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.
As I wrote both on the blog and in the Catholic Herald last week, pro-lifers are gaining momentum, the pro-choice lobby are on the back foot following the recent scandal of sex-selective abortion with the issue of post-birth abortion hot on its heels and they don’t like it one little bit, hence they are resorting to the oldest trick in the book and as I know to my cost, the staple of those in an ideological corner – attack, which is supposedly the best form of defence.
Today has seen a flurry of articles in the paper of pro-choice propaganda, commonly known as The Guardian, fretting about the activities of 40daysforlife, whose peaceful prayer vigils, expose the self-deceit at the heart of those who support a woman’s supposed “choice”. They claim that the very presence of peaceful protestors is somehow intimidating, that it is imposing views on vulnerable women facing a difficult decision, whilst denying the humanity of the unborn child. If this is not an unborn child, but simply a cluster of cells, or an unviable fetus that would be unable to survive outside the mother’s womb, then why is the presence of those on the vigil so troublesome and disturbing? If a woman is simply exercising a choice available to her, i.e. not to have a baby, then what on earth has she got to worry about? She should hold her head high, march straight on into the abortion clinic and get them to remove the products of conception forthwith and pay no attention to the religious nut jobs praying to their invisible sky fairy. If it is simply a choice, a meaningless decision, then 40daysforlife are nothing more than an advertising campaign for the alternative choice and if a woman has made her mind up she is unlikely to be swayed.
Tragedy?
The problem for passionate advocates of abortion rights is that many of their own, such as Diane Abbott, accept that abortion is a tragedy, because it entails the destruction of life. Even if they prefer to term it the destruction of potential life, they are some way to recognising abortion for what it is. If abortion is a difficult and burdensome decision it is precisely because those faced with seemingly impossible situations who enter the abortion clinic with a heavy heart, recognise the gravity of their actions, yet feel that there is no other solution for them. For these women who are most definitely vulnerable, the presence of those praying for them, their unborn children and the staff in the abortion facility, is problematic, because it is a tangible reminder of the seriousness of their potential choice. It makes it more difficult for women to ignore the reality of the human life within them.
Pro-life protestors are problematic for the abortion clinics and supporters of abortion because they are either an advertisement for the opposing course of action or a physical reminder of the life of the unborn, not to mention the enormous elephant in the room, namely that human nature is to seek the approval or validation of others. This is precisely why every single abortion-rights group emphasise the “one in three women will need and abortion” slogan at every opportunity. This not only reinforces the idea that abortion is a basic necessity, every mother must be able to get rid of her unborn child, but also uses social validation, a known technique for helping those who are undecided, typically in the world of retail when contemplating what product to buy, we are influenced by the decisions of others. Protestors outside a clinic are a manifestation of people who are in disagreement and who, whilst enormously sympathetic to the plight of women facing horrendous circumstances, cannot and will not condone the killing of an unborn child. What is deemed unacceptable is that there is a group of people present who disagree with the choice that is being made. It is always difficult when people express disagreement with our own personal moral choices, but that is life. Those who care about us try to sensitively point out when we are making harmful decisions. That isn’t hatred or condemnation – it’s genuine care, concern and compassion.
What happens during these vigils?
Admittedly I am yet to attend one, however this will shortly change. The highly respected and well-renowned Catholic priest Fr Stephen Wang attended a 40 days vigil at the weekend, and it was his moving testimony that has motivated me to overcome my reticence. The only reason I have not previously attended is that last year I was heavily pregnant throughout the 40 days, indeed Felicity was born in the final days of the campaign, on Maundy Thursday last year, commuting to London heavily pregnant with a toddler in tow and negotiating the London Underground was too much of a chore. Similarly during the campaign of last Autumn, I would have needed to jostle toddler and newborn single-handedly around London and felt that though worthwhile, the exercise would have been too fraught with logistical difficulties.
As Fr Stephen states, these vigils are entirely peaceful. I imagine that the non-religious would find them interminably boring. It’s literally a small group of people praying underneath a non-graphic banner with a depiction of a Dove and a Bible verse. Hardly the most chilling or gruesome of images. Look away now.
Terrifying aren't they?
As Fr Stephen notes:
People at the vigil are not there to judge, but to pray and to offer hope. And you feel the reality of this prayer and hope when you are there, even if it highlights the starkness of the choices many people are facing.
Ben Quinn wrote an uncharacteristically balanced piece, the tone of which sympathised with the staff of BPAS, but nonetheless conceded that often the protestors consist of
a solitary participant…reciting the rosary across the road from the clinic.
Sarah Ditum, on the other hand, was a lot more strident, her piece contained no direct evidence, but simply quotes from Clare Murphy of BPAS who claims that protestors “encircle” women on the doorstep. 40daysforLife is in its third year. If this alleged harassment is occurring, then why have the police not been alerted and why have BPAS not used a camera of their own in order to prove what is allegedly occurring?
Here is the statement of peace that every single attendee of the 40daysforlife vigil has to sign as a registered participant.
1. I will only pursue peaceful solutions to the violence of abortion when volunteering with the 40 Days for Life campaign
2. I will show compassion and reflect Christ’s love to all abortion facility employees, volunteers, and customers
3. I understand that acting in a violent or harmful manner immediately and completely disassociates me from the 40 Days for Life campaign
4. I am in no way associated with the abortion facility or its affiliates by way of employment, informant, volunteer, client, or otherwise
While standing in the city right of way in front of the abortion facility:
5. I will not obstruct the driveways or sidewalk while standing in the public right of way
6. I will not litter on the public right of way
7. I will closely attend to any children I bring to the prayer vigil
8. I will not threaten, physically contact, or verbally abuse the abortion facility, employees, volunteers, or customers
9. I will not vandalize private property
10. I will cooperate with local city authorities
It hardly tallies with tales and tactics of intimidation. Where the problem has arisen, is that it seems like some over-enthusiastic participant has been spotted videoing the entrance to the facility. This is unacceptable and 40daysforlife have disassociated themselves from and condemned this action. The facts are not entirely clear, but when I spoke to Robert Colquhoun this afternoon, he confirmed that participants often do take cameras, but any photography or videoing that takes place, is not of women, but of the participants themselves, often to guarantee their own safety.
As the indomitable and heroic Clare, testifies, having been to several vigils, it is actually the protestors themselves who find themselves threatened and harangued by passers-by. When she attended a vigil outside the Marie Stopes clinic in London, a passer-by thought it appropriate to take photographs of her children, telling her that he was going to send them to Social Services as she was clearly an unfit mother. Last week at the 40days vigil in Bedford Square, a local man approached her children, telling them that their mother was doing “devil’s work” and that he was going to call the police. He made good with his threat, the police duly appeared having been informed that there were children outside the clinic who should be in school, whereupon it was explained that the children were home-educated and the policeman said no further action was necessary.
On one occasion Clare was interviewed for the Catholic TV channel EWTN, therefore a camera crew were filming quite legitimately. Robert informed me that three years of prolonged threats and insults on the vigils had toughened him up considerably, therefore though he continued to find reports such as those in the Guardian irksome in that they were full of inaccuracies, falsehoods and innuendoes, they no longer bothered him. 40daysforlife is clearly proving effective, given that the Guardian have devoted two articles in the space of 24 hours to them and has now written over 4 articles, so concerned are they by a handful of religious protestors praying the rosary. If these articles generate more national coverage of the campaign, it could well have a positive effect of encouraging more Christians to participate, or to set up groups in their locality.
On the issue of filming, this is not an activity that is carried out by 40daysforlife, nor is photography. The campaign is run on an absolute shoestring, there is no money for this type of equipment and no desire to film women entering or leaving premises. The official marshals, themselves unpaid volunteers giving up a few hours of their free time like the participants, need to remind people not to film either deliberately or inadvertently any members of the public entering or leaving the facility and will disassociate themselves from anyone who does this and ask them to leave the vigil.
When interviewed by Sarah Ditum for the Guardian, Robert was issued with a set of demands and instructions as to what 40daysforlife “should” do. Understandably he feels it inappropriate to be dictated to in an aggressive fashion by a pro-choice columnist, the peace statement is comprehensive and any participants with video equipment or using their mobile phones will be reminded not to video either the entrance or those entering/leaving.
No-one is encircled, bullied, harangued or manipulated and there is no evidence to the contrary, otherwise the police would act. Passers-by are asked if they want a leaflet. Refusals are accepted gracefully. Participants are there primarily to pray. If pregnant women are spoken to, it is because they themselves approach or speak to the participants. Women who wish to engage with the protestors, often do so because they are experiencing doubts and/or they feel that they need to justify their situation. It is this engagement that produces turn-arounds.
Being able to engage with women facing crisis pregnancies takes a lot of skill and emotional intelligence. It requires an open-hearted, non-judgemental attitude, not haranguing a woman, or telling her that she is evil, but a willingness first and foremost to listen and let her speak. There is no manipulation, women are told that there are other options and people willing to help them. There is a big sign up saying “we are here to help you”, which often provides the impetus for women to approach those on the vigil. Whether she admits it or not, a woman who approaches pro-life supporters outside an abortion clinic that she is about to enter, is subconsciously crying out for help. Any turnarounds that occur, are not due to women being “repulsed” by the protestors, if a campaign repulses one, such as say the images used by anti-vivisectionists, the normal response is simply to put ones head down and walk past very swiftly. A banner with a dove and a handful of “bead-rattlers” is hardly likely to deter a woman who is determined to abort her baby.
The spectre of the American bogeyman
40daysforlife is what it says on the tin. It’s not a 24/7 campaign. Participants give up an hour of their free time. No-one is outside Bedford Square at 3am, similarly the clue is in the name. The campaign lasts 40 days and coincides with Lent. A further campaign is takes place in the Autumn. To put it in perspective, that’s 80 days out of 365, one fifth of the year. Not a prolonged onslaught.
