, at the moment of conception, have a full set of human DNA; that by eight weeks after conception all their bodily systems are present; and that by twelve weeks there is measurable brain activity. Adding to all that, we have now discovered that unborn babies remember.

The data confirm what common sense has already told us: the unborn are very much alive.

(hat tip: First Things)