Category: Abortion

Mary’s Dowry

During his inaugural address, Bishop Philip Egan the new Bishop of Portsmouth has urged Catholics to fight “the strangling counter-culture of death”. Specifically he spoke about how we as Christians must offer the salvific message of the Good News and the “civilisation of love it occasions. We must communicate imaginatively, with confidence and clarity, together with our fellow Christians, and all people of faith and good will, to the people of England, this wonderful land, Mary’s Dowry.”

It echoed the reflection issued today, on the first day of the Forty Days for Life campaign and answers the critics who ask why Christians feel the need to pray outside abortion clinics. As Christians, we are messengers, ambassadors for Christ, not coming with messages of condemnation or hate, but simply with love. Why do we stand outside clinics? It’s not to condemn or harass but to let people know that we are there, offering prayers not only for the unborn children and their mothers but also for the abortion clinic workers. Shawn Cawney, the director of Forty Days for Life in the US, testifies that it’s the prayer and peacefulness of the campaign that has affected many workers, particularly the presence of the same volunteers, day after day in all winds and weathers, that really begins to shift previously deeply entrenched attitudes. In relation to her own conversion of heart, former abortion clinic worker Jewels Green notes:

“The 40 Days for Life movement has changed the hearts and minds of not just those outside the clinic, but inside as well. For those who work inside, they feel what’s going on outside the door. That makes it easier to leave — if you know that you’ll be accepted into open, forgiving and loving arms outside.”

Clinic vigils take place for a variety of reasons and none of them are about hassling or intimidating women. The clinics are places of death and destruction of human life and so it is only natural to go and pray at the scenes where human lives are eviscerated, in the same way that vigils are held outside prisons when a sentence of death is being carried out. There is the indisputable fact that many women are influenced by the presence of the volunteers, particularly those who are feeling uncertain and especially those who are being pressurised or coerced. The very existence of the volunteers provides a last ditch opportunity for women to turn back and experience shows it is those who want to turn back, who don’t really want to abort, who are the ones to initiate contact. It is a hand outstretched in love, never a finger pointed in hate or condemnation. It is the act that is abhorrent, not the person, who is made in the same likeness and image of Christ as ourselves. The volunteers know full well that societal and personal pressures often convince women that they really do have no other choice; these are very often women living on the margins of society who literally have nothing, no access to benefits and are scratching a living, or women who simply have not been offered a true choice in terms of the opportunity to explore the options around keeping the child.

The other aspects of 40 days for life are naturally downplayed by the media, but just as important as the clinic vigils themselves, is the community outreach, prayer and fasting. The community outreach consists of attempts to engage with passers by and those in the area, again, never forcing themselves on anyone, but the offering of scientifically correct information – refusals are graciously accepted.

In terms of prayer, for those who cannot attend the vigils, it is asked that people say a rosary, or an extra rosary if it is said daily, for the intentions of Forty Days for Life. On days of prayer and fasting – the next one coming up is this Friday, 28 September, people can also offer an extra effort such as going to Mass, or an extra Mass, or attending Adoration. Another good discipline is to sign up to the mailing list to receive daily reflections, passages from Scripture and prayer intentions. Fasting can be either a total fast aside from bread and water, or an eschewing of a particular food or luxury, but it must consist of something sacrificial and not be merely a token gesture.

Bishop Kieran Conry summed up the spirit of Forty Days for Life when he called for a return to public prayer on the first Friday of every month to mark the Year of Faith, not only as a way of deepening one’s personal relationship with Christ, but also as a way of quietly and confidently witnessing your faith to those around you. As Catholics, as Christians, we are called to live our faith, which entails an element of public witness, no matter how uncomfortable it may feel to the typically reserved English psyche. We should not be ashamed to fight for a voice in the public square and we should not succumb to the secular agenda who would wish us not to manifest any symbols or practices of faith outside of our homes and churches.

What some Catholic pro-lifers forget, is that 40 Days for Life and groups such as the Good Counsel Network or Helpers of God’s Precious Infants are absolutely not about the politics but are apostolates, ones that must be supported and encouraged being wholly in accordance with church doctrine. They are truth and charity in action, a complement to what must happen in the ante-rooms and chambers of Westminster, a totally separate mission from the political manoeuvrings. As Catholics we must support and encourage good deeds and spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Politics and prayer are not mutually exclusive. We should not be afraid to display that we are motivated by faith, despite not requiring it to make a cogent watertight pro-life case to the wider world.

If we want to participate in the New Evangelisation, to articulate the message of Christ, to bring about conversion of heart, this civilisation of love and reclaim Mary’s Dowry from the chokehold of the culture of death, then the prayers, fasting and vigils that consist of the Forty Days for Life campaign is a very good place to start.

More harm than good?

The Catholic Herald has re-opened the debate on the use of graphic imagery outside abortion clinics, in the wake of the acquittal of Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane of Abort 67, who had been accused of breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

The verdict was undoubtedly the correct one, whatever one thinks of the display of graphic imagery outside an abortion clinic, what is clear is that the behaviour of those from Abort 67 did not amount to harassment or threats; protestors stand quietly and tirelessly for hours on end alongside their banners, making no approach to women, passers-by or entrants of the clinic, only engaging if they are directly approached.

There is something of a tendency for some members of the pro-life camp to intellectually hold their nose at the stench of bad publicity that invariably emanates from clinic vigils, publicity that does nothing in terms of attempting to find common ground and thus win the hearts and minds of those who would currently term themselves pro-choice. Whatever one thinks of the Abort 67 campaign and tactics, there is no getting away from the fact that Andy, Kathryn and Angela from Abort 67 are all pro-life heroes. How many who call themselves pro-life are willing to put themselves out there on the line, 24/7 for five years, in all weathers, being prepared to risk abuse, fines and imprisonment for the cause of the unborn? It’s one thing to say that one is pro-life, quite another to BE pro-life – fine words butter no parsnips!

Like them or loathe them, Abort 67 have done much to highlight and yes, educate, members of the public as to the realities of abortion. Robert Wyatt, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, who claimed that he had been offended by the images, testified how his partner had not received counselling neither before nor after the procedure and were therefore unaware of the stage of development of the unborn foetus depicted on the banner. In his statement to the court, he admitted that they had believed the photograph to have been of a much older baby given that arms, legs, fingers, toes and facial features were discernible, when in fact the age of the foetus displayed was 12 weeks. These images give pause for thought, there can be no doubt that one is terminating a little human being, regardless of whether or not one believes that it is truly alive or has any rights. The case has also highlighted the fact that not all women undergoing an abortion are given counselling and raises questions as to informed consent and the information or lack of, surrounding the procedure itself and stages of foetal development.

I admit to oscillating over the issue. These images do give people pause for thought, when faced with the vivid reality of what abortion does to an unborn child, women have instead opted not to undergo this gruesome and demeaning procedure. It is hard to argue with the cogent logic of Andy Stephenson, every time I visit the Abort 67 website, (revamped as of today) I am struck, not only with stomach-churning horror, but also by the veracity, which takes considerable sophistry to deny.

The evidence from those who employ graphic imagery is not only is it extremely convincing, but that often women who are being coerced specifically request leaflets with the graphic imagery, in the hope that they can use this in an attempt to persuade whoever is exerting pressure on them. “Look it really IS a baby”. They also say that men tend to be more won over than women, an experience that seems to chime with me – Robin was won over to the pro-life cause upon viewing a graphic presentation as sixth-former. Abort 67 state that once they have visited a school, the pro-choice groups will refuse to make a counter-visit as a form of protest, the reality being that these images are extremely powerful and difficult to counter. I also know of a previously pro-choice man, who after initially reacting very violently and angrily to these images (he was a pastor and came out with a stream of uncharacteristic expletives on viewing the Abort 67 video) suddenly became a passionate pro-life advocate. Surely if the images save one life they are worth it?