Both Ben Quinn and Sarah Ditum are extremely keen to compare what is going on in the UK, to what happens in America, despite the fact that the demographics and politics of the two countries are entirely different as are the abortion laws and indeed the gun laws. There can be absolutely no justification for the killings of abortionists but these need to be put in perspective. Since abortion was legalised via Roe V Wade in 1972, there has been a grand total of 8 abortion doctors killed. That is 8 too many, but these occurrences are rare. Compare that to the 50 million terminations that have been carried out since then. The pro-life movement condemns and abhors these acts of violence which are in the minority, but that does not stop people from wishing to brand pro-lifers as violent lunatics. Every year in the US, 1.2 million unborn babies are killed, compared to two tenths of an abortionist. (LifeSite News)
It’s the old slippery slope argument, that is so often derided by the so-called liberals.
Note the emotive and suggestive language, “escalation of protests”. Note the attempt to link in the unrelated hacker who incidentally aligns himself with a group who this week hacked the Vatican and threatened to release confidential details of all the Vatican journalists. There will always be those who are unable to see the unacceptable nature of their actions. Many people felt equally strongly about vivisectionists. No calls were made to curtail the anti-vivisection protests on the basis of the illegal and shocking actions, terror and intimidation techniques of the crazed minority. These were dealt with by due process of the law. Legitimate, lawful protests are not banned on the basis that a loner may hijack the cause. Abortion protestors are no more imposing their views on anyone, than any social or political causes that you see out on the High Street or in town centres on a Saturday morning. In any event there is no history in the UK of pro-life violence, terror or intimidation techniques. The Catholic Church, whose involvement has been highlighted, condemns all acts of violence, but let’s count them in anyway to add to the perceived “lunatic fundamentalist” effect. I also noted the reference to the law requiring ultrasound in 2 US states, which has thankfully been amended in order to remove the possibility of enforced vaginal ultrasound. But let’s put that in there anyway, to scare people further, even though it’s not a reality and not even on the table in the UK.
There is a reason why BPAS are not going to go down the route of escorts for women entering abortion clinics. Firstly there is no threat and secondly, it would add to their overheads. There is a reason why BPAS are trying to fling mud at pro-life protestors – they are proving effective. Whilst the public may support access to abortion, 74% think it is too easy to obtain. There is widespread revulsion regarding late-stage abortions, gender selective abortions, abortions used in place of contraception and the 200,000 abortions that take place every year. There is a reason why people are suspicious of abortion clinics, they can see the financial motivations of these “not-for-profit” (a tax status only) organisations – the heads of both Marie Stopes and BPAS are paid in excess of £125,000 a year. There is a reason if the language of the Right-to-know campaign is being used, namely that it is true and the metaphor of the conveyer belt of the abortion facility is striking a chord with many women who have suffered abortion.
They don’t like it up ’em
There is a reason why a one-off event is being magnified out of all proportion. Opposition to abortion is growing. The 40daysforlife campaign is becoming increasingly successful, it’s managed to unite disparate sections of the pro-life lobby in a simple but effective campaign of gentle protest and prayer. The pro-choice lobby are backed in a corner like a cornered animal, hence their increasingly desperate attack.
In response to the series of exposes by the Daily Telegraph last week, Voice for Choice, ‘the coalition to defend and extend women’s choice on abortion’, has released an open letter of support. (h/t SPUC)
I was left open-mouthed in astonishment by some of its claims, which are crying out for a good fisking.
As can be expected, all of the signatories are members of pro-abort lobby groups and providers, including Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS and Lisa Hallgarten, director of the former charity, Education for Choice. The amateur nature of the arguments encapsulated in the letter was summarised by the suggested reading list, which included blog entries from the various signatories, such as Ms Berer and Ms Hallgarten, a link to Nadine Dorries’ piece on Conservative Home, links to the Telegraph articles and most amusingly an editorial from that bastion of common sense and moral ethics – The Observer. Had the pro-life lobby signed a letter with those sources, Dr Evan Harris and his ilk would have been all over it like a cheap suit, decrying the lack of scientific evidence and satirising the use of opinion pieces as sources. Instead of linking to scientific studies and sources, or academic papers regarding the practice and ethics of gender selective abortion, readers are urged to reference individual blogs and a supportive column in the national press and take this as “supporting evidence”. The only reason for the mention of the Telegraph and Mrs Dorries’ piece is so that the reader can read what is being referenced and instead of being directly linked to in the letter, they are listed at the bottom of the list of sources, to be read once the pro-abort lobby have had their say. If I wrote something for widespread circulation that I expected to be taken as a basis for informing policy and debate citing only opinion pieces and personal blogs, then the work would be written off for lack of an evidence base and its biased nature.
In the style of the indomitable Father Z, I shall reproduce certain extracts and highlight my comments in bold.
In the face of the Daily Telegraph’s attempt to entrap and discredit a number of doctors who provide abortions – entrap? That means to force a person to commit an offence that they would not ordinarily have committed. So the doctors would not normally have referred to abortions on the grounds of gender then? They would not normally have said “no questions asked” or, as in the case of Dr Mohan, falsified paperwork? Those mean old undercover investigators made them do it?
we believe…that the provision of safe, accessible abortion care is a vital element of health care provision. – I guess that depends upon whether or not you are the unborn baby, for whom the procedure is not particularly ‘healthy’. Nobody has mentioned the Republic of Ireland where abortion is banned and yet maternal death rates are among the lowest in the world and still dropping.
Similarly, abortion on grounds of sex selection is neither legal nor illegal in itself.1 Under the 1967 Abortion Act, it is the effect of the pregnancy on a woman’s health, mental health and life that must be taken into account to determine whether or not she has grounds for abortion. – actually they’ve got this bit correct, but that still means that “no questions asked”, which 3 of the consultants stated, was in breech of the Act. It is morally and legally dubious to pronounce that having a specific gender is going to cause so much damage to a woman’s health, mental health and life, that she must abort the baby, with no further questions asked. The law demands further enquiry and probity.
Rather, the law gives doctors the responsibility to decide whether the risk of continuing the pregnancy to the woman’s health and mental health is greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. In making this judgement, doctors are directed by the law to take into account the woman’s personal circumstances. – which rules out a no-questions asked policy. Duh!
The 1967 Abortion Act gave doctors the responsibility for authorising abortions in the belief that women could not be trusted to take this decision for themselves. – spot the feminist revisionism. No it didn’t. The Abortion Act gave doctors the responsibility, because it recognised the gravity inherent in the taking of a life of the unborn. Trusting a woman had nothing to do with it. The Act recognised that this was a medical procedure, like any other and thus the clinical decision needed to be taken by the medics, having taken into account all of the circumstances, if all other possibilities were closed to a woman. Abortion was NEVER envisaged as a right or a lifestyle choice. If I went to the GP tomorrow and asked for breast implants to take me up to a double HH, otherwise there was a serious risk to my health, the doctor would not simply refer me for the procedure forthwith. They would recognise the risks inherent in surgery and explore whether or not this was a strictly necessary procedure. The abortion is the ending of a human life, the removal of a baby from a mother’s womb. Why is this decision of less gravitas than cosmetic surgery for whatever reason? A woman will still have to live with the outcome of her cosmetic surgery or lack thereof, so what right does a doctor have to refuse it?
Hence, most doctors are willing to provide an abortion referral for a woman if she requests it because they understand that continuing an unwanted pregnancy is not good for women or their children, and will almost always cause a woman greater distress than having an abortion. – really? Do we have the stats to back that up? If so why are they not cited? Whether or not abortion is more harmful than pregnancy is greatly contested amongst the academics. Certainly not what the study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry reported in September 2011 – stating that women who had an abortion had an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. Have any qualitative studies been carried out of women (such as myself) who have carried an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy to term? Would it really have been better for me to have had 3 of my children aborted? Would I feel so much better? Hmmm. No-one can qualify this claim with any certainty because of the nature of the variables.
We think that abortion should be available on a woman’s request, and not be governed by criminal statute at all. – in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies – they would say that wouldn’t they? Which would presumably mean abortion up to birth and post-birth abortions, if you follow through that logic.
We are also opposed to gender discrimination, but sex selective abortion is not gender discrimination. – ???? Eh. What???? Lovely piece of semantics here. Sex is not gender because it’s a social construct presumably? We’re in Blackadder territory – “Lord be Praised, it’s a boy without a winkle”!! In any event it’s evidence that most have not yet thankfully bought into Judith Butler’s nonsense. Discrimination means choice. What is abortion on the grounds of a lack or addition of penis, if it is not gender discrimination?
Gender discrimination applies only to living people. A fetus does not have rights in the same way as a living person does, and therefore cannot be said to suffer from discrimination. – ah there’s the nub of it. It’s not really a person and therefore has no rights, therefore we can do as we please with it. Choosing to abort because the baby is not a boy/girl isn’t discrimination, which can only apply to a person. I see. Discrimination is only concerned with the treating of people unfairly, so given it’s not a person, it can’t be unfair to kill it because of its gender. Hmmm. I see…
sex selective abortion may be one of the consequences of gender discrimination, but it is not a cause of gender discrimination. – its getting increasingly slippery here. Think you’ll find that if there are less girls (or boys) in a country’s overall demographic due to sex selective abortion, it has a massive impact upon that society’s behaviour. Societies where there are less girls for example, suffer from more violence, more violent crimes against women and higher rates of sex-trafficking. China is taking steps to limit this practice due to concerns that a boy’s inability to marry will cause psychological concerns and more violent crimes. Sex selective abortions are all about the worth of a particular gender’s (usually women) life.
