Ellinor Grimmark got sacked, for her conscientious objection to participating in the abortion industry in Sweden. I have signed 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.
Category Archives: Pro-life
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course with the Council of Europe, which is still, in its European Convention on Human Rights, rather sold on the outdated notion of humans having a so-called “right to life” (Article 2).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.
This blog post
about this judgment of the Court of Protection
has set me thinking.
. . .
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”.
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”.
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:
The 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 …
The 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…
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?
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.
Giving evolution a helping hand, when evolution isn’t working fast enough, is called “eugenics”.
This blog post presents evidence that eugenics is being practised, here in the United Kingdom.
The eugenics movement, is no unproven conspiracy theory. It is proven conspiracy fact. For example, compulsory sterilisation in the USA is documented in this learned paper (in PDF format, so some readers might have to download it), published in 1991 in the American Journal of Human Genetics. The compulsory sterilisation was at first of “criminals, the insane, feeble-minded persons”, but later of “alcoholics, paupers, orphans, derelicts, delinquents, prostitutes and those unable to support themselves”.
Who could deny that many people believe that hereditary factors play a part in the aetiology of mental illnesses? There is certainly ample academic research exploring this very possibility.
Let me therefore formulate a hypothesis, and then make a prediction of empirical measurements that will be made if an appropriate experiment is conducted. Then conduct (or cite) an appropriate experiment. We can then find out whether the results that the hypothesis predicts, are yielded by the experiment. (That’s the proper “scientific method” for testing a hypothesis, isn’t it?)
A contemporary eugenics programme is being practised in the UK today, the effect of which will be to reduce the prevalence in future generations of mental illness, to whatever extent mental illness is hereditary.
That is a question that has stirred passions in the USA recently, what with this one minute-long political TV ad
and this Planned Parenthood’s represenatives testimony before a legislative committee (just under six minutes long)
and this gruesome news story, about a “house of horrors”, and the forthcoming murder trial of a medical doctor (just over 21 minutes long).
Maybe, “What should happen to a baby born alive after a botched abortion?” is the wrong question.