I have since deleted, as I am not sure whether or not to publish the post and it was in working format only. I often work on drafts on my phone, and sometimes disregard so please accept my apologies for having received a rambling piece of text. 

Though I don’t suffer from bi-polar, I have experienced the hell of ante-natal depression, particularly in my last pregnancy.

I know all too well what it is to be pregnant, physically ill, to once again feel the debilitating effects of morning sickness, anemia and other symptoms a mere 9 months after delivering a previous child, who had also been conceived 8 months post-partem.

I know how it feels to be terrified, not only about whether or not one will be able to cope with yet another newborn, but actually not to want to have to endure another grueling pregnancy or birth.

One thing that only became clear the day before I gave birth, was that I had been suffering from birth-related PTSD, which had been causing a not inconsiderable amount of anxiety. Even my husband hadn’t realised how severe it was, until I had a meltdown in pre-op and refused to sign the consent form for the cesarian section I needed.

After I had rationalised my fears to the anesthetist it transpired that they were more than valid. Due to a known sensitivity to the spinal block given as anesthesia during my previous section, requiring frequent adrenalin top-ups, not enough had been administered, upon looking at the notes. Therefore whilst the sensation had not been painful, I had felt every single cut and stitch towards the end of my previous birth and it had been indescribably unpleasant, like a form of torture. Like someone sewing and tugging and stapling your innards whilst you lie paralysed, not knowing whether this was normal, trying not to vomit or kick up a fuss.

Fortunately I received excellent care to ensure this did not happen again, but I’d been carrying the fear, dread and anxiety for 9 months, together with the worry that I wouldn’t be able to look after any of my children properly. Which is why some of the revolting trolling and spite that came my way from strangers telling me that I was a dreadful person and terrible mother touched such a raw nerve. Perhaps they were right, all this crowd of people telling me and anyone who would listen that I was so despicable? Perhaps I should have the baby adopted or fostered and maybe I should get the children taken into care after all?

I came through it, as my husband and friends knew I would, I received the right medical and spiritual support and am, on the whole, in a healthier place, but the point is, I understand pregnancy -related depression and anxiety only too well.

During this time, it was tweeted that I secretly wished that my baby was dead, because I had stated that I didn’t want to be pregnant or to have another baby.

Whilst not wanting to be in the situation I found myself in, I knew that the baby had the same right to life that I did. I knew that I had a duty to look after her and protect her, even though I hadn’t actively chosen to conceive her. By considering options about adoption or fostering (which in hindsight were more a cry for help) it was for me about doing what was best for her.

Every unborn child has a right-to-life. Pro-life has to acknowledge (and for the most part it does) that care of the pregnant mother is synonymous with care of the unborn child. The mother is as important as her unborn baby.

But here’s the elephant in the room. Sometimes there will inevitably be a clash between the wishes of the mother and the right-to-life of a baby. Which is where the sophistry of the feminist movement comes in and the dubious attempts to use science instead of ethics. Whether or not the baby may stand a chance outside of the womb, or whether he or she will experience a painful death are all side-issues as to whether or not it should be acceptable to kill them. In the case of babies such as the 23 week old, the fact that they may well be viable outside the womb adds an extra tragic dimension, but it still amounts to the mother’s wishes (even if well-intentioned) superceding a baby’s right-to-life.

I effectively had no choice when it came to whether or not to abort my baby and it never crossed my mind as an option, though it was mooted as a solution several times by medical professionals. Perhaps if it wasn’t available I would have had better care. I stopped going to the community midwife and got behind with medical care because I was fed up with being constantly hectored and, I felt, being looked down upon by the smart middle-class, double-barreled lady for being an irresponsible breeder. She tutted through every appointment that I attended with two small children and kept trying to refer me/my husband for counseling to discuss sterilization. I was too scared to discuss depression with her.

Sometimes I wonder whether invading my own personal space when blogging is wise, as not only does it open one up for hurt and abuse, but more importantly will it affect my children if they one day learn that most of my pregnancies have been traumatic? That like many mothers I have struggled to bond with them in pregnancy?

The response has to be that actions speak louder than words. There can be no doubt how loved they are or how much mummy loves the baby that she struggled so much with when she was pregnant.

This is where Christ’s commandment to love comes in. Loving is not an automatic sloppy sentimental feeling but takes an act of will. In the case of a crisis pregnancy, the act of choosing to protect the child’s life, is in itself an act of love, regardless of a woman’s personal feelings.

I share what happened to me because it is a testament of hope. In my case, as always happens, once the baby was delivered and I had her to hold in my arms, I never wanted to let her go. Many mothers in crisis pregnancies relate similar post-birth experiences.

In those cases where bonding is delayed, this is more often than not, attributed to post-natal depression which can be overcome with the right help. Advocates of abortion for mental health reasons claim that a woman’s right to choose applies even if a woman’s ability to consent is impaired by her condition and furiously reject the notion that a pregnant woman may be affected by the onslaught of mood-altering hormones sloshing around her pituitary system.

That’s not to dismiss those who feel that they ‘need’ an abortion as being incapable of rational thought, but I as a staunch pro-lifer, have experienced the draining and mood altering effects of pregnancy hormones, combined with feeling physically awful.

If we know that post-natal depression exists, if we accept that conditions such as pre-menstrual syndrome exist, then why are feminists so keen to dismiss the notion that a pregnant woman in crisis may not have the clearest perspective? I certainly didn’t.

Let’s phrase it another way? Would the court have allowed a woman who is exhibiting signs of mental illness to consent to an amputation to cure body dysmorphia? It’s highly unlikely. A limb is more important than the life of another. Someone who is suffering from severe depression is unlikely to be able to make a valid will or consent to any major financial decisions, but they are ruled capable of being able to take the life of their unborn child.

Ante-natal depression is a serious condition affecting as many as 15% of mothers. Women often become suicidal, believe they are unfit to mother even much-wanted children and are terrified that social services will take their children away. The stigma surrounding mental health as a whole, means that people don’t get the help they need.

