Category Archives: Pro-life

The candidate who came down with a cold

I am a bit embarrassed about something …

I am standing as a Christian Peoples Alliance‘s candidate for Cornwall Council on 14th January 2016.  I am also a candidate for Launceston Town Council.  What have I done, to communicate to the voters of Launceston Central town council ward and duchy electoral division, any reason why they should vote for me?

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Political, Pro-life

What’s offensive about graphic images of abortion victims?

In this post, I pose a multiple-choice question that I hope you will find interesting.  I am posing it in a particular historical context, the “background” to the multiple-choice question, so-to-speak.  Please scroll down to the question, ignoring the background explanation that follows, if you think you already know the background, or don’t care what the background is.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Filed under Pro-life, Satire and humour

Ellinor Grimmark, the Swedish midwife who refused to perform abortions

The said Swedish midwife got sacked, for her conscientious objection to participating in the abortion industry.   I have decided to sign a petition about this, not so much because I expect the people who sacked Ellinor to take any notice of any outrage of mine, as that I wanted thus to congratulate this noble martyr to conscience on making the sacrificial stand she did.  Far too few are they who nowadays thus place morals above career.

I invite every one of my readers, even those who are unrepentant abortion industry apologists, who don’t care a fig that their foetal fellow-humans are nowadays being killed by the million, to sign here the hopeless petition designed to cheer this career martyr up more than to bring Swedes to their senses.  Sweden is clearly in the wrong here.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Filed under Petitions, Pro-life, Righteousness

Gagged Dad’s lawsuit (A -v- Cornwall Council)

A ground-breaking court case

I attended a quite glorious court hearing yesterday.  The outcome, for which many of the public who attended the hearing would have been praying, was a cause for jubilation.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Filed under Gospel, Guest posts, Homophobic, Human Rights, Law, Pro-life

The right to die -v- the right to life

Image

The EU Directive published today on the right to die places the EU Commission on a direct collision course with the Council of Europe, which is still, in its European Convention on Human Rights, rather sold on the outdated notion of humans having a so-called “right to life” (Article 2).

The right to life is incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.  Because today’s Directive has direct applicability, the right to die established in today’s Directive is directly incorporated into UK law, with immediate effect, by the European Communities Act 1972.  This is an Act, which, as the late Master of the Rolls Lord Denning observed, Parliament may not have the freedom to repeal that it imagined it would have, when it passed the Act, even if UKIP gets elected to power.

As from today, therefore, without Parliament having to lift a legislative finger to implement the EU provision, the new British right to die now sits uncomfortably alongside the old British right to stay alive.

Continue reading

9 Comments

Filed under April fool!, Human Rights, Law, Pro-life, Satire and humour

Shopping for medical opinions

New-Twitter-Bird-LogoFollow @John_Allman

This blog post

UKHR

Touch the image to read the gist in brief

Bipolar patient has capacity to decide to terminate pregnancy

about this judgment of the Court of Protection

SB (A Patient; Capacity To Consent To Termination), Re [2013] EWHC 1417 (COP) (21 May 2013)

has set me thinking.

BigBroJohn

. . .

A tense, life-or-death, courtroom drama

Pitched against her own legal team, the mental patient, Mrs SB, had two psychiatrists, her mother, her father, her husband (presumably the baby’s father) and the NHS hospital in which she was sectioned, along with their various solicitors and barristers, all agreeing that she was “not thinking straight”.

WeighBabyHer baby was not legally represented in court.  As the nice judge said, “the foetus has no independent rights which fall to be weighed or considered by me at all in these proceedings”. 

Present (though hardly as a disinterested, mere spectator), was the enterprising would-be sub-contractor who had put in a last-minute bid to do the job, less than a week before the mother reached 24 weeks pregnant, and the baby’s life would have become untouchable.   “A doctor employed by a well known body”, is how the judge described this potential beneficiary of the judge’s own hard day’s work, when the abortionist put in his own “hard day at the orifice”.

money_love_scale

The abortion industry’s income, and love for humanity, have to weighed jolly carefully in the scales of justice nowadays

At 23 and a bit weeks, the foetus could perhaps be delivered alive, and would stand a chance of surviving.  The slower the wheels of justice ground, the better the foetus’ chances of making it.  But the court wasn’t “Thinking outside the botch” today.   Nothing but death would suffice, for some reason.  That was what was stipulated in the abortionist’s – er – contract.

