Perfect babies

I have just read this brilliant post on Ignitum Today on "perfect children." If you haven't already seen it you really must. I've posted the link below:

http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2012/07/18/92-and-perfect-babies/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

That statistic that 92% (which I'm assuming is just for the USA although I doubt it'll be little different for the UK) of babies diagnosed with Down's Syndrome are aborted is not only shocking but horrifying. Like the post's author I find it staggering that people can honestly believe that no life is better than a difficult one. Her story will, for many, raise questions as, obviously, in her case the conclusions drawn from the tests that were done were found to be inaccurate and for how many more children was this true? But regardless of whether the vast majority of children who were diagnosed with Down's syndrome did or did not have it it doesn't change the horror of the situation. So, so many children have been killed because people can't face the thought of bringing a child with a disability to term, there is a deep fear that the life that child will live will simply be unlivable, that they will be unlovable, that the lives of the parents will become too hard, that they won't have enough support and that it is cruel to bring a child with that kind of disability into the world. But, when faced with these sorts of fears and statements, I would always ask; "aren't we the ones with the disability?" After all it is we who are imposing the view that all life that is not 'normal', not 'average', not 'the same' as yours and mine is not worthy of existence. Is it not us who are so blind that we cannot even consider that someone with a different quality of life, with different abilities can still live a worthwhile life by simply living. And instead of pulling them and their families down with everything they can't do should we not try to maximise and emphasise what they can and pour our efforts into making that possible? Instead of spending billions on abortion spend billions on improving their quality of life and help them to live as full a life as we are able?

All of us, every, single one, is created in the image and likeness of God. Our innate dignity as human beings is founded in this. And that dignity, that expression of the image and likeness of God shines though the poor and sick and disabled and elderly just as much as through fit and healthy and young and wealthy. We need to see beyond the end of our own existence and truly appreciate the life of others. Yes, it may be different, but it is the beautiful, wonderful, awesome mystery of life just the same.

Memorial to the Unborn Child

Since our group's inception we have been holding small fundraising events (predominantly cake stalls...well everyone likes cake, don't they?) so that we could tidy up the Memorial to the Unborn Child in Hills Cemetery. The memorial, which consists of a simple marble tombstone (although I hasten to mention no-one is buried beneath the plot) that humbly commemorates all children lost before birth whether through miscarriage or abortion as well as still-births. Erected by the old SPUC branch in Horsham several years ago it had been left untended for a long while but was still being regularly visited with flowers and soft toys being left behind. Over the last 9 months a group member's daughter, Bekah, has been digging and slowly preparing the site for planting. It was slow going as, since the ground had never been dug, the soil was as hard as concrete! But now, as you will read in the Pro-Life newsletter at the end of the month, I am very pleased to say that the work is done, the plants are in and it looks wonderful!

If you are up that way do go and have a look-see, say a prayer if you have time for someone you know of who didn't make it to birth or, perhaps, spiritually adopt a child in danger of abortion.

Back to Basics: 1. From conception until natural death

Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2319.)

This is one of the most frequently quoted phrases by pro-lifers, one you've more than likely heard or read before. The Church has a lot to say about the sanctity of human life, she proclaims it boldly in fact, and it all stems from this one little sentence. In these 34 words more is said about the wonderful gift of life, its meaning and purpose than often meets the eye. And for some it also raises a lot of questions. I have tried to address some of the more frequently asked ones...

When does life begin?

Before I answer this question I'd first like to ask you one...when do you think a person becomes a person?

a) At birth
b) At 24 weeks
c) When there is an audible heartbeat and organs are forming
d) At conception

We asked this very question to our parish's confirmation candidates a few weeks ago and, whilst most of them answered d), there were some who thought c). There is a lot of conflicting opinion about precisely when human life begins; read different books, visit different websites and you will be told very different things. Part of the reason for this is that people often use strange, alien terms to refer to an unborn child during the various stages of development (e.g. zygote, foetus, embryo and many others) which dehumanise it and desensitise us to what it is too. But the fact is that a person is a human life from the very first moment, from the point of conception that zygote is an unborn child. Yes, he or she doesn't have arms or legs or a head yet but not being fully formed yet doesn't make them any less of a human being, in the same way that a toddler is no less a person than an adult purely because they haven't finished growing. A fertilised ovum will always result in a child growing in the womb of the mother, there is no point at which it suddenly becomes human having not been so before.

What does the Church have to say about life beginning at conception?

The Church has always believed that human life starts from the moment of conception. Until 1751 New Years Day in the English calendar was not January 1st but March 25th, the Feast of the Annunciation when the angel Gabriel announced to Our Lady that she was to become the mother of God (Luke 1:26-38). Our ancestors, along with the rest of the Body of Christ, recognised that Jesus' life on earth began long before his birth on December 25th. His incarnation began in the womb of the Virgin Mary, he became man at that moment, was fully human from that point onwards. The same is true of each of our lives; we are fully ourselves, totally human from conception. And because of this we have the same right to life as any other person. (CCC 2323)

What does it mean to be "created in the image and likeness of the holy and living God"?


Scripture and tradition speak at length about our innate dignity as human beings. That word, 'dignity', is one often thrown around, twisted and warped to mean a whole host of different things in a wide variety of contexts. But our true dignity stems from our being created in the image and likeness of God (CCC 1700), we are given a special gift, a unique honour in creation in that we resemble the divine. And this image and likeness, this dignity, is expressed in all of us, it is what makes each of us truly equal with our neighbour, none of us have more dignity than someone else. This image and likeness is expressed through the sick, elderly, disabled and dying, the toddler and the unborn child just as much as it is shown in the young, the fit, the successful and the healthy. Nothing can ever change this, no set of circumstances, no other person can ever alter the fact that we are made in God's image and that we are loved and cherished by him more than we could ever hope to fathom. And because we all share the same innate dignity we all have the same right to life. Just as no one can stop you from being created in God's likeness so can no one take away your dignity and your inviolable right to exist.