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, who otherwise claims he wants doctors to be in charge of all our health care services, said that doctors would face the “full force” of the law if they break the 1967 Abortion Act. This is hard to swallow, especially considering that many of us hadn’t even been born the last time a doctor had to face the full force of the law in relation to illegal abortion. – how’s that for a piece of irrelevant cant? I wasn’t alive when the offence against the Persons’ Act was passed, most of us weren’t alive when many laws that affect our everyday lives were passed, that doesn’t make them any the less applicable or binding. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
The Health Secretary should know better than most that the 1967 Abortion Act was formulated precisely to allow doctors to exercise their professional judgement. It is shocking that he would threaten them with prosecution for doing so on such flimsy evidence. – flimsy evidence? You mean video recordings showing the doctors not making any attempt to adhere to the law and make any enquiries as to whether or not the woman fitted any of the grounds laid out in the Abortion Act. Nothing like a piece of outrage to up the emotional ante, attack being the best form of defence.
Then follows the obligatory smear of Nadine Dorries, without which, no pro-abort literature is worth its salt. Then to conclude:
The vast majority of heterosexually active people of reproductive age are currently using a method of contraception to the best of their ability, but one in three women in Britain will have an abortion in her lifetime. – no contraception is 100% effective right? So is that 1 in 3 women will have a contraceptive failure, or 1 in 3 women will choose to have an abortion? Nice bit of conflation to befuddle the issue and typical of the soft marketing messages given out by the abortion providers. Social conditioning is a known sales, marketing technique. When faced with a choice or dilemma we look to the examples of other people to validate our own actions. What do we teach our children? I’m not interested in what little Johnny does. What matter is what YOU do. Same principle.
We applaud their commitment in the face of unwarranted harassment and condemnation. – unwarranted harassment. I remember last year Dr Evan Harris’ absence of evidence is evidence of absence argument. He argued that because there was no evidence of abuses by clinics with regards to abuses of the law, then that lack of evidence was in itself evidence that everything was fine. Undercover filming to ascertain whether or not clinics are operating in according to the law, is not harassment. It’s a review, which should have been done by the Quality Care Commission. Every other industry is subject to outside review, it seems that this is yet another area in which the CQC has been lax. Which is why Cynthia Bower resigned last week.
every public debate show that most people in Britain are aware of and support the right to use contraception and the right of women to seek abortion when pregnancy is unwanted. – rightyho, so what do you make of the Sky News Live poll last week in which 74% of participants expressed the view that abortion is far too easy to obtain?
We call on everyone who supports family planning, including safe abortion, to express their appreciation for the health professionals who provide them. – by baking them cakes and buying them thank-you cards, like the 40 Treats for Life people? Bleurgh. Looking at that photo stream again, I noticed that Easter eggs are some of the treats donated? Could anything be more subverted than the Easter egg, the symbol of new life, given to people who think that destroying it is serving some great purpose to humanity.
Voice for Choice. It’s a catchy name for a group, but like so many other slogans, it’s utterly shallow.
When I last wrote about what it was like to face an unplanned pregnancy, a commenter angrily wrote that they could not believe my cheek in asserting that I could now look a pregnant woman facing a crisis pregnancy in the face, that I was comparing myself to someone who had been raped when clearly there was no equivalence, I could never know how it could feel to be pregnant as a result of a rape.
Assuming that statement is correct, it must be remembered that trauma caused by an unplanned pregnancy is no less serious and distressing for a woman, regardless of how she came to be in that particular situation. Being avowedly pro-life does not somehow lessen the emotional or physical impact of an unwanted pregnancy. As a Catholic I feel under additional pressure to serenely grin and bear it, to plaster on a saintly smile and offer up every bout of retching for the Holy Souls in Purgatory, whilst declaring to the world how wonderful it is to be bringing another beautiful baby and human soul in the world.
Now whilst there is some truth in the latter part of that sentence, I know that once the baby is here, I will adore him/her, I will proudly post photographs of him/her on social media and proclaim “look, my baby is so beautiful, here is proof of the evils of abortion”, the reality of being pregnant and pro-life is somewhat different. The reason that I look at my babies and feel filled with horror at the idea of abortion is because I know quite how tempting that prospect is. I experience it on a daily basis. Looking at my babies once born, is an affirmation, not that one is needed, that I have undoubtedly done the right thing and if we’re going to psychoanalyse, is probably as much about assuaging my guilt for entertaining such abhorrent feelings whilst pregnant. One of my more unpleasant detractors said “if I see one more photo which says my baby is cute and abortion is wrong, I’ll throw up”, further consolidating that she had absolutely no idea what it is like to experience a pregnancy, let alone an unwanted or unplanned one.
Here’s the reality, warts and all. I will attempt to remain as dispassionate as possible and not whinge, but I think pro-lifers need to get a feel for what it is like when a woman is desperate, something that the pro-choice lobby, understand only too well.
I feel constantly nauseous. Not mildly nauseous, but full-on, I’m on the verge of throwing up big time here. Everywhere I go, a bucket or some sort of receptacle has to come too. I emerged from around the back of a shrubbery on campus yesterday, wiping tears from my eyes, mucous from my nose and surreptitiously dumping a plastic bag full of vomit in the nearest bin. Being British I cannot bring myself to face the mortification of using the campus toilets and bumping into someone I might know, or indeed that anyone might hear. If I’m not throwing up, I’m feeling that I’m on the verge of it at any second. Everything and everyone smells of cheese, even me. I disgust myself with my smell. Even my beloved children absolutely stink to high heaven. My beautiful baby is repellant, I can’t bear to have her anywhere near me, because she literally makes me sick, one whiff of her head and bleurgh I’m off. This is something of a problem, given that she refuses to drink anything other than breast milk and the odd bit of water. Every time she latches on to the breast, the surge of hormones as the milk is released causes another heave. Another issue is that she is, at not yet 9 months, going through separation anxiety. Put her down for more than 5 nano seconds and the million decibel screaming as if she is being tortured starts, thus setting off the toddler.
I’m exhausted. Not just a little bit tired, but as though my arms and legs are weighted down with lead. I feel constantly wiped out and struggling to keep my eyes open. When I’m at home with the children, I’m fighting sleep, but with a lively and boisterous 2 year old and the baby, it’s obviously not an option. What is exacerbating this is that due to a shortage of space in the house, there is nowhere to put a cot. Thus bunk-beds have been ordered, toddler will be evicted from her cot bed and the baby will then have a cot to sleep in. Until that time she is still in the bed with us and cannot get to sleep unless she is breast-feeding. She has now grown three teeth, so there is lots of biting, nights consist of being used as a giant human comfort blanket, my nipples made ultra sensitive via pregnancy hormones, spend the night being bitten or twisted, handfuls of flesh are grabbed, kneaded, scratched, pulled and pushed in order that the baby can slumber peacefully. As soon as the bunk-beds arrive, I anticipate a double dose of sleep trauma, toddler will be none too happy being evicted from her cosy cot, 7 year old will be getting frightfully stressed and coming to tell us every 5 minutes that toddler is talking, crying, whimpering etc (this happened on holiday when they shared a room) and baby will be apoplectic at having to sleep in a cot in a different room. There is a reason why sleep deprivation is used in torture techniques. It makes you desperate. What I have been doing, because I am a shocking, neglectful, lazy mother, is taking advantage of when my children are in University nursery to nip back home and catch a couple of hours of sleep.
The house is an absolute state and I am behind with my university work. I went to the much advertised Student Life building to get some advice about support, given I have a few late essays. I was told how to submit mitigating evidence but also told that there was no guarantee that my claim will be accepted. The highest I can achieve in my essays, if my claim is not accepted is 40%. This will do, it will get me a pass, but is more than a little frustrating.
So, to recap, I’m snowed under with university work, the house is its usual pigsty, I have three young children, I am utterly exhausted, my family live hundreds of miles away and I’ve no close friends nearby either. The parish we worship at is 10 miles away from our house, we started worshipping there before we moved, when Robin was still a vicar, have built a close relationship with the priest and have some friendships, but are still slight outsiders.
The thought of having another baby fills me with absolute dread. As soon as the nine month old reaches a vaguely manageable stage, yet another screaming newborn will be here. I have been pregnant and breastfeeding since February 2009. I have had 2 cesarians in two years, one in November 2009, one in April 2011. Neither of them have gone well. I have a phobia, a genuine dread and terror of childbirth. I feel sick, ill and rotten. I cannot believe that this is happening to me yet again, no sooner does my life begin to come together, then bang, I’m pregnant again. I also feel extraordinarily foolish for being pregnant, like I’ve done something wrong and incredibly stupid in my use of NFP; some would say its my fault for trusting in it, others would point out my deficiencies in not being able to use it properly. Either way it is my fault. In short I am not floating about in a state of pious tranquility that the Lord’s work is being fulfilled. I am miserable. I am letting just about everybody down, my husband, my family and my friends because I am finding it so difficult to function.
My husband is working really long hours, if I defer my degree again, then I’ll be liable for the higher £9,000 a year fees, if I give up, then I’ll never be able to get a job. This getting a job business is actually quite important. If for some reason my husband is not ordained, then instead of spending these few years training for a career, he’s been working in, what can be, a pretty back breaking job paying £5.90 a hour. He’ll need to do something else, as will I. Even if he is ordained, then it is not fair to expect the Catholic Church to pay for my upkeep. So the degree is important.
