eChurch Blog

I’m not easily shocked and disturbed anymore; it’s true to say the more you observe the world, the more desensitised you become. Having said this, reading a new paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics arguing the case for ‘After-birth abortion’ has left me positively cold.

Here’s the Abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

The introduction to the paper very swiftly engages with the premise that conditions which would have justified abortion – that only become known after birth – should be valid arguments for killing the newborn. Abnormalities that cannot be detected through prenatal screening are cited, and the fact that only 64% of Down’s syndrome cases were diagnosed through these tests.

The paper appears to lament the fact that some 1700 infants are born with Down’s syndrome each year in Europe and that “there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child”.

Then there is this admittance:

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.

To combat this problem the paper moves into the realm of the “unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole”. And again the argument is repeated:

Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

The paper admits that ‘after-birth abortion’ is an oxymoron, as the usual term would be murder ‘infanticide’, but this term is justified on the grounds that the “moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”. The authors prefer this term to ‘euthanasia’ as “the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice”. This is stated of course, because the raison d’etre for killing a newborn, will more often than not, be for the benefit of others, and their psychological suffering as a result of having the child. Whereas, of course, euthanasia is for the benefit of the one dying; or so the paper would allude.

The paper then has to move into the realm of the moral status of the newborn baby in order to justify its ends. This seems to revolve around the idea that a person must have future ‘aims’ that they seek to accomplish; therefore, a baby only has the potentiality to become a person.

They boldly state “all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons” and “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life”.

The paper seems to argue that moral status is only a subconscious value construct that folk ‘project’ onto another.

Although the paper ascribes ‘potentiality’ of person onto a foetus or newborn, it denies any harm is rendered if we destroy that potentiality. This is reasoned by the fact that the foetus or newborn is not in a condition of experiencing that harm. In order to suffer that harm, they would have to fulfil their potentiality in order to experience the loss.

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

The consequence of this line of thinking is that the interests of so-called ‘actual’ living people, override the interest of ‘merely potential’ people to become actual ones.

Actual living people’s well-being trumps all. ‘Non-persons’ have no moral rights to life.

We find ourselves in the situation whereby one existing  and accepted moral evil (abortion) is used to justify a further moral evil (After-birth abortion).

And isn’t this a prime example of what pro-lifers have feared all along; namely, once we opened our doors to the ‘culture of death’ where will it end?

Dr. Taylor Marshall has a handy little post on verbal and logical problems and fallacies. There are forty-nine of them altogether, and Marshall covers seven; of which ‘hyperbole’ and ‘straw man’ must be the most popular.

6. Hyperbole. These arguments exaggerate truth claims so as to obscure them.

“You always say that about me.”
“Catholics are always troubled by guilt.”

There’s nothing quite like encountering spurious and wildly exaggerated statements of ‘fact’. Although, having said that, watching someone construct a straw man of my beliefs, and then deftly and brutally demolishing said straw man, to their own delight and satisfaction, can be rather irksome:

7. Straw Man. These arguments set up a weak version of the opponents argument and then rip it down.

“Christ said, ‘Judge not,’ but Christians make judgments about political issues. Christians are hypocrites.”
“Catholics believe they can sin all they want if they just go to confession afterward”
“Catholics don’t believe that the cross of Christ is enough – that’s why they have purgatory”

When we gaze at our own failings, we see such a swamp that nothing in another can equal it. That is why we turn away and make much of the faults of others.

Instead of condemning others, strive to reach inner peace. Keep silent, refrain from judgment. This will raise you above the deadly arrows of slander, insult and outrage and will shield your glowing hearts against all evil.

St. Seraphim of Sarov

You know that feeling when you read an article and wish you could have written something like it yourself? Well, perhaps you don’t, but I’m sure other bloggers will know exactly what I’m talking about.

Anyway, this feeling doesn’t assail me all that often, but today, it happened twice.

And so I heartily commend to your attention the following links:

The first on writing:

Jeff Goins – How to Fall Back in Love with Writing

The second on blogging:

Timothy Dalrymple – The Indignation Industry, or the Art of Blogging Controversies

There is apoplectic outrage across the Interweb as the Occupy St Paul’s Cathedral Occupy the London Stock Exchange protest was finally forcibly evicted late last night.

