Murder at the clinic • Abortion outrage

The BBC reports on rights groups being outraged at the terror of being a second child in the womb in China in this era of the one-child policy.

It brings home the way in which people can devise laws which literally desensitise the population to the horrors of killing the innocent.

China forced abortion photo sparks outrage

A photo showing a foetus whose mother was forced to have an abortion has shocked China web users.

Feng Jiamei, from Shaanxi province, was made to undergo the procedure in the seventh month of pregnancy, local officials said after investigating.

Ms Feng was forced into the abortion as she could not pay the fine for having a second child, US-based activists said.

Rights groups say China’s one-child policy has meant women being coerced into abortions, which Beijing denies.

“Feng Jianmei’s story demonstrates how the One-Child Policy continues to sanction violence against women every day,” said Chai Ling of the US-based activist group All Girls Allowed.

The group says it spoke to Ms Feng and her husband Deng Jiyuan after the incident. Mr Deng said his wife had been forcibly taken to hospital and restrained before the procedure.

The BBC’s Jon Sudworth in Shanghai says such allegations are nothing new in China, but what has made this one different is a widely circulated photo of the woman lying next to the baby’s corpse.

Media reports from China says Ms Feng has been traumatised by what has happened.

Chinese law clearly prohibits abortions beyond six months.

‘Harmed image of family planning’

Unnamed local officials in Zhenping county – where the incident took place – denied forcing Ms Feng to have the abortion, local media reports say.

But a preliminary investigation by the Shaanxi Provincial Population and Family Planning Commission confirmed the forced abortion had taken place.

Without naming Ms Feng, it said in a statement that the woman had been seven months pregnant.

“Such practice has seriously violated the relevant policies set by national and provincial family planning commissions, which harmed the image of our family planning work, and caused extremely poor effects in society,” said the statement.

“Based on the findings, we have requested the local government to punish the relevant officers according to law,” it said.

Internet users expressed outrage.

“This is what they say the Japanese devils and Nazis did. But it’s happening in reality and it is by no means the only case… They [the officials] should be executed,” one reader on news website netease.com said, according to the AFP news agency.

Activist Chen Guangcheng, who was put under virtual house arrest for campaigning against forced abortions, fled China to the US last month.

It is amazing how abortion can come under the heading of family planning. Orwellian, in fact, that we disguise evil under the guise of good.

We can yell and be horrified by what has happened in China, but is it any better here?

We have lower instances of late term abortions, but, nevertheless, there is evidence that some teenage girls in the UK have had as many as three or four abortions before they reach their twenties. Thousands of people are dying in clinics around the world annually in legalised killing, and we allow these atrocities to continue almost without protest.

What we have seen in the so-called developed nations is as bad as the China late term murders, because, what is the difference, in the end, between early or late termination of a human life? There is none, apart from the fact that we know a seven month old foetus is practically fully formed and able to survive outside of the womb. But that embryo is also human, and will, given time to develop, become a fully functioning person.

Why does it continue, then? Is it a matter of conscience, or turning our back on the reality of what is happening, convenience killing on a genocidal scale?

Any taking of human life where neither the mother nor the foetus’ actual life is otherwise seriously threatened should spark outrage.

Posted by Steve


30 thoughts on “Murder at the clinic • Abortion outrage

  1. “Of course the opposite is true as well – who would not have appluaded (in hind sight) had ..”

    Although it’s a rhetorical question, I think there would be some who wouldn’t have applauded.

  2. Greg, I identify with most of what you say, but, of course, every human is a group of cells, and has to start with the first cells to develop into the full package, but we never cease to be a group of cells.

    Contained within the DNA of the very first embryonic cells is everything that the individual will be potentially.

    When you build a lego house with your kids, you have to start with the foundations before it can become what it will be, but it can’t just be called a house because the roof is added. It needs the foundation or the roof will collapse.

    When we are desensitised to the knowledge that conception is the beginning of a new life it is much easier on the conscience to abort a group of cells than it is a person.