For me, there is a conflict between truth and charity. I previously used the phrase ‘stomach-churning’. I find these images gruesome and distressing to look and tend not to spend much time on the Abort 67 website as a result. I live not far from the site in Brighton and I have to confess to having to fix my eyes firmly on the road when driving past. (Andy, to his credit, has now come to arrangement with the owner of the nearby nursery, so these images are no longer displayed at times when young children will be attending the nursery. Incidentally the irony of an abortion clinic siting itself almost next door to a nursery and opposite a playground seems to have been lost on many.) I don’t like the images not only because they ignore the dignity of the dead, not just because it is a tragic display of a dismembered corpse who never had an opportunity to experience life in all its richness, but also because I am squeamish. Like many, I suspect, I recoil from the images, because I can’t be doing with gruesome gore and guts. I’m the kind of person who watches medical dramas peeping through the cracks in my hands.

When I see these types of images, be they aborted babies, victims of white phosphorous, of children wounded by war or animals experimented on, no matter how heart-rending, or urgent the issue, I put my head down, walk past and emotionally disengage. It’s not that I don’t care, far from it, but personally I prefer to engage on these issues on my terms and not be confronted by images of dismembered bodies whilst walking through town with my children. I may be unusually sensitive, a plot synopsis of the Human Centipede, aided by hormones, haunted my nightmares throughout my third pregnancy, but this is why the majority of people recoil. We don’t want to engage with the contents of what is akin to a snuff movie.

What the abortion clinics don’t want to admit, is that having an abortion is, for most people, a distressing and intimate experience. Women don’t walk through the clinic doors with a sense of objective detachment. Though many might not be aware of exactly what it is they are about to undergo, or the stage of foetal development, all women will realise that, particularly if the procedure is surgical, this will be an intimate and quite probably distressing physical procedure which carries all the attendant risks of trauma. Most women will not exactly be looking forward to what goes on in the cold clinical environment of the operating theatre. The display of graphic images, ups the emotional ante and does therefore add to the trauma of a woman having an abortion. If the pro-life lobby wants to demonstrate that it cares about women, then it needs to abhor anything that might conceivably cause emotional harm and distress.

It would take a certain type of cold hearted psyche not to care about the woman in distress, the woman who is well aware of the actions she is about to undertake and yet feels she has no other choice, to state that her feelings do not matter. I know of many women who have had abortions, due to circumstances, they felt were beyond their control. Such as a someone whom I last bumped into shopping for a pram in a baby store with great excitement. I last heard that she had aborted her unborn child upon discovering that s/he had terrible congenital abnormalities. Though I can’t condone her decision, I can well understand the agony that she went through. For her the decision was not a selfish one, it was not to do with rejecting an imperfect child, she genuinely believed that she was doing the child a kindness – all she could see was a short life of pain and suffering. Though there are many counter-arguments to that, in a culture that encourages and condones the killing of disabled children, couched in the language of compassion, it is very difficult to condemn the women who are in these situations and neither should one use loaded language or do anything that might add to their distress. It was, after all, for these very rare, tragic and horrific circumstances the Abortion Act came into being, a demonstration that hard cases make bad law.

Someone said to me, that if she had seen images such as these on the day that she terminated her pregnancy (a decision she now regrets) she would have committed suicide. Very often these images can be the last straw for women, even if they don’t wish to accept that it is an unborn baby, simply a depiction of bloody surgery could be enough to induce fear and trauma on an already frightened and sad woman. I had increasing difficulty with having to drive past them in the latter stages of my pregnancy. I can also state with confidence that had I been confronted with photos of a cesarian on the morning I gave birth, I would have been in a dreadful state, so frightened was I of the operation that was yet to come.

To me, the images, whilst not threatening or abusive, do cause distress, because they could contribute to a vulnerable woman’s fear. That’s one of the real reason why the clinics don’t want them there, not only do they show the truth of the procedure, but they are a visual reminder of the blood and guts to come – as opposed to the softly worded vague “gentle suction and removal of pregnancy” terminology.

The graphic images certainly have their place, in an academic surrounding, or, as Abort 67 have done in the past, on display in Speaker’s Corner, they can be extremely useful tools for depicting the reality of abortion, but it needs to be in an environment that is mutually consensual. To put them in a very visible place, where it is difficult to escape, simply arouses anger, controversy and polarises. There is also a danger that the more they are viewed, the more they lose their shock value as the public becomes desensitised. Already the more callous pro-choicers have used comparisons of removed gallstones.

Sarah Ditum wrote a piece in last week’s Guardian about the Rights and Limits debate that took place surrounding this issue, where she posed the question whether or not pro-life and pro-choice campaigners could agree on anything. It seems we can and that some consensus can be reached. All of us can agree that those participating in clinic vigils should have a perfect right to do so, under the tenets of free speech that we hold so dear in this country. We can and will disagree as to the morality of clinic vigils. So long as they are carried out peacefully and do not harass vulnerable women then they should continue. For many women the clinic vigils are a last minute life-line, and organisations such as Good Counsel, will attest to the hundreds of women who are helped as a result of their presence. Women who are on the margins of society and who are unable to be reached before they reach the abortion clinic doors. After all organisations such as Good Counsel, don’t have either the funds or the reach of the NHS, BPAS and Marie Stopes, so it’s impossible to offer them the alternative at an earlier stage.

If we want progress to be made, if we want lives to be saved, if we don’t want the draconian legislation being threatened and lobbied for by pro-choice groups who are desperate to stop any sort of presence outside clinics, then we need to find common ground, in order that as many women and babies can be helped as possible. That means showing that we are prepared to listen and to be compassionate. That means keeping the general public on side and showing that we do understand how difficult is for women going through an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. That means understanding that images of brutal surgery and bloodied corpses could prove enormously and needlessly distressing to an already frightened and trapped women.

What is the more appropriate response? Shock and awe tactics, or to stand, like 40 days for life, a respectful distance away, quietly praying with a sign that says “we are here to help” with specially trained pavement counsellors who are able to respectfully engage in dialogue as well as provide adequate resources to make good on the promise of help. Wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

The Moaning After

There may be a flurry of posts over the next few days/weeks. I am still pondering what to do about this blog, but in the meantime will continue to comment as/when I see fit, until I’ve come to a firm decision. Warning, the following contains bucket-loads of snark.

This blogpost from young women complaining about their experiences of obtaining the morning-after-pill (MAP) or to use the less emotionally laden term “emergency contraception caught my eye earlier today (h/t @RiverFlows77), which bears dissemination.

Like much clinical phraseology,  ’emergency contraception’ is in itself an ingenious piece of newspeak, cleverly masking with semantics, not only the effect of the pill, namely very early abortion, but also the circumstances in which it be might be employed. Contraception is a way of preventing conception, in many instances, conception, the fusion of the sperm with the egg, will have already taken place and thus the morning-after pill will prevent this already fertilised and dividing zygote or if 5 days have elapsed, blastocyst, from implanting into the womb lining. The newer version of the morning-after pill introduced in 2010 can now be taken up to 5 days after intercourse, so it is not distortion or misleading to discuss the morning-after pill as being a form of early abortion. Undeterred the pharma companies have engaged in a clever piece of casuistry, declaring that abortion constitutes termination of pregnancy and that pregnancy does not begin until the fertilised egg is implanted in the womb lining.

Anyone who has ever been pregnant will testify to the specious nature of this reasoning. Pregnancy starts on day 1 of the cycle in which she conceives. This is why a pregnancy is dated from the first day of the last period. Conception, implantation and the maturing of the fetus are all part of the pregnancy process. Medically speaking, a pregnancy does not start at conception. Thus one’s pregnancy is always two weeks beyond the age of the fetus. A woman who is, for example, 8 weeks pregnant, will have conceived 6 weeks previously. So whilst the pregnancy is 8 weeks old, the age of the fetus is only 6 weeks.  Even if one wishes to reject the medical definition of a pregnancy, conception is the process of the sperm meeting the egg. Therefore the idea that the morning-after pill is always contraception (preventing or against conception) is clearly flawed.

But back to the complaints of the women seeking to obtain the morning-after pill, some Fisking seems in order.