The real bone of contention seems to be the fact that police removed folk that were forming the “Ring of Prayer” from the steps of the Cathedral. From what I can glean, the High Court eviction order (obtained by the Corporation of London, with the support of the Cathedral) was against the encampment in the square, and so the folk gathered on the Cathedral steps believed they had a legal right to be there.

As it turned out, a Trespass Order had been granted in collusion with the Cathedral, granting police authority to remove those folk from the steps.

It’s also purported that four policemen could be clearly seen on the Cathedral balcony, “in silhouette”.

Enter on stage Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia and his viral Video:

As you can hear, the police cite Cathedral permission, Section 14 of the Public Order Act, and breach of the peace. They also state the assembly was antagonising other people.

This has led to a stream of “dismayed and shocked” comments aimed at the “un-Christian” stance of the Cathedral.

Just a couple of quick comments.

From the very beginning this protest morphed into a battle with the Cathedral in particular, and Christianity in general. And as it began, so it has ended. In the process, many of us (Christians) who may have been sympathetic to the grievances of this movement, were alienated and sent on the defensive.

I witnessed a continued outpouring of vitriol against the Cathedral, with many that have not darkened the door of a church in years, pontificating on Christian morality. So much so, at times, you could be forgiven for thinking that the very Raison d’être for the protest was the ‘evil’ cathedral itself.

The irony is, with all the focus on the Cathedral; all talk of greedy bankers and corrupt Capitalism, was notably absent.

I think this all highlights a serious weakness in the Occupy movement. They are so easily subverted simply because they don’t really know what they stand for. What I mean by this, is that although we know what they stand against – corporate greed, banking systems, markets, capitalism – we never really found out what they proposed as alternatives.

I think the reason for this, is that they don’t really have any answers. And I’ve been observing this movement for months.

I note that Ekklesia have used coverage of this eviction as a nice little opportunity to have a dig a conservative Christians:

….I wonder whether those groups who sound off about supposed ‘Christian persecution’ in the UK will take up the issue of political and religious authorities working together to have people who are praying kicked off Cathedral steps? Or are they only concerned to support sectional privileges for those with conservative views?

The hypocritical irony here, is that Ekklesia often rail against conservative Christians as wishing to be in some way exempt from the laws of the land; especially, in regard to “Equality” laws.

It would now seem that Ekklesia themselves would wish to be exempt from certain laws; notably, trespass, or Section 14 of the Public Order Act.

Granted, the system we live in has many flaws, but it also has many benefits, that need to be recognised and more often readily acknowledged. I know for a fact that I don’t want anarchy.

I don’t know of a better system this side of the Kingdom, do you?

But as a Christian I do know this:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

The Occupy London Movement have made this promise:

to take stock and learn the lessons of the past four and a half months. But be assured that plans are already afoot: plans of some ambition, employing a diversity of tactics and delivered with the aplomb you would expect from us. All will be revealed in time. May is one of our favourite months.

I hope they do learn the lessons; namely, not to allow themselves to be so easily subverted against their natural allies, and to present to us concrete ideas of what they actually stand for; rather than just what they stand against.

1. Twitter
2. Chocolate
3. Swearing
4. Alcohol
5. Soda
6. Facebook
7. Fast food
8. Sex
9. Sweets
10. Meat
11. Lent
12. School
13. Junk food
14. Chips
15. Coffee
16. Candy
17. Bread
18. You
19. Smoking
20. Giving up things
21. Homework
22. Food
23. Social networking
24. Religion
25. Marijuana
26. Beer
27. Work
28. Stuff
29. McDonald’s
30. Virginity
31. Cookies
32. Masturbation
33. Ice cream
34. Shopping
35. Fried food
36. Boys
37. Sobriety
38. Coke
39. Catholicism
40. Cheese
41. Nothing
42. Carbs
43. Red meat
44. Procrastination
45. Desserts
46. Pizza
47. Pancakes
48. Sugar
49. Rice
50. Breathing
51. Me
52. Texting
53. Starbucks
54. Fizzy drinks
55. French fries
56. Diet Coke
57. Porn
58. Tumblr
59. Wine
60. Makeup
61. Liquor
62. Booze
63. College
64. My phone
65. Life
66. Caffeine
67. Laziness
68. Chipotle
69. Tea
70. Chicken
71. Cake
72. Sarcasm
73. New Year’s resolutions
74. Takeout
75. Men
76. Pork
77. Christianity
78. Sleep
79. People
80. Caring
81. Juice
82. Snacking
83. Lying
84. TV
85. Complaining
86. Church
87. Him
88. Sweet tea
89. Lint
90. Vegetables
91. Talking
92. Bacon
93. Being mean
94. Pasta
95. Eating out
96. Negativity
97. Eating
98. Biting my nails
99. Nutella
100. Being nice

SOURCE

Often what we dislike or fear or cannot forgive in the other is some aspect of ourselves that we dare not face.