    Science is wonderful and powerful, but I wonder if, sometimes, it can be used to distract us from the morality of some of the issues we face.

  3. We can yell and be horrified by what has happened in China, but is it any better here?

    Gee.. let me think. I suppose if we dont have officials coming to your house and forcibly taking your wife to hospital where they restrain her and perform an abortion against her will — then its a little bit better here.

    When you do something against someone’s will – it becomes a morally altogether different matter. Eg. marriage is good, forced marriage is bad. Listening to Bruno Mars is good – forced listening to Bruno Mars is very bad. Do you see the general principle?

    Not that I’m saying that abortion is good, but there are two different principles applying to the situation – the morality of abortion in general, and the morality of forced abortions.

  4. What a moronic argument, Greg. Sperm is not embryonic until it germinates ova. But once it it is fertilised life has begun.

    I thought you were better than that!

  5. You could argue that, but lets take an eternal view of these matters.

    For an unwanted unborn baby, their chance of being saved when they grow up is very low. Some people put the percentage of saved people in the US at 5%. An unwanted baby is very unlikely to become saved, because his/her parents are not likely to take him/her to church. At any rate, we can say the probability of him/her going to Heaven at the end of their lives is less than 1.

    In contrast to that, the probability of an aborted fetus going to heaven is 100% (according to Steve’s previous comments). This is because they cannot have sinned in their lives.

    Given this, it is a no-brainer that abortion is the more ethical choice. Why then do fundamentalist christians oppose it?

  6. ‘An unwanted baby is very unlikely to become saved, because his/her parents are not likely to take him/her to church’

    Seems like you are implying that church will save you!

  7. So you’d be for postnatal abortion, then?

    Not me, being a universalist, but I can understand why you would be.

  8. James 2:10-13

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    10 For whosoever keeps the Law [as a] whole but stumbles and offends in one [single instance] has become guilty of [breaking] all of it.

    11 For He Who said, You shall not commit adultery, also said, You shall not kill. If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become guilty of transgressing the [whole] Law.

  9. Any taking of human life where neither the mother nor the foetus’ actual life is otherwise seriously threatened should spark outrage.

    Steve, are you similarly outraged by the taking of lives of innocent civilians in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? There are about 1000 children dying each year in Iraq due to the war.

    The UN sanctions against Iraq resulted in the infant mortality rate doubling. Up to 500,000 children died because of this policy. Outrageous?

    Around 3 million children die each year before their 5th birthday due to the effects of hunger. Should we be outraged?

    Many of the soldiers we send on these missions were children themselves only a few years earlier. They kill or are killed in support of our objectives in the middle east and other countries, and if they come home are often severly damaged. Is there outrage from the Christian community?

  10. ‘I think there’s something in that for all of us, Eyes.’

    Well, what did you want me to say.Did you want me to say this,,,,,,

    “Cuttlefish! Ay? Let us not, dear friends, forget our dear friends the cuttlefish… flipper conories little sausages. Pin them up together and they will devour each other without a second thought. Human nature, in’it? Ooor… fish nature. So yes! We could hold up here well-provisioned and well-armed and half of us would be dead within the month! Which seems grim to me any way you slice it! Or! … ahh… as my learned colleague so naively suggests, we can release Calypso, and we can pray that she will be merciful. I rather doubt it. Can we in fact pretend that she is anything other than a woman scorned, like which fury Hell hath no?

    ( the above quote is gobbledygook.)

    Indeed where all sinners and indeed god is merciful.

    James 5

    13 Is anyone among you afflicted (ill-treated, suffering evil)? He should pray. Is anyone glad at heart? He should sing praise [to God].

    14 Is anyone among you sick? He should call in the church elders (the spiritual guides). And they should pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Lord’s name.

    15 And the prayer [that is] of faith will save him who is sick, and the Lord will restore him; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

    And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

  11. The oil represents faith.Hence the scripture,

    15 And the prayer [that is] of faith will save him who is sick, and the Lord will restore him; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

  12. Steve seems to have lost interest in the argument he raised.

    Perhaps he is less comfortable telling the rulers of this world that they shouldnt kill children, than he is about telling poor frightened women that they shouldnt have abortions.