Loving the mother does not mean co-opting into her mental condition. Loving the mother does not entail validating her belief that her baby would be better off dead. Loving the mother does not mean allowing her mental illness or hormonal imbalance to dictate the fate of her baby.

Loving a mother means giving her the proper care and support that she needs to get through pregnancy and beyond to ensure that she becomes the mother that the baby needs and deserves. Loving a mother means trusting that she does have the ability to overcome adversity and actively helping to empower her.

I don’t dismiss the fears of those with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy. My AND was severe enough to make us decide that there is very good reason to consider delaying another child in the near future.

But abortion solves nothing in terms of mental health. It won’t cure the underlying factors behind depression or suicidal tendencies, it only validates them. It leaves a woman bereft and empty and with a dead child. What if she subsequently comes to recognise that she was incapable of taking that decision?

Keeping a child, against one’s intuition or rationale is an act of hope and of love, the first flicker of light shining in a tunnel of darkness. Abortion is a betrayal and negation of the care owed to the vulnerable pregnant woman and her unborn child.

We need to keep this woman and others like her in our prayers.

Introduced as a ‘beacon of bravery’ by Fiona Bruce MP, vice-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life group, upon accepting the inaugural Westminster Award for the Promotion of Human Life, Human Rights and Human Dignity, Chen said that the award was given ‘not to me but to the hundreds of thousands of human rights activists who are suffering in China’.

Speaking through an interpreter, the blind activist told of the harrowing consequences of the enforcement of China’s one-child policy and explained that the root cause of China’s problems was that its dictatorship had not been removed. Every aspect of government in China is controlled by the communist party who are not held accountable to anyone.

Despite having told the story many times, Chen’s voice cracked as he recounted the story of how a three year old girl was starved to death in her own home following the arrest of her mother, who pleaded with the police to allow her back home in order to ensure her little girl was fed and adequately cared for whilst she was in custody. Passing by the door of her home, the police refused to let her enter and she was taken directly to a detention centre with her starving child locked in the house. Twenty one days later, a neighbour broke into the woman’s house in order to investigate a stench and found the body of a little child, together with bloody footprints and scratch marks at the windows and doors where the little girl had been frantically attempting to get out. The child had been crying so hard, there were tears still imprinted on her face.

This, said Chen, is the nature of dictatorship, it cares nothing for the loss of human life. The consequences of resistance under a dictatorship means that you are persecuted and regarded as an enemy of the state. Not only can the state take your home and possessions and strip you of a living, but they can also take your life and your body.

Though in China there is no legal instrument that forces or compels officials to implement the one-child policy, any party or government official not recognised as doing a good job in enforcing the policy will be denied any sort of promotion, so party officials will do anything possible to be seen to be implementing these draconian measures. In 2005, in one city alone, there were 120-130,000 forced abortions and sterilisations. Some women were even dragged to hospital and forced to have abortions when 9 months pregnant and at the point of giving birth. Many pregnant women went into hiding, at which point all of their friends and family members were dragged to Family Planning offices and severely tortured for several weeks. According to Chen’s investigation in 6 months in 2005, 600,000 family members were tortured, with the women who had been forced into hiding being too frightened to ever return home.

This is a policy which still continues today, as we saw last year, when the photograph of the case of a Chinese woman who was forcibly given a late stage abortion with the body of her dead child placed next to her as a warning, made global headlines. In recent years there have been two cases in one province of bulldozers crushing women’s heads as they lay on the ground in protest. All over China, citizens are being arrested, imprisoned, tortured and sent to labour centres. News of the frequent protests never reach the outside world.

Drawing on the UK’s illustrious history as defenders of human rights, from Wilberforce to the fight against the Nazis, Chen told of how the UK has left a deep positive imprint on the history of humankind. He urged the UK to continue its tradition of intolerance against human rights abuses and not to be indifferent to the plight of the ordinary Chinese citizen who is enslaved by the Communist Party. He spoke with sadness at how trade interests seem to be being put above human rights by Western democracies, who do not seek to challenge China, with human rights negotiations being held behind closed doors. Lord Alton noted that it was telling that despite his tenacious pursuit of human rights and his being awarded asylum in the USA upon his escape, not one single Government minister agreed or found time to meet him. What sort of message does that send to those in Beijing who put trade deals before human rights?

Not once did Chen refer to his own ordeal and there was no hint of self-pity in his words, but his message was one of profound sadness and concern for his still beloved country, to which he hopes to one day return, intermingled with optimism. He believes that Chinese citizens are rapidly waking up and establishing a foundation for the future. This is, he said, the Information Age – anything can happen! We should no longer have dialogue with dictators but instead with human people and invoked the means of technology by which to achieve this. The reason I can sit with you today, he said, ‘is proof that everything you have done is bearing fruit, stick together, persevere and together anything can happen. The regime is losing moral legitimacy, so let’s work together to end dictatorship so we can have global democracy”.

Summing up the evening, Lord Alton noted that one day Chen Guacheng will be regarded as a national hero in his own country, for having stood up for human rights, in particular those of women and children.

In terms of what we in the UK should do, Lord Alton stressed that the UK have aided and abetted this inhumane one-child policy via the UNFPA who have channelled funds from the DFID into Chinese communist policy and agencies. China is a great country home to great people, but the one-child policy violates most basic human rights. This is a war against women and girls, 1,468 abortions the equivalent of a Tianeman Square massacre, take place every hour in China, most of whom are girls. China’s birth rate is currently 100 girls for every 137 boys, which is fuelling human trafficking and slavery in Asia. In addition China faces an aging population with insufficient young people to support them, an anomaly expected to hit in twenty years time.

Various groups need to hold screenings of the film Itsagirlmovie. We also need to defund UNFPA and the IPPF. We need to be inspired and make sure Chen’s story is known, Lord Alton emphasised that each of us must heed Chen’s words and actions and pray for an end to abortion and gendercide.

