Friday, 29 June 2012

Forced abortion in China: how it works

The May edition of The Economist magazine has a fascinating insight into how China's system of forced abortion is managed, entitled: "Suppressing dissent: The emperor does know" and subtitled "How the system rewards repression, in the name of maintaining stability". The article says: 
"[U]nder the Communist Party’s system of cadre evaluations, local officials are graded on the basis of a series of internal targets that have little to do with the rule of law. The targets are meant for internal use, but local governments have sometimes published them on websites, and foreign scholars have also seen copies. The most important measures are maintaining social stability, achieving economic growth and, in many areas, enforcing population controls. Cadres sign contracts that spell out their responsibilities. Failure to meet targets can end a cadre’s career. Fulfilling them, even if it means trampling laws to do so, can mean career advancement and financial bonuses."
The Economist's insight confirms what SPUC pointed out ten years ago almost to the day:
"Chinese officials [have] admitted that even they themselves are often coerced to meet birth control quotas ... The system of punishments for local political and family planning leaders who fail to fulfill their state-assigned targets is still official policy." 
It is important for anyone concerned with the brutal anti-life nature of the one-child policy to read The Economist's article to understand how the system is enforced. What the strongly pro-abortion Economist doesn't point out, however, is that the China Family Planning Association, the state-run body responsible for ensuring the policy's implementation, is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world's largest pro-abortion organisation (see section 27 of SPUC's 2005 submission to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee). The UK government and other Western governments give millions of pounds annually to IPPF.

from the SPUC Director's blog 16/5/12

Thursday, 28 June 2012

SPUC letter of reply to the British Humanist Society et al

Just in case you missed it the first time, below is the letter of reply from SPUC addressed to the British Humanist Association and others, regarding claims made against the SPUC school presentation given in schools throughout the UK.

SPUC's letter, authored by our education manager Anthony McCarthy, says: "SPUC has made no claim that cannot be supported by the current evidence ... Unlike yourselves, we have offered an abundance of serious evidence on the issues we talk about, and have avoided the ill-informed and sweeping statements made by the abortion industry and some of its less critical supporters." SPUC Reply to BHA et al

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

Former abortionist describes the reality of abortion – Youtube video

Please watch this video of Dr. Anthony Levantino, a former abortionist, in which he describes the reality of a  Dilation and Evacuation abortion. Dr Levantino is well known for having said: "I want the general public to know what the doctors know - that this is a person; that this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue."

Dr. Levantino outlines his history as a medical professional, including his work as an abortion provider and explains that he has performed approximately 1,200 abortions.


   

Please share this video with your friends and contacts.

Monday, 25 June 2012

Don Ritchie: ‘The Angel of the Gap’


I recently read a story reported by a major television news station that took me by complete surprise for its’ life affirming message and the inspiration and simplicity of the man about whom it was written: 86 year-old Don Ritchie, who had recently died in Sydney. 

Don lived in the Sydney bayside area of Watson’s Bay, close to a place called ‘The Gap’, a high cliff overlooking the Pacific Ocean, infamous for the hundreds of people who have ended their lives by throwing themselves from it. 

Don, a former navy seaman and ironically, life insurance salesman, had lived in Watson’s Bay his whole life and over the years became a local hero after one day deciding to do something about the disturbing numbers of people committing suicide on his doorstep.

He began patrolling the paths around the Gap in order to coax the desperate away from danger, sometimes even forcibly removing them from the edge.  He would talk to them, trying to calm them down by offering help and inviting them into his home for tea.  Don never knew how many people he helped, but Watson’s Bay locals believe it may have been up to 160 people.  Numbers aside, Don did something we can all do, every single day.  His total conviction in the absolute value of human life and his generosity of heart allowed him to give hope to those most in need of it.

He urged people to never be afraid to speak up.  In an interview from a few years ago, Don said, “you can’t live here and just watch them kill themselves. Well, I can’t”; “always remember the power of a simple smile, a helping hand, a listening ear and a kind word.”