  13. Greg,
    Now that, Steve, is what you cold cal a moronic argument – but it does follow on from your logic.

    No I didn’t. Wazza made a valid, if grimly sardonic, comment, which I replied to.

    If he was being serious he as raised an ethical issue which, again, I answered when I suggested that God wants people to survive the womb and have the choice of life or death, blessing or cursing.

    Your comment was, however, daft. Sperm is not a human being. It is sperm.

    It requires ova to complete a human. I’m no scientist, but a human requires 23 paIrs, or 46 chromosomes. There are only 23 in male sperm. It needs to fertilise female ova to complete the chromosomes required.

    Women eject ova every month if they are not fertilised. If I jumped up and down about this and cried ‘murder’ you’d be onto me in a jiffy with some jibe or other, because it is a nonsense to suggest this is an aborted human.

    You are far more scientifically savvy than I am, so you should know this, which is why you made an absurd statement to compare ejaculated sperm with an aborted embryo.

    Why you came back for me to have to repeat that your comment was imbecilic is doubly boneheaded.

  14. On reflection, wazza2 and Greg condone abortion on the grounds that the aborted infant is immediately transported to heaven.

    They suggest that it is far more practical for Christians to support termination clinics because the probabilities are that the child would not be saved if he or she lived.

    Their opinion is that the Chinese authorities did the child aborted at seven months a favour because now that child will have been accepted into heaven whereas, had he been allowed to go full term and live, he may not have.

    So they condone this atrocity with their own words.

    There’s more than a whiff of wickedness in their arrogance about human life, about the innocent infant, embryo or foetus in the uterus, and about the suggestion from those of us who believe that all human life, from conception onwards, is held sacred by God, and that most of what is called abortion in the world today is evil and will be condemned by God.

  15. Because its directly related to the argument you’ve given here.

    You have made some kind of equivalence between forced abortions in China and abortions in the Western world. You have said we should be outraged at the taking of human life.

    I’m asking why you arent similarly outraged at the taking of children’s lives after they are born?

  16. Who says I’m not? Your attempted equivalence is in no way connected to the issue. It’s just another of your clever injections of smart-talk which never actually solve anything.

    Your preposterous claim that abortion clinics do people a favour by killing foetus’ is an example of something you couldn’t possibly agree with from a Christian perspective, but you feel obliged to bring it up because it might, I don’t know actually…score points in an argument? Surely not.

    Raise a difficult Biblical issue then? Not really, because it is obviously not my decision, but God’s how he does things.

    My morality would always, since was a teen, have been that if I had made a woman pregnant because of some one-off night of consensual sexual pleasure and there was a decision to be made about whether to abort or not, then, obviously, the morally correct thing to do would be to bring the child to birth and support him or her, because, once a life is commenced, even at conception, there is a choice, the parent’s life or the child’s.

    And the man is equally a parent, now, and equally responsible.

    Once a child is conceived, the life of the parents has changed. Sacrifice is required. But too often these days the sacrifice is that of the innocent child, who has no say, no rights, no voice, no choice, and no chance.

    Death, or termination, is a severe price for an innocent child to pay for someone else’s misjudgment.

    It’s a no brainer as far as I am concerned.

    You do what you want.

    I would do everything in my power to persuade the woman to go to full term. That has always been my attitude. It never happened to me, but it did to a friend, and that is why, even before I was saved, I considered what I would do in his shoes.

    I would have to give my life for the child’s and not vice-versa.

    I would have known what was at stake when having sexual intercourse with the woman. We would be adult enough to know the possible consequences of out actions.

    When a person has unprotected sex they are morally saying that they are prepared to become a parent, even if that is not on their mind at the time.

    I’m not talking about rape, or abuse, or any other thing, but just what so often happens, having sex outside of marriage.

    But you are an extremist. Y9u seek extremes to attempt to confound people.

