New Zealand: horror is now being served
Robert Gorter, MD, PhD.
They are born alive or aborted and left to die. The inhumane end of unwanted children in New Zealand: or left to pass or sold to the Pharmaceutical Industry for their stem cells to develop vaccines, etc.
September 17th, 2022
Embryo ready to be aborted even just before birth (36-40 weeks gestation)
Controversial new guidelines allow experiments on aborted mature human embryos till just before (or during) birth.
Once killing newborns at birth is accepted, the next step will be to accept euthanasia for all humans above 60 or 65, as they are increasingly less productive and only cost money.
It has been just over a year since New Zealand passed the law decriminalizing abortion; one of the most extreme laws in the world and strongly desired by Prime Minister Jacinda Arden. As envisaged by the new law, abortion in New Zealand is now available “on request” up to 12 weeks of gestation, while after week 12 – and in fact up to the very moment of birth – a simple statement by a doctor attesting that “abortion is appropriate in the circumstances” is sufficient, taking into account the physical and mental conditions of the mother herself, to end the life of the fetus in order to promote the “well-being” of the mother.
The possible dramatic consequences of such legislation have already been brought to the fore, starting with Dr. Catherine Hallagan’s statement that “the scope of welfare […] is so broad that virtually any request could be acceptable”. In an attempt to stem this drift, MP Simon O’Connor had tabled an amendment requiring medical care for children born alive following a botched abortion. The amendment was rejected by more than two-thirds of New Zealand MPs, Arden leading the way.
A 43% increase in late-term abortions
First of all, in the last twelve months in New Zealand, there has been a 43% increase in “late-term” abortions, i.e. those performed after the twentieth week of pregnancy till just before birth. We would like to remind anyone who might still be unaware that a 20-week-old fetus is about 15 centimeters long and weighs almost 300 grams. A pregnant woman at this stage can feel the movements of the fetus, while the baby is already developing a sense of smell, hearing, sight, and touch. Meanwhile, “the nervous system is forming those complex junctions that are necessary for memory, coordination, and thought.” All the organs and structures of the child’s body are almost fully formed, and the little baby now “enters a period of simple growth”. Also, one more quite important piece of information: at twenty weeks gestation the pain pathways are already formed.
Therapeutic abortion at approx. 20 weeks
In 2020, at least 1200 babies were aborted in New Zealand after 20 weeks; one of these involved a so-called “abortion” performed on a baby who was beyond 35 weeks of pregnancy. Remember that after week 37 the baby is considered to be “full term” – and the author of this article has experienced this personally, having given birth to a perfectly healthy child three weeks before the due date.
Therapeutic abortion at approx. 18 weeks.
De facto infanticide
While Richard Scott William, the “world’s most premature baby“, born at 21 weeks and two days of gestation, weighing only 340 grams (11.9 ounces), celebrated his first birthday last June 5, other children like him found themselves outside the womb, not because of an unfortunate accident of nature, but because of a precise intent pursued medically. And at least one of them, just like Richard, was born alive, despite being so premature. While doctors at the Minneapolis hospital, who welcomed Richard’s premature birth, tried everything to save him and succeeded in their noble efforts, and after six months of hard struggle managed to let the little boy go home in the arms of his mother and father, other doctors acted differently.
In fact, in New Zealand, there is no mandatory care for prematurely aborted fetuses, so a baby born alive after an unsuccessful late-term abortion is left to endure an agonizing death without medical care for two hours before dying. These events were reported by a medical student who, despite herself, had to witness the event. “Normally a late-term abortion is performed on babies who have health problems, but this baby was completely healthy, so instead of using an infanticidal injection to stop the heartbeat before expelling the baby from the womb, the mother was simply induced”, says Nicola – a fancy name for a surgeon. “We would never do that to animals. It was horrible,” the story continues, with a relief that is dramatically true, if we think that in Germany it is even forbidden to kill chicken embryos after 6 days of incubation, given the pain that said embryos seem to suffer.
Human beings, on the other hand, are allowed to die of asphyxiation, after being torn from their mother’s womb, a death defined as “sad” by the other surgeons involved, but justified by the “economic and housing problems” of the mother, a woman who – thanks to the law so strongly desired by the Prime Minister – has been left “free” to make her child suffer and die in the midst of so much torment. Let us remember that what her country has done for her in terms of economic and housing difficulties has not been to support her in these hard circumstances, help her overcome limitations or her weaknesses, but rather – a true beacon of civilization and modernity – to quote Nicola again, “end the life of her child in an exhausting and cruel manner. It is actually vile and disgusting for any human being to be treated in that way.” It is not clear to us who this woman, who “still needed support and help with her situation”, should be grateful to. With an additional burden: the knowledge that the fruit of her womb was left helpless and suffering – alone – until her last breath.