As an aside, perhaps people can understand why I may be just a tad short-tempered at the moment. Perhaps they can also understand why, given we gave up everything in order that my husband could cross the Tiber, and given that I have received unprecedented amounts of abuse for defending Catholic social teaching, it is more than a little galling to be called “liberal, pro-life lite, misleading the faithful and reinventing Church teaching” and had the fact that we are not cradle catholics thrown back at us by some of the traditionalist Catholics. It’s why I’m having a twitter break for a short while. Anyone looking through some of the early comments on this blog can see some of the abuse that I’ve had to put up with, being called a fundamentalist, extremist and other such names. It is just laughable to have my faith called into doubt this way. There has been absolutely no understanding that I might be feeling extremely vulnerable at present – name calling of the most un-Christian kind and aggression has been de rigour. It has been worse than anything previously faced, not simply because of the spiteful derision, but because this has come from brethren in Christ. Although I am to blame for perhaps overreacting, I think bloggers who devoted two consecutive blog posts to me and tweeters who embarked on consecutive twitter rants, need to ask themselves how they feel they might be coming across?Twitter does not allow for nuance, nor does it allow pause for thought. When faced with tweet after tweet after tweet, the blood starts pumping, the breathing quickens, hackles rise at the invective writ large in front of you and the emotional temperature is raised. This is not good for anyone and certainly not righteous. I would urge all Catholic tweeters, just to stop, pause and think. Things might not be meant aggressively, but that is certainly how they come across.
It’s fair to say that I am not Mrs Duggar, floating about in euphoric bliss about the Lord’s will being done, having conceived baby number 21. If only I were. This pregnancy is proving to be a huge spiritual test. I feel like asking “Lord, why me, again”, but am focusing upon Romans 8.
Why am I spilling like this – firstly, its to let people know in no uncertain terms that I am having a hard time. It’s to let pro-lifers know that pregnancy is often a terrible physical and emotional ordeal. I am effectively being forced to give birth, as the pro-choicers would put it, because for me there is no other choice. What I have to do, in the words of Mama Odie, from Disney’s Princess and the Frog (currently showing 24/7 in these parts) is to dig a little deeper. What we want and what we need are not always the same things, doing what is right, is not the same as doing what is easy. There are times when I feel that I would literally do anything to not be pregnant right now, I would make some kind of Faustian pact that didn’t actually involve taking the life of my chid or indeed selling my soul. If someone would offer me a solution to take away the pregnancy and the sickness, I would be mightily tempted.
This is what pregnant women face and this is what is on offer at Marie Stopes and BPAS. I know that were I to visit, they would not sit in judgement, but would validate my feelings of despair and negativity whilst offering a way out. This is the reality that anyone dealing with a pregnant woman has to face. I wrote a lot this summer about non directional counselling, my feeling was that women must not be bullied and hectored. I still stand by that, but my opinion has changed slightly. The only thing that is stopping me from not aborting this baby, is the fact that I know that it would be the killing of a child. I am 9 weeks pregnant. That’s definitely a baby, not a potential life, but a real live one. Abortion providers make moral judgements for women, they tell women that aborting children is acceptable and understandable. It might be the latter, but whichever way you look at it, when an abortion counsellor recommends a woman for an abortion procedure, they are making a moral judgement.
Pro-choice people understand only too well how difficult it is for a woman, which is why they hate us pro-lifers piling on what they believe is unnecessary guilt and pressure. But where I have changed my mind, is that actually, a woman needs to know that if she aborts her baby, she is killing her unborn child. There can be no getting around that fact. Women need to see ultrasounds and understand the choice that they are making. Someone needs to put the reality to them that abortion is the ending of a life. It’s an uncomfortable truth and it is what has people so up in arms, because they feel that women don’t need to know that, it’s easier to put the whole idea out of their minds, in a separate box to be dealt with later. This does not necessitate religious reference or hectoring, but simple facts. Here is your baby – here is what it looks like – the decision is still yours, but it is precisely because of the nature of abortion, that you may well feel some emotional trauma afterwards, particularly if you are already vulnerable.
I know that Marie Stopes and BPAS would offer me the solution that I wanted, but it would be a decision entirely centred around me, my feelings and my life as it stands now. The unborn baby would not feature at all, and thus spurious arguments would be used as qualification such as “its not really alive, it’s not viable”. That’s why this so emotive, desperate women take decisions to make their lives better, decisions that seem understandable, but decisions that are ultimately morally right or wrong. Either abortion is right, or it is wrong. What pro-lifers have to do is understand this desperation and fight to offer decent alternatives for women in these situations, as well as helping women to see the reality of their actions. What would help me? Someone to advocate at University, not only for the late penalty to be taken off my essays, but also to allow me to bring a newborn baby to lectures and seminars next year. Someone to help fight so that if I do defer, I don’t have to pay the higher fees. Ultimately we need people to fight for better conditions for pregnant women in terms of careers, so that they are not forced to put them on hold, or their prospects aren’t damaged by career breaks. That would get down abortions no end and would be a far more productive use of time than philosophically debating same sex marriage. Pro-life groups have to make it easier for women. I don’t need baby clothes, I need practical and career help.
No doubt aborting this baby would improve my short term health no end. It wouldn’t do much for the baby’s. No doubt I shall be filled with grace and blessings. But understand this – it is far from easy. I feel forced to set a shining example, when really all I want to do is to collapse into a hormonal mess. Faced with no alternative I just have to cope and dig a little deeper, I think it’s what most do when they are up against it. But I need people to be gentle. I needed a break from pregnancy. Desperately.
So, I said I’d do one final post, before a break of a few weeks, and here it is. As will become obvious I do want comments to continue to pour in as I think that this could actually prove very constructive.
Let’s be honest. There is no coherent pro-life movement in the UK. I have spent hours pouring over pro-choice literature, academic studies, political analysis, I follow them like a hawk on social media and I have to concede they are expert operators with cogent strategies, smooth PR machines who are able to drive headlines and influence public opinion. I know one or two people who have attended their meetings incognito. I’ve thought about doing the same, with the addition of a black wig and my glasses. What I have been told is that the pro-choice lobby are friendly, very well-organised and above all democratic, transparent and accountable.
What do we have to counter that? A disparate bunch of well-meaning squabblers, and I admit in some respects I may not have helped, but it pains me beyond belief to see the mess our side are in; whilst we squabble, bicker and fight, countless die.
I know all the arguments about Catholic teaching, about Christian teaching and so on and so forth, there is a time and a place to evangelise and I don’t simply mean in Church, but trying to base legislation upon Biblical, Scriptural or Magisterial Authority has not worked since before the Enlightenment. I think we have to draw an important distinction between Christian evangelisation and attempting to achieve our goals. Of course the two are inexorably linked and should complement and support each other, but campaigning for the dignity of the unborn and sick and elderly does not necessitate or require theology or biblical exegesis. We can draw on that to other Christians or in the course of general apologetics, but appealing to God, whilst trying to convince an atheist as to the horror of abortion, or why it is not right to put to death terminally ill or elderly people, is simply not going to wash.
It seems to me we have two options:
Option one
We all agree that I am a cheeky bumptious upstart who has no business sticking her opinionated nose into pro-life politics. If I want to do something I can rattle some collecting tins in Church, attend coffee mornings, bake cakes for pro-life charity sales, maybe do a bit of typing for the Pro-Life times or some such, but generally get back to my life of witness by continuing to have as many babies as I can until my uterus falls out.
In the meantime, the internecine squabbling continues, positions are more firmly entrenched than ever before, pro-life groups carry on doing what they’ve always done, groups are as polarised as ever before, John Smeaton retires in ten years time and passes on the family firm to his son, whilst LIFE carry on doing what they do. Both groups do some things well, but no real progress is made, things just tick on as before, it’s all about the damage limitation.
In the meantime, Dorries pushes for the 20 week reduction and fails miserably, much to the cheers of her detractors. Bouyed up by Nadine’s failure, the pro-choice lobby, decide to push on with their agenda, the requirement for the second doctor’s signature is removed, pro-life groups are no longer allowed to present in schools and are barred from carrying out any pregnancy counselling. Marie Stopes and BPAS build more and more clinics, abortion numbers go up, more sex education is thought to be the solution, more condoms and morning after pills are given out and so the cycle continues. Who knows, they may challenge for an overturning of the abortion pill to be administered in a clinic and will probably start hawking mobile abortion services, or even dial-an-abortion whereby a woman can have her consultation over the phone and the pill delivered by courier.
In short, doom and death.
Option 2
How about a meeting? (I won’t come, I promise, I’ll be too busy skulking or giving birth or something, besides I don’t want to be lynched by anyone). I know this seems incredible, I know we aren’t going to get x, y and z to actually sit down together in a room and begin to talk, dear me no, that could never happen could it, because of things that happened 20 years ago.
How about a team of professional mediators and ALL the major pro-life players and when I say ALL, I mean ALL? Not just representatives from SPUC, LIFE, Right-to-Life, but everyone, from people like Peter Saunders, to John Smeaton, Jack Scarisbrick, to Phyllis Bowman, Josephine Quintavelle, Ed Rennie, heck even Lord Alton, EVERYONE, lets get them all together to sit down, agree common goals and talk, to see where we can all go from here.
What I would love to see is a consolidation of all groups, – one huge group with different arms and focuses, say a euthanasia arm, an education arm, an outreach arm, a political arm, a research arm and so on and so forth. Consolidation has to be the name of the game in this day and age. It’s a clunky analogy but look at the airline industry. All the little airlines could not survive single handedly, routes were being duplicated, losses were being made and so we’ve seen some mergers in order to ensure survival. I know that the pro-life movement is not a business, but surely if we had one movement, one that was democratic, transparent and accountable, then certainly Catholics would know to whom to donate in good faith, as would Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, people of all faiths and none. We seem to have so much duplication and wastage and yet no coherent strategy.
I know there are so many thorny issues to be thought through, I know there are many competing egos, but surely with professional mediators and then with the help of management consultants (sorry, but they would need to be a prerequisite) we could take stock of the resources and expertise available, consolidate and move forward? I know there are issues such as LIFE only do non-directive counselling and really Catholics must tell people the truth that abortion is the killing of a baby and morally wrong, but surely there has to be areas of consensus and commonality?
I really don’t think we can carry on as we are, it’s 2012, it’s time to finally sort this mess out, and getting everyone together in a room seems a good place to start. If the Irish peace process can manage to get Gerry Adams and David Trimble around the table, then there’s hope for all of us.
