Marmaduke O’Connor
There is good and bad in all of us. We all know that good people sometimes do bad things and bad people sometimes do good things. This is a delicate issue that we are discussing. There is a moral dimension to it. I address this in particular to the people of the United Kingdom where I am resident. But this is an issue of the first importance to the entirely of mankind. This question hinges on what it is to be human and whether there is a right to life. Is a human embryo or human foetus a human being? If so is this human alive?
I know some good and moral people who have had unnecessary abortions. Some of these people are very loving mothers towards their other children. That is the staggering thing. There is a limitless capacity for self-delusion. People can fool themselves into thinking that up is down and that right is wrong. People have tricked themselves into believing that certain categories of people are not people at all. We are told that people In utero are not people. It is like saying that people of a certain race are not humans or women are not humans.
There are good people on the other side of the debate. A person can be right on every issue except one. There are loathsome people on my side of the debate. Sometimes one has to give the devil his due. Even evil people are right occasionally. The truth is untidy.
To call a viewpoint far left or far right is just a thought terminating cliché. That is mere name calling and mudslinging. Guilt by association is no argument. If a far left person said something true would she be wrong? If a far right person made a logical argument on one issue would he be wrong just because he is far right?
I am not a religious person and do not speak in religious terms. I approach this as a secularist and a humanist.
I am the last to moralise. I believe that people should be able to do whatsoever they please unless it harms others. This harm principle was invented by the father of utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham. It was regarded as a liberal and progressive philosophy. His disciple John Stuart Mill took it further. Mill was a Liberal MP.
There are many here who very much moralise and who strive to interfere in very tiny personal decision. There are control freaks who itch to micromanage every single interaction. There are nanny staters who want to control what we say, what we eat, what we drink, what we see, what we read, what we think and so forth. A socialist parliamentarian Wes Streeing wants to criminalise people smoking. So much for bodily autonomy! Abortion enthusiasts in him disbelieve in choie. Contrariwise, I strive not to interfere. My maxim is minimum intervention. However, there are times when one person’s action directly harms another. AT that point the state is obliged to intervene. That is what the state exists for. It is to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
My moral philosophy is that morality is helping people and immorality is hurting them. Does abortion hurt babies? Only a fool or a charlatan would say no.
This is not a party political issue. It is true that few on the Labour, Liberal Democrat or SNP benches are pro-Life. The last Labour pro-Lifer I can think of was Kerry Pollard. There were Lib Dems who were pro-life such as Tim Farron and David Alton. But then again most on the Conservative benches are pro-abortion. Some very distinguished Tories have been pro-abortion such as Maggie Thatcher and John Bercow. He was a Tory once you know.
I am all in favour of contraception including the morning after pill. I am happy with the morning after pill preventing sperm reaching an egg or preventing an egg being released. I am more dubious about it causing a fertilized egg to come out of the lining of the womb.
An embryo’s humanity is on distinguishability and contestability spectra. When is life initiated? When all 7 signs of life are there
It could be said that there are only two statuses with regard to life. These are alive or dead. However, perhaps there is a third status and that is preliving. Or is that semantical sleight of hand?
If an embryo can be frozen for decades then the embryo is not alive. It could be called pre living. I do not know enough about the very early embryonic stages. I am not an embryologist.
I am in favour of using date from stem cell research that has already been done. Even if this is killing we cannot bring these embryos back. Good can come out of bad.
These embryos are human. We do not know their characters. Which ones will be loquacious and which ones laconic. We do not know who will be a talented sportswoman and which one is musically gifted. But they are human.
There are abortionist casuists who will argue that since switching off a life support machine is not always murder therefore willfully killing a child in the womb is never murder. This is a preposterous false comparison. Only a feminist or a knave would fall for such sleight of hand. Discontinuation of medical treatment is not murder. Medical treatment is precisely the willful interruption of natural processes for the express purpose of maintaining life. Abortion is quite different. It is a deliberate interruption of the natural process for the express purpose of killing someone against his or her will.