Woman Number 1

So I went in and asked and the woman pharmacist told me that due to her religious beliefs she was unable to serve me the morning after pill. Not only did the way she said it make me feel like a complete slut, Sorry is this a parody? Since when did “I’m sorry but due to my religious beliefs I’m unable to serve you that product” equate to “begone you sinning dog of a whore, you shameless slut”??!! Not wishing to be complicit in the procuring of an abortion makes no comment upon the sexual morals of another person, nor does it imply any such sentiment. It is simply one person acting in accordance with their conscience, in this case dictated by religious beliefs, but as I have said on countless occasions, a sense that abortion is wrong does not require recourse to theism. This is the crux of the matter – there is no right not to be offended by the beliefs of others. The lady wanting to obtain the morning after pill wished to prevent the pharmacist from exercising her freedom of religion, because it made her feel uncomfortable. This is bigotry in action. 

it also meant that I came very close to not being able to get hold of any- which obviously could have lead to like, much bigger issues, especially as personally I don’t think I’d ever get an abortion. To point out the obvious, if you don’t think you’d ever get an abortion, perhaps you might want to think a bit harder about the effects of the morning-after pill. The Pharmacy is not the only place that one can get hold of the morning-after pill, GP clinics operate out of hours services and will dispense the morning-after pill, as will hospital A&E departments. The issue here is that Boots did not have another pharmacist available  to dispense the pill, hence the lady had to go elsewhere. Her complaint was that someone’s religious beliefs meant that she, as a consumer, was inconvenienced. If she desperately needed the pill, then there would have been another Pharmacy and/or medical clinics able to provide this for her. Her issue here should be with Boots, not a person’s rights of religious expression.

I completely respect everyone’s right to their own beliefs and opinions and while I would never judge anybody for their decisions I don’t think it’s right i get judged for mine- especially for people who are acting in a professional capacity. Good. That’s nice. Who said you were judged? That’s your own insecurity coming out there. I could never be involved in procuring an abortion for anybody, but that does not mean that I judge those who have them. I recognise that women often feel compelled and have no other choice; not sanctioning a choice is not the same thing as judging the morality of another, or stating that person is innately bad or flawed. This is all about how you feel. How do you think the person feels who would be forced to do something that is in their eyes deeply immoral, just so you don’t have a few minutes of feeling a bit embarrassed? Sorry, I’m not able to serve you that due to my religious beliefs, is neither a judgement upon morality, nor unprofessional. Did she give you a lecture on sexual morality? Or simply state the facts?

It was a bloody pharmacy and though she is perfectly entitled to her own beliefs i really don’t think its fair she be working there if those beliefs interfere with her ability to do her job. There should at least be another pharmacist on duty when she is who is able to dispense emergency contraception.  Her job is to dispense medicines in order to cure and prevent symptoms of disease and ensure that the medication is suitable for the patient. It is not her job to dispense medication that might cause an early abortion and the ending of a human life – she is protected under conscience rights. Your beef should be with the Pharmacy, not with someone exercising their freedom of religion.

I’m a vegetarian but if I got a job at Tesco I wouldn’t refuse to serve anybody buying meat. I don’t like the idea of forcing people to act against their own principles however STRAW MAN KLAXON. Firstly the right of people to eat meat is not generally held as being a contentious issue in society. Whether or not people should abort their unborn children is hotly contested and is still a relatively new development in society. Whilst women since the dawn of time have attempted to kill their unborn children, for centuries society, shaped by Judeo-Christian tradition, have explicitly rejected this as being desirable and have outlawed the practice. 

If you felt that strongly that eating meat was wrong, your principles would prevent you from being involved in anything that encouraged or condoned the practice. Furthermore selling meat is an altogether different concept. The animal is already dead and is being passed onto the consumer in processed form. How would you feel about working in an abattoir or selling equipment or supplies to the meat-industry? In the case of the morning-after pill, a Pharmacist is actively involved in a process that could result in an early abortion and could be held partly responsible. 

so if there are doctors who really don’t feel they can perform abortions, or pharmacists who don’t feel they can dispense the morning after pill, as long as their personal belief doesn’t inhibit my ability to get that service, I don’t think it’s a problem. so basically as long as there is always somebody else available at that time who can and will do it for me with the same competency and immediacy. I totally respect their opinions but i expect them to respect, if disagree with, mine.”  It’s all about ME ME ME. You can do whatever you like unless and until it inconveniences ME, then it’s how very dare you, because I am more important than you and respecting my opinion is doing what I demand you to. Not dispensing the morning-after pill is not disrespecting your opinion, it is an exercise of conscience rights – to disrespect your opinion would be to erm, fisk your self-centred moaning. Actually, I don’t disrespect your opinion, or your right to express it, I do however take objection when you wish to impose your right not to be inconvenienced upon someone else’s deeply held conscience rights. The Pharmacist did not disrespect you – she disagreed with you. What’s the problem? Don’t impose illiberal restrictions on others for your own convenience. That way lies a dangerous path. 

Woman Number 2

Before I discuss my personal experiences with contraception, I want to draw attention to the growing ‘hate’ against birth control, especially in America and increasingly here in the UK. Yay! Obligatory comparison with America, put the frighteners on everyone, the first rule of any discussion pertaining to “reproductive rights” in the UK. BINGO!!!

In North Carolina a few weeks ago, New Hanover County Chairman Ted Davis spoke in rejection of a state grant to cover the costs of family-planning for those earning low wages. Ted Davis is quoted in the Wilmington Star-News as saying, “If [they were] responsible and didn’t have the sex to begin with, we wouldn’t have this problem”. Because having sex without contraception when you can’t afford a child or afford/don’t-want-to-have an abortion is responsible, right?

Having sex when you can’t afford a child or afford/don’t want to have an abortion is, if not irresponsible, rather naive, even if one is using contraception. I hate to break it  you lovely, but *whispers* CONTRACEPTION CAN & DOES FAIL!!! I know this may come as something as a shock, but no method of contraception is 100% effective. There is one sure-fire way not get pregnant and that’s not to have sex. Now, I’m not going to get into the specifics about the political issue here, not least because I know nothing about this specific state grant, but it seems that Mr Davis has a point. I can also see why, folk such as Calah Alexander in America, might be annoyed that her son doesn’t qualify for free life-saving treatment and yet taxes are spent on birth-control.

 Planning to be sexually active (woo-hoo!), and not wanting immediate children, I went to the nearest doctor’s surgery and asked about contraception. Cor, aren’t you grown up? You enjoy sex and want to tell everyone that you’re having it? Round of applause. How very empowered. How novel, a woman having sex and liking it. Wonders will never cease.

Hmm…they kept asking me if I was in a relationship. I was, but it really shouldn’t have mattered, seeing as they’d already cleared up the ‘Do-you-have-an-STD’ matter, cue scary nurse voice. Actually they were doing their job in terms of attempting to help you look after your sexual health. If you were not in a relationship and planning to have casual sex, then it is their duty to advise you of the best way of protecting yourself from disease. Asking if you have an STD, is a professional responsibility. Scary nurse voice is not as scary as untreated chlamydia, syphilis, genital herpes or Gonorrhea. Grown up enough to want to have regular sex and yet avoid the possibility of children, but intimidated by the mention of potential consequences of unprotected sex. Hmmm. I see…

Meh, decided not to press that point – really excited to be getting contraception.  You really should get out more.

After more than a year of using the injection and then The Pill (cue capital letters for awesomeness) I took the advice of various nurses/doctors and took a short break from hormone contraception. Bless. The Pill. Awesome. So awesome that the medical profession decided that a prolonged dose of artificial hormones were not good for her long-term health. 

This is where the story gets a little scary kids! One time the condom broke – Yep. It happens. Oh wait. Hang on. Aren’t condoms supposed to prevent AIDS? Gosh isn’t the Catholic Church iniquitous in its teaching that they aren’t 100% failsafe…?

Cue the tale about her going to get emergency contraception. I say tale, I mean something of an Odyssey. Cue lots of swearing.

 Feeling (a lot) braver than I thought, I went straight up to the till, and I asked for what I wanted. The person at the counter freezes at my face (I did look young, but was at University age) and says in a cold voice that they ‘will need to talk to me in private’. Hmm, ominous. But, I think, they are just being professional. In my mind I am telling myself that I know they cannot sell/give the emergency contraception without assuring themselves that I am not pregnant, or underage. Cold voice? Gracious, I thought I was the Queen of Melodrama!!! Ominious? Or as you observe, simply doing their job? The morning-after pill is multiple the strength of a normal daily birth control pill. In studies, approximately 1 out of 4 women experience menstrual bleeding and nausea, approximately 1 out of 5 women experience abdominal pain, fatigue and headache. Other side effects include changes in menstrual cycle, breast tenderness, dizziness, vomiting and you may be at an increased risk of an ectopic pregnancy. 

