London, England (LifeNews.com) -- A British cleric is hoping justice delayed isn't justice denied in the case of a baby who was aborted late-term because of a cleft lip and palate.

read the story here

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 12, 2004

Answers

I guess they will be aborting babies because they don't like their hair color next.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 12, 2004.

I don't know how the law reads in the UK but in the USA there are no limitations whatsoever on reasons for an abortion. Abortions have been performed for a lot less reason than cleft palate - such as mom not wanting to be pregnant during the beach season. In fact, no reason at all has to be given for purchasing an abortion. All you need is the money.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 12, 2004.

Well, how about if the Jepson wins the case. Maybe then we can have hope that one day we'll actually have a presidential candidate who steps up to the plate on issue to represent the fellow man who could not be there. Maybe it's too early to tell when that day will come but I have hope it will come soon as my generation grows up and finds out the others whom they're missing. Let's pray that Jepson wins the case.

Our Father Give us today our future feast,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 12, 2004.

Paul,

In the UK you need two doctors to sign a consent for a woman to have an abortion. The normal legal time-limit for abortion is 24 weeks. Before 24 weeks gestation the woman can have an abortion on the grounds of the pregnancy causing a risk of physical or mental health problem to the woman or any children she already has.

However, after 24 weeks gestation she can have an abortion only on the grounds of a ‘substantial health risk’ to the woman‘s life, or foetal abnormalities. In this situation there would be NO time limit.

That’s the theory. Of course the reality may be entirely different. The 2001 figures for England and Wales show that of 186,000 abortions performed only 1695 were because of substantial risk of severe disability to the child, 164,306 were because of risk to the mother's physical or MENTAL health (very subjective criteria) and none were because of risk of life to the mother. of the 186,000 abortions performed 2,700 were performed after 20 weeks gestation.

I think the figures say it all.

Holy Innocents ...pray for us.

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 13, 2004.

or foetal abnormalities

Like ADD, or like hair color? ;)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 13, 2004.

Seriously folks, aren't you outraged? They are murdering kids because they have cleft palates!

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), May 13, 2004.

"Substantial health risk to the mother", as reasonable as it sounds, is actually just a giant loophole which eradicates any and all limitations on abortion. First, because every pregnancy involves some genuine "substantial health risk" to the mother; and secondly because such regulations include the mental/emotional health of the mother; therefore, even if everything is anatomically and physiologically perfect, there is still "substantial health risk" if the mother is depressed or fearful or anxious about the pregnancy or about raising another child. Even a law allowing for abortion "only when the mother's life is in serious jeopardy" is a free-for-all license. A woman only has to mmention to her doctor that she is so depressed about the pregnancy she has had suicidal thoughts, and there you have it - mother's life in serious jeopardy.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 13, 2004.

Yes Bill, I'm extremely outraged. Just as I'm extremely outraged that they're practising sex-selection under the pretext that a boy or a girl MAY carry this or that genetic defect. Selecting male or female embryos, destroying the undesired sex and only implanting the desired sex.

I'm shocked and astonished at the processes used in IVF for treating infertile women. It's deemed acceptable that a woman's ovaries are induced to super-ovulate, then after fertilising as many as 12 eggs the 'best of the bunch' are re-implanted, the others discarded. Of course, if too many survive this procedure they will then offer selective reduction of the remaining embryos.

In my opinion this type of inhumane behaviour is no different to how the Nazis treated human life in WW11.

Paul, you're absolutely right in what you say. Legislation will never stop doctors and women from bending the rules at best, and stretching the rules to breaking point at worst, in order that they get the decision on their side.

God help us all!

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 14, 2004.