Times – Antonia Senior: Yes, abortion is killing. But it’s the lesser evil.
I found the following by Michael Merrick to be a powerful and lucid observation on the topic of abortion, especially given the brevity.
What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering…
…But you cannot separate women’s rights from their right to fertility control. The single biggest factor in women’s liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology… As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.
Written by Antonia Senior over at the Times, and entitled ‘Yes, abortion is killing. But it’s the lesser evil.’ There is not much that one needs to add; anyone who can configure hierarchies of evil in such a way that the (acknowledged) killing of innocents is lesser than the (alleged) restriction of female ‘empowerment’ is clearly beyond the realms of reason and virtue.
It does prefigure the start of an interesting new dynamic in the abortion debate, though. The pro-life lobby have always assumed that if only they could win the argument as to the status of the child that grows in the womb, then they would ultimately triumph. After all, it stands to reason – once the cloud of ambiguity surrounding the status of that which grows in the womb is lifted, then who on earth could still advocate its killing in light of that?
Only, the sentiments expressed by Senior would disprove that theory, and show that this is about much more than definitions of life and personhood. This is about power; and some are clearly willing to kill for it.
Tags: Science & Medical
July 7th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
As at least a fifth of all conceptions abort spontaneously, it’s amazing how little interest pro-lifers take in preventing miscarriage. At least it would be if their real preoccupation was saving foetal lives.
July 7th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Equating miscarriage with abortion is absurd and dumb.
200,000 aborted babies the majority healthy, considered nothing more than the symptoms of a STD how sick is our society.
If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.
A straight talking admission of guilt in this genocide of the innocents.
July 7th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
@ Goy
It rather depends on whether you argue from a religious or non-religious point of view doesn’t it? On what grounds do you regard abortion as genocide?
July 7th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
@Jim,
Abortion on economic/political grounds is wrong from both points of view the religious and the non-religious.
As for genocide shooting people up against a wall is not the only way to commit this act it can be done through pressuring and offering easy access to abortion and steralisation at targeted social economic populations.
The statement in the article makes it clearer than I ever could that abortion is viewed as a valueable political weapon more than a medical procedure.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Another interesting quote from the Antonia Senior article:
“Look at a map of the world and the right to abortion on
request correlates pretty exactly with the expectation of a life unburdened by misogyny.”
July 7th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
@Goy, Spot on!
July 8th, 2010 at 12:51 am
To add fuel to the above, I well remember a lady becoming pregnant who already had four children. Her pregnancy was due to refusing to either practice contraception or, indeed, abstain from sex. The doctor now warned her that, due to her past medical problems either she or the child she was carrying might well die. The saving of both lives might not be possible this time. Well, eventually it came to one or the other: baby or mother.
In desperation, the husband and father sought the advice of the priest at the presbytery. Well, to cut a long story short, the man allowed his wife to die; and the result was that all the children were without a mum and he was without a wife. The man was never to appear the same again and a couple of years later he went out on his motor bike, came to a bridge and ended his life on it. Consequently, the children were now without both a mum and a dad. Believe me, this is a true story of what transpired in a past parish.
I realise that abortion can be too easilly and irresponsibly procured, but surely there are times when it is, by far, the lesser of two evils. Indeed, while based as an episcopal chaplain in Grampian I knew of two mentally retarded teen ager girls who wandered the streets of my parish. They were lovely but also most vulnerable girls. When I suggested that they should be sterilized for their own safety, plus that of children being born via them, a local GP blew her top: ‘They have human rights’ she affirmed.
As for all the poverty in backward and impoverished parts of the world, surely contraception and even abortion is a far less evil than to bring further life in to such hellish environments?
And with the deepest respects to my Roman acquaintances, I just cannot, for the like of me, understand how a Denomination which has taught down the centuries that an unbaptised infant will never go to Heaven but will be confined to a place called Limbo, should, at the same time, put such value on a child not even born. Yes, and more often than not no more than a foetus
Churches need to get their moral priorities in a right perspective. Far too often they have been straining out moral gnats while swallowing moral camels whole. Catholicism has much blood on its hands! And I find this deeply disturbing when it has claimed infallibility when decrees are made concerning matters of faith and morals
July 8th, 2010 at 10:17 am
@Rev – you’re a spoof, aren’t you? I wouldn’t expect a real-life rev to be so grammatically tortured, so logically incapable, so morally ambiguous, so historically unaware…
I’m inclined to think that this was cut and paste from some not-so-sophisticated sixth-form debating society. Or else a reverend actively advocating eugenics is trying to shout at Catholics for having blood on their hands.
I sincerely hope you are a spoof – or pity the church you’re assigned to.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:09 am
@rev pastor james thompson,
There were two fairies at the bottom of my garden that were sterilized for their own good.
July 8th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I’m with Pastor Thompson on this. Incidentally Michael, it matters not who the speaker is, or whether the accounts are true (and there’s no reason why they should not be), the moral dilemmas remain. If for religious reasons you believe that abortion is always wrong then I understand your reason though I do not agree with or condone it. If however you have a notion that a foetus’ continued existence is worth more than the health and welfare of a young woman, then I really do not understand your position at all. It is to my mind unforgivable to encourage a woman to continue with a pregnancy in the full knowledge that this may well kill her.
July 8th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
‘If however you have a notion that a foetus’ continued existence is worth more than the health and welfare of a young woman’
@Jim – and that’s the point, isn’t it? In order to square the circle, you’ve had to relegate the baby, the human life, to that of a ‘foetus’, which intentionally dehumanises it. As such, it is not at all about one being worth more than the other, and you do right to reject that logic (though in doing so you’re actually agreeing with Catholic logic). Put simply, since they are both human they are both equal, worth as much as one another, who gets to choose who lives and who dies? Agreed, if you dehumanise one then the choice becomes much easier; but then a ‘foetus’ is a baby, a human life, as even Ms Senior is willing to accept.
Also, on a theological note, it is simply not the case that RC theology is completely opposed to trying to save the life of the mother, even if this might indirectly imperil the infant – which is where the principle of Double Effect comes in.
July 8th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
do a research on “Limbo” and unbaptised babies going to hell, find out what actually Catholicism teaches about these topics. Sorry to stray away from the topic but damn ‘rev’ – utter ignorance is not an excuse. If you keep getting your resources from the same erroneous heretical protestant circles..you will always sound like this.. I suggest a book, What Catholics Really Believe by Karl Keating. tsk tsk.
July 8th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
The doctrine of Limbo has within the last decade been played down; just as has the teaching of indulgances much earlier! Procure a Catholic devotional book of prayer of the 1940s and 50s. andf you’ll find after most prayers, a number of days or months mentioned in brackets, This related to an indulgance granted each time the prayer was sincerely recited.
I attended high masses regularly before my critics above were born; and I knew my apologetics and catholic doctrine just about inside out.