    I think it’s wicked what you do.

  17. Don’t think anyone’s condoning abortion but bringing into question some aspects of soteriology.

    It has been a teaching that an unbaptised infant or aborted foetus would go to Hell based on the teaching of Original Sin. In our compassionate society even the hardest supporter of this doctrine won’t accept it.

    There are also instances in church history where Muslims, for instance, were baptised then had their throats cut so they wouldn’t waver from their decision.

  18. Bones,
    Don’t think anyone’s condoning abortion

    You don’t think so? Help explain this, then, from wazza:

    Given this, it is a no-brainer that abortion is the more ethical choice. Why then do fundamentalist christians oppose it?

  19. Which could explain why I apparently lost interest, not in my comments, but in the ludicrous arguments from the pro-abortion liberals.

  20. The key part of the sentence is “Given this” ie. based on those premises, abortion is the moral choice.

    I’m inviting you to question your premises, or at least defend them. Surely you knew that, or did you really think I’m advocating abortion as a means to salvation?

    Look, I’ve used some light-hearted comments in the past in order to jostle you out of your self-validating and self-limiting world-view. But now I’m deadly serious.

    You use feigned moral outrage as an attempt to invalidate my, Bones and Greg’s argument – thats fine. Everyone can see through that But when you use moral outrage against some of the marginalised in society, while leaving those in power untouched, I have to point out what you are doing and ask you to stop. Particularly when you were or are leading young people to follow this destructive and hateful ideology.

    You can call our arguments ludicrous, but I think its ludicrous to be outraged at abortion – whilst saying “dont change the subject” to the statement that kids are dying every day due to the actions of people in the western world.

  21. Greg,

    You asked the following of me, when I had already chosen to bypass it as a foolish argument likely to stir trouble…

    Steve – how about answering the question that Wazza introduced?

    If the fetus (at any point following conception) is aborted, it goes to heaven right? If it lives and proceeds past the age of responsibility its chances of stuffing it all up are drastically increased…why not celebrate the entry into eternal life of all those aborted fetus’

    Therefore, I concluded that you supported the notion along with wazza, who has not denied it.

    You pressed the issue, Greg. You wanted the answer to what was, in my opinion, a preposterous proposition Biblically.

    I am happy, very happy, to accept that this is not your position.

    But you went to great lengths to explain that you did not consider conception the beginning point of human life, and yet you could not define when human life is to be considered human.

    How can conception not be the beginning of human life?

    Secondly, that may be your personal confusion, but I have no such confusion, and consider conception to be the point of human life, whether that fertilised ova is one cell or many, because, surely, by the time that beginning cell can be aborted through external means it has formed other cells, which, if left to natural development, and in normal circumstances, will go to full term, and will be a human.

    However, spermatozoa or ova alone are not a human because, separate, they do not contain enough chromosomes. The ova must be fertilised, but once it is…

  22. I mean, the dictionary definition of conception, when applied to the subject in hand, is, ‘the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived’. Conceive – ‘become pregnant with (a child).

    It is another word for fertilisation – the fusion of gametes (a mature haploid male or female germ cell that is able to unite with another of the opposite sex in sexual reproduction to form a zygote (a fertilised ovum)) to produce a new organism, in this case a human being.
    ____________________________________

    wazza2,You use feigned moral outrage as an attempt to invalidate my, Bones and Greg’s argument – thats fine. Everyone can see through that But when you use moral outrage against some of the marginalised in society, while leaving those in power untouched, I have to point out what you are doing and ask you to stop. Particularly when you were or are leading young people to follow this destructive and hateful ideology.

    I beg your pardon? I feigned nothing, nor did I attempt to invalidate anything. I am just as outraged by the ease with which some people are allowed to abort an unseen embryo or foetus as you are about the pictures of a woman who is clearly seven months pregnant, and the other pictures which have been published elsewhere of the aborted foetus.

    I see no difference in the crime.

    I mentioned that thee is evidence that teen girls in UK have been allowed to have multiple abortions, which is no better than carting a seven months pregnant woman off to have the child aborted in some authorised clinic.

    You then produced the most extreme hypothetical case scenario to feign some kind of moral theology based on ‘let’s kill foetus’ to save them’, and expected me to say ‘OK, what a great idea, wazza’.

    The only thing anyone sees through is your reluctance to accept that killing is wrong when it comes to most abortion cases, which have nothing to do with mercy and everything to do with convenience.

    Better to warn young people to not get pregnant before they find their life partner than to have to go through the trauma of abortion, and the guilt and shame which follows for many, if not all.

    Better to remind everyone that killing, even of those in the womb, is wrong.

    Tell me, who is culpable for the killing of a foetus? The clinician, the mother who consents, the doctor who prescribes, or the Government which legislates?

    Do you think God has noticed? Or taken note?

    D you have any mercy for the child?

    In fact, I tried to ignore your comments for wisdom’s sake, it but Greg, as you have seen, actually went along with your wickedness so I had to help him through it to see it for what it is.

    You can call our arguments ludicrous, but I think its ludicrous to be outraged at abortion – whilst saying “dont change the subject” to the statement that kids are dying every day due to the actions of people in the western world.

    I didn’t actually say, ‘don’t change the subject’ did I, wazza? No! I reminded you that you had posting rights. I encouraged you to put up a post on he subject, didn’t I wazza? Didn’t I?

    I’ll tell you why, wazza.

    Because the subject demands a commentary and thread of its own, because the way you worded it, deliberately and purposefully worded it, as you always do, was to promote a specific point of view and provoke a response, which, to my mind, requires considered discussion, which should be on a thread of its own since it is a separate subject.

    Which would then allow this thread to continue because it too requires a specific line of discussion.

    You really should try to tell the truth more often.

  23. Teens having as many as 7 abortions: UK stats
    LONDON, UK, May 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com)

    National Health Service (NHS) data for abortions carried out in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available, have revealed that of the 38,269 teenagers who aborted their children, three had seven previous abortions and two had had six.

    According to the statistics, another fourteen teenage girls had their fifth abortion in 2010, 57 teens aborted for the fourth time, 485 for a third time, and more than 5,300 were committed on teenagers who had already had at least one abortion.

    In all, repeat abortions accounted for about a third of 189,574 abortions carried out in 2010 for women of all ages.

    ‘‘There is something seriously wrong with a country where teenagers are having even one abortion, let alone repeat abortions to this extent,” Rebecca Mallinson of the UK’s Pro Life Alliance, told the Telegraph.

    “We are failing these young people in an appalling way, and storing up serious sexual health problems for the future, whether the direct issue of sexually transmitted diseases, but also the effects that multiple abortions can have on future fertility.”

    “Abortion is a serious procedure, one which all sides of the abortion debate agree should not be undertaken lightly. Yet here we have young women, still not fully mature physiologically and emotionally, undergoing abortions numerous times,” a spokeswoman for the UK’s LIFE charity, a pro-life organization that provides support for mothers, children and young families, told the Telegraph.

    LIFE issued a statement warning that the high numbers of repeat abortions are symbolic of a wider problem – that abortion is being used as a publicly funded form of birth control in a society that no longer views the killing of the unborn “as a last resort in uniquely difficult situations.”

    Josephine Quintavalle, founder of Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE), a public interest group focusing on ethical dilemmas surrounding human reproduction, said the number of repeat abortions “is simply extraordinary.”

    “Abortion is an unpleasant and harrowing experience for women and to hear it is happening repeatedly makes your hair stand on end.”

    The Daily Mail reported that the NHS spends £1million a week on repeat abortions, with some women returning for as many as nine abortions in their lifetime.

    “The figures will fuel the debate on whether abortions, which cost the NHS up to £1,000 each, are being sanctioned as more of a lifestyle choice than a medical requirement,” the Mail suggested.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/teens-having-as-many-as-7-abortion-uk-stats

Comments are closed.