In a world that says it’s okay to end the life of a child in the womb, where the elderly and the vulnerable are targeted through assisted suicide and euthanasia and where the disabled are shamelessly removed from society through eugenic abortion, Don did what he knew to be right and fought for the lives of those who couldn’t or didn’t want to fight for themselves.

When Don’s wife Moya asked him what he said to people contemplating suicide, he said, “I go over and sell them life.”

This is exactly what we need to do too.  





Friday, 22 June 2012

Charter of the Rights of the Family

Readers will be aware that SPUC has been campaigning to uphold marriage. SPUC has a position paper, and a background paper. There has also been several posts about this issue on the SPUC Director's blog, including a recently signed joint letter that was published in The Sunday Telegraph. Another post detailed the recent attempt by the pro-LGBT lobby at the European Parliament, which successfully and covertly carried a resolution that included support for same-sex civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. We also had a post on this blog about why SPUC defends traditional marriage, and another on the sad effect abortion had on one couple's marriage. recently, we had a post on this blog about the UN Doha Declaration on the Family. As a follow up, here is the Charter of the Rights of the Family.

Amongst the many excellent points contained the this charter, are the following taken from the Preamble: 
  • The family is based on marriage, that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman which is constituted in the freely contracted and publicly expressed indissoluble bond of matrimony and is open to the transmission of life.
  • marriage is the natural institution to which the mission of transmitting life is exclusively entrusted.
  • The family, a natural society, exists prior to the State or any other community, and possesses inherent rights which are inalienable
Charter of the Rights of the Family

Thursday, 21 June 2012

To Be Born: a powerful pro-life film

To Be Born is a powerful short film, which focuses on a young pregnant mother whose boyfriend orders her to have an abortion. The day before she is due to go to the abortion centre she has a dream where her unborn child describes what happens to her during an abortion.

*Viewers are warned that this video does contain potentially disturbing scenes depicting an abortion procedure.


You can learn more about this film on the official To Be Born website.

Please share this video with others.

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

H. G. Wells and the intellectual origins of Eugenics

H. G. Wells (1866-1946)
During the first half of the twentieth century many prominent figures promoted the ideology of eugenics. H. G. Wells, best known for futuristic novels such as The Time Machine and The War of the Worlds, provides a good example of how the various trends in contemporary thought, many already discussed in this series, could prepare the mind for the acceptance of eugenics.

H. G. Wells was born in Bromley in Kent on 21st September 1866. He was educated at the Normal School of Science, at South Kensington, by Thomas Huxley, the influential disciple of Charles Darwin. In early adulthood Wells rejected Christianity and, like Sir Francis Galton, embraced Darwinism almost as a substitute religion. Later in life Wells was to write that Darwinism had brought many of his generation to ‘the realisation that life is a conflict between superior and inferior types’.[1] He believed that the salvation of the human race lay in scientific progress which would ultimately give mankind the tools to establish a rationally ordered utopia that Wells called the ‘New Republic’.
                                                    
Wells set out a detailed prediction of the future in his 1902 work Anticipations. In this book he professed disgust at the prevailing ‘really very horrible morality’ that led ‘benevolent persons’ to try to help large families that could not support themselves. He wrote that ‘from the point of view of social physiology’ such families appear a ‘horrible and criminal thing.’[2] Like Sir Francis Galton he believed that the ‘quality’ of the human race was declining; ‘the average of humanity’ he wrote ‘has positively fallen.’[3] For those who are seen ‘increasing and multiplying through sheer incontinence and stupidity, the men of the New Republic will have little pity and less benevolence.’[4]

Wells’ views on population control owe much to Thomas Malthus whom he described as ‘one of those cardinal figures in intellectual history’.[5] He considered that ‘probably no more shattering book than the Essay on Population has ever been, or ever will be, written.’[6] It made ‘as clear as daylight that all forms of social reconstruction… must be either futile or insincere or both, until the problems of human increase were manfully faced.’[7] He suggests that Malthus influenced the development of Darwin’s theory of evolution and awakened ‘that train of thought that found expression and demonstration at last in the theory of natural selection.’[8] To Wells it had ‘become apparent that whole masses of human population are, as a whole, inferior in their claim upon the future’.[9]