There are rare situations in which abortion should be permitted. If the mother’s life is in danger than she should of course be allowed to abort her baby. That was the case long before the 1967 Abortion Act. That is because 2 deaths is worse than one. Moreover, if the mother dies then the baby can almost never be saved. If a woman is raped then she should be allowed to abort her rapist’s child. If a baby has fetal abnormalities inconsistent with life outside the woman then it would be pharisaical to force the woman to give birth when the baby is going to die in pain within a few hours anyway. These are all horrific and tragic situations. No decent person would wish this horror on anyone.
This is an emotive topic. It is possible to be rational whilst also expressing our feelings. The two are by no means mutually exclusive. Feeling does not always occlude ratiocination. What could be more emotional than life and death? In fact it is right to be a little emotional. That is what makes us human. That leads to the key point: when talking about embryos and fetuses it is human being that we are talking about.
I am going to do something outrageous. I am going to tell the truth. I am going to do what few people do here. I am going to say what I really believe. This is not about me. This issue is far, far more important than I can ever be or anyone’s career or any election or any government. This is about human life itself.
I am not an absolutist. Nor indeed am I pro-life on end of life issues. If an adult is terminally ill and in agony, if he or she is of sound mind and attests that he or she wants euthanasia then this should be permitted. Assisted dying ought to be allowed by law.
Should the morning after pill be allowed? I find that difficult. If it stops a sperm reaching an egg that is fine or stopping an egg being released. I have a problem with it stopping a fertilized egg implanting or staying implanted. But then not all the 7 signs of life are there until a few days in. Perhaps I am wrong and the 72 hour pill should be prohibited.
Every one of us here was once an embryo and every one of us was once a fetus. We were as human then as we are now. We were as alive then as we are alive now. What species is an embryo in a mother’s womb? Not a kangaroo or an elephant but homo sapiens.
This issue raises some fundamental questions which are binary. Do we believe in the right to life or not? Do we value our children or not? Do children have rights or not? Are we against murder or not? Is life better than death?
There are people whom I love who have had abortions. I love them despite recognizing that they have done a terrible thing.
There are women and indeed men who have been involved in abortions who regret what they have done. Some of them are gallant enough to say so publicly. No praise is too high for such people. No amount of shame or no amount of guilt can ever bring back an aborted baby for a single instant. However, people who have aborted a baby and speak about what a terrible mistake it was can sometimes help others to avoid that same mistake.
It is vital to face the facts. We should all tell the truth unflinchingly. In this case the truth is hideous. It is wrong and cowardly to hide behind euphemisms.
I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a ghastly thing? How dare I speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves? How dare I defend the defenceless? How dare I call abortion by its proper name: murder?
If you think is abortion is so wonderful would you like to have been aborted. No one wants to have been aborted. If you did then you could end your life. Babies have no such choice
I asked someone if she would have liked to have been aborted. She said she would have been a nothing. But only a nothing can be nothing, can’t it? Something cannot be nothing, can it? She was speechless. Answer came there none. There is no logic to the pro-abortion argument. She never spoke to me again.
I recall a female abortion supporter telling me that abortion should be allowed because men never have their bodies restricted. This was a worthless and false argumentation inasmuch as abortion is about what is done to a baby’s body without consent and not is done to a woman’s body with consent. But her premise was also specious. Men have what they can do with their bodies restricted all the time. What we can eat is restricted, what we can drink, where we can drink it, when we can drink it, how much of it we can drink, at what age we can drink, where we are allowed to be naked, what we are allowed to look at, who we are allowed to look at, rooms we are allowed to go into, drugs we are allowed to take, who we are allowed to tattoo us, what operations we are allowed to have, whom we are allowed to have doing the operations, what we must wear on a motorbike, seatbelts we are obliged to wear and on and on and on. Bodily autonomy is never morally or legally absolute. We must consider the impact our bodily actions have on others.
How do babies get killed? If they are taken out of the womb as a method of killing it is usually asphyxiation that kills them. They either do not yet have lungs or they are so underdeveloped that they cannot breathe outside the womb. Would it be permissible to asphyxiate you? And if not, then when is it ok to do it to a baby?
Some babies are injected with a deadly substance. So are ripped apart. Is it permissible to rip an adult limb from limb? Why do you want to do it to a baby? Having wild horses tear people apart used to be a means of execution. Abortionists are compassionate which is why they reserve this means of killing for babies. It is only used for babies that have a central nervous system. Lovely!
