Whom do they serve?

It appears to be generally understood by the public that aborted foetal cells are absolutely necessary for research. There is a benefit to taking the life of a child – all for the greater good we are told. “Similar to organ donation” would be a comparable explanation to justify and placate the curious. But is this really the case; that using the cells, tissue and body parts of an unborn child is advantageous to medical research? After all, who wants to see somebody suffer with a debilitating illness such as Parkinsons when there’s a potential cure just waiting to be found? It could even sound cruel to deny an expert the opportunity to investigate a pathway that is “life-saving”.

Underpinning though unspoken is that in order for a life to be saved or a cure for an unbearable illness found, a life must be taken. A life for a life; somebody gives their life in order to theoretically save the life of another. Generally, we refer to a person who makes the decision to sacrifice their life for another, as heroic. But with an unborn child, they do not make this decision. This brutal decision is made for them; the sacrificial lambs.

Apart from taking these claims at face-value, does this assertion hold up to scrutiny? Based on the strength and regularity of these claims, there should be overwhelming evidence to validate the advantage of utilising aborted tissue. According to Deb Vinnedge, Exec. Director of Children of God for Life, research on foetal tissue has not produced any great advances in medicine. She adds that utilising moral sources accomplishes the same result as using harvested foetal tissue to the extent that there is not one single use of aborted foetal tissue or cells that has not been accomplished using moral sources as well. The question that arises is why do these research organisations persist in utilising these “sources of promise”?

Research on aborted foetal tissue generally falls into 3 areas: Transplantation to treat diseases and injuries; Development of vaccines and Basic biology research. Foetal research is not new, having being conducted from as early as the 1930’s. What is chilling is that this research was conducted on foetuses at gestational ages at which science now proves, feel pain. Furthermore, conditions that were treated unsuccessfully by aborted tissue, are now routinely treated by adult stem cells.

However, most widely-known is the usage of aborted cells in the manufacture of vaccines. Popular claims are that this area has been the main benefit to society as a result of foetal tissue research. Again Deb Vinnedge states that with the exception of chickenpox, moral alternatives are available for every other vaccine – derived from animal cell lines. Even with the recent Ebola virus scare, statements were made that foetal tissue was “absolutely critical” for the development of a vaccine. Firstly, we note again the use of emotive language by an ‘expert’.  Secondly and most important, this claim proved to be incorrect in that Merck developed a vaccine derived from an animal cell line which reports state, showed promise in clinical trials. In fact, the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) has ruled out the usage of foetal cells to make vaccines “now or in the future”. So why do these scientist persist? Not hard to fathom the reason why – money.

A recent NZ Herald article states that prior to research, a mother must give consent for the aborted tissue to be used. Further; that the matter can’t be raised until after she has decided to have an abortion. One wonders if the abortion-facility staff ever let mothers know that some of their children will be deliberately born alive and then killed so as to harvest their organs; this claim made by a lab technician in the recent video a first-hand witness to these barbaric acts. This claim is not isolated with research documenting these horrific acts since the 1930’s – including development of the polio vaccine.

I am reminded of how children especially, were killed in certain parts of the world and their organs harvested for the diabolic activity of ‘black magic’. The organs were removed many a time with the child still alive and used to make potions or even to bewitch another person. Sounds far-fetched? This diabolical targetting of one person over another has recently publicly surfaced in the USA.

It is said that the potency of these diabolic concoctions are directly linked to whether a child is alive or not. In other words, the screams of a child as their organs are removed increases the effectiveness of these diabolic ‘medicines’. As if to reinforce the diabolical aspect of abortion, a former satanist states that he had participated in ritual abortions, diabolic sacrifices – including those inside abortion facilities. Our Lords words “Some demons can only be driven out through prayer and fasting” remind us of the urgent need to pray outside abortion facilities.