This is an immense and beautiful gift given to us by our Father in heaven, our lives are not something that we can create or bestow upon ourselves or others but something that we have been entrusted with.

What is 'natural death'?

Our lives are a gift from God from the moment of conception and this carries on until the moment we die. Because our lives are not our own (man does not have full dominion over his life, he cannot control when he comes into existence and only has limited control over his mind, body and spirit) they are not ours to end prematurely. Our human existence is directed towards doing the will of God and we do this through the big and small, major and minor events of every day right up until we breathe our last breath. In living the life that God has ordained for us and dying when he chooses we offer him our full obedience (CCC 1011), we set our worldly desires and will to one side and set our eyes on the things of heaven.

But as bleak as this may sound to some death is not a negative, nor is living out our full life. In living a full life (i.e. a life not cut short) we are given the invaluable opportunity to carry our very own Cross, to walk with Christ, to journey with him towards the Father, to grow in love and holiness for God and our fellow man. And because of Christ's triumph on the Cross at Calvary death is not the end but only a gateway into life, life with God for all eternity (CCC 1010). It is something that we should look forward to and prepare ourselves for through a regular reception of the sacraments.

That being said it is not something that we can or should hasten. Suffering is something that is as painful to watch as it is to endure but that does not mean that there is no value in it, that a person's life in those times of darkness and pain is less worth of having than yours or mine. We are called to love our neighbour, to care for them as we would have others do to us (Mark 12:30-31), to try and ease their discomfort through the means at our disposal (e.g. pain medication etc.) but not to perform so-called 'mercy-killings' as, due to our innate dignity as human beings, that person is still created in the image and likeness of God right up until the end and we have no right to say when a life becomes 'worthless' or 'too hard to endure'.

Don't we have the right to an abortion or the right to die?


There is a notion that we have the "right" to an abortion or the "right" to die as and when we choose, some even refer to them as "human rights." Human rights were created and given international recognition after the Second World War to ensure that never again would the rights of our fellow man be violated in such a dreadful way. These rights are there to protect our lives, to keep our right to life from being threatened by others. We, to name but one example, have the right to live free from the threat of torture, something designed to keep us safe and well.

Abortion and assisted suicide/assisted death can never be "rights" as they fundamentally undermine our right to life, they purposely seek to destroy it and this is totally contrary to what human rights were created for in the first place. Abortion, assisted suicide and assisted death are attacks and violations of our dignity as human beings, they destroy that life which has been freely created and freely given and are not a "right" and can certainly never be the correct course of action to take.

Although I tried to think of a poetic conclusion to draw this post to a close it unfortunately didn't quite come together. So instead I leave you with the same quote I opened with and hope that you will see more in those 34 words, understand better the Church's need to proclaim the Gospel of Life than you perhaps did to begin with.

Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2319.)

Two things worth adding YOUR voice to

John Smeaton draws our attention to two ways we can stand up and be counted, hopefully with profitable effect in terms of saving lives.

Stop Eugenics Now

This is a new European initiative which has launched an online petition open to individuals, families and disabled rights organisations to sign.  It calls upon the European Court of Human Rights to “reaffirm the principle of the prohibition of eugenics, and the obligation of the Member States to protect the life of every person, including of the disabled before their birth.”

The background against which the petition is being brought is that of the case of Anita Kruzmane v. Latvia. Anita's doctor suggested, at 18 weeks pregnant, that she have an appointment with a specialist to include an alpha-feto protein (AFP) test which is used to detect foetal abnormalities.  Anita, who claims that she was not in fact referred for this test, went on to give birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome.  She has taken her case to the Court of European Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming that the negligence of a doctor has meant she was denied adequate and timely medical care (the AFP test) resulting in her being unaware that her foetus was at risk of having a genetic defect - and that she therefore was denied the opportunity to choose whether or not to continue with her pregnancy.

John Smeaton points out that this case follows several other high-profile ones about abortion, including "several cases from France and the Netherlands concerning so-called 'wrongful births' of children with conditions such as Down’s syndrome".

What is the central issue at stake here?  The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has said, “This case may provide an opportunity for the Court to clarify its case-law with regard to eugenics and abortion. This is necessary due to some visible confusion in the existing case-law, and this is made possible considering the large number of important cases currently before the Court on this issue.”

Mr Smeaton reports Gregor Puppinck of the ECLJ as seeing the key question arising from this case to be:

"Does the [European Convention on Human Rights] guarantee a right to eugenics for parents, and in particular to the procedure of prenatal screening-elimination of sick or disabled fetuses? If so, does the State have a positive obligation in this regard?"

That is, as Stop Eugenics now puts it,  Should the elimination of one’s unborn baby because it has Down syndrome be regarded as a human fundamental right? 

Many readers will be aware that in the UK, out of those babies diagnosed before birth as having Down's Syndrome, 92% will be aborted.  It is legal in our country to abort a baby right up until birth if it is found to have a disability or handicap.  Certainly, as a child growing up in the 1960's and 70's, I knew or met several Down's Syndrome people.  One lived in the same block of flats as us.  These days you rarely see any... because they haven't been born.

Certainly some of those I knew had varying degrees of health problems, but what I clearly remember is that they invariably had huge smiles on their faces!  Possibly this is a trick of memory of the it-was-always-sunny-in-summer-when-I-was-a-child type, but Down's Syndrome children are certainly more than capable of deriving a lot of pleasure from life and giving a lot of pleasure to those around them.  Why, then, are we killing them?

With regard to "wrongful birth" cases I admit I find it hard to get my head around the fact that a mother can look at her child and say she feels that child shouldn't have been born.  I am not judging such parents... or at least I am trying my best not to judge, because I know I am not standing in their shoes or feeling the pressure and demands they must cope with.  Presumably they are acting out of compassion for their child, who they must feel will not have a good quality of life.  I only know that it gives me the chills to think there are now prenatal tests for my daughter's condition and that a parent could choose to abort a child like her.  In fact I try not to think about it, because the idea that Aila might never have existed is too awful.  At the same time I know I have to do what I can to avoid other Ailas being denied their right to life.