I appreciate much of Catholicism but I cannot stomache a great deal of it: including enough bits of the ‘authentic cross!’ as to create a good deal of another Noah’s ark; or the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary; or, indeed, the arial journeys of the holy house of nazareth which mikraculously moved from one location to another; eventually to end at lorreto. One could go on and on!
I well enjoyed past discussions – and debating societies as a student at both Nottingham and Oxford. I equally enjoyed writing in the press, and still do. However, I’m not prepared to be insulted by either biblical or theological ignoramouses attempting to make out they are clever through making out that I’m simple, via this site!
However, I really do wish such critics well and hope they will one day come to accept Jesus as their own personal saviour, because – by such venom they hav4 shown – they obviously have not passed spiritually from death to life!
May God bless them; and if not by what I have written, then most surely by the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon which this site so strongly recommends
PS: apologies for any literary mishaps but macular degeneration and glaucoma do not help. The gist of the message is what surely counts?
July 8th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Dear Jim
Foetus are indeed young women. In fact more young women are killed in this way than young men because we now have gendercide of girl unborn children.
I agree that if the answer is to kill an innocent child born or unborn- then the answer is the wrong answer. We all lose.
July 8th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
@Rev – Truth is, it is hard to take lessons about straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels from a man who, after having defended abortion and then advocated eugenics, then gets disproportionately angry about indulgences and the virginity of Our Lady. You correctly say that churches need to get their moral priorities in right perspective – I think that would be a good place to start.
I apologise if my comment seemed to you intemperate, but I was convinced you were a spoof. Even so, this ‘biblical and theological ignoramouse’ thinks that he sees in your posts more than just a little biblical and theological ignorance.
And I’m well aware of the great Mr Spurgeon; I suspect he would have taken issues with plenty of what you say, too.
Anyway, thanks for the joust,
Michael
July 9th, 2010 at 11:15 am
@ Michael: you write “In order to square the circle, you’ve had to relegate the baby, the human life, to that of a ‘foetus’, which intentionally dehumanises it… Put simply, since they are both human they are both equal, worth as much as one another, who gets to choose who lives and who dies? Agreed, if you dehumanise one then the choice becomes much easier; but then a ‘foetus’ is a baby, a human life, as even Ms Senior is willing to accept.”
But a foetus (which is the medical term – your dislike of it doesn’t alter the fact) is not equivalent to a newborn. Society doesn’t think so. The church doesn’t think so either. I suggest you seriously consider these points:
What do we do when someone dies? I’m only familiar with British procedures but most industrialised nations operate in a similar way. There must be a death certificate, sometimes a post mortem. The state needs to know the identity of the person who’s died and also, if there’s doubt, the cause. The family don’t get a choice about this. Death certificates and post mortems, if ordered, aren’t a purely personal affair.
There’s a funeral. Some sort of funeral occurs even if someone is friendless or outcast; a derelict, a serial killer. No one is excluded. Even when there is no body (lost at sea, blown to bits) there’ll be a service. The shattered remnants of a soldier blown up in Afghanistan come home in honour even when the contents of the box are minimal.
With a death in the immediate family, there’s public acknowledgment of the loss. Even the most stony hearted boss will give time off. And, of course, for most British families, even if they’re only vestigially Christian, there will be the church, offering not only support, but time-honoured words and rituals.
None of this is employed for miscarriage. A foetus is not regarded – never has been – as equivalent to an adult. And the central proof of this comes when we examine how we deal with the death of a foetus as compared to how we respond to the death of an adult.
A woman has to have three miscarriages before the cause will even be investigated. Can you imagine the state waiting until three children had died in the same family before launching an enquiry? Can you imagine how the church might support a family in which such tragedy had occurred? Can you imagine how we might respond to a woman who reacted to repeated miscarriages as if she’d lost three kids in a crash?
Spontaneous abortion is not treated as a bereavement. The foetus is not treated as an individual whose loss must be recorded or investigated by the state, or who requires a funeral or memorial service. Families do sometimes arrange services in the case of stillbirth but this is driven by them, not by the church. There is no requirement from anyone: society, the state or – most relevantly here – the church – for a funeral for a foetus. Indeed, and I consider this hugely significant, the church has no commonly recognized rite for acknowledging miscarriage.
The current fashion for declaring the foetus equal is entirely a response to the availability to ordinary women of safe medical abortion. Prior to this the church took no official interest in pregnancy or the foetus. The loss of a pregnancy was seen as a purely private matter. What is called “the products of conception” are flushed down the loo or treated as medical waste. Stillbirths are treated differently these days, due to parental rather than religious pressure, but a foetus must be over 20 weeks gestation to be regarded as a stillbirth. Most spontaneous and medical abortions occur a lot earlier than that.
As I wrote in my first post, at least one in five pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Some experts put the figure at one in four. If this percentage of British children were dying on the roads or as a result of poor healthcare, there would be outrage. If those who campaign against medical abortion were concerned purely about the loss of what they declare is fully human life, then surely spontaneous abortion would be their top priority? But it’s not. They talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk.
The Jewish position is that a baby’s life starts with its first breath. I’d go along with that. And regardless of the fine words of such as you, Michael, this is how most societies, including the churches, operate. There is no acknowledgment by the state, by the church or by society in general, that a foetus is in any way equal to an adult. If people really believed that it was, they’d act differently. That’s the reality.
July 9th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
@Sophie – three things. 1) anti-abortion campaigners campaign against the murder of innocents. That is within their control, since the decision to actively abort is an act of the will, something that can be both influenced and retracted. Spontaneous abortion is something beyond their control, and beyond their influence, save for investment in the appropriate technologies, which they also do. Thus, trying to defend abortion by saying that babies spontaneously abort anyway is a little like trying to defend murder because people sometimes die of heart-attack.
2) the sociological evidence you bring to bear in order to distinguish between a baby in the womb and one outside of it simply does not hold true, and even if it did it would be irrelevant, since Christians tend to believe that morality comes from somewhere more exalted than just the habits of society. As such, the fact that aborted babies are treated as medical waste indicates a failing of society, not evidence that the aborted babies must therefore be of less worth; any more than the burning of Jews means that the Jews must be of less worth (because otherwise why would the Germans have burned them…etc).
3) You do your argument no favours by trying to weave through a narrative of Church indifference, or rather, suggesting Church involvement is only modern and a consequence of female ‘reproductive rights’. This is a myth that has arisen relatively recently in order to try and paint this as a battle between a patriarchal Church and female liberation, rather than between life and death. The Church has teachings relating to abortion, both directly and indirectly, going back right the way back to the Fathers – google it; there’s plenty about, from a whole range of classical sources.
July 9th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Just a quick note to say that medically abortion is not used, abortion refers to miscarriage.
Temination Of Pregnancy is the correct term, and I think this just about sums it up.
To terminate is to end. To end a life. Anyone who has even the tiniest amount of love for their fellow humans, and fully understanding of what is involved in a TOP, could never, ever support it.
July 9th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year
Presumably these are not the same women year on year statistically then there must be a large percentage of the female population UK who have had temination of viable pregnancy over the last 10 years.
