Baby in its amniotic sac eight weeks from conception

Jeremy Hunt’s view that the abortion limit should be halved to 12 weeks is untenable, says the National Director of Christian Voice.

The Health Secretary said he believed there is a moral case for cutting the current time limit of 24 weeks.
“Everyone looks at the evidence and comes to a view about when they think that moment is, and my own view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it,” Mr Hunt told The Times.

Mr Hunt, who was appointed to his post last month, denied that his view on abortion was based on religious belief.

He said: “It’s just my view about that incredibly difficult question about the moment that we should deem life to start. I don’t think the reason I have that view is for religious reasons.”

David Steel and Yvette Cooper would allow the legalised killing of this unborn child 20 weeks after conception

Prime Minister David Cameron, Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Home Secretary Theresa May backed a reduction of four weeks, to twenty weeks, but Mr Cameron stressed there were no plans to bring legislation forward.

Some Christian groups have urged their members to write and thank Mr Hunt, Mrs May and Mrs Miller but Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said any move to reduce the abortion limit was doomed to failure. “There is a large pro-abortion majority in parliament which will ensure that any time-limiting amendments are rejected while using the opportunity to push for pro-abortion amendments,” he said.

“The real political debate about abortion in the UK should focus – as it does elsewhere in the world – on the right to life of all unborn children and on the way governments bankroll abortion access at home and abroad.”

Andrew Stephenson of Abort67 agreed. A Parliamentary debate “may allow the pro-aborts to slip in amendments to make access to abortion easier.”  He said a reduction might save a few babies from death but pointed out that well over 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester (13 weeks and below) in any case.

A baby in its amniotic sac less than a month after conception, sadly removed because it was growing ectopically, in the mother’s fallopian tube. Abortion can always be allowed to save the life of the mother – but not her lifestyle!

On a positive note, Mr Stephenson said:

“Any attack on the abortion industry is a good thing.  This puts them on the defensive and causes them to speak.  If you have listened to the abortion advocates speak you will know that they always provide us with new openings to expose how deceptive and corrupt they really are.   We want them to keep speaking!

“It also shows that there is growing discontent for the status quo.  When MPs feel they can stand up for issues that would have previously been considered too contentious they must know that things are changing; over 63% of people (and increasing) in a recent poll support a total ban on abortion.”

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:

“I am totally perplexed by Mr Hunt’s logic. Why should we ‘deem life to start’ at twelve weeks when all organs are in place at eight weeks, the baby’s heart is already beating four weeks after conception and all genetic material is there when sperm meets egg? His view is simply untenable.”  (See link here.)

Mr Hunt’s remarks drew a predictable tirade of abuse from abortionists and their supporters.

Lord Steel, the unrepentant architect of the Abortion Act 1967, responsible for the deaths of over 6 million British children, “expressed his dismay” while shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper described Mr Hunt’s remarks as “chilling”.

“David Cameron needs to make sure his health secretary doesn’t distort medical evidence and does not impose his own view on women about their health,” she said.

Stephen Green responded:

Child in the womb at 16 weeks gestation – an entirely separate human being from his mother.

“All but a handful of abortions are carried out on perfectly healthy women who just find this new human being growing inside them inconvenient.  As for medical evidence, Yvette Cooper merely needs to look at the wonderful new catalogue of images of children in the womb.  And if she wants something really ‘chilling’, she could take a look at the results of abortion.”  The results of abortion – pictures here.

 

Please sign our online petition to repeal the 1967 Abortion Act

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

24 COMMENTS

  1. Praise God that Jeremy Hunt has made this bold step in the right direction. For abortion to be repealed altogether would probably be impossible in this pagan parliament, so he should be supported in his quest to get the period reduced to 12 weeks. I see in America that the black Christian voters are determined to get Obama out of office for his stance on abortion and same sex marriage and have raised $1m to campaign against him. Perhaps British Christians should do the same and start to make TV adverts showing just who we are killing, using the above pictures. Abortion is murder and is illegal.

  2. As part of my daughter’s Master’s nursing course she witnessed a lethal drug injected into the baby in the womb, and she also witnessed a baby come out alive. The idea is they come out dead. My daughter found this all very distressing. She said young girls would come in for an abortion with an attitude as if they were getting a pizza. Obviously not every woman had that attitude. One lady was admitted for an investigation as to why she was having problems conceiving. The surgeon decided her problem was caused by a previous abortion she had had. A lot to think about I think. The Lord says thou shalt not kill and I think that makes it very clear to me.

    • Why do you Christians insist on imposing your own personal view of morality on everyone. This is a free country and everyone is entitled to their personal rights. Whilst I agree that abortion is an ugly reality, we should be looking into better education and helping these girls before they get pregnant in the first place.

