Category: Abortion

Catholics, Christians and abortion

Simon at Latte Labour has written a typically thought-provoking post laying out the dangers for pro-choicers of framing this debate in religious terms. I agree with him, but for entirely different reasons. The pro-life cause flows naturally from Christian belief, but it does necessitate it; it is a cogent logical, intellectual and philosophical position in its own merit. I know of many passionate rational atheist pro-lifers, who object to the assumption that they must be some sort of religious “crazy”. It is a certainty that at any point during the debate, a detractor when faced with the irrefutable logic of when life begins, starts to clutch at straws and hurls accusations of sky pixies and imaginary friends in an attempt to prove quite how irrational you are as a person and how your logic therefore cannot be trusted. Atheists find this every bit as frustrating as Christians, many of whom have reached their position partly through logic and reasoning. They have weighed up the same evidence as atheists and come to a different conclusion.

I also think he is wrong to frame this in a pro-life versus pro-choice context. It absolutely is not, given that no changes to the time limit are proposed, nor is counselling being made compulsory. This is not stating that women are not capable of coming to their own informed conclusions, it is providing the opportunity for some impartial advice, a breathing space, for those who feel pressured, either by the swift nature of the process itself or perhaps by a family member. It is not unknown for women to feel pressured into abortion by spouses or relatives. A opportunity to talk this through in a non-judgemental fashion and in an independent setting is imperative.

Simon seems to want to categorise the pro-life Christian as being that of either an Evangelical Christian or “traditional” Catholic. He compares the statement “You cannot be pro-choice and a Christian” with those who strongly believe that the only valid form of the liturgy is in the old Latin rite. This is a straw man. What I genuinely do not understand is how anyone can claim to be a Roman Catholic, in Simon’s case a lay Dominican as far as I believe, and be in favour of abortion. This is not a personal attack, but just something that I find incomprehensible. The Catechism is abundantly clear on the issue of abortion, this is not an issue of individual conscience unlike the death penalty or Summorum Pontificum which allows for the liturgy to be celebrated in different forms, both equally valid. There is no room for manoeuvre or legitimate differences of opinion. In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Blessed John Paul II declared abortion to be binding on the faithful which means that one has to accept it, if one wishes to be part of the body of Christ that constitutes the Roman Catholic Church. When Roman Catholics receive the Eucharist they are accepting that they are in union with each other, the Church and her teaching. I cannot understand therefore, organisations such as Catholics for Choice, or individuals who profess to be Catholic, but reject an area of doctrine which is binding. Why not become an Anglican?

Although other Christian denominations allow for freedom of conscience on this issue, the Christian position on abortion is clear. There are several biblical passages demonstrating God’s love and concern for the unborn child. I’ll quote a few:

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. (Isaiah 46:3-4).
Jesus did not explicitly talk about abortion, but it cannot be forgotten that he would have followed orthodox Jewish traditions and customs, one of which outlawed abortion. Christ was a radical, he had absolutely no problem over-turning the established order, so had he wanted to endorse the practice of abortion, it is reasonable to assume he would have done so. Christ tended to liberalise Jewish laws concerning things such as diet but crucially he tightened up on codes of ethics, giving them stricter definitions than previously, such as in the cases of marriage and adultery. Adultery no longer simply consists of the physical act, Jesus extends the definition to incorporate the imagination. It is inconceivable, pardon the pun, to imagine that he would have sanctioned abortion, though no doubt he would have extended compassion and mercy to those seeking forgiveness.
When considering abortion in Christian terms, the ideas of compassion and welfare take on an entirely different timbre. Christians are ultimately concerned with eternal salvation or lack thereof. To love one’s neighbour as oneself is to desire for them the fruits of the kingdom. Christians do not wish to co-operate or corroborate an action that has the potential to lead to another’s damnation. We often steer clear of using these terms, I don’t want to talk about cliches of hellfires but we believe that the absence of God in the next life will be desolate, painful, lonely and eternal.Christians desire this neither for themselves or for others, hence many tend to be unequivocal on this issue. Though we cannot force our will upon others, we cannot sit idly by and watch people descend into destruction of themselves and others, without at least trying to help. It is absurd to reduct Christianity’s core creed to “be nice to each folks”. As I have talked about before, one has to love God with one’s heart and soul BEFORE one loves one’s neighbour and part of this includes keeping his commandments, of which the fifth is “thou shalt not kill”.
This goes some way to explaining why Catholics on the most part seem to be so quiet on the issue of this amendment. They can see it for what it is, i.e. not a pro-life issue. A very welcome consequence could be that the number of abortions are reduced, but Catholic ethics reject the principle that the end justifies the means. The fact that fewer abortions may be performed does not justify material co-operation in sin, which is what independent counselling technically constitutes. Regular readers will remember the series of posts and debates a few months ago, in which Joseph Shaw, pointed out the flaws in my support for LIFE from an ethical and philosophical stance. The amendment if passed, will mean that fewer people go to organisations like SPUC and Care Confidential (who incidentally fared extremely well in a Daily Mail undercover report). To support the amendment entails a potential co-operation in evil. Besides it does not go far enough.
This is the only reason that I can think of as to why the heavyweight Catholic MPs in the House of Commons have remained largely quiet on the issue, leaving the inevitable fall-out to land on the shoulders of two staunch Anglican MPs. I can well understand Nadine Dorries’ frustration. Catholics who are resolutely pro-life do not seem to be supporting something that will reduce abortions. No wonder she is baffled and bemused by us. She doesn’t understand Catholic ethics, nor appreciate that many Catholics do not want to see their pro-life organisations potentially jeopardised. Nadine has been explicitly clear that religious groups cannot be involved in the official provision of counselling services. Many Catholics seem to believe that this is a piffling amendment that changes nothing, one beset by ethical difficulties and not worth wasting their time over.
I would disagree. I think the amendment will go a long way to reducing the numbers of victims of abortions, both mothers and babies alike. It formally recognises the bias inherent in the provision of counselling services by abortion providers as well as the very nature of these organisations. This is significant. The amendment crucially separates the decision as to whether or not to have a baby from the medical procedure and those who accept the counselling will be encouraged to think through all aspects of their decision instead of being rushed through a conveyer belt process.
I know a thing or two about crisis pregnancies. I’ve experienced two. Believe me being pro-life does not make a crisis pregnancy any easier, if anything it is more of a taboo to discuss the fact that you are not exactly over the moon. None of the options are easy. No-one can go through it for you and you need to be utterly convinced that what you are doing is the right thing. No amount of counselling can take the decision away from you and in some cases it will have no impact on a decision that has already been taken. But it may give a woman the emotional resources to cope. It is better than the status quo, and even if the DoH do not include organisations such as SPUC and Care on its recommended list of providers, it supports the idea that counselling can be beneficial for those facing unplanned pregnancies and does not prevent these organisations from being promoted and used by members of faith communities. It may go a long way to reducing the numbers of abortion gone through in secret by those who feel they have nowhere else to turn. I have been a little disappointed by the lack of support from the Catholic community and Catholic leaders. It is not too late.
To contact your MP, click here.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Here’s the clip of Nadine Dorries and Dr Evan Harris discussing the proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care bill, that gave rise to my intemperate tweet.

When asked whether or not he would support the provision of independent counselling services, Evan Harris evades the question, claiming that Sky’s “script” is wrong and that women are not going to be offered an independent counselling service.

Well, your script is wrong, because they’re not going to be offered — under Nadine Dorries’ plan — an independent service. They’re going to be pushed into the clutches of anti-abortion religious organisations, who are neither trained nor responsible to give the advice and information that’s been approved by the medical royal colleges.

No, Dr Evan Harris, your script is wrong. The text of the Dorries and Field  amendment to the health and social care bill is this:

(1A)    

In this section, information, advice and counselling is independent where

it is provided by either—

(i)    

a private body that does not itself provide for the
termination of pregnancies; or

(ii)
a statutory body.”.’.

Absolutely nothing there with regards to compelling women to receive counselling, nor religious organisations. A private body that does not itself provide for the termination of pregnancies, does not have to be religious in nature. There are plenty of private counselling organisations which are not founded upon religious principles or who follow religious guidelines. There is no reason why a local counselling service to whom a patient may be referred for other conditions, may not be able to assist a woman in her decision making process.

Why are the abortion providers deemed as being uniquely able to provide impartial counselling which may not be obtained elsewhere?  Even if, as His Grace points out, BPAS and Marie Stopes did provide objective and impartial counselling, there would still be room for justifiable doubt.

There is nothing in the text of the amendment that renders counselling compulsory or forces women who are seeking counselling to go to a religious organisation. Nadine Dorries seemed to be very clear in that interview that religious organisations would not be included in any Department of Health list of independent organisations. Counselling services are not required to be approved by royal medical colleges, thus referring to them in an attempt to lend the argument weight, is specious.

And that’s why no medical organisation or medical ethical organisation that I know of thinks that it’s a good idea because there’s been no evidence — no evidence of complaints, no evidence of a failure to obtain informed consent — under the current arrangements where women are seen by independent professional counsellors, if they wish to, as part of their visit — their first visit — to an abortion provider, after either having been referred by their GP, whom they could have asked questions of, or indeed, self-referring because they have it in their mind to end their pregnancy. So I think your script is entirely wrong to claim that they’re not getting independent counselling at the moment.

This made my brain hurt. Firstly Dr Harris makes the assumption that the abortion providers’ counselling is impartial, despite the lack of evidence which might indicate that they do overcome any innate bias. Then he presents absence of evidence as being evidence of absence, i.e. the lack of evidence which might prove that BPAS are impartial, proves that they are in fact, impartial. I had to play that clip back a few times to confirm the inherent irrationality.

The point is that it cannot reasonably be assumed that the abortion providers are unbiased. Anyone who has ever done any abortion recovery counselling will tell you an entirely different story. Amongst the piles of leaflets containing soft marketing and social conditioning messages such as 1 in 3 women will have an abortion, nestling on top of waiting room tables, not once does one find any leaflets that may direct women towards services that may be able to provide practical and financial advice and support. There are charitable organisations who will assist women with claiming the relevant benefits or drafting letters to employers or who will provide  baby clothes, equipment and financial grants. Surely any impartial provider should be providing this information? Just as any woman who goes to an organisation such as LIFE, will know exactly where she can procure an abortion, via a GP, surely those providing abortions have a duty to point women towards whether they may be able to access extra help and support if they keep their baby? Give them the whole picture, if they are seeking counselling, not just the medical facts about the abortion.

This was the response to the point made by the interviewer that nothing about Christian or religious groups had been included in the amendment, and that this was a voluntary extra step to ensure that a woman had all the information, instead of being forced in one direction:

They’re not being forced in one direction at the moment. As I say, it’s unlawful to conduct any medical procedure, including termination of pregnancy, without obtaining informed consent, and as far as I’m aware, despite there being many, many abortions every year — hundreds of thousands, in fact — there’s not been a single complaint that someone’s been misinformed by the current professional counselling that exists,

Again he evades the point about independence and denies that women are being forced in one direction. We do know that abortion providers do not give out any literature which might direct women to charitable organisations that could help them, nor do they give out any information regarding government assistance, benefits or employment rights when pregnant, which is what any counsellor should do, help a woman to evaluate all the options before coming to a decision. Informed consent consists of a signature on a piece of paper to say that you understand the medical  nature of the procedure and the potential risks. If there have been no complaints, I would posit that this has as much to do with women’s reticence to come forward and complain about an abortion clinic, the issue is so heavily weighted on both sides. It is possible that a woman might feel guilt both in terms of the procedure, or feel that by complaining she is somehow letting down the  cause of women’s rights. The absence of complaints, is not evidence of satisfactory counselling, remembering that counselling needs to be concerned with helping an undecided woman with a crisis pregnancy  to explore her options. Counselling about whether or not to have the baby should not be conflated with counselling regarding the medical procedure.

Dr Evan Harris uses the volume of abortions carried out every year to support his argument which leaves one with the impression that he views the “many, many”, the hundreds of thousands of procedures as a measure of success. There may not have been any complaints about the medical procedures, but as noted, that is an entirely separate issue to the counselling. Women are not asked to sign to say that they have received satisfactory abortion counselling, simply that they understand the nature of the procedure.

Whilst no medical college that Dr Harris knows of supports this, does that mean that they are agin it? Or does that mean that no royal medical college has publicly expressed an opinion, simply because counselling services are outside of their remit? BACP have expressed support for the idea that women should have access to independent and impartial counselling services. It has also stated that Nadine Dorries has informed them that religious groups will be subject to the same constraints and criteria as the abortion providers. It is unthinkable that any physician would wish to prevent a woman who is undecided from being able to access independent counselling services. Abortion is not simply a physical procedure and any advice should be holistic to ensure that it is the right decision and not relegated to a clinical procedure.

The interview terminates with generic attacks and speculation as to who are the backers and funders of the Right to Know organisation and veering off into the realms of conspiracy theory. Obviously those who care about women having access to all options are right-wing extremists, (note the pejorative use of the word extremist for anyone who might be pro-life), Dr Harris obviously wants to whip up some fear and suspicion that this is all some major conspiracy to stop women from having abortions, when the reality is so much more mundane. It is simply to ensure that those who choose counselling, have access to all information and don’t rush into anything. But by calling everyone extremists, you not-so-subtly introduce the idea that people with perfectly legitimate views, remember that pro-choice views do not require any religious belief, are mentally unsound and prone to irrationality and violence.

As I said, after 9 weeks, the only abortion option on offer by the clinics is surgery. Women who wish to avoid surgery are encouraged to make a speedy decision, which may not be appropriate. Whilst Dr Evan Harris states that there is no evidence of harm, there is certainly a huge question mark over the impartiality of the counselling on offer by the abortion providers and it makes sense to recognise this, not simply turn a blind eye.

Why is this amendment creating controversy and being billed as a massive shake-up?

It recognises the uncomfortable truth that abortion providers turn a profit from providing abortion, it highlights a legitimate concern with regards to their impartiality and they don’t like that one little bit. That is why they are throwing absolutely everything they’ve got into fighting this tooth and nail. And if you’re wondering why the Guardian seem to be quite so concerned by the issue, take a guess who sponsors their international development journalism competition?

