On Christmas Eve, the Beeb, with her reliable sense of what is singularly inappropriate, provided a programme before breakfast on "Assisted Dying" (which is what we now call Euthanasia in order to make it sound more 'human').
The point at which the shiver went down my spine was the statement that Two Doctors woild have to sign pieces of paper, for the killing to be legal.
When this depraved and murderous Kingdom democratically allowed Abortion, Two Doctors featured in the regulations. Abortion was not, in fact, legalised; it remained illegal except in certain limited circumstances. These were: danger to life; to mental health. So Two Doctors had each to sign a form, to guarantee that one of these risks applied. Pregnancy might kill Ms X; or Ms X is mentally sick. Or both.
The figures currently running tell us that some 600 pregnant women daily are medically guaranteed to be in danger of their lives or to be mentally sick. Two Doctors examine each of them extremely carefully and certify this by signing on the dotted line.
Except that they don't. Not long ago it came to light that, in a medical practice one Doctor would sign large numbers of such forms in batches, leaving the patients' names for his/her colleague to fill in as and when needed. As Obersturmbannfuehrer Adolph 'banality-of-evil' Eichmann could suavely have explained, it is smart little details like this which can help a killing machine to function that bit more smoothly.
The evidence about these goings-on was clear. The British Crown Prosecution Service, however, announced that it "would not be in the public interest" to prosecute the killers.
This seems to me unfair discrimination against ordinary, normal killers without medical qualifications.
The lawyers themselves have little regard to the law or anything sacred: when I accompanied my solicitor to the office of one of his brethren in the law to swear my father’s will of which I was executor the said solicitor, after 5 minutes friendly chat, showed quizzical surprise at my suggestion that we actually perform the oath
Finnis and George are the leaders on the Catholic case against Death Culture. But what are we actually doing about it? What is our duty when faced with people who go to work intentionally to kill, either at the beginning or the end of life? It appears that we restrict our indignation to SCR debate and the odd disorganised demo and rosary. It's a disgraceful effort and must suggest to the enemy that we don't believe what we say.
Either these things are murder or they are not. If they are, we should resist them utterly. Are we entitled/obligated to use violence in defence of the innocent under imminent threat of murder? Anscombe (defended, it is fair to note, by Finnis as counsel when she was prosecuted) at least put her body in the way of the agents of death, though she did not do so repeatedly.
If we don't act effectively,or with the intent to be effective, in defence of murdered babies and vulnerable adults then what does that make us? Compliant, academically posturing dilettantes?
The aborting organisation, BPAS, is to open a "non-profit" IVF clinic. Laughtears seem in order.
Post a Comment