      • Unless you are campaigning against the Abortion Act, you are imposing your morality of death on an innocent child in the womb, and denying that undisputed human being his or her personal rights.
        And it would help girls not get pregnant if sex education stressed chastity and schools did not give out contraceptives which they know teenagers are hopeless at using.

  3. Hi Stephen,

    Thank you for your article about the views of Jeremy Hunt on Abortion time limits. i think the photos of tiny babies in the womb are a valuable tool for teaching about the life of an as yet unborn human baby (person even). I have refused the tests myself when I was pregnant (many years ago now) as I didn’t agree with the automatic outcome if something was found to be wrong with the baby.

    I am going to ask you though please to remove the photo of the vacuum abortion on the grounds that it is just too distressing. I understand why you have used it but I would disagree on its usefulness. I think teaching is often more effective with a positive message. My grandaughter was born at 25 weeks to the great consternation and shock of the whole family, least of all my daughter and son in law. She is now a healthy seven year old doing well at school. My point is that relatives that were pro women’s choice changed their minds when they saw her in her incubator. A short film of a 23 week baby in his/her incubator might do more to change peoples minds whereas the photo in question will cause people to turn away in distress but might not change their minds. In addition I would hate to show this to a woman who had previously had an abortion of this nature and damage her further. Yvonne

  4. Hi Stephen
    Amazing pics, although I have to agree with Yvonne. You lead into the article with the words ‘amazing pics in the womb’, this isn’t one of them. If you have to leave it in (again, I question it’s usefulness to this particular article) then please put a warning before people click on the link. I was shocked when I saw it with all the other beautiful pics.
    Mark

  6. On the other hand graphic pictures of the results of abortion often have positive effects. The last thing the abortionist wants is for people, especially his clients, to see what an abortion really involves and what it does to the baby. Our Stop Genocide campaign in the Czech Republic shows photos of aborted babies next to photos of various other genocides and atrocities. Young people are especially open to this information. Several thousand have already signed the petition to make abortion unlawful. Many women who have had abortions frequently suppress their feelings about it and their knowledge of what they have actually done. When they see such photos it may cause distress, but to face up to the reality of abortion may well be the first step towards seeking the forgiveness of their aborted child and the forgiveness of God, who still loves them, even when they find it hard to forgive themselves. Of course it helps a lot if there is someone on hand to tell them that God forgives them, and to point to Our Lord who died on the cross for them too, as well as for others.

  7. Hi,
    With reference to the shock expressed by Yvonne and Mark,
    I think abortion IS shocking, but as a nation, our culture has shocked us with so many immoral, brutal and terrible deeds that many have become desensitised to shocking ideas and suggestions. It is the law of our land that this dreadful deed is allowed, and we ought to be made aware of what that actually means. The vacuum abortion photo is meant to be shocking, set in stark and hideous contrast to the previous photos to make us understand what our politicians are suggesting, in the hope that we will really do something about it. Yes, I would prefer not to ever set my eyes on such a sight, but if this is what is taking place in my country on a daily basis, then I’m going to have to brace myself and face it. To hide the awful truth allows us to slip into hiding on the subject if we choose. But having seen this photo, my heart rises up in a surge of outrage that this should be deemed acceptable by ANYONE.
    I guess a warning that such a photo is coming will act to protect the faint of heart, so there’d be no harm in that. But I say leave it in there. We need to face the horrible reality of the murder, as well as the beautiful reality of tiny sweet life, and do so in our growing numbers until it becomes culturally unacceptable to commit this crime unnecessarily on the innocents, and force our law-makers to reverse their views.
    Yours,
    Maggie.

  8. On the viewpoint of Jeremy Hunt, I am simply staggered that a man who is placed in a responsible position to make level judgements and decisions on behalf of his nation, should think that the assessment of when life begins comes down to a personal view?!!? What criteria is Mr Hunt using to come to this view? Or is it simply plucked from the air? At the very least, medical science would lend him some useful information that would illustrate his view is quite simply incorrect. The smallest of micro-organisms would be considered ‘life’ by a scientist. Were we to discover a tiny amoeba living on Mars, we would announce the headline ‘Life found on other planets!’
    We can see tiny single celled creatures under high magnificatrion microsopes, and the fluid in which they live would be deemed to be ‘teeming with life’.
    We simply cannot have it both ways. Conception is the spark that brings life into being, whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not, whether it’s convenient or not. Any microbiologist would tell us that. From that profound moment onwards, there is a child in the making that has a chance of life, and we do not have the right to remove that chance, unless the life of the mother and child are at risk.
    Maggie

