Don’t all lives still matter?

https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/06/do-all-lives-still-matter/

Yet what was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2019? 

Reverse racism now runs riot, with destructive mob rioting being deliberately promoted  –  and civilised standards,  behaviour and debate now lost. 

And heaven help those brave conservative Black Americans trying to stand up to what has become an all-pervasive evil…

 *

Are you supporting us fighting now to reclaim our country? If you can help, even a little, please do!

We very much need donations, too, to help get our message of hope even further.

See the DONATIONS page www.100days.co.nz

 

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

91.6% submissions from New Zealanders opposed this barbaric abortion bill.

91.6% submissions from New Zealanders opposed this barbaric abortion bill.

A very good illustration of the way our antidemocratic parliament once more flagrantly ignores the wishes of the majority.

See important findings below…and vote out the MPs ignoring all these — and ignoring the question of the lack of morality involved in deliberately destroying a blameless and defenceless little human life…

© Amy Brooke

“Unborn babies may feel pain before the 24-week abortion limit, scientists say

• Unborn babies might be able to feel ‘something like pain’ as early as 13 weeks 
• To carry on regardless of new evidence ‘flirts with moral recklessness’, they say
• The lead author of the controversial article is British professor Stuart Derbyshire 

By Stephen Adams for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 12:01 AEDT, 19 January 2020 | Updated: 03:27 AEDT, 22 January 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7903507/Unborn-babies-feel-pain-24-week-abortion-limit-scientists-say.html

Unborn babies may be able to feel pain before reaching 24 weeks, say scientists – meaning they could suffer as they are being aborted.

Until now, the consensus of medical opinion has been that foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks’ gestation, after which abortion is illegal in Britain except in special cases.

But two medical researchers, including a ‘pro-choice’ British pain expert who used to think there was no chance foetuses could feel pain that early, say recent studies strongly suggest the assumption is incorrect.

The studies indicate unborn babies might be able to feel ‘something like pain’ as early as 13 weeks, they say.

Unborn babies may be able to feel pain before reaching 24 weeks, say scientists – meaning they could suffer as they are being aborted.

Women going for abortions who have reached this stage of pregnancy should be told the foetus could experience pain while being terminated, they argue. And medical staff should ask if the woman wants it to be given pain relief.

To carry on regardless of new evidence ‘flirts with moral recklessness’, they write in the influential Journal of Medical Ethics.

Last night, anti-abortionists said the scientists’ claims should change attitudes towards abortion and the practice of it – suggestions that were swiftly rejected by the country’s biggest abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

The lead author of the controversial article is British professor Stuart Derbyshire, who has acted as a consultant to the Pro-Choice Forum in the UK and Planned Parenthood, a leading American pro-choice organisation.

In 2006, he wrote in the British Medical Journal that avoiding talking to women seeking abortions about foetal pain was ‘sound policy based on good evidence that foetuses cannot experience pain’.

But in the JME article, he and American medic John Bockmann say there is now ‘good evidence’ that the brain and nervous system are sufficiently wired up by 18 weeks for the foetus to feel pain.

Specifically, it has been thought that the cortex, the outer brain layer that deals with sensory information, is not developed enough for pain to register.

As a result, ‘many medical bodies… state that pain is not possible before 24 weeks’ gestation’. However, recent studies clearly show ‘that the consensus is no longer valid’, they argue.

One study found an adult with an extensively damaged cortex could still feel pain.

The two medics say their own ‘stark differences’ on the morality of abortion ‘should not interfere with discussion of whether foetal pain is possible’.

Given recent advances in understanding, ‘acting as if we have certainty’ that foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks ‘flirts with a moral recklessness that we are motivated to avoid’.

Their conclusions raise grave questions for the UK’s abortion industry, which carried out 218,281 terminations in 2018 – almost a quarter (23 per cent) of all pregnancies. About 6,000 abortions are carried out annually at 18 weeks or later.

Professor Derbyshire and Dr Bockmann advise: ‘Given the evidence that the foetus might be able to experience something like pain during later abortions, it seems reasonable that the clinical team and the pregnant woman are encouraged to consider foetal analgesia [pain relief].’

But Clare Murphy, of BPAS, said: ‘The most comprehensive review of this issue to date concluded a foetus cannot experience pain before 24 weeks.

‘There is nothing in this paper which would lead to a change in practice.’ Dr Anthony McCarthy, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: ‘A society that claims to take seriously animal pain should not shrink from confronting pain inflicted on young human beings in the name of ‘choice’.

‘Making death painless for the one killed does not, however, mean that taking life is thereby justified.’

Pro-life MP Fiona Bruce said: ‘Given developing views and research on foetal pain, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ guidance on this issue in relation to abortion – which is now nearly ten years old – should be reviewed.’

Cross-bench peer Lord Alton, who is part of a parliamentary inquiry into foetal pain, said: ‘This new evidence adds further pressure on Parliament to urgently review our current abortion time limit. We last had a proper debate on time limits in 2008.’