That's why I signed Stop Eugenics Now's petition and encourage you to do so too.  What else is systematic testing for disability in an unborn child followed by the automatic right to abortion, other than eugenics?  There were many people in the last century who mounted passionate arguments in favour of eugenics and there are people doing the same now.  The fact remains that it is an unacceptable use of medical technology and an inhuman form of discrimination against those we deem not fit to live - however we couch our arguments in terms of a misguided compassion and concern for "quality of life" (a flexible term if ever there was one, defined differently by different people).

I've said it before and I'll say it again!  True compassion tries its utmost to offer people reasons to live, not ways to die (or to be killed).

One Million Rosaries for Unborn Babies

Hat tip again to John Smeaton for drawing attention to a campaign being run by the Saint Michael the Archangel Organization.  They are collecting pledges to pray a rosary (or two!) for unborn children over 4-6 May, to bring an end to "the surgical and non-surgical killing of unborn human persons".  They didn't quite make their target last year but say that people from over 30 nations participated.  Why not go over to the website here and make your pledge?  Imagine the prayer power of hundreds of thousands of Rosaries being offered up around the globe for the same intention over those three days... what couldn't the Holy Spirit do with that?

But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labour in the Lord is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:57,58)

"Except for death, no-one will kiss me"

Hat tip to John Smeaton for this touching video - an "interview" with an unborn child aware that he is going to be aborted.  Just a word of warning, though - it isn't gory (the images it contains are beautiful) and the abortion itself is not described; but, because it focuses on the humanity and the unique individuality of the child in a very emotionally immediate way, it could be upsetting for a woman who has been through an abortion to watch.

The "interview" is in fact the poem Interview with an Unborn Child by Dr. Mojdeh Shirvanianear.  When watching bear in mind that, as Brad Mattes of the Life Issues Institute says, you are hearing the child's words "within the context of the deaths of 1.2 million babies every year".

Euthanasia, abortion and population control - misconceptions

Christian Medical Comment carries another good post today, on the subject of demographics and euthanasia.  As usual Peter Saunders has an array of facts and figures at his fingertips, which you can read here.

The essence of his argument is that most of our modern societies are at a crossroads.  Thanks to increased lifespans and smaller families, we are faced with growing numbers of older people in our populations and proportionately falling numbers of younger, working-aged ones to support them.  What do we do about the resulting pressures on our social and medical care systems?  Encourage people to have even fewer children in order to contain the population?  Put forward euthanasia as the socially-responsible alternative to being a burden in one's old age?

Despite protestations by those in favour of euthanasia that there would be safeguards ensuring that only the terminally ill are helped to die, one can easily imagine that the pressures to revise those safeguards would become stronger with every report of old people left wallowing unfed in their filth in some underfunded, badly-staffed geriatric ward or care home.  Apparently Minette Marin of the Sunday Times already wrote a year ago, "old people who, entirely of their own free will, decide to take their lives without pressure from anyone else [? why are they doing it then? - there must be pressure from somewhere, because it isn't human instinct to want to die without reason] are, I think, to be admired and thanked. They are sparing themselves and their families a great deal of suffering and are relieving those around them and the welfare state of a burden [ah, so there's your pressure after all]. Surely that is an honourable act."

Mr Saunders - pointing out, by the way, that "it is rich people in the affluent West, rather than the poor in the Global South" (the latter tend to live in societies where age and experience are valued and respected) "who say they can’t afford to look after their dependents and are clamouring for euthanasia" - puts forward his own concept of what it is to act honourably. "The real answer is not euthanasia. The real answer is in our grasp, but it requires a completely different mindset to that which has led us, in our reckless pursuit of affluence and personal peace to mortgage our present, bankrupt our futures, and see those who rely on us as a burden rather than a privileged responsibility.

"We need instead, as a society, to stop killing our children, build up our families, live more simply, give more generously and focus our priorities on providing for our dependents, especially the older generation which fought for our freedom in two world wars, provided for our health, education and welfare, and left us the legacy of wealth, comfort, peace and security which we have squandered and taken for granted." 

In a previous pro-life newsletter in our parish, our Group reported on that old chestnut that we need to make sure we have small families in order to avoid over-population and too much strain on our social welfare systems and other resources.  I have copied our short article below.  It is worth remembering how increasingly acceptable abortion has become as, in effect, a form of family planning.  How can we say confidently that the same process of liberalisation will not take place in the case of euthanasia?

* * * * * * * *

 

We hear a great deal about the necessity for “population control” and “reproductive health care rights” (which phrase usually includes access to abortion) because of our world’s apparently burgeoning population. Much of what we read and hear makes us think that without drastic action, we will soon be fighting for space, food and water. Is this picture, however, entirely accurate?

Steven W Mosher says not. He is President of the Population Research Institute, a non-profit research organization with headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia. In a recent interview with CWN he put a very different case. In 2010, the UN Population Division (UNDP) affirmed that for the next few years the world’s population will slowly creep up, peaking at around 7.6 billion in 2040. (Bear in mind that we are already at nearly 7 billion.) After that, the projection is that we will see not a population explosion, but an implosion. By the turn of the next century the world’s population is projected to be at about 5 billion – and it will be a much older population than is currently the case.

Mosher points out that according to the UNDP’s 2010 figures, 79 countries had fertility levels below that needed to ensure the long-term survival of the population. What may surprise many is that this figure includes 36 in the less developed world. Most of the rest, UNDP believes, are likely to enter the same danger zone over the next few decades.

This is not just a question of falling numbers of people, but about demographic distribution. As a baby boomer, Mosher lived through the doubling of the global population in the second half of the twentieth century – a rate of increase never previously seen. At the same time, however, fertility rates were falling. The reason for the population increase was not unfettered reproduction: it was falling death rates. People were living for far longer than ever before. The increase in life expectancy was most dramatic in the less developed countries.

