From the TUC

US Style abortion clinic protests coming to a clinic near you…

15 Oct 2014, by in Equality

Picture the scene: protesters with gory posters of bloody foetuses standing outside a doctor’s surgery haranguing patients and staff trying to enter the clinic and vowing to close the service down.

Maybe you’re picturing this clinic in the blazing sunshine of Texas or some other US state where anti-choice activists have been campaigning so effectively to curtail women’s access to abortion? No, this bleak scene was played out today in a grey autumnal London.

This particular protest is being organised by “Abort67”, a nasty group with a track record of intimidating women seeking abortions and staff working at clinics. Tactics include filming those entering and exiting the clinic as well as handing out leaflets with misinformation about abortion and displaying photographs of aborted foetuses. Today’s protest outside a GP surgery in London which will be offering abortion services as of tomorrow is particularly pernicious.

Abort67 have made it clear that their intention is to intimidate the practice into not opening the service. This is a deeply worrying new development – it is not just that they are harassing women, staff and members of the public near clinics – they are trying to prevent women having any access to abortion services in the local area full stop. If they were successful in closing down the service, this would set a worrying new precedent in the UK.

Now is the time to speak out against the scare tactics and intimidation used by these groups. The charity Abortion Rights has set up a petition against Abort67’s activities. I’ve signed it and shared it widely with my friends and colleagues and I urge you to do the same. 

71 Responses to US Style abortion clinic protests coming to a clinic near you…

  1. Michael Freeley
    Oct 16th 2014, 12:23 pm

    Abort67 are simply showing what abortion is.

    BPAS, Marie Stopes and other abortion providers do not show their clients what the procedure involves. In fact I would contend that they deliberately deceive their patients about the procedure.

    For consent to be valid it must be informed:

    When some women see what abortion actually involves they decide not to go through with the procedure. Women must be given all the information, this includes what the abortion providers will do to their unborn child.

  2. Julie bourne
    Oct 16th 2014, 7:29 pm


  3. Scarlet Harris

    Scarlet Harris
    Oct 17th 2014, 10:05 am

    I don’t understand what makes you think women are not informed and are not capable of giving consent. Let’s not infantilise women. These are not women who are wandering into the practice with no idea of what they’ve gone there for and what it will entail. They’re going because they have chosen to have an abortion. They have made a conscious, informed choice about their bodies and their lives.

    Why would the medical practitioner show them graphic images? Is there any other medical procedure where the patient is not deemed to have given informed consent unless they’re shown a gory, bloody images? I really don’t follow the logic of your argument.

    These are women seeking a medical abortion (which involves taking a pill, rather than a surgical procedure) up to 9 weeks of pregnancy. All these protests achieve is to scare women away from the clinic on that day and possibly to delay the abortion until a later stage of pregnancy when a surgical abortion will be required. That seems like a bad outcome for everybody.

  4. Charlie
    Oct 17th 2014, 1:01 pm

    Very well said Scarlet, in the blog and following comment.
    I feel almost as though the petition, which I was all too happy to sign, isn’t worded strongly enough; it feels a bit disorganised as just an expression of disapproval. Who is supposed to read it? What action are we demanding?
    If Abort67’s intimidation and harassment dressed up as information and protest is deemed legal, I suppose they can’t be removed? But if there’s an argument for that then that’s the outcome that should be sought. Surely the women are entitled to anonymity, and the filming is illegal? I don’t know. Maybe their shady tactics could be documented and this could be used to make a case for putting the campaigners under closer surveillance and hopefully curtail this type of activity.
    If that’s not possible, I almost feel some direct counter-action or counter-protest is needed to show how committed we are to protect women from this harassment. Some way of demonstrating how unwanted this is. Of course, the problem with this is that it might create even more of a scene and a ruckus, and that is the last thing women attending the clinic might want.

  5. Scarlet Harris

    Scarlet Harris
    Oct 17th 2014, 1:23 pm

    Thanks Charlie. I think you’re right, we (the pro-choice majority) need to have a wider discussion about how we deal with these tactics. One of the reasons Abortion Rights needed to get the petition out quickly was that it was important to respond extremely immediately to the protest and to counter the petition that Abort67 was organising against the clinic. Petitions alone aren’t enough though, it’s true. We should be doing more and we will do more.

    I would just say a word of caution about counter-protests. You’ve already identified the problem with that which is that it inflames an already difficult situation and turns the clinic into a battlefield. No woman wants to walk through a bunch of protesters at war with some counter-protesters on her way to having an abortion. Actually, it’s worth pointing out that the clinic in question is a GP clinic – it’s not just women seeking abortions who are having to put up with these vile protests, it’s the elderly, kids, the chronically ill – basically anyone who might need to see their GP.

  6. Samuel
    Oct 17th 2014, 1:46 pm

    Scarlet Harris is in my opinion, completly correct on all these issues discussed, and reasons perfectly and politely.
    Good work.
    I dig it.

  7. Georgia
    Oct 17th 2014, 2:06 pm

    Thanks for highlighting this. When I had an abortion in 2011 there was a group of middle aged men with placards, including those showing graphic photos, stood across the street. They didn’t say anything but I was shaking with anger. I was there with my partner so I had support, but there were teenage girls there by themselves and I felt awful for them to have to face that kind of hatred alone.