At what cost to the women psychologically, society and the NHS in budget terms.
July 10th, 2010 at 2:49 am
@ Micheal and others:
I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one. This is one of those arguments where there seems to be almost no common ground.
July 10th, 2010 at 6:25 am
Jim
I hope “pro-lifers” don’t “agree” to let anyone believe that killing an innocent person is ok. Noone should call themselves a follower of Christ if they believe differently.
July 10th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Sandra,
I think you and Michael illustrate my point when you talk of “killing an innocent person” or “murder of innocents”. Thereby you equate this with the random killing of, say, a 10 year old child, and use purposefully emotional language.
Two months after conception, the foetus, or unborn child if you prefer, is not even fully formed or viable as an independent being. It is not aware of life and is unable to feel pain or emotion.
Now, you may oppose termination of pregnancy for religious or other reasons. But to declare that there is no difference between a foetus at 2 months and a 10 year old child is surely wrong, unless your view is informed by a specific religious doctrine. Not all those who follow this excellent blog are religious.
And how does the term “innocent” in this context help us to look at this objectively? At what point does someone become “not innocent”? Or, if it’s not ok to kill an innocent person, is it by inference ok to kill a person who is not innocent? My point is that it is an emotional but meaningless expression in this context.
I realise that my point of view is going to be unpopular on a religious blog such as this. But I think it is better to be honest about my views. I’m prepared to be persuaded by a logical counter-argument, but I sense that pro-lifers are not willing to even consider modifying their views. Hence my comment on agreeing to disagree, or if you prefer, accepting that we hold maybe diametrically opposite points of view, which no amount of discussion is likely to change.
July 10th, 2010 at 11:50 am
@Jim,
But to declare that there is no difference between a foetus at 2 months and a 10 year old child is surely wrong, unless your view is informed by a specific religious doctrine.
There have been cases in criminal courts were assualt on pregnant women have also been considered in evidence as part or all of the prosecutions case as an assualt on the foetus.
Is it not double standerds for the criminal law to declare when prosecuting a citizen that there is no difference between an assualt on a foetus at 2 months and a 10 year old child and then at the same time regard 200,000 foetuses persona non grata under the same CJS.
This legal technicality could give rise to hundreds of miscarriages of justice cases where the harming of the foetus was part of the criminal prosecutions evidence.
July 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Has the State now become a killing machine with abortion at one end and euthanasia at the other?
July 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Jim – we are talking about an article in which the writer declares she is fully in agreement that life begins from conception in the womb.
July 10th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Sandra – I appreciate that, but I was responding with my thoughts on various posts.
I have no problem with the concept of life beginning at conception, but I do have a gradualist view. I do not think the loss of an undeveloped child in the womb without yet the ability to survive independently from its mother is equivalent, for instance, to the loss of a baby after it is born. To use the same terms (murder, genocide etc) equally for both does not make sense to me.
Incidentally I am not an advocate of termination on demand (except for the so called “morning after pill” and such measures), unless there are clearly compelling medical or psychological reasons for so doing.
I hope I’m a pragmatist, who seeks always the best, or if necessary the “least worst” way forward in any situation.
July 11th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Jefferson Davis (1808-1889), President of the Confederate States of America (1861-1865), asserted quite logically that the freedom of Southern American manhood reposed upon the institution of slavery.
July 11th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Charles. Yes. All the same arguments are made by those who want to undermine, demean, exploit or eliminate others; be that on the grounds of race, wealth, status, gender or (as in this case) stage of life. This is the quote that comes to my mind:
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the arguement of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt
July 11th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
@ Michael: You object to the medical term “foetus”. I, like others, object to the emotive term “innocents”. In theological terms it’s debatable. Ironically, the Religious Right in the US is characterised by opposition to abortion combined with support for capital punishment. For them, innocence or guilt seem to decide the right to life. If I believed an embryo were equivalent to an adult I’d object whether the embryo was guilty or innocent. But I don’t believe a cluster of cells is equivalent to an adult and neither, I contend, do the church’s actions endorse that it believes this either. As for raising funds for research into spontaneous abortion, if this is a genuine priority then why is it not publicised by anti-abortion campaigners?
Your analogy of murder versus heart attack is a good demonstration of my point. If abortion = murder and miscarriage = heart attack, the church would not offer a funeral or any sort of religious ceremony after a natural death. The disposal of the body would be of no more relevance than any other dead mammal or spoilt meat.
Why is it acceptable to the church to flush a miscarried embryo down the loo if that embryo is supposedly just as much a human life as you or I? The answer, of course, is that the church doesn’t seriously believe that what’s lost after 10 weeks, say, is a human being. It has to say so to make sense of its opposition to medical termination, but its conduct doesn’t support this claim.
As you say, Christians tend to believe that morality comes from somewhere more exalted than the habits of society. What I have illustrated – and you have made no effort to refute – is that Christian morality does not treat the foetus as human in any sense apart from in the case of those who object to legal medical abortion. Those who quote from the Bible on every other topic say little on this one, because there’s little to be said. Until very recently pregnancy and menstruation were considered private (and unclean) female realms. The church has never treated miscarriage as an event which demanded a funeral, a service or any other acknowledgement that might suggest a death had occurred, a death equivalent to your death, for example. We are supposed to react to medical termination as murder but how can we when miscarriage has never been treated as death?
If you want to know what people really believe, look at what they do rather than what they say. The logic is inescapable.
@ Sandra: Christians from a range of backgrounds can and do support women’s right to choose. You may not like our beliefs, but you have no right to say who is and who is not a Christian.
July 11th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
We are talking about an article in which the writer declares she is fully in agreement that life begins from conception in the womb and that all those who wish to support the choice to kill (as she does) should stop arguing that abortion is not killing. It clearly is.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Sandra,
I don’t think anyone has said that this is not killing, as in causing something living to cease being alive. The argument is more about whether it constitutes murder or genocide or whatever, and whether this is the same as killing say, a 10 year old child. I think we’re all agreed that indiscriminately killing a 10 year old is wrong. We differ about termination of pregnancy. To some of us there is a fundamental difference.
July 11th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
“to some of us.”..Ms Senior would suggest you face up to facts. Do read the entire article:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33782505/Yes-Abortion-is-Killing
“What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm
meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering.”
July 11th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I also think this is a very well judged comment:
HTTP://SPUC-DIRECTOR.BLOGSPOT.COM/2010/07/HONEST-PRO-ABORTION-ARTICLE-PROMPTS.HTML
July 11th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
What struck me about Antonia Senior’s article was its appalling sentimentality. As Sandra quotes, Antonia wrote “My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering.”
Does it not occur to the silly woman that had she had sex a year earlier or a day later or any number of other permutations then a quite different yet equally personality-packed toddler might have been born?
Should we wait for a further article in which we read of Antonia’s agony over the many other personality-packed toddlers she might have borne were it possible to use all of her eggs?