[....]

It is easier to hate in someone else some element of my own character that I dare not examine too closely.

Source: Timothy Radcliffe: Why go to Church? The Drama of the Eucharist – Pages 171-172

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Barna Research – How Pastors Plan to Improve their Churches

Ethics and Foreign Policy – Developing an Understanding of Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

CounterCultural Father – On Being a Bigot

New York Times – Suicide Bomber Kills 3 in Nigeria

PsychCentral – The Addictive Personality: Why Recovery is a Lifetime Thing

The Deacon’s Bench – New call for divorced and remarried Catholics to be able to receive communion

Telegraph – Mark Thompson: BBC director general admits Christianity gets tougher treatment

The much anticipated Parliamentary inquiry called: Clearing the Ground, has been released. The premise of the report was to examine evidence on whether Christians are poorly treated by the law and if they are being pushed out of society.

It was run by Christians in Parliament, chaired by Conservative MP Gary Streeter, and supported by the Evangelical Alliance.

Here is a link to the Evangelical Alliance website which hosts the report.

And here are some of the key findings from the Executive Summary:

Context

Christians in the UK are not persecuted. To suggest that they are is to minimise the suffering of Christians in many parts of the world who face repression, imprisonment and death if they worship, preach or convert.

The recent wave of Christians in the courts does not in and of itself demonstrate that Christianity is badly treated.

However, the frequency and nature of the cases indicates a narrowing of the space for the articulation, expression and demonstration of Christian belief.

Some of the legal activity, associated campaigning and media coverage has been unwise and possibly counter-productive to the positive role that Christians play in society.

Religious Illiteracy

There is a high level of religious illiteracy which has led to many situations where religious belief is misunderstood and subsequently restricted. This comes from a social and cultural minimisation of Christianity in public life.

Religious illiteracy has led to legal restrictions on the way that faith can be expressed. Recent changes have compelled Christians to provide services that they had never previously offered and which may be contrary to their beliefs.

Accommodation of Religious Belief

It is evident that in some cases considerable effort is made to accommodate religious belief, with employers willing to make arrangements to ensure that employees do not have to participate in activities which would infringe their convictions.

In many cases, there is a failure to achieve sufficient accommodation, and in some cases to even attempt to understand or accommodate belief and its manifestation.

Findings

The experiences of Christians in the UK seeking to live out their beliefs and speak freely illustrate a very real problem in the way religious belief, and in particular Christianity is understood and handled. The problem is a pressing challenge to our idea of a plural society.

The way that the media cover many of the cases and the associated issues is often poor and contributes to perceptions of a polarisation between Christianity and public life.

The inquiry made the following specific findings:

The Equality Act 2010 fails to deal with the tensions between different strands of equality policy.

Court decisions have relegated religious beliefs below other strands and effectively created a hierarchy of rights.

The place of religious belief suffers because companies, institutions and the government do not take sufficient action to accommodate it.

The 1986 Public Order Act, and specifically Section 5, places the bar too low through its prohibition on insulting language.

The policing of the Public Order Act and other legislation demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is a legitimate expression of Christian belief.

Government departments handle religious belief in a complex and confused manner and lack sufficient coordination.

Advice from government departments on how to handle religious belief in the public sector varies and in many cases fails to grasp the nature and implications of belief.

Guidance from professional bodies on religious belief often fails to understand, and therefore safeguard, a role for belief in public life.

Across the UK, local authorities handle their relationships with religious groups in very different ways.

Some authorities demonstrate excellent understanding and cooperation, while some authorities place unnecessary barriers to wider Christian contribution.

These findings form the inquiry’s conclusion that there is a problem with how Christianity is understood and handled in Britain today. This problem is legal and cultural. It plays out on a national, local and personal level through laws, policies and regulations that restrict the freedom of Christians to articulate and live out their beliefs.

Recommendations:

There are specific and necessary steps which the government should take, and national and local bodies should implement to enable Christians and other faiths to have greater confidence in their freedom to express their beliefs.