With less children being born, and all of us living longer, it does not take a degree in population studies to work out the net effect. Aging populations with fewer young people to support them. Further demands on social security services, yet fewer economically productive younger adults to fund them or indeed to care for the human needs of so many older people. The impact on quality of life in every area will be far reaching.

We don’t often get shown this perspective on the issue of global population. Could it be that the Catholic Church’s respect for large families and pro-life teachings make good practical sense after all...?                   (Source: “The Catholic World Report”, 1 November 2011)

Suffering - to be avoided at all costs?

As a small and poor tribute to Palm Sunday and the opening of Holy Week, here is the Editorial from today's St John's pro-life newsletter.

Holy Week... Jesus enters Jerusalem for the final days of His life, when, for our sakes, He will voluntarily shoulder a Cross as heavy as all the sins that ever were and ever will be committed, and will submit to suffering unto death.  Foolishness indeed to the world in general, as St Paul points out in 1 Corinthians, but to Christians “the power of God” – a pathway to blessings beyond imagination.

It is no different today.  Our society sees suffering as the evil to be avoided.  Death itself is preferable to it.  Not death arrived at through a process of seeing suffering through to the bitter end as Jesus did, but as an alternative, swallowed down quickly as a pill or potion or administered by lethal injection.  What happiness can there be when suffering makes its appearance on the scene?  What meaning and value can we find to our lives if they contain pain or severe physical limitations?

Seen through this perspective, euthanasia (or the abortion of a disabled foetus) becomes the compassionate – the only compassionate – option to offer the severely incapacitated.  The Catholic viewpoint, that we have no right to take our own or anyone else’s life whatever the circumstances, is seen as meaningless if not downright cruel.  Try to talk about the positive value of suffering and you are likely to be rhetorically stoned for, firstly, condemning someone to bear their pain no matter what and then for adding insult to injury by telling them suffering is good for their soul...

In fact that is the great message of Easter; that we will all find crosses, great or small, in our lives but that through faith in Christ those crosses – the things we most fear in life like pain, illness, paralysis - can be transformed into blessings.  What then is left to for us to be afraid of?  Encouraging someone to “hang on in there” is neither cruel nor pious nonsense because God “will not let you be put to the test beyond your strength but with any trial will also provide a way out by enabling you to put up with it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).  Where suffering abounds, grace abounds all the more, to slightly adapt the words of St Paul.

This isn’t an easy concept, especially as you probably have to walk some dark roads yourself before you can testify to the hidden light to be found there.  Such witnesses can be found.  Alison Davies is a sufferer from spina bifida who herself passed through a stage of wanting to die; now she works to promote a positive view of disability through No Less Human, a branch of SPUC.  Chelsea Zimmerman was paralysed from the chest down in a car accident whilst still a teenager; she is passionately pro-life and writes an inspirational blog, Reflections of a Paralytic.  Alison and Chelsea are witnesses to the light, people who have made – and are making – a difficult journey and learning along the way to value life all the more.  There are others like them, finding blessings and meaning blossoming like those hardy wild flowers one sees obstinately thriving between the rails of train lines or on rock faces.

Every flower must receive water and nourishment from somewhere, however.  As we meditate on what Holy Week can tell us about suffering and grace, can we also respond to the challenge it gives us?  Like Simon of Cyrene, Veronica and the women of Jerusalem, do we have hearts big enough to help shoulder the crosses of those who suffer so terribly -  showing them what comfort we can, weeping with them when the pain feels too much and, well, just loving them?  True compassion will always try to offer a reason to live, not a way to die.

*Perhaps it should be mentioned that this editorial is discussing unavoidable suffering.  Of course it is our duty to alleviate suffering and seek a cure wherever possible; but not at the price of deliberately taking a life.

A disappointing response... to say the least

Last week Edek and I received a response from Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture Sport & Media, to the letter we and several pro life group members sent to our MP Francis Maude about the "abortion ads" issue (see Katherine's earlier post).  Our thanks to Mr Maude for forwarding on our letter to the Secretary of State but, to be frank, I can only describe Mr Hunt's letter in reply as an ecological sin.  Why?  Because some correspondence is not worth the paper and other natural resources it uses up in being written.

Mr Hunt didn't comment on any of our concerns but merely gave an overview of the new situation vis-a-vis TV ads on behalf of commercial "post conception advice services" (known as PCAS), which we knew anyway.  He reiterated that direct advertising of abortion services is still banned, completely ignoring our point that allowing PCAS who financially benefit from providing abortions as one of their services to advertise is effectively promoting abortion "by the back door".

Mr Hunt did provide a link to the statement made by the British Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) as to why it had decided to allow commercial PCAS to advertise.  You can read it here.  I suppose you could say that in doing so he did achieve a partial "result" from using up those ecological resources - he positively made my blood boil (not good news for the hard-pressed NHS though if it contributes to high blood pressure on my part!).  I quote from BCAP:

In line with BCAP’s objective to ensure that advertising is legal, decent, honest and truthful and does not contain material which might cause harm, offence or mislead audiences, BCAP also considered the case for introducing new rule for PCAS requiring those that cannot directly refer women for a termination to make that fact clear in the advertisement.

BCAP noted that a number of respondents were concerned that the proposed rule would affect only those services that do not refer women for a termination, which they considered to be most likely those that take an ethical stance against abortion, but did not similarly require other PCAS to state that they could refer women or had a financial interest in the provision of termination services...

In determining the merit of introducing an equivalent rule requiring disclosure by PCAS that can refer women for termination in the advertisement and requiring PCAS to indicate their ethical stance on abortion, BCAP carefully considered the vulnerability of women seeking advice on unplanned pregnancy and what information should be made available to them in an advertisement to afford adequate protection from harm...
 