What a load of toot. She might as well get all steamed up about the wonderful range of p-p ts she could have had if only she’d married at 16 or had sex with every passer-by…
July 13th, 2010 at 12:53 am
Most interesting to have read the above comments on retuirning from labours away from home. All this concern about aborted foetus’s that haven’t even given their first breath! And the amazing thing is that these aborted embrionic, potential, babes, had they survived, would have then been referred to as being born in sin and shapen in inquity. Yes, and unless baptized, would never enter heaven. The most they can expect is to end up with, such as the poor retarded, in limbo!
Yet the theology of the same church which has taught the above also makes it abundantly clear that no animal – regardless of how loving, faithful and true it has been, will enter paradise because – as thomas acquinas taught – and rene descarte the appalling vivisector taught! – animals have no soul. How convenient of him! To quote the late Basil Hume ‘Catholic teaching is that when animals are dead, they cease to exist!’
The vilest of humans has the chance of being redeemed, but animals have no soul. Well, if this kind of theology is not topsy turvy and contrary to the gospel of the Good Shep[herd, then I fail to know what is!
If you wish to read more about my own views then I would commend to you my website: http://www.animalpadre.org
My kind regards as ever: rev. James
PS: As my laptop is playing up and on its last, you may not receive any follow ups for some time. Well, I have no doubt that some of you will be pleased about this. In the meantime, keep the theology centered around humanity alone being of concern to God. Rejoice in either being ‘in the one true church which can neither deceive nor be deceived’; or alterantively be a true Calvinist believing that your type are the only ones chosen to walk the golden streets of glory
Yes indeed: ‘We are God’s chosen few! All others will be damned. There is no room in heaven for them. We can’t have heaven crammed!’
July 13th, 2010 at 6:36 am
I don’t think Ms Senior mentions she goes to any church so let’s please stick to topic and not go throwing round what we may have heard about other churches. Lets do learn what their actual teaching is – not what someone else has put down as their ideas which even they do not claim to be the teachings of their church – just their own thinking and conclusions.
Again the actual article under discussion here can be found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33782505/Yes-Abortion-is-Killing
July 13th, 2010 at 7:14 am
rev- where in the bible does it say “that you must accept Jesus as your personal lord and saviour”..I think the idea, the jewish idea for that matter..was that it was a “family” a covenant with God, a whole entire people…. Check out Scott hahns work about this. You might get some insights. The bible says that church is the bulwark and foundation of truth.
July 13th, 2010 at 7:28 am
I do not set criteria for other human beings to qualify for my opinion on their status. But just in the interests of truth: by 11 to 12 weeks from conception, the baby is breathing fluid steadily and continues to do so until birth.
PS: I agree with Don that Scott Hahn makes a very good, although challenging, read…and he’s even better in audio.
July 13th, 2010 at 11:14 am
If abortion is so acceptble and is to be promoted as beneficial to women in western societies and legitimised to the point of abortion being considered a de facto human right.
Then presumably abortion advocates and the make poverty history exploiters would not be adverse to exclusively funding abortion clinics across their third world domains as the most effective tool in makng poverty history.
July 13th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Don, the gist of what I said is found in passages such as Romans 10:9; I John 4:13; John 3:16; Romans 8:16 etc, etc. When a person, thrtough an act of faith surrenders to the Good Sheherd then old things appear to pass away and all things become new. For a human, the most important thing in life is to open the door of one’s heart and ask jesus to come in: (Reve;ation 4: ). Jesus will never force His way into anyone’s life. He waits patiently to be inviuted.
Top entertainers of the past such as Gene Autry, Johnny Cash, James Reeves and Cliff Richards -0 to name but a few – had everything to lose career wise by going all out Christian. Yet they took the step and have never looked bvack!
As for your reference to covenant with God, He has made these not only with humans throughout biblical history, but also – every bit as much! – with the animal creation which can seek God in its own ways. Indeed, like the retarded of humanity as well as those who cannot respond to a theological formulsa, biblical texts or some creed, Christ can communicate to them in various ways. However, this does not mean that we should cease from sending out evangelists and missionaries to a fallen humanity.
As regards covenant relationship with God, one of the first follows Noah as he leaves the ark; the rainbow being the outward assurance, given repoeatedly for animals as much in that passage as for humans. And, of course, there are other pass\ges aswell.
Sorry that I have diverted a good deal from the abortion topic but I just wanted to answer your query. I wish you well – as I do any other critiucs of mine. We are all passing throuhgj this life so quickly and each shouild have a legacy to leave; far too many simply take up parking space! But for the grace of God, we couild have been born as somewhere akin to a starving orphan, a beetle under a stone, a battery hen or a vivisector’s model for experimentation. Regardless of our human differences, we are the only species able to make it or mar it for the rest. Jesus said: ‘To whom most has been given, from them the most will be required!’ May we never, ever fail Jesus by using a so called dominion as an excuse to exploit the same.
Sorry to have got ‘carried away’ but it needs to be said; and as for Catholicism, may it give precedence to the teachings of humble St Francis – who never even became a priest! – to that of haughty St Thomas their founder of a cold scholasticism!
July 13th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Don, my reference to the book of revelation – apocalypse! – should read: 3:20. A painting has been mnade oif it called The Light OIf The World. It’s by Holman Hunt, and the original is within the chapel of Keble College, Oxford. There ius no handle on the outside. jesus awaits human response!
Sorry for so many mistakes but the mouse is faulty and needs to be discarded with the computor!
July 13th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
the actual article under discussion here can be found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33782505/Yes-Abortion-is-Killing
July 14th, 2010 at 4:18 am
as a Catholic christian, I must apologize for my ‘knee jerk’ reaction to the contrarians of the Catholic faith and there isn’t enough ‘blog’ to explain here, but 2000 years of information will not convince others that Jesus church is the catholic church-..that being said, returning to Antonia’s point of view, this is near barbarism. You cannot equate kiling of little ones for ones ‘liberalism’ and freedom. Remember the nun that was excommunicated, the church magisterium is clear that you cannot kill one life for another…..
…a tidbit, remember that greek where Jesus essentially said my covenant is with the Jewish-not the greeks, but she insisted “even the dogs eat from the scraps/handouts..theres a lesson here, but look at the other thing..Jesus is talking about breaking of the bread, the supper…always the breaking of the bread…and every sunday..I partake in it.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:15 am
I cannot believe that ALL churches are not mobilised to defend pre-born infants.
The Catholic church’s teaching is clear. I find that most people who are actively pro-life are Catholic lay people although it does seem sadly that many of the Catholic clergy/establishment are appallingly reticent about addressing the worst human rights abuse there is in our country.
Antonia Senior does not even report she goes to any church but it seems blindingly obvious to her what’s going on here.
July 14th, 2010 at 10:46 am
A relative of mine had a very late termination because the foetus had a major chromosomal defect and was unlikely to be born alive or, if born alive, to survive the first year of life. The woman was so distressed at the thought that the foetus inside her was either dying, would be born dead or die shortly after that she became seriously mentally ill.
