Saturday, 30 May 2009

The threat of population control in Australia

A group called Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) is pushing for Australia to adopt a Chinese-style one-child policy, with the aim of reducing Australia’s population of 22 million people to seven million. The groups claims that such a drastic population cut is needed to ensure a sustainable future.

Anthony Ozimic of SPUC, who assists me with my blog, is an Australian, and he tells me:
"The history of modern Australia to the present day is one of under-population. Australia does not, and never has had, anywhere near a sufficient population to take proper advantage of its natural potential. As a result, Australia has always required fresh waves of immigration. I have personal knowledge of these things. Both sides of my family came to Australia from Europe, helping to meet Australia's need for hard-working, industrious immigrants. My father and maternal grandfather, both reservoir geologists, were at the forefront of supplying the oil and gas which sustains Australia's enviable standard of living.

"Believing in humanity entails acknowledging its unfailing ability to produce pioneers who solve many of its problems. Australia has always been a country of pioneers, whether it be explorers of Australia's vast habitable areas or scientists finding better ways to supply food, water and energy. A radical cut in Australia's population would mean cutting Australia's best natural resource - its people, and the future pioneers among them. Australia already has a below-replacement fertility rate and a high abortion rate. Concerns about sustainability, pollution, etc will not be addressed if fewer potential future scientists, engineers, etc are born."

Friday, 29 May 2009

Coroners and Justice Bill – assisted suicide threat

An amendment that would have the effect of legalizing assisted suicide has been tabled to the British government's Coroners and Justice Bill in the House of Lords. Despite the Government saying that they did not want such an amendment attached to the Bill, it has been tabled by Lord Alderdice (pictured). Although the amendment has little chance of success, it is very important that it is strongly opposed at the committee stage debate, which is scheduled for 9th and 10th June. Please read and act on this SPUC alert. Thank you.

Positive report in The Times on Napro Technology - the ethical fertility treatment

Oddly enough for the London Times, which is usually virulently anti-life, it has published a positive report on natural procreative technology (NaProTech or NPT). Among other things, the report points out that:
  • "NPT is offered to couples as an 'ethical alternative' to assisted reproductive techniques ... There is no egg selection, no donor insemination and no embryo wastage."
  • "NaPro is slowly establishing itself in Britain."
  • "Supporters of NPT say that its attractions are not only moral but tangible."
  • "NPT has markedly lower fees than IVF"
  • "The biggest study of NPT effectiveness [found] a live birth rate of 25.5 per cent, a figure that seems impressive given that in the UK the IVF success rate is about 23 per cent."
Do read the report in full. It's refreshing that sometimes light is allowed to shine out from the darkness of the anti-life mainstream media.

Thursday, 28 May 2009

Gordon Brown's wife endorses the international pro-abortion lobby

Last month I blogged about Sarah Brown (pictured), wife of Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, and her participation in a conference where abortion was promoted. Mrs Brown has now gone one step further by openly endorsing some of the world's leading pro-abortion agencies. In a keynote address at the recent World Health Assembly (at which SPUC was represented), Mrs Brown praised the work of the:
Mrs Brown singled out for praise the late Dr Allan Rosenfield, former national chairman of Planned Parenthood of America (America's largest abortion provider) and a leading pioneer of population control in the developing world. Mrs Brown said that "[t]he medical and academic world lost a great figure" when he died last year.

I find Mrs Brown's endorsement of these pro-abortion groups worrying, considering that these groups shamelessly manipulate the issue of maternal mortality to promote their child-killing agenda. That said, I'm not surprised either, considering her husband's anti-life record and her work for EMILY's List, which helps elect female Labour candidates to Parliament, but only if they are pro-choice i.e. pro-abortion.

It seems, unfortunately, to have become de rigeur for British prime ministers' wives to promote pro-abortion organizations!

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

UN committee calls for liberal abortion law in Northern Ireland

SPUC has criticised the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for calling for Britain's liberal abortion law to be extended to Northern Ireland.

Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland said:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family, including children before birth. It is disturbing, therefore, to see how far the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has departed from the UN's founding principles.

"Abortion not only denies the fundamental human rights of children but it is deeply damaging to women. It is clear that the committee has no real concern for either women or children and knows nothing about Northern Ireland. If it did, then it would know that there is no evidence of so-called backstreet abortion in Northern Ireland and that in fact we have the best maternal mortality record in the UK.

"UN committees must be told to stop promoting abortion. It is time for pro-life politicians everywhere to call on the UN to return to its founding principles and protect the human rights of all members of the human family from the first moments of life until its natural end."

At a meeting in Geneva two weeks ago, the UN committee said in its report: "The Committee calls upon the State party to amend the abortion law of Northern Ireland to bring it in line with the 1967 Abortion Act with a view to preventing clandestine and unsafe abortions in cases of rape, incest or foetal abnormality."