A male abortionist said killing a child in utero is permissible because the baby does not feel anything. That is a lie. From an early stage there is a nervous system.
Even if a killing is painless it is still wrong. No one here thinks it would be right to kill one of use here even if painlessly.
I am no paragon of virtue. I have done bad things. My opponents will reply with tu quoque. Because I am imperfect I am disentitled from speaking out on any issue. That is the specious argument that abortionists will attempt. According to this line of unreasoning no one is ever entitled to say anything on any issue because human imperfection renders us all unworthy to vocalise any opinion.
Abortionists will say that expressing one’s desire to save children is offensive. But abortionists offend pro-lifers every single day. No one say that abortionists are not entitled to say their piece. The claim that something is offensive is not an argument. Abortionists are so bereft of arguments that all they are left with is the vacuous claim that pro-life rhetoric is offensive. The more important question about an argument is: is it true? Does the argument hold water? As I shall demonstrate the pro-life position is cogent.
Left wingers speak about the vulnerable. Babies are the most vulnerable of all. Surely it behoves the left to speak up for babies.
People deny that babies in the womb because we date life from date of birth. That is because the exact date of conception is rarely known. Moreover, many babies miscarry.
An American abortion enthusiast David Pakman said that babies in a mother’s body are not human because they do not have social security numbers. He really takes the biscuit. That really is world class idiocy. So before social security numbers human being did not exist? Were we to abolish social security numbers or national insurance numbers the human race would be eliminated? This is what passes for a plausible argument in the abortionist community. Abortionists will concoct any argument no matter how manifestly preposterous because they are sp hell bent on the annihilation of the innocent.
National insurance numbers are not issued to the unborn because they are not yet counted. The NHS does not know about them for a few weeks or months. We do not know their names nor their dates of birth until after birth. Moreover, many of them die naturally in the womb.
The American presidential hopeful Peter Buttigieg said late term abortions are acceptable because ONLY a few thousand children are killed at that stage per annum in the USA. This is a specious and abhorrent argument. Mr. Buttigieg is a self-proclaimed homosexual. If ONLY a few thousands gay men were murdered in the United States every year that would not be acceptable, would it? If the KKK lynched ONLY a few thousand black people each year that would not be permissible, would it?
We are often told that a so called reasonable number of abortions should be allowed. Some things are never reasonable. I put it to feminists, what is a reasonable number of rapes? What is a reasonable amount of wife beating? What is a reasonable amount child sexual abuse?
Shelley the radical poet rightly used abortion as a metaphor for atrocity and oppression. But today it is no metaphor.
There are some feminists against abortion. Most feminists are eager abortionists. One could agree with feminism on every issue except this one.
You commiserate with someone who has suffered a miscarriage because it is the death of a child. So condemn her if she kills such a child in purpose.
It is crucial to recognise that embryos and fetuses are babies. So let’s call them babies. No pregnant woman ever said I am having a fetus.
An implanted embryo is alive by any definition. An embryo is a he or a she. The embryo could be a ‘’they’’ because there are sometimes twins or even triplets.
An embryo does not look like a human but an embryo is a human there can be a difference between appearance and reality
A person is a person no matter how small. Saying that is s acceptable to kill someone because he or she is small is as bad as saying that it is acceptable to kill people for being over 6 foot tall.
You will also say that you agree to the right to life. But pro-abortionists say this must be balanced with a woman’s right to choose. But if the two collide which one should prevail? Without the right to life a woman would have no right to choose because she would be dead. But without a right to choose an abortion she would still be alive. Hundreds of millions of women are alive in countries were abortion is illegal in almost all circumstances.
Would you like to have been aborted? No. If abortion is wrong when you were a baby for you how can it be right for others?
When I asked an abortionist if she should have been aborted she said she would have been a nothing. No. Someone can’t be nothing, can she? But even if we say something rather than someone – still something cannot be nothing, can it? Only nothing can be nothing, can’t it. You see how plainly illogical and risible pro abortion argumentation is. This woman was alive because she had not been aborted. Had she been aborted she would be dead. Changing a person from alive to dead is called killing. Doing so when not in self defence is murder.