In common with many other population controllers Wells considered that it was the uneducated and impoverished majority that was the problem and his own social class that was the solution. Wells believed that a future utopia would have to be ruled by a well educated, scientifically literate population. What, he asks, was the future of ‘those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency?’  ‘Well’, he declared ‘the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop… it is their portion to die out and disappear.’[10]
 
In the ‘New Republic’, ‘the ethical system which will dominate the world state, will be shaped primarily to favour the procreation of what is fine and efficient and beautiful in humanity—beautiful and strong bodies, clear and powerful minds, and a growing body of knowledge—and to check the procreation of base and servile types, of fear-driven and cowardly souls, of all that is mean and ugly and bestial in the souls, bodies, or habits of men.’[11]

Wells prophesied that ‘the method that must in some cases still be called in… is death…the merciful obliteration of weak and silly and pointless things’.[12] With great foresight he also predicted modern attitudes towards euthanasia and assisted suicide, writing that in the future men ‘will naturally regard the modest suicide of the incurably melancholy, or diseased or helpless persons as a high and courageous act of duty rather than a crime.’[13] He asserted that ‘this euthanasia of the weak and sensual, is possible. On the principles that will probably animate the predominant classes of the new time, it will be permissible, and I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved.’[14]

When we read such predictions we can only come to the conclusion that in our own times we are witnessing the systematic implementation of theories that have existed in a highly developed form for more than a century. It is important for us to possess a clear understanding of the intellectual roots of the crisis in which we find ourselves. In Wells, and many of his contemporaries, we see firstly a Darwinism which reduces man to the status of an animal and places the weak in perpetual competition against the strong. Secondly we can identify a Malthusianism which identifies new human life as a threat to the already born and which tranforms the majority of the population into the source not of national health but of social disorder. Finally, we see a conviction that the history of mankind is necessarily an evolution to a more perfect state, and that this will be achieved largely through scientific progress. These three factors combined with the general loss of a moral framework in our post-Christian age have brought us to our current predicament where nearly six hundred unborn children are killed every day in this country alone and where the elderly and disabled are increasingly treated as a burden to be eliminated rather than persons whose dignity requires loving care.

H. G. Wells died on 13th August 1946 despairing at the future of mankind. He had lived to see many of the policies of the ‘New Republic’ actually applied by the National Socialists in Germany. Ideological principles in which he had so long trusted had in fact brought his own civilisation to the brink of destruction. In his last work Mind at the End of its Tether, he declared his conviction that the human race had now played out its purpose and would soon come to an end.

Our world of self-delusion…will perish amidst its evasions and fatuities. It is like a convoy lost in darkness on an unknown rocky coast, with quarrelling pirates in the chartroom and savages clambering up the sides of the ships to plunder and do evil as the whim may take them…And this, its last expiring thrust, is to demonstrate that the door closes upon us for evermore.

There is no way out or round or through.
[15]

H. G. Wells' final lesson to us is that the culture of death will end in despair.

 

[1] H. G. Wells, A Modern Utopia, Ch. 10
[2] H.G. Wells, Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought (2nd Edition,1902), p306 -307
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid, p297
[5] Ibid, p288
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid, p289
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid, p317
[11] Ibid, p298
[12] Ibid, p299
[13] Ibid, p300
[14] Ibid, p308
[15] H. G. Wells, The Mind at the End of its Tether

Tuesday, 19 June 2012

Abortion Rights offer young people a bleak and nasty vision of life

Our apologies for our unexplained absence over the past few weeks. The writers of this blog have been away from their desks. We had hoped to publish this report several weeks ago. In this age of liveblogging this report is no longer 'of-the-moment', but we think it's still relevant and we hope you'll find it useful and interesting in any case.