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Scottish abortions "inhuman and degrading", says cardinal

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, has responded to the latest abortion statistics in Scotland, published today. I reproduce his office's brief media statement in full below:
Reacting to the release today of the latest Scottish abortion statistics showing a total of 13,817 abortions in Scotland last year Cardinal Keith O'Brien has described them as "inhuman and degrading". He said:

"The 2008 abortion statistics confirm the abject failure of the so called 'sexual health strategy' of recent years. They represent a human rights violation, in our midst, on a massive scale. We destroy 53 unborn children each day in Scotland. Were this carnage to take place among children lucky enough to have been born our outrage would be boundless. The victims of this inhuman and degrading violence are firstly the 13,817 Scottish children killed before they have been born and then the thousands of women who agree to their own off-spring being aborted."

Cardinal O'Brien added:

"[When i]n 2007 I claimed that 'we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day' many objected to the vehemence of my language. Grotesquely, since then we have seen classroom sizes in Scotland fall and abortion numbers rise. Today we abort over 50 children per day or two classrooms full. These statistics shame and debase us all."

Cardinal O'Brien concluded:

"I am haunted by the words of a surgeon who wrote to me the last time I criticised such statistics. He said: 'I feel powerless to halt the carnage and there is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing little arms and legs being sucked down a glass tube and binned for the sake of someone's lifestyle'. I hope we will all be haunted by these figures to the point where we act to halt them once and for all."

Monday, 25 May 2009

Dana does not support Paschal Mooney

Dana, one of Ireland's most successful entertainers, stated today that she has not endorsed any EU candidate or political grouping in the European Parliament.

"I cannot in conscience support any candidate, political party or EU political grouping that promotes and supports the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights contained within it. This Charter and the EU Constitution of which it is the foundation stone, undermines our Irish Constitution and in particular the protection afforded within it by the Irish people to Family and Life issues," said Dana.

Earlier today John Brown, Dana's assistant, said that Paschal Mooney MEP was untruly claiming that he was "good friends" with Dana and implying that she supported him and the Liberal group in Europe he is joining.

Mr Brown said: "Dana does not support Paschal Mooney, nor would she ever have anything do to with the Liberal group in Europe, nor any person or group associated with them nor those who supported or promoted issues such as abortion, euthanasia or embryo research."

In 1999, Dana was elected as a Member of the European Parliament, representing Ireland’s Connacht-Ulster constituency from 1999 to 2004. She is pictured above after leading 86,000 young people singing her composition "Totus Tuus" for Pope John Paul II in the New Orleans’s Super Dome .

Sunday, 24 May 2009

The weak arguments of those denying human rights to embryos

In an extraordinarily flippant comment promoting destructive embryo research, David Norris, a Irish senator, told a press conference last month:
“Nobody takes an embryo to the zoo or the cinema or the church. Let’s be real about this.”
In response to Sen. Norris, Professor William Binchy, a Irish pro-life legal expert, wrote to the Irish Times:
"A child who shows wonderment at an elephant at the zoo delights us because of the child’s innocence, spontaneity and capacity to share experience. But no child’s rights should depend on such a fragile entitlement ... To attempt to condition the right to life on the capacity of a human being to relate to, or enthral, others is to contradict the core insight of human rights – that each of us, at all stages in our life, regardless of our particular capacities, has an equal inherent worth and dignity."
Sen. Norris confirmed the weakness of his position in a reply to Prof. Binchy:
"At 14 days or less the embryo is an undifferentiated cluster of cells. It possesses no intellect, no spinal cord, no organ development, no capacity to experience the material world, no consciousness etc."
In addition, Sen. Norris confirmed in his flippancy:
"I might also point out that nature in its own way is very cavalier indeed concerning the fate of these tiny entities, happily destroying hundreds of millions of them. Nature, that is, not man and this is all despite Prof Binchy’s quixotically amiable feelings towards them."
I've pointed out in a previous blog the cynical, self-serving, contradictory arguments for destructive embryo research, but in response to Sen. Norris, I would add the following:
  • Countless thousands of embryos, every day of the year, all over the world, go to the zoo, the cinema and to church - in their mother's wombs!
  • The embryonic stage of development ends at eight weeks after conception, not 14 days.
  • The embryo, even at its earliest stage, is not undifferentiated, as the late Professor Jerome Lejeune, the esteemed geneticist, testified 20 years ago: "[D]ifferentiation is, so to speak, prewritten in the first cell ... [I]t cannot be said that the first cell is a non-differentiated cell. It must be said now the first cell is knowing how to differentiate the progeny, the cell progeny."
  • If Sen. Norris were to be knocked unconscious, he would not be able to exercise his intellect or experience the material world. Would it therefore be alright to kill him by ripping out tissue from his body, for use in redundant medical experiments?
  • Nature is not a moral agent, but man is. Man has, throughout history, also destroyed hundreds of millions of innocent human beings, born and unborn. Is Sen. Norris saying that's alright, as long as the purpose is medical research?