web analytics

…in sickness, and in health…..

By Mike Cunningham On July 12th, 2014 at 12:45 pm

abucketbaby

 

 

Before posting on a subject which is worthy of at least some discussion, before being cast into the cess-pool from which it has arisen, I thought I would lighten the atmosphere by posting a photo of what must be the most enchanting small child’s smile published this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A long-awaited bill being published by the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has parallels with the 1967 Abortion Act by placing responsibility for authorising the action in the hands of two doctors.

legalise assisted dying

upholding the sanctity of human life without regard to suffering caused in the process

“ethical turning point”

be promoting anguish and pain, the very opposite of a Christian message of hope.”

the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” should not mean prolonging suffering.

in the face of the reality of needless suffering.”

In writing about this pernicious, dangerous and illiberal Assisted Dying Bill, I would attempt to explain my thoughts. The quotations, taken from people who support this Bill, do not state the truth about what is proposed. The Bill is written and introduced to change the Law. Ignore all the emotional rubbish held within those quotations, the supporters of this Bill want, wish and work towards one thing, and one thing only :-

 

Euthanasia!

I knew the girl I met was for me some ten seconds after we first saw each other, but, upon my return after my last trip to sea, I laid siege until she agreed to marry me.  We were gloriously, blissfully happy, our family grew and blossomed; until I was finally made aware that my beloved wife was seriously ill, and I had to have her committed. My wife of now some forty-seven years has been suffering from the effects of schizophrenia for some forty-three of those years. For many years, after she was released to me from the mental hospital where she was treated, she was back to some 95-97.5% of the woman whom I fell in love with, all those years ago in one chance evening at the Empire Ballroom in Leicester Square; but things went downhill some ten or twelve-odd years ago.

She now sits upstairs on her bedside, anxiously awaiting my help for even the slightest move to swivel across to her commode. She depends upon me for everything, and I would be a strange caricature of a man if I ever deserted her. My philosophy of life is now, and has been for many years; ‘you play the hand you are dealt’, and this is what I do for the woman I love. But what might happen to my love if I should die before her? Being totally dependent upon others for everything, and I do mean everything; more than likely she would be headed straight for a care facility, would she not be a prime target for these do-gooders who believe firmly that they know what is best for one who cannot articulate her needs and wishes?

I once visited an old-aged people’s home/complex in Islington to help a mate of mine who was compiling an electrical tender document, and I will be honest when I state that I have never witnessed anything more dispiriting in my entire life. I entered the main room/hall of the home, and there must have been at least seventy or eighty elderly people seated there, but the strange thing was the fact that they were all seated at seventy or eighty different angles to one another; there were two televisions blaring away at opposite corners of the room, no-one was watching either, and this was the first time that I had ever witnessed what is called the ‘Thousand-mile-stare’, where the person’s eyes are focussed over a huge distance away. The staff could safely be described as uniformly useless, as I gathered when talking to the one helpful staff member, a maintenance bloke, who simply sniffed when asked his opinion of his fellow workers, then replied, ‘when they aren’t in ever-extended meetings discussing how much they would not be doing, they are forever looking after themselves; with not much time left for the poor sods in the armchairs and beds’! I spotted one lady, seated in a wheelchair, trapped in the space between a wall and a folding door. She had been left by the ‘caring’ staff member, and forgotten as breakfast had been served, and no-one missed her, until an outsider arrived and gently wheeled her out of her confinement. She was so pathetically grateful to me, a stranger for helping her. Needless to state, I made my own feelings pretty plain to the management, but I don’t believe that my anger even registered!

Reference is made in one of the earlier quotations to the Abortion Act of 1967. I would simply remind ATW readers that one of the ruling guidelines in 1967 was that two doctors should examine and confer with the pregnant woman before agreeing and signing to that abortion procedure. Those guidelines are now so loose that a NURSE can authorise an abortion.  I would remind ATW readers that, in just four years, there have been 731801 babies, foetuses; call them what you will, killed quite legally in this so-called civilised country of ours! Just consider what a bunch of politicians and their fellow bottom-feeding compatriots could do once the Euthanasia Bill becomes Law?

The Assisted Dying Bill, which in reality should be renamed the ‘Euthanasia Bill’ or the even more explanatory The Inconvenience Bill’ or the  ‘Let us get rid of the Old, the Ill, the Insane, the Sufferers from incurable and painful Diseases, those who alarm us by their very longevity, and the Memories of what faces us all Bill’ is a shameful and destructive piece of legislation, and we, along with the dangerous do-gooder Clowns who propose and back this tawdry attempt to change, by euphemism alone, the settled Law, should be ashamed that Legislation as bad, corrupt and disgraceful as this Bill undoubtedly is, even passes across the threshold of the House of Lords in these troubled times.