In light of the above, BCAP considered there to be a strong case on public health grounds to introduce a rule requiring PCAS that cannot directly refer women for a termination to make that fact clear in advertisements. However, BCAP considered that it would be disproportionate to extend to all PCAS the requirement to make clear that they could refer women for a termination or had a financial interest in women opting for termination. BCAP understood the concerns of organisations, both supportive and opposed to abortion, but considered that irrespective of the ethical stance of the organisation, it was only imperative on public health grounds that advertisements make clear to women whether the PCAS could refer them for a termination should they wish to have that choice available to them because any delay could increase the risk of health complications. There were not equally compelling health grounds to require PCAS that could refer women for termination to state that in advertisements because women seeking advice on unplanned pregnancy were likely to presume that, unless stated otherwise, organisations would be able to offer them a range of options for their unplanned pregnancy which might include termination.

So it seems it is "safer" for a woman to go to a clinic which has a financial interest in offering her an abortion (hmm, not really safer for her baby though).  As Katherine pointed out when she read this response, BCAP feels it is somehow healthier for this to happen than for the woman to go to an organisation which would help her, should she decide to keep the baby rather than offer him/her for adoption, with support, baby clothes and advocacy...

Presumably BCAP are thinking that an earlier abortion is medically safer than a later one, but no counselling service would exert pressure to prevent a woman in the first trimester from going to her GP and asking to be referred for an abortion should that be her decision.  As for the number of pregnancies which give rise to medical complications at an early stage, these are very few and a woman concerned about her health is more likely to visit her doctor than a clinic in any case.

Another thing that I found seriously annoying (to say the least) was the final sentence of BCAP quoted above. "Women seeking advice on unplanned pregnancy were likely to presume that, unless stated otherwise, organisations would be able to offer them a range of options for their unplanned pregnancy which might include termination."  Is this not a tacit admission that allowing commercial PCAS to advertise is implicitly abortion advertising, if BCAP believe that women will be choosing their clinic with this in mind anyway?

The final paragraph of the letter we received from Mr Hunt reassures us that although clinics which profit financially from performing abortions may put their names out there in the ether for all to pick up, a variety of other services may not, including pyramid promotional schemes.  Well thank goodness for that.  Killing unborn human life is one thing but those pyramid sales schemes really are a step too far...

Enough - sarcasm is the lowest form of humour.  We would urge anyone concerned about TV advertising by commercial PCAS to keep plugging away and perhaps contact Mr Hunt directly.  Should you see such an ad, you can contact the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) to register your concern, as many did after Marie Stopes aired their TV ad last year.  And please, do give all the support you can to those crisis pregnancy counselling services in your area who have no financial or ideological interest in abortion (in Horsham, this is OASIS).

Speaking up

Can't believe I haven't got round to watching this before.  It's an American priest talking in an American context, but applicable to the pro-life cause in every modern society.  A real rallying cry for all on the side of Truth, charity and justice.

Stella's story

Several of the people who have got involved with St John's Pro Life Group as either members or supporters have done so because of experiences that have touched them in some way personally, whether in their own lives or those of relatives or friends.  (This is a not uncommon reason for people, women especially, to get involved in the pro-life movement: those who say abortion leaves women unscathed should perhaps take note...)  They have responded to their own pain by trying to save others from going through the same sort of experience; a hugely generous, not to mention brave, thing to do.

One such is Stella, who supports us in many ways, not least by putting in long hours  - together with her daughter Becca - gardening and tending the site of Horsham's Memorial to the Unborn Child.  The following post has been written by Stella.

"For every woman who has undergone the termination of a pregnancy by abortion there is a personal tragic story.  Many made the decision on their own, they had no one to talk to, to help, to advise or even have a shoulder to cry on.  Others were forced by violent or aggressive partners or husbands and others or by families who were ashamed of them.  There are many reasons.

"I know.

"Whether girls in their teens, young adults or mature women, the terrifying knowledge that you are carrying an unwanted baby; maybe even at the time, in the magnitude of the moment, also unwanted by you.  Panic sets in.  What do you do next?

"Unfortunately the medical profession only offers the 'easy' answer; they do not and are not allowed to counsel and advise.

"After the event is when the real trauma sets in and the realisation that you have killed a new little person lives in your head and stays there forever.  This is when the majority of suicides take place; not at the beginning but at what would be, to the emotionally uninvolved, the end.  Chapter closed,  you can get on with your life now.  Start again, no-one knew: it's your secret.

"But it is not.  There are no secrets from God.

"Here, as a Christian, and especially as a Roman Catholic, your real problems begin.  You have committed a cardinal sin and should be excommunicated.  You are too frightened to confess to your priest in case this happens.  You stop taking Communion because you have sinned and then you stop going to church.  Praying doesn't help, self-loathing sets in, then depression and the never-ending cycle of not being able to forgive yourself stays with you day and night.

"All this heartache and agony need not happen today.  There are now special groups in place all over the country to help women think things through and find support.  They are nearly all voluntary groups and can be accessed through pro-life groups like our own St John's Group and also on the internet and some Citizens' Advice centres.  I personally did not have anyone to turn to but I did have my faith and I am not going to relate my story except to say GOD ALWAYS FORGIVES; the hardest part is forgiving yourself.  After nearly 50 years I am still trying to do that.

"I would like to recommend a very good book which I bought in the Diocese of Arundel & Brighton Christian Education Centre (DABCEC) bookshop quite recently.  The title is Catholic Women and Abortion: Stories of Healing, edited by Pat King (also available from Amazon for those who do not live in our diocese).  These individual true stories are both inspirational and moving.  I found them personally helpful; but my real inspirational help after all these years came from the Sisters at the Holy Family Convent in Horsham, now sadly gone, my prayer group friends and Fr Terry Martin.  I cannot thank them enough."

Judge rules midwives must cooperate with abortions

News is out today about two Scottish midwives who have just lost their legal battle to opt out of supervising other midwives who are performing abortions.  The Catholic Herald reports on it here.

The midwives "argued that they had never been required to supervise abortion procedures in the past, and that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions".  Despite the fact that the Abortion Act 1967 allows for opt-out in the case of conscientious objection - "no person shall be under any legal duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection" (Section 4(1)), this being only subject to the subsection 4(2) which maintains the person's duty to participate in treatment necessary to save life or prevent grave permanent injury to the pregnant woman's physical or mental health - Lady Smith ruled at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the midwives' supervisory role was not covered by this clause.

