Abortion: the hidden holocaust
by David Hamilton
More than 6 million babies have been aborted since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force in Britain and around 75 million in the USA! There are 500 abortions every day in England and Wales and the figures show 67% of are carried out before the 10th week, and 89% before the 12th week. There are about 190,000 abortions a year in England and Wales. The official practice is that an abortion can be performed up to 24 weeks and needs the consent of two family doctor’s. The woman can seek a second opinion or go private. It is usual in cases when the child is likely to be disabled or not expected to have a high quality of life.
The debate is between liberals and feminists on rights, but is never on the woman’s duty to our posterity: the needs of our ethnic group are ignored. The two sides argue where the rights lie, couching the argument in rational terms. But what about our natural instincts? What about our emotional bonding with our people and the consequent responsibility for one another and the continuity of our people?
This is part of the “Ideological Castes” war on nature and the separation of sex from procreation is instilled in sex education, which has a little bit about how to do it but is mostly about how to avoid the consequences through contraception. Abortion is the next step in this process of avoiding children, and because it is the common prejudice even women who morally object feel obliged to have abortions. The authorities could encourage acceptance of deformed people and make more help available but promote abortion.
Like other liberal causes it is always discussed as an individual matter: one that only affects individuals. It is also personalised in a feminine way:” Oh, dear how you must have suffered.” However, it is a collective issue and concerns us as a group. It was revealed that a quarter of births in Britain are to foreign mothers and this together with the promotion of homosexuality is part of our demographic decline.
What libertarians and liberals overlook is that they who advocate individual rights does so as part of a people by history, tradition and emotional bonding, are brought up and formed in that culture and made what they are by it and are not really independent individuals. That imposes an obligation to the group not just the self. The following shows the falsity of this pretence:
Homosexuality is a non-productive sexual activity and the dispute over the Wolfenden Report of 1963 highlights the gap between the two liberal positions involved. The report did not equate crime to sin, and morality was private, a matter of choice and free judgement for individuals. The law should only be concerned with immorality for two purposes: to preserve public order and decency, and to protect vulnerable people from corruption or exploitation. It is separating pleasure from responsibility. The other side of the Liberal gap was represented by Lord Justice Devlin who disputed the distinction between a private sphere of morality and the public sphere for a single sphere of morality which often conflict but “shared moral attitudes, the public morality, is an essential bond of society: if this dissolves, society dissolves.” This did get close to the need for men to father babies and do their duty to the group as whole not just think of personal pleasure.
From the 1960s the New Left changed the Liberal concept of individual rights to “Group Rights” and Women’s rights are an important part of this ideology and abortion a major principle: the other justifications, “It’s a women’s right to choose” a “women can do what she likes with her own body” follow from that. Women’s rights override inhibitions about killing the foetus even though it has been found to be more developed into a person in the womb than thought in the early 60’s since Leslie Neilson’s ultra sound pictures in the late 80’s. These abstract universal, rights do not allow for changes in awareness. If women have no control over their pregnancy they are denied a public role. This abstract but highly emotional argument helps separate a woman from her people her community and replaces them with an artificial, abstract category of “identity” and “group rights”. The issue is not how much of a person the foetus would become but that it would become one: it would become one of our men or women to keep our people going into the future.
The National Health service is a State body for socially engineering the population and in 2005, for example, the NHS funded 84% of abortions. Of these 52% were carried out by independent Doctors on NHS contracts, and 89% were foetuses under 10 weeks. Medical abortions were 24% and of these 1% or 1,900 were because there was a risk that the baby would be handicapped. There were 7,900 non-residents in hospitals or clinics in England and Wales.
Theoretically, The Abortion Act allows doctors and nurses with a conscience to opt out of “treatment authorized by this Act” except in emergencies, but they have to prove their “conscience” in a court of law. The tenth report of the Social Services Committee of 17/10/1990 showed that despite the conscience clause those who dissent from the orthodoxy are penalized by having great difficulty in getting appointed or training in Obstetrics and Gynacaelogy. In practice to further their careers they have to conform to the state orthodoxy. An MP who supported abortion, Emma Nicholson, told the House of Commons, “General Practitioners in my constituency and elsewhere tell me it is virtually impossible for a doctor to refuse an abortion under the workings of the Act.” (Commons Hansard. Cols 249-250. 24/4/1990)
There is the aspect of decadence or what Mark Steyn calls civilisational exhaustion. It works by progressives providing rationales for our moral and spiritual weakness: On the 24th of October 1963 Professor Dennis Gabor gave the Thompson Lecture and claimed that “Having large families is the one luxury civilisation cannot afford.” He foresaw a transition over the next 40 years into a life of leisure because of modern technology replacing human labour. At the same time a Bill to provide free family planning on the National Health Service was being promoted by a working party under Profesor Lafite of Birmingham University. On the 1st of November 1963 the Cambridge Union society voted 147 to 136 against the motion “This House considers that abortion should be made legal.”
Avoiding children is also part of feeling civilized and in the effete middle-class ethos it is civilized to limit the size of one’s family to maintain their comfortable standards and to be rational about one’s life. There is a sense of taming the wild nature! Several children would entail a less self-consciously controlled way of living. Then there are school fees. There is a new but not cultured middle-class from ordinary backgrounds who want to enjoy themselves without responsibility for bringing children up. The Economy of decadence and luxury: After the destruction of our manufacturing industry people like Mrs Thatcher were telling us we were to become a service industry. The concern about animals becoming extinct is a projection onto nature of our willing our own extinction and saves us having to face it.
The fear of overpopulation does not apply here naturally but because we are not replacing our population. The shortfall is filled by unassimilable immigrants. Our population is getting older and we are not producing a workforce. It seems that when a civilization becomes comfortable and feels safe it ceases to strive and philosophies of ease are developed to rationalise decadence and to justify it. This entails a gradual loss of individual responsibility for the wider community and civilization as they no longer see their duty in perpetuating it. Paradoxically, abortion is part of our modern civilized view of ourselves, but beneath this the same barbarous instincts to survive only now are justified by science or rationalism rather than religion and they come out in a different way. We look back on certain practices of the past and regard them as utterly barbaric - human sacrifice, burning heretics, by reading, say, Thucydides and think how primitive, or we shun the Bible out of our sense of progress as a barbarian tract, but support a woman’s wish to have her babies murdered - future ages will look back on allowing women to kill their own babies in their thousands because they might be inconvenient, with the same feeling of disgust as we at former barbarian practices.
One faction in the liberal parameter does not regard the unborn child as a person, and on those grounds say it has no right to life. The emphasis is on whether the mother has the right to give birth or not, or what right has another to force her to give birth. To the opposing side the foetus is a person. Their debate is between conflicting rights. We have a lack of control over our fertility and this is something to control in a rational, civilized society. Nature, and that includes us, must be tamed as we flatter ourselves that we have transcended human nature.
It hampers our public and social lives and young women want to continue in a life - style. This is separating women from their natures. Most women want to feel they have a rational choice and are not determined by their being.
We have been degraded by the elites to “Partial-Birth” abortions which is up till 9 months pregnancy. These were performed legally in the United States until banned by George Bush in 2003. It is not done just on babies who are severely deformed or dying but also on the inconvenient ones. The method is that the abortionist is guided by ultrasound till he finds the baby’s leg and grabs it with forceps and pulls into the birth canal whence the abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head. Then the abortionist then rams scissors into the baby’s skull and opens the scissors to enlarge the hole, removes the scissors and inserts a suction catheter to suck the baby’s brains out, the skull collapses and the dead baby pulled out. Is that all our children are worth? If that is not a brutal murder what is? Little wonder that these people are often obsessed with the Third Reich’s eugenics programmes. They themselves are just as evil, perhaps moreso as they do this not for ideals or because they were ordered to but for a wealthy, comfortable life for the convenience of the group-rights of women.
Proponents of abortion claim that it is rare for women to regret having had an abortion, but post-abortion services like BVA and Life receive hundreds of calls every year from women suffering deeply after abortions, sometimes years after the abortion. Post-abortion trauma is a recognized medical condition. As abortion is often undergone to keep a pregnancy secret from husband, parents or others, there are strong reasons for denial that can worsen the effects of PAT. It is a consequence of women acting against their own instincts and brings a heavy price.
Forty two-years of prejudice in favour of abortion has led to a loss of respect for human life and an acceptance of a utilitarian approach to human life as we see in the acceptance of embryo research, passive euthanasia and the arguments now being used in favour of physicians assisting death.
There is a growing counter movement among the public as developments like 4D images have caused discomfort among about late-term abortion, but the majority of abortions are carried out during the first three months and there is less shift in public opinion on early abortion. However, the fact that junior doctors appear to be increasingly reluctant to be involved with abortion suggests that the message may be getting across to those who are directly caught up in the practice.
Abortion is part of the attitude the Establishment is enforcing. If you rebel you are oppressed, labelled negatively or punished. BBC News 29/6/2007 reported that Sarah Scott a teenage mother was prohibited from wearing an anti-abortion T-shirt to school in Aberdeenshire. She was threatened with “exclusion” because a teacher found it offensive. Her views had been formed following the birth of her four-month-old son Jacob: “I was not just wearing the T-shirt for the shock factor ... it is wrong to kill a baby.” “I feel I am the one being targeted because I am anti-abortionist. Yet other pupils’ have T-shirts displaying the Playboy logo, which promotes pornography, were not threatened with exclusion.” The ploy that words cause offence is used when the authorities want to suppress dissent.
We have a duty to our ancestors when we inherit what they left us to pass it on to our posterity - ours! We cannot do that while we are aborting our children. It is the moral duty of our young people to have as many babies as possible to save our people from becoming extinct or pushed out of homes and communities by faster breeding immigrants. We might be giving our children up to servitude to Islam if we do not resist the evil intentions of our rulers.
Post a comment: