Apparently “proper process” so that women can make abortion decisions about how they will abort their babies is what thrills Leslie Cannold. Cannold is a glued-to-it abortion protagonist, and like a pit bull terrier without the lipstick, won’t stop pushing for the “right” of women to pay someone to remove their babies from their wombs. According to Cannold, the less they have to pay — and the more we taxpayers have to pay — the happier she is, in fact, “thrilled” according to this report.
The federal government, led by EMILY’s List member Julia Gillard, is “expected to agree” to the subsidising of the abortion drug RU-486, the report states. This means that for a cost or around $11.80, even a minor will be able to ‘afford’ to use this means to kill their baby.
Reported adverse effects in Australia run at 830 currently, but remember, these are only those that have been reported. How many other women and young girls haven’t notified their doctors? To date there is one recorded death in Australia directly linked to RU-486 (which took two years to come to light!), but how many have really occurred? If a woman has a surgical abortion and haemorrhages to death, the cause is not recorded as “haemorrhage due to abortion” but merely as “haemorrhage” which totally misconstrues the true reason.
It is highly unlikely that the ‘reason for death’ will be noted as “haemorrhage/complications/infection due to abortion drug RU-486” thereby skewing the real reason for any deaths that will occur. We state “will occur” with intention as these deaths have occurred and there is no reason to believe they will not continue to occur, sad as that may be.
The push for this evil drug is from Marie Stopes International, an UK-originating abortion organisation whose founder was a self-professed nymphomaniac who found ‘coloured’ people to be abhorrent, along with large families, people with poor vision, and a whole realm of other normal people that she felt didn’t fit her version of normal!
MSI state women could be “traumatised” without a cheap and easy-to-obtain method to abort their babies, conveniently not mentioning how much more trauma these women will experience after their abortion! Their life becomes divided into two segments — 1. Before my abortion, 2. After my abortion.
Cannold states that women “will have a choice about which procedure they choose” as they now won’t be “constrained by a financial consideration” but is she going to advocate for them to be told what that choice will involve? That with RU-486, their babies will starve to death due to the effect of the first drug which shuts down the food (nutrients) source for the baby? That the second drug will then start their wombs contracting to expel their babies and that they will deliver their dead baby at home, into the toilet, in their bed, or perhaps in their bedroom? That their homes, their sanctuaries, will become the tombs for their babies? And possibly their tombs as well?
The fascinating statement by the World Health Organisation (in the article) states that there is “less chance of death and infection” than with a surgical abortion – this is blatantly wrong! South Australia is the only state in Australia that keeps statistics on abortion, how they are done, the negative outcomes (if they are reported!) etc. The findings in that state have shown an overwhelming increase in further ‘fix-up’ treatment/hospitalisation needed after RU-486 abortions! If these are the results found in SA, there would be no reason to think that results would be different anywhere else!
This news article screened on 7 News (13 February 2013) has the banner under the photo shouting out the words “Better protection” along with an ultrasound image of a pre-born baby. Wow, must be some great thing that will ensure the safety of a babe in the womb, mustn’t it? Mustn’t it???
Nope, we were wrong. This “better protection” is for the ‘benefit’ of the mothers and the joy of the doctors that next to no more babies with Down Syndrome will escape with their lives! According to the report, the test is 99% accurate.
What that means is, instead of a mum with a pre-born baby suspected of having the ‘extra love’ chromosome (as Mike Sullivan of Saving Downs puts it — www.savingdowns.com and their Facebook page) being given love and support and offered information about Down Syndrome, she will instead be “counselled” by a ‘genetic counsellor’ to abort her baby.
There are many many couples who are childless who would love a baby, any baby, even a baby with Down Syndrome. They are just waiting to welcome them into their homes and into their hearts — and one woman, Alex Bell, welcomed lots more than one! Read the book “A Mother Like Alex” and be encouraged and uplifted that if she can do it, so can many more.
To those pregnant mums out there reading this and worrying about your child being diagnosed with DS, have courage — you can do this! Ask your doctor for information about how to cope with the problems children with DS typically have. Get in touch with the aforementioned Saving Downs organisations and most importantly, just love your child. They will love you back more than you ever imagined. It IS worth it!
