Given enough rope

Back to pro-life matters and it’s been heartening to watch LIFE charity who have really raised their game on social media over the past year, in terms of putting out some really useful information, along with biting commentary out into the public domain. Their Twitter handle is @LifeCharity

LIFE were live-tweeting testimony from the Parliamentary Inquiry (led by the all-party Pro-life group)  into abortion and disability which examined the unjust discrimination that allows for disabled babies to be aborted right up until the moment of birth, whereas ‘healthy’ children are subject to a 24 week limit. A discrepancy with which the general public are becoming increasingly uncomfortable following the resounding success of London’s 2012 Paralympics, which did much to raise awareness that having a disability does not preclude one from living an active and fulfilling life, nor from achieving success in a chosen field.

All of our medal winning athletes would have been allowed to have been aborted up until the moment of birth according to current UK law.

Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS made no attempt to hide her extremism, with the following statement, which is an absolute gift to the pro-life cause. Whatever else, one cannot fault Mrs Furedi’s honesty, these are the thoughts of one the UK’s most prolific and influential advocates for abortion:

Screen Shot 2013-03-21 at 10.46.30

That’s right. If it’s unfair to kill disabled children up until birth, let’s kill ALL the children, instead of attempting to save the lives of those who can be killed right up until the moment that they are born. And they scoff at the moniker culture of death? Highly appropriate I’d say. Instead of choosing life for all, let’s choose equal rights to be unjustly killed, if at any stage your life becomes an inconvenience.

Here’s another good one.

Screen Shot 2013-03-21 at 10.52.05

So when the expectant mother feels her baby kicking and hiccuping from around 5 months, it isn’t really alive, and neither is a baby alive when you can see him or her kicking, somersaulting, stretching, yawning, swallowing on your 12 week pregnancy scans. That’s not life, no it’s just human sentimentality telling us otherwise. When a woman suffers a tragic miscarriage, she has no need to mourn, or hold a funeral because her baby was never really alive? I wonder what this organisation, which exists to support and counsel parents who have lost a baby at any stage in life would make of that?

On the contentious issue of time limits:

Screen Shot 2013-03-21 at 10.57.35

I can think of some pro-lifers who may sympathise with that. It’s logically coherent, either abortion is acceptable or it isn’t. If you can kill a baby, does it really matter at what stage?

I think the answer is yes, for two reasons. Firstly, we know that late-stage abortions are physically much more dangerous to the mother, which is why there is always such a rush to get women to abort at the earliest possible opportunity. Late-stage abortions are also a lot more emotionally harrowing for a woman, which any organisation that claims to care about their welfare should acknowledge.  Read some of the testimony on this womens’ forum, I linked to in a previous post. Also note, that since linking to it back in November, a pro-choicer has demanded that the moderators remove said thread, due to its age and it allegedly being ‘unhelpful’ towards women thinking of late-stage abortions. Unhelpful being a euphemism for deterrent.

It’s an astounding coming from someone whose organisation purports to care about women, that time-limits which are related to the health and well-being of the mother as well as the baby, are deemed unimportant. Autonomy or choice must come before personal safety and wellbeing.

The other reason why late stage abortions are important from a pro-life point of view is that the 24 week limit means that no attempt is made to help babies who made be born prematurely before this time, such as the case of baby Jayden, who was left to die for hours, as it was against the rules to help him. Ideology must not cause us to stick our heads in the sand over this issue.

But so what if time limits are a political preoccupation? Abortion has become political ever since pro-choicers decided to politicise it back in the sixties. In a democracy politics exist to reflect the will of the people, the majority of whom are extremely uncomfortable with the notion of late-stage abortion. Does Ann Furedi deem public opinion irrelevant in the face of her own personal ideology. It doesn’t matter whether or not stomachs are churned by the idea of fully developed healthy babies being killed subject to the whims of others? People are obviously very ignorant, what matters is that babies must be able to be killed right up until the moment of their birth, if that is what an individual wants, regardless of whether or not it is in step with the views of the general public, who don’t really matter anyway. The kind of atrocities such as those committed by Kermit Gosnell, are irrelevant?