Which brings me to something that I’ve always wanted to do. One of those poll jobbies. Over to you. What do you think? Maybe the first thing we can organise is that long overdue rally?
I was speaking with my spiritual adviser earlier as a result of which I will be having a short blogging moratorium.
There are a few reasons for this, firstly I have three essays due in on the 10th January, secondly I am beginning to hit the exhaustion phase of early pregnancy whereby every muscle aches and yearns for rest and I’m downing the lucozade tablets for much needed energy and to keep going. Looking after 3 young children on my own in the week means I don’t have time to sleep, combine that with University work and I’m shattered.
One very unpleasant commentator suggested I am a dreadful mother who neglects her children, given the blog, but I tend to do my blogging when they are in bed, plus, I am an extraordinarily fast typist. Rest assured my children do not lack their mother’s attention.
I am also involved in another short-term personal project, that I cannot divulge, but which is proving spiritually draining, however it already seems to be bearing much fruit and a worthwhile use of my time.
I don’t therefore have the emotional energy to continue taking the constant attacks from others, both my husband and my advisor noted that I can’t be fighting on all fronts and I need to concentrate on my current short-term goals and suggested that the work I am currently doing needs to be prioritised.
I received a number of emails of support following my last two posts, from Catholic supporters with influence beyond the blogosphere, from past and present pro-life parliamentarians, newspaper columnists and heads of various organisations. All of them praised my “courage”, but to me there seemed nothing intrinsically brave about tapping out my opinion. My husband warned that I might have a hard time, but I was taken aback by some of the vociferous comments, a few of which were unnerving in nature. Having been exhorted to “take down your post and walk away, your friends aren’t helping”, then told “there will be repercussions”, I had rather an unsettled night. I subsequently woke up to a comment implying that I was peddling “a sack full of lies, half-truths, outright deceit and spin concerning Catholic teaching”.
All of this rather proves my point about a culture of fear. It seems to be acceptable for John Smeaton to blog his outrageous opinions and pronouncements upon others but not for others to respond. A few of my supporters asked me not to publically name them, a wish that I will respect, because as they said, they need to be above reproach and not enmesh their organisations in a personal feud. To get involved they said, would be in exactly the same error as John; it would conflate their views with that of their organisation, whereas I have more freedom, blogging purely as a private individual.
This is the joy of the blogosphere’s lack of regulation, it is a great equaliser and means people can be called to account. Let me be clear, if any Catholic blogger had decided to deride myself or my colleagues, I would have been equally hurt, I may have challenged in the comments box, but would probably have left it. The reason why I have taken issue is because John Smeaton’s blog is in his official capacity as SPUC Director, there is no comment facility and it is taken authoritatively. As some of my commenters have noted, he has sometimes not represented the full picture or has jumped to false conclusions on issues, alienating many in the process and sowing dissent amongst natural allies.
This is why i believe the hierarchy aren’t as keen on blogs as we bloggers. We are not all in full possession of the facts, I was not party to the discussions or expert advice presented to the Bishops in terms of the Liverpool Care Pathway and Connexions so I have to trust their judgement. Though there is room to ask whether or not certain things are wise, what is unfair is to allege that the Bishops’ Conference is intent on pro-life dissent. If any individual Bishop was in pro-life dissent, then they’d be out on their ear. As some of my commentators note, we cannot comment on the sensationalist stories we see reported, not being party to all the facts and nor can we present this as evidence of anything and then turn our fury upon others, without looking very foolish.
What is in danger of happening at the moment is the blogosphere is in danger of turning in on itself and becoming an ugly spectacle which I do not want to be a part of. It is doing nothing for the Kingdom or Catholicism as a whole. It is why so many are so wary about the Internet as a medium. There is a danger of treating blogs or things we read on the net as truth and being unnecessarily scandalised. As a private individual I can only ever speak for myself and not, unlike others, in an official capacity which would lend misleading authority.
My advisor reminded me to remember humility, you may know you are right, but you don’t have to jump up and down to prove it, think of the patient monk who waits 7-10 years silently carrying on, before he is shown to have been right all along.
My husband says “the problem is Caroline is that you write very reasonable, rational posts and expect everyone else to behave the same way. We know human nature is flawed and sinful and not everyone will respond as you would wish and be convinced, so you have to accept there’s a lot of unpleasantness out there.” As he says, the irony about all of this, is that I am an orthodox faithful practicing Catholic, one who is happy to sign up to the Catechism in its entirety, therefore the animosity is unfounded. One only needs to look at some of the abuse I’ve taken for blogging on the key issues, to realise that.
The bloggers hold onto the fact that they are able to hold others to account and swiftly disseminate information. This is all I have done. Democracy demands that we are able to freely and openly discuss concerns without fear of “repercussions”. Apparently SPUC is a Limited Company. I can understand that it may not be able to be a charity because it might not be able to adequately meet the Charities Commission test of “public benefit”. To see the accounts a Companies House search of SPUC Pro-life Limited needs to be made. Of course being a Limited Company, raises questions like who are the shareholders, are the profits reinvested and is a dividend paid? I haven’t the energy to investigate further, but I would like to know more before I donate money or encourage others to.
Whatever SPUC’s alleged successes in the EU or UN, there is still no significant UK progress. Their projects may well be worth Catholic support, but why do they claim to be more worthy of support than others, especially when their leader is preoccupied with attacking Catholic leaders and upsetting prolific and influential supporters(it goes without saying I do not include myself in that)? Why should a Catholic support an organisation whose leader seems to sow dissent and who inspires a response that has made me fearful? If SPUC feel that the Catholic hierarchy are ignoring their concerns and are not as pro-life as they should be, then they need to look at the bigger picture. Why is there a lack of a coherent pro-life movement in this country, unable to hold anyone in check? Why are SPUC marginalised? Who do they have to blame?
As I said, I am going to post one more entry and then have a short moratorium whilst I concentrate on essay work and other things, but I don’t regret opening this up for debate.
Amongst all the to and fro, Tyler, came up with the following comment as a wonderful New Year’s Day gift. This is what makes blogging worthwhile, in a beautiful twist of fate, in delicious irony, it is an interlocutor or “troll” who has motivated me to continue. The Lord does move in mysterious ways.
I’m not going to lie. I came here to troll all over your site, as I had held you in a fair bit of contempt, after being directed here through an angry friend’s link. However, I was unprepared for the unusual and surprising quality of your reasoning and logic, which was far from the usual, “the face in the sky commands us to do A, B, and C, while prohibiting E, F, and G” sort of religious blog. Therefore, I apologize, and after thinking carefully about it, I also apologize for the trolling I would have done, had your blog been less impressive, as what I was going to do was rather ridiculous anyway since,to put it mildly, and to insult you would have been rather immature, regardless of what I found here.
In addition to this, I feel I must point out that I obviously do not agree with all that is written here. As I am not a Strong Catholic, this is unsurprising, but I am not so naive as to fail to realize that not all Catholics are drones, mirroring and reflecting the same precise beliefs, and I realize that your reasoning is constructed in a way that is open to debate (if one has suitable facts and satisfactory mental facilities to engage in a reasonable disagreement in the comments section), which is a significant factor in the quality of your posts, as you have clear substance in what you write. Thus, while our principles are not necessarily on par with each other, I believe the respect in your blogging rises above that, and presents itself as valid and important opinion, despite what my own beliefs are.
So, I hope you keep writing. Perhaps I do not hope that people will take what you say as the absolute truth but, perhaps, I hope that people will consider and weigh in on what you write. Because, honestly, the best argument is constructed with knowledge on something you don’t like, and your blog, at the absolute least, is an exemplary argument for anyone, religious or not.
Steve Jobs’ legacy is not only that of the beautiful sleek shiny products that were to transform technology, not simply the hours of pleasure he brought to countless children and families by his innovations at Pixar, but what is also true is that he is undoubtedly the pro-life beacon, the Beethoven of our age.
Jobs’ biological father was a Syrian political science professor named Abdulfattah John Jandali and his biological mother was student Joanne Carole Shieble. They met at the University of Wisconsin but didn’t marry according to Jandali, because Joanne’s Jewish father forbade her from marrying a Syrian.
Jobs’ birth took place in 1956, 17 years before Roe v Wade legalised abortion in America and thus his mother clearly felt that she had no other choice. In another interesting twist, the original prospective adoptive parents had a change of heart, deciding not to adopt Steve as they really wanted a girl, hence he went to the second parents on the list, who received a late-night phone call to inform them that a baby was available.
Perhaps of more interest is the fact that Joanne almost called a halt to the adoption, refusing to sign the papers when she realised that the working-class Jobs’ family did not have college degrees, echoing some of the decisions made by today’s social workers when deciding upon issues of suitability of prospective couples. How would Jobs’ life turned out had he been adopted elsewhere? Imagine what we would have lost had he not been born? Like Beethoven Jobs was a creative visionary, the circumstances of his birth were hardly ideal and yet he brought pleasure and will continue to do so, to countless millions.
The pro-life vision extends from moment of conception to moment of natural death. Steve Jobs received his diagnosis of terminal cancer in 2004, being told he had 3-5 months left. No-one would have blamed him had he sought a painless swift death, instead of years of gruelling medical treatment, including reported transplants. And yet his impending death inspired him to go on to greater heights of achievement, including the iPhone and the IPad. He made his peace with the daughter whose existence he had denied for years and admitted his behaviour had been less than perfect. Death, he said, gave him focus and clarity.
He made his final public appearance, 2 days before his death, facing his illness with quiet courage and determination.
Not bad for an unplanned baby who dropped out of college.
I am a passionate defender of the rights of the unborn as well as the elderly and the terminally or chronically sick. I believe that every life is of equal value and worth , from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.
