"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Wednesday, 9 September 2009

Live Birth Abortions

Coming soon to an NHS near you: Born 2 days before the 22-week limit
A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'
I feel sick that doctor's can talk of national guidelines and leave a child to die.  I can do no better than point you in the direction of Archbishop Cranmer blogspot.  He's right; it's nothing more than infanticide.

7 comments:

  1. guidelines policies They make me sick

    ReplyDelete
  2. What's NoaHide Incoming? Some sort of NWO/Zionist conspiracy - have you got any links?

    Yes, Henry, they just walked away because the guidelines said they could. It's all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's the backbone of the coming NWO new religion using old testament tennets.

    Basically it supports oligarchy.

    Easily referenced in the US congress.

    The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation which was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the United States, George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the United States of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day, U.S.A.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't see the problem here - the baby had a very slim chance of living on, less than 10% even with medical science - the only evidence against this is based on the mother's view that he was a 'little fighter' - she's hardly impartial

    Horrible thing to experience I don't doubt - but the doctors have to take the logical view not to devote their resources to what is essentially a foetus with a very slim chance of surviving to even a year and also an incredibly high chance of developing a serious illness (98%)

    The doctors can't make a judgement call on whether they think it will survive - so they have to use the data known - imagine if we instead encouraged them to intervene at above 21 weeks - I can just see the Mail's headline that intervention between 21-23 weeks was an almost complete failure and waste of money

    sources at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8078911.stm

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Incoming - you've just given me some more bedtime reading.
    Tarquin, unless I misread, it was the midwife who said the baby was a 'little fighter' but if the report is true I think the doctors were wrong. My gut reaction is that the child was born alive so every attempt should have been made to save him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. oops - fair enough, but I stand by the rest

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails