In South Australia (and no doubt in other states) the term “medical waste” is employed by the abortion clinics and hospitals in an attempt to further screen the public from the truth of what abortion does to unborn babies. “Medical waste” is easier to dispose of than “bodies of unborn babies”.

Of course, we are not meant to seriously consider what really happens to the unborn babies once they are aborted; it is very much a case of “out of sight, out of mind”. And this leads me to the other point I was also refrring to: rather than being incinerated, some of these tiny infants are/have been used for research, which raises further ethical concerns.

For example, in 2003, the Medical Journal of Australia printed an article: Use of human foetal tissue for biomedical research in Australia, 1994-2002 (MJA 2003, 179(10):547-550), which admits to the practice of foetal research in Australia. It states:

From 1994 to 2002, 19 separate biomedical researchers at 12 separate Australian institutions (four universities, six major teaching hospitals and two research institutes) used human foetal tissue in their research. … There was an increase in the use of bone/cartilage during 1996-2001, kidneys during 1996-1999, and liver and spinal cord over the past 4 years.

And so the insanity goes on … here, in Australia; in the US, and around the world. So when someone as influential as Obama says ‘Yes’ to the killing of the unborn (and all that goes with it), and the crowds cheer and applaud, we know God’s grace can only be held out for so long.

Trevor Grace

It isn’t a laughing matter the issue of abortion, but it is laughable how inconsistent the rights based people can be. Bill your aptly-titled article “Killing Babies to Improve Their Health” highlights this inconsistency and shows just how lost people are…

Ok, no more comments from me. Better get back to the 4,000 word essay we have in ethics explaining why Peter Singer’s views are right. I have never before in my life felt more like the devil’s advocate.

Keith Jarrett

Trevor was engaging in some humour, even with such a tragic topic. Disposing of medical waste is a basic health concern, and of course much of the medical community would consider aborted babies to be nothing other than medical waste.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I like the point you make in the post above, what is wrong with demonizing a party that is clearly in the wrong?

Also it is amazing how often Obama in his speeches aims at rectifiying right and left agendas…. I cannot see how he thinks that he can do this with regard to abortion.

I thought the quote below from the article humorously illustrates what Obama is trying to do.

“What do I have to do to get you murderers and you non-murderers to shake hands and be friends?”

Keith Jarrett

No doubt, Obama (like Hitler and Stalin) has convinced himself that by reaffirming the murdering of society’s most innocent and vulnerable, he is somehow rendering a humanitarian service to the world. At least there are some who are prepared to tell him he’s wrong.

Trevor Grace

PS Keith Jarrett, you mention your uni lecturers won’t let you do an ethics assignment on abortion. What about an assignment on ‘research on “medical waste” ‘?

Yes I hope to keep it up until I am finally silenced – and that may not be too far off, the way things are going. I hope you do well with your assignment. Thanks for your concern and involvement.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I have been trying real hard to get my Christian friends to become more engaged in the world, and your articles are forever an encouragement (if not sheer warning) for me to do so.

Thanks for bringing news that is actually important. Keep it up.

Keith Jarrett

Also of interest is the fact that for the first time since 1995, the majority of Americans describe themselves as prolife: www.lifenews.com/nat5053.html

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

This writer, Gingi Edmonds, is just one example: (she was at Notre Dame for the protests)

www.gingiedmonds.com/May192009.html

And during the recent Victorian law ‘reform’ of abortion, it was a bunch a young people that got very active (including shouting down parliament when the legislation passed) and formed themselves into a new organization, Youth For Life.

This is speculation, but I can’t help but wonder if abortion ends up being supported by many people after they become sexually active and find themselves having to unexpectedly deal with the realities of human life. Only they make the wrong decision, and later facing up to the truth is too much for them to bear. Perhaps the pro-life cause could do some massive long-term damage to the pro-death-ites by a sustained campaign educating adolescents and pre-teens (not sure how young you would go) simply on the development of the human being in the womb from conception. It’s a thought…

As for Obama – here’s a quote I got in an email from Family Research Council:

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago gave us another view of the President’s empathy after the two met in March. Cardinal George said, ‘It’s hard to disagree with [President Obama] because he’ll always tell you he agrees with you. Maybe that’s political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, “No, Mr. President, we don’t agree.”

Good on you, Francis. By their fruit you shall know them. BHO wants to give the impression in his speeches he is looking for so-called middle ground, but his track record speaks for itself. It’s pretty clear what Obama stands for, and it’s the killing of defenceless human beings and protecting the industry that makes money from it. It’s getting difficult to imagine how he could actually be worse. He is the personification of evil and it is totally despicable that he was even allowed into Notre Dame, let alone honoured. People who care were right to protest.

Mark Rabich