Both husband and wife are deeply religious. She’s a Catholic and he an Anglican. He is passionately opposed to abortion. However he agreed to the procedure when his wife’s Catholic priest urged him to do so because her sanity was at stake. The priest convinced him that because the foetus was so gravely affected the Catholic church endorsed the hospital’s advice that a termination was the best course. The termination was carried out close to the last permissable date, there was a baptism and then a funeral.
Sandra’s comments therefore may be true of Catholic theory but seem not to reflect the reality of Catholic practice in this country. If abortion is permissible when the woman’s life or sanity is at stake then it’s impossible to conclude other than that in the church’s eyes the foetus does not have quite the same value as its mother.
The Roman Catholic church has occasionally held funeral and burial services for aborted foetuses. However, this has not been the general rule. Embryos and pre-viable foetuses have not usually been considered full persons to the extent that they are considered worthy of a formal requiem mass or a formal burial service.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Sophie – the thing with being Catholic is that it’s not a “consensus” opinion thing when fundamental principles apply.
The Cathoic church would never advocate that killing one innocent person would ever assist the sanity of another. The agonies of women suffering mentally after abortion would testify to the illogicality of that view. However short the babies life was to be…surely Mum and Dad and all their family may have been greatly comforted by knowing she/he lived and was loved to her/his natural end.
The priest was either misquoted or voicing just his opinion he was not communicating the teachings and proper pastoral care of the church.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy neither baby nor mother would survive if left untreated. The purpose of the operation is to save life.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
as I said…in my experience it seems to me that UK Catholic clergy/establishment, with a few exceptions, lag way behind on this one.
Thankfully seminarians are now taught on the Sanctity of Life and the Theology of the body so newer / younger clergy tend to be much more clued up.
July 15th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
@ Sandra: As I wrote previously, it was the priest’s persuasion that decided the matter for my relative. You are in no position to deny that this intervention occurred.
It may be that it was the nature of the defect that informed the priest’s advice. Any child born alive with this defect would have major skull deformation and nearly all its brain missing: all of the higher or “thinking” areas. Babies with this condition look a bit like cats. Had this pregnancy continued to term and an infant been born breathing (which was unlikely) the infant would be incapable of consciousness. The idea of quality of life would irrelevant.
To write “However short the babies life was to be…surely Mum and Dad and all their family may have been greatly comforted by knowing she/he lived and was loved to her/his natural end” is a foolish thing to write because clearly this is not so. The only reason you know about the situation is that I have told you about it in support of medical abortion. The decision to terminate the pregnancy was made on the basis of the mother’s mental health. Far from being a great comfort, her mother found the presence of a fatally deformed foetus in her womb unbearable. The couple decided to end the pregnancy with the unanimous support of their families.
You write “I cannot believe that ALL churches are not mobilised to defend pre-born infants. ”
Believe it. I don’t think you’d find many people – religious or not – who placed no value at all on human embryos. It’s a matter of degree. However there are plenty of pro-choice churches and Christians. Try this link which provides links to the official pro-choice statements from denominations like the United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church USA, American Baptist Church, and others.
But there seems to be little common ground between us. When you write “it seems to me that UK Catholic clergy/establishment, with a few exceptions, lag way behind on this one.
Thankfully seminarians are now taught on the Sanctity of Life and the Theology of the body so newer / younger clergy tend to be much more clued up.”
It cheers me somewhat to reflect that this sort of preaching can only hasten the slow death of Catholicism. The British laity already take no notice at all of the church’s teaching on contraception, and its lack of compassion across sexual morality loses it adherents with every year that passes. The fury of the Irish and other European nations over the child abuse scandals adds to the disillusion. These moral failing all progressively weaken the Catholic church and I can only applaud the decay of probably the least Christian of all the churches (though there is a certain amount of competition).
July 15th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
@ Sandra: You write “The Catholic church would never advocate that killing one innocent person would ever assist the sanity of another. The agonies of women suffering mentally after abortion would testify to the illogicality of that view. ”
I feel this deserves a separate response. The claim that women suffer mental “agonies” post-abortion which they would not have suffered had they carried their pregnancy to term is important regardless whether you believe abortion is murder. It would clearly suit anti-abortionists could they prove that choosing abortion will doom women to agony. However it appears there is significantly less psychological distress post-abortion than post-natal, which makes perfect sense to me.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has published evidence-based guidelines as part of the procedures for establishing informed consent to abortion. These say that only a small minority of women experience any long-term adverse psychological consequences after abortion.
Since the early 1980s, groups opposed to abortion have attempted to document the existence of “post-abortion syndrome”. In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this field to review the data. They reported that the studies with the most scientifically rigorous research designs consistently found no trace of “post-abortion syndrome” and furthermore, that no such syndrome is scientifically or medically recognized.
The panel concluded that “research with diverse samples, different measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress.” While some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness.”
See http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/post_abortion_issues.html
My own view is that pregnancy, rather than being a state of duality is one of accretion, in the same way that a cairn may be impressive now but was once a single stone. This understanding, that the process from conception to birth is a process of becoming and that therefore the loss of a pregnancy in the first weeks is not as significant as the loss a few weeks before birth, reflects not only my perception but how most people perceive it, or at least how they behave and react, whatever they claim to believe.
When one grieves for an early miscarriage one grieves for the loss of what might have been, the potential, not for the bundle of cells or tiny embryo but for what it represents. The woman who reacts to such a loss as if her five year old had died would be considered unbalanced and her grief disproportionate.
Most legal abortions, like most miscarriages, occur in the first trimester. You write “by 11 to 12 weeks from conception, the baby is breathing fluid steadily and continues to do so until birth.” Quite apart from the observation that breathing fluid is hardly a defining human characteristic, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) advises that a foetus does not feel pain before 24 weeks.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Dear Sophie.
I do regrefully have to agree with you that there are indeed self-proclaiming “churches” that have made pro- abortion statements.
I believe The Methodists have done so very recently.
With the reference to sexual abuse:
A “pro-choice” position on child abuse would surely be that the abuser choooses not to recognise the victim’s life as say …, of sufficient quality, pain-sensitivity, independent viability, “wantedness” …or other …. and therefore has the right to choose to do what they will unto that Life. Lets remember that many of those children were indeed merely “unwanted pregnancies”. “Parasites” one might say. We know what we do with such Ones in present day England if we get em before they’re 24 weeks and sometimes after and use words like “choice” , “product of conception” to dissuade their mums from bonding with them – until it’s too late.
But these unwanted children won’t ever be adults who can campaign for recognition, apology, compensation or any other justice for the brutal and indeed state funded Final acts carried out on them (- not in any earthly court at least. )
Only snag is you see later on you even get the Mums and Dads and Grandparents and even siblings and they’re suffering regret and loss, sometimes depression and low self-worth…because what intrinsic value does life have if it depends on “criteria” and if I have taken someone else’s life…how can I keep going with mine unless I go to Jesus and tell him I made a mistake and ask Him to forgive me and know he will take care of my baby till our time comes to all be together.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:32 pm
On the subject of Fetal pain:
I think these are very interesting comments on the RCOG
“A quick glance at the membership of both RCOG committees shows names of many well-known pro-abortion advocates, but few who are recognisably conservative on these issues. Surely some overtly pro-life doctors could have been included to give at least a token voice to the rights of the unborn child.