No surprises: it was all predictable
Like Right to Life UK spokeswoman Catherine Robinson said, “this case is indeed tragic, but entirely predictable. New Zealand’s new abortion law is barbaric and those MPs who voted against the amendment requiring medical treatment for babies born alive after a failed abortion – like Jacinda Arden – are a disgrace, and should be ashamed.” Instead, the amendment, deemed “unnecessary,” was based on the knowledge that in other jurisdictions babies were left to die after failed abortions because the provision of medical care was not legally required in such cases.
The Troubling Link Between the Abortion and Pharmaceutical Industries
After the fact that Planned Parenthood was selling the remains of aborted babies through questionable “mutual donation” exchanges was initially brought to light, many within the movement to end abortion noticed a startling omission: nobody was holding the buyers accountable.
Whenever addressing any issue, good or bad, one must always ask, “Qui Bono?” In other words, who benefits from abortion and, therefore, has a major interest in keeping it legal?
The obvious answer to the question is, of course, abortion providers themselves. Offering pitifully few services that cannot be obtained cheaper elsewhere, there’s little doubt that Planned Parenthood would be forced to shut its doors if abortion were outlawed tomorrow.
If you follow the money, however, especially in the case of the undercover videos revealing the obscene amount of money Planned Parenthood received in exchange for baby remains, you’ll conclude that someone else benefits from the abortion industry. Someone is paying these huge sums of money to obtain fetal organs and tissue.
That “someone” is the pharmaceutical industry, and until their dependency on the “byproducts of abortion” (it kills me to even phrase it that way) is shattered, we will never end the wholesale murder of children.
What does the pharmaceutical industry need aborted baby parts for? Their job is to develop lifesaving and life-preserving medicines and treatments, how can they possibly depend on mass murder to accomplish that?
The truth is, ironically, that many of those drugs and treatments, most especially vaccines, require human tissue for research, development, and production.
According to PBS:
University laboratories that buy such cells strongly defend their research, saying tissue that would otherwise be thrown out has played a vital role in lifesaving medical advances and holds great potential for further breakthroughs.
Fetal cells and stem cells are considered ideal because they divide rapidly, adapt to new environments easily, and are less susceptible to rejection than adult cells when transplanted.
“If researchers are unable to work with fetal tissue, there is a huge list of diseases for which researchers would move much more slowly, rather than quickly, to find their cause and how they can be cured,” Stanford University spokeswoman Lisa Lapin said in an email.
Looking particularly at vaccines—and treading lightly while doing so—we see the defense that the remains of only two aborted babies are used in vaccine production today, and they weren’t aborted for that purpose. However, this is not the entire truth.
These two precious children, whom we now know only by the names of the cell lines derived from their bodies, MRC-5 and WI-38, are not infinite resources of material for vaccine developers and manufacturers to work with. All cells have a finite lifespan and limited capacity to replicate before they eventually become unstable, develop tumors, and need to be replaced. According to LifeNews, “attempts to immortalize these cells to extend their lifespan have likewise introduced problems with tumor formations, as in aborted fetal cell line PER C6, introduced into the US in 2001.”
The recent development of new cell lines from babies aborted in China and India caused an uproar, yet, once more, the mainstream pro-life movement refused to call out the pharmaceutical industry for its reinforcement and legitimization of the abortion industry.
According to LifeNews:
WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3-month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies. The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a “water bag” abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation.
Walvax Biotechnology Co., Ltd. was founded in 2001 and represents a modern biological pharmaceutical company engaged in R&D, production, and sales of bio-medical products. It is a China national validated high-tech enterprise and enterprise technology center. Walvax provides safe bio-medicines such as vaccines with excellent quality and advanced technology for domestic and foreign markets. The company owns a variety of high-quality vaccines, including China’s first independently developed pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine, which is also the world’s second product for preventing pneumonia in infants and young children.
According to the studies published earlier this year in the NIH Pub Med, scientists noted that Walvax-2 cells replicated more rapidly than MRC-5 cells, attained greater population doubling, and performed better or equal to the existing cell lines for culturing viruses.
Although Pharma advocates, ethicists, clergy, and the general public go along with the “only two babies” talking points and contend that the sacrifice of their lives has allowed the lives of countless children to be preserved, there are those who sharply disagree.