  8. Scarlet Harris

    Scarlet Harris
    Oct 17th 2014, 2:38 pm

    Thanks Samuel

  9. Scarlet Harris

    Scarlet Harris
    Oct 17th 2014, 2:42 pm

    Thanks for your comment Georgia. I’m really sorry you had to go through that. I share your concern about the impact of these protests on all women but particularly vulnerable women (eg. teenage girls and rape survivors).

  10. Ava
    Oct 17th 2014, 10:40 pm

    Michael Freely: I don’t agree with your argument that a woman needs to see an image of what happens during an abortion in order to make an informed choice. We don’t need to see images of what happens during open heart surgery, or the removal of a wart, or any other medical procedure, before being able to make an ‘informed choice’.

    The decision is one that is deeply rooted in an individual’s morality; seeing images doesn’t make the decision more or less right. What you really ought to say is that seeing images will put these women off doing it; that is NOT an informed choice, that is manipulation.

    Furthermore, legal abortions done under the care of a qualified and trained doctor cause so much less pain and suffering to both the mother and the foetus, than backstreet, illegal, unregulated procedures. If these contemptible so-called ‘pro-life’ idiots genuinely WERE pro-life, they would accept that while abortion is never going to be a nice topic, legal ones are far preferable to the inevitable alternatives, and that fewer lives will be lost or deemed miserable if abortion is legal and accessible to all women.

  11. Michael Freeley
    Oct 18th 2014, 9:50 am

    Ava, thanks for your message. We have approximately 200,000 abortions every year in UK. Since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed over 8 million unborn children have been killed by abortionists. Abortion is out of control in the UK.

    Abort67’s aim is to (1) show the humanity of the unborn child, and (2) show what abortion does to the unborn child. The best way to do this is showing actual images of abortion.

    Unborn children are human beings, yet they are denied the most basic of human rights (the right not to be deliberately killed). Not only that, they are routinely disposed off as medical waste. The abortion industry treats unborn children worse than animals.

  12. Me
    Oct 18th 2014, 10:58 am

    I believe harassing and filming people against their will is illegal and should be punished. It’s ok to show on your own website why you disagree with abortion but what this organisation is doing is harassment. Abortion is legal. The decision to have an abortion is hard and once taken, like EVERY medical procedure has to be carried confidentially and sensibly. If they disagree with abortion well they can not have one, but must really leave others their rights to do what they feel is their best choice, and yes if chosen to have an abortion, it IS their best choice. Women are not stupid. Let’s respect their choice whether they choose to become a mother or not.

  13. Ava
    Oct 18th 2014, 6:28 pm

    Michael, do you believe that making abortion illegal will stop it happening? Do you not recognise that abortion will continue, regardless of its legality?

    Abortion is currently illegal in Chile, without exception (even in such a situation that an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. In this case, she dies, as does the foetus). Backstreet abortions happen every single day. Women die, bleed to death, or they are mutilated, and they suffer. Perhaps you believe they deserve that, having opted for an abortion in the first place. I’d like to think not, given your claim to be fighting for the humanity of a living being.

    But the fact remains that those unborn children you claim to fight for STILL DIE. The abortions happen just the same. The gruesome images WILL CONTINUE because the abortions will continue. Just worse.

    I’m not even on the topic of your monumental self-importance and conceitedness, that you believe YOU have a greater right in each and every case of an unwanted pregnancy to determine the outcome, than the mother and father and people closer to the situation, but that’s an argument we would never come to agreement on.

    At the very least, I ask you to look objectively at REALITY, and not this blinkered, stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-pretend-it-won’t-happen ignorant view of what you think you will achieve.

    You want to raise awareness of what happens to a foetus during an abortion. Well, I suggest you raise your own awareness: go and look at some pictures of what happens to foetuses, and their mothers, in illegal, unregulated and barbaric backstreet abortion practices. Then consider the impact of the actions of groups like Abort67.

  14. Michael Freeley
    Oct 20th 2014, 9:16 am

    Ava, I agree – making something illegal doesn’t completely stop it happening. Rape, murder, drink driving are all illegal and yet still continue to happen.

    LaShanda Armstrong drowned three of her four children by driving them into the Hudson River in 2011. She also drowned. Should we legalise the killing of born children to make it safer for mothers like Ms Armstrong?

    Unborn children/foetuses/embryos are living human beings. I don’t think it should be too controversial an idea that is wrong to kill innocent human beings. The law should reflect this.

  15. Me
    Oct 20th 2014, 9:42 am

    Unborn, not born, potential life but not born. Whether people like it or not, the fact remains that women have the rights to terminate an accidental/unwanted pregnancy.
    If you consider it murder it’s your own problem.
    If I see anyone protesting in this harassing way I swear I start protesting against them with poctures of crucified men with open wounds.
    Never interfere with what people want to do with their own life.
    Theories apply only on yourself.

  16. Richard
    Oct 21st 2014, 3:37 am

    What Abort67 is doing constitutes criminal harassment. It is something the pro lifers and religious zealots frequently ignore until they end up in a police cell. I would recommend filming them filming the people going into the GP surgery and focusing, in particular, on any ringleaders. Any threats either verbal or written on placards also constitute a criminal offence.

    I also note that the fun filled Michael Freeley is a bloke and by this very definition cannot understand pregnancy, childbirth and all of the emotions of being a mother. He claims that women undergoing terminations are not fully informed. So who is going to inform them? A group of religious fanatics with their own rabid agenda? Or a bloke like Michael Freeley who has absolutely no concept of what it is like to carry a foetus…..because he is a bloke!