At the end of the evening, in the Q&A session, Chen told of how he had learnt only that morning that Chinese officials had expressed frustration that they had not beaten him to death when they had the chance. In response to the fact that no government official had agreed to meet him he defiantly repeated “UK government officials are scared of Chinese officials’ anger – I am not scared of Chinese officials!”. He told of how one of his family members is in hospital with appendicitis and is not being allowed to be properly treated and hoped how anyone who cared about issues of justice and conscience would help his family and anyone who was faced with similar persecution. This cowardly bullying, brutalising, intimidation and threats to his friends and family must stop.

I was privileged to have the opportunity to speak to Chen and his wife and thank them for their witness, courage and bravery and to assure them that there were many in the UK who were praying for them and who would do all we could to help the plight of the Chinese citizen.

Here is a man who has been beaten, tortured and imprisoned and whose family is still severely suffering as a result of his courage and advocacy of the poor, women, children and most vulnerable in society. Here’s his response when I told him that as the mother of four girls, I am heavily emotionally invested in the issue of gendercide. This is the power of the human spirit, undaunted, uncrushed, full of joy, optimism and hope. “Four girls, that’s so wonderful, so incredible” he laughed, before adding “not in China, but the day will come”.

The first is an American campaign called ‘No Teen Pregnancy’ which aims to stigmatise teenage mothers. The campaign is, as Prymface notes, virulently anti-mother, with posters such as these.

Motherhood sucks right?

Changing the world, one glossy lipsticked pout and smouldering glance at a time. Motherhood is so unsexy….

The inference is clear, motherhood is unsatisfactory and unfulfilling, no great achievement and only a valid choice later on in life when you may have fulfilled greater, more important goals. Motherhood is, according to the geniuses behind this campaign, a chore, only something to be embraced when you are otherwise tired of life in the fast lane and possess plenty of cash to lavish upon one’s beloved offspring. What does ‘changing the world’ consist of when you are a teenager, in any event? Going out, getting hopelessly drunk, having numerous sexual relationships and emerging battle-scarred, world weary and wiser? Going to University? Why can’t you go to University and be a mother at the same time? Why does motherhood ‘suck’.

Whilst the adverts seek to speak to those teenagers on their level, they are offensive in as much as they seek to appeal to the basest instincts of materialism, consumerism and selfishness.

Yes it is actually. Nothing for the baby to get entangled in and no risks of strangulation or suffocation. Plain, simple and safe. Perfect.

Admittedly splashing out on consumer goods for your precious little bundle is fun and pleasurable pursuit when pregnant, the idea that the baby needs luxury or designer goods is one dreamt up and promoted by the retail industry. Whilst the latest designer pram or gadget might be fun, the baby knows absolutely no different – so long as they are safe, dry, warm, fed and held, they couldn’t care less whether or not they have co-ordinating crib sheets in a shade of pink or blue, and as a point of safety, the cot in the photo above looks ideal. Drapes, fripperies, pillows, quilts or even soft toys are superfluous in a cot with a newborn baby and all pose potential hazards. Expectant parents who go out and flash the cash do it predominantly for their own pleasure, whilst persuading themselves it’s an altruistic gesture and measure of love.

The message is clear. If you are a teenage mother then you are a failure, you have let yourself and your baby down and should be utterly ashamed of yourself. No-one should be encouraging teenagers to become mothers, but in a society which has failed our young people in terms of the mixed messages that it imparts, seeking to punish and marginalise teenagers who have been sold the lie that sex can be safe and that all choices are equally valid, for not aborting their unborn baby or for getting pregnant in the first instance, is not the answer.

Moreover adverts such as these are a total gift to the abortion industry. This, they say, is the real attitude towards teenage mothers and why abortion is necessary. Teenagers will have to face so much stigma for becoming pregnant in the first instance or not giving their babies up for adoption, that abortion has to be the kinder option. The posters reinforce the notion that unless a pregnancy is planned with ruthless efficiency to occur at a time when a woman is financially and emotionally ‘ready’, she is not capable of being a good mother and doing what is best for her child.

The really insidious agenda here is one which seeks to promote and assert children as having consumer needs which blend into ‘rights’. According to this logic, unless a child can be given a very specific, middle-class start in life, then he or she is going to endure a life of poverty, deprivation and misery and it would be better and kinder if they were not born in the first place, forgetting that the right to life is the most basic of all human rights and supercedes every other consideration. A right to life, is not the same as the right to a comfortable Guardian-reading, middle-class life and should not be confused as such. Furthermore such patronising attitudes display total contempt and arrogance towards those of a different social strata, forgetting that concepts such as joy, happiness, contentment, fulfillment and spirituality transcend man-made social constructs.

The second campaign is one fronted by the TV presenter and journalist Kate Garraway, called Get Britain Fertile which aims to improve chances of conception for couples and stop women from ‘sleepwalking into infertility’ as  according to a YouGov survey, 70% of women believe that women having a baby in their forties is too old.

Let’s not fool ourselves here, this campaign is not one of altruism, it’s sponsored and promoted by First Response, a company who manufactures ovulation and pregnancy testing kits and therefore has much to gain by increasing women’s awareness of their fertility.

Like the No to Teen Pregnancy campaign, Get Britain Fertile is based on a sensible premise. Just as it isn’t advisable for most teenagers to become pregnant, we should also not be encouraging women to wait until their are in their late thirties or early forties, before they think about becoming mothers. In the same way that teenage mothers can be a massive drain upon the country’s resources, older mothers can also cost significantly more, not least in terms of cost to the NHS.

Of course cost shouldn’t really be a consideration when we are talking about the welfare of individuals but we also know that becoming a mother at a significantly younger or older age is likely to put additional burden on the individuals involved. In the case of teen mothers these burdens will as likely be financial, in the case of older mothers, the burden will be physical, but both will have psychological knock-on effects. Both ages of motherhood can be ethically problematic, an older mother being more likely to resort to IVF and encountering more health issues,  a teenage mother being more likely to be without a partner and/or stability.

