CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

In Europe it’s Lobsters In, Babies Out

Jul 13, 2009

What do you call a continent which cares more about the rights and wellbeing of crabs, lobsters, and even the common octopus, than it does about unborn babies? Just in case you cannot come up with anything, let me suggest a few possibilities: deranged, degenerate, despicable and delirious. And just to keep the alliteration going: dumb, really dumb.

This is how the New Scientist begins its coverage of this bizarre story: “Animal welfare legislation generally applies only to vertebrates. There are, however, moves to include invertebrates. Proposed changes to European law, for example, would extend welfare laws to crabs and lobsters. Up to now the only invertebrate protected is the common octopus.

“‘Invertebrate rights’ has become a campaigning issue. Advocates for Animals recently produced a report which concludes that there is ‘potential for experiencing pain and suffering’ in crustaceans. The group is particularly concerned about boiling lobsters alive. The wider public is also showing interest. Research supposedly demonstrating that hermit crabs feel and remember pain received worldwide news coverage.”

The author of the article in fact argues that such animals do not feel any significant pain. He concludes with these words: “Extending welfare to crustaceans would be a mistake. They are useful animals for research on nervous systems. Hopefully common sense and the basic scientific facts should dictate that invertebrates remain outside the legislation.”

While it is good to see a bit of sanity here, the very fact that this story was even raised shows just how far down the tubes the intellectualoids in Europe have gone. If the ruling elites in Europe can actually waste time ruminating over the rights of an octopus or a crab, then perhaps it is best that we just allow Europe to proceed in its terminal decline.

My European readers can correct me here, but I am not aware of any laws banning the killing of unborn babies. I am not aware of any legislation which confers rights on the unborn. I am not aware of any committees looking into ways to outlaw the pain unborn babies experience when undergoing abortions.

Interestingly, this article deals with one type of lobster death: “As for lobsters in boiling water, sensory nerves from crabs living in temperate waters fail irreversibly at 25 °C, about the temperature of tepid bath water. This procedure is not inhumane.”

I guess the European elites are not aware of how one abortion method entails burning a baby to death with a saline solution – now that’s gotta hurt. Other methods involve slicing the baby to pieces, sucking the brains out, and so on. If this is not bad enough, science has demonstrated that the unborn do indeed feel pain.

For example, surgeon Robert Shearin argues that unborn babies can experience pain at quite an early age: “As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain. . . . [At this point she] responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be deemed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain.”

More recently a British review of the latest research has found that an unborn baby is definitely aware of pain by 24 weeks, and possibly aware as early as 20 weeks. But the pain of death is of course the biggest concern of all here. Even if the abortion procedure involved no pain at all, it still results in a dead baby.

But abortion is both painful and lethal. We rightly show pictures of young seals being clubbed to death, because we want to persuade civilised people to bring this awful practice to an end. It seems it is time we did the same with the awful practice of abortion, especially to those European bureaucrats.

The various buffoons and moral midgets running the show in Europe demonstrate why the continent is in such big trouble. This is simply one more indication of when the West rejects its Judeo-Christian foundations, the doors to the asylum are flung wide open, and mental and ethical haemorrhaging becomes endemic.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327166.200-do-crabs-have-rights.html

[680 words]

14 Responses to In Europe it’s Lobsters In, Babies Out

  • A really frightening article, Bill.
    The lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum.
    John Ballantyne, Melbourne.

  • We do indeed live in a parallel universe. I often wondered what it would be like to live in lunatic asylum and now I know. Last year in the UK the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was passed, part of which enabled scientist to create chimeras – half animal, half human embryos. These have to be destroyed after fourteen days, presumably on ethical and humanitarian reasons – a kind of euthanasia. Is this abortion of the fourteen day chimera done out of recognition that it would be inhumane to let it develop? How come it is awarded a value when a totally human embryo has no value and is deemed to be merely the product of conception – just meat – right up until 22 weeks?

    The final stage of the deconstruction of western civilisation is coming fast. We will no longer have to put on a pretence of being moral and ethical. It will be our human right to murder, lie and steal – where every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity will in fact be a virtue. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    Davdi Skinner, Uk

  • Bill, I normally wouldn’t recommend the late Douglas Adams, as he was a most irreverent writer, and a thorough evolutionist.

    But his Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series does identify humorously the exact condition this kind of thing typifies.
    See “Wonko the Sane”: http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Wonko_the_Sane

    John Angelico

  • I know how you feel. Here in Australia we have folk weeping over a beached baby whale, desperately trying to save it. One does not want to see such creatures suffer, of course, but one wonders if the sympathisers also care at all about the brutal destruction of the human unborn by partial-birth abortion, for example. The circle of compassion is becoming very kinky. A whale has a right to life, but not a human child in the womb.

    The concept of rights is being degraded. It was once noble and objective. Wilberforce is turning in his grave.