  17. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 8:02 am


    What Abort67 do does not constitute criminal harassment.

    Their work involves educating the public on what abortion does to the unborn child. They show images of abortion and peacefully engage the public in conversation. These banners do not pass judgement on abortion, those who obtain them or perform them; they merely expose abortion with scientifically accurate photographs.

    Abort67 invite the police to everything they do publicly. If the police saw them harassing women they would arrest them immediately. And the reason they film is because pro-abortion supporters often threaten and abuse Abort67 volunteers, try to damage/steal the display or make false allegations of harassment/abuse by Abort67.

    You are correct, I am a man. But Abort67 has many women who volunteer. This includes post-abortive women who deeply regret their abortion.

    The whole abortion issue comes down to: what are the unborn? If they are human beings, then surely we shouldn’t be killing them.

  18. Me
    Oct 21st 2014, 8:24 am

    Killing? What part of unborn can’t they understand? So if embryos are babies, oral sex is also murder?
    Leave the people alone!
    The reason why abortion is performed between a certain time frame is to respect life. Embryo is different from faetus and from baby.
    The law clearly states what is allowed and why, and if some people don’t want to accept it, sorry the majority still want to have the option of termination whatever their reason.
    It’s a hard choice and such pathetic sermons are a useless attempt to inflict sense of guilt.
    Don’t agree with abortion? You don’t have it.
    People have the right of choice, get over it.

  19. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 10:21 am

    “Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilisation. It is not belief. It is scientific fact.”
    Ward Kischer, Ph.D, Human Embryologist, University of Arizona

    “The [embryo] is human; it will not articulate itself into some other kind of animal. Any being that is human is a human being. If it is objected that, at five days or fifteen days, the embryo does not look like a human being, it must be pointed out that this is precisely what a human being looks like – and what each of us looked like – at five or fifteen days of development.”
    (from the 1995 Ramsey Colloquium statement on embryo research).

    It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”
    Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School)

    “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
    Dr. Jerome LeJeune (Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes)

    “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
    (Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7)

  20. Me
    Oct 21st 2014, 10:43 am

    Theories vs fact.
    Unborn equals unkilled

    People have got the right to decide for themselves

    Nobody has the right to decide for them.

  21. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 11:13 am

    I’m sorry but that’s just nonsense. Unborn equals unkilled? Unborn simply means the child hasn’t yet passed through his/her mother’s birth canal.

    As a society we take away the right to make certain decisions. You can’t drive on the right, you can’t assault someone, you can’t steal another person’s property. We also take away the right to kill unborn children in some circumstances (

    Laws should be for the common good, but most importantly to protect the most vulnerable and defenceless among us. Today the most vulnerable and defenceless among us are ‘unwanted’ unborn children. Surely they should have some legal protection?

  22. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 11:19 am

    Interesting Blog Post Abortion & Holocaust Comparisons (Jennifer Fulwiler)

    A little over a year ago, shortly after I converted to the pro-life position from being rabidly pro-choice, I started to come across pro-life writing in which abortion was compared to the Holocaust. I balked at such comparisons. The rhetorical strategy of comparing whoever you dislike to Hitler and any kind of oppression you disagree with to the Holocaust is as weak as it is offensive, and I didn’t like to see pro-lifers stooping to that level.
    The injustice I sensed in the comparison was that the victims of the Holocaust experienced a level of suffering that is unparalleled in the human experience, a kind of suffering that no unborn baby, even the victims of late-term abortions, would or could ever know. During the Nazi reign mothers had toddlers torn from their arms to be sent to their deaths or, perhaps worse, walked hand-in-hand with their children into gas chambers. Millions of people were yanked from their homes, shoved into cattle cars, then starved, shot, gassed, and subjected to sick medical experiments — and they all knew it was coming.
    Ever since I learned about the events of the Nazi Holocaust in grade school not a week has gone by that I don’t think of its victims and feel a little queasy to imagine what they went thorough. To minimize the horror that took place there is unconscionable, and I detest loose comparisons to the Holocaust.
    One thing that has surprised me, then, as I’ve researched the pro-life position further, is that I do see a critical similarity between abortion and the Holocaust. To be very clear, I do not think it’s the same thing. I do not think that they are directly analogous in every way. But I do think that both scourges are born of the same seed, and that it is not only appropriate but important to highlight what that is.

    Radio Silence
    As I looked more closely into the issue of abortion, one thing that struck me as odd is that you hear so little about the details of it in the media. One of the unfortunate hallmarks of our modern media is a zeal for reporting ratings-boosting stories of graphic crimes (the expression “if it bleeds, it leads” being common wisdom at modern newsdesks). From the local news to primetime shows like 20/20 and Dateline to much of the programming on networks like A&E and TruTV, salacious stories of blood and gore, cruelty and violence are recounted in detail, sometimes even showing photos of the bodies of murder victims.
    These same camera crews probably wouldn’t even have to drive two miles to get shots of arms and legs and heads in medical waste bags outside their local abortion clinics, yet you never hear anything about it. Shocking stories of murder and drama and coverups, such the Shanice Osbourne story, get zero airtime so long as they happen within the walls of an abortion clinic. The footage from the Spanish TV crew that filmed an abortion that included shots of chubby little arms and legs stacked on a medical tray was not picked up here. When the documents from the Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart were released, the following grizzly testimony was given by abortion doctor Leroy Carhart:
    The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart agreed that “[w]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus…the fetus [is] alive.” Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with “extensive parts of the fetus removed,” and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.”
    It was met by the sound of the proverbial crickets chirping
    The more I thought about it, the more I found it to be an odd inconsistency that in our modern world where we love gore and sensationalism, the horror and drama that take place in abortion clinics in every major city every day are met with complete radio silence.