If you have the following conditions: past heart attack or stroke, blood clots in the legs or lungs, breast cancer, liver cancer, epilepsy, cardiovascular or kidney disease, migraines ,diabetes or hypertension, then the morning-after pill is not suitable for you. Given all of that, of course the pharmacist has to do their job in ensuring that the patient is able to safely take the pill as well as warn them of the potential side effects and check that they are not already pregnant. If a woman presenting does look young, then of course their age should be checked and relevant precautions taken, such as advising them to speak with their parents, and/or a responsible adult as well as future advice regarding contraception etc. Not least a pharmacist needs to ensure that if the woman is under-age that she is not in an abusive situation. In the same way that retailers now ask routinely for proof of age for anyone buying alcohol who looks under the age of 25, this is only the Pharmacist doing her job. FOR YOUR PROTECTION. 

Maybe the person at the counter did not approve of contraception, maybe they thought I was someone who had not used any contraception. Maybe they were just doing their job?

I will never know. I will, however, always remember the cold and disbelieving look upon their face as they asked me whether I had ever used emergency contraception and my age. Drama-rama!! Cold, disbelieving look. Pur-lease. Aspiring Independent columnist perhaps?

It was only when I asked with bright eyes, (having visions of Watership Down here) flushed face and controlled-annoyed voice whether they would need to see my licence ID in proof that they with shame? embarrassment? abruptly ended the interview and gave me what I wanted. I can’t even remember if I paid for it or not, I wanted to leave that shop as fast as I could.Why did I not complain? Because I was relieved to receive the emergency birth-control. Because it was an uncomfortable encounter.

Here’s the nub. Women want to have their cake and eat it too. The freedom to have sex with whomever you want, whenever you want and not get pregnant, aside from being physically non-existent, carries with it certain responsibilities. The morning-after pill is supposed to be for total emergencies, it is a high-dose of artificial hormones which can in some women cause nasty side effects, not to mention an early abortion. If you are using the morning-after pill, it is an indication that something has gone wrong. Those dispensing it have a duty to look after your health. They also have a right to refuse to dispense if they do not feel it is appropriate, as well as a right to exercise their conscience, whether that’s based on religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Being an adult means that one has to accept that not every person in the world is going to condone or agree with your beliefs. Granted they should not abuse you on the basis of them, but tolerance should not have to entail being forced to commit an act that one believes to be intrinsically wrong.

The women relating their experiences, may well have been responsible women in steady or committed relationships, no-one is judging their sexual morality, but looking after their health. It’s funny. Women are prepared to get down, get naked and exchange bodily fluids with a man with whom they are not prepared to have a baby, yet all of a sudden go all coy when someone entrusted with dispensing health care, asks them generic, non-intimate pertinent questions to ensure that they get the best possible treatment.

Time for some feminists to grow up.

Practical Action

A few weeks ago when I wrote about the Ps, of Pro-life, Prayer, PR and Politics, Ben Trovato reminded me of an omission – that of positive action.

I was reminded of that earlier today, upon receipt of some news from the Good Counsel Network, regarding a mum and baby whom they are attempting to help and support. It would not at this point, be appropriate for me to go into the specifics of this case, but it’s a timely reminder that though the narrative of abortion seems to be about fully autonomous choice – the reality is far from that for many women, who are coerced into abortion against their will, often being frogmarched to abortion clinics by controlling relatives or boyfriends.

There are a handful of sceptics in the pro-life movement who believe that pro-life work should not consist of helping women in need, but should be all about the politics and campaigning for changes in society, in order to make abortion not only unthinkable but also unnecessary. Pro-life work should not consist purely of mopping up, of providing the layette and the basic baby equipment for impoverished or abandoned mothers, but needs to think beyond the needs of the newborn baby and address the needs of single mothers with toddlers and young children. It is not enough to think that once the baby is saved from the abortionist’s tools, that the job is done. We need a society that is prepared to protect the vulnerable, which includes amongst others, young children and their mothers.

In a recent conversation with Deborah Orr, I highlighted that abortion is a sign of female inequality, in that women are under various pressures not to have children if they want to be able to compete on equal terms with men in the workplace. There is something very wrong in a society that seeks to present abortion as solution to inequality, if anything abortion perpetuates the inequality as it forces the woman to suppress her feminine fertility and natural bodily functions, if she is to succeed, or in some cases survive. The social, financial and economic inequalities that lead to abortion being touted as a solution need to be addressed, which is why pro-life needs to look beyond pregnancy and the newborn baby.

But that does not mean that there is no place for practical action. In a society that uses abortion as a sticking plaster, we therefore need practical action to help these women who feel that they have little other choice. Whilst some may feel that the politicking and campaigning is their calling, there is also a need to step in and help those who are facing desperate and terrible circumstances.

Which is where organisations like the Good Counsel network come in. Contrary to the myths peddled by the Guardian, the Good Counsel Network are there helping the poorest and those marginalised in society. Their typical clients are not the middle-class professionals arriving for a lunchtime abortion, but those on the very fringes of society. Women from ethnic minorities who are facing terrible cultural pressures for example. Immigrants who do not qualify for any benefits and who financially feel that they have little other choice. Homeless women and victims of domestic violence. Why should these women be denied the choice or opportunity of motherhood, due to poverty or social isolation?

The Good Counsel network has been criticised for its overt Christian iconography and Christian mission, but let’s think about this for a minute. Christ was a man of compassion. He shared human burdens and alleviated suffering. Jesus could not look at those suffering without being moved to intervene in some way. He was moved when people experienced pain, sickness, sorrow, were hungry, lonely or confused. Christ was concerned with helping people, and if we are to bring about the Kingdom it is not simply by empathy, by feeling someone’s pain but by following in his footsteps and doing something to alleviate it. The Good Counsel network is all about compassion in action, by demonstrating Christ’s love, not simply by words and certainly not by evangelising or attempting to convert, but by the outreach, love and support they give to women in specific need.

I know what it is like to be pregnant and vulnerable, only too well. I am fortunate, my husband tells me everyday what a hero I am for doing the work of nurturing an unborn child and bringing her to life, whilst also looking after our other little ones. He is also good at doing what he can to alleviate the burdens when he can, be that cuddling the baby to sleep so that I can have a bath, doing as many household chores as he can, taking the children out for a few hours at the weekend so I can have a much needed nap, or simply going out to fetch a packet of Haribo or MacDonalds as the mood takes me. I think he’s the hero frankly for putting up with grumpy pregnant miserable hefalump wife for 9 months! I would not have coped without him.  Many women do not have that. The Good Counsel network provides the much needed emotional, practical and often financial support that is so often missing.

To be pregnant, whilst not an illness, is to be vulnerable. Anyone who calls themselves pro-life, needs to accept this. Pregnant women get free prescriptions, free dental care because pregnancy puts an additional physical burden on the body, it lowers immunity and makes women more susceptible to illnesses and infections. Employment law also now recognises this, which is why employers have a duty of care to ensure that pregnant women are not working in an unsafe or physically compromising environment and are not over-burdened or compromised. In every single one of my pregnancies, I have at some point just wanted someone to understand all the various physical and emotional anxieties, and someone to reassure me that everything is going to be OK. This is where the support offered by pro-life organisations is invaluable. They are there to help, not just with platitudes but with actual help, be that being there at the end of the phone, or helping to provide the basics that a woman needs. The mother is not dismissed the moment that she has her baby either, the Good Counsel Network, continues to offer help, advice and support for as a long as a woman feels it necessary, hence they are still assisting mothers with toddlers and older children. It is up to the mother to decide when she no longer needs their help.

Here is why they should not be dismissed or scoffed at.

