Looking back upon earlier outcries against abortion, I came across the following article. It was written some time ago, as can be seen from the dates mentioned. Nevertheless, it is worth pondering because if anything the increase in abortions is growing.
"Britain Becomes `Abortion Mill" said a headline in the STAR, Johannesburg of 11 June 1969. The article runs:
"Not only are English women swarming into doctors' offices seeking abortions under the National Health Service, but non-Britishers from all over the world are pouring into swank private clinics in London's West End for the operation.
"Medical World News" reports that the number of abortions climbed from 6,500 in 1966 to 22,256 in the first eight months under the year-old law the number is expected to reach 30,000 to 50,000 this year (1969).
One Harley Street Gynecologist reported that he charges £56 for an early abortion and up to £120 for the surgery needed in a `later' abortion."
Those were the charges in 1969. Abortion costs are no doubt subject to inflation even if it is kept down on less popular goods.
Just by the way, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines `swank' as `showing off ..ostentatiously smart'!
Have you considered what happens to the accumulation of 50,000 foetuses? But that was in the year 1969. This is the year 1991. It is probably being on the conservative side to estimate the number has at least quadrupled. So that would be 20,000 foetuses of which to dispose per annum. One can hardly believe that anyone would bother to give these decent burial. It was suggested to me at one time that they went to make soap. That would be a crime against humanity if those responsible for such an ingredient for soap were Germans. But what could be done with it? Used for fertilizer perhaps? Little partly-formed humans might make good dogs' food _ or would they? Whatever might happen to them, it would be interesting to have the information. The pro-abortionists, for instance, might like to feel that their efforts have been crowned with success in more ways than one.
In England, Merry England, the country which has done so much to civilize the uncivilized areas of the world _ as it were- an idea for taking advantage of this situation for the greater benefit of humanity was conceived and brought into action. (Editor's note: Too bad IT was not aborted!).
In the SUNDY TRIBUNE (Johannesburg) of May 17, 1970, we were given the outline of this newly initiated advantage in humanity's march to hell (and I do not refer to the hell of the next world but of this):
HEADLINE: UNBORN BABIES USED IN `HORRIBLE' EXPERIMENTS.
The article read:
London: An abortion clinic here has been stopped from selling live unborn children to a doctor who planned to experiment with them, a Conservative Member of Parliament said last night.
The MP, Norman St.John-Stevas, described the practice as `the most horrible that has ever taken place in Britain.' (Only in Britain? Has anything equally horrible happened anywhere else in the world? Had it happened in Germany ..?)
Mr. Stevas said that the information he received was that the doctor planned to perform a vein-artery stunt, linking the foetus with the circulation of a dog to gain knowledge of virus diseases.
Other reports said the doctor was also interested in using the foetuses to study the mechanism of cancer and possibly transplants. The MP added that his informant said that the doctor planned to keep the foetuses in a state of suspended animation on heart-lung machines until they had grown enough for surgery _ 40 weeks' gestation. (That is, just ready to be born naturally).
It was understood that the foetuses came from women who had abortions in their fourth to seventh month of pregnancy."
One begins to feel movement in the third month of pregnancy, and a seventh month premature baby usually lives.
You who may be reading this, next time you see a newly born infant, do not get sentimental about it and coo: "Isn't it sweet?" or "I do love tiny babies." Consider merely that it is just the right age to be used in experiments with dogs and for the study of cancer _ presumably its vocal chords will be cut as in the case of other animals, so that its cries of pain will not disturb the good doctor who is using it _ in the interests of humanity."
The moral issue here becomes very critical for Christians _ or any religion that is based on the Ten Commandments: Can Christians and Jews (who supposedly claim to follow the Ten Commandments) associate themselves in any way with those who perform abortions, promote abortions or promote "pro-choice" positions?
The answer is there: An emphatic NO!! Christians and Jews are morally guilty as direct or indirect accomplices in this crime against humanity if they directly or indirectly support abortion.
This is why Christians and Jews ought not support such organizations as "Planned Parenthood" by their financial contributions to such organizations. A more recent culprit in promoting abortion sponsoring organizations like Planned Parenthood is the "PUBLIC BROADCAST SYSTEM" _That's right: Your local PBS station who gets funds through your taxes and then directly from YOU, the viewer, promotes Planned Parenthood. If you support this station, you are cooperating in the murder of innocent children. Think about it the next time you are watching "The kind of television you deserve" (Such is their slogan!).
Those who control the means of communication control what YOU are going to know and what YOU are going to think. Vote "NO" against these corrupters of society. Vote "NO" with your pocket book. Vote "NO" with a loud voice. The voice of boycott _ let producers and sponsors know that YOU are NOT a fool! Let them know that YOU will not be used nor will they get your money to promote their heinous crimes against humanity.
Return to Contents
Return to Homepage.