 

Abortion……….a descriptive term for a group of politicians!

By Mike Cunningham On April 4th, 2014 at 2:44 pm

 

Letter to my MP…………………

I write as a very concerned Constituency resident to oppose, point blank, the liberalisation of the Abortion Law of this Country without those same liberal interpretations of that Law being exposed and tested within both Houses of Parliament; and wish to ascertain if you, as my M.P., support my opposition and hopefully raise your concerns in Parliament?

When the Abortion Act was first made law in 1967, there were guides covering both the judgement under which abortions could be allowed, and the rules which allowed those same abortions to be carried out. Under the Act an abortion could only be performed by a ‘registered medical practitioner’ (ie. a doctor) and only when two registered medical practitioners were of the opinion, ‘formed in good faith’, that certain conditions applied.

About 97% of all abortions are currently performed on grounds ‘that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family’. The two certifying doctors are required to carry out this balancing of medical risk and it is implicit in the legislation that they would meet with the woman to make an assessment about whether these medical conditions applied. How otherwise could they carry out their statutory duties ‘in good faith’?

The Labour Government clarified these procedures in 1999, when they stated ‘Under the Abortion Act 1967, pregnancies are terminated to protect health. Other than in an emergency to save a woman’s life, medical practitioners must give their opinions on the reasons under the Act for the termination following consultation with the woman.’

In other words, two individual doctors must confer with the woman seeking the ending of her pregnancy. At no time since has any Health Secretary approached Parliament to ask, require debate or even approve alteration to this requirement.

I now learn that Shadow Health Minister Andrew Lansley, speaking on the 12th May 2008, wished to remove the need for the two doctors rule when he said “ I therefore hope that the House will consider whether the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed, and the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions, need to be maintained” but this departure from the strict interpretation of the law was never debated or repeated. However, four years later as a member of the Co-alition Cabinet, he secretly issued new ‘interim arrangements’ to independent abortion providers which dispensed with the two doctor’ requirement. Under Lansley’s new arrangements, it was no longer necessary for two doctors to see and examine the woman. One apparently would do (that being the natural reading of ‘not both’). The re-issued Code of Practice states ‘We consider it good practice that one of the two certifying doctors has seen the woman, though this is not a legal requirement’; and further states ‘Members of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) can play a role in seeking information from the woman.’ So, one interpretation of the new Guidance would be that neither doctor need to have spoken to the prospective abortee, and information may even be accepted from a nurse, as member of the Team!

The Department of Health is just about to issue the new advice to both NHS and Independent abortion providers, and Parliament has never been asked if they like what they see laid before them!

I ask if you, as my MP, can sit easily while a Cabinet Minister rewrites the Law, without those same re-written passages being subject to scrutiny on such a delicate and contentious issue?

Regards,

 

h/t to christian medical comment

 

Abide with me; and repeat!

By Mike Cunningham On March 29th, 2014 at 2:11 pm

2008_0311floor2de0009As I write these words, I have only to glance sideways at the framed photos of my three grandsons which adorn and decorate my sideboard and mantelpiece, and to reflect upon my own, as well as my wife and my sons’, good fortune.

I have often observed that there are no new ‘news’ items, but the same ones repeated many, many, times; withg only the date and the names changing. When David wrote of the incineration of aborted babies in hospital furnaces, I was busy with other ideas, but have found the time to reflect upon this strange and savage disgrace.

Apart from the natural revulsion expressed by many, these ‘burnings’ are of course against any guidance given by, amongst others, the Royal College of Nursing’s Guidance on theSensitive Disposal of all Foetal Remains; especially in view of the quotation which states, “on the potential to develop into a human being; the foetus  is entitled to respect;”, and I was reminded of the post I made upon my own site a while back on the saddest space I have ever seen.

A strange yet telling silence from just about all the political punditry is evident on this story, with the sole exception of Labour M.P.  Jim Dobbin, who expressed his disgust when he said:- “This callous disregard for young humans is the fruit of 50 years of legal abortion in the UK”. and “And it is no use pro-choice people wringing their hands about treating unborn babies as clinical waste when it is their relentless dehumanisation of unborn life that has led us to this point.”

As can be seen by the statistics for 2012, some 185,122 abortions were performed in Great Britain, ( but not of course in Northern Ireland, which sends all its butchered babies to the Mainland, as the Province has apparently moral scruples about legal murder in its hospitals, but not elsewhere) in a ghastly clinically-cleansed routine which is mirrored only by the published statistics of establshments with names such as Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz.