Being a younger mother or an older mother has its advantages and disadvantages and one shouldn’t cast generalisations about either group of women. I know plenty of inspirational women who fall into both categories. Friends of mine got pregnant at seventeen, had their children and have wonderful lives and careers with almost grown up children of their own at a stage when I am still knee-deep in feeding and nappies. Other friends have conceived their first child in their forties and have a wealth of wisdom, experience, not to mention enough money to be able to become full-time mothers. Some older mothers I know are total control freaks, used to being in charge of every element of their lives and unable to cope with the sheer unpredictability of an infant, some younger ones have a tendency to irresponsible or feckless behaviour. Mothers aren’t a species apart from the human race, age does not confer or remove an ability to parent, it simply presents a different set of barriers.

But both campaigns are equally frustrating, in that by and large they hone in upon the woman, her needs, wants, desires and physical abilities. In focusing upon age, both campaigns miss the point. The most important thing about having children, is neither age, nor even family income, but family stability. Of far more significance to the overall wellbeing of a child is not the age of their mother, but that they have a mother and a father. The greatest barrier that women face in being mothers, is a lack of support from their children’s fathers. Being a single mother (or father for that matter) is one of the hardest jobs in the world. What mothers need is for the fathers of their children to support and encourage them in their attempts to fulfill their potential as great mothers. What fathers and men need, is for women to support and encourage them in their attempts to be good fathers. Not having a biological parent with an equally vested interest in doing the best thing for the child, to emotionally and financially support mother and child is the biggest obstacle that exists to motherhood – age is utterly immaterial.

A poster campaign isn’t going to change hearts and minds, most younger or older mothers find themselves victims of circumstances, but policy-makers wishing to prevent teen pregnancies and single mothers, need to axe the various government quangos that validate feckless sexual behaviour and disincentivise marriage, misinforming young people that sex can be ‘safe’ and consequence-free.

Equally vital is informing men about the duty and respect that they owe to women, the inherent dignity of motherhood and the importance for children that they are supported by two loving mutually supportive parents. If men are suffering from a crisis of masculinity, it is precisely because sex has been decoupled from procreation and issues related to romantic relationships, parenting and childbearing have been advocated as being solely in the realm of women’s rights. Men have been left out of the equation and seem to be relegated to the role of mere sperm donors.

If it is in the interests of society that women begin to start their families earlier then men need to buy into this concept and learn about their responsibilities towards women as  potential and actual mothers of children, as opposed to co-workers, rivals for promotion or recreational sexual partners or objects.

Speaking as one who has had children in her twenties, thirties and will in all probability have another child in her forties, I would state that as long as one is biologically capable of naturally bearing children, one’s ability to mother should not be judged in terms of age. Women of all ages and in all situations are capable of being good mothers. It’s the lack of a father, not the digit on a birth certificate, that needs the most compensating for.

It’s not the age of mothers we should be concerned about, but the role of fathers. Get the importance of families, commitment and stability straightened out in the minds of politicians, alongside the vital and crucial work of motherhood, the average age of the first-time mother will plummet as will the teenage pregnancy rate.

I’m taking a break from the Internet for a while, which means I shan’t be regularly checking my email or Twitter or Facebook for some time.

At the present time the Internet is something of an unhealthy and unhelpful place for me.

Due to a bit of Internet sleuthing (and a slip-up on behalf of the offender) the identity of a persistent troll on the Catholic blogosphere has been discovered. Whilst she’s done nothing illegal, she is responsible for comments such as these made by Dylan Morgan here,  and here  Alidyl73 here and AliDylan73 here. There are plenty more examples, but I think we have the gist.

In addition she has left many unpleasant and calumnious comments, not only on my blog (sometimes using these alias in her email), but on that of James Preece, Paul Priest and I think, Ttony of the Muniment Room.

Whilst what has happened is not in any way illegal, it has caused an immense amount of bad feeling and hurt on the Catholic blogosphere, with myself being publicly and repeatedly accused of being the perpetrator.

Normally with trolls, I take Mulier Fortis’ sage advice, namely delete and say an Ave, but what has made this situation quite so trying is that other people have not deleted her comments and they have been attributed to me and held up as proof that I some kind of evil genius. It has caused enormous distress when such a comment is left up on a blog, with various visitors clicking the yay button. Whilst I know that is indicative that I need to work on the sin of pride, it hasn’t done anyone, least of all the cause of evangelisation, any favours.

Worse still, is last year not only did Damian Thompson allude to the ‘sock puppet row brewing in Catholic circles’ and ‘looking forward to an exposure Scooby Doo style’ leading to a barrage of messages warning me to batten down the hatches, meaning that clearly a group of people were already in the know about my alleged ‘trolling’, but this mistaken idea was spread about same-sex marriage and abortion activists, as well as major journalists in an attempt to discredit anything I might attempt to achieve in the public square. I had one extremely well known atheist, skeptic, SEO expert write to me, accusing me of online bullying and specifically using one of these troll comments that referred to me, as ‘evidence’ and telling me I should expect a public exposé very soon. He did not seem to wish to entertain the possibility that I was not the culprit, but to be fair, has not yet produced the long-awaited post, perhaps out of compassion given I was so visibly distressed when pregnant last year and also because I think he came to realise that in order to ‘out’ me, he needed more than someone’s word or opinion.

Already defensive, I didn’t react well and neither have I reacted well to a repeated episode of taunting on Twitter today whereby very spiteful and unpleasant parody accounts have been set up depicting me as, quite literally a fat sow or pig, and shown suckling a litter of piglets, together with a very nasty biography, along with various people (the usual suspects) calling me mentally ill and insinuating that I am not looking after my children properly.  Anyone who has met us in real life, will confirm that nothing could be further from the case. A bit too much time spent on my mobile phone (mostly in the afternoon when they are having a nap) does not equate to child neglect. My children are in no way emotionally or physically neglected, that I’m defensive about this, is indicative that I am giving the opinion of random and certainly un-Christianlike strangers on the internet too much weight. I have tried blocking but this doesn’t seem to work, one man copies and pastes anything I say with alacrity, along with his snide comments and commentary. He simply will not leave me alone and Twitter does not seem keen to act, death threats are illegal, repeated taunting and bullying, being part of the general rough and tumble that constitutes free speech.