If anyone was in any doubt about the ethic of autonomy being paramount regardless of consequences, here’s a chilling example:

Screen Shot 2013-03-21 at 11.23.59

So it doesn’t matter if parents abort a much-wanted unborn baby because they have been poorly informed about their potential quality of life, or future prospects? It doesn’t matter if parents later find out something that had they known prior to the abortion, would have changed their mind and then have to live with the fact that they aborted an unborn baby on a false premise. The anger and sadness of grieving parents doesn’t matter, their right to be properly informed is of secondary import, what really matters is that they made a choice, even if it then turned out to be the wrong one and one that they would not repeat given similar circumstances. All that matters is that a decision is made?

Blowing all claims of impartiality and informing women of all their options out of the water, the Chief Executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Services, says this

Screen Shot 2013-03-21 at 11.31.10

People were screaming blue murder at Nadine Dorries’ proposed amendment which suggested that abortion clinics did not offer wholly impartial advice and offered to give pregnant women the choice of independent counselling in which all options and alternatives could be discussed. Whilst wary of adoption being offered as a panacea or first solution to a woman with a crisis pregnancy, it should at least be discussed and given equal weight as an option as abortion. It makes a complete mockery of BPAS’ name of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service – the type of advice on offer is one way.

People say pro-lifers are the extremists? Try telling that to those from 40 Days for Life in Brighton yesterday, who had a car drive past them sizing them up, and which then returned to pelt them with eggs. Or to those working at the Youth Defence office in Dublin who found the memory of Savita Halappanavar defiled when her photo was stuck to their office doors with human faeces.

Sometimes there is no need for pro-lifers to make an opposing argument. Give some people enough rope…

Save all the children

Unnecessary battles

Catholic Care has predictably lost its battle to change its constitution to explicitly allow only heterosexual couples to adopt. It is a blow to religious freedom and difficult to see how the ruling fits in with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that religious conscience rights should not be trumped, unless it is ‘necessary’.

What is concerning about the ruling is that in focusing purely on the perceived discrimination aspect, it seeks to put the rights of prospective adoptive parents above the needs of the child. The Catholic adoption agencies had particular specialist expertise in terms of placing the most difficult children, taking scores out of the care system and putting them in loving families. The legislation underpinning the decision was drafted in order to avoid discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Since when did the adoption of children become a service? It’s rather alarming if children are now consolidated as goods via the law and this decision paves the way for the inevitable gay marriage in Church test case which will occur if or when gay marriage is enacted into law.

The barrister for the Charity Commission also displayed a woeful lack of understanding of Catholic doctrine, by stating that ‘the Church’s belief that homosexuality is sinful’ must not be protected. The Church does not believe or teach that homosexual inclination is sinful, but that all sexual acts outside marriage constitute a sin. The Church understands that people may not be able to control their innate sexuality, however she asks all of her members to exercise appropriate restraint and chastity.

The irritating thing about this case, is that it could have so easily been won. Neil Addison blogged about it on three separate occasions. It’s worth revisiting his posts here, here, and here. Neil maintains that Catholic Care were pursuing entirely the wrong legal remedy and could never have hoped to succeed.

The change that Catholic Care wished to enact was automatically discriminatory and therefore destined to failure as Neil advised back in 2009. Had they amended their constitution as follows:

“The Charity shall not have power to engage in any activity which it knows, or reasonably believes, is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church; the formal opinion of the Bishop of [ ] shall be final in any question as to what is the teaching of the Catholic Church”

then this would have been indirectly discriminatory, rather than directly discriminatory and thus the Catholic agencies would have been able to continue their good work, as has happened in Scotland, who followed this route as did the Evangelical Protestant Alliance.

Of course one still cannot ignore the disturbing ramifications that the judgement has for religious freedom, the Catholic agencies should not have been put in the position where they were forced to chose between the exemplary work that they did or staying true to their ethos, questions need to be asked about why parental rights are put above the needs of vulnerable children and why could there not be scope for several different kinds of agencies. The type of work that the Catholic agencies carried out was as a supplement to local authority agencies, who are free to follow their own secular agendas. Why did there need to be a one-size fits all policy?

But most importantly, questions need to be asked as to why the advice of the Thomas More Legal Centre was not followed in order to allow the Catholic adoption agencies to continue their work unhindered. Rather than asking why we should not fight battles that we cannot win, the question should be why enter into legal battles that were wholly unnecessary in the first place?