It is difficult to see how overseeing a midwife performing an abortion is not participating in the abortion, which presumably would not go ahead without the correct supervision.  It is surely material cooperation.  Where does such a judgement logically leave a number of other medical personnel with peripheral or facilitatory roles in the abortion process?  There are several roles involving promoting, condoning or cooperating in the abortion other than that of the person who actually performs the act itself.

SPUC have been supporting the women in their case and Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, said “We are very disappointed by the judgment. SPUC has supported the midwives in bringing their case, and will now be considering their further legal options with them."

Is the law really an ass, or just prepared to ignore the safeguards it has itself put in place?  The Guild of Catholic Doctors (UK) suggests, "The reality is that there is little any law framed like the Act can do to provide significant safeguards once the concept of abortion becomes acceptable".  Scary stuff.  Please pray for these brave ladies and their battle to uphold the right to follow one's conscience.  It is especially poignant that this judgement is affecting midwives, whose primary role is to help bring new life into the world, not snuff it out.

Sex selective abortions

This morning The Daily Telegraph is leading with a story on sex selective abortions being carried out with "no questions asked" here in the UK. Undercover reporters accompanied pregnant women to nine different abortion clinics and secretly filmed the conversations had with the doctors (one of which can be viewed on the Telegraph's page, see link above). Despite sex selective abortions being illegal in this country this was overlooked and ignored by the doctors in question with one of them even saying, "I don't ask questions. You want a termination, you want a termination. ... That's my job..." On learning of the report Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said, "I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I've asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency."

One thing that immediately strikes me about this story (although it is not the main issue) is the hypocrisy of it all. We live in a country which has spent a lot of time and energy in making men and women social equals, for instance in the workplace you cannot hire or fire or give a pay rise to one person just because they are male or female. We live in a country where discrimination against gender is, quite rightly, not tolerated...but for some reason this is now only extended to a person once they are outside the womb. This is the ultimate form of gender discrimination and yet it is allowed to occur behind closed doors. Other "reasons" are cited, excuses made, loopholes found (for example going private to avoid certain questions from the NHS) and a baby dies.

So how and why has this disturbing state of events been able to come about? There has been a great deal of anger and condemnation of these events since this story broke from both pro-life and pro-choice voices but, to a certain extent, this is not actually surprising at all.

Before you can honestly and thoroughly start to examine how the notion of killing an unborn child just because he or she is a boy or girl has taken hold in the UK you have to take a long, hard, realistic look at what abortion is in the first place. No matter how clinics or pro-choice advocates try to play it down (for example by calling the unborn child a "clump of cells" or whatever else) abortion is the intentional killing of another human person. Whilst it is not our place (and nor would we ever want to) to judge those who have had abortions in the past there is nothing that can change this fact. And in the UK abortion is available "on demand"; if you don't want to keep your child you can go into a clinic and they will organise a termination for you. Since it was legalised in 1967 it has become more and more acceptable to end your pregnancy if you can't afford to have a baby, if you don't wan't a baby, if your partner doesn't want a baby, if your baby is disabled or if, especially during IVF, there are "too many" babies. When you consider the attitude towards pregnancies where the child will be born with Down's Syndrome (for one example), where the child won't be "normal", it is not that great a leap for our culture to terminate one simply because the baby will be born the "wrong" sex. Children have become a commodity and with that they become disposable when they are not precisely what we want them to be. This attitude has come out of the easy, "no questions asked" access to abortions over the decades (as outlined in SPUC's statement here.) Sex selective abortions are, quite literally, the tip of the iceberg and what makes this so abhorrent is not simply the reason a girl could be killed just for being a girl, it is the fact that a child died in the first place. All abortion at any stage is totally and utterly wrong, completely immoral and the only way to properly address this recent and disturbing development in the attitudes towards sex selection are to change the way people see abortion in the first place. The law needs to be changed, life needs to be cherished, respected and loved in all its forms. Somehow our culture has forgotten this or tries to forget it when the truth of the beauty and dignity of all human life  becomes inconvenient and needs, desperately, to re-learn it and soon.

Moral Mazes??

I poached this pic of a prematurely-born baby from Bump Babies Beyond.  She’s 24 weeks and a tiny, protect-me-I’m-beautiful miracle.  Chilling to think that until 1990 babies a whole four weeks older than this could be legally aborted; in fact, of course, abortion up until birth is legal even now in the case of “severe foetal abnormality”.  The definition of severe abnormality seems to be a movable goalpost, as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists itself admits: “The RCOG has stated that a strict definition is impractical because we do not have sufficiently advanced diagnostic techniques to detect malformations accurately all of the time and it is not always possible to predict the ‘seriousness' of the outcome (in terms of the long-term physical, intellectual or social disability on the child and the effects on the family).” 

This piccie (thanks Katherine at Five Feet Above Sea Level) shows an “abnormal foetus”, Taya Kennedy, who was not aborted on the grounds of a sinister but fallible diagnosis of quality of life.  The words below could surely be hers.  They were actually spoken by Anya Souza, who has Down’s Syndrome and showed up at an International Downs Syndrome Screening Conference - uninvited and unencouraged, needless to say.  I discovered them on SPUC’s website.

 "I can't get rid of my Down's syndrome, but you can't get rid of my happiness. You can't get rid of the happiness I give others either. It's doctors like you that want to test pregnant women and stop people like me being born. Together with my family and friends I have fought to prevent my separation from normal society. I have fought for my rights... I may have Down's syndrome but I am a person first."