  9. Maggie
    You’ve missed my point. I’ve seen a fair few pics of abortion and no doubt will see a few more. These shocking pics need to be seen. I am not saying we shouldn’t see pics like this, but questioned the relevance of the pic against this particular link and article. Most people viewing this will be pro-life anyway.
    Mark

  10. For many seeking abortions this is a consequence of a particular lifestyle but I readily concede there are other more valid reasons to elect for aborting an unborn child; although not because of any recognised birth defect.
    Life is a gift and God chooses to whom will receive this gift of life but the main issue here is that God is not part of the picture so society will choose what it perceives is a right. Our job is to educate and inform and pray for the government in authority to receive enlightenment.
    I like the Scriptural footnote to each message it is important that our views are supported by His Word

  12. I’m afraid you are mistaken on one important point. And it is unfortunately a very common misunderstanding among pro-life people.

    You say that abortion can always be allowed to save the life of the mother. But this is a dreadful error and inevitably plays into the hands of the abortion lobby.

    We have seen recently that even in cases where the mother is in advanced stages of cancer, and having chemotherapy and radiation treatment, the child is unharmed and can be brought to term.

    It is really only in the case of ectopic pregnancy where it is impossible to save both the child and the mother. In this case, the procedure required is the removal of the fallopian tube where the child has implanted. THIS IS NOT AN ABORTION.

    And indeed, abortion by any method does nothing whatever to resolve the problem of an ectopic pregnancy. It is only by the surgical removal of the fallopian tube that the mother’s life can be saved. Without this, the child will continue to develop inside the fallopian tube which will burst causing the mother’s death.

    Uninformed people will often say that the removal of the fallopian tube is the same thing as an abortion, but in no medical text will you find this. Even surgical abortion procedures do not remove the woman’s reproductive organs; if they did, I think few women would be willing to undertake them.

    The fact that the removal of the fallopian tube results in the inevitable death of the child is an *unintended*, secondary consequence, one that would be avoided if at all possible. Unfortunately, it is not now medically possible to save the life of the child at such an early stage of development. But the bottom line remains that the removal cannot be an abortion, that abortion does not resolve the medical issue of ectopic pregnancy, neither surgical abortion nor the euphemistically named “medical” or chemical abortion.

    Abortion is a procedure that, by definition, primarily seeks one thing: the death of the child.

    The removal of the fallopian tube in cases of ectopic pregnancy is a procedure whose primary end is the saving of the mother’s life. The death of the child is an un-sought secondary consequence that would be avoided if possible.

    It is a very important distinction to make, because pro-life people are frequently searching for ways to be seen to be on the “side” of women. This desire is frequently played upon by the abortion movement which then begins shrieking, “But what about the mother’s life!! Surely you wouldn’t stand in the way of abortion for that.” and, like frightened rabbits, we all jump and say, “Oh no! of course not!” They are relying on our ignorance of the medical procedures in question.

    A meeting of obstetricians and other medical experts in Dublin recently issued a statement that there is NO situation of pregnancy for which abortion is a useful medical treatment.

  15. Any cut in the abortion time limit is a critical step in the right direction and will result in thousands of lives saved. Of course we want a lot more, that goes without saying, but we have to deal with the cold realities of this sick society.
    Our best line of argument now is to advance the case that medical knowledge and expertise has increased and pray that God will touch the hearts of our MP’s.
    I was dismayed to see Simon Hughes MP say on a recent Question Time that he was a Christian but still thought that abortion was a necessary option and he dismissed any changes to current set up. How does he square this with being a practising Christian?

    • Maybe a step in the right direction, Phil, and maybe not.
      Point 1: Any pro-life attempt to reduce the age limit will be used by pro-aborts to get their amendments through. This happened in 1990. David Alton’s well-meaning attempt to reduce the age resulted in abortion up to birth for handicap.
      Point 2: When we stand on principle, God is for us, when we start from compromise, we fail. This happened successively in the two debates over Sunday Trading. On slavery, the Evangelical Christian William Wilberforce did not bring in a compromise Bill, he brought in a Bill to stop the slave trade at once. It did not succeed in 1791, being defeated by a landslide, but he kept bringing it again and again until it passed in 1807, 16 long years later. It took another 26 years to abolish slavery itself (1833). Again, they stood on principle.
      Point 3: Most abortions take place in the first trimester anyway.
      Point 4: Does God want a bit less killing of the innocents? Will that unlock his blessing for the UK? Or does he demand no killing at all?
      Getting the pictures out of life before birth and dare I say it of death before birth is vital, as is showing how the science and medical knowledge are on our side.
      As for Simon Hughes, many of us who profess the name of Christ need to look at whether our views really line up with those of Almighty God expressed in Scripture, Phil.