Marie Stopes.

The smiling face of evil

Dr Evan Harris and Nadine Dorries were interviewed by Sky News yesterday.  I watched the clip of it first thing this morning and was so incensed, I made the fatal error of tweeting in haste, calling Dr Harris “the smiling face of evil”. I have not heard the end of it from his supporters. I did apologise to Dr Evan Harris, unfortunately the 140 character medium of Twitter does not allow for nuance, his response was to call me “un-Christian”, retweet my sentiment (which was never directly addressed to him) to all his followers who piled in, and then retweet a selected part of my apology, together with his response of “Yabba, Yabba, Yabba”. Not the most reasoned discourse one would expect from a former Member of Parliament.

As I said, it was not the most judicious of tweets, sometimes in my passion I forget that one needs to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. I will explain what I mean in very simplistic terms. It is worth bearing in mind, that a basic definition of evil is the opposite of good, or from a Christian perspective, God. The killing of the vulnerable, be they unborn children, the sick, the disabled or the elderly, even when carried out with the best of intentions, still constitutes an evil act, given that it is in opposition to good, or indeed God. Most people, regardless of where they stand on the pro-life spectrum, would not consider the act of abortion or euthanasia a good thing. How may the desperate act of a woman who feels that she has no other option than to prevent her child from being born, be a good thing? How may the act of a person who feels unable to cope with the poor quality of life afforded by a debilitating condition that they have no other option than to kill themselves, be described as good?

Objectively, one might be able to argue that it is “good” that these options exist, however that is not a point of view that I share, nor do I feel that the individual acts of abortion or euthanasia are anything but an occasion of sadness. They are, by my definition, evil both in secular and theological terms. Dr Evan Harris is a pro-abortion and voluntary euthanasia activist. He campaigns to make voluntary euthanasia legal and for looser regulation surrounding abortion, policies which are an absolute anathema as far as I am concerned. Whilst I do not know enough about Dr Evan Harris that warrants describing him as an evil man, I do believe that the policies which he advocates could be described as evil without stretching the imagination too far. By describing him as the “smiling face” of evil, whilst not casting judgement upon his motives which, in the absence of any personal knowledge about him one must assume are sincerely held, or casting judgement upon his personality or his immortal soul, I meant to convey that he is the poster-boy for something that is evil and/or bad. I apologise for any implication that he himself is evil. I am not a moral relativist and cannot hide my abhorrence and repugnance for these acts which derogate humanity.

What rankles hugely is that by describing him in an injudicious fashion, Dr Harris, the avowed atheist, has accused me of being “un-Christian”. Whilst I am undoubtedly sinful and full of imperfection, Christianity requires the identification of those things which are good and those which are bad or evil. Christ himself was not afraid to call things for what they were. Those who talk of Christ as being a hippy figure with nothing but peace and love seem to forget the Christ who overturned the tables of the money lenders in the Temple and drove out them out with whips in furious, but righteous indignation. Of course, by mentioning this, I was informed by someone else that I was “comparing yourself to Christ. Special”. Absolutely not. I aim to be a disciple of Christ and follow His teaching, I don’t try to imagine that I am Christ, but I do try to model my life upon Christ’s in as best a fashion as I can.

I have been besieged by those today who are assuming that my pro-life stance is as irrational as they consider my faith. Once again I reiterate that a pro-life stance is a perfectly logical philosophical stance which requires no recourse to theism. For those who insist that the bible makes no specific mention of abortion, I would note that neither does it mention other issues that are considered wrong or immoral by Christians and atheists alike. There are several passages in the Bible in which God’s love for the unborn child is enunciated, the most famous being Psalm 139, 13-16 and Jeremiah 1, 4-5.  Plus there is the not insignficant matter of the fifth commandment.

Whilst blogging, Red Maria found me this interesting quote from Dr Evan Harris, (column 260), during the 2008 debate on the lowering of the abortion limit. When discussing the subject of an aborted fetus being born alive, Dr Harris suggests that the sight might be distressing to some people, implying that most people would not find the sight of a fetus dying at 20 weeks distressing. He very carefully avoids referring to the unborn child as such, not even using the more medical term of fetus, preferring instead the description of an unborn child as “an abortion”.  To suggest that the natural response to witnessing the death of a 20-24 week fetus should be one of clinical dispassionate detachment is chilling.

I went to see the controversial speaker Michael Voris last week, who reminded Catholics, that they should be aspiring to sainthood now, in this life, not to become the dusty relics to whom people will pray in 300 years time, for the healing of one’s foot. Like a saint, I aim to be transparent to Christ, meaning that His love may shine through me and lead others to Him. Given the amount of vitriol I’ve faced today, I’ve clearly failed in that task, something which I regret and from which I will learn.

But I will not apologise for either my pro-life stance or my identification of the killing of vulnerable people as being evil – such a stance requiring no religious belief whatsoever. I will also not apologise for or be embarrassed about my faith. Although I do intend to avoid causing undue offence and making personal remarks. I am sure Dr Harris would agree with the notion that liberalism entails freedom of thought and speech, even if those ideas and words have the potential to offend other people.

Dr Harris has finally accepted my apology and jocularly granted me “absolution”. I trust my penance for a hasty tweet was the sheer amount of flamers and trolls I received yesterday. Dr Evans suggested that my response should be to turn the other cheek. He may be right about that but nonetheless, I am not afraid to make a defence for the hope that I have within me.

SPUC Outreach Event

SPUC have asked me to advertise the following. Happy to oblige.

Are you pro-life? Would you like the opportunity to help stop abortions taking place in London? Could you give up a few hours this Saturday to help spread awareness in East London?

SPUC OUTREACH IN STRATFORD

Newham Borough in East London has the highest abortion rate in the U.K. (39.9 per 1000 women) and has the sixth highest number in Europe, with 2,341 abortions taking place every year. BPAS have recently opened a new abortion centre in the area, and so the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children will be doing a pro-life outreach there on Saturday 20th August. We aim to inform the local public about the positive pro-life services available, raise awareness about exactly what is happening in the area, and campaign against the new opening. Join SPUC this Saturday as help is needed to man the stall, distribute pro-life literature and engage with the public.

Meet outside Stratford Tube Station at 10.30am. We will finish no later than 2pm. Other details are on our facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=147099005375311&view=wall&notif_t=event_wall

Hope to see you there!

Any queries please contact: 0207 820 3140

Pragmatic compassion

My post on the non-directive counselling services provided by LIFE was pure marmite, the responses being polarised between “superb” and “rubbish”!

For me this is one of the joys of blogging in that those who had a negative response gave some detailed analysis of their objections that has challenged my thinking. Once again apologies for lack of linkage, I will rectify once I get access to a laptop, but Joseph Shaw at Casuistry Central blogspot posted a thorough examination of the potential problematic issues that result from LIFE’s provision of non-directive counselling services.