The case would therefore need to be decided quickly.  There was robust justice to be done.  The judge didn’t start delivering his judgment until 8 o’clock in the evening.  What a hero.  Tomorrow might have been too late.  They still had to find a second doctor to sign the death warrant, and time was running out.   What if not even the “well-known body” could come up with a second signatory, who knew how to “weigh” stuff that “fell to be considered”?

Here is the gist of the UK Human Rights blog post’s summary of the court’s judgment:

66

CourtOfProtectionThe patient … was a 37 year old highly intelligent graduate… 8 years she presented with symptoms … of bi-polar disorder. She had been detained … at various times … These proceedings were issued … because the mother concerned was “very strongly” requesting a termination … It was clear from the patient’s own evidence that she herself did want a baby at the time that she conceived it.  But after the first trimester had elapsed, in April, she started to show signs of her disorder and there was a “total reversal” in her attitude towards the baby …

MrJusticeHolmanThe judge was prepared to take the unusual step of differing from the view of the psychiatrists that she would bitterly regret the termination. …  The decision, with its risks of consequent regret, was one that the patient should be at liberty to take.  The judge fully appreciated her situation, including the fact that she was currently compulsorily detained. … the Court … the judge has to consider whether the reasons for a decision are rational.  This does not mean that they have to be good reasons, nor does the court have to agree with the patient’s decision…

99

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Disability, Law, Mental health, Political, Pro-life, Satire and humour

Catherine Schaible’s right to choose

If you don’t know who Catherine Schaible is, then please click on her picture below, and take your pick of the various news stories and blog posts in the search results.

The executive summary is that Ms Schaible’s son died aged two, and she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  (Allegedly, her son died because Ms Schaible hadn’t called a doctor when her son fell ill.)  She was sentenced to ten years probation.  Recently, another of her five children, who was only eight months old, hardly what you’d call a “person” yet, also fell ill and died.  Again, she hadn’t called the doctor.  Again, she found herself in trouble with the law, in the fascist, theocratic state Pennsylvania.

A lot of bigoted fanatics have been saying unkind things about Ms Schaible online and in the media.  I have been posting comments like the following on some of the websites that contain such criticism of her, criticism that is often very strongly worded, for example even calling this innocent woman a “murderer”, would you believe? 

66

Catherine Schaible

If you don’t want to kill YOUR baby by neglect, then don’t kill your baby by neglect. Simple.

It is nobody’s business but Catherine Schaible’s what she did with her OWN BABY.  It is was her RIGHT, as a woman with inalienable reproductive rights, to CHOOSE whether or not to call the doctor when her baby was taken ill.  All you fanatical zealots who want to force your beliefs in medical science down the throats of non-believers like Ms Schaible, need to learn to keep your noses out of other people’s bedrooms and family business.

This woman obviously didn’t want to keep her baby (at least, not enough to save its life by calling the doctor.)   That’s not a decision any woman takes lightly.  She should not be vilified and treated like a criminal, merely for exercising her constitutional rights in this way.   She is not just a brood mare for the state of Pennsylvania!

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the government has NO RIGHT to interfere in a woman’s private relationship with her physician.  It is just as unconstitutional to persecute Catherine Schaible for failing to call the doctor so that her unwanted baby would die, as it would be to interfere in that relationship if she had needed her doctor’s help to get rid of her unwanted baby.

What sort of life would the baby have had anyway, with a mother who wished it dead?  Ms Schaible is right.   The baby is better off dead.  Leave Ms Schaible alone, all you misogynistic men.  You mere men can’t give birth, so this has nothing to do with you, even though, admittedly, both of Ms Scaible’s dead children happen to have been male.

99

Clearly, Ms Schaible should have had somebody as clever as me as her defence lawyer, don’t you think?

1 Comment

Filed under Pro-life, Satire and humour