If I am asked to choose between a child and someone who wants to kill that child I do not have to ask myself whose side I am on. Whose side are you on?
I often hear the fallacious argument that before legal abortion women died in illegal abortions. At most this was dozens of women. The blame for these deaths lies on the abortionists. It was the abortionists who killed the women and not the pro- lifers who were against the abortion in the first instance. Yet abortionists are so illogical and dishonest that they blame the deaths of these women on people who are against abortion! Pro lifers are pro life for mothers and for babies.
The answer to back street abortions is the vigorous prosecution of these illegal abortionists. Anyone who willfully does something illegal and is reckless as to the possibility that it will result is someone’s death, if that death follows, should be prosecuted for murder even under current law and the law as it stood in 1967. But in abortion the baby dies even if the mother does not.
They say they want safe abortions. But the death rate is 100%. That is the whole point.
I correct myself. There are very rare instances when the baby survives and is born alive. Does that give you food for thought? Even abortionists do not usually argue for the murder of babies outside the womb. What is the moral difference between killing a baby outside the womb and killing it a few inches further away?
Morality cannot be a number, can it?
Until 24 weeks a baby can be killed in the womb for any reason at all.
But babies born survive at young and younger gestational ages. Therefore the time limit should be shifted.
If a baby is born at 22 weeks the hospital will do everything it can to save that baby and sometimes succeeds. In the same hospital doctors are killing a baby who has been 23 weeks in the womb. That again exposes the irrationality of the abortionist viewpoint.
Think of that. 23 weeks in the womb. A fully formed baby with hair on his or her head. In the ultra sound you can see the baby’s face.
Look at your baby album. The first photo is often an ultra sound picture. That was you. Not something or someone else. That was you. You were as alive then as you are alive now. You were human then as you are human now. As we speak babies like that are being slain in our name.
People cite the Roe v Wade decision. It is now overturned. Miss Roe was actually Norma McCorvey. She bitterly rued trying to kill her child. She valiantly admitted this in public and became a fervent pro Life activist. Her advocation of life surely expiates the felony that she essayed to commit.
Miss Roe’s baby was born. She is alive and in her 50s. Are you going to kill her? If not then accept that it was right that she was born. Killing her in the womb would have been worse than killing her now. She has at least lived a long time.
What if women did not have abortions? Then the mother would live and so would the baby. What is wrong with that? It is a win-win situation.
Some people say we need to balance the right to life with a woman’s right to choose. I would allow women many, many choices but not the right to kill their children when totally unnecessary.
Some so called rights are not rights at all. What about the right to own slaves that was once recognized in law? What about the right to discriminate on a racist basis? Until 1993 the UK said there was a right for a man to rape his wife?
Sometime there is nothing to balance. How can we compromise on abortion? To just kill half the baby?
Far left rent a quote Laurie Penny said that those who want to save children hate women. This is a baseless, ludicrous and foul slur. Who are these people who supposedly hate women? Half of them are women. Most of the rest are married to woman. The pro murder lobby is so bereft of arguments with any plausibility that it is compelled to resort to arguments that can be irrefragably demonstrated to be utterly meritless.
It is abortionists who are full of hate. They hate babies. That is why they kill them. Action speaks louder than words. Abortionists murder people and pro-Lifers save people.
Such chutzpah to say I killed my baby because I cared about him or her. Do you care for your friends on the same way?
What about bodily autonomy? Feminists say that
So allow us to watch porn. Allow prostitution. Allow lap dancing . Allow men to look at woman
Feminists often say men have no right to be pro-life. But they have the right to be pro-choice. This proves yet again what a pernicious, dishonest, detestable, despicable, irrational and bigoted creed feminism is.
What right do I have to control a woman’s body? None. But I do have the right to stop her killing somebody else even when that body is on the woman’s body/
As John Donne said no man is an island entire of himself. I am involved in mankind
Ask not for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee. If one human being is murdered then none of us are safe. They abortionists will kill more and more and more. They will kill the born as well as the unborn. Abortionism is a death cult. It is death worship. They consider the murder of a child to be a sacrament. It is human sacrifice.