I can’t help but wonder about the coincidence of the fake account occurring shortly after I openly hinted that I had the identity of the troll, dropping subtle clues (that would only be known to her) and causing her to delete the account. This seems like the reaction of a person who has been rumbled together with her furious reaction.

In order to address matters scripturally, a friend wrote to her (discovering that the IP on an email she’d sent him matched that of comments left on mine, Paul Priest’s and Clare Mulvany’s blogs), explaining the devastation she’d caused and suggesting that she ought to apologise. To which she responded angrily, accusing me of defamation (something isn’t defamation if its true and besides which I haven’t named her) the IP of her email providing yet more evidence, coinciding with the IPs of a nasty comment received both here and on James Preece’s site, earlier this month by an ‘Alan McNabb’.

It isn’t just the IP that has given the lady away, amongst other things are the language and themes of her comments. Here is an extract from her email which ties in with Alidyl/Alidylan73 and Dylan Morgan above.

… what appears in the name of Catholic Blogging is shameful. The way traditional Catholic Bloggers tear into Archbishop Nichols, Bishop Conry-whom I know-The Bishops Conference, and any Priest or blogger they dislike is in no way Christian like or remotely Catholic.

I think this shows all of us why we need to ensure that we remain charitable at all times even if we feel our criticism is merited, and it is worrying if this the impression people glean of Catholic blogging, but certainly the style of writing and the themes will strike a chord with anyone who has been following this sorry saga. It may give us all some insight as to how we may be perceived or why we could be seen as ‘nasty bloggers’.

I don’t really know what to do with this information. We know the lady’s name, the area she lives in and even the church she attends. That’s not meant as any kind of threat, I most definitely do not want to ‘out’ her, I do not want to invite the storm on her head that has come my way, but at the same time, I am unable to cope with the repeated allegations that I am some kind of anonymous Internet bully. I also need to stress that all this information has been obtained by entirely legitimate means, all it took was one careless mistake and it became clear that she had a very large Internet footprint. Every time she left a nasty on mine and others’ blogs, it was picked up.

I’m not going to publicly piece together the evidence here, in case it is needed later, this is simply a very public appeal for all of this nastiness to stop, but there are several of us who are party to all of the relevant information, this isn’t a personal whim or fancy. I also know that no amount of evidence will convince those who, for reasons they won’t disclose, are thoroughly convinced as to my inherent wickedness.

Another point of note. One of the accusations was that there was simply one “trolless”. The. Catholic. Internet. Troll. The internet is a very big place and we would be foolish to assume that every single malign comment is from the same person. I was perplexed upon accusations of being a certain “Big Benny” or “Big Bertha”, having no idea what this was all about. Upon googling I discovered that poor Fr Tim Finigan had been the subject of a Tablestista  troll called “Big Benny” on various  posts, to do with the Tablet. I also saw that Father Z had experienced similar from a Big Bertha. As had Fr Ray. I don’t think we can assume that this is the same person that I have identified, the style of writing is different and I note that on Fr Ray’s post, Big Benny claims to be a clinical psychologist. I have no idea what might possess people to believe that I would express those sentiments, particularly in relation to same-sex adoption. It’s totally ludicrous and nonsensical like much of this business. I am sure all priests are wise enough to take this in their stride nonetheless and have no wish to see some sort of witch-hunt carried out on their behalf, the reason I highlight this (though wary of the Streisand Effect) is in the vain hope that sensible people can see that it’s stretching credulity to claim that I am somehow responsible. But all of this has given lots of fuel to those who may wish to attack me for their own agendas and  together with the injustice of it, continues to affect my peace of mind.

I think the answer is really to keep calm and carry on, but genuinely I’m struggling to keep things in proportion. It’s very hard to stay calm when the calumny continues and is spread about by adversaries. I have been advised to call in a legal expert on internet harassment as a result of today’s obsessive Twitter troll and certainly as a result of this  episode of trolling, of which many of us have been victims. I am not sure what remedies are available, although of course not only me, but also my husband would welcome any opportunity to be able to clear my name. I don’t even think that what has happened is even illegal. People do say horrible things on the internet, most of us are not narcissistic enough to feel the need to track down and publicly shame those who have upset us. The only reason that I have been monitoring matters is because this has caused such strife and division amongst a group of people who should be sticking together. My hope is that by exposing this to the disinfectant of light, the process of healing can begin.

Learning how to deal with the dark side of the internet is something that I’m yet to master. Not feeding trolls is so much easier said than done. I’ll be back when I’ve recovered my equilibrium. I’m off on retreat. I may be back anon, quite literally. Now there would be the ultimate irony.

]]> http://carolinefarrow.com/2013/05/08/time-out-and-trolling/feed/ 36 asnailinmypocket trollers http://carolinefarrow.com/2013/05/07/a-kick-in-the-teeth/ http://carolinefarrow.com/2013/05/07/a-kick-in-the-teeth/#comments Tue, 07 May 2013 15:20:35 +0000 blondpidge https://asnailinmypocket.wordpress.com/?p=3958 ]]> So whilst ordinary lay Catholics are fighting tooth and nail in order to keep abortion out of Ireland, whilst GPs are finding their jobs and families are on the line for speaking their minds, what is happening to that nominal Catholic Enda Kenny? You know the man who closed Ireland’s embassy in the Holy See, who misled the Irish public with regards to the Cloyne Report, pointing the finger solely at the Vatican in a speech loaded with venom and vitriol?

What’s happening to the man who is trying to force priests to legally be compelled to break the seal of confession? Ah yes, that’s right a Catholic University is awarding him an honorary doctorate.

“Prime Minister Kenny is an internationally respected leader with a well-known reputation for promoting human rights and causes of social justice, two issues that resonate with the Boston College community,” said University Spokesman Jack Dunn.

Only if you are born it would seem.