I give my time, my effort and what little spare money I have to the pro-life cause. What do the various organisations actually do to deserve my money? They did not support the Right to Know campaign, on the grounds that the potential reduction in abortions could not be quantified; it could not be ascertained precisely how many women may take up the offer of independent counselling and because Crisis Pregnancy Centres could be put at risk.
Let me address these points one by one.
Why does the precise number regarding the potential reduction in abortions matter? It is obvious that if women are given truly independent counselling, off the premises of the abortion provider and allowed to think and talk through all of the options, that some may well re-consider an instinctive reaction to abort a pregnancy and decide to continue the pregnancy. Even if just one life was saved, this would have been worthwhile – since when was the pro-life cause utilitarian in nature? Indeed a utilitarian attitude is the very antithesis of a pro-life mentality, one that is generous to every single individual.
Again, does it matter how many women may or may not have taken up the offer? Is this not ungenerous and contrary to the spirit of the pro-life cause. We know that abortion HURTS women. This is why I feel so very strongly about abortion. We know, it hurts women as much as it does their children. We provide post-abortion counselling and listening. How many times have women rung up, often in the small hours of the morning, wanting to talk through their hurt and pain with someone who will understand? Women who have felt pressured, by their partners, by their families, by the expectations of society, to abort their unborn child. Society does not allow a woman to grieve after abortion. She has exercised her choice, a perfectly valid and legitimate one, so what is there to be upset about? If she recognises that this was a life, she is told that she is being illogical, this was after all, only a cluster of cells, not a real person (despite the fact that by the time of even the earliest abortions, the foetus is fully formed), not a viable human being so there is nothing to get upset about. If the humanity of the unborn child is admitted, it only compounds the woman’s grief.
Part of our ministry involves helping to heal the physical and emotional aftermath of abortion. I have spent hour upon hour listening to women crying because, in their words “I killed my baby and I don’t think I can ever forgive myself”. “I didn’t want to, but I felt I had no other choice”, “if I could have my time again, I would never have done this”, “I was unprepared for the grief, it was like hitting a brick wall at 60 miles an hour”, “no-one warned me that I was going to have to experience a type of labour, until it was too late”, “the procedure left scars on my cervix which could have left me infertile”.
We know the reality of abortion, we witness the aftermath all the time. There are many women I have spoken to, who may not have changed their decision to abort their child, and whilst none of us could ever sanction the death of an unborn child, is it not better that a woman who decides to proceed with an abortion, does so in a state of informed knowledge, so that she may be prepared for the potential ordeal? An abortion, very much like childbirth, is the unknown. Nobody can experience it on behalf of the woman, nobody can say with any certainty how she will feel afterwards. Surely it is better that she may be informed of all the risks and options available to her, in order to alleviate her suffering at the other end. The study produced in the Journal of Psychiatry last week which was a review of all major studies to date, stated that women who had been through abortion were 81% more likely to suffer from mental health problems. A woman who has experienced an abortion is 55% more likely to suffer mental health issues than a woman who is forced to continue with her unplanned pregnancy.
Don’t we owe it to WOMEN, to have fought this issue just a bit harder, rather than focus purely on the numbers? We know that unlike the ardent pro-choicers, that we cannot assume that a woman knows her own mind. This is not sexist or misogynist, but accepting that due to the misogynist nature of today’s society, women are very often coerced into aborting their unborn babies because a pregnancy is not convenient. A woman’s fertility and subsequent pregnancies must not simply be seen as an inconvenient side effect of gender, for which a remedy must be found. To compel a woman to disregard the natural product of her innate sexuality is oppression.
I have heard countless women tell me that in their hearts they didn’t want to abort their babies, they experienced a visceral reaction towards their unborn, as one woman said to me “I just wanted to be challenged”. An unplanned pregnancy is terrifying. I should know, I have experienced two. No-one can go through it for you, but just one statement “it will be fine, you can do this” is all it takes to offer comfort and support. Countless women state that there was nothing “wrong” with the counselling or consultation (although bear in mind it is the lack of counselling that women testify as being one of their regrets) it was simply that they went into an abortion clinic, stated why they felt ambivalent about the pregnancy, why they felt that abortion might be the option and this was confirmed to them, no alternatives were offered or discussed. Obviously the abortion clinics trusted that the women knew their own minds and had already made their decision. Once the doubts about the pregnancy had been outlined, the discussion was moved on to methods of abortion.
We owed it to women to get this amendment through, which is why I vehemently supported it. Not simply to reduce the numbers of abortions, not just to abolish the one-stop-shop nature of the abortion clinic, but to help women and avoid some of the terrible stress and trauma that will be experienced by so many women. I wonder how the 600 women who had an abortion today are feeling? I wonder how many of them had access to truly independent counselling? I wonder how many of them really had absolutely no other option?
This was so minor, it would have done absolutely nothing in terms of changing the laws surrounding abortion, but it could have done a great deal to alleviate suffering and distress and we absolutely stuffed this one up.
Let’s be honest, everyone knows that Nadine Dorries is something of a political liability. She has a tendency to be rather elastic with the facts, her parliamentary style has something to be desired and she is considered a loose cannon by the Conservative Party. Whatever she did in the run-up to Wednesday (I have heard some unsubstantiated rumours) it upset her own political ally enough that he basically told her to shut up and sit down in Parliament and then proceeded to desert her in battle, in a humiliating and unprecedented switch to the other side. Whatever Nadine had done, it had seriously riled Frank. He treated her with utter ruthlessness, as did the Conservative Leadership.
But let’s not just blame this on Nadine. We know what her style is and her personal reputation. We know that she is a PR disaster and yet she ploughs on regardless. We know that whatever else she is principled and crucially we also know that she surrounds herself with a team of numpties. This campaign was a disaster from start to finish. Way back in March, those in the know predicted, look, this isn’t going to go anywhere. They know Nadine’s history and saw the utter carnage of the 2008HFE bill. Those running the Right to Know campaign made some basic and fundamental errors and were lacking in professionalism. One example being that templates for people to contact their MPs were noticeably lacking.
We know that the pro-choice lobby would blow this amendment out of all proportion. We know how slick their PR operation is. It should have been obvious that they would attempt to carry out a sting operation on Crisis Pregnancy Centres and thus pro-life organisations should have had their house in order. What in the name of all that is holy, is Care Confidential still doing with a manual that bangs on about “sin and grieving God” etc etc. What an own goal. The pro-life cause already has an image of being weird religious fundamental Christians, despite the fact that there are many secular adherents. Stuff like this does not help and is really indefensible, both in terms of PR and more importantly in terms of practice. Now that I am a practising Catholic, I would obviously find religious spiritual counselling enormously helpful. When I had my first unplanned pregnancy I was a lapsed Catholic, more agnostic than anything else, and had a counsellor attempted to talk to me about God, I would have gone running straight to the first abortion clinic. Women who are frightened do not need to be given religious guidance, unless they specifically seek it. It is utterly counter-productive and loses all professional credibility.
ALL of the pro-life organisations who carry out counselling should have foreseen this and should have had their house in order. The PR handling by LIFE of the Guardian sting was a joke. It was left to bloggers like Archbishop Cranmer to sort out the mess and LIFE owe His Grace an enormous thank you. They are lucky to have such an erudite, principled, influential and impassioned supporter. Even if he is dead. It says something when they leave it in the hands of someone who died over 500 years ago. I gave this month’s donation to His Grace’s collection plate. He was a much worthier recipient than any of the so-called professionals.
I am hoping that Damian Thompson will elaborate further, but believe me the emails I have seen between Ben Quinn of the Guardian, Sex Education for Choice and certain individuals at LIFE defy belief. My dog could have done a better job. These stings should have been preempted, those volunteers requiring additional training should have been identified, so that what scant “evidence” there was, could have been disregarded. Furthermore LIFE had the opportunity to launch a pre-emptive strike and did not.
So we’ve utterly failed. SPUC can laugh at LIFE’s incompetence whilst not grasping the reality that absolutely nobody takes them seriously in the first place. Crisis Pregnancy Centres are now at risk, NOT because of Nadine’s amendment, but because they didn’t have their house in order. Everybody blames Nadine and yet her amendment did not have the potential to threaten them, it was their own ineptitude.
Speaking in the Catholic Herald, in a horrendous and false capitulation to abortion providers, which no-one can condone, Josephine Quintavelle says that the Dorries amendment was flawed from the start and warns about it splitting the pro-life movement. What pro-life movement? A disparate group of organisations, none of whom seem to be able to produce any coherent or united message. LIFE, despite being a non-denominational organisation have to fight off accusations of “religious nut jobs” whereas SPUC are quite happy to go with that. On the one level, there’s nothing wrong with an openly Catholic pro-life organisation, except, ahem, surely this should be the responsibility of the CATHOLIC CHURCH? Where were they in all this? Where were the Catholic MPs? Why doesn’t the Catholic Church in the UK speak out more about abortion, why does it not do something to build up a solid pro-life movement, instead of handing thousands of pounds of parishioners’ money to organisations that are as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike?
If the Catholic Church was able to martial the huge amount of grass-root support in the pews into a tangible organisation, then no longer would people be able to claim that Catholics weren’t all against abortion. Moreover there would then be a very strong and influential arm that could add considerable weight to any secular or political pro-life organisation. What I really don’t get is why there are so many different disparate pro-life groups? It’s incredibly confusing for someone wanting to engage in activism and wanting to know which mast to affix one’s colours. They are all sinking ships.
I commented in support of LIFE on Iain Dale’s blog the other day and was instantly worried that by supporting one group, I may then alienate another. It shouldn’t have to be like this. Why can’t everyone unite and pool resources and expertise, or is that just too simplistic? So and so did x to so and so and ne’er the twain shall meet. Meanwhile SPUC rule themselves out of serious discourse by focusing upon internal politics and rulings of the Catholic Church, discussing seemingly irrelevant issues such as homosexuality, LIFE leave themselves open to stings, Right to Life fights valiantly led by a stalwart of the movement, one for whom I have enormous respect, but who is now an octogenarian and I have absolutely no idea what the Pro Life Alliance do, other than to sit back and blame the convenient scapegoat and say whatever seems politically expedient.