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists did not respond to a request for comment.”

 

—

 

Are men or women superior?

Are men or women superior?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/wimmins-notes/

The highly politicised Sisterhood cliques do us all a disservice, so let’s have some balance here.

What about the most important women of all – the home-makers…

Is this the tragedy of the day  – that we need to hear many more of them speaking out?

Amy

© Amy Brooke – SHARE or LIKE us to support our move to Claim Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz.  And DONATE to help!   Thank you!  

See – https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/donations-2/

 

Is Facebook interfering again?

Can the reaction to the Gossnell film can be regarded as a victory against the very truth of what happens in abortion?  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-blocks-gosnell-ads-labels-film-about-serial-killer-abortionist-pol

Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer is currently playing in theatres nationwide, but one of the film’s producers says that Facebook is doing its part to keep Americans from knowing about it. Why?

Was the great Times columnist, Bernard Levin right or wrong when he said,  “the atrophy of moral judgment is the characteristic disease of our times – the inability to see evil and a willingness to condone it”? 

Is there in fact a great badness underpinning the attack on the truth of what happens in abortion? Is our own Prime Minister dodging this, in her wish to “liberalise” the law?

Why do so many American women – and women elsewhere  – they  who know the reality of a dependent little life growing inside them –  so very desperately repudiate  what is actually true? Why do they fight against taking on board the fact that much more is involved than the highly specious mantra of “a woman’s right to her own body”?

It’s not her own body she’s having killed, is it…

So what about the fudging of the fact that the deliberate killing of a boy or girl child instead is what actually happens?

What if it is no accident that we have progressed – or rather – regressed – to the point where people have become embarrassed about actually using their judgment about what is good or  evil – even about the existence of actual forces of good and evil – because it is now unfashionable to do so? 

Has “evil” simply become an embarrassing word?

But what if there is both good and evil in the world and we are constantly faced with choices between these?  And what if these choices carry consequences?

What is the effect on us – and on our society – if we just don’t want to know – if we pretend it doesn’t matter whether or not we actually try to get to the truth of issues – rather than simply justify to ourselves and others the choices that are “more convenient”, more palatable?

But what if to be human carries an obligation that we must evaluate what we’re doing – what we support and what we don’t support?

What if we are expected to think with our heads as well as our hearts – to make moral choices – to even think about the meaning of the word moral?

What if it is time to stop ignoring or glossing over the damage this dreadful practice has done to so many women, victims of a massive con – many in pain for the rest of their lives… let alone the dead babies resulting?

Is part of the problem with Western civilisation today that basically, individuals have been long propagandised against the necessity for moral and spiritual and spiritual choices in our lives?

What if it is actually true that …”Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians. 

Is it time we faced up to being far less conflicted about talking about  the very real possibility of moral and spiritual evil  – and of the act of abortion being very much part of this? 

And shouldn’t we wonder why those who legitimately raise these issues are subjected to such vilification and abuse?

 © Amy Brooke

 

 

 

Jacinda Ardern’s priorities aren’t most New Zealanders.

Men count, too, Jacinda.  As do our littlest people.

There are two main areas in which Jacinda Arden’s shortfalls in thinking are potentially, when they’re not already, damaging to the country. One is with regard to her party’s socio-economic agenda, very much contributing to the fact that among the 35 countries in the OECD we have fallen to second worst, with business confidence understandably low. Her new tag of Taxinda Ardern is not unearned.  The other is her unsubtle push to enable even more babies to be killed before birth – an obvious consequence –  if what many New Zealanders rightly regard as a horrific procedure is removed from the Crimes Act.

In recent years, even hardened pro-abortion doctors have walked away from what they eventually found an accumulatively sickening procedure –See https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/abortionist-who-performed-over-1200-abortions-becomes-pro-life/10155873761783728

Yet the attack continues against pro-life doctors for following their consequences.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-wins-landmark-pro-life-conscience-rights-case-in-norway

The unbalanced representation of the Abortion Supervisory Committee is highly questionable. That there are apparently no very much-needed conservative thinkers  there, among these government appointees, has doubtless contributed to our sad statistics of over 13,000 unborn children put to death last year. Shockingly, there are no males on the panel, although a man is as much involved in the creation of a new life as is a woman. Moreover, this all-women committee, especially a committee of liberally-inclined women, is more than unbalanced: Who is there on it to represent the rights of a child already conceived? And when a growing infant is now basically regarded as disposable by the usual extremist groups (always a stroppy minority, to whose radicalised demands our politicians so typically capitulate) what is disregarded are the consequences for a society which treats the unborn child so cavalierly as killing it – and disregards the emotional pain and guilt so many women, given no other real help or choices, will feel for the rest of their lives.