We spend £40,000 per year on feeding Mothers. And we give this help when a Mother has no wage, no right to benefits and no other means of support.
Some of our Mothers were sleeping on buses or on the street as late as 7 months into their pregnancies.
Many others considered abortion because of their devastating poverty when their baby’s father chose not to support them in having their baby.Those readers who have been pregnant and who know the awful hunger pangs you can endure in pregnancy even when you have plenty to eat will understand how terrible real hunger in pregnancy can be!
We always deliver the help that we promise an expectant Mother. We don’t provide luxuries, but we do provide the basics
I noticed pro-choicers scoffing at their website a few weeks ago. It comes to something when a charitable organisation is laughed at for its choice of font, and it also shows exactly where the priorities of the Good Counsel Network lie. This is not a glossy, pious sanctimonious spirituality, but a roll-your-sleeves up apostolic mission. People like Stuart and Clare are there on the frontline getting their hands dirty and incurring the wrath and enmity of those who would much rather the poor and marginalised were forced to abort their babies and the abuse that comes with that territory. Whilst society sanctions and condones abortion, then organisations such as Good Counsel network will be needed and never more so in these times of austerity.
Here are some of their costs:
It costs us £35 to feed an new Mother for 1 week.
It costs us £25 to feed an expectant Mother for 1 week.
It costs £15 to pay for baby milk each week when a Mother cannot breastfeed.
It costs us £7 a week to buy nappies for a baby.
It costs about £3.60 a day to feed an expectant Mother.
Here’s how to donate. £5 a month is the equivalent of 2 lattes in a typical chain, or perhaps a bottle of wine from the supermarket. In the meantime the Good Counsel Network  would appreciate any prayers, fasting or acts of suffering for “M”.
Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.

Lost families

A very bizarre thought popped into my head when praying for my Nana earlier, not the most seemly of thoughts and indicative that I need to focus more, but interesting nonetheless. She was born in January 1913, which makes me wonder whether or not she may have been conceived in the aftermath of the Titanic disaster. Though I haven’t been able to find any evidence to corroborate whether or not there may have been a surge in the birth rate following the tragic sinking, there is a known phenomenon of minor surges and fluctuations in birth rates following national disasters – sex is an affirmation of life, when faced with our own mortality, a theme aptly explored by Albert Camus.

Why would I be thinking about the circumstances in which my Nana was conceived? Though I had always associated her birth with occurring shortly after the Titanic, I had never previously made the connection, however the circumstances of her birth are somewhat mysterious and tragic. During the 30 years that she lived with us, she rarely talked about her childhood or her family, which were all veiled in secrecy. Whenever I had to complete any family tree projects at school, she always clammed up when asked to assist, angrily shouting that it was none of anybody’s business.

My mother confided that there was some kind of mystery, Nana had not in fact been brought up by her birth mother, but by an “Auntie and Uncle” in rural Devon, two very lovely, kind and caring people, but it was not clear what blood relationship, if any, they had to Nana. This couple had children of their own and brought my Nana up as if she was part of their family, but she was always aware of being different, of there being some kind of stigma. Apparently her mother was a “grand lady” who would occasionally come to visit, my mother noted that clearly there was money there: Nana often talks about the fact she had rickets as a child and was sent to specialists in London to correct the bows in her legs. ‘When you see photos of children in leg braces, they always look terribly uncomfortable’ says Nana, ‘but mine weren’t at all. They were made of the softest leather and sheepskin. I can still remember how soft they felt even now’. Maybe I’m playing amateur detective here, but one thing that has always struck all of us in the family, is that specialists in London and high quality orthopaedic braces would not come cheap, they would not be the preserve of a farming family in pre-war Devon.

A few years ago Nana was on a nostalgia trip, unwrapping and showing me all the trinkets and knick-knacks from her wedding, incredibly enough she still has the decorations from the top of her cake. One of the things she painstakingly unwrapped was some exquisite solid silver photo frames and candle sticks from Mappin and Webb, which had never been on display. She explained that her mother had not attended her wedding, but had instead sent her some silver as a wedding gift.

All of which has led all of us in the family to ponder who my great-grandmother and my mother’s grandmother was. We have a surname, but that is all. We assume that there was money in the family and some reputation. We have no mention of a father and the subject has always remained strictly taboo. It has always been a source of great sadness to my mother, she lost her own father at the age of 22, and though she has maintained close relationships within her paternal family, there has always felt as though there was something missing. Though I try not to dwell on it too much, my curiosity is piqued, all of us like to know our identity of our forefathers, from whom we hail, it helps us in terms of establishing our own sense of identity and context in relation to the world around us. The BBC programme, Who do you think you Are, has proved enormously popular for that very reason.

With the advent of the internet and the rise in genealogy websites, it has occurred to us on more than one occasion that some amateur sleuthing might be in order, although not in the period of Nana’s lifetime, as she is incredibly touchy about this subject and it would seem, rather ashamed. It was only a few years ago, at the age of 95, that she finally admitted that she had no idea who her father was, she no longer had a copy of her birth certificate, but that the father was marked as unknown. It seems to have been a source of great shame, stigma and sadness.

I would love to know about my maternal family, but have to concede that this will be lost in the mists of time. Perhaps one day I’ll investigate more as to the identity of my great-grandmother, just to satisfy my innate curiosity. But it would certainly seem to fit that some clandestine relationship may have taken place in the Spring of 1912, almost certainly in the aftermath of the Titanic disaster – not that I am claiming any link whatsoever or hinting at any James Cameron style story, merely noting a historical fact. Perhaps the two events were entirely unrelated and it’s just a fanciful whim?

So what does my Nana’s history have to do with the price of eggs? Not much really, other than personally I am glad that the stigma of illegitimacy has largely been wiped out. Children should never be blamed for the circumstances in which they were born, nor the indiscretions of their parents. Having seen how my Nana has suffered in many ways as a result of never having known the love of her biological family (she was cared for, but knew she was different), I am glad that mothers are no longer routinely forced into having to give their babies into the care of someone else in the name of respectability. I can understand the physical need for contact and close loving relationships with both biological parents and the damage that can be done if a parent is deliberately withheld. This happened also to my father, whose parents divorced in 1945 upon my grandfather’s return from the war. My father was brought up without any contact with his own father until he reached the age of 21, this being deemed in his best interests, in an era in which divorce was still a dreadful scandal. Both my nana and my father, whose knowledge of his paternal family is scant, feel somehow incomplete.

I am relatively sanguine about it all, but there is some innate desire in me to find out more about from whom I hail. I know that my maternal grandfather was Italian and my father’s family were King’s Lynn fisherman and Norfolk agricultural labourers (I think) but that’s about it.

When I think about my Nana’s circumstances in particular, I give thanks that abortion was not an option in 1912. Though my Nana has missed out in many ways, she had a happy marriage, a child of her own, 2 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren. Though I am sure that my great-grandmother, whoever she was, must have endured a lot of suffering, she also brought forth much joy and happiness. One ‘mistake’, one clandestine relationship has borne much fruit for which we are all grateful. It made me wonder how many other potential families are now wiped out before birth as a matter of routine?

Silly things

Owen Jones, the socialist wunderkind and current darling of the Labour party, came under criticism yesterday when a vitriolic email chock full of threats and expletives that he had written at the tender age of 16, came to light. Whilst not sharing his zeal for socialist ideology, I have to confess some sympathy for him, though his email was absolutely shocking in content, not the sort of thing that one would expect from an intelligent, sensitive, politically aware teenager, one has to take his age into account. He was an immature perhaps somewhat naive teen, firing off an angry email in the days of the dot com bubble, the internet was only just becoming on-stream into people’s homes and he lacked the nouse to realise that this might come back to haunt him one day.

We could draw all sorts of conclusions about how this gives an insight into his character, the teenager is the adult in formation, how this is characteristic of those on the left who resort to ad hominem and abuse when they run out of argument, this email could add further ammunition against a personality and cause that is already disliked, or we could exercise some intellectual honesty and admit it as being the product of an immature teenager who has yet to get his passions or his writing under control. Though we can suck our teeth in horror, I can’t get too uptight about it, because to do so would be totally hypocritical knowing what I was like as a 16 year old. Without putting too fine a point on it, I wasn’t the most upstanding example of virtuous youth, I was busy developing my taste for tobacco for example, a habit that I have long since eschewed and I would be horrified if my children followed my pitiful teen example. There can be few people who didn’t do at least one silly and ill-thought through thing as a teenager, whatever that might be and though one cannot condone immature or adolescent mishaps, it seems wholly unfair to hold it against the fully-grown and more emotionally mature adult. All of us make mistakes, the trick is to learn from them and hopefully prevent and guide others from doing the same.