It is extraordinary that the name of London-based Prof Stuart Campbell, (not part of the pro-life movement) does not appear either among those on the committee or in the lists of those consulted. As a pioneer and international expert in the field of ultrasonographic fetal diagnosis, his expertise should surely have been considered indispensable”
etc. etc. See http://corethics.org/2010/06/247/
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Sandra: Defining the true church as “only churches who agree with Sandra” is a rather superficial way of looking at faith. Denying that there can be genuine difference on this topic among Christians does neither you or your argument any favours.
I’m afraid I couldn’t entirely follow your second paragraph. You seem to be saying that anyone who doesn’t think abortion is murder must therefore approve of child abuse, but that’s such a silly thing to say that I suspect I’ve misunderstood. A spot of clarification would help.
I’m interested that you raise the issue of the emotional after-effects of abortion. It always puzzles me that people who oppose abortion draw attention to the weakest parts of their argument. It’s pointless trying to portray abortion as a source of lifelong regret when the evidence is so strongly on the other foot. I’m not saying no one ever regrets having an abortion but the medical evidence is that just as abortion is physically safer for the woman than having a baby, this is also true in terms of her emotional well-being. There is significantly less mental disturbance after abortion than there is after childbirth. Regret is uncommon.
However this is not true of adoption which poses very grave risks to the mother’s health, particularly her mental health. Those who oppose abortion often see adoption as a preferable alternative to the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Adoption may be the best option for the baby than staying with its mother, though this is doubtful at the very least and impossible to prove. However it’s definitely not the best choice for the mother. No one who had a woman’s health at heart could ethically recommend that she gives her baby up for adoption. If you really want to assure yourself long years of misery and trauma then give your baby up for adoption. Most women never recover. There’s not a vast body of research but its unremittingly grim.
The abstract of a paper, Psychological Disability in Women Who Relinquish a Baby for Adoption, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, 1986 says:
During 1986, approximately 2500 women in Australia are likely to relinquish a baby for adoption. A study is presented of 20 relinquishing mothers that demonstrates a very high incidence of pathological grief reactions which have failed to resolve although many years have elapsed since the relinquishment. This group had abnormally high scores for depression and psychosomatic symptoms on the Middlesex Hospital questionnaire. Factors that militate against the resolution of grief after relinquishment are discussed. Guidelines for the medical profession that are aimed at preventing psychological disability in relinquishing mothers are discussed.
The abstract of another paper reports that 99% of a group of 79 mothers who gave up a child for adoption described it as a major traumatic life event. A horrifying 97% of the group reported being misled or misinformed of the effects of relinquishing their baby.
“The relinquishing mother is at risk for long-term physical, psychologic, and social repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions.” Journal of Obstetric, Gynecological and Neonatal Nursing, 1999
There are a number of birthmother sites. I recommend http://www.birthmothers.info/ and http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/effects_on_mothers.html which provide links to academic papers and explores the lifelong damage done by adoption, both to mothers and children. Any disinterested reader will conclude that if a woman bears a child adoption should always be a last resort.
The dishonesty of those who, for whatever reason, persuade birth mothers that adoption is the best option for them and their baby is a striking feature in research of this issue. Of course if you believe all abortion is murder then the finer points concerning the well-being of either mother or baby are unimportant. Live births appear to be what count, regardless of the human misery.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Sandra: On the topic of foetal pain, are you seriously suggesting that the RCOG is issuing fraudulent medical data entirely to confound anti-abortionists?
Well, I guess you are. The Independent Catholic News site clearly perceives medical research as something that can and should be created or amended to meet Catholic policy. According to such thinking, people should not be told anything that counters religious teaching. If the facts don’t fit, discard the facts.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that some Christians want research findings concealed. This in keeping with the Catholic church’s deliberate deception about the role of condoms in HIV infection among Africans. But I still find the lack of respect for truth shocking.
BTW, were you quite sober when you posted your previous message? Your message seem kinda blurry and unstable.
“…how can I keep going with mine unless I go to Jesus and tell him I made a mistake and ask Him to forgive me and know he will take care of my baby till our time comes to all be together.”
It’s a bit rambly and stream of consciousness.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Sophie I did not say anything about defining the true church. I am interested in the post that was originally regarding the article made by Antonia Senior stating that abortion truly is killing.
The comments I linked to specifically concern the concern that any attempt to find true facts were ignored by the RCOG. Worth reading also the conclusion of the passage itself.
http://corethics.org/2010/06/247/
Your comments on adoption…so you do believe that those “unwanted pregnancies” who grew up to be people who denounced those who had abused them…should have just been aborted in the first place?
Please explain the “pro-choice” position on those who “choose” to abuse born children? or “choose” to rape? or “choose” to ignore the red traffic light at a junction…?
I am a bit too busy to respond to all of your comments – and I think the answers are pretty obvious too.
July 22nd, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Sandra: The fact that you think the answers are obvious demonstrates the lack of clarity with which you approach the issues. Sentiment is not a replacement for logic.
If describing those who disagree with you as “self-proclaiming “churches” isn’t defining what is and is not a church then, yet again, your incoherence confuses me.
I don’t think we’ll ever agree, especially as quite a lot of what you write doesn’t make a lot of sense.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:32 pm
I remain puzzled why those who are “pro-life” for religious reasons feel compelled to co-opt often questionable scientific evidence to support their position. Surely religious conviction is enough? Almost invariably when non-religious arguments are put forward in support of religious conviction they are torn to shreds, often with justification. Surely true religious belief does not require scientific justification?
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:56 am
Faith and Reason go together. There is nothing “questionable” about the science that life begins at conception. Antonia Senior agrees that any other position is simply untenable.
“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being” Dr J LeJeune professor of genetics. University of Descartes
“It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception” Professor M M-Roth, Harvard University.
“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology life is present from the moment of conception.” Professor H Gordon. Mayo Clinic
“I have learned from my very earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.” Dr Bongioanni. Professor of pediatrics and obstetrics- University of Pennsylvannia
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I think that rather makes my point Sandra. I don’t think anyone has stated that life does not exist from conception. However, the difference in opinion arises out of consideration of what that life actually means. Is a collection of as yet undifferentiated cells the same as a fully formed human? If some whose view is informed by religious dogma then maybe the answer is yes. For others the the answer is definitely not. Science does not help or hinder us here. It’s a philosophical problem. Surely no-one is saying that terminating a pregnancy after, say, 5 weeks, causes any pain or suffering to the foetus? But if one starts with the assumption that all life, at whatever stage in development, is sacred, then it follows that one would believe that all elective terminations, at whatever stage of development, is wrong.