As the late and holy Fr John Hardon says, abortion is a pagan sacrifice. Recall that when pagan societies were Christianised; when the Light of Christ entered their land, sacrifices of children to false gods was eradicated. Fast-forward to the 21st century, paganism is back in vogue. And darkness descends; child sacrifice, again to insatiable blood-thirsty ‘gods’. When Christ is dethroned from society, He is replaced by idol worship. Pope emeritus Benedict XVI pointed to the modern idols of individualism and materialistic consumerism as holding sway. He affirms that within this ‘mindset’, a person is devalued and if devalued, one could add, ready to be exploited or treated as less than human. Vulnerable elements of society then become as the title of David Daleiden’s project is known, “Human Capital”.




Planned Parenthood expose must call us to act

The recent expose of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider selling baby parts reinforces what many in the pro-life field have been saying for a long time.  Abortion has nothing to do with “rights”; it is driven by profit.  Unimaginable to think that human beings would handsomely benefit off a fellow human especially in this so-called age of an ‘enlightened’ society.  To consider that the most defenseless of all is violently torn apart and their body parts sold off, signifies the level of depravity that humanity has descended to.  One could argue that the (outlawed) slave trade epitomized the profiteering off a fellow human though it is undeniable that slaves were not dismembered and their parts sold off for profit.  Abortion is worse.  Much worse.

Whilst many are outraged and rightly so, an obvious question needs to be asked; should we be shocked at the recent expose?  If then people are shocked now, what did anybody think the abortion procedure entailed?  Is it more likely that the human mind finds it difficult to process certain thoughts/images until confronted by the undeniable reality – such as these gruesome videos; or do we wish to be deceived under the guise of “choice”?  What “choice” does the unborn child have?  Lambs to the slaughter indeed.

Although these highlighted atrocities occurred in America, many questions have to be asked about Family Planning NZ who have been working closely with Planned Parenthood of America.  Both organisations are affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).  Showing the oneness of mind between the two organisations, Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood was invited to New Zealand as recently as 2013 to speak at the Family Planning conference.

Among all the graphic evidence of profiteering off the wholesale slaughter of the innocents, the New Zealand media remains largely silent. To be fair though, much of the press within the USA refuses to report on these atrocities as well.  Need one ask why?

The Centre for Medical Progress has released a number of videos in which senior staff of Planned Parenthood nonchalantly chat about the sale of body parts.  In one of the admissions, the director of research at a facility says that abortionists can modify their [abortion] procedure to obtain “intact” fetuses.  Within the same gruesome video, we see a box containing body parts such as arms and legs of a human being – clear enough proof that it is not a “clump of cells” that is being ‘aborted’ but a human, a child of God.

What is striking about these videos is that the employees are ‘normal-looking’ women. In fact, the Director of Planned Parenthood could be described as attractive.  Today, when image has been elevated to an unprecedented level, one wonders whether ‘believ-ability’ or even levels of evil a person is implicated in, is perhaps mitigated by that person’s appearance.  After all, some of the Nazis ‘looked scary’ so it probably is not too difficult to look back and identify evil. On the other hand, many looked like the person next door; a good family man.

Fast forward to contemporary society; a society that is largely media-driven.  Attractive-looking, smart, sophisticated people are probably more ‘believable’ than others who may be less so.  But that is part of the deception; to present an attractive ‘front’, an everyday sort of person; a professional such as a doctor whose profession we still regard (and rightly so) as noble.  In one of the videos released by the undercover investigators, a doctor over lunch in a restaurant, calmly speaks of how she takes the lives of unborn children for profit – harvesting their body parts to order. Underpinning the deliberateness of her actions, she explains how they decide from which mum they will harvest the organs to fulfil customers’ orders for the required body parts.  Mind-numbing indeed.

While calls are underway to defund Planned Parenthood in the USA, it is difficult to imagine that this will happen.  Why might this be so?  Simply because large sums of money are being made from the death of unborn children.  Will the release of these videos turn the tide against abortion; probably on an individual level but not en-masse simply because large parts of society have been de-sensitised and would consider it their ‘right’ to do what they will; so effective has been this ‘rights campaign’, a neat fit within a selfish society.  However, hope is always to be found especially among the youth.  In addition, many women are publicly speaking up about the damaging effects of abortion; they refuse to be silent anymore.