In terms of the practical issues, there is no evidence that non-directive counselling is more likely to be effective in terms of a pro-life outcome. This is indeed true and probably why the idea of independent impartial counselling is being advanced by Dorries and Field. Nadine Dorries obviously feels very passionate about abortion issues, although she cannot be accurately described as pro-life because she seems to endorse the notion of “informed choice”, the language of those who have no fundamental issue with a the choice to abort a child. If people looked at the actual substance of her proposal they would realise that far from being the perceived oppressor, Dorries is a true feminist, she wants women to come to their own informed decision, conscious of all the information and options open to them. The problem is as Nadine has previously stated her wish to reduce the numbers of abortions and her general overall PR problem, the public, perhaps understandably have issues of trust, which is an enormous pity, considering the gravity of what is at stake.

As things currently stand, the two providers which the NHS refer to, do not provide all the information and thus cannot be said to be impartial or non-directive, having a vested interest in the outcome of counselling. This is hotly disputed, but from both personal experience and the testimony of others, what the abortion clinics do categorically do not do, is pass on or provide information with regards to the financial help that might be available. They do not help a woman to explore whether or not the costs of having a baby may be insurmountable. There are a lot of myths surrounding newborns; actually in practical terms a newborn baby costs relatively little in terms of initial expenditure and outlay; not being able to afford the latest designer pram or buy the fripperies which baby magazines are so keen to push and end up being total white elephants, is not a good enough reason for ending the unborn life of a child. Even if one doesn’t breastfeed or use reusable nappies, two ways which save considerable amounts of cash, but aren’t for everyone, child benefit, tax credits and grants can cover the “running costs”, although there are of course there are other financial issues involved, one can’t generalise. The point is that none of this is discussed by the current abortion providers.

The other issue that is not discussed is the stage of fetal development, every woman I have spoken to has reported that prior to the abortion they are given an ultrasound to ascertain precisely what stage the pregnancy is at, but they have never been shown the scan, the screen being turned sharply away. Even if a woman has asked to see, she has been persuaded that it is not in her best interests.It is a policy of abortion clinics not to show women the scan so she is in the dark about the precise stage of pregnancy that she might be at. Isn’t this rather patronising? Shouldn’t a woman at least be given the option? At six weeks the fetal heartbeat can be detected, even if a woman is adamant that she doesn’t want the baby, shouldn’t she at least know, if abortion is a ‘medical procedure’ the precise nature of her treatment? It could be argued that women are able to access images of fetal development on the internet. Many of them may do so already. Do abortion clinics ask women if they have already done so?

The answer to this is no, the same response to the question of whether or not clinics advise as to the potential complications or side-effects of an abortion. The ‘counselling ‘ provided by these clinics is affirmative, confirming a woman in her decision without ever challenging it. The physical realities are often glossed over as I have written about previously. Whilst singing the praises of Marie Stopes, Laurie Penny waxes lyrical about how wonderful they were on the phone when some acquaintance was experiencing trauma due to post operative bleeding which she didn’t know whether or not was normal. Had the clinic done their job properly, then the woman would have had an idea of what to expect.

If “no woman wants an abortion”, then the issue needs to be thoroughly explored with her to ensure that this really is in her best interests. Many women would dispute this however, Deborah Orr testifies to having had two abortions and though the procedures themselves were unpleasant, she states that afterwards it was like being let out of prison and that for her counselling would have been a waste of time, money and effort. According to Orr, feminists need “to stop with the hand-wringing”. That hardly fits with the no woman wants to have an abortion narrative. A more accurate statement would be “no woman wants to be in the position of needing an abortion”. If this is the case then there is a simple answer. If despite her best efforts a woman unexpectedly finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy, then counselling is necessary to ascertain whether or not the pregnancy is a “need”.

Non-directive counselling does not preclude the provision of all the additional information that is conveniently omitted by the abortion providers and though there is no concrete evidence which suggests that it is more likely to produce a particular outcome, the likelihood is that furnished with all the information, women may well reconsider a decision to abort. When this issue is discussed, the feminists tend to change tack and display their usual cognitive dissonance. They go from violently objecting to the concept of counselling which they deem manipulative, casting the woman in the usual status as victims unable to be able to see through the nasty underhand tactics of the pro-life crazies, to a narrative which suggests that all women who have an abortion are well-informed, know their own mind and do it in a spirit of sadness. The truth of the matter is that there is a broad spectrum in terms of vulnerability, attitudes and levels of knowledge. The NHS does not hesitate to assume a low level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to new mothers or even experienced ones. My 12 week old is my third baby, I’ve breastfed all of my children for over a year, I know the signs of illness, failure to thrive and so on, but even yesterday the Health Visitor rang me, whilst on holiday on the beach, to berate me for not going to baby clinic and to fuss about the health of the baby! “I’m fine, leave me alone” is what I wanted to say to her, but realised that she was only doing her job, child welfare and health was her main concern and for every experienced mother exasperated by unnecessary nannying there is another one in need of advice and support. The same could be said of counselling services, for every woman confident that she is in full possession of all the facts and information, there is another who isn’t. After all who really researches the facts of early stage pregnancy until it becomes of immediate concern to them? Most women who tend to find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, know they have a time limit and set about fixing the problem whereupon they find themselves on the abortion conveyer belt.

Joseph Shaw made the excellent point that the Dorries/Field amendment introduces the concept that non-directive counsellors may well become legal gatekeepers to abortion. In Catholic terms this is problematic and correlates with his idea that to provide non-directive counselling is to co-operate with evil. This already happens in Germany whereby women are legally required to undergo counselling prior to an abortion. Women who have received counselling and still wish to proceed with an abortion need to produce a certificate to this effect. The CDF has asked Catholics to disassociate themselve from groups who provide this counselling, because the provision of the certificate is to co-operate with the evil of abortion. The problem is not the counselling per se, but the provision of the certificate, therefore if the amendment is passed provided that no similar system requiring documentation from the counsellors to proceed is implemented, then this should not be a barrier to Catholic groups.

It is the idea that there should be any sort of gatekeepers which is arousing the ire of the alleged pro-choice lobby. Abortion is still technically illegal in the UK, it may only be performed under prescribed circumstances. This is why the signature of two doctors is currently required, in order that there may be a check and balance, the second signature is supposed to ensure that no malpractice, coercion or criminal offence has occurred. A second opinion was part of a law that recognised the gravity of the act and ensured that abortion was a last resort. Doctors were trusted to be the moral arbiters, not a woman. Over the years the fears of the slippery slope of many of the leading campaigners against the Abortion Act have been realised. A law designed to prevent the estimated 50 annual deaths in the UK from unsafe abortion has resulted in almost 200,000 abortions being performed in the UK on an annual basis. We have abortion on demand, which is why women seem to believe that it is their right and their choice. This is why Deborah Orr and her ilk vigorously campaign for the removal of the requirement for a second signature to make abortion even easier to access. The second signature, though treated as an exercise in bureaucracy, a complete subversion of the law, legally enforces the notion of abortion as the necessary evil, the last resort, not the back-up to contraception which Orr and Furedi claim it should be. Mandatory independent counselling consolidates the law as it stands, it is not a chipping away of rights, the right never existed in the first place. The amendment should be supported for this reason alone.

