Thread by me.
Your views and Patricia Irelands may not be that different
This week, as a movement, the Pro-Life community has been fiercely attacked by the mainstream media. Unfortunately, because of the few who came out in support of Dr. Tillers murder, the many of us have suffered by being called terrorists and extremists. All of us who believe in the dignity of life from conception to death understand that this was a ruthless killing of what Kansas law considers to be an innocent man. Therefore, I am not writing about whether or not we are terrorists; I dont wish to dignify that accusation with a response. I do think, however, something far more worthy of discussion has come to light as a result of this controversy, and it starts with a quote from Patricia Ireland, former President of the National Organization for Women.
Ms. Ireland was on the OReilly Factor Tuesday night to discuss the medias portrayal of Dr. Tillers life as a late term abortionist versus the publics opinion on late term abortions. During the course of their conversation, OReilly asked Ms. Ireland when she believes life begins. She responded by saying, "I think immediately upon conception there is life." She believes just as you and I do that life begins at conception! How then does she reconcile the fact that abortion is murder with a womans right to choose? She went onto say, "but that is the wrong question. Fetuses do not grow inside Petri dishes, they grow inside real live women who have their own issues of health, their own responsibilities, their own dreams and hopes.
So, as long as a woman feels that a child wouldnt coincide with her plans for life, then she should be allowed to have an abortion? How far shall we carry out this ideology? I would assume that Ms. Ireland doesnt contend that you gain life as you move forward in it. So, if she feels that life begins at conception but it is okay to end that life at 28 weeks of pregnancy, what is to stop her from ending the childs life at 5 years old when the mother gets a job in another city and just doesnt feel like a child will fit in with those plans? Obviously Ms. Ireland wouldnt condone this, because it doesnt make any sense. Just like it doesnt make sense that one would condone an abortion for some arbitrary reason like the hopes and dreams of the pregnant woman, if you understand that life begins at conception.
Personally, I think this could prove to be the proverbial chink in the armor of the pro-abortion movement. I think we, in the pro-life community, need to hold her out as an example to demonstrate the absurdity of this position. I think they were able to pick up a lot of followers in the movement, because they sold them on the idea that life didnt begin at conception and therefore abortion wasnt murder. I dont think the general population of people who are pro-choice understand that life does begin at conception. What will be the impact now that one of their leaders has readily admitted on national television that it does?
Thread by me.
After failing in the High Court and Court of Appeal, Debbie Purdy has brought her high profile House of Lords bid to seek immunity from prosecution for her husband, should he accompany her abroad for assisted suicide.
Over 100 Britons have now died at the Swiss assisted suicide facility Dignitas, though this represents a tiny proportion of Britons who have died in the last 10 years. We are told that a further 800 have registered with the organisation, including 34 who have expressed their intention to travel to Zurich to end their lives.
Meanwhile, Lord Falconer and Baroness Jay have signalled their intention to lay down an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill in order to decriminalise assisting suicide for Britons travelling abroad.
These moves are the latest steps in a long-running, well-funded and carefully orchestrated campaign by the pro-euthanasia lobby to change the law on assisted suicide.
The Coroners and Justice Bill is aimed at tightening up the Suicide Act 1961 to prevent the internet promotion of youth suicide. Ironically, Lord Falconer is attempting to hijack the bill for a completely different purpose to allow terminally ill people to travel abroad for assisted suicide.
The clear intention of the pro-euthanasia lobby is to establish a beachhead for further assaults on the law in the next parliament.
The present law is there to protect vulnerable people and Parliament has firmly resisted three attempts in the last five years to change it. The current law acts as an effective deterrent by ensuring that all but the most determined individuals do not seek to push its boundaries.
But if the law were to change we would see a very different kind of case, where people who are depressed, disabled or elderly are placed under pressure, whether real or imagined, whether overt or subtle, to end their lives so as not to pose a financial or care burden to relatives or the state. . .