Many of us know that abortion takes the life of an innocent child.  Many choose not to know; to turn a blind eye.  The womb of a mother, a sanctuary; the safest place for any child, has become a place of desecration.  This has not happened overnight.  Rather, it’s been a well-managed campaign of diabolical sophistication to reach the level it’s reached today.  The most natural relationship; that between a mother and her unborn child has been under sustained attack, to the point that too many mothers (and fathers) view their child as the enemy; one who should be destroyed.

We were privileged to have Abby Johnson, a former director of a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas, visit us here in New Zealand.  Abby shared her story of being involved in this industry for many years somewhat oblivious to the evil in which she was submerged.  When constantly asked the obvious question as to how she could not see that what she was doing was plain evil, her answer is simply “I don’t know”.  But through the grace of God, and the commitment of people praying outside the abortion facility, Abby quit the industry and now shares her amazing conversion story to countless people.  Perhaps Abby’s story reminds us of the direction we should be taking to convince mums to keep their unborn children; to convince the abortion workers that they do not have to be working in these death camps.

The answer is education, prayer, fasting, and action.  However, all these ‘activities’ must be underpinned by the virtue of courage.  It takes courage to stand against the tide; against a society that has become somewhat immune to the death of innocent children.  “Every child a wanted child” rings hollow when you consider the horrific alternative to this empty, meaningless slogan.

Truth and Reconciliation

The issue is simple. Either ALL lives have value or none do. south_africa_father_childEither ALL lives have a dignity or none possess this innate quality.
Rights or values that are arbitrarily applied can just as easily be retracted. Last century undoubtedly witnessed the greatest denial of human dignity within world history. Communism, Nazism and, to a lesser extent, Apartheid, emerge as monsters in this praxis. But there is one loudly-silent denier of human dignity. One that outpaces the others by its sheer number of victims; that is abortion.

Standing and praying outside an abortion clinic can expose you to the heart of the beast. And that is the attack on truth or at best an ignorance or distortion of it. Very few discuss; some shout; others give you the fingers and move on. Their version of what constitutes truth even though it may not hold up to scrutiny is all that matters. Recently, an overt ‘middle-class’ lady shouted “and who is going to take care of all these (thousands of) children?” Who indeed?

Is it because we know what happens during an abortion and that this truth is uncomfortable?

Well, how can the taking of innocent life ever be seen as comforting or normal? Sadly, abortion has been so ‘normalised’ within society that it sometimes sounds like “I’m just going for a cup of coffee” or “I’ve had my hair done this morning”. Instead we have invented phrases and twisted words to assuage our consciences that if everybody else does it, then surely it must be okay.

But New Zealand history shows that Kiwis do stand up for the ‘under-dog’, the person who is ill-treated, oppressed, killed or simply denied their innate dignity. I recall watching in the early 80’s, as thousands of ordinary Kiwis stood up for the 2nd and 3rd class citizens of South Africa. Many of us were amazed that so many ‘distant’ people could be the voice of the voiceless. They could and did speak up for the oppressed; for those brutalised by an unjust system. A system based purely on a single attribute of their humanity; the colour of a person’s skin. This raises a question; is it easier to support a cause that is in a far-off land; far away from you? Thus the closer to home, the less comfortable people may feel?

But apartheid was not only about racial discrimination. There was a much less-discussed economic aspect to it. By keeping people down, by denying their dignity, it was easier to exploit them. A select few were making money through exploiting others. Some ‘fat cats’ were making huge sums of money through cheap labour. Of course, there was no concern over the home situation of the exploited masses. None of the ‘top dogs’ walked in their shoes; none of them knew or cared about the situation of their underlings. Profit was the concern, not people.

Is it a co-incidence that we have today the aptly named abortion industry?

Fast forward 30 years and so few speak up for the voiceless; the unborn child, the woman being pressurised to “get rid of IT”.  One invariably finds that some who were anti-apartheid, anti-discrimination back then, are keen promoters of abortion. The dignity of ‘non-white’ peoples was recognised and defended back then, but for the unborn child, a strange double-standard is still at play. Discrimination based on a single attribute – that these children are unborn. Lest we forget that science clearly shows that an unborn child in the foetal stages of growth is a separate human being. Much the same like the non-white in South Africa.