What this does highlight however, is the notion of teen maturity and how this varies wildly between individuals. Plenty of teenagers are fine upstanding examples of youth, others have some way to go. Owen’s mistake is indicative of the tendency of youth to live in the short-term with little thought to how their actions may affect them in the future. Owen himself admits, that the year 2000 was a particularly difficult and tumultuous one for him. Teens are a potent heady mix of burgeoning sexual hormones who in many cases lack the emotional maturity to deal with challenging situations.

This is why the sexual age of consent is set at 16, recognising that this is the minimum average age at which a person can be said to be able to consent to sexual intercourse and its implications. Most sensible people would recognise that children under this age lack the necessary maturity and responsibility to be able to handle a sexual relationship. There is currently something of a problem in the UK, with over a third of teenage girls reporting that they have experienced sexual violence. A government campaign is underway in order to educate teenagers that sexual violence is unacceptable. Speaking in March, Nick Clegg, the deputy PM said

When you’ve got a situation where a third of teenage girls say they have been subject to sexual coercion and abuse, when lots of teenagers say in surveys that they think it’s OK for a boy to expect to have sex with a girl they spend time with, something’s going wrong and we need to challenge it

The current liberal narrative assumes that teenagers have all the emotional intelligence, experience and reasoning faculties of adults, hence they must be treated as such. Whilst this is true to a certain extent, as Owen Jones’ email and as the levels of teen sexual violence suggest, teens are not yet fully formed adults and must therefore be given a level of protection and their minor misdemeanours not held against them.

The law in England states that a 16 year old can have sex but lacks the maturity to enter into a lifelong commitment such as marriage, without the consent of their parents. A 16 year old is furthermore unable to obtain a credit card or enter into any serious long-term financial commitments. The law exists for their own protection.

What I can’t understand in the light of this, is why it is thought acceptable for an adult, with no intimate personal relationship to a child, to teach that child all about the various methods of contraception, in order to protect themselves and no thought is given to the fact that teenagers can be and often are irresponsible. Why do teachers think that if they teach teenagers all about how to have “responsible sex” that teens are therefore going to go out and behave in a responsible fashion? In an ideal world this might be the case, but the reality is very different. The normalisation of sexual relationships between teens that goes on in the classroom, unwittingly gives consent to those who wish to coerce unwilling partners into sex and puts further pressure on teens to comply with what seems normal. Many teens are desperate to appear adult and grown-up beyond their years and hence sex is seen as reinforcing their maturity, particularly when Miss thinks it’s OK so long as you use a condom and don’t get pregnant.

How many teens are effectively able to use contraception? How many teens might forget to use a condom or may misuse one in the heat of the moment? That’s not to say that teenagers are stupid or ignorant, far from it, but statistically they are far less risk averse than the average adult. How many teenage girls have thought through the long-term consequences of taking hormonal contraception, whether or not they will be suited to it and the wisdom of bombarding one’s burgeoning reproductive system with a cocktail of synthetic hormones designed to simulate pregnancy at the onset of puberty?

Though this year’s figures show a slight reduction in teen pregnancies, there has been an explosion in the rate of teen STDS. More teenagers are having sex, slightly fewer are getting pregnant, but many many more are requiring treatment for diseases that could leave them scarred or infertile.

So if we can, as we should, excuse Owen Jones, a youthful indiscretion, recognising his immaturity, why are we therefore unable to recognise the vulnerability and instability of teenagers? Why is the teaching of abstinence as the ideal, deemed such a taboo amongst our chattering liberal classes? Why if we recognise that teenagers are not responsible adults, are they able to be given hormonal treatment, encouraged to engage in behaviour that could have lifelong repercussions and given access to abortion without parental consent? Why are 16 year olds not allowed to marry without parental consent, but able to take medication which could have serious and damaging side-effects? Why are those under the age of consent able and encouraged to abort an unwanted pregnancy without parental input? Why are parents not deemed capable and positively prevented from protecting their children from doing silly things.

Why does society allow a total stranger to give out a contraceptive pill to a 13 year old and encourage her to engage in illegal behaviour that could endanger her and impact her for the rest of her life? Are synthetic hormones, STDs and abortions less risky for the health of a pubescent child than a cigarette? That is what the law would suggest.

As Owen Jones acknowledges, teenagers do silly things for which they cannot be held responsible later in life. Such is the nature of adolescence. That does not mean that the silly things should be given licence and encouraged, even if they can be forgiven.

Limits

I am admittedly suffering from ante-natal depression at the moment. It’s a condition that has affected every single pregnancy, but this bout is particularly bleak. I am struggling to find a light at the end of the tunnel.

Anyone who follows me on Twitter will know why this has been exacerbated. I’m not going into the tedious specifics, but since the beginning of February I have been the subject of a prolonged smear and hate campaign which has hit me, whack full-on at a time when I am feeling especially vulnerable, for a multitude of reasons. I simply can no longer cope with the abuse and latent threats.

I am primarily disengaging from Twitter for a while for my own mental health, I may still tweet the odd link, but it’s best, in the short term to concentrate on my own well-being and upon the odd blog post, which I find therapeutic, carthatic and healing. If it’s inspirational or informative , that’s simply a bonus.

Due to the issue of abortion being firmly back on the political agenda – and yes abortion is a political issue, it always has been, those campaigning in favour of the 1967 Act were more than happy to politicise the matter, once again the notion of acceptable time limits is under discussion. There has been a massive sea-change of opinion since the incredible advances in very detailed 4D diagnostic imaging pioneered by the likes of Professor Stuart Campbell. Babies of only 12 weeks gestation can be seen playing, smiling, sucking their thumbs, exercising, in minute detail. It is increasingly difficult to deny the humanity of the unborn child and the vast majority of the public favour a reduction in the abortion limit to 20 weeks. Over half of UK women believe that the current abortion laws are too lax, according to a recent YouGov poll conducted in January 2012. A more recent Angus Reid poll from March 2012, shows that over half of the respondents and 3 in 5 women believe that the current limit of 24 weeks should be reduced.

Discussing abortion limits is a minefield for pro-lifers and Catholics who believe that all abortion is the taking of innocent life, a viewpoint with which I am very much in accordance. To campaign for a lower limit seems to concede that it’s perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn baby at an earlier stage. Most abortions performed in the UK are now under the 12 week mark – to imply otherwise is misleading and disingenuous. Honesty and integrity matter when discussing such ethical topics. The problem with implementing a reduced limit, is not only does it imply that earlier stage abortions are acceptable, but it may also rush a woman into making a premature decision, aware that the clock is ticking. Another factor that comes into play is that the earlier the abortion is performed, the more straightforward and thus less risky the procedure. A surgical abortion at 12 weeks will be less physically traumatic for a woman than a procedure at 22 weeks. So if we’re looking at women’s welfare, its something of a double-edged sword. An earlier procedure may well be better for her (not the baby) but the existence of a time limit may not give a woman enough time to properly consider her different options.

Pro-choicers on the whole aren’t keen on any delay, they believe that a woman should be able to have swift access to abortion as soon as she “requires” it. Whilst this logic is understandable, most women faced with a crisis or unplanned pregnancy do need to be able to take some time to fully consider their options and not be rushed into an abortion by clinics, relatives or abortion limits. At the end of the day an abortion results in the end of a life, regardless of whether or not one wants to play around with the semantics of whether it is a real life or simply a potential for life. I know where I stand on that scale, but that’s an argument for a different time. An abortion cannot be undone ,therefore women must not be rushed. As the law stands, if a woman has made up her mind that she wants an abortion, she can go and book one for the next day, without counselling if that be her wont. If, however, abortion is this difficult decision that is only arrived at via a lot of soul-searching, then it seems right not to exert any undue pressure with time limits. Clinics already do enough of that in terms of rushing women into taking the abortion pill, because for them, this is a less costly and riskier procedure, regardless of whether or not the abortion pill is the right option for a woman. Let’s say, for example, I discovered at 6 or 7 weeks in pregnancy that the developing fetus had died. Would I opt to take a pill to induce a traumatic miscarriage or would I go for the surgical option under sedation or anaesthetic? The answer would most definitely be the latter – but surgery isn’t the option that is promoted for women in the early stages of pregnancy for obvious reasons.