~

Zoe Williams with her son Thurston
On Wednesday 16 May the abortion-lobbying group Abortion Rights held a public meeting in the Houses of Parliament. Speaking at the meeting were
  • Diane Abbott MP 
  • Emily Thornberry MP
  • Kay Carberry, assistant general secretary, Trades Union Congress (TUC) 
  • Zoe Williams (pictured), journalist, The Guardian
  • Clare Murphy, director of press and public policy, British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) - BPAS is the UK's largest private abortion provider
  • Natalie Bennett, chair of Green Party Women
  • Richy Thompson, education and faith schools officer, British Humanist Association 
  • Kat Banyard, founder of UK Feminista, author of The Equality Illusion
Much of the content of the eight speeches was made up of the same, tired pro-abortion rhetoric, with a particular emphasis on demonising the pro-life movement and its supposed adoption of Americanised tactics. In fact many of the speakers apologised at the beginning of their speeches for having no more to say than the previous speakers had said already. What was said, as you will see in this post, was both sad and disturbing.

Amidst the catchphrases and emotionalised calls for the so called 'right to choose', the pro-abortion lobby almost always say things that would make reasonable minded people's skin crawl. For example in September last year Dr Patricia Lohr, chief abortionist, BPAS, said that she finds performing abortions "extremely gratifying". In the same speech she told the audience that she performs abortions "as early as possible and as late as necessary", which in the UK means that she is prepared to perform abortions up to birth. How could she possibly find this extremely gratifying?

This time it was Zoe Williams, journalist for The Guardian, who revealed most clearly the disturbing philosophy of the abortion lobby.

She began by attempting to exonerate the doctors who were shown to approve sex-selective abortions. In February this year three British doctors were caught on camera approving sex selective abortions. This story was broken to the media by The Telegraph.  These doctors have since been suspended from involvement in abortions and one of them was suspended from practising all together. Rather than distancing herself from the barbaric and brutal discrimination of these acts, Zoe Williams instead condemned the Care Quality Commission's subsequent investigation of abortion centres, and described the doctors as people who simply said: "we're not asking questions, we're just doing our job". She said "there is no way two years ago that The Telegraph would have done a sting on doctors who hadn't done anything."

In her speech Zoe Williams also contradicted the earlier comment of Emily Thornberry MP, who while advocating for abortion 'rights', conceded that "every abortion is a tragedy". Zoe Williams said "it is not always a tragedy to have an abortion, it can be a happy event". These claims were met by cheers and claps by the gathered crowd of over 100 people.

Not content with describing abortion as a potentially "happy event" Zoe Williams went on to suggest it was an inevitable event. After citing evidence from Marge Berer, the veteran abortion campaigner, she concluded that "if you reach the end of your life without having had an abortion, you are either a man or you haven't been laid much." This claim was again met with cheers, clapping and laughter from the gathered crowd.

But how many of them stopped to think about what had just been said to them? Zoe Williams' message was essentially thus:
If you've had an abortion - Great! Lets celebrate! Did you say you don't feel great about it? What nonsense! Abortion is a happy event...
If you haven't had an abortion - Listen up girls, right now you're a bit of a loser who obviously isn't having much sex. But cheer up! The chances are that at some stage in the future you're going to arrange for a medical professional to kill your baby get an abortion.
Serena Rowe, a supporter of SPUC has given us her reaction to this claim:
"This is so patronising. This woman is saying that women are either at the mercy of their sexual urges or inadequate if they haven't had enough sex to have an abortion. She claims women are unable to live above their basic urges, unable to make moral decisions for themselves when in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy. I am deeply insulted and unspeakably angered by this."
In another section of her speech Zoe Williams took extra care to leave the audience in no doubt about the vulgarity of her message. She revealed that when watching a pro-life campaigner speak on the BBC's show The Big Questions that she would have liked to have put faeces through his letter box. This admission was met by general laughter throughout the room.

Pro-lifers are used to being maligned, sworn at, spat on and generally harassed, but this is the first time I've heard somebody suggest delivering faeces through the front door.


Zoe Williams concluded her speech by saying that "we should take more pride in abortion". But what is there to be proud about a procedure that kills babies and wounds mothers? What sort of message does this send to women who understandably regret the loss of their child?

While it is always shocking to hear what the abortion-lobby really think, it is important that we do not demonise them as they do those who oppose abortion. It is important to remember that everybody involved in abortion is affected negatively by it, that everybody involved with abortion needs forgiveness, and that for everybody involved in abortion there are people who can help.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...