When discussing the idea of directive counselling, both Ben Trovato and Joseph Shaw noted that I constructed a straw man in suggesting that clients would be told what they should conclude at the beginning of the session, rather than, as is the case with other pro-life organisations, helped to reach this conclusion by the end of the session. I agree, however I was responding to some typically emotive rhetoric which I have never been able to establish whether it was grounded in truth. A vehement feminist, told lurid tales of women being brow-beaten, emotionally blackmailed, told they were “baby-murdering sluts”, shown graphic photos of dismembered fetuses and made to handle life-size models of fetuses. I would like to see these claims substantiated, we can’t assume that this does not go on, but the account seems grossly exaggerated. However as we have seen in the media, the Guardian in particular, publishing a disproportionate number of articles devoted to misrepresenting LIFE, they face an enormous task in surmounting their reputation as “religious nutjobs”. If nothing else my blog proves their impartiality beyond all reasonable doubt, given the reaction from Catholics. Any pro-life organisation provision of counselling is going to prove an anathema to the liberal press which will do its best to sway public opinion and whip up misplaced indignation. Ann Furedi has publicly attacked LIFE, but the one thing she has done is to admit that when BPAS sent someone undercover to investigate claims of manipulation, these were found to be unsubstantiated. LIFE, she concedes, does provide non-directive counselling, no graphic or distressing material was used.

We live in a depressing age of moral relativism whereby every choice or decision is said to be equally valid. The current zeitgeist is for an “evidenced-based” approach and for the issue of abortion to operate in some sort of moral vacuum. It has to be better that a pro-life group such as LIFE is able to be at the forefront and provide what will be seen as a best-practice model, furnishing a woman with all the facts, exploring all of the options with her, than an abortion clinic who will simply affirm a woman’s initial visceral and perhaps misinformed reaction. Certainly LIFE stand a better chance and as I said, retain the moral high ground in the secular area of medicine. This is what we have to recognise, the field of medical ethics is predominantly secular. We see nurses sacked for discussing views on abortions with colleagues and the previous government did their utmost to remove the ability from medical professionals to conscientiously object to practices against their faith. Faith is seen to have no part to play in the sphere of medicine. Appeals based on faith-based ethics are disregarded. Though the pro-life position is one that does not require any faith whatsoever, it is a common feature of all major religions, hence pro-lifers are often met with derision; objections tend to centre around descriptions of sky fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, before degenerating into generic attacks upon religion, via diversions of perceived misogyny, corruption, power and control, finished off with a liberal dusting of pedophilia, where the fundamental principles of the pro-life belief are obscured in a deluge of irrational and illiberal prejudice. Under these circumstances it seems that LIFE has no other option if it wishes to retain any secular credibility and build upon that. It is better placed than other organisations who nail their colours very firmly to a particular evangelical Christian or Catholic mast and thus risk alienating those who may otherwise be open to persuasion.

This is the crux of the argument as to why LIFE needs to continue and expand its provision of non directional counselling. Though the outcome may not be guaranteed, it is better that a group such as LIFE provides these services than an abortion clinic. As Joseph Shaw notes, a client will have some clue as to their stance, but the BACP accreditation provides the much needed reassurance. A client of an abortion clinic will be assured by their counsellor that abortion is a perfectly acceptable and valid choice, one apparently taken by one in three women, an argument incidentally I fail to understand, one in three men might have had sex with a woman without her consent, the frequency or commonality of the occurrence does not render it any the more acceptable. Upon entering an abortion clinic a woman will be exposed to lots of their literature reassuring them that abortion is a removal of the products of conception, making no reference to the fetus and with the emphasis heavily upon this is a normal everyday event, nothing major, no great shakes. All of this works towards a subliminal reinforcement of the message, downplaying the procedure, as well as fundamentally misleading a woman also increases the risk of subsequent trauma; a woman feels taken aback by her unexpected feelings of loss and at the same time unable to grieve. There are well over 30 independent studies which show a link between abortion and subsequent PTSD.

For me, the most pressing question posed by Joseph Shaw, one that I’m not sure whether or not I can satisfactorily answer without an element of deception is whether or not non-directive counselling amounts to co-operation in a moral evil, in that silence is a way that one may be an accessory to another’s sin. This is undoubtedly true, it would be disingenuous of me to deny it or indeed to find wriggle room. My only observations would be to note that this would not be a concern to a non-Catholic counsellor and by funding LIFE we would not be direct accessories to sin, but facilitating accessories to sin. Would the scale of the amount of lives potentially saved, the good, outweigh the bad? The potential to sin would be carried out by a third party as an accessory to another. It’s an indisputable problem nonetheless. Sin is sin. We cannot ignore that fact.

I think the answer for Catholics in good conscience would be to continue to fund LIFE, the good work they do significantly outweighs the morally neutral and it must be remembered that counselling only constitutes a portion of their work which as I pointed out, encompasses a huge field, from education to practical assistance and aid. My husband is one who was persuaded of the validity of the pro-life cause on a purely secular basis when in the sixth form and remains profoundly grateful to this day. Other teachers and school chaplains have verified their efficacy, no graphic images are shown and students are encouraged and stimulated to hold lively debates where all points of view are considered. I am not convinced that a Catholic should engage in non-directive counselling, however LIFE do provide free post abortion trauma services, another vital ministry and there is no reason why a Catholic could not help to heal the hurt.

Allotment Girl, a much appreciated, thoughtful regular here, gave me pause for thought. I think she deserves to have the last word.

Non-directive counselling is one way to show compassion to women who are in a situation they find difficult. Such counselling starts with the practitioner showing “unconditional positive regard”. This might be the first time a woman in this situation has been accepted for her own sake- not brow beaten and pushed in different direction. If a counsellor goes in with an outcome in their heads, it becomes more difficult to respond to the woman in front of them with proper care. It is crucial that this approach is kept and LIFE should be supported in this.
For Christian practioners they can truly be “Christ” to the women they work with. Christ deals with many people in the gospels and when he does so, he is gentle and loving, whatever their background or current situation. This has to be the model for any Christian for this is where change can happen. The way this issue is dealt with is as important as the issue itself.

Christ loved the sinner whilst abhorring the sin. The Catholic approach is always holistic, we must not get so caught up in protecting the unborn child that we neglect the humanity and needs of its mother. Christ would be smashing the abortion mills, he would be unequivocal in his condemnation of the killing of the innocents and almost certainly directive, however he would also extend a cloak of protection, compassion and love to frightened, desperate pregnant women. We should aim for nothing less.

Catholic LIFE support

Two prominent and well-respected Catholic bloggers James Preece (Catholic and Loving It) and Ben Trovato (Counter-cultural father) (I’ll fix the links when back home) have posted interesting discussions regarding whether or not Catholics should support LIFE, given their BACP (British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy) accreditation means that they offer non-directive counselling.

When counselling a pregnant woman, LIFE cannot and do not offer any opinion as to the morality of abortion and will not do anything to deter or prevent a woman from having an abortion, instead helping her to explore her feelings on the matter. Faithful Catholics wonder whether this is an immoral approach; LIFE is openly against abortion therefore are their counsellors who are presumably pro-life, lying to themselves and misleading women when they offer no opinion on abortion? Shouldn’t women know the truth, i.e. that abortion is a destruction of life, the killing of an unborn child, to fail to point this out is in itself misleading and could be seen as endorsing or condoning abortion?