An aborted baby/fetus, whatever terminology one wishes to use is just that, it can’t be magically revived, whatever stage of development it is at. Obviously, when we come to pregnancies post 2o weeks, there is the hotly disputed issue of fetal pain, awareness and viability. The general public are as a whole a lot more squeamish about later stage abortions because of the huge advances in neonatal care. Babies born at 24 weeks can and often do survive. This baby girl survived being born at 21 weeks and 5 days. At 22 weeks a baby has a 0-10% chance of surviving, increasing to 10-35% at 23 weeks and 40-70% at 24 weeks.

Ideologically speaking, limits should be something of a red herring, either abortion should be on demand right up until birth or it should be against the law, unless abortion is a necessary side effect of a procedure undertaken to save a woman’s life.

If only life were that simple. I admit to a personal heavy investment in the notion of reducing the limit, which I firmly believe would reduce the number of abortions. Not that there should be an acceptable number or quota, but one life saved is better than none. Someone close to me aborted healthy twins at the 23 week stage. She had already taken the decision to keep the babies following a 19 week scan, kept things quiet until she was 21 weeks, but was coerced due to an enormous amount of family pressure, led by an overbearing and dominant mother who was concerned about the shame that would be brought upon the family. The ironic thing being was that the pregnancy was already known about by most people and there was more shame, stigma and distress in the late stage abortion of twins than there would have been in actually giving birth to the babies. The situation was heartbreaking and no blame should be attached to the vulnerable 19 year old who was put in an insufferable position and convinced that an abortion was the only solution. Were the limit lower, then this would not have happened.

Time limits act as a cut-off point, beyond which it is deemed unacceptable to abort a baby, which is why for many they are an irrelevance. The very existence of a limit gives a protection to the unborn child beyond a certain age. It stops people from “unnecessarily” aborting their babies. I was won around to the idea about half an hour ago.

I’m having a very hard time, I am struggling mentally. That is not pure hyperbole, it is fair to say that I am on the edge. I find pregnancy difficult enough as it is. I am daunted at the prospect of coping with the demands of a breastfeeding baby, a hen 16 month old and 33 month old in a bungalow the size of an average flat. I am terrified by the prospect of another cesarian, my 3rd in 3 years. The last two were no walk in the park. I don’t know whether or not I will cope. My degree will need to be deferred – again. At any other time, I might be more mentally equipped to cope with the sheer undiluted spite that has been flung my way over the past few weeks, and that is no exaggeration, but coupled with everything else, it’s all proving far too much to cope with. I am having moments of panic, despair, darkness and anxiety. I am exhibiting signs of severe depression, losing appetite, finding menial tasks overburdensome and dreams filled with anxiety. I wake up drenched in sweat after being chased by an irate female client from my old job or troubled because I’ve had to sit an exam which I didn’t previously know about and for which I’ve done no revision.

Perhaps this is too much personal information, I’m not putting it out there to play victim as often accused, but to say look, I’m a normal bright intelligent woman with no previous history of mental illness (contrary to the 16 unsolicited emails sent to a lawyer advising me) but the strain of pregnancy coupled with a few months bombardment of internet harassment has proved too much. There should be no stigma or shame, I know I’m bent out of shape at the moment and I am fortunate to have a loving husband who is encouraging me to go and seek the help that I need. That is not an admission of any wrongdoing of which I’m accused either, I don’t want any amateur psychologists putting two and two together and making the invariable five. I am a very stressed and vulnerable pregnant woman. I am well aware of that, which is why I know that I have to take a break from Twitter which is proving enormously self-destructive. It’s like a sore tooth that I keep worrying away at, I keep hoping that it will get better, that I will get the much longed for apology or retraction, and am freshly hurt every time the invective recommences.

So, with all of that in mind, I’ve just come off the phone to someone well meaning. The conversation consisted mainly of me crying, which is what I have spent most of the past week doing. Either crying or getting into a blind rage, which is what those who are winding me up, want to happen. The next few months will be tough. There is a light at the end of the tunnel in that I’ve never suffered from post-natal depression, normally once the baby is delivered and the breast-feeding hormones kick in, I’m in my element.

The person to whom I was speaking recognised that I’m in a dark place and that life is difficult. They are really worried. I am 22 weeks and 3 days pregnant. I regularly feel my baby girl squirming around inside me. We’ve chosen her name. Doubtless several clinics would be prepared to carry out a termination on the grounds that this baby will probably be my last and is my fourth girl. At some stage it might have been nice to have a boy. It’s lucky I’m not married to a Tudor monarch or living in a culture that puts little worth on the life of girls. But anyway after repeatedly expressing the sentiment that it was a great pity that I did know when the baby was conceived because otherwise I could have taken the morning after pill, well meaning person came up with a solution. They were so worried about me that they had found a clinic, made preliminary enquiries and discovered that there was availability/feasibility for me to have an abortion next week, around the 23 week mark. I can see why it seemed an answer. I can also see why, to a person who is worried, anxious and suffering from depression it might seem the only way out.

Up until 24 hours ago, I thought I was managing fine. Today I’ve realised that isn’t the case. I am experiencing a crisis. Were I of a a less tenacious and stubborn persuasion or less affirmed in my beliefs about the sanctity of human life, then I can see how at 22 +3, a late stage abortion might seem appropriate. If I were to have an abortion next week (rest assured I won’t) it would be because the law says I could. My baby is healthy and moving, she is literally alive and kicking.

There is a myth that says late-stage abortions are necessary and only occur in the case of babies with life threatening abnormalities and it is for these reasons that the limit stays at 24 weeks. Given the law also shockingly states that it is fine to abort a disabled baby up until birth, something that should be an anathema to most people with any sense of a moral compass, there is a pressing case for a reduction in limits, provided no other grounds are ceded.

If I were to abort now it would be a short term solution that would generate longer term mental health difficulties. To abort would be a gruesome sticking plaster and panacea. If the mental health of pregnant women is of such pressing concern, surely more resources need to be put into making sure that they can cope, that they have the medical, emotional and practical support that they need? Surely that has to be a better solution than traumatically ending the life of a baby with a chance of survival outside the womb? Would an abortion be the answer for a woman in my situation? There is only one way to find out, and that’s a decision that cannot be undone. With a 20 week limit, a woman in a similar situation would not be faced with a choice. There would therefore be no other option for her other than to seek the support that she needs. With a lower limit fewer women are pressurised at a later stage, if circumstances suddenly and traumatically change, i.e. a partner walks out or the family faces redundancy. No woman should have to abort her baby because she feels she has no other choice. Would more women be pressurised prematurely, I think that’s unlikely. The later the limit, the longer the opt-out clause which some people will always leave til the last minute.

I effectively have no choice, I’ve not had a choice since the moment I’ve discovered I’m pregnant. That is not necessarily a bad thing and has been the case of millions of women since the dawn of time. Choice should not be mistaken for the Holy Grail or defining value of our age. A lack of choice forces me to find the help and support that I need. I’m no superhero. If I was a better, stronger and more heroic woman I wouldn’t be struggling quite so much, but stoically, quietly, patiently enduring and offering up my suffering and glorying in the miracle that is reproduction and the privilege of carrying my own baby. The fact that I am not coping is a testament to my own shortcomings and so if I can get through this, then anyone can.

But prayers much appreciated in the meantime.

Hard Cases

Warning: this post contains discussion that could upset those who have experienced stillbirth or late-term abortion.

There was a lot of publicity in Ireland this week surrounding the Private Member’s Bill to provide limited access to abortion in the Republic, following a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that makes abortion legal in circumstances where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother. The bill was defeated by 111 votes to 20, reflecting the views of the Irish population, 89% voting against the legalisation of abortion in an online poll held on behalf of the Irish Labour party. The Republic of Ireland, incidentally boasts one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.