    Inconsistent Terms
    The inconsistencies weren’t only in the media. I’ve mentioned before that I did a lot of looking the other way when I was pro-choice. I never watched a video of an abortion to get a good look at just what I was supporting, and just rolled my eyes when those lunatic pro-lifers put pictures of aborted fetuses in my face. I went into more detail here about the psychology behind it, but even glimpses of bloody little severed arms from first-trimester abortion photos didn’t raise my heart rate when I saw them — because they were just photos of “fetuses.”
    Yet I noticed that when I became pregnant with my first child, I wasn’t terrified of losing the “fetus” to miscarriage; I was terrified of losing the baby. When I was 10 weeks pregnant I didn’t buy a handheld Doppler so that I could lie in bed and listen to the “clump of tissue”‘s heartbeat; I was listening to my child’s heartbeat.
    When my doctor first told me that I was pregnant, I remember her asking me what vitamins I was taking. I told her about a brand I liked from Whole Foods, and she cut me off in mid-sentence to give me a stern lecture. It was my responsibility to look out for this little person, she told me, and proceeded to inform me of all the amazing development my baby was going through right now. She gave me a prescription for superior vitamins and rattled off a list of dietary changes I needed to make to nourish my baby.
    Less than a year later an acquaintance went to this same doctor with a surprise pregnancy that she did not want. The doctor assured her that the procedure for expelling the “fetus” was a simple one and scheduled her for an abortion. This woman was at the same stage of pregnancy as I had been at that first visit, but the word “baby” was not used at her appointment. I was offered an ultrasound to see my new child with my own eyes; she was not. I once visited a friend’s baby who was born
    prematurely in a local hospital’s Neonatal
    Intensive Care Unit, and became dizzy when I realized that these children, with the little cards and decorations on their incubators, these precious little boys and girls who had names and moms and dads, were the “fetuses” described in late-second-trimester abortion medical literature. It would be a horror to think of someone reaching into one of glass cribs and harming one of these children, yet to kill them in the most gruesome of ways was legal and accepted as long as it was called an “abortion.” When I was exposed to videos of doctors smiling when talking about such practices (and acknowledging that they’re often performed for non-dire reasons) and applauding their colleagues when it was demonstrated live, I felt ill; when I saw the smooth, euphemistic terms abortion clinics used to describe their procedures in their literature and then compared that to the accurate details of what actually happens in those procedures without the glossy terms, I felt like I was surrounded by widespread misinformation and deception.
    I began to notice that as a culture, by default, we consider new life in the womb to be babies — precious children. But as soon as they get inconvenient we downgrade them to “fetuses” and exile them from human society. It was around this time that I began to see the common thread between abortion and the Nazi Holocaust.

    The Root
    The practice of abortion is far different from what took place in the Nazi concentration camps.
    Even in later-stage abortions, infants don’t experience the horror of knowing ahead of time that they’ve been marked for execution. They don’t know what’s happening to them as they’re dismembered or burned with chemicals (or, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends, delivered alive and killed outside the womb so that their bone fragments and “free-floating heads” don’t cause complications). And though we have video of babies at 12 weeks pulling their heads back, moving their arms and legs and contorting their bodies to avoid abortionists’ instruments before they’re killed, we can be certain that at their young age they experienced nowhere near the level of sickening dread that the people in the concentration camp barracks lived with every day.
    What I came to see, though, was that for all the many differences, there is one thing that is the same about the Holocaust and the modern practice of abortion, and it is something critical:
    At the root of both scourges is a particular strain of evil, the most virulent that the devil possesses. It is the kind of evil that works to take away the humanity of human beings. It whispers in the ears of one group of people that a certain other group of people are something less than human, less worthy of life because of race or religion or physical ability or age. And once this is accomplished, once a group of people have been thoroughly dehumanized in the mind of their society, evil can run wild while the populace yawns.
    From personal experience, I came to see why it is so very important to always be on the lookout for this most insidious, malignant type of evil that spawned both the Holocaust and the modern abortion movement: because it is the kind that allows normal people like you and me to look at the corpses of our fellow human beings, to know that they’re piling up around us, and shrug.

  23. Me
    Oct 21st 2014, 11:44 am

    That’s what the law already does! Protect the right of the woman who does NOT want to be a mother!!
    And no organisation has got the right to even try to impose an unwanted pregnancy!
    Can’t you understand that women who do not want it need support? Some commit suicide. Some get depressed. There’s a multitude of reasons why some women want to terminate pregnancy and it’s none of your business to interfere with it. That’s why the LAW supports them and it is FAIR.
    Only the owner of the uterus in question has hot the right to decide what to do, not me not you not this bunch of preachers!

  24. Scarlet Harris

    Scarlet Harris
    Oct 21st 2014, 1:25 pm

    OK, I think it’s time for a sanity check. Comparing abortion to the Holocaust is not only totally insane, but it’s also deeply offensive both to women who’ve had abortions and to those who lived through (and died because of) the Holocaust.

  25. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 1:29 pm

    Scarlet, do you accept that the unborn are human beings?

  26. Me
    Oct 21st 2014, 1:37 pm

    Scarlet, the holocause keeps being used as usual from fanatics but war still goes on. Even vegans call for holocaust preaching for people to stop eating meat. We have soneone who doesn’t even have a uterous preaching on what we should do with ours…
    And still goes on…

  27. Richard
    Oct 21st 2014, 2:17 pm

    Michael Freeley

    I do not know who gives you your legal advice but like many fundamentalists you are making your own assumptions about where the law stands on harassment. The law is based on perception, in that if someone feels they are being harassed then, by definition, they are. It is not about whether you or Abort67 think you are legally doing this or not.

    I would advise anyone who is intimidated by Abort67 to report it to the police and insist they take action. If necessary take photos of the crowd and single out any ringleaders. This isn’t about peaceful protest. It is about religious zealots trying to force their views onto others who don’t share their opinions.

    Unfortunately this is a common facet of evangelical Christians who always insist that they are not subject to laws that prevent discrimination or indeed any other laws that they think interfere with their beliefs.

    Any threats at all whether verbal or written on placards also constitutes a criminal offence. For example, a placard with the words ‘Babies are murdered here’ may be legal in the USA but here could be a criminal offence if someone finds that wording grossly offensive.

    It is also an offence in the UK to interfere or prevent any person from getting medical treatment if their life may be in danger. I doubt, Michael Freeley, that you or any of the lot in Abort67 can actually perceive in your own narrow minds that anyone would have an abortion for medical reasons when for most women, this is the case. So a second criminal act is being committed if you are trying to dissuade any woman from having a termination which they need on medical grounds.

    Finally, many of your comments Michael Freeley will draw hollow laughter. You use the holocaust but that was carried out by a political system which had many fervent Roman Catholics . Hitler himself refers to doing the work of God in Mein Kampf. So I wouldn’t use the holocaust again without hanging your head in shame as the Christian church had a big part to play in that genocide.

    I also note with some hilarity, that many of the academics you selectively quote (and often out of context) are known to be practising Christians. Many of the quotes are the personal opinions of that particular academic and are not accepted by the vast majority of the medical world. The whole idea that a bag of fertilised cells is somehow alive is laughable.

    This all pales into insignificance as ultimately it is up to the individual woman and her decision to have a termination. It is her choice, not yours Michael Freeley or Abort67 and you have no right whatsoever to force your views onto them, none at all. Your assertion that they need to be educated is frankly consistent with the evangelical Christian movement’s position that ‘they always know best’ and is frankly patronising and insulting.

  28. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 2:31 pm


    It is scientific fact that human life begins at fertilisation. You cannot refute this. I suppose you could argue whether this life has value etc., but you’d struggle to find one human embryologist who will state that human life does not begin at fertilisation.

    You should read the judgment of the Court in Brighton that followed the arrests under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 in direct relation to the images on Abort 67’s banners and literature. District Judge Stephen Nicholls stated that the images Abort67 use are not ‘Threatening, abusive or insulting’.

    Abort67 does not prevent women from entering the abortion clinics. They would be arrested if they did.

    “A second criminal act is being committed if you are trying to dissuade any woman…”. This isn’t true. If the woman’s mother or sister tried to dissuade her not to abort, would she be committing a criminal offence? I think you may be in danger of restricting free speech.

    You say “It is her choice… and you have no right whatsoever to force your views onto them, none at all.” Yet it is illegal in this country to abort at 8 months (unless the child is disabled), so society forces it’s views on women and restricts her choice. Are you arguing women should have the choice to abort for any reason up until birth?

    P.S. I am not an evangelical Christian. You don’t need to be religious to believe it’s wrong to kill human beings.

  29. Me
    Oct 21st 2014, 2:35 pm

    So now we are narrow minded… And you basing your blatant stories on theories are good? It’s all about you. You disagree according to theories so let’s deny women to terminate their unwanted pregnancy… That makes sense.
    You you you.
    Bla bla bla
    Keep going with holocaust assumptions,inquisition and more nonsense and say hello to santa.
    No more time wasting with you.

  30. Me
    Oct 21st 2014, 2:42 pm

    Well said Richard!

  31. Richard
    Oct 21st 2014, 3:02 pm

    Firstly, the case in Brighton is just one case. It doesn’t mean this gives you immunity from future arrest and possible conviction. I also note with interest that you avoid the issue of harassment and that Judge Nicholls makes no mention of this.

    Secondly your views that someone trying to dissuade a woman from having an abortion on medical grounds is not breaking the law is rubbish. Family and friends who do this when termination is needed on medical grounds would be breaking the law. It is effectively saying that the foetus’s life is more important than the mothers – something not recognised in UK law.

    You state that human life starts at fertilisation and that ‘I cannot refute this’. Absolute rubbish. So few clinicians accept this view around the world that you assertion is laughable. You may accept it as face because that is what you believe but it is wholesale dribble. Life does not begin at conception as the ball of cells cannot survive on its own. By any standard, the fertilised zygote has none of the characteristics of life.

    You also say that I would struggle to find a embryologist who would not say that life started at fertilisation. Well, I have found at least a dozen on my contact list in the last ten minutes or so. You state this as if it were fact but like most Christians fail to back it up with any meaningful data. By that I mean something that hasn’t been concocted by the Christian church!