Many might state that I should never equate legal abortions with even the shades of the Holocaust, but, I ask sincerely, what else did you expect? When the so-called grounds for abortion are so wide that you could drive a Caterpillar tractor straight through the middle. I have maybe written before of my own view that abortion should be the personal path of the woman involved, but the sheer laxity of the law allows virtual ‘abortion on demand’, and when a muslim Pakistani or Bangladeshi woman demands that her pregnancy be terminated because the child would be a girl, and so much less desirable than a boy within their humourless ‘culture’; the medical people cannot refuse, because if they do, they will be accused of ‘racism’ faster than a scalpel hits the ground. The same applies to the majority seeking abortion, or to use the ‘correct’ terminology, a ‘termination’; those of course being white and British. Whatever the reasons, they are all allowed, I mean; have you ever read of an abortion being refused? That folks is what the Law has become; access to an inconvenience removal service!

And you voted for these people; you knew that this would happen, and yet no-one stood against the flow, and said “Enough”, so you should be content with the resultant increase in hospital central heating fuel usage!

 

Just change the ‘battery pack’

By Mike Cunningham On June 28th, 2013 at 1:06 pm

She compared the new techniques to replacing a defective ‘battery pack’ in a cell that would virtually eliminate the chance of a severe disease in the child.

She said: ‘Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on, bringing hope to many families seeking to prevent their future children inheriting them.

 

‘She’ is of course the Government’s Chief Medical Officer ‘Dame’ Sally Davies, and she was talking about the latest ‘gee-whiz’ idea that is destined to remove the ‘tragedy’ of inherited disease from future generations through the Frankenstein process of swapping faulty DNA for normal DNA in the future mother’s egg.  This process would of course result in a child who has three parents’ DNA in their own make-up. A process which could not happen in anything else than a scientist’s laboratory and test-tube. A process which can only be described as unnatural in the extreme!

We see ourselves today as being on the edge of unreality, with the ability to shape a whole generation of children ‘in our own image’, and it is not, in my own humble opinion, a good place to be. It could be, and indeed is being argued, that if we can remove the very chance of certain deformities and life-threatening conditions before the child is born, we should do everything we can to remove any such chance. But we have to accept that we, as members of the ‘human race’, are the product of millions of years of evolution, and those thirty-odd strands of DNA which are the target of this obscene research have evolved over millennia, and they should remain unchanged; because how are we to know the end result of altering DNA strands which have been built over millennia?

We were told when abortion was first discussed in both Westminster and the salons of the ‘chattering classes’ in Islington and Notting Hill that the only reasons for the abortion of babies were to

be  of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family;, or grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or  the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or  the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

I do not believe that those reasons can be tabulated as against today, where we have virtual abortion on demand! It could well be argued that the only person to be considered is that of the future mother, and I for one lean towards that argument in reality, but, and it is a big ‘but’, the safeguards have been virtually diminished as to be non-existent.

We are told that the possibility of the so-called ‘designer baby’ is not possible, with all the checks and balances and assessments to be built in to the system, but we all know whjat happens to the ‘Checks and balances’ when politicians are involved, as well as when ‘Cheques’ are involved as well! The argument for this DNA swap to be undertaken is that the future children of a holder of such DNA will be free of the possibility of the illnesses or diseases or disabilities which may occur if the DNA had not been altered. I would counter with a simple argument of my own, one which is not heard as much as the many arguments opposing it; but which is just as valid: if the mother is found to have these ‘defective genes’, why not go down the route of not procreating children in the first place, and then there would be no further chance of a child with a mitochondrial disorder in the first place?

A Duel Post

By Patrick Van Roy On April 14th, 2013 at 1:59 pm

I’m Pro-Choice but this is about Murder.

I’m pro-choice. I always have to explain that when I say it. Life begins at conception it is a human being the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg. When a woman gets an abortion she is killing a baby she is not discarding some mass forming cells. Now that being said I have known several woman over my life that have had abortions, it has scarred them all in one way or another. Yet each would more than not do it again because of the circumstances that they were in when the pregnancy occurred. 

I do not have the moral authority to judge those woman, only god does. 

The legalization of abortion was a direct response to stop the conditions that have occurred in this case. This is worst than a coat hanger in an alley somewhere. This man was performing late term abortions and murdering the babies that made it out of the womb. The left want this case buried because it shows the truth of abortions after the first trimester, and they can not allow that truth to be shown. It will damage one of the keystones of their party. 

Philly was my home, Pa is still my state and has the death penalty (even though it isn’t used) but after this trial, any sentence that this man gets will be death sentence if he is placed in general population. This story shows the true heart of the left and what they hold sacred, so of course those seats for the press are empty. 

Kirsten Powers writes in USA Today:

Philadelphia abortion clinic horror: Column

We’ve forgotten what belongs on Page One.

Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven’t heard about these sickening accusations?

It’s not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell’s former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.

NBC-10 Philadelphia reported that, Stephen Massof, a former Gosnell worker, “described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, ‘literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.” One former worker, Adrienne Moton, testified that Gosnell taught her his “snipping” technique to use on infants born alive.

Massof, who, like other witnesses, has himself pleaded guilty to serious crimes, testifiedIt would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.” Here is the headline the Associated Press put on a story about his testimony that he saw 100 babies born and then snipped: “Staffer describes chaos at PA abortion clinic.”

Not news if it’s not covered. Empty seats
for news media at trial.

Powers goes on to describe how barely a word of this trial and the horror behind it have become news in the so-called “mainstream” media. Seats specially reserved for the news media at the trial are vacant. Nothing written or spoken about the case in much of the national media.

Powers concludes “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.” You got that right honey! It’s been that way for YEARS!

Hat Tip Mikes America.

Dual Post

Another chance at the 25th?

By Mike Cunningham On December 18th, 2012 at 4:52 pm

 

After this, it was inevitable that there would be this; would you not agree?

 

All Hail the 25th Amendment!

By Mike Cunningham On November 14th, 2012 at 1:06 pm

 

I wonder how much guilt the various Irish politicians feel when they read of the death of a woman whom they condemned to death by a combination of inertia, superstition and ignorance?

I doubt very much if Enda Kenny feels anything more than a momentary annoyance at the stupidity of a woman who held the belief that she was in a country which would protect her against that same ignorance, superstition and inertia, but there again, she must have forgotten she was in a country which just doesn’t care!

 

to form a more perfect Union!

By Mike Cunningham On October 11th, 2012 at 9:55 am

The usual uproar surrounding the very word ‘Abortion’ commenced about five milli-seconds after the announcement that Marie Stopes was opening an abortion clinic in Belfast.

Firstly, I would like to clarify my own position on this extremely touchy subject, which is that whilst I dearly wish the mothers-to-be would not seek to terminate the new life which is inside their bodies, I hold the belief that their bodies are their own to control, and if they wish to terminate that unborn life, so be it! My reasoning has nothing to do with any religion, or indeed a belief stemming from any religion; it is just that if that future child is indeed unwanted by its mother, a life which is begun in hate, rejection and loathing bodes badly for that life.

I listened to the voice of Jim Allister this morning as he placed his views on record that the proposed Clinic has no place in Northern Ireland because of the Province’s culture, and this is maybe where I part company with Mr. Allister, partly because of the many statements by the T.U.V. which encourage ever closer links and ties with the mainland of the British Isles. I would say to Mr. Allister that you cannot pick and choose which parts of the United Kingdom’s Laws should be held to a higher standard in Northern Ireland than on the mainland. Abortion is a fact of life in England, Wales and Scotland, why should there be any difference in the Province of Northern Ireland? The Law is more strictly controlled in Northern Ireland, is much more restrictive, and the question which should be asked is simply ‘Why is Northern Ireland so special?’ Is life, or future life, looked upon as more precious than in, say, London, Bristol or Arbroath? I would also ask Mr. Allister if he likes being of one mind with Sinn Fein on this, or any issue of individual judgement or morality?

I am a great believer in having one set of laws for everyone, with no special dispensation or caveats for ‘certain areas, cultures or creeds’. If we all have to obey the same Law, then the same facilities, legal and lawful, should be available to all the Subjects of the Crown, wherever that Rule pertains!

RECREATIONAL ABORTION…

By David Vance On May 25th, 2012 at 8:31 am

If you want evidence that we need to tighten up on abortion laws, here it is;

NHS figures released to the Press Association under the Freedom of Information Act show another two teenage girls had their seventh abortion in 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, while four more teenagers had a termination for the sixth time. Fourteen teenage girls had their fifth abortion in 2010, 57 teens had a termination for the fourth time and 485 women aged 19 or under went through the procedure for a third time.

SEVEN ABORTIONS. Grotesque. I feel sorry for the girls concerned in one way but cannot help but wonder what sort of family background they must come from and what sort of values they must have that they can terminate life on such a serial basis? Multiple abortions on the NHS seems to be a gross caricature of what the original Abortion Law was brought in to address.

BABIES ARE NOT PEOPLE?

By David Vance On March 1st, 2012 at 9:39 am

To talk utter stupidity a background in academia is a major help;

Doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers, an academic with links to Oxford University has claimed.

Francesca Minerva, a philosopher and medical ethicist, (sighs)  argues a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb. Even a healthy baby could have its life snuffed out if the mother decides she can’t afford to look after it, the article published by the British Medical Journal group states.

The sheer callousness is impressive, albeit in a deranged sort of way.