First they came for the embryos, then they came for the fetuses, then they came for the newborns, then they came for the yearlings.
A pro abortion philosopher from Australia has been frank enough to go further and say what abortionist really think. He is Professor Peter Singer. He says the right to kill a child should not stop at birth. He says it is a parent’s entitlement to kill children after birth. Singer is a professor of, wait for it, bioethics. His open advocacy of mass murder of born children has not resulted in a ticking off. But woe betide any academician who speaks up for Life. That could get someone dismissed. It is staggering that Singer speaks with pathos of his relatives who were murdered in the Holocaust and then calls for another genocide.
We often hear that there is a woman’s right to choose. Choose what? She is not entitled to choose the death of her baby when this is not strictly necessary to prevent greater suffering.
When a pregnant woman walks into an abortion clinic that means 2 people are entering it. But only one comes out alive. The other person comes out in the bin.
People say pro-life demos intimidate and harass as a reason to ban them. Intimidation and harassment are illegal anyway. This false argument is an attempt to deprive us of liberty.
Some pro-lifers broke the law.
We only have Magna Carta because people broke the laws. We only have Parliament, the end of divine right, the Great Reform Act, the abolition of slavery, women’s rights. Gay rights, racial equality… because people broke the law.
Most abortionists say it was right to break the law before 1967. Many say it is right to break the law even now when providing abortions.
Pro-life groups in Italy took the corpses of these murdered babies and gave them a decent burial. They did not know the babies names. They had not been named. Abortionists deny these babies their humanity in death as they do in life. So the pro-life people buried these poor children under gravestones with the mother’s name. If the baby was a girl then the mother might have named the child after herself.
Abortion is murder. No amount of obfuscation, rationalization, normalization or justification can change this. Abortion is the lesser of two evils in some just as killing adults is generally murder but there are exceptions when it is acceptable.
I condemn the murder of abortion doctors. They should be named and shamed. They are serial killers. They are paid 150 K a year to murder children. The NHS does good work when it is not murdering kids or mutilating their genitals.
Some pro-abortion people took the gravest possible exception to pro \-life people showing some compassion towards these murder children. Why should abortionists care that someone showed decency towards the body of a murder baby? Abortionists do not recognise these children as people at all. If they consider these babies mere rubbish why do they care>?
Abortionists would have us believe that a baby is just life a toenail to be cut off and thrown away or hair. That a baby is inert organic material and there is no moral aspect to killing the child.
It smacks of a guilty conscience that abortionists dislike the honour shown to these cadavers.
As an Irishman until recently my heart nearly burst with pride that Ireland was as so often the moral tutor of the western world. We kept the light of civilization burning. Ireland almost alone in Europe valued the lives of its children. In the republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland our babies had the right to life that
Babies in other countries did not.
I often hear the argument that abortion should be allowed because child benefit is too low. The answer then would be to increase child benefit. I am known to want benefits to be kept down. But I offer a deal to any abortionists here. I will vote to double child benefit if you vote with me to outlaw abortion in almost all cases. Will anyone take me up on that?
Abortion was broadly outlawed in the offences against the person Act 1861. There were almost no benefits then. Yet we had almost no abortions after that until 1967. By the time abortion as generally legalized we had extensive benefits. The more benefits we have granted the more abortions we have had. The notion that we have abortions because benefits are too few and too low is manifestly bogus.
If people kill their children because they do not want to spend money on their children is this an acceptable motive? How much money would you have to be paid to kill your best friend? If you would not kill a friend for money then why is it ok to kill your child for money?
In 1965 the UK abolished the death penalty. THAT WAS and advance for human rights. In 1967 the UK reintroduced the death penalty but only for children.
I do not want capital punishment back. But why do so many speak with such pathos about people we are certain are murderers being killed but then spare no sympathy for innocent babies? I do not want anyone to be executed including those convicted of murder.
I often hear the feeble argument that the majority are pro-abortion so it must be right. This is simply following the crowd. We are not lemmings. We have agency. The majority is sometimes wrong.
The majority of people in this country were once racist. The majority were once against gender equality. The majority were once against gay rights. The majority were against gay marriage 20 years ago.
For being pro-life we are called extreme. Every advance in human rights is at first called extreme.