This is the man who pitched up at Knock international airport to unveil a statue of a Catholic Monsignor (Knock being a noted site of holy pilgrimage) on a weekend that saw an influx of Catholic pilgrims praying for the unborn, and responded to threats of excommunication saying ‘I have my own way of speaking to God’.

What in the name of all that’s holy, is this all about? What a kick in the teeth. Disgusted, scandalized, demoralized, doesn’t begin to cover it. Demonic comes somewhere close perhaps.

I witnessed the whole incident, having previously blocked those responsible – there is a posse of Irish pro-abortion advocates on Twitter, who swoop on every single Tweeter who dares to express an opinion upon the current state of affairs in Ireland. Over the past few weeks every single time I have said anything about abortion and Ireland in the same 140 characters, a persistent gang has appeared from out of the blue to attack with insult and invective. Yesterday’s ‘debate’ saw them swooping in with the same discredited narrative regarding the death of Savita Halappanavar, and then going on to attack me, a non Irish national for daring to defend the rights of the unborn in another country.

There’s nothing more of a disincentive in terms of engaging on Twitter to scroll down one’s mentions column and see numerous rants on the same subject, by the same few determined people, chock full of angry and impassioned hypberbole, together with personal insult. Besides which those who seek to discredit an international symposium of gynaecologists as being ‘liars’ on the basis that one disagrees with their conclusions and who decry Ireland’s outstanding maternal death rates as being ‘lies’, don’t really incline one to do anything other than block. One should note, nonetheless, that these are the same people who repeatedly attacked those who they deemed to be not medically qualified and therefore unable to comment, but who repeatedly seized on the subjective opinion of openly pro-choice expert Dr Boylan as being definitive medical fact in the Savita inquest, despite the fact that 11 other experts publicly disassociated themselves from his stance. Clearly they were obviously lying too.

I tweeted a few responses, realised this was a futile exchange, hit the block button repeatedly, switched off the phone and trundled off to the park with the children to make the most of the Bank Holiday sunshine. Yet another day, yet another Twitter spat?

Not quite. Later on that evening I discovered that one of my followers, a Catholic GP had joined in the fray, referring to UK interest in the Ireland abortion debate, as having seen almost 200,000 babies slaughtered here on an annual basis and not wanting Ireland to go down the same route. Here’s what he said.

The pro-aborts took issue with the fact he had referred to unborn children as babies and went for the jugular, causing him some considerable concern. (Apologies for the blurry images, I’ve deliberately obscured identities).

The pro-aborts reported him both to his employers at the NHS and the GMC, because they determined that referring to the unborn as ‘babies’ and by the almost 200,000 abortions that occur in the UK on an annual basis, he was in fact taunting women who had abortions as being ‘baby slaughterers’, and there was thus legitimate cause for concern that he could be taunting women patients.

What these so-called advocates of science and reason could not cope with was the presence of a medic, undermining their rhetoric about the unborn, hence they threw their toys out of the pram and decided to put his job in jeopardy or at least attempt to. On seeing that he had deleted his account, one therefore relented slightly and said that she had withdrawn all her tweets to the NHS. How very generous.

Job done. Serves him right. Hopefully he’ll think twice about expressing the fact that as a doctor he opposes abortion in public ever again. That’s another one closed down. These people need to be an example of.

Of course let’s remember that at least two of these tweeters were those who had expressed apoplexy that a UK tweeter might engage with the political situation in Ireland, yet had no compunction reporting an UK doctor to his professional body on the basis of a firmly expressed view, which was by the way, perfectly in accordance with the GMC guidelines on how medics should use social media. These guidelines specifically encourage doctors to take part in public health and policy decisions as well saying that doctors should identify themselves.

All of which went above the heads of the pro-aborts who said that he was fair game. He had no right expressing his own opinion, which was clearly religiously based.

But all of this was his own fault.

Another Tweeter joined in the fray to defend said GP. So enraged were these advocates that someone else dared to disagree with them, that they then felt compelled to hunt down this interlocutor, believing it to be the GP’s wife. I mean. How dare she go on Twitter to defend her husband who is having his professional competence and employment threatened on the basis of expressing a point of view and for stating that he was a Catholic GP in his bio. Oh the audacity, let’s find out all about her too, shall we. Let’s track down her Facebook profile.

At which point I begin to call out their behaviour.

Because this sort of probing into one’s family life and personal details is the behaviour of a reasonable and rational person.

Ben has written about this and it would seem he is right. Catholics need to be increasingly prepared to defend themselves from these sort of threats and attacks if they expound their views on a public forum and particularly if they are perceived to be in a position of influence.

These people are unrepentant this morning, claiming that this GP deserved to be reported for taunting women as being ‘baby slaughterers’ and telling others, such as @battlementclare that they would not hesitate to report her too, if she were still a practicing midwife, or indeed anyone who was involved in medicine and vocalised pro-life views.

I don’t generally like to go down the whole ‘persecuted Christians’ schtick. But not once in this entire debate, did either myself or the GP allude to God, yet it was the pro-aborts who kept bringing Him into the discussion as being a reason why we must not be taken seriously or listened to. Our arguments were wholly secular, though both of us are openly Catholic and proud to profess ourselves as such.

Losing one’s job may not seem to be in the same league as being thrown to the lions or physically tortured, beaten and killed as a result of one’s beliefs and faith. But being disbarred from a particular profession unless one agrees never ever to voice one’s own views, being sacked and unable to support one’s family, being ostracised and having one’s family targeted as a result, brings us a step closer.

Let us hope that the GP and his family take comfort from the recent words of Pope Francis. They need our prayers.

“[The apostles'] faith was based on so powerful and personal an experience of Christ crucified and risen, that they were not afraid of anything or anyone, and even saw their persecution as a badge of honor, that made them capable of following in the footsteps of Jesus and to be like Him, bearing witness with their lives,”

“… and in these times, there are many Christians who suffer persecution, a great many, in many countries: let us pray for them from our heart, with love, that they might feel the living and comforting presence of the Risen Lord.”

This is how it starts.