One has to feel sorry for LIFE in this regard, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have the likes of Sunny Hundal, Diane Abbott and Evan Harris absolutely refusing to concede that they are capable of impartiality and disregarding their professional credentials, and on the other, they have Catholics who should be natural supporters, criticising them for their non-judgemental, non-directive approach and suggesting that Catholics should not offer their financial support.

The fact that some Catholics are critical of LIFE certainly verifies their non-directive stance. Though it might prove difficult for some to accept, by adopting this approach, LIFE is able to gain leverage and credence amongst a political class that would otherwise prove hostile. It gets them a seat at the table, a place on the sexual health forum, although whether or not they will be able to capitalise upon this remains to be seen. Compare LIFE’s approach of being open to what others have to say, to be prepared to listen and engage, to the attitude of other organisations who have stated their hostility and antipathy to LIFE; an organisation who have women’s sexual health as their key aim. It cannot be argued that the fewer sexual partners and abortions that a woman has, the more likely she is to enjoy good sexual health.

In the light of the cross-party amendment, proposed by Field and Dorries, LIFE’s BACP accreditation, which BPAS and Marie Stopes do not have, gives them the moral high-ground. They are impartial and have the credentials to prove it.

LIFE do much to raise awareness of bio-ethical issues in a society that wishes to turn a blind eye, ignore or deny their realities. Their work with young people is outstanding and they are one of the few organisations who put their money where their mouth is in terms of actually assisting those with unplanned or crisis pregnancies, providing financial, practical and emotional support to women, as well as housing and education opportunities. They help women to help themselves. LIFE are accredited by 23 Supporting People Authorities.

If their non directive approach enables LIFE to do work to reduce abortions by preventative means or to provide assistance which means that women are not financially compelled to abort, then that is a price worth paying. If a non directive approach actually encourages women to seek their advice and be given the full story about abortion, knowing that they will not be pressured, coerced or prevented from seeking abortion, again that is a positive fact. It will lead to less women having to suffer the physical and emotional repercussions of abortion and from a pro-life approach, will lead to fewer abortions.

An approach which from the outset tells pregnant women what they should do is, in any event counter-productive. Those who assume this is what LIFE do are massively mistaken and buy into a patriarchal culture. Any organisation that takes a hectoring, coercive or bullying approach will surely be able to be seen as what it is. Or are women so naive as not to be able to make their own decision and not able to resist or see through manipulation? What non-directive counselling does is to explore and affirm a woman’s feelings about abortion and to highlight any perceived barriers or fallacies.

From a Catholic perspective it is not immoral as it does not involve a lie. It does not degenerate into a means justifies the end dilemma. Not offering an opinion does not amount to dishonesty. Non directive counsellors do not tell untruths. The only difficulty for a specifically Catholic pro-life counsellor occurs when a woman, furnished with the whole truth, decides to proceed anyway. Should a counsellor stop her? Catholicism, like all faiths requires its adherents to come to it out of free will. God requires us to choose him. We cannot force others to act in accordance with our beliefs, which means that we cannot use our faith to prevent others from exercising their free will, in a way that society legally permits. As long as the counsellor does not procure or arrange the abortion, as long as they have done nothing to encourage it, their conscience is clear, even if their predominant emotion is that of grief.

No doubt Marie Stopes and BPAS would claim that the directive counselling they offer is non- manipulative. If organisations who are offering abortion and who stand to make a profit from it are able to offer directive counselling which does not seek to manipulate, based on their ideology that abortion is a moral good, why can’t an organisation offer the alternate view in an equally non-manipulative fashion? What Marie Stopes has in common with the evangelical organisation CARE, is that they are both motivated by ideology, upon which they base their counselling services. Where LIFE differ is that they don’t let their ideals and interest in the outcome affect the service they provide. Hence in that respect they are demonstrably the most impartial organisation in the field of abortion counselling.

LIFE offer real-life success stories, tales of women for whom motherhood or an additional child has proved a source of richness and of blessing, experiences of happiness. Theirs is a vision of hope, respect and dignity for the unborn child and for that reason they will continue to enjoy my support. The fact that LIFE don’t tell women exactly what they should or must do makes them a shining beacon of pro-life feminism.

You say potato…

I am pro-life. What does that label mean? It means that I hold all human life as precious, of equal worth, value and dignity, from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death. Just because a person may be disadvantaged in some way, just because their life might seem to contain more suffering than others, does not render that life any less valuable or worthwhile.

I often express pro-life sentiments on Twitter which result in the same old discussions; the label “anti-choice” is bandied about a lot. This is an attempt to be perjorative and smear the pro-life cause as being dictatorial or totalitarian; the dreaded “illiberal”. The prefix of anti being deliberately chosen to subvert the positivity of the pro-life cause and cast it into a negative light. Nothing could be more polarising.

The label implies pro-lifers wish to restrict basic freedoms and choices. Abortion is a grave matter which results in the ending of the lives of the most vulnerable. Let’s call a spade a spade. What is the choice that is under contention? It is the choice as to whether or not to kill your unborn child. Are pro-lifers against people having the automatic right to kill their unborn children at any stage in the pregnancy, no questions asked? You betcha we are, because the choice to kill should not be a right, a basic freedom or choice, in any civilised society. Abortion was legalised in the UK on that very premise, it was seen as a compassionate measure, one to alleviate suffering, a tightly regulated necessary evil, not an automatic right or privilege of every woman. Aleck Bourne, a doctor who performed an illegal abortion, one of the pioneers of the abortion movement, was horrified by the idea of abortion on demand and campaigned for a ban on the practice of doctors receiving a fee for performing or recommending an abortion.

Pro-abort seems the much more accurate label than “pro choice” as does “in favour of women being able to have a safe legal abortion”. That seems descriptive, factual and devoid of moral loading. As is “pro-life”: it does what it says on the tin. We are in favour of life. ALL life. Trouble is “in favour of women being able to have a safe legal abortion” (IFWSLA) is not quite so snappy. Nor is it emotive, which is how many wish the frame the debate. If the case is going to be made in favour of abortion, it needs to be using emotive and language, in order to evoke compassion for the women in terrible and desperate circumstances, which are the arguments that are always trotted out when abortion is discussed. The trouble is, as many of the fevered advocates are only too well aware, when you start using the hard cases, it plays straight into the pro-lifers hands as it admits that abortion is fundamentally an awful thing. This inherently validates the pro-life cause, so instead abortion is described as a fundamental right or choice, which is certainly not what the Abortion Act of 1967 was enshrining. Furthermore the truly genuine cases are very few and far between, even in Catholic theology, the law of double-effect kicks in if a woman’s life is genuinely endangered by pregnancy. A pregnant woman would be able to accept treatment that would save her life, even if the side-effect would result in the death of her baby.

It is time for some honesty from the pro-choicers. If they wish abortion to be a choice or right that every woman has, then they polarise debate and further entrench positions. If pro-choicers admitted that abortion should be an absolute last resort, that abortion is indeed a tragedy for women and children alike, then they would get a lot more sympathy. Perhaps, if the pro-choicers could couch the debate in terms of a necessary evil then both sides would have common ground and consensus upon which to build and maybe, some lasting social progress could be made on the issue? But smearing the other side with misleading labels is not the way forward.

