Abortion.

This week has had two specific items of news with the common theme of abortion.  One of them received a lot more publicity than the other.  The one that seems to have been largely ignored by the mainstream media concerned Andy Stepehenson and Kathryn Sloane.

Members of the campaign group Abort67, Andy and Kathryn were arrested in June 2011, whilst demonstrating silently in the vicinity of Wiston's Clinic, operated by leading abortion provider BPAS, in Brighton. As part of its public education project, the group, which has held peaceful protests outside the establishment for 5 years, displays images of aborted babies - but does so silently and without harassment.  This was reported in at least The Telegraph and The Daily Mail.

A District Judge, sitting at Brighton Magistrates' Court announced today that all charges were being dismissed against Andy. The case against Kathryn was dismissed on Thursday of last week (13 Sep) during the same trial.  I have not noticed this having been reported in any of the mainstream media outlets!

The other news item concerned Sarah Catt, a married mother who carried out a DIY abortion on her lover’s baby just days before she was due to give birth, and who has been jailed for eight years. The mother-of-two reportedly had an affair with a work colleague for seven years and believed the child to be his but waited until she was full-term before buying, online, a labour-inducing drug from the Indian black-market.

It is thought she concealed the pregnancy from both her lover and her engineer husband Stephen. Yesterday, at Leeds Crown Court, as she was jailed for administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage, Mr Justice Cooke said it was worse than manslaughter and just “one step short of murder.”  He went on to say that: “What you did was end the life of a child that was capable of being born alive by inducing birth or miscarriage. If he had been born in the next few days and you had then killed him you would be charged with murder.“What you have done is rob an apparently healthy child, vulnerable and defenceless, of the life he was about to commence.”

 

Now, the question must surely be asked: "If Sarah Catt had had her unborn child aborted within the legal time limit, would that have been anything less than "... rob(bing) an apparently healthy child, vulnerable and defenceless, of the life he was about to commence.”?  This is one of the practical problems about abortion.  When is the unborn child not a human being?  The answer, to any sane and logical, person is that there is never a time when it can be anything else!  The more we learn, the more we see the truth of the claim that from the moment of conception, when that successful sperm penetrates the egg, and mitosis (the splitting of a cell) commences, there is an unique human being at the earliest stage of its development.  

This is all that Abort67 is trying to show.  What is removed from the females womb is NOT a mere conglomeration of cells, but an infant with all of the physical characteristics of a fully-grown child.  Murder is the deliberate taking of a human life.  Abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life.  Therefore, according to the rules of logic, abortion is murder - not "one step short"!  Mr Justice Cooke wasn't quite correct in his conclusion - regardless of the stage in the pregnancy at which the abortion takes place.