Right to choose abortion = Right to euthanasia

Do you remember the days when induced abortion was illegal? In those days the women marched in the streets demanding the right to kill their unborn children. At that time abortion doctors such as the Australian Bertram Wainer were charged with the crime of procuring abortion. Then the courts intervened so that unborn babies are no longer protected by the law. The ride down the slippery slope had begun.

Once the way was opened to "legal" abortion on demand, the culture of death began in earnest its plan to decimate life. Mothers-to-be over the age of 30 and under the age of 16 have been placed under intense pressure as to whether or not they should continue with their pregnancies. Older mothers were convinced that they should have the risky amniocentesis test to ensure that the infant in the womb did not carry the gene for Down's Syndrome. Younger mothers-to-be were told that they ran certain risks if they continued with the pregnancy. However, the risk of mental illness as a result of not having the child, plus a higher risk for breast cancer and other cancers were never explained to these women. Instead they were invited to kill their infants in the name of having the perfect child. Since that embyronic stage of legal abortion on demand there have been more and more abuses of babies that have crept into the system.

Can you imagine what it is like for a young mother-to-be, who has carried her baby for 9 months in the womb, and the child is ready to enter into the world. There is a problem, and the labour proper does not begin. She is sent home because she is not showing signs of commencing labour. Then she returns to the hospital and this time, when she is examined she is told that the baby's heart is weak? What procedure should have followed for this mother and infant to ensure the survival of the child? Caesarian section, right? Wrong answer. I agree that a thinking doctor and medical staff should have rushed that young mother off to emergency for a caesarian section. That is exactly what did not happen. The mother was told that her infant's heart was weak and he was allowed to die in the womb. Then on the following day the medical staff brought on the labour. The girl, husband and their respective families were devastated by the death of her first child, a little boy named Nathan. Did he have a disease? No. The autopsy showed that there was nothing wrong with Nathan. He was a perfect child. He was strangled in the womb by the umbilical cord being wrapped around his neck. Nathan had struggled to survive and the doctor who made the decision to let him die showed no mercy towards this infant who is my great-nephew. This is the kind of misadventure that will continue to occur unless the abortionists are brought to heel and abortion on demand is made illegal once again. It will be allowed to continue because the abortion industry has caused doctors to disregard all possible means of ensuring a safe delivery for both baby in the womb and mother.

The issue of abortion is only the beginning, since the next step in the chain is that of euthanasia. It did not take long to discover that medical staff have taken it upon themselves to kill weak infants by smothering them to death. Once they have gotten away with that crime, it was not long before the medical staff were clamouring to be allowed to kill adults whom they considered too weak to continue to survive. This is the point where the Hippocratic Oath has gone out of the door. When doctors were required to take the Hippocratic Oath, they upheld the right for every human being to live. Now they clamour to kill those who are not able to fend for themselves.

There are several streams in the euthanasia debate because of the different categories for a comatose patient as well as those who are mentally incapable of looking after themselves. There is no doubt that if a patient is showing no signs of life, that is, there are no brainwaves, and that person is being kept artificially alive due to being attached to a machine, then a family has the right to make the decision to pull the plug and allow God to do the rest. However, no one should have the right to withdraw treatment and food from someone who is allegedly in a vegetative state unless all signs of life are non-existent. Allowing a dying patient to go peacefully is not a crime, yet on the other hand, if someone helps another person to commit suicide then that is a crime.

Voluntary euthanasia has been a hot topic for more than 20 years. There are people who are prepared to commit suicide for the cause of the Hemlock society, to have the right to "choose" when to die. They talk of death with dignity but they are unwilling to extend that same "dignity" to those who are considered to be amongst the "unfit to remain alive" category. This is the perception that we see in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case. Someone - namely Michael Schiavo, Terri's "loving" husband - has decided that Terri must not be allowed to live, despite the fact that she had begun responding to the rehabilitation that she had received. In fact, Michael Schiavo has cut off his wife from all attempts to rehabilitate her so that she can function on her own. Does Michael Schiavo have something to hide from the law about Terri's condition?

Terri is severely disabled because oxygen was cut off from her brain for approximately 8-10 minutes. Michael Schiavo claims that Terri fell as she had a heart attack. The reason sounds plausible, except that Terri is not showing any signs of having a heart attack that has been brought on by low potassium levels in the blood. There is a division of opinion about what happened, yet a leading forensic pathologist in New York has stated that Terri showed signs of strangulation and that she lost the oxygen as she was being asphyxiated. The extent and extreme disability of Terri seems to indicate that she suffered an extremely severe trauma that put her into a coma in hospital.

Terri Schiavo is not alone in her fight to remain alive. When some of the decisions that have been made in this case are examined in the light of day, it is not difficult to see the subterfuge that is taking place in order to pave the way to kill others who are considered to be nothing more than non persons, or in the terminology of Scientology, those who have no right to exist because of their severe incapacities. There is another Florida case that deserves a better airing since the parents of the girl want to sue somebody for her wrongful death. The girl is Lisa McPherson. She died in mysterious circumstances. The "church" of Scientology were charged over her death, but some of the witnesses did not step forward. Lisa belonged to the Church of Scientology before her death. In fact she was on Scientology premises when she collapsed and was rushed to hospital. Lisa had a mental break down, and she was taken by other Scientologists to a place where she was held as a captive. She was put on the "run down" for death, and over a period of 7 days she very slowly dehydrated to death.

Who, more than any other group advocates that the mentally and physically disabled should be put down? The answer to this question can be found in the writings of Ron L. Hubbard. Is there a connection between the followers of Ron L. Hubbard and the people who are wanting to oversee the death of Terri Schiavo?