For all Ms Ardern’s claim that she simply wants abortion removed from the Crimes Act, where it resides for very good reason, abortion can never be a simple health issue, so she should stop fudging this fact. The law is now farcical when by far the majority of women wanting an abortion can simply advance a mental health issue, and end up in the obliging hands of those with no wish to disbelieve them. We’re all well aware that the widely-used excuse of the mental health of the mother provides a virtual state of abortion on demand. Moreover, no real help by any government funded agency is offered to desperate women who fundamentally do not want to take this step. Why not?  The government needs to be challenged on the fact that all it offers is death, death after one-sided “counselling”?

What very real help does come is from the voluntary, non-government funded pro-life organisations that work indefatigably to help both worried women and the babies that many of them long to keep. They deserve all our tangible support.

At least let’s have more intellectual honesty from those agitating for abortion to be removed from the Crimes Act, well knowing that the deliberate killing of an unborn child, already someone’s son or daughter, is involved. But then pro-abortionists have always been very evasive when dodging any question of moral or ethical liability.  We all know that the perennially pushed propaganda claiming  – “a woman’s right” – deliberately dodges the fact that the rights of another human being are now also very much at stake  – perhaps even that of another female child on her  own way now to eventual womanhood, with her own right to life.

And of course the rights of the father are also involved. Ignoring this has seen some fathers desperately asking for a son or daughter to be allowed to survive, broken-hearted that they may never see, nor get to hold their own child. So why is abortion wrongly represented as “a woman’s right“alone?  No woman conceives a child alone. And no-one (yet) advocates  “ a woman’s right “to kill her child after birth. So why pre-birth?

We are all very well acquainted with the untruths abortionists have always felt necessary to deal in. At what stage do they become lies? Certainly, using euphemisms to gloss over the actual facts  of what  happens to a tiny  child  both if it is dismembered to be removed  – or if it is born alive and then disposed of – should have alerted any Western society to  the intrinsic badness of this act.

We are all aware that initially there was a total denial of the reality of a human being now on its way after conception until science challenged this. I recall the outrage which greeted a very brave Dunedin MP  years ago when, an effort to illustrate to his colleagues the reality of the unborn child, he held  up a tiny, already perfectly formed unborn baby of about three months,  completely recognisable as such, in a test tube. The howls of outrage that ensued were a sobering reminder of the venom with which, even today, so many pro-abortionists attack those arguing for protection for these most vulnerable of all human beings. No doubt Brian MacDonnell’s proof that this unborn child was demonstrably not “ just a mass of red cells”- the most fashionably invoked phrase at the time, contributed to the outrage expressed. The truth of an issue is never palatable to those profiting from this to be withheld.

I was reminded of this recently when one of New Zealand’s practising abortionists had the gall to claim that the personhood of the unborn child is not recognised until birth. This nonsense is just playing with words. Its intrinsic untruth is shown by the fact that when a premature baby is born not at approximately the normal birth time, of 40 weeks – but even as early as around 23 – 24 weeks – the fact that this is a living child, a son  or daughter, is never disputed!  Extraordinary efforts  by dedicated staff  are then made  to save this baby  – while another  late term abortion may be performed on a child the same age  in a theatre next door  – a situation which one doctor has described as utterly barbaric.

So what is driving Ardern’s agenda – out of step as she is  with the tide of revulsion now growing overseas as the reality of the effect of an abortion on the living, intrauterine child has now bought been brought home to so many – not only through ultrasound scans? That abortion,  in the eyes of many,  is the act of murdering the most vulnerable human being of all is beyond dispute.  The damage this killing has done not only to individuals …to desperate now-mothers persuaded that this is a mere surgical procedure, but are later haunted with regret for the rest of their lives, is swept under the carpet.  It has extended consequences for all those involved in this act of deliberate killing. And as people have become  better informed with regard to  Family Planning’s shocking  practices, including the considerable money made out of selling of the results of abortions  –  the dismembered parts of an unborn child –  more horrific revelations have come to light. The facts of  Dr Gosnell’s practice has shocked the conscience of America.  They are now publicised in a film, Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, showing in theatres which pro-abortions are trying to have closed down. See: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gosnell-film-convinces-abortion-agnostic-to-recognize-murder-of-the

Given the compliance of the Law Commission, with its also highly contestable recommendation that  abortion should be removed from the Crimes Act, it is time for the all too silent majority – who too often leave an important fight to others – to now stand up to be counted. It has never been easier to ring Parliament (04 817 9999) to be asked to be passed through to the office of a party leader, your electorate MP -or any other of our supposed representatives. Nothing is simpler than to then ask for your  strong objections to leaving the unborn child even more defenceless than it is to be noted – and acted upon.

Alternatively, we can do nothing. But then we will ultimately have to face the consequences of this, too.

For next time.  She promised that taxes would not be raised… And does she really believe, after all these failed precedents that socialism can be taken seriously as a workable philosophy? 

© Amy Brooke.  Read my “The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. “Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.