Damian Thompson said that young pro-lifers are in despair. I don’t know if he counted me amongst those, but he is right. His suggestion was that we scrap the lot and start again. I’d love to Damian, it shouldn’t be down to me, a mother and student, to be analysing stats and finding interesting narratives, such as I did in the teenage pregnancy rates. I found another interesting one the other day, which would have supported Dorries’ campaign no end. I rang someone up and asked them what to do with it. “Sit on it” I was advised, “it will come in handy later, Dorries’ campaign is going nowhere and her people won’t know how to use this information properly.” I was stunned that no-one else seemed to have highlighted my discovery which upon further expert discussion was not only feasible but entirely logical. Why had no-one else drawn attention to it? Why was this missed?
I don’t want to start another pro-life organisation, I have neither the political expertise or experience, though I don’t think anyone could doubt my passion. It would only be just another splinter group. What I want to achieve is cohesion and unity. Let’s have one strong pro-life group together with a very strong Catholic movement. Membership of the two do not need to be mutually exclusive, however we need to ensure that there is a group not only for Catholics, but for those of all religions and none. If we couldn’t get this trifling amendment through, against the mighty budgets and slick operation of the pro-choice groups, what chance do we have on the bigger, more substantive issues? I have expended so much emotional energy for this, and I will continue to fight and fight, but right now it seems like a losing cause. If we’re not careful all pro-life organisations are in jeopardy and buoyed up with this success, I shouldn’t be surprised if we see forays into getting the second signature removed and time-limits extended. The Conservatives have shown they have little stomach for the cause, it’s not politically expedient. The most worrying implication of this, and believe me this will have implications for Catholics and Christians everywhere, is that votes of free conscience seem to be under threat. This is a huge threat to democracy and society as a whole and yet no-one seems to have batted an eyelid.
For those who didn’t support this because it didn’t mean an end to abortion or the numbers weren’t big enough, or they were too embarrassed by Dorries, next time I speak to a distressed woman, who feels that she was pressured into a quick decision or wasn’t given all of the available information, I shall comfort her as usual and tell her that she must not blame herself. She should blame all of those who let their ideology get in the way of an amendment that could have meant the difference between life and death.
My post on the non-directive counselling services provided by LIFE was pure marmite, the responses being polarised between “superb” and “rubbish”!
For me this is one of the joys of blogging in that those who had a negative response gave some detailed analysis of their objections that has challenged my thinking. Once again apologies for lack of linkage, I will rectify once I get access to a laptop, but Joseph Shaw at Casuistry Central blogspot posted a thorough examination of the potential problematic issues that result from LIFE’s provision of non-directive counselling services.
In terms of the practical issues, there is no evidence that non-directive counselling is more likely to be effective in terms of a pro-life outcome. This is indeed true and probably why the idea of independent impartial counselling is being advanced by Dorries and Field. Nadine Dorries obviously feels very passionate about abortion issues, although she cannot be accurately described as pro-life because she seems to endorse the notion of “informed choice”, the language of those who have no fundamental issue with a the choice to abort a child. If people looked at the actual substance of her proposal they would realise that far from being the perceived oppressor, Dorries is a true feminist, she wants women to come to their own informed decision, conscious of all the information and options open to them. The problem is as Nadine has previously stated her wish to reduce the numbers of abortions and her general overall PR problem, the public, perhaps understandably have issues of trust, which is an enormous pity, considering the gravity of what is at stake.
As things currently stand, the two providers which the NHS refer to, do not provide all the information and thus cannot be said to be impartial or non-directive, having a vested interest in the outcome of counselling. This is hotly disputed, but from both personal experience and the testimony of others, what the abortion clinics do categorically do not do, is pass on or provide information with regards to the financial help that might be available. They do not help a woman to explore whether or not the costs of having a baby may be insurmountable. There are a lot of myths surrounding newborns; actually in practical terms a newborn baby costs relatively little in terms of initial expenditure and outlay; not being able to afford the latest designer pram or buy the fripperies which baby magazines are so keen to push and end up being total white elephants, is not a good enough reason for ending the unborn life of a child. Even if one doesn’t breastfeed or use reusable nappies, two ways which save considerable amounts of cash, but aren’t for everyone, child benefit, tax credits and grants can cover the “running costs”, although there are of course there are other financial issues involved, one can’t generalise. The point is that none of this is discussed by the current abortion providers.
The other issue that is not discussed is the stage of fetal development, every woman I have spoken to has reported that prior to the abortion they are given an ultrasound to ascertain precisely what stage the pregnancy is at, but they have never been shown the scan, the screen being turned sharply away. Even if a woman has asked to see, she has been persuaded that it is not in her best interests.It is a policy of abortion clinics not to show women the scan so she is in the dark about the precise stage of pregnancy that she might be at. Isn’t this rather patronising? Shouldn’t a woman at least be given the option? At six weeks the fetal heartbeat can be detected, even if a woman is adamant that she doesn’t want the baby, shouldn’t she at least know, if abortion is a ‘medical procedure’ the precise nature of her treatment? It could be argued that women are able to access images of fetal development on the internet. Many of them may do so already. Do abortion clinics ask women if they have already done so?
The answer to this is no, the same response to the question of whether or not clinics advise as to the potential complications or side-effects of an abortion. The ‘counselling ‘ provided by these clinics is affirmative, confirming a woman in her decision without ever challenging it. The physical realities are often glossed over as I have written about previously. Whilst singing the praises of Marie Stopes, Laurie Penny waxes lyrical about how wonderful they were on the phone when some acquaintance was experiencing trauma due to post operative bleeding which she didn’t know whether or not was normal. Had the clinic done their job properly, then the woman would have had an idea of what to expect.
If “no woman wants an abortion”, then the issue needs to be thoroughly explored with her to ensure that this really is in her best interests. Many women would dispute this however, Deborah Orr testifies to having had two abortions and though the procedures themselves were unpleasant, she states that afterwards it was like being let out of prison and that for her counselling would have been a waste of time, money and effort. According to Orr, feminists need “to stop with the hand-wringing”. That hardly fits with the no woman wants to have an abortion narrative. A more accurate statement would be “no woman wants to be in the position of needing an abortion”. If this is the case then there is a simple answer. If despite her best efforts a woman unexpectedly finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy, then counselling is necessary to ascertain whether or not the pregnancy is a “need”.
Non-directive counselling does not preclude the provision of all the additional information that is conveniently omitted by the abortion providers and though there is no concrete evidence which suggests that it is more likely to produce a particular outcome, the likelihood is that furnished with all the information, women may well reconsider a decision to abort. When this issue is discussed, the feminists tend to change tack and display their usual cognitive dissonance. They go from violently objecting to the concept of counselling which they deem manipulative, casting the woman in the usual status as victims unable to be able to see through the nasty underhand tactics of the pro-life crazies, to a narrative which suggests that all women who have an abortion are well-informed, know their own mind and do it in a spirit of sadness. The truth of the matter is that there is a broad spectrum in terms of vulnerability, attitudes and levels of knowledge. The NHS does not hesitate to assume a low level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to new mothers or even experienced ones. My 12 week old is my third baby, I’ve breastfed all of my children for over a year, I know the signs of illness, failure to thrive and so on, but even yesterday the Health Visitor rang me, whilst on holiday on the beach, to berate me for not going to baby clinic and to fuss about the health of the baby! “I’m fine, leave me alone” is what I wanted to say to her, but realised that she was only doing her job, child welfare and health was her main concern and for every experienced mother exasperated by unnecessary nannying there is another one in need of advice and support. The same could be said of counselling services, for every woman confident that she is in full possession of all the facts and information, there is another who isn’t. After all who really researches the facts of early stage pregnancy until it becomes of immediate concern to them? Most women who tend to find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, know they have a time limit and set about fixing the problem whereupon they find themselves on the abortion conveyer belt.
Joseph Shaw made the excellent point that the Dorries/Field amendment introduces the concept that non-directive counsellors may well become legal gatekeepers to abortion. In Catholic terms this is problematic and correlates with his idea that to provide non-directive counselling is to co-operate with evil. This already happens in Germany whereby women are legally required to undergo counselling prior to an abortion. Women who have received counselling and still wish to proceed with an abortion need to produce a certificate to this effect. The CDF has asked Catholics to disassociate themselve from groups who provide this counselling, because the provision of the certificate is to co-operate with the evil of abortion. The problem is not the counselling per se, but the provision of the certificate, therefore if the amendment is passed provided that no similar system requiring documentation from the counsellors to proceed is implemented, then this should not be a barrier to Catholic groups.
It is the idea that there should be any sort of gatekeepers which is arousing the ire of the alleged pro-choice lobby. Abortion is still technically illegal in the UK, it may only be performed under prescribed circumstances. This is why the signature of two doctors is currently required, in order that there may be a check and balance, the second signature is supposed to ensure that no malpractice, coercion or criminal offence has occurred. A second opinion was part of a law that recognised the gravity of the act and ensured that abortion was a last resort. Doctors were trusted to be the moral arbiters, not a woman. Over the years the fears of the slippery slope of many of the leading campaigners against the Abortion Act have been realised. A law designed to prevent the estimated 50 annual deaths in the UK from unsafe abortion has resulted in almost 200,000 abortions being performed in the UK on an annual basis. We have abortion on demand, which is why women seem to believe that it is their right and their choice. This is why Deborah Orr and her ilk vigorously campaign for the removal of the requirement for a second signature to make abortion even easier to access. The second signature, though treated as an exercise in bureaucracy, a complete subversion of the law, legally enforces the notion of abortion as the necessary evil, the last resort, not the back-up to contraception which Orr and Furedi claim it should be. Mandatory independent counselling consolidates the law as it stands, it is not a chipping away of rights, the right never existed in the first place. The amendment should be supported for this reason alone.