“This may be the biggest lie ever told to the American public and the world at large,” said Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director for Children of God for Life, a nonprofit dedicated to monitoring and educating the public on the use of aborted fetal materials in vaccines and other consumer products. “Not only have there been thousands of abortions directly involved with vaccine research—specifically for that purpose where they altered abortion methods to obtain intact fetal organs, but we are now seeing more and more abortions for fetal research and new cell lines emerging for viral vaccine cultivation.”
“This is exactly what we have been saying for years,” “The pharmaceutical industry is not going to change their use of aborted fetal cells when they have tacit approval from our moral, political, and medical leaders.” Ever since fetal tissue research became legal, Vinnedge says, it has been “federally funded in the United States since 1993, when President Clinton signed it into law after intense lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry.”
Back in March of 2022, Vinnedge gave a presentation in Rome on the subject of fetal tissue use in medical research. Tracing the “sordid” practice back to Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement that birthed Planned Parent, Vinnedge explained why newly aborted babies are still being used in vaccine production today.
There is a huge market worth billions of dollars due to the creation of patents, and the sale of cell lines by companies that store and resell aborted fetal material. The biggest beneficiaries of abortion are “universities, biotech companies, the pharmaceutical industry at large and of course, Planned Parenthood who was caught in an undercover sting discussing how they ensure obtaining intact organs for sale.”
Even the medical profession is unaware of the “horrific history of forced abortions involved in vaccine research and thousands more that led to the ultimate final production.”
The truth needs to be made known about this sordid history and it is our goal to see that that is done, and ultimately to put an end to this barbaric practice to abort for financial gain. Until our physicians and clergy leaders unite worldwide demanding moral alternatives, the pharmaceutical industry is not going to change. As history and the current trends are proving, it’s only going to get worse.
94% of Belgian doctors surveyed support ‘after-birth abortion’ for babies with some disabilities
Like the issue of whether abortive mothers should be subject to murder charges, this issue of fetal tissue research and use in medicine will separate the wheat from the chaff in the pro-life movement. We need to be prepared to deeply examine our beliefs, challenge them, and be willing to amend or change them to root out any latent sympathy we may have for the abortion industry.
‘After-birth abortion’ or infanticide for babies with a disability is supported by more than 9 in 10 Belgian physicians surveyed, a shocking new research paper into abortion attitudes has revealed.
A poll of healthcare professionals in Flanders, Belgium found that 93.6% of physicians surveyed “agree that in the event of a serious (non-lethal) neonatal condition, administering drugs with the explicit intention to end neonatal life is acceptable.”
While the term ‘serious (non-lethal) neonatal condition’ is not defined in the paper, similarly unrestrictive wording in the UK Abortion Act has in practice allowed for abortion right up to birth for babies prenatally diagnosed with a disability – including Down’s syndrome, cleft lip, and club foot.
Medical ‘ethicists’ call for after-birth abortion
In 2012, two medical ‘ethicists’ controversially claimed that doctors should be allowed to end the lives of disabled, and even unwanted, newborn babies because they are not “actual persons.”
In an article, published by the British Medical Journal, Francesca Minerva and Alberto Guibilini argue that parents should be given the choice to end the lives of their newborn babies shortly after they are born because they are “morally irrelevant” and have “no moral right to life.” This is consistent with the views of Klaus Schwab and his Agenda 2030. And one of his devote students, the Israelian Yuval Noah Harari propagates since 2018 the killing of non-productive people and euthanasia of anybody above 65 or 70 years of age as these elderly are no longer productive and only cost money.
In addition, the ‘ethicists’ argued that infanticide – the purposeful causing of a baby’s death – is no different from abortion since both a fetus and a newborn baby are only “potential persons.”
They suggest infanticide, which they term “after-birth abortion”, should even be permissible where a baby is perfectly healthy if the birth is unwanted, inconvenient, or too expensive for the parents.
The authors state: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a person in the sense of the subject of a moral right to life.”
They add: “What we call ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
A spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson said: “Less than ten years ago, there was a strong condemnation of the idea of ending a baby’s life after it had been born, regardless of whether or not it had a disability when this idea was floated by academics in the British Medical Journal.
Tragically, the thought of intentionally ending the life of an unborn baby and newborn baby now appears to have gone from an outlandish academic thought experiment to be seen as something that is morally acceptable by these healthcare professionals in Belgium and several other EU nations.
It is profoundly disturbing that these healthcare professionals, who should be upholding the right to life and giving every baby the best possible chance at life, are hugely in favor of ‘after-birth abortions’ and infanticide of babies with a disability.
Until we stand up and demand that pharmaceutical companies and researchers use ethical alternatives in their products, the holocaust against the unborn will never end.