A person first... We invent so many moral mazes for ourselves, splitting the path between left and right where in fact the way ahead is clear, if hard.  From the moment of conception a human life is a person with a right to life and all our subsequent decisions about them should be made on that basis.  If they are not perfect, if they will know suffering – these things will affect how we look after that person, but they do not affect the basic premise.  To say this isn’t to ignore the difficulties brought by hard circumstances, disability or pain.  It’s just to say that the only truly fruitful way ahead is start with the right to life and the dignity of the person.  After that, it is easier to know what to do, even if the road is uphill.  If we start to admit of the possibility of destroying the foundation stone of the path, of ignoring the first signpost – the right to life – then we get lost, badly lost, and the maze closes down.

Before my metaphors become too tortured, let me refer to an excellent post from the Sisters of the Gospel of Life dealing with the “hard case” that is often thrown at pro-lifers – why should a woman be forced to cope with an unintended pregnancy and birth if she is the innocent victim of rape?  The Sisters quote Ken Connor of Lifenews.com who refers straight back to that first principle, the right to life, in order to keep the argument clear.

“In this life, we cannot always undo the effects of sin and violence. We can only seek to mitigate the adverse consequences of such acts. Killing an unborn baby does not erase the pain and trauma imposed by rape. It is rather a form of misdirected retribution, revenge meted out against an innocent child because of the act of his or her parent. In the case of rape, the mother deserves our love and help and support. The perpetrator deserves punishment. But the child, once conceived, deserves to live.”

Things aren't easy when you are facing a crisis pregnancy or caring for a child with a disability.  There are still practical decisions to make and many of them are difficult.  But we can make it so much harder for ourselves when we muddy the moral waters right from the start.

Sex, idols and the meaning of life

So much of the abortion debate has been made necessary by the skewed way in which we, today, view sex and the human body.  Sex, it seems, is not only a “right” – any time, any place, anywhere, like a nice Martini – but the ultimate form of fulfilment and pleasure.  It’s the end goal of just about everything.  Why buy shampoo?  So that you can toss your super shiny hair around and bring square-jawed male models to their knees.  Why shave?  So that a glamorous girl in a towel will undulate up to you as you gaze in the bathroom mirror and drape herself suggestively against you.  Why keep clean and nice-smelling?  So that persons of the opposite sex will fly through shop windows and glue themselves to your body... And so it goes on. 

It’s not surprising, then, that the very idea of suggesting abstinence to young people is laughed out of town.  Pardon?  It’s obvious they’re going to “do it”, don’t be so silly.  Well, they will given the fact that we are blasting “sex is everything” at them 24 hours a day via all their senses (in other contexts, that would be called indoctrination).  And as for suggesting someone should embrace celibacy for any period of time... p-lease.  Why would their life be worth living?  The fundamental right to life is a debatable concept but the fundamental right to have sex is beyond question.

Unfortunately, of course, sex sometimes leads to pregnancy (that being a big part of what it was designed for).  And if you haven’t had sex in a context in which you would be open to nurturing a new life, then abortion so often rears its ugly and painful head.

The saddest thing is that all of the above attitudes are not usually consciously held.  They are the result of the mis-moulding of our minds and hearts over several generations.  Most women who have abortions are not hard-edged, thoughtless pleasure-seekers.  They are victims of a warped worldview that they were born into, within the terms of which they may have seen themselves as acting perfectly normally and responsibly, indeed may well have taken positive steps to do so.  The trouble is, we have got sex, its nature and its importance, way out of proportion.

I say that, but in another way sex is fundamentally, beautifully, hugely important and has foundational, earth-moving things to say about us as human beings and as men and women.  It’s just that we don’t hear it right these days.  For me, Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (TOTB) came as a revelation in this respect.

I don’t know how to make a synopsis of such a big topic as TOTB in a paragraph – I’ve talked on it, but summarising it is a different matter!  Many people who might be reading this post will be familiar with it anyway.  Essentially, our bodies are speaking about who we are, about our fundamental vocation in life: that is, we were made to love.  Each other, and ultimately God.  That’s why we were made male and female, for “it is not good for man to be alone”.  Sex between a man and a woman is the ultimate expression, in physical terms, of this vocation; that makes it an incredibly precious and dignified, symbolic action (in terms of Catholic Christianity, in fact, it has been raised to the dignity of a sacrament through marriage, a source of divine grace like baptism or priestly ordination).  

Intrinsic to this view is that our bodies, far from being things we “have” or “own” and can dispose of as we wish, are inherently a part of us as whole people.  We are not souls in bodies, or minds that happen to have a torso and limbs at our disposal – we are a unity of spirit and flesh, or as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “in his own nature [the human being] unites the spiritual and material worlds” (CCC 355).  What we do with, or rather in, our bodies is important.  It has meaning, it speaks volumes about who and what we are, and it has a profound effect on our minds, our souls, our emotions and our wellbeing.

This way of seeing the human person is in direct contrast to many of the assumptions that underlie our modern-day thinking.  Since the not altogether appropriately-entitled “Enlightenment” of the 18th century we have progressively excluded the spiritual from human identity and seen ourselves primarily as biological entities with rational minds.  Our reason has primacy over this biology and so we can use our bodies and those of others as we will, be it genetic engineering, abortion, sex, embryonic stem cell research, whatever.  Alongside this is the tendency to regard the “person” or “self” as a psyche, a collection of feelings and emotions, which are conditioned by a number of factors such as societal pressures, and thus morality and identity tend to get defined by “how we feel” as individuals about ourselves and others. 

The union of man and woman has meaning

All this makes a lethal and rather confused cocktail of materialistic rationality and illogical subjectivity, but the taste that it leaves in the mouth is above all that of a debasement of the body.  The body is there to be used for our profit or our pleasure.  There is no value or meaning inherent in the biological because the biological is merely matter and has whatever value we as individuals assign to it.   What a contrast to the beautiful vision offered by the Theology of the Body.

I believe that many others would find TOTB as much of a revelation as I did, if they were only introduced to it.  Neither do I think it’s something that only has meaning for people of religious belief, because many of every faith and none profess themselves to be open to a holistic view of mind, body and (maybe!) soul and therefore to the view that the body has a very personal dignity, which can be compromised by certain ways of thinking and acting.  It’s a sort of divinisation of sex and sexuality, if you like – but it’s the right sort, which doesn’t make sex an idol and the answer in and by itself to the meaning of life.