    You use a distraction tactics when talking about choice, Society does not force abortions on women but you would force them not to have one, irrespective of the circumstances. You would take away any choice by outlawing terminations. And yes, I believe that women should be able to have terminations up to and including birth and the law should be changed. Politicians should also not interfere.

    I also note you skilfully avoid the issue of you and Abort67 interfering with individual choice but then again, that is something that you do not (by definition) believe in. Neither does the Catholic church.

    You may not be an evangelical but you are a Catholic and therefore a Christian. Given the Catholic church’s recent role in child abuse, forced adoptions in Ireland and the failure to face up to these crimes until absolutely forced to seems that the Church of Rome has a pretty selective attitude to the sanctity of life. Considering the RC church has murdered nearly two billion people in it’s 2000 year history, I am surprised it doesn’t burst with shame when it mentions abortion.

    I will be keeping an eye on Abort67 now. Anything I consider constitutes harassment will be reported with an expectation of a follow up. Next time it will not stop with Judge Nicholls.

  32. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 3:22 pm

    Can you provide said quotes from human embryologists stating that human life does not begin at fertilisation? It is undisputed among the scientific community that a new, distinct human organism comes into existence during the process of fertilisation.

    In regard to medical grounds:
    “Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of paediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will induce labour or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never wilfully deserted because the mother’s life is in danger.” – US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop

    If you are so keen on abortion, why are you so determined to keep images of abortion censored? If abortion is okay, what is so wrong with showing it?

    Abort67 do not hassle women. They do not prevent them entering the clinic. They peacefully display images of aborted babies. This shows women what the abortion clinic staff will do to the woman’s unborn child, making her better informed to make a choice. You seem to be more pro-abortion than pro-choice.

  33. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 3:23 pm

    Apologies, there was a typo in the quote from C. Everett Koop. It should read:

    “Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of paediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will induce labour or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never wilfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.” – US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop

  34. Richard
    Oct 21st 2014, 3:55 pm

    Koop was a committed Christian and anti abortionist so his views can be dismissed with ease as he had an axe to grind. Another selective quote that you Christians are so good at.

    Koop was also a paediatrician in the US Navy which meant he was effectively unemployed. As female USN staff were required to resign if they got pregnant during most of his tenure in the US Navy, his 36 years of experience actually meant he had the equivalent of about eight to ten years experience of someone who worked ina busy maternity hospital. As one of Ronald Reagan’s staffers said ‘Being a paediatrician in the navy is the equivalent of being unemployed’

    With regard to embryologists views, it is harder to find one who does accept that a fertilised zygote is alive than those who say it is not. It meets none of the accepted characteristics of something that is ‘alive’.

    Abort67 do hassle women. The test will be a legal one. You and they will have to be very careful from now on and squeaky clean. I will be encouraging any woman who feels threatened or intimidated at ANY of the places you picket to make a complaint. We will then see if it is criminal harassment or not.

    I note with interest that you have not responded to my comments about the RC church’ s part in child abuse and forced adoptions. hardly surprising really.

  35. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 4:05 pm

    “With regard to embryologists views, it is harder to find one who does accept that a fertilised zygote is alive than those who say it is not. It meets none of the accepted characteristics of something that is ‘alive’.”

    Please find me one then. Just one human embryologist who will state that the life of the new individual human being does not begin at fertilisation.

    This is the crux of the matter. Whether or not the unborn are human beings.

    If you can prove to me that the unborn aren’t human beings I will become ardently pro-choice.

  36. Michael Freeley
    Oct 21st 2014, 4:15 pm

    Also Abort67 have made the following offer to BPAS which seems fair to me.

    Dear bpas,
    Once again we will make you an offer you would be daft (or guided by something other than compassion) to refuse.

    Again you are complaining about the fact that we are outside your killinics – that we are harassing women (by simply showing what you will do to their babies)

    It is very straightforward.

    We will never step foot outside another one of your establishments if you agree to the following conditions.

    All you have to do is show your customers what their baby looks like before and after the “treatment” you provide.

    After all, you say that women already know what abortion is and does. Further, you would simply be fulfilling what every other (real) healthcare provider has to do anyway.

    Agree to that and we will find something we enjoy doing instead.

    It seems like a win win doesn’t it?

    Look forward to hearing from you.


  37. Me
    Oct 21st 2014, 4:27 pm

    Ahahah yes,but so we have to stick this stupid role to ALL other operations as well!
    Why not?
    Because people don’t want to see ANY operation!

  38. Richard
    Oct 21st 2014, 6:56 pm

    Michael Freeley

    Your letter to bpas is very revealing and shows the mindset of you and the others in Abort67. The term ‘We will never step foot outside another one of your establishments if you agree to the following conditions’ shows your true colours in that it is effectively blackmail (oh look another criminal offence).

    For the record the definition of blackmail used here is ‘the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone’s actions’

    You also reveal yourself to be a member of Abort67 and therefore complicit in their actions.

    It also reveals that Abort67 are trying to prevent the legitimate medical treatment that women might need. As suspected, zealots like yourself do not bother to check whether the women you are terrorising need a termination to save their lives. As far as you are concerned abortion of any description is evil and cannot be supported even if this means the death of the mother. So much for the sanctity of life you bang on about.

    How many embryologists have you spoken to that support your view? I by that I mean fully qualified embryologists rather than some American crank who has bought his degree from a dodgy college run by some off the wall church. How many Michael? Name them as well.