An appeal to science does not provide a solution to this conundrum. Hence my puzzlement with the use of scientific information by those who start from a very black or white position informed by their religious belief.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Actually you said “questionable” science. Now you agree the science here is unquestionable and we agree.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Sandra: You’re ignoring Jim’s central point. As he says:
“Is a collection of as yet undifferentiated cells the same as a fully formed human? For some whose view is informed by religious dogma then maybe the answer is yes. For others the the answer is definitely not. Science does not help or hinder us here. It’s a philosophical problem.”
There are many millions of responsible, ethical people who are pro-choice through conviction. They believe it’s morally right. Some are religious, others are not. The Jewish faith holds that life begins with the first breath. You may disagree with this teaching, but you can’t deny that there are more ways than just your own of looking at this issue.
As often when I visit this site I’m reminded how glad I am that I don’t live in a theocracy.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Sophie
A two year old is a fully formed human two year old human being just as a two week unborn baby is a two week unborn human being . They are just stages of life which began at conception. Just trying to reach some consensus.. would you agree then that abortion is unacceptable at say six weeks…? A baby has a recognisable arm and leg buds and head etc at that stage so visually we can see the baby likeness with which we are familiar from seeing born babies.
We can believe all sorts of things based on false information because actually life does begin at conception. Creationists may hold the view that God did indeed literally create the world in seven days but they should not teach that as unarguable fact because science indicates otherwise. There is absolute truth. eg; some races chose to believe that other races are inferior: error can lead to terrible injustice. : )
I think you missed my question Sophie…? Please explain the “pro-choice” position on those who “choose” to abuse born children? or “choose” to rape? or “choose” to ignore the red traffic light at a junction…?
July 24th, 2010 at 12:10 am
If through medical evidence one is informed that a ‘child’ shortly to be born will be mentally and physically deformed, do the likes of Sandra still affirm that the ‘child’ must still be born?
My youngest child was terribly retarded and I prayed for years that he would live and not die. Well, my prayers were partly answered and he is now in his forties – yet severely retarded. My ex.wife – we later broke up because of the strain! – once said to me: “Yes james, you persisted in prayer and God answered your persistence and stubberness to a degree. You meant well. But in all honesty should you not have said ‘Thy will be done’, and have let james die at the hospital?” Then she added: “If God wants a life to enter this world and our door is closed, then that will not bar Him from using another channel!”
I need only add that my Ex wife; our children – including the most wonderful one we adopted – went later through exceedingly much turmoil and emotional trauma. Indeed, we’d already lost a younger child through medical negligence – the oxygen supply tube to the incubator having accidentally slipped out! – He’d only lived three hours on this planet, but – as my previous wife said – ‘we’ll see him again!’
Sorry, I sense I’ve wandered again from the controversy for or against abortion! (perthaps its my age) Well, I only know that the parishioners I’ve known who have had an abortion by no means did it flippantly or lightely; but in their circumstances felt it was, for them, by far the lesser of two evils.
Indeed, for one example – the reality of a young girl having to go through pregnancy and then childbirth because she had been seduced by her Dad! Well, if such folk are Christians who demand this ordeal for a fourteen year old then make me an atheist any day!
How far removed can the moral theology of any denomination – not to mention its wealth and eccelesiastical trappings – remove itself from the teaching, example and lifestyle of the One who called Himself the Good Shepherd; and yet still claim to be His mouthpiece here on earth?
I’ll say no more on this matter!
July 24th, 2010 at 12:35 am
Sandra,
No science is unquestionable. My use of the term questionable in this context was a red herring for which I apologise. As Sophie says, that was not the crux of my post.
You say we now agree. But I don’t think we agree on the core matter. As I understand it, you believe that elective termination is wrong, no matter at what point in the pregnancy. I believe that there is a point before which it can be right, in circumstances which are considered by society at large to be acceptable. Does that sum up our difference?
July 27th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Hi Jim
Kind apology accepted. Good to know we agree on the science.
As far our difference I think we’re getting there but I would describe the language used as euphemistic.
I would re-phrase thus:
I believe the elective killing (not “termination”) of any human being (specifiy killing whom) is wrong, no matter what stage in their development . (not “the pregnancy”)
If you believe there is a point before which it can be right could you specify that point and explain on what basis?
Also why after that point is it wrong?
I believe the opinion of society at large does not support the law as it now stands, however the opinion of society at large is not a definer of morality even if a majority of society were to agree on their right to electively kill.
btw: This is a lovely video:
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/video/pregnancy/weeks-1-to-9-pregnancy/
Kind regards.
July 27th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Dear Rev Pastor James Thompson
You mention in your post particular cases eg child disability, very early unplanned motherhood.
It would seem then you would not agree with abortion on demand to birth.
Could you specify when you think aborting an unborn child would not be acceptable and why?
Are there any other scenarios besides child disability and very early motherhood when you think abortion would be acceptable and why?
I can then address just the cases where you might perceive aborting the child to be a just act.
Kind regards.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
correction of myself…Rev Thompson’s example specifies further that with early motherhood that the 14 year old mother’s baby has been conceived as a result of incest perpertrated by her father ie: the baby’s grandfather and father.
My request is for other scenarios which you would see as it being a morally justified action to abort the child Reverend?…then I can give an answer to this example and hopefully include your other examples too.
We can at least both agree that abortion legislation as it now stands in the UK is wrong? We can both applaud Miss Senior for at least pointing out that abortion is indeed killing but hope she will come to understand that it is noone’s right to kill another human being?
July 28th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Sandra,
No matter what the terminology it’s the same thing. I don’t believe that a collection of cells which constitute a potential independent human being is the same as a fully formed human being. As many experts cannot agree the precise point at which the procedure becomes unethical far be it from me to pronounce precisely on this.
You also say…
…however the opinion of society at large is not a definer of morality even if a majority of society were to agree on their right to electively kill.
We disagree on this as well. What or who do you think is the “definer of morality” if not society?
July 28th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Sandra,
No matter what the terminology it’s the same thing. I don’t believe that a collection of cells which constitute a potential independent human being is the same as a fully formed human being. As to the point after which termination should be avoided I go with the law as it stands, which is a result of careful consideration by medical and legal experts.
You also say…
…however the opinion of society at large is not a definer of morality even if a majority of society were to agree on their right to electively kill.
We disagree on this as well. What or who do you think is the “definer of morality” if not society?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Good morning Jim.
Again, to just check misleading/false use of terms.
“collection of cells” (misleading) – we could all be described as a collection of cells.
“potential human” being – (false)
After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being” Dr J LeJeune professor of genetics. University of Descartes
“It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception” Professor M M-Roth, Harvard University.
I am not a moral relativist. I guess we use the term differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
July 29th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Sandra,
We fundamentally disagree on this so I guess semantics doesn’t help us, though you’ll note I did use the term potential independent human being – “Independent” being the key word.
I don’t recall calling you a moral relativist. If I did I apologise. From what you write it is clear to me that you are not. This label could better be applied to me.