If you would like to know more about TOTB, read Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners – you might just have your eyes opened to a whole new way of seeing the world!  One that, you’ll realise, you always kind of understood really, deep down, always glimpsed – but could never before quite nail...

“The call to nuptial love and communion revealed by our sexual bodies ‘is the fundamental element of human existence in the world,’ ‘the foundation of human life,’ and, hence, ‘the substratum of human ethics and culture.’  Indeed, the human project stands or falls based on the proper ordering of love between the sexes.  Thus, it ‘is an illusion to think we can build a true culture of human life if we do not... accept and experience human sexuality and love and the whole of life according to their true meaning and their close interconnection.”  (Christopher West, quoting Blessed Pope John Paul II)

The responsibilities of pro lifers

Today I popped over to Bump Babies Beyond, where Londonistar (who commented on Amanda’s excellent post about the 12-week scan) blogs (she can also be found at TowerTales).  Imminently expecting a baby, she describes herself as “Conservative in political outlook struggling and aspiring Catholic in faith. Welcome to a parenting journey from these perspectives.”  Do go over and have a look.  I’ll refer to her, with apologies, as “L” because I don’t know her real name.

My first stop was at the post L herself recommended us to read, The Politics of Personal.  In this she talks more about the experience of abortion following a 12-week scan, and her journey afterwards, that she related in her comment.  It’s a moving post that gives plenty of food for thought, but I’d just like to mention a couple of themes that particularly struck me.

After the scan (which was not straightforward) she and her partner had a big decision to make and she writes, “At that time of our lives we were horribly caught up in the abortion debate raging across the internet again and frankly I wondered whether people ever stop to think about the effect this has on the people caught up in it who are being fought over so bitterly…”  She continues this theme in a striking paragraph,

            “The internet is a ghastly place at times. Deep in among the anti abortion propaganda I was made to feel fearful and guilty. Guilty of what I wondered? Getting pregnant and facing this decision? We didn’t choose this lot in life.  Abortion is so casually debated that there is no distinction made between the women, or couples, who enter and exit those clinics. No allowances made. The bitter angry or prayerful judgment from people with little or no experience of the pain and heartache of it all or an understanding of who we are as people. This is a deeply personal situation. And it is not one I battled emotionally alone as a woman either. There are two broken hearts in this story.”

Finally she writes, “I am rather fed up with this sensitive issue being kicked around in such an ugly polarised debate. There seems little depth to the abortion debate other than placard proselytizing. Caught in the crossfire for so many months of that year in so many ways, I certainly feel it’s about time the debate matured.”

L concludes her post with a wish list that surely most pro-lifers will agree with: better guidance and support for parents in her situation so that a truly informed choice can be made, the greater promotion of adoption as an option, encouragement given to young people to think hard about what they are doing and about their responsibilities when they consider entering into a sexual relationship.  She emphasises that parents who have been through the abortion process (and she describes vividly the hurt it did her and the attitude of the Marie Stopes clinic she visited) should have their voices heard, as well as women and couples who are not in step with the pro-choice movement.  Perhaps more challengingly for some, she also writes,  “I want to see practical solutions for women and couples to avoid abortion not clinic protests”.  I’m not sure personally quite where I stand on clinic protests – I would happily say the Rosary outside an abortion clinic but I don't think I would stand there holding a photo of a dismembered foetus – but have a recurring sense of guilt about how much I do, or rather don’t do, to practically support those facing crisis pregnancies.

The reason I have quoted her post at such length (there’s more – do read it) is that I feel challenged by it.  Do I lump all those who have abortions into the same category, when in fact they will be from widely differing backgrounds and circumstances and possess motivations and attitudes that are as far from each other as chalk from cheese?  [Daft digression: who decided to compare those two particular substances in the first place...?!  And why??]  If I do, that is neither compassionate nor constructive.  Am I debating the ethics of abortion as though they were philosophical abstractions and forgetting the impact my words may have on those who are struggling with very real down-to-earth crises?  Am I more focused on trumping the other side (maybe using accusative language like “conspiracy of death” and describing “rivers of blood”) than on considering those I am trying to help?  And of course, those I am trying to help (in fact, on many levels, to save) includes not just the babies, but the mums and dads.

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” (1 Corinthians 13:1)  It is also worth remembering (to get a bit technical) that whilst the Catholic Church clearly says, “There are concrete acts which it is always wrong to choose” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1761) because they are objectively wrong, it also says that the circumstances surrounding a human act, whilst not changing whether it is objectively right or wrong, can diminish the act’s moral evil or the responsibility of the person carrying it out (see CCC 1754). 

It is definitely not a question of compromising the truth to make people feel better.  The “don’t beat yourself up about it” or “abortion is sometimes so understandable that it’s actually really OK” approaches are unhelpful because you’re essentially just encouraging people to bury the demons of pain and guilt which will, sure as day is day and cheese isn’t chalk, claw and chew their way back up to the surface sooner or later.  It is, however, very much a question of speaking that truth compassionately and remembering the humanity and individuality of those you are addressing.  Especially as pro-lifers who believe in the intrinsic dignity and worth of every human person, we must never let the sensitivities and needs of those most concerned – those actually facing unintended pregnancies or receiving bad news at 12-week scans – get lost in the debate.

I’ve been thinking quite a lot recently not only about how to deliver an essentially simple moral message in a complicated world but also about how to discern the best course of action when picking one’s way through an ethical minefield.  For me this dilemma focuses on the area of medical research and potential treatments for my daughter’s Friedreich’s Ataxia.  But I think I’ve maundered on long enough, so that can wait for another post!

Best wishes to L from all our group and thank you for sharing your story in order to help others.   (Oh – and L’s site today features an interview with Nadine Dorries, whose proposals to bring in compulsory counselling before abortions caused controversy in both pro-choice and pro-life camps.)