    John Snowden

  • But, Bill, the New Scientist writer has: “They [lobsters] are useful animals for research on nervous systems” – which has me thinking that maybe the writers/scientists are against the animal rights ideas simply because their right to research would be threatened by them. Presumably they are happy with anything that allowed research at whatever cost, like that of the foetal pain you describe. The worst situation is where parents have their babies aborted through adherence to their Ecologist religion, on the basis that they fear bringing an energy-user into the world (this has happened).
    John Thomas

  • 25 years ago Randy Stonehill wrote a funny song called Stop The World. The first verse goes:

    Well it’s okay to murder babies
    But we really ought to save the whales
    We’re putting criminals in office
    Cause it’s way too crowded in the jails
    T.V. is our teacher now
    The schools are overrun by thugs
    And children skip their innocence
    and graduate to sex and drugs
    Right is wrong and wrong is right
    White is black and black is white
    I think I just lost my appetite
    Stop the world I want to get off

    http://www.delusionresistance.org/christian/stonehill/celebrate/celebrate08.html

    When I first heard it I remember thinking how obvious the opening 2 lines were and then a few years later randomly quoting them to a colleague at work while I was in a reflective frame of mind. Big mistake. She got upset, and the reaction amazed me. I was thinking, “What? Do you not get this?”

    As an aside, I’m beginning to think that an important question that should be part of any conversation which contains disagreements is to ask what level of evidence would enable someone to at least consider that they were wrong about something. In other words, set an agreed criteria for acceptance of truth. It gets frustrating sometimes to appeal to the highest truth you are aware of but still watch people reject it. And I hope I remember to do the same for someone who wishes to set me straight about something too.

    But still, octopuses, crabs and lobsters over human beings – the weirdness is unbelievable…

    I wish I had some spaceman gear
    I swear I’d fly away from here
    I cry to God this fervent prayer
    “Oh, please, just take me anywhere
    Don’t leave me here”

    Mark Rabich

  • Isaiah 5:20: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    Which is exactly what they do today!!

    Donna Opie

  • Thanks Donna

    Yes I had that passage in mind as well.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Good article on a not so fortunate fact of life: the abortion lobby and the neo-pagan deference of the so-called ecological scientists to turn a blind eye to abortion is (at best) the wrong way to go about things. “Virtus stat in media” is an old Aristotelian saying which means virtue stands in the middle. Problem is that virtue is intrinsically linked with truth. Thus abortion which is the murder of the most defenceless human beings is of course absolutely anti-virtue.Let us pray harder for the conversion of both the eco-fanatics and the unfortunates that work in the abortion industry. As Alfred Lord Tennyson famously said: “More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of”.
    Paddy Meehan

  • Hi Bill.
    The madness in Europe isn’t just confined to that part of the world. I have just been handed a small article put out by DSE in Victoria from a farmer. I actually couldn’t stop laughing at the sheer stupidity of it all. They want farmers to put around their properties, wait for it….. Kangaroo gates. Here’s the approach they want the farmers to have;
    “Balance your domestic stock density to accommodate some kangaroos. Improve pasture. Control weeds and grazing by rabbits to provide shared food source for stock and kangaroos.”
    Here the DSE (Dumb, Stupid and Inept), are wanting farmers to not just contend with the prolonged drought, but now also to feed an animal that gives no return for their dollar. Anybody from the land knows that sheep and kangaroos just don’t mix. They also want rabbits to have a fair go. Last time I heard, rabbits are a vermin.
    But the biggest question that I have is who’s going to teach the kangaroos to use the gate? I guess they will put out another brainwave of an idea. What else now would you expect from DSE.
    I know it’s a little off centre from your article, but it’s just another example of the mixed up values that are being sold to society.
    Rohan Needs

  • Aren’t Crustacean’s covered by the RSPCA, the society that Wilberforce established? Why do they think we need a separate bill defining their rights?
    Lennard Caldwell, Clifton QLD

  • Two points:
    1 Is there a nation on Earth which gives rights to unborn children?
    2 Kangaroo is actually good eating and could be more easily and profitably farmed than sheep in some drought stricken areas. I say this with a background (academically) in agriculture and animal nutrition.

    The first is much more important because God’s judgement surely falls on those who murder ‘innocents’ (my theology says that none are literally innocent because of original sin) but God does hate killing of children and he judged Herod, Israel and Babylon for this.
    Katharine Hornsby

  • Hi Katharine,

    Here’s a link to a map of the world showing which countries protect the life of the unborn. The answer is hardly any.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Europe is on its way to oblivion anyway, due to demographic winter. The failure to have at least replacement numbers of children is seeing to that. Severe economic recession is also inivitable due to this hedonistic selfishness (a result that hedonists won’t want but are too self-absorbed to address).
    Jerry Gonzalez

Leave a Reply