When discussing the idea of directive counselling, both Ben Trovato and Joseph Shaw noted that I constructed a straw man in suggesting that clients would be told what they should conclude at the beginning of the session, rather than, as is the case with other pro-life organisations, helped to reach this conclusion by the end of the session. I agree, however I was responding to some typically emotive rhetoric which I have never been able to establish whether it was grounded in truth. A vehement feminist, told lurid tales of women being brow-beaten, emotionally blackmailed, told they were “baby-murdering sluts”, shown graphic photos of dismembered fetuses and made to handle life-size models of fetuses. I would like to see these claims substantiated, we can’t assume that this does not go on, but the account seems grossly exaggerated. However as we have seen in the media, the Guardian in particular, publishing a disproportionate number of articles devoted to misrepresenting LIFE, they face an enormous task in surmounting their reputation as “religious nutjobs”. If nothing else my blog proves their impartiality beyond all reasonable doubt, given the reaction from Catholics. Any pro-life organisation provision of counselling is going to prove an anathema to the liberal press which will do its best to sway public opinion and whip up misplaced indignation. Ann Furedi has publicly attacked LIFE, but the one thing she has done is to admit that when BPAS sent someone undercover to investigate claims of manipulation, these were found to be unsubstantiated. LIFE, she concedes, does provide non-directive counselling, no graphic or distressing material was used.
We live in a depressing age of moral relativism whereby every choice or decision is said to be equally valid. The current zeitgeist is for an “evidenced-based” approach and for the issue of abortion to operate in some sort of moral vacuum. It has to be better that a pro-life group such as LIFE is able to be at the forefront and provide what will be seen as a best-practice model, furnishing a woman with all the facts, exploring all of the options with her, than an abortion clinic who will simply affirm a woman’s initial visceral and perhaps misinformed reaction. Certainly LIFE stand a better chance and as I said, retain the moral high ground in the secular area of medicine. This is what we have to recognise, the field of medical ethics is predominantly secular. We see nurses sacked for discussing views on abortions with colleagues and the previous government did their utmost to remove the ability from medical professionals to conscientiously object to practices against their faith. Faith is seen to have no part to play in the sphere of medicine. Appeals based on faith-based ethics are disregarded. Though the pro-life position is one that does not require any faith whatsoever, it is a common feature of all major religions, hence pro-lifers are often met with derision; objections tend to centre around descriptions of sky fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, before degenerating into generic attacks upon religion, via diversions of perceived misogyny, corruption, power and control, finished off with a liberal dusting of pedophilia, where the fundamental principles of the pro-life belief are obscured in a deluge of irrational and illiberal prejudice. Under these circumstances it seems that LIFE has no other option if it wishes to retain any secular credibility and build upon that. It is better placed than other organisations who nail their colours very firmly to a particular evangelical Christian or Catholic mast and thus risk alienating those who may otherwise be open to persuasion.
This is the crux of the argument as to why LIFE needs to continue and expand its provision of non directional counselling. Though the outcome may not be guaranteed, it is better that a group such as LIFE provides these services than an abortion clinic. As Joseph Shaw notes, a client will have some clue as to their stance, but the BACP accreditation provides the much needed reassurance. A client of an abortion clinic will be assured by their counsellor that abortion is a perfectly acceptable and valid choice, one apparently taken by one in three women, an argument incidentally I fail to understand, one in three men might have had sex with a woman without her consent, the frequency or commonality of the occurrence does not render it any the more acceptable. Upon entering an abortion clinic a woman will be exposed to lots of their literature reassuring them that abortion is a removal of the products of conception, making no reference to the fetus and with the emphasis heavily upon this is a normal everyday event, nothing major, no great shakes. All of this works towards a subliminal reinforcement of the message, downplaying the procedure, as well as fundamentally misleading a woman also increases the risk of subsequent trauma; a woman feels taken aback by her unexpected feelings of loss and at the same time unable to grieve. There are well over 30 independent studies which show a link between abortion and subsequent PTSD.
For me, the most pressing question posed by Joseph Shaw, one that I’m not sure whether or not I can satisfactorily answer without an element of deception is whether or not non-directive counselling amounts to co-operation in a moral evil, in that silence is a way that one may be an accessory to another’s sin. This is undoubtedly true, it would be disingenuous of me to deny it or indeed to find wriggle room. My only observations would be to note that this would not be a concern to a non-Catholic counsellor and by funding LIFE we would not be direct accessories to sin, but facilitating accessories to sin. Would the scale of the amount of lives potentially saved, the good, outweigh the bad? The potential to sin would be carried out by a third party as an accessory to another. It’s an indisputable problem nonetheless. Sin is sin. We cannot ignore that fact.
I think the answer for Catholics in good conscience would be to continue to fund LIFE, the good work they do significantly outweighs the morally neutral and it must be remembered that counselling only constitutes a portion of their work which as I pointed out, encompasses a huge field, from education to practical assistance and aid. My husband is one who was persuaded of the validity of the pro-life cause on a purely secular basis when in the sixth form and remains profoundly grateful to this day. Other teachers and school chaplains have verified their efficacy, no graphic images are shown and students are encouraged and stimulated to hold lively debates where all points of view are considered. I am not convinced that a Catholic should engage in non-directive counselling, however LIFE do provide free post abortion trauma services, another vital ministry and there is no reason why a Catholic could not help to heal the hurt.
Allotment Girl, a much appreciated, thoughtful regular here, gave me pause for thought. I think she deserves to have the last word.
Non-directive counselling is one way to show compassion to women who are in a situation they find difficult. Such counselling starts with the practitioner showing “unconditional positive regard”. This might be the first time a woman in this situation has been accepted for her own sake- not brow beaten and pushed in different direction. If a counsellor goes in with an outcome in their heads, it becomes more difficult to respond to the woman in front of them with proper care. It is crucial that this approach is kept and LIFE should be supported in this.
For Christian practioners they can truly be “Christ” to the women they work with. Christ deals with many people in the gospels and when he does so, he is gentle and loving, whatever their background or current situation. This has to be the model for any Christian for this is where change can happen. The way this issue is dealt with is as important as the issue itself.
Christ loved the sinner whilst abhorring the sin. The Catholic approach is always holistic, we must not get so caught up in protecting the unborn child that we neglect the humanity and needs of its mother. Christ would be smashing the abortion mills, he would be unequivocal in his condemnation of the killing of the innocents and almost certainly directive, however he would also extend a cloak of protection, compassion and love to frightened, desperate pregnant women. We should aim for nothing less.
I am pro-life. What does that label mean? It means that I hold all human life as precious, of equal worth, value and dignity, from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death. Just because a person may be disadvantaged in some way, just because their life might seem to contain more suffering than others, does not render that life any less valuable or worthwhile.
I often express pro-life sentiments on Twitter which result in the same old discussions; the label “anti-choice” is bandied about a lot. This is an attempt to be perjorative and smear the pro-life cause as being dictatorial or totalitarian; the dreaded “illiberal”. The prefix of anti being deliberately chosen to subvert the positivity of the pro-life cause and cast it into a negative light. Nothing could be more polarising.
The label implies pro-lifers wish to restrict basic freedoms and choices. Abortion is a grave matter which results in the ending of the lives of the most vulnerable. Let’s call a spade a spade. What is the choice that is under contention? It is the choice as to whether or not to kill your unborn child. Are pro-lifers against people having the automatic right to kill their unborn children at any stage in the pregnancy, no questions asked? You betcha we are, because the choice to kill should not be a right, a basic freedom or choice, in any civilised society. Abortion was legalised in the UK on that very premise, it was seen as a compassionate measure, one to alleviate suffering, a tightly regulated necessary evil, not an automatic right or privilege of every woman. Aleck Bourne, a doctor who performed an illegal abortion, one of the pioneers of the abortion movement, was horrified by the idea of abortion on demand and campaigned for a ban on the practice of doctors receiving a fee for performing or recommending an abortion.
Pro-abort seems the much more accurate label than “pro choice” as does “in favour of women being able to have a safe legal abortion”. That seems descriptive, factual and devoid of moral loading. As is “pro-life”: it does what it says on the tin. We are in favour of life. ALL life. Trouble is “in favour of women being able to have a safe legal abortion” (IFWSLA) is not quite so snappy. Nor is it emotive, which is how many wish the frame the debate. If the case is going to be made in favour of abortion, it needs to be using emotive and language, in order to evoke compassion for the women in terrible and desperate circumstances, which are the arguments that are always trotted out when abortion is discussed. The trouble is, as many of the fevered advocates are only too well aware, when you start using the hard cases, it plays straight into the pro-lifers hands as it admits that abortion is fundamentally an awful thing. This inherently validates the pro-life cause, so instead abortion is described as a fundamental right or choice, which is certainly not what the Abortion Act of 1967 was enshrining. Furthermore the truly genuine cases are very few and far between, even in Catholic theology, the law of double-effect kicks in if a woman’s life is genuinely endangered by pregnancy. A pregnant woman would be able to accept treatment that would save her life, even if the side-effect would result in the death of her baby.
It is time for some honesty from the pro-choicers. If they wish abortion to be a choice or right that every woman has, then they polarise debate and further entrench positions. If pro-choicers admitted that abortion should be an absolute last resort, that abortion is indeed a tragedy for women and children alike, then they would get a lot more sympathy. Perhaps, if the pro-choicers could couch the debate in terms of a necessary evil then both sides would have common ground and consensus upon which to build and maybe, some lasting social progress could be made on the issue? But smearing the other side with misleading labels is not the way forward.
The Catechesis of Caroline 