    You may think you have won this argument. You haven’t. Like so many Christians you chop and change the discussion to take it away from areas of embarrassment for you and the church. You have deliberately avoided most of the points about the RC church and its past wrongdoings. There hasn’t even been an admission of wrongdoing from you. It smacks of complete double standards from you and your so called ‘loving’ church. The Church of Rome has an appalling history of depriving people of their right to life and yet still bangs on about abortion. Talk about a mote in your own eye!

    I can’t be bothered to argue with you any longer.Just because you believe in something doesn’t mean it is true but rabid Christians don’t get this.

    The situation is simple. Abort67 will be monitored and watched. Its members will observed while at demonstrations and those being persecuted by you will be encouraged to complain to the police who will be expected to follow up. Continue your protests at your peril because I am now determined to put one of you behind bars.

  39. Me
    Oct 21st 2014, 7:43 pm

    Thank you Richard. As a woman I thank you for your respect.
    The difference between civilised people and fanatics is that the first decide for themselves while the seconds pontificate and want to impose their decisions on others.
    Shame it still isn’t clear to everyone.
    If I see any if those blackmailers I’ll take action too.

  40. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 12:28 pm

    This whole debate is just bizarre.

    Scarlet, I presume this is your logic but please correct me if I am wrong:
    ‘Torturing babies to death isn’t immoral, but showing pictures of babies being tortured to death is immoral.’


    P.S. Richard, It is basic scientific fact that human life begins at conception. You will not find one human embryologist that will state otherwise. Not one.

  41. Me
    Oct 22nd 2014, 12:54 pm

    This is pure trolling

  42. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 3:40 pm

    Michael – you assert that I will not find one human embryologist who does not believe life starts at conception. By default, this means that you believe ALL human embryologists believe that life starts at conception.

    I asked you to name some of them but without making reference to cranks and unqualified people with bogus degrees.

    You have failed to name even a single one.

  43. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 3:53 pm

    “Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
    [England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

    “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

    “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

    “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
    [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

    “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
    [Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

    “Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
    [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

    “The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilizedzygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
    [Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
    [O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]

    “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
    [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

    “A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
    Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”
    Keith L. Moore’s Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008, p. 2)

  44. Me
    Oct 22nd 2014, 4:02 pm

    Wondering why none of those “embryologists” posts here and all we have is those repeatedly pasted nonsense.
    Thank goodness not all doctors are jehova witnesses or people would die without transfusions…

  45. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 4:14 pm

    Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard Medical School:
    “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

    “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune:
    “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

    Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded:
    “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being. … I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

    Dr. Richard V. Jaynes:
    “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”

    Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization,”:
    “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.”

    Gordon, Hymie, M.D., FRCP, chairman of medical genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester:
    “By all criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment of conception. … Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”

    C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine:
    “When fertilization is complete, a unique genetic human entity exists.”

  46. Me
    Oct 22nd 2014, 4:23 pm

    rather thak pasting and pesting this nonsense repeatedly and eludibg important questions:

    1 embriology like any other science doesn’t see all its adepts agreeing, therefore your paste is an unilateral boring repetitive useless claim of absolute truth.
    A dentist can disagree with another and so a cardiologist or an embriology

    2 pregnant women couldn’t care less of what embryologists or pedant preachers like you keep posting. If the pregnancy is accidental/unwanted they just want to get over it and take care of themselves

    3 who approved the law about abortion is not a killer and not an idiot. Before the approval there was a long process that took into account the necessary

    Posting repeated bull when more people kindly explained why abortion67 harassing nonsense is wrong, especially in this country simply is beyond trolling.

  47. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 4:34 pm


    Oh dear. Right here we go

    1. Keith L Moore is an anatomist not an embryologist

    2. Ronan O’Rahilly is also an anatomist not an embryologist

    3. Bruce M Carlson is also a anatomst not an embryologist

    4.Jan Langmans paper / book is nearly forty years out of date. It was actually out of date in 1980 and is so out of kilter with current research it could be considered some sort of fossil

    5. William J Larson is not a clinical embryologist

    6. The inclusion of Van Nostrands Scientific Encyclopaedia is a joke right? It has been thoroughly updated on several occasions since 1976. I also understand it is rarely considered to be a credible source of scientific research.

    7. Majorie England’s makes no mention of the zygote being alive. Likewise TW Sadlers paper makes no mention of the zygote being alive.

    You really ought to read these publications before quoting them. It is also clear that you did not qualify either as doctor or as a scientist. You have made an awful lot of assumptions.

    You are going to have to do better than this!

  48. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 4:34 pm

    Dear ‘Me’,

    1. Mathamaticians disagree on certain things. They tend not to on 1+1=2. Embryologists disagree on certain things, but they they tend not to on when human life begins. This is because it is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

    2. The abortion industry refers to ‘removing the pregnancy tissue’ etc., they rarely refer to ending the life of a human being. This is misinformation. I would go so far as to say it is deliberate deception on the part of abortion providers. Some women (I understand not all, or even a lot) would reject abortion if they fully understood they were terminating the life of a human being.

    3. The 1967 Abortion Act does not provide abortion-on-demand, yet this is what we effectively have now in this country. Even so, something being legal does not mean it is morally correct. Apartheid was legal in South Africa, slavery was legal in the US, genocide legal in Germany.
    “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” – Martin Luther King, Jr

  49. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 4:53 pm


    Since you’re obviously an expert in this area, can you provide one quote from a human embryologist that denies that human life begins at conception?