Cardinal Dolan’s officials refused entry  into St Patrick’s Cathedral, New York to a group of LGBT protestors who had deliberately dirtied their hands in protest at a recent blogpost of his, in which he shared an anecdote from his childhood to do with his delight when his best friend was allowed to join them for dinner, but was told that first he would need to wash his hands:

I was so proud and happy.  Freddie was welcome in our house, at our table.  We both rushed in and sat down.

“Freddie, glad you’re here,” dad remarked, “but . . . looks like you and Tim better go wash your hands before you eat.”

Simple enough . . . common sense . . . you are a most welcome and respected member now of our table, our household, dad was saying, but, there are a few very natural expectations this family has.  Like, wash your hands!…

So it is with the supernatural family we call the Church:  all are welcome!

But, welcome to what?  To a community that will love and respect you, but which has rather clear expectations defining it, revealed by God in the Bible, through His Son, Jesus, instilled in the human heart, and taught by His Church.

Surely the point is clear enough? Everybody is welcome, rich, poor, young, old, black, white, gay, straight, married, single, but the Church has the same expectations of everyone regardless. One couldn’t ask for a greater definition of equality.

But no, in an overblown statement of victim rhetoric, Joseph Amodeo writing for the Huffington Post says, that the Cathedral is his home from which he has now been evicted and that now he is spiritually homeless. In colourful prose, he describes the ‘cold hard steel and the means by which the doors closed’ (what on earth does he mean by that, I’d never thought of door hinges as being particularly loaded with menacing metaphor and if he’s referring to the doors needing to be pushed shut, isn’t that exactly how they were designed?) capturing the sentiment that they were not welcome.

Actually all of the activists were more than welcome, but were requested to wash their hands first. Quite right. In a Mass, especially if one receives communion, we encounter Christ. Why would anyone deliberately make themselves filthy to meet their King and Redeemer. It’s a deliberate act of blasphemy. Whilst it makes for another good argument for receiving communion on the tongue, making oneself dirty in order to use a church to make a political protest is highly offensive. And what about shaking hands during the sign of peace? Would they have deliberately and ostentatiously rubbed their mucky paws and transferred grime onto other peoples’ hands who might be receiving communion. Even had they exercised courtesy and respect to fellow Mass-goers it still makes a mockery of the Holy Spirit, restricting sharing the peace with a small select clique.

A protest of this type has no place within a religious setting. I’d like to see them attempt to enter a mosque with their shoes still on. Like Lisa Graas, I cannot get my head around anyone who would intentionally make themselves dirty before receiving Christ in the Eucharist. Christ loves us and meets us where we are, but as Cardinal Dolan says, this encounter always involves a recognition on our part that we need to clean up first. The Eucharist is a meal, of course we should make every effort to be spotless, internally and externally before receiving of the body of Christ.

This protest or ‘silent witness’ subverted the Christian message to being about love of self. The Lord loves us in spite of our dirt and filth, He can certainly see beyond it, but that doesn’t preclude us trying to rid ourselves of it. Dirt or sin, matters, it keeps us from having the close relationship which we need.  Whilst Christ welcomed the poor, the outcast, the dispossessed, he touched those who were deemed unclean, none of those who came before him had deliberately put themselves in this state in the first place and certainly none were celebrating it and demanding that they should be healed, or that it was their right.

Filth is no barrier to encountering Christ. It makes it all the harder when we deliberately wallow in and celebrate it nonetheless. My children are prone to some absolutely physically disgusting behaviour. When one of  my daughters comes to me covered in sticky chocolate, sudacreme, liquid soap, caked in mud or worse, I’ll still love them as fiercely as before, but will literally hold them at arm’s length until I’ve dumped them in the bath. I don’t pander to temper tantrums about not wanting to clean up and being fine as they are. Particularly, when like the organiser of this vigil, they have a history of throwing their toys out of the pram and hurting other people when they don’t get their own way.

Christ always extends a welcome. But on His terms, not ours.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I am becoming increasingly unnerved by the clamour being made by those in the business of sex education, such as assembled ‘experts’ who are repeatedly calling for better state sex education in schools, including teaching pupils that ‘not all porn is bad’.

No doubt these are the same advocates who bitterly complain about the ‘indoctrination’ of pupils in faith school, who seem to be utterly blind to the irony that even espousing a so-called neutral view, is an ideology in and of itself. I am boggling at how the notion ‘not all porn is bad’ can be seen as anything other than subjective opinion.

As for becoming porn literate (and I cannot bear that particular neologism), what does that really mean? As in the sense of computer literate, i.e. having competence or knowledge? Or more likely, being able to think critically about porn, able to discern between what is good and what is bad? And who on earth makes those decisions? What constitutes good or bad pornography or erotica is entirely dependent upon the subjective lens of the recipient and their personal tastes. Not to mention Aristotle, under whose definition all pornography is good. Those who complain vociferously about the role of the nanny state when any changes to the law regarding the accessing of internet porn are mooted, ought to think about long and hard about whether or not our children should be taught that xyz makes for ‘bad’ porn, whereas something else is deemed as ‘good’ as well as the acceptable context in which to use porn.

And let’s face it, in order for children to be taught how to become discerning viewers of porn, they are going to need to be exposed to a fair few different genres and the whole point of porn is that it is not designed to be rational. Responses to pornography are never rational or cerebral they are always visceral, instantaneous and physical which is why it is so hugely popular and addictive. Habitual users of porn are well aware that rationally and intellectually, it isn’t realistic, addicts are often well aware that a porn addiction is psychologically unhealthy and impede real-life relationships, but it’s never that easy to wean oneself off, especially when the next hit is only a click away. And let’s not kid ourselves about the purpose of porn either. It really isn’t rocket-science to note that the release of the various neuro-chemicals and hormones involved in reaching climax are an intoxicating and heady mix, as this secular site, designed to help young men beat a pornography addiction, explains. Whilst there are several other Catholic resources designed to help people spiritually, such as for example porn no more, reading about the science behind the effects of porn upon the brain, is both compelling and terrifying.