The committee heard from many witnesses supporting the introduction of statutory guidelines for reasonable accommodation. This would mean that employers and service providers have to make an effort to accommodate religious beliefs in a similar manner as they currently do with disabilities. This sort of approach acknowledges diversity and rather than promote a single universal resolution to a situation accepts that in different cases the response may, and often should, vary.

The Inquiry Recommends:

Reasonable accommodation is a concept that has merit and warrants further consideration. If proved viable it may help prevent legal cases where religious activity is unduly restricted.

Areas of the law that permit the arrest of individuals for insulting behaviour need to be significantly amended or reinforced with guidance that permits freedom for preaching and the public articulation of Christian beliefs.

Guidance for local authorities on how to deal with faith groups needs to be strengthened.

Professional bodies need better guidance relating to religious identity, activity and freedom.

Better guidance for government departments and professional bodies to help accommodate religious belief and the way it works itself out in everyday life.

Clear guidelines should be provided to local authorities to reaffirm that children can be adopted and fostered by people with religious beliefs.

Better coordination is needed of policy relating to religion in and across government, and urgent effort is required to address religious illiteracy.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission should be reviewed and restructured to better include and represent religious beliefs.

The problems that Christians face are far from universal, but they do represent a trend towards a reduction in the space given to belief in public life. As a result this leads to an assumption that religious belief should be a private activity.

Christians in Parliament intends to use the findings and recommendations in this report as a basis for dialogue with other faith groups on the broader question of religion in public life. The report will also be discussed with the government, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and other groups to see how we can find a way to resolve these complex but important issues.

How the Church Should Respond:

Many of the challenges identified are not wholly the responsibility of the government to resolve. There is a growing need for churches and Christian organisations to take responsibility when their actions may have contributed to a perception that the scale of the problem facing Christians is greater than it is.

Christians have, and will always, experience tensions between their beliefs and the shifting values of the societies that they live in. To some extent the present tensions should be seen as an encouragement of faithful witness.

Ahead of bringing cases to court, Christians need to consider the potential impact their actions might have on politics, public opinion and the confidence of other Christians in their mission.

The last century saw a privatisation of faith and the development of a sacred-secular divide through which Christianity lost much of its social and political influence. Now, too often the Church is defined by what it opposes rather than what it stands for. It is essential that Christians once again provide hope and a vision for society that goes beyond defending their own interests and includes the good of all.

For many Christians public life is seen as a way of living out their beliefs, and across all denominations there is a growing awareness of the need to respond to the challenges that face our communities, nation and world. This shift is already transforming many, often deprived, parts of the country, however, there is much more that remains to be done in demonstrating this vital role of faith.

Christians need to take seriously their historical role in leading and serving in public life, and church discipleship needs to account for this role – because the gospel is good news for society.

Cranmer was first out of the blocks to blog on this. I’ll add links here, as and when folk comment.

I’m going to take advantage of Ekklesia’s Creative Commons License and nick the following, written by Jonathan Bartley:

I remember having a conversation with Giles Fraser a couple of years ago about writing for the Daily Mail. He has always been of the opinion that you can legitimately take an opportunity to write – even if it’s for a publication whose values you strongly disagree with.

The Archbishop of York’s column in the new Sun on Sunday goes way beyond that debate. It isn’t just about writing for the new Murdoch paper to replace NOTW. He has gone one stage further and endorsed the new publication, and for that matter the Monday to Saturday Sun newspaper at the same time. Not just implicitly, but explicitly. This is how he introduces his column:

“When I think that we can now get the latest news, politics and sports stories seven days a week from our country’s favourite paper, all I can say is ‘WOW!’ ”

Bishop John Davies has already publicly criticised John Sentamu’s decision this morning on BBC1’s Big Questions, saying that he should think again. The Archbishop meanwhile has been justifying what he has done, on Twitter, pointing out that he is giving the money he earns from the column to charity, and reiterating that he feels that it is important to give people the chance of a fresh start.

Fresh starts are important. By his own admission however, this is not so much a fresh start as an extension of the Monday-Saturday Sun. He knows the values of the paper. He knows the way it treats vulnerable groups. He knows the way it portrays women. He has chosen not just to write for it, but to celebrate it, and give it his public endorsement – some will say, his blessing.

SOURCE

I must say I’m sympathetic with the Ekklesia stance and feel Sentamu has misjudged this one.

What do you think?

UPDATE: For a different take, this is worth a read.