    Just one.


  50. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 4:58 pm

    1. Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth is a Christian and has done lots of research for the Christian Research Institute. His research can be and has been dismissed.

    2. Dr. Jerome Lejeune – the father of modern genetics. Ha ha ha. He died in 1994 and things have moved on in light years since his death. Laughable. Most credible geneticists don’t consider him to be the father of modern genetics. Oh and he wasn’t an embryologist….

    3. Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni – dead by 1986. Research is now irrelevant and superseded. Also not an embryologist.

    4. Dr. Richard V. Jaynes – is no longer practising. I wonder why?

    5. Dr. Landrum Shettles – has never been considered the father of in vitro fertilisation. He was also from the southern USA and had a devotion to your ridiculous faith. Sir Robert G Edwards was the father of in vitro fertilisation and won the Nobel Prize for it. Shettles method has been listed as a good method for eugenics.

    6. Gordon, Hymie, M.D., FRCP – not an embryologist

    7. C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist – not an embryologist and the title ‘oncologist’ suggests.

    I note that the vast majority of quotes and papers use by you are from Americans. Not much credibility there I am afraid.

  51. Me
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:00 pm

    Misu formation because YOU disagree????

    And who cares what anatomists embryologists bullologists say?
    We DON’T care.
    If we WOMEN fall accidentally pregnant we DON’T care!

    It is OUR UTEROUS=OUR DECISION and if ANY of your friends DARE harass or blackmail like you do to BPAS you will be sued.


  52. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:01 pm


    Still waiting…

  53. Me
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:02 pm

    Richard, you are far more patient than me. I honestly admire you.

    This michael is clearly a troll

  54. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:03 pm

    No Michael

    I asked you name a single embryologist who supported your views. You have named none. The onus was on you to provide them and as usual you have gone off at a tangent because you were losing the argument. Standard rabid Christian methodology.

    Oh and one other thing. Not everything carried out by Hitler was legal. As witnessed by the Nuremberg War Crime trials.

  55. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:05 pm

    “Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilisation. It is not belief. It is scientific fact.”
    C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D.
    Emeritus professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy, specialty in Human Embryology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine. He is also Chairman of The American Bioethics Advisory Commission and adult stem cell researcher.

  56. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:06 pm

    Oh and Michael

    Most of the people on trial at Nuremberg were practising members of the Church of Rome.

    Embarrassed? Blimey. You should be.

  57. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:07 pm

    C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D is not a clinical embryologist. Indeed he isn’t even a doctor of medicine…..

  58. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:10 pm

    C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D is also a practising Christian so he is hardly neutral.

    This is hilarious. I have tears running down my eyes now as I have been laughing so much. At least you have given me a huge giggle.

  59. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:16 pm

    “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct [not the uterus]… resulting in the formation of an [embryo] containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point. (p. 1); …”

    [William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), p. 17].

  60. Me
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:18 pm

    Well said Richard.

  61. Michael Freeley
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:20 pm

    “I know that most men — not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems — can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty — conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.”

    Leo Tolstoy

  62. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:23 pm

    I have told you Michael. William J Larsen is not an embryologist.

    Clearly you don’t read my posts. Why am I not surprised

    Oh and Leo Tolstoy wasn’t an embryologist either…!

  63. Me
    Oct 22nd 2014, 5:32 pm

    I am pretty sure not only he doesn’t read your replies but that all he is capable of doing is posting his bulls.
    I have noticed a nog anomaly on the website of abort67. How can I get in touch with you please?

  64. what to do in this case
    Oct 22nd 2014, 6:31 pm

    Oh and just in case, for whoever is largely annoyed about abort67 annoying harassment, here’s their full details

    Domain name:

    Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK ltd.

    Trading as:
    CBR UK

    Registrant type:
    UK Limited Company, (Company number: 7216999)

    Registrant’s address:
    89 Portland Road
    West Sussex
    BN11 1QG
    United Kingdom

    Data validation:
    Registrant contact details validated by Nominet on 10-Dec-2012

    Registrar: Ltd [Tag = LCN]

    Relevant dates:
    Registered on: 03-Jul-2008
    Expiry date: 03-Jul-2017
    Last updated: 26-Jun-2012

    Registration status:
    Registered until expiry date.

    Name servers:

    UK Website Hosting and Domain Names –

  65. what to do in this case
    Oct 22nd 2014, 6:45 pm

    and here is the director of the company. let’s see if their cowardice goes on when we show the face

  66. Richard
    Oct 22nd 2014, 7:37 pm

    Me – Scarlet has my email

  67. Me
    Oct 22nd 2014, 7:38 pm

    Richard, how can I contact her please?

  68. Wendy Walker
    Nov 15th 2014, 3:19 pm

    Well done Abort 67 …changing hearts and minds and showing the TRUTH of what Abortion is .
    Abortion hides and thrives with ignorance and it shows the lack of respect to compare living Human preborn babies with warts .
    Abortion is not the safe ,simple easy way out can manifest itself in many different ways both physical and psychological .
    recently during the Stop Gendecide Debate the silence from the so called feminists was deafening ..strange isnt it

  69. Me
    Nov 15th 2014, 4:52 pm

    Oh yes, in fact all the thousands of women who have an abortion every year are dead (in yiur dreams).