Abortion Act Anniversary

Cardinals Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and Keith O'Brien have written an open letter calling for a change of heart in British attitudes towards abortion. The letter coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act (to be marked this weekend) and is an attempt to lower the rate of terminated pregnancies which currently number 200,000 every year.

The approach in the letter seems somewhat scaled back from that taken by Cardinal O'Brien earlier this year when he called abortion "an unspeakable crime" and likened the rate of terminations in Scotland to "two Dunblane massacres everyday". In this appeal they call for an "incremental improvement to what is an unjust law"

Abortion Rights today host the Global Safe Abortion conference, promoting the rights of women in the developing world. The Christian Medical Fellowship with Christian Concern for Our Nation have announced they are picketing the event.

Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology are currently discussing the Scientific Developments Relating To The Abortion Act 1967. The committee said it would not take ethical and moral issues into consideration regarding the upper limit for abortion. Christian groups, including the Lawyers Christian Fellowship and Evangelical Alliance protested against this. The Committee also asked scientists giving evidence to disclose any links to faith groups.

The last session of the committee will be held tomorrow hearing evidence from the Department of Health.

UPDATE 24/10: Nadine Dorries yesterday suggested that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists may have deliberately submitted misleading evidence to the inquiry and ignored research supporting the case for a lower limit. This sets health minister Dawn Primarolo, who is opposed to lowering the upper limit, up for a showdown in the committee hearing today.

UPDATE 25/10: Plans to relax the law on early abortion are being drawn up The Times reports today. This would remove the requirement for the signatures of two doctors and give the right to nurses to carry out abortions.

Fox News are reportedly planning to screen an abortion.

By Joanna Sugden

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

"If you read my post again, you will see that I said nothing about YOU at all".
- David Smith, 7 NOV 2007, 11:01:54

Nit-picking again, Mr Smith. Too embarrassed to quote the whole of my text, you give it the Bible treatment, selecting a bit that meets with your approval and using it to bolster a flagging case.
Please continue to be worried about me. I have plenty more ammunition to shoot down your pretentious kites.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
'The devolution of choice to a local level is something that becomes an ever more distant memory for us Brits. The political classes continue to accrete power to the centre (the central State - despite much spin about Mayors and regional councils) and from a religious perspective, its always been about top down enforced power. The Catholic Church is able to leverage its power at a State level (e.g. state funded Catholic schools refusing to broaden enrollment policy against Government diktat) precisely because the corporate Church can wield the kind of political clout that’s been denied to its grassroots.'

A good analysis, and good to know that you are not one of those fooled. But it worries me that so many who call themselves Christians are.

I believe that the structures and methods of government in a country copy those of its major church.

The major church of the emerging country called 'The EU' is the Roman Catholic Church. Hence The EU is becoming ever more 'top down' and ever more