Social terminations?

Social terminations?

Social terminations?

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Health has issued a directive
to at least one District Health Board (Auckland) to fund second trimester
abortions to women who meet certain criteria, including those from outside of
the region.

"The Minister, Annette King has been advised that clinical
staff are reluctant to perform second trimester abortions, "particularly
social terminations" ..."

In the past, the Auckland District Health Board has only
provided second trimester terminations for eligible women within their catchment
area. Eligibility criteria includes: women in psychiatric care, pregnancies as a
result of incest or rape, severe mental illness and those incapable of looking
after children due to permanent mental or physical disability.

Auckland's National Women's hospital has questioned a
number of aspects of the Government's directive and received the following
response from Gordon Davies, Deputy Director-General District Health Board
Funding and Performance. "You make reference to 'social abortions'. The
term 'social abortion' is a colloquial term used to imply that some legal
abortions are not morally acceptable. It is not appropriate for officials to use
this term in their professional capacity.

As far as the Government is concerned, there are only two
types of abortion in New Zealand: abortions legally sanctioned by parliament and
illegal abortions. Thankfully, to my knowledge there are virtually none of the
other type."

It is a Western World trend to attack those who infer any
form of values, or make reference to morally acceptable or morally unacceptable
behaviour.

The UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western
Europe -– the social implications are enormous, both to the tax payer and to
the individual lives affected. Still, media reports show us that, like New
Zealand, most Government advisers view the traditional family unit and
Christian-based sexual morality as being intrinsically oppressive, a restrictive
hindrance within our society - rather than something which assists to preserve
and maintain our culture.

For more information on the situation in the UK, go to www.parenttruth.org,
and be prepared to be shocked. We live in an antichrist age, where references to
Christ and the Law of Moses are vehemently rejected and sneered at, even as
social issues and statistics scream out warnings of self destruction -– but
people will not listen.

In the historical Bible picture we see that this anti-God
behaviour has occurred in times past, bringing with it God's judgement on the
world. Luke 17:26-30: "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also
in the days of the son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives,
they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and
the flood came and destroyed them all. And likewise also as it was in the days
of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they
builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and
brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day
when the son of man is revealed."

For those reading, who have 'over time' become
spiritually de-sensitised, and cannot comprehend between right and wrong or good
and bad, I exhort you to begin to read Scripture, meditate on it and allow the
Word of God to begin to wash your mind and thoughts. You will begin to see that
God is not at all a 'restrictor' of human pleasure -– He is by nature a
fulfiller, a preserver -– He adds blessing, not sorrow.

Abortion Politics versus a Woman's Right to Know

Is there credible evidence of a link between induced abortion
and breast cancer? No, say authoritive medical experts in New Zealand.

'A Call to Reason'

In her talk "A Call to Reason", Dr. Lanfranchi answers
the question: "Why, if it is so true that abortion increases cancer risk, does
organised medicine not support the data?'

"One reason is the fear of the results of peer pressure. In
my own case I have worried that I would lose referrals from ob-gyms who do
abortions, when I have lectured on this topic. Even a family doctor, who would
refer numerous patients, said to me: 'You don't tell your patients that do
you?' I worried about my practice. I also worried about being labelled a
pro-life zealot, or an anti-choice fanatic.

Fear and Fatigue

"I can understand why a Harvard professor of risk
assessment at Boston cancer institute would tell me privately that she knew
abortion was a risk factor for cancer, but would not bring it up in her talks on
risk. She might lose her job."

"I learned what it was like first hand when I presented a
research project in a poster session at the San Antonio Breast Symposium this
past December. Although the abstract had been accepted six months earlier and
had the word 'abortion' in the title, the programme director angrily accused
me of using his meeting to hand out anti-abortion literature." "Most
troubling is that several years ago, the then president of the American Society
of Breast Surgeons told me that her board didn't want to have a speaker on the
subject at her meeting, because they felt it was 'too political'. I argued
that it was also medical, but to no avail. The director of the Miami Breast
Cancer Conference also felt it was 'too political'.

...Seems easier for doctors to let women die than to change
their practises.

"Perhaps another reason why physicians haven't
acknowledged the link is the Semmelweiss Phenomenon. In 1840, 40 years before
the germ theory was known, a resident in obstetrics noticed that there was a 25%
mortality rate from childbed fever on the doctors' ward. However on the
mid-wives floor, where there was frequent hand washing, the mortality rate was
only 2%. When at his suggestion, doctors washed their hands as an experiment,
the infection and death rate on the ward was greatly reduced. Instead of
rewarding Semmelweiss and promoting hand washing to reduce mortality, he lost
his job and was vilified..."

Dr. Lanfranchi's Conversion

"When I first heard of the link between abortion and breast
cancer, I thought it was bunk. However, out of curiosity I changed the intake
form in my office and started asking my breast cancer patients for their
complete reproductive histories. I found a third of my thirty-year-olds having
had abortions and no history of breast cancer in their family."

"In the first six months I had two patients in their 30's
with breast cancer. One had seven pregnancies and six abortions, the other five
pregnancies and three abortions. I continued to see more and more young women
with a history of abortion, developing breast cancer."

"Now, it may have been just a statistical fluke, but then
in 1996, City University of New York Professor Joel Brind published his
meta-analysis, which revealed 23 of 28 studies show a link between abortion and
breast cancer. It caused an up-roar in Britain when it was published in the
Journal of Edpidemiology and Community Health.
In fact the editor was
prompted to write: 'I believe that if you take a view (as I do) which is
pro-choice, you need at the same time to have a view which might be called
pro-information, without excessive paternalistic censorship, or interpretation
of the data.'

"Paternalistic censorship is what I experience every time I
try to speak on the science supporting the abortion-breast cancer link. We need
to remember that about 85% of cigarette smokers don't get lung cancer. Doctors
who tell their patients of the risk of lung cancer are not called fear mongers.
Similarly, not all women who have abortions will get breast cancer; only 5% will
develop the disease. And 95% of breast cancer patients will not have a history
of abortion. But some women are at a specially high risk -– and 5% still adds
up to a lot of women."

Used by permission PRO-LIFE TIMES, March edition 09 444 9344