Quoting others does not in itself make your points any more valid. Your quotes support your viewpoint but they can easily be countered by quotes from other scientists who do not agree with their view.
Dr Lejeune is a well known Catholic, so I’d be very surprised indeed if that did not very significantly inform his view as a pro-life advocate.
Dr Micheline Mathews-Roth is known for her opposition to embryonic stem cell research. She says:
“…I oppose the use of embryonic stem cells because to obtain those cells it is necessary to kill a growing human being. We know from embryology that a new life begins with the formation of the zygote, the cell formed from the union of egg and sperm in fertilization — this is scientific fact, not religious doctrine. What makes us human is not our looks or mental attributes, but the human chromosomes and genes which we have in our cells from the zygote stage throughout our life. We should not condone killing a member of our species, even for a good reason….”
- This is a subjective moral judgement. Some will agree with her view and some not, but her reaction to the facts is not intself a fact, but a subjective view.
We can argue this issue until the cows come home but I think we’re both very sure of our positions, and probably will not change.
August 9th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
@ Sandra: I’ve been away, but was so startled to read your comment to me of two weeks ago that I feel I must reply. You wrote: “Please explain the “pro-choice” position on those who “choose” to abuse born children? or “choose” to rape? or “choose” to ignore the red traffic light at a junction…?”
You don’t know what the term “pro-choice” means, do you? Engaging in this long-standing debate without troubling to understand such a key concept is hardly impressive.
The term “pro-choice” comes from the phrase “a woman’s right to choose” and refers to the belief that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. The expression “pro-choice” therefore has no relevance to the examples you suggest.
You might find this article informative: Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights written by the Rev. Carlton Veazey. It seems to set out the arguments quite well and relatively briefly. I would point out that the legislative, the medical profession and most of the general public find these pro-choice arguments convincing, as do many Christians. Do you not owe it to yourself to find out what they are?
August 29th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Hi Sophie.
Hope you are having a good bank holiday : )
Regarding your message
If “pro-choice” does not mean “pro-choice” then it is not the term pro-abortionists should use.
If it means “pro a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have her baby killed” then
a) it is noone’s right to choose to kill another human being
b) go anywhere near an abortion clinic and you will not be there long till you see a doubtful and stressed mother being propelled in there by the baby’s father or a female “friend” or family – our laws on legal abortion are by no means empowering women to resist pressure to abort their children
c)a choice can only be a choice if it is taken with full knowledge of the facts – women are not informed by abortion clinics about the reality of their unborn baby (for example euphemistically refered to as “the pregnancy”) , and the physical and phsycological consequences of abortion for themselves and their loved ones, not to mention society at large.
d) abortion clinics – which are hugely NHS thus state thus you and me funded- do not offer choices or alternatives. They do not offer any help for a worried pregnant woman apart from the service that gains them revenue – taking the life of her unborn child.
Have not read Rev Veazeys article but if you would think it would effectively respond to any of the points above then can you point out which paragraph/page/part corrresponds directly to a) b) and c) and I will take a look.
God bless.
September 1st, 2010 at 8:33 am
@ Sandra: I have pointed out that pro-choice has a clear meaning and that it’s used in that sense by people on both sides of the debate. You may not agree with the pro-choice position but to ignore the meaning of the term is lazy. Your ill-informed points make me disinclined to take you seriously.
The pro-choice position is that it should be up to the woman to decide whether or not to continue with a pregnancy, as it involves her body, personal health, and future.
People who support the pro-choice position frame their beliefs in terms of individual liberty, reproductive freedom, and reproductive rights.
Pro-choice individuals do not consider themselves “pro-abortion” because they consider abortion an issue of bodily autonomy, and find forced abortion as indefensible as the outlawing of abortion. Indeed, some who are pro-choice consider themselves opposed to some or all abortions on a moral basis, but believe that abortion bans imperil women’s health. Others have a practical acceptance of abortion, arguing that abortions would happen in any case but that legal abortion under medically controlled conditions is preferable to unsafe illegal abortion.
Some who argue from a philosophical viewpoint believe that an embryo is only a potential and not an actual person and that it should not have rights that override those of the pregnant woman until it is viable.
In response to your point a), society recognises that people do have the right to kill in various circumstances. War is one obvious example. Self-defence is another. When an ectopic pregnancy is likely to kill both the woman and the embryo, abortion in such circumstances could be framed as straightforward self-defence. When asked which takes priority – a woman or her pregnancy – most people* think the woman’s interests predominate. They put the rights of actual human beings above the rights of potential ones.
For most of a pregnancy, the blastocyst/embryo/foetus (depending on the stage of development) exists solely courtesy of the woman’s body. It has no feelings and cannot suffer. Pregnancy and delivery present significant risks to a woman, both to her current and future well-being. This is why most people* think a woman has the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy if she wishes. Pro-choice applies also to contraception. The basic premise is that, as she will be undoubtedly the most affected (whether in terms of health or of caring for the resulting baby), a woman should be able to choose to have a child, or to not have one.
Pregnancy is almost impossible to compare to any other situation. One parallel which does suggest itself is that of conjoined twins. In such cases the unavoidable sacrifice of a weaker or nonviable twin for the sake of the other is widely accepted. From what you have written previously, your position would be that they must both die. *Most people don’t agree.
*I appreciate that you will be hopping up and down saying that you don’t agree, but most people in the UK (83%) support the pro-choice position. My view is that the pro-choice position is in the best interests of women and of the children they choose to bear.
Had you bothered to find out what the term “pro-choice” means I wouldn’t need to tell you that your point b) is meaningless. A woman forced to have an abortion is deprived of the right to choose. This is wrong. That’s what pro-choice means.
Point c is untrue. Having a baby always carries more risks, both physical and mental, than having an abortion.
Point d is a reversal of the truth. While organisations which offer abortion also counsel women who choose to continue their pregnancies, woe betide the naive woman who goes to an anti-abortion organisation expecting unbiased professional advice.
The weakness of the anti-abortion argument is admitted indirectly through the blatant dishonesty of its proponents. Your false claim about abortion risks turns up again and again. Anti-abortion organisations routinely provide inaccurate and misleading medical information to women seeking counselling, leading to formal complaints. False claims made include that having an abortion will often result in women needing a hysterectomy, developing cervical cancer, becoming infertile, promiscuous or frigid, and that their risk of developing breast cancer will double.
The truth is that having a baby is always more dangerous than having an abortion. Having a baby is also more dangerous than any form of contraception.
As for suggesting adoption as an alternative, what little research there is suggests that giving a baby up for adoption is one of the most traumatic events a woman can experience. While the most common response to abortion is relief, it appears most women never get over giving a child up for adoption. This is seldom explored because it’s the last thing the affected interest groups – anti-abortion campaigners and would-be adopters – want to know. However human maternal instinct is so powerful that, if forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, most women will keep their baby even when all the circumstances suggest disaster. Women who aren’t equipped to parent find their instincts override their common sense. Decisions like this result in neglected or abused children