Whilst it goes without saying that I support the decision of the Dåil, this particular story certainly gave pause for thought and should prove challenging to even the most committed of pro-lifers. Here are four women, not seeking to campaign for abortion on demand, they stress that their stories are not typical of debate, but that they discovered that their unborn children had anomalies incompatible with life and thus felt forced to compelled to seek abortion outside of the republic. They further state that they do not see this issue as a party-political issue but one of human rights. Their stories are compelling, tragic and heart-breaking. They aborted much-wanted pregnancies because they could not withstand the trauma of having to endure another 20 weeks of pregnancy only to have the baby die in utero, shortly after birth, or alternatively go through gruelling courses of medical intervention and surgery with a small chance of success.

It would take a heart of stone not to weep with these women and grieve both for them and their children.

“Having to walk around Birmingham for five hours when you’ve just ended your baby’s life, you’ve had an anaesthetic and are bleeding and cramping . . . I believe in a loving, caring, understanding God and that I won’t be damned for what I did . . . I want to say to people who would judge us – Where is your compassion? Where is love in all this?,” she says, her voice cracking.

For these women, their grief was compounded by their need to travel. No-one should judge women who find themselves in these situations, even though we may objectively be able to disagree with their decision.

This story had an added dimension for me, coming shortly a week after my own 20 week anomaly scan. I know how nerve wracking these scans are and precisely the types of anomaly that are being looked for. The first time I had such a scan was in a London teaching hospital, the baby was in perfect health and in an excellent position, so I was asked if I would allow some students to come in and have a try, whilst the scan was repeated with detailed explanations and precise definitions of what could be seen and what sonographers should be looking out for. In one of my pregnancies, the 20 week scan was delayed due to a problem having been detected in the preceding patient, the couple eventually emerging in floods of tears.

I always opt for the 20 week scan on the grounds that it is better to be prepared for what may follow and in order that, if necessary, any neonatal teams can be on hand, but many are not prepared for the eventuality that their baby may be seriously ill or die. Despite the fact that I could never abort my unborn child for any reason, had I discovered that this baby would be seriously ill and/or die, I would have found it almost impossible to cope in my current situation. I do not blossom in pregnancy, far from it, this one has been the worst yet, for a multitude of reasons and I am having moments of severe self-doubt when I really don’t know whether or not I will be able to cope. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like to have to endure 20 weeks of getting bigger and bigger, feeling more and more uncomfortable with all the aches and pains of late pregnancy, feeling your baby kick and move, knowing that you are going to have to go through the ordeal of birth (and yes, it is an an ordeal for many) only to have your baby die. I don’t know how I’d manage to keep going, to explain it to my 8 year old, to explain it to the toddler and then go through the grief and heartbreak.

I would undoubtedly do it, but it would take a lot of strength and courage and therefore no-one can sit in judgement upon those who have taken different decisions. My faith would give me the resources to do it, as would my husband, but no doubt I would be under a lot of pressure, social, medical and environmental to take a different decision. What I think would give me hope is knowing that when my baby died, it would be in its mothers arms, it would hopefully die peacefully surrounded by love and comfort. Unbearable though it would be, I would rather give my child that chance of life, no matter how small and know and feel the comfort of its mother rather than the pain and torture of the abortionist’s instruments. The much-derided Rick Santorum movingly describes how when their son Gabriel was born prematurely, he lived for two hours and for those two hours the baby knew nothing but love. As a mother, I can see no greater act of love or sacrifice; as Christian I can see parallels of Christ. For me there would be no other choice.

Should I deny this “choice” to others? Hard cases make bad law. Were these women wrong, should they be condemned? Whilst I cannot condone their actions, to issue an outright condemnation displays a total lack of empathy and compassion. It is quite one thing talking about the principles and ethics involved, quite another when you consider that there are real humans, real lives and real emotions involved. The problem is with passing laws for these types of situations is that it sends the signal that it is perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn baby because it may be born severely disabled and/or die. It is not surprising that many disabled people are feeling increasingly uncomfortable living in today’s society that seeks to reject unborn children who are less than perfect.

Even where a baby has a definite incompatibility with life outside of the womb, this seems to give licence to the medical profession to put pressure upon the expectant mother. It’s a very utilitarian attitude – the baby will die anyway, much kinder (and cheaper) now, for all concerned. But is it? The mother still has to live with the grief, but coupled with guilt and defensiveness. Many women will find the experience of giving birth to their child and holding and soothing them helps them to heal and reconcile with their grief.

Society and the medical profession must exercise more compassion and less judgement to enable women to make this decision rather than hasten them to the abortionists. Pro-lifers must equally respect the horrendous circumstances that these women face and offer the appropriate sensitivity. Furthermore, instead of talking the sheer ethics of the matter, we must not neglect the reasons why mothers decide that they would not be able to cope with a disabled baby? It’s one thing saying that disabled babies must not be aborted, it’s quite another voting for any government that takes measures to make life for the sick and disabled infinitely more difficult and services either non-existent or difficult to access. Put simply we must place ourselves in the shoes of the expectant mother, as well as the mother of the child with severe disabilities.

As for having to walk around Birmingham for 5 hours after you’ve ended your baby’s life, bleeding and cramping, or having to travel back home to Ireland in order to deliver a dead infant, there can be no words sufficient for the horror. Where was the love, duty, concern and compassion shown by the abortion clinics on these occasions? How can any establishment that professes to care about women’s welfare, kick a woman out of a clinic who is post-anaesthetic, groggy and bleeding to walk strange streets for 5 hours. I know where my anger would be directed.

A hospital in 1970

I’ve received the following from a lady who wished to respond to the video featured in the Guardian and who was affected by Friday night’s vigil. Powerful poignant and moving.

1970 A London Hospital

The woman in the bed next to mine had a lot of visitors. Family, friends, even her little boy, they seemed to be celebrating. I was alone and frightened. When all her visitors had left I asked her how she was, and was surprised at her upbeat response. It was the worst day of my life and I couldn’t understand why she was happy. She explained that today was a great victory for her. For months she’d been fighting for the right to have an abortion and finally the doctors had given in. I wondered if she had a baby with a disability as well. She laughed and explained that what she was doing was called ‘proving the act’ – that the parameters of the abortion act were being challenged by woman like her who were establishing a precedence so that all women could have access to abortion on demand.

I had been through the procedure as well. I’d been seen by two doctors who quickly agreed to give consent for me to abort my baby. One of them, on seeing that I was upset, reassured me by explaining that my situation came within the act. The pressure on these doctors was immense as there were many women at the clinic who were arguing, refusing to accept the doctor’s decision. I had been so wrapped up in my misery that I hadn’t really understood what was going on. The woman in the bed next to mine explained so that I could understand. Her commitment to what would be called today ‘a woman’s right to choose’ was so great that she’d got pregnant for the express purpose of having an abortion. I commented on the fact that she was quite far on in her pregnancy and she told me that it was the fault of the doctors because they had taken so long to allow the abortion.

Soon they will come and give the pre-operation injection in my arm and I won’t care anymore. Soon it will all be over and I can go back to my life and forget this. But my life was never the same again. I can never forget.

The woman in the next bed. Someone’s mother who fought so hard for the women’s rights. Was she a heroine? Or a woman to be greatly pitied, using something so precious for political ends.

Me? I failed to protect the one who depended on me for everything. I denied my little one’s right to life. For a while it was a secret. Then I decided that I couldn’t deny that it had ever existed, so I tell my story.

Removing rights of conscience?

Thinking about the issue of the lack of doctors who are willing or able to work for the abortion clinics, this is not the first time that this issue has been raised by BPAS. I blogged on it last year.

It really wouldn’t surprise me if this was the start of a prolonged attempt to remove the rights of conscience for those who do not wish to participate in the abortion process, such as the Scottish midwives who recently lost their case.

If that is the case then an interesting clash with the ECHR seems on the cards. Article 9 is clear, but open to interpretation. Could abortion fall into the category of being “in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Interesting and potentially troubling times ahead.