A victory for feminism?

Tomorrow a “pro-choice” rally takes place in central London, in response to the Dorries/Field right-to-know campaign, which aims to make independent counselling a mandatory part of the abortion process. The well-rehearsed slogans and soundbites regarding a woman’s autonomy over her own body and her right to access safe healthcare are being shrieked across the ether with increasing ferocity.

Tomorrow’s rally is perplexing in that a woman’s right to choose is not under contention. Abortion “rights” are not being eroded, the right to procure an abortion is not under threat, the only threat is to those clinics with vested financial interests.

In its submission to the Charity Commission in January 2011, BPAS states “our main priority in the coming year is to ‘grow’ our business by utilising and expanding our capacity to treat clients and extending our collaboration with the NHS”. A collaboration which proves extremely profitable. According to their accounts, the provision of abortion services accounted for £23 million of their income in 2010, but these services cost them £22 million thus they only made a profit of £1 million. When outlining the overall financial health of the ‘charity’, BPAS state that they are now in a better position than previously because “it has relieved itself of the burden of a previously underfunded pension scheme to improve its overall position”. BPAS’s charitable feelings obviously don’t extend to their employees. In terms of its aims for the forthcoming year BPAS says that it wants “to increase the number and value of contracts with NHS commissioners” as well as “extend services nationally to meet the needs of a greater number of clients”. As the organisers of the rally note, “they are professionals, not volunteers”, these extra abortions are not going to be carried out free of charge out of the goodness of their hearts. Just so they don’t feel left out, Marie Stopes, mention in their annual accounts that in 2008 they received £59.9 million in governmental fees and reimbursement for providing sexual and reproductive services globally. In 2009 this figure had risen to £71.4 million.

It’s worth bearing the above in mind amid all the slogans. If abortion is the ‘healthcare’ that women have a right to, then in common with every other medical procedure women should accept that the final decision lies in the hands of the medical practitioner. A doctor is always a moral arbiter to a certain extent, in that they recommend the appropriate course of treatment for the patient, one that may not always accord with the patient’s wishes. A patient cannot simply demand a particular course of medical treatment solely based upon their gender or their feelings in any other situation. A pregnant woman seeking a caesarian section needs to satisfy the consultant that she has strong grounds for what is major abdominal surgery, that she understands the risks and that the alternatives are unworkable in her situation. She cannot just see her GP and be instantly booked in for surgery.

Safe healthcare is a right that everyone should have access to, which is one of the reasons why BPAS lost their bid to permit women to take the RU486 without medical supervision. Safe healthcare needs to be appropriate to the needs of the patient. Pregnancy does not, for an overwhelming majority of women, require medical intervention in order to save the life of the mother. In 2010 98% of abortions in the UK were carried out for social reasons under category C of the Abortion Act provisions. If a woman feels that she is psychologically at risk from continuing a pregnancy, then counselling needs to be an important part of the decision-making process, as it is with any other medical procedure, one in which the potential risks are clearly outlined. Only then may her ‘choice ‘ such as it is, be said to be truly informed, consensual and ‘safe’.

The irony is that by removing counselling from those who may profit from a certain outcome, Dorries and Field are actually reinforcing women’s choices, rights and health. What are the vehement pro-choicers so scared of? That a woman might not have an abortion? That abortion rates might go down? Or that she might be “manipulated” into keeping a child by an organisation which doesn’t worship the god or ideology of “evidence based practice”, subscribed to by abortion clinics, who hold that abortion is a good or at worst, morally neutral. That an organisation might give her the idea that killing an unborn child is wrong and give her practical, emotional and financial support, advice and encouragement throughout her pregnancy?

What could be more of a victory for feminism than women empowered to overcome social, cultural, financial and emotional constraints to pregnancy? If enough of them do it, society really will be transformed in terms of gender equality. A woman’s ability and right to bear children at any time in her fertile years being taken as a given and factored into employment and benefits legislation and filtering into attitudes. But whilst abortion continues to be debated in terms of an indefatigable right and inherent gender-privileged choice, regardless of circumstance, then the debate about support for women with childcare needs will never be advanced as motherhood will always be seen as a “lifestyle choice” and the demand for widespread abortion will increase, making the cause so much harder for those very few genuinely tragic and hard cases for whom the 1967 Abortion Act was designed.

Blind prejudice

Sunny Hundal is persisting with his calumnious claim that LIFE are “religious nutjobs”. I would suggest that someone who continues to doggedly defend Johann Hari’s journalistic integrity, despite the increasing flow of plagiarised material lifted quotes, needs his critical faculties examining. Still Sunny and Johann are comrades in arms, never ones to let truth get in the way of a good story.

Not only Sunny, but also Diane Abbott seems to be intent on peddling the lie, that “basic abortion rights” are under threat. For as long as they continue to push this, it must be pointed out that this is absolutely not the case.

Whether or not every woman has a “basic abortion right” is nonetheless a contentious issue. The law makes provision for legal abortions to be carried out provided that certain criteria are met. This is not the same thing as a “basic right”. The 1967 Abortion Act was designed to enable abortions to be performed in sterile conditions by qualified staff in an attempt to prevent maternal deaths, which is a far cry from the precept that every pregnant woman has the automatic right to abort her unborn child. The legistlation was drafted in a very precise way, detailing the specific circumstances under which abortion may be legally performed and why the signature of two doctors are required, recognising that abortion is a serious business and not a basic right.

Diane Abbott tweeted “Cameron is showing arrogant disregard for women across the country by pushing changes to abortion without debate or vote”. She should have more integrity (although she has form in the hypocrisy stakes) than to imply that major changes in the accessibility of abortion are in the offing. This is clearly not the case. The proposed independent counselling that will be required prior to abortion, will not prevent women from procuring an abortion. To imply anything else is disingenuous.

It is no surprise that abortion “charities” are bitterly opposed to these changes, the fewer abortions that they get to perform, the less money they receive. Not a week goes by without the Guardian running at least one piece of propaganda, employing not-so-subtle devices such as putting the word independent in inverted commas, in order to highlight their doubt that anyone other than an abortion provider may be able to give a balanced and non-directive perspective. LIFE have BACP counsellors, Marie Stopes and BPAS do not, we only have their word that they are “impartial and non-judgemental”.

Ann Furedi of BPAS highlights the statistic that 80% of abortions are carried out within the first ten weeks of pregnancy. Get the client in, prescribe the abortion pill as swiftly as possible and bill either them or the NHS for £600. Of course they don’t want any delay in this procedure, it could massively impact their revenue stream. The motivations for expediting the process could not be any more explicit.

As Phyllis Bowman says,  “when BPAS was launched  they made it abundantly clear that their aim was to promote the availability of abortion to girls. It was unlawful (as it is still) for clinics to advertise to the public – so BPAS was set up “as a charity counselling service” to fill the gap. If abortion clinics had been able to advertise to the public, there would have been no need for BPAS – and very soon BPAS set up their own clinics so they could do the abortions for women who came.”