The article "Pink colours the path of a dread journey" printed in the online Brisbane Times (22.10.12) was penned by Maxine Morand. Morand was a minister in the Brumby government and a member of EMILY's List who was turfed out in Victoria's state election. To be a member of the female-only EMILY's List, one must agree with abortion up to the day of birth.
Currently she is the CEO of Breast Cancer Network Australia and one wonders how much effort will be put into research between the abortion/breast cancer link. An article written by a doctor some years ago stated that 20 years ago, a doctor doing his rounds in hospital would find only older women being treated for breast cancer — now, the age is devastatingly young. What has changed? Let's see…
Morand states in her article 'The average age of women diagnosed with breast cancer is younger than other common cancers affecting Australians, such as prostate and bowel" — this should be reason for serious investigation as to the "Why?".
She further writes, 'For most breast cancers there is no known genetic or inherited mutation or family history' — again, what is being done to investigate the "Why?". Surely this is cause for alarm and serious investigation?
Could one reason be something that pro-lifers have known for a very long time — that abortion, particularly abortion of a first pregnancy, is the common cause?
Putting the immorality and emotion of abortion aside for a moment, let's look physiologically at the explanation for this. In simple terms, when a female becomes pregnant, her hormones rise substantially higher. These hormones cause changes in the breast tissue as the breasts change towards their final stage of producing breast milk for babies. If these changes are artificially truncated by abortion, it leaves the breast with many undifferentiated cells and it is these undifferentiated cells that are prone to causing breast cancer.
Note that we are not saying that every women who has had breast cancer has had an abortion, but what we are saying, is that every women who has had an abortion has an increased risk of breast cancer.
There is an old expression that says, "God always forgives, humans sometimes forgive, nature never forgives." Perhaps abortion isn't the panacea that it seems — and nature, in her unforgiving way, is telling us that. So no matter how many bridges we adorn with pink lights or how many pink badges are sold, until there is full recognition and serious prevention of abortion, women will lose their lives to breast cancer.
Having a baby and a number of subsequent babies, particularly at a younger rather than older age, is a good safeguard against breast cancer due to the breast cells being allowed to fully mature.
A legal precedence has been set in Queensland but not one we can rejoice about or be proud of. Conception has now been legally defined as referring to the implantation of the fertilised egg. That’s right — you didn’t start you life when you actually started your life (ie when the sperm and the egg united), you started your life when you were implanted apparently. There is little logic to this, but then, logic seems to have little to do with it.
One has to wonder “what” is actually being implanted if not a tiny growing human person? That little person started his/her life journey when that one single sperm united with one single egg. If ‘it’ isn’t a “conceived child” from the moment that union occurred, then why would they be implanting “it”? Reading the news article, it sends a cold shiver down one’s spine — not only does the anti-life industry restructure the meaning and use of words in the case of euthanasia and abortion, but now we are seeing a flow-on effect in relation to the legal system. One hesitates to wonder where society’s re-meaning of words will end.
That little child, created back in 2008 was already 3 years old when he/she was implanted but there will also be no recognition of that.
Reported in an online article (27.7.12) “Batman massacre' claims 13th victim” we read the tragic news that a pregnant woman had been shot in the horrific events that took place at the midnight screening of the Batman movie in Colorado, USA. Whilst she is lucky to have survived, her unborn baby was not so lucky.
The opening sentences of this online article (and numerous others) read as follows: “The Aurora Dark Knight shooting has tragically claimed a 13th victim after pregnant survivor Ashley Moser suffered a miscarriage. Miss Moser was eight weeks pregnant when a gunman burst into a movie theatre in Colorado on Friday, July 20, killing 12 people and injuring 58 ... ... While Miss Moser herself was badly injured after being shot in the abdomen and neck, her unborn baby had miraculously survived. But a family statement has revealed Miss Moser, who remains critically injured, suffered a miscarriage after surgery today.”
Without for one minute wishing to detract from the sadness and tragedy of what has happened, it is always with dismay that we find that the value of an unborn baby in any given media article seems to hinge on the where the media wants our sympathy/empathy/sadness to fall. If the article was about a woman wanting an abortion, or who had an abortion, the word ‘foetus’ would have been used!