People tell themselves that killing babies is not killing because all it takes is a pill. Killing by chemical means s still killing. Killing someone by poisoning a person’s food is still murder. If you are charged with murder it is no defense to say I did it chemically. Killing people with poison gas s still murder. In the USA people are sometimes executed with a lethal injection. In the UK babies are killed with a lethal injection
The same poisons that kill babies would kill adults in sufficient doses.
Many abortions under the 1967 are legally dubious as well as morally repugnant. All it takes is 2 doctors to sign that continuing a pregnancy is more of a risk to the mother’s life than an abortion. Note it is not her life that has to be at risk only her health. So if she says she is a tiny bit sad or stressed her baby gets killed.
I read a journalist write on the front page of the independent in 2022 about having an abortion. She glibly said abortion was vital. It is staggering that a journalist should know so little of etymology. Vital means necessary for life. This was not vital it was mortal. She killed her baby.
We are told that abortion is healthcare. That is like saying a lethal injection execution is healthcare. It is like saying that decapitation is healthcare: after all it is only an amputation. It is like saying shooting someone is providing ventilation.
As Orwell said euphemisms can make murder seem respectable. We hear of terminations. Yes, terminating the life of an innocent child. In plain English that is murder.
Pregnancy is not a disease to be cured. Abortion is almost never healthcare. This is yet another false argument put forward by abortionists in a dishonest attempt to excuse the atrocities they are committing. It is like calling a gas chamber de lousing.
Medical care is about maintaining a heartbeat and not stopping it. Medical care is about maintain respiration and not stopping it. Abortion is the absolute opposite of healthcare.
We often hear that pro-abortion people are all about choice. What choice does a baby get? Who is most impacted by the abortion? It is the baby.
If pro- abortion people believe in choice then they must support choice for pro Life people to choose to protest. And their right to choose where to protest. That includes protesting outside abortion clinics. If you want bodily autonomy let me control my body by standing outside a murder clinic to try to save children.
They say there is a time and a place for a conversation. The clinic is that time and place. It is the last chance to save an infant.
This is the last chance to save a baby’s life. Of course we have the right to protest in the relevant place. If you want to protest against the police you protest outside a police station. If you want to protest against a court decision you protest outside the court. If you want to protest about Parliament then you protest outside parliament.
Some people find pro-life protests upsetting so abortionists want to restrict these protests to make saving the lives of babies impossible. Abortionists find the murder of children upsetting but abortionists do not want to change the law to please those who would save children.
Pro- life protestors are an emergency service. They should be publicly funded. They deserve to be loaded with honours and medals.
If you are pro-choice are you pro-choice on kidnapping? Are you pro-choice on slavery? Are you pro -hoice on rape? Are you pro-choice on paedophilia. No you are not. What about the victim? Because the victim gets no choice.
You may dislike the comparison to paedophilia. But abortion is far worse. Paedophile abuse does not usually involve murder.
There is a very powerful and well-funded abortion industry. The abortion industry consists of some doctors, nurses, some of the pharmaceutical industry, some MPs, journalists and lobbyists and so on.
We are told there are NHS shortages. If no doctors and nurses were busy killing kids then these shortages would be reduced.
Abortion is my business because it is my tax money that pays for it. But even if it were all private I have a right to advocate for life and to save people from murder. It is infanticide.
We condemned India and China in former times for female infanticide. Abortion often is that. Feminism has boomeranged. This is the ultimate gender discrimination
The abortion industry makes its money from killing babies or advocating for the same. They also get kudos. We are told that those who publicly proclaim that they have killed their children are brave. What bravery does it take to kill the defenceless. Do these babies fight back?
Abortionists say that abortion is acceptable because 1 in 3 women has done it. This makes no sense. If only 1 in 4 had done it would it be less acceptable? If every man committed rape would it be permissible because 1 in 3 men had done it? This is yet another formal logical fallacy. An action is innately moral or immoral. Its morality or immorality is not contingent on its commonality. I do not care if 4 out of 4 women have aborted their children. It would be just as evil. Morality is not normative.
I do not propose to prosecute those who have had unnecessary abortions already. Non retroactivity is a core principle of justice. Moreover, nulla crimen nulla poena sine lege.