No wonder the “charities” are firing on all cylinders in terms of aggressive lobbying and PR campaigns, they have a lot to lose.

As for Diane Abbot, I am surprised that a woman of her intelligence  and cultural background displays such little awareness of the eugenic element to abortion. In 2010 48% of women having an abortion who had a history of 1 or more abortion were either Black or Black British. I’d be interested to know what she thinks of the holocaust of black unborn children?

If wanting to stick up for the rights of unborn ethnic minorities makes one a nutjob, it’s a label I’ll wear with pride. It is not David Cameron who is showing the arrogant disregard for women of his own cultural background.

The facts about LIFE

As His Grace pointed out on his blog earlier today, Sunny Hundal made a rather outrageous claim about the charity LIFE, describing them as “religious nutjobs”.

It’s amazing what passes for informed political comment these days however I think it is worth highlighting that LIFE are a non-denominational charity with no religious affiliation, therefore his assertion is substantially incorrect as well as being deliberately perjorative. Furthermore LIFE’s former Director of Education was an atheist, which although a strong position of faith, is patently not what is being inferred by the term.

A belief in the sanctity of life is not confined to a Christian position, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and even Buddhism are all broadly against abortion as a principle, which is precisely why LIFE, though founded on Catholic principles, is non-denominational. I wonder whether or not Sunny Hundal would have the audacity to call a pro-life group consisting of a diverse number of faiths as being full of “religious nutjobs”? I wonder whether or not he would refer to a pro-life group consisting of Sikhs in the same derogatory fashion?

In any event the pro-life/pro-choice debate is independent to that of the theist/atheist debate. There is nothing in the pro-life position that requires one to be a theist, a fact that may be confirmed by looking at the work of Nat Hentoff, a prominent liberal atheist who is an outspoken critic of abortion and euthanasia. The pro-life position is a logical and philosophical concept which is a complementary extension of major religions but does not require a religion in order to be an adherent. To describe the belief that life begins at conception as being an extreme view born out of religious zealotry is an attempt to marginalise millions of people around the globe and deride their belief as being the product of an unsound mind. Not the most open-minded of approaches from a website that defines itself as liberal.

In relation to the point that was being made, LIFE’s counsellors, unlike those at BPAS, are all accredited by the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy and are therefore impartial, offering non-directive counselling. There is much misunderstanding and disbelief that a pro-life organisation might be able to provide non-directive counselling. With non-directive counselling you get exactly what is said on the tin. A counsellor will help someone to come to their own conclusion on a matter, to make their own mind up with regards to the best course of action, but will not offer any sort of opinion as to what that decision should be. What a counsellor will do however, is to explore the various perceieved barriers or obstacles associated with any particular course of action, to assist the person in reaching their decision. It is entirely possible that this may be done in a non-directive fashion. Dr Evan Harris recently tweeted that he believed that LIFE would be unable to offer non-directive counselling because “they would never tell a woman that she should have an abortion”, demonstrating that for such a proponent of science and evidence-based policy, he had absolutely no grasp of the concept.

In the context of a woman seeking to explore the best course of action when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, if she believes that there are financial or social barriers to her continuing the pregnancy, these need to be explored; it needs to be ensured that she is aware of any benefits, grants or other financial entitlements that she might be eligible for, i.e. that she makes a decision in possession of the full facts. Equally, she needs to be aware of what the abortion procedure itself will entail.

As the renowned pro-life lobbyist Phyllis Bowman says on her blog today, “BPAS should change its name. It does not ‘advise’ on pregnancy any more than the Mafia advises on “how to grow old gracefully. Moreover, they tell you that their advice is non-directional, at the same time leaving out half the story – all the uncomfortable bits that might put women off the abortion.”

The pro-abort advocates want to make out that this is scare-mongering, however if I were about to undergo a procedure I would want to know about the following possible complications: damage to the cervix leading to prematurity in a subsequent pregnancy, infection resulting in infertility, scarring of the lining of the womb which can cause subsequent prematurity, and the possible long-term increased risk of breast cancer.

It is the case that with any medical intervention that the risks and benefits of any treatment are outlined to the patient. Most surgeons will share x-rays and scans with the patients detailing what they intend to do. A pregnant woman considering an abortion is never shown the scan of the developing fetus, in an act of gross deception. Women should at least be offered the option in order that their consent may be fully informed, why is unacceptable for her to be aware of what stage of development the fetus has reached? Unless a woman is given the whole picture, which does not have to be emotive or directional then her choice cannot said to be fully consensual.

Of course some women will find the idea of mandatory counselling an irritation or an obstacle, having already come to their decision, in which cases the counselling session will be short, however at least it will give them the chance to confirm their decision. It is not a case of treating women like imbeciles, the reality is that at present, abortion clinics, who are set to benefit financially from a woman’s decision to abort, do not help a woman to explore all her options in any depth. As I have said frequently, I found myself  in the position of being coerced into an abortion, Marie Stopes having arranged an abortion for me on the say so of a third party. The doubt as to whether or not to continue with the pregnancy was all the validation required.

Ann Furedi of BPAS, along with the feminist Deborah Orr, are both on record stating that abortion needs to be a “back-up for when contraception fails”, which completely undermines those who claim that abortion is a method of last resort, a decision reached after much soul-searching and thus counselling adds an extra and unnecessary burden to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Abortion is not contraception (clue is in the name: contra – ception), this reasoning shows a flippant disregard for the value of human life and belies the attitude that abortion is always a considered conclusion. If you fall into the category of needing abortion as a back-up then there is an alternative and 100% failsafe method of avoiding conception, one that does not require medical intervention, does not entail the wanton destruction of human life and does not cost a penny.

The assertions that the Dorries/Field proposal constitutes an attempt to restrict abortion services are hysteria. Limiting or restricting abortion is not on the table, simply that women may feel empowered in the choice they are making in full possession of all the facts and that those facilitating those decisions do not stand to make any financial profit from them. It might be that counselling may well give pause for thought and prevent some abortions from going ahead which is not such a terrible thing.

The ardent hardline pro-abort faction are enraged because to introduce mandatory independent counselling goes a small way to getting back to the spirit of the 1967 Abortion Act, which was designed to help desperate women in terrible circumstances, hence the various built-in safeguards, which have now been reduced to a rubber-stamping exercise. Counselling recognises that abortion is indeed grave matter, one concerning life and death and seeks to ensure that a woman is in full possession of all the facts before she makes a decision that could have life-long repercussions.

Feminists who advocate abortion as being a woman’s right to choose, ignore the fact that abortion co-opts misogyny. The fact that every pregnancy is now viewed purely in terms of being a woman’s choice, has meant that many men feel absolutely no responsibility for their resulting offspring or on the other hand are denied any sort of involvement with regards to a child who is genetically theirs.

In the words of Camille Paglia, a noted feminist philosopher: “When it devalued motherhood, Western feminism undermined women’s most ancient claim to dignity.” 

Many people subscribe to Bill Clinton’s mantra that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare”. If this is desirable, then Dorries and Field’s proposal go some way to returning to the spirit of the Abortion Act; a last resort after every single possible option has been explored.