Exposing children to porn, even with good intentions, borders on the abusive. It normalises and contextualises something that should be a taboo, as being a perfectly harmless habit. Thirty years ago, if men wanted to see porn, it would involve a fair bit of effort, such as shuffling off to the newsagent when no-one else was around or attending a grubby and squalid peep show in the backstreets of Soho. The internet enabled burgeoning of the porn industry has been every male pervert’s dream, no longer are they seen as sordid, seedy, sleazeballs but as sophisticated consumers of a product. And women have been co-opted in their own sexual objectification to a degree that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

Children, especially teenagers faced with fluctuating levels of hormones, are not intellectually equipped to make decisions about sex, whilst not lacking intelligence, they lack the requisite wisdom that comes with experience. Exposure to porn at this age is especially harmful, whetting their appetites and forming neural pathways and associations with pleasure that will inevitably require rewiring. Most men of my generation admit that their first exposure to porn was via some mucky magazines found in their father’s bedroom or study, or surreptitiously sneaked into school. They also admit that these early experiences seem to have shaped various ideas and preferences, again, one doesn’t need to be an expert on Freud or psychology to understand that early feelings of sexual arousal and the accompanying associations, can prove enormously powerful. It’s stupefying naivety and ignorance to believe that by discussing and attempting to rationalise pornography with children, that they will then be able to control their physical responses to it. It could well backfire in that by deeming certain porn ‘bad’ it becomes ever more alluring.

A school classroom made up of thirty pupils of differing stages of sexual and emotional development is not the appropriate place for discussions of this nature. The schoolteacher is not responsible for the sexual formation of a young adult.

Which is also why the classroom is not the place to teach about what the state regards as ‘good relationships’. Why does the state believe that it has the monopoly on defining and teaching about such deeply personal matters. Most of us are able to recognise an innately dysfunctional relationship, even if we were brought up in such an environment ourselves. Whilst we might need help in identifying and overcoming issues that may have occurred as a result, even those in abusive relationships realise on one level that what is happening is not the ideal state of affairs. There are many complex factors that are involved in why people may end up in abusive relationships, that they were not taught how to recognise them at school seems to be an insignificant factor, generally people find themselves trapped for a variety of reasons, relationships that turn toxic, usually do so gradually.

As for teaching primary school children about adult sexual relationships, instead of ‘placing too much emphasis on friendships’, speaking as a parent of a 9 year old who will soon approach puberty, this is unbelievable stuff. A child’s world is made up of their friendships, when something goes wrong in the playground it can have devastating consequences. Of course the emphasis must be on friendships and how to get along with others, how to be kind, generous and respectful. Priming children as to what healthy adult sexual relationships should look like, is akin to grooming and leaves them very vulnerable to predatory adults.

Whilst of course, any PSHE element should help children to recognise and ask for help in terms of unwanted sexual behaviours or advances, there is a danger in placing emphasis upon a good quality sexual relationship, almost as if this should be a given in a romantic relationship or is indeed a necessary part of a fulfilling life. By teaching children a subjective definition of good and bad relationships, they also encourage a tendency to discard anything that falls short of the ideal standard, or when things become difficult, when very often problems and difficulties can be rectified.

Relationships are not always ideal and perfect, from the Catholic point of view we know that the graces conferred upon us by the sacrament will reinforce us, but ultimately even the best marriages go through the odd sticky stage. Which is why the marriage vows include a promise to love, which sometimes requires an act of will, it is not simply a confirmation of being romantically in love, but a promise to love the other person, even when they are being at their worst.

What seems apparent is that the state is trying to package up, homogenise and clinicalise every single sexual relationship and impose this utopian vision upon our children. This is the type of sex you should be having, here’s the type of relationship that you should have and here’s the pornography that is okay to look at and here’s how you should use it. It feels deeply unpleasant and intrusive.

I read earlier that the pornography industry is becoming safer than the food industry when it comes to health and safety standards. Which really says it all. Do we really want our sexual relationships monitored, regulated and served up to us like a tasteless, plastic, microwave meal. Or do we want something home-made, free of artificial ingredients, wholesome, comforting, heart-warming, authentic, nutritious and made with human love and care. It might not look as perfect or uniform as the mass produced product you take out of the packet, or be made conforming to the same stringent standards of health and safety. It may often be harder to produce. But it sure tastes and feels infinitely better.

Do we really want children sold a state-sanctioned convenience-meal version of sex and relationships?

Every single medical fact I commented upon was not made without reference to highly experienced qualified doctors and midwives, all of whom were in disagreement with Dr Boylan, whose testimony that a termination would almost certainly have saved Savita’s life, was widely quoted by the pro-abort activists as being proof that the law needed to change, as it was, in his opinion, responsible for her death.

The reason that this case has needed to be scrutinised in intricate detail, is because it was so quickly seized upon by those championing abortion in Ireland, as being definitive proof that lack of abortion was leading to unnecessary deaths. What I am more than qualified to state, is that abortion devastates lives and causes infinite pain and hurt to many women, (and men) as well as ending the lives of their babies. By all accounts Savita was a lively caring, compassionate woman. The last thing she would have wanted was for more pregnant women to be vulnerable as a result of her death.

I have just received a copy of the following press release from John McGuirk which I have replicated in full.

Ends

Dear Sir:

The recent inquest on Ms Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that that this is a personal view, not an expert one.

Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr. Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL.

What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand that they can intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the Coroner, or the jury, of the Inquest.

Obstetric sepsis is unfortunately on the increase and is now the leading cause of maternal death reported in the UK Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths. Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women.

It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the USA, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports.

The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine.

Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented amongst Irish maternity units.

It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. John Monaghan, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Cyril Thornton, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Trevor Hayes, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Chris King, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Dr. Eileen Reilly, MB ChB MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Prof John Bonnar, MD FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Prof Stephen Cusack, MB BCh FRCSI Consultant in Emergency Medicine

Dr. Rory Page, MB BCh FFA RCSI Consultant Anaesthetist

Dr. James Clair, MB BCh PhD FRCPath Consultant Microbiologist