Abortionists say we must end the culture of guilt and shame. I agree there must be no guilt or shame about being pro-Life.
A baby’s life matters more than an adult’s feelings, doesn’t it? If guilt and shame will save a single baby’s life then causing guilt and shame among abortionists is well worth it, isn’t it? We need far more guilt and far more shame.
Nothing is guiltier than the willful murder of one’s own child? Nothing is more shameful than the ritual slaughter of a helpless infant.
Men are just as guilty of abortion as women. Men expedite it and fund it. They encourage it counsel it and sometimes pressurize women into it.
I heard a specious argument that a baby that has only been in the womb a few weeks and is incapable of surviving outside the womb has no right to life. But leave that baby inside the womb and the baby will very probably survive. A vulnerable person has as much right to life as a not vulnerable person. We should try all the harder to keep the vulnerable safe.
The police, schools and universities have largely been taken over by abortionists. Telling the plain truth is banned in schools, hospitals, the police and so on
The police far from stopping these murders facilitate them. They stand guard to help people kill kids. They prevent peaceful protests.
The police take no action against terrorist organisations such as the BPS. MSI ought to be called murder services international. They are terrorists since their violence is unlawful and in furtherance of an ideological cause: feminism.
These terrorist organization breach the international chemical weapons convention. They produce, procure, import and use weapons for the express purpose of murdering civilians.
I remind you that propaganda for an illegal war is also a crime against humanity.
It is said the law is not fit for purpose. Abortionists have said we have an outdated law because it from the 19th century. They reveal their own ignorance and imbecility. Prior to 1861 there were no laws against abortion before the baby quickened. Moreover, a law is neither good nor bad because it is hoary. Magna Carta is not bad because it is from 1215. The Brexit Act is not necessarily desirable because it is modern. These arguments are feeble and mindless.
But abortionists are right. The law urgently needs amendment. Any mother who kills her child in her womb without lawful excuse and anyone who is guilty of accessoryship, abetment or cajoling her or expediting this crime in any wise must be awarded a mandatory sentence of reclusio perpetua. With 220 000 murders each year we have to take draconian action.
There are about 1 000 murders of born people a year in the UK. Over 99% of homicides in the UK are against babies.
Pro-lifers are not violent. It is abortionists who are violent. They murder babies every single day.
Abortionists make the flagrantly false claim that the pro-life movement is a war on women. Saving children is not killing women. That is like saying that saving men killing children?
It is abortionists who are waging a bloody war.
Abortion is the cruelest and most violent form of child abuse.
Pro -abortion people often oppose choice for others. So called pro-choice people are not pro-choice. They are anti-choice. They are pro-abortion.
Pro-lifers are pro-choice in the real sense. A pregnant would should have the choice to keep her baby or give her baby up for adoption.
People say a woman has an abortion because she cannot afford to bring up the baby. She does not have to spend a single penny on her baby. She can give her baby away at birth.
Some women say they abort their babies because they are not able to bring the baby up. Even if that is true that is not excusatory of abortion. The woman can give up her baby for adoption
Jameela Jamil tried to say murdering her own child was permissible because we do not spend enough on care homes. If this multi millionairess actually cares about children in care why has she not donated a penny to them? But no matter how much we spend on children in orphanages abortionists will still want to kill children.
People say we have to abort children because child benefit is not high enough. I offer a deal to any abortionist. I would vote to double child benefit and pay for it by a tax on billionaires in return for you voting to outlaw abortion. No one will take me up on that. It proves yet again that all these economic arguments for abortion are red herrings.
I have heard abortion advocates say that if pro Lifers object to children being killed than they should adopt these children. Some pro Lifers do that! They can only adopt these children if they are not killed. No I am not going to adopt a child. If I did how would I know that I had saved the child’s life? His or her mother might never have considered slaying the child. I am not under an obligation to adopt anyone. But parent are under an obligation to refrain from the murder of their children.
Religious organisation that oppose abortion often raised orphans. It is true that a tiny minority of priest and monks committed abhorrent crimes against children. That is ghastly. But it is not as had at killing children. Would you prefer that they had murdered children?
Some say that being brought up in a children’s home is terrible so abortion to better. Are you going to kill all the children in children’s homes? No? Then that mean you do not believe that being in a children’s home is worse than death.
We are often told that pro- life people are extreme. It is not extreme to oppose murder is it? It is not extreme to save a baby’s life is it?
It is the abortionist who are swivel eyed foam flecked fanatics. They are rabid serial killers hell bent on killing as many kids as possible. They are drunk on fantasies of blood and gold.
One MP boasted that she killed her child and says she feels not a twinge of guilt. She is proud of it. She glories in slaughter. She has been praised to the echo by feminists. As though the murder of a baby is a triumph.
There is a killer in the house and she is on the Labour benches. She is called Jess Philips. She may yet strike again. No one is safe; she is a danger to the public. Her other children are in danger. She is the Myra Hindley of politics. But Myra hindley did not kill her own kids. Myra Hindley did not urge other women to do what she had done. AT the end of her life she was remorseful.
This woman has turned her uterus into a crime scene. As Ben Jonson wrote in Fine Lady Would be: write then on thy womb of the not born yet buried here’s the tomb.
There is Stella Creasy. She is an outspoken supporter of murdering as many children as possible up to the moment of birth.
Once I saw a book for sale in Chiswick. It was titled: There’s a house inside my mummy. But for abortionists it should be called there’s a slaughterhouse inside my mummy.
People say what are you going to do make women give birth to babies they do not want? Yes. We do that anyway we will just do it a bit more.
A woman who is pregnant in a difficult situation deserves empathy. But so does her baby. The mother’s difficult situation does not entitle her to kill her child.
I hear people demand child protection and in the next breath say that the murder of children is a woman’s right. Abortion is the cruelest and most violent form of child abuse.
Abortion is the core demand of feminism. Feminism is a creed without parallel in the world. It is quite beyond the pale of human tolerance. Feminism is the most evil ideology ever to have defaced the plant.
Facing our foe we must state out attitude plainly. In feminism we see a thing of the most infernal evil. There can be no parley with such a barbaric force any more than there could be surrender to Satan himself.
Feminism is violent extremism. There is nothing more extreme than the mass murder of children is there? Is the murder of a baby is not evil then nothing is evil. Feminism is driven by insensate bloodlust. It is pitiless barbarism.
Feminism has declared implacable war on children. This is war outside the Geneva Convention and outside the Hague Convention. It is a war without mercy. There is no quarter. None shall be spared!
60 million children are murdered by feminists every single year. Those are just the victims we know about. And they are still not satisfied. Is there no end to their bloodlust? They want to extend their mass slaughter to more countries that currently protect babies.
Abortionists want to extend their killing fields to the non-white world. They want to impose their culture of death on more Africa, on Latin American countries and on more Asian countries.
In the USA it is mostly white doctors killing non-white babies. See anything wrong in that?
There is strength in numbers. Were it not for abortion there would be far more black people in the USA and Hispanic people. They would therefore have more political power and they could achieve racial justice.
Abortion has been enacted by all totalitarians from Stalinists to Nazis. Nazis only allowed it against certain ethnic groups because they correctly recognized it as genocide.
Feminism has murdered more people every year than any tyrant ever. They have murdered more people last year alone that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Genghis Khan combined.
Elective has absolutely no place in any civilized society. There must be zero tolerance for this. It is dispiriting that the pro child abuse lobby is so rich and powerful.
Feminism will drown us all in an ocean of blood.
We have a fertility rate of 1.3. It is going lower and lower. If it does any lower the human race is going to die out.
You may think I am an immoral person. Let’s have it your way. Let us for the sake of argument assume that I am the most immoral person in the world. That does not justify the murder of a single child, does it? Is my immorality a baby’s fault?
What would happen if I got my way? Tens of millions of lives would be saved every single year. What is wrong with that?
One day we shall shrink in horror as we look back at the barbarities of the current era. The world will thank gallant pro Lifers fro stopping genocide.
You may say I am a dreamer. But I am not the only one.
I must adapt some words from Shakespeare’s merchant of Venice.
Has a fetus not eyes? Does a fetus not move? Does a fetus not bleed? They certainly bleed.
Let us stop the bloody slaughter.