A key difference was that the South African system enforced the “Group Areas Act” which did not allow certain types to occupy the same space whereas with an unborn child, nature dictates otherwise.

The same rhetoric fashionable today was applied back then. “My body my choice” could easily read “my slave my choice” or if you want, “my worker my choice”. All that is needed is simply a few words on a piece of paper, and the deed is done. It is legal. It is the law.

But does anybody give a thought for the victims; those affected by these acts of exploitation. Like under apartheid, there were many. Some were just doing their jobs; they felt it was good for the non-beings; those who were different to them. Likewise in the abortion industry. Many are just doing their jobs; many think they are helping women. A select few are reaping the financial rewards off the tears of others. Unfortunately, just as under apartheid, many of the people at the ‘top’ are victims as well. As they refuse to or do not see the humanity, the dignity of others, so too do they lose their own dignity.

It is just that situation that has led many to apologise for what happened in South Africa. Somehow they felt that they should. So too do we find in the abortion industry. Some people are recognising the error of their ways and walking away. It appears that there comes a time in their life when reality kicks in. And the workers walk away.

But just like under the apartheid system, healing can occur; help is at hand for those who recognise clearly what abortion does and the ramifications upon the individual – mothers, fathers and abortion workers. A “truth and reconciliation” process as happened after the end of apartheid also occurs post-abortion. Individuals seeking healing have already confronted the truth; reconciliation can begin. The major difference is that with abortion, this process is private; there are no recriminations, no finger pointing. Only closure, healing, love – a restoration of dignity.

The Wrong of rights

Teenagers are often accused of thinking that the world revolves around them. This phase usually passes especially after heading out into the ‘real world’ and discovering that they are but a ‘cog’ in the enormous kaleidoscope of life.

We observe that the unspoken catch-phrase “It’s about me” is anything but limited to teens. Indeed, many adults proclaim this mantra or similar, particularly in the sexual sphere.

It never ceases to amaze at the incessant trumpeting “It’s my right” and directly linked to this, “It’s my body, my choice”, slogans which have been internalised and are hardly ever questioned today. These slogans are certainly reflective of a culture that has embraced individualism, where the ‘right’ of the individual is said to be paramount.

As part of our human condition, it is self-evident that selfishness occupies a central aspect. That is why as parents, we teach our kids to think of others, to give or simply to let go. In other words, to share. Many of us recall quite vividly, our parents repeating the phrases, “there are others worse off than you in the world” or the old favourite which invariably brings a smile to your face; “finish your food, there are people starving in Africa”. When we observe our kids or others in society giving or simply thinking of others, we feel a degree of satisfaction, a sense of warmth. We feel good. So as selfishness is looked upon negatively, giving and thoughtfulness has the opposite effect.

How is it then that many societies have retreated into an introspective mentality? One that exalts selfishness and worse, proclaims it a right!

This “rights revolution” according to Marguerite Peeters has been and still is the “main weapon used in the west to deconstruct human, cultural and religious tradition”. Under the guise of this self-proclaimed “rights”, societies have been transformed by contraception, abortion and pornography, and other practices which were once illegal, and sometimes subject to imprisonment. These practices are inward looking with the   focus largely on the individual and their self-satisfaction. Hence the expression, “It’s my right”, which is in essence, a sub-category within the broader, ‘right to choose’.

But what about the right to life? Many are opposed to capital punishment on the basis that it is inhumane, cruel or simply barbaric. Why then does this acknowledged right not extend to the un-deniability of life within the womb? How has the mothers legalized ‘right’ to abortion taken precedence over the child’s right to life?After all, it was unthinkable following World War II.

Today, a wedge has been solidly driven between a mother and her unborn child, so much so that the child is viewed as a threat. And this wedge has a name. It is called a right. But this right is wrong and we know it. We know it because instinctively, we understand that human rights are meant to uphold life and the dignity of the individual. The UN thinks so too, categorically stipulating “appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Thus, any ‘right’ that leads to the taking of a child’s life, can never be right. In fact, it is wrong.

I would suggest then, that ideology, rather than care about women or children, as being the key driver behind the abortion industry. The “rights revolution” has made inroads to normalising what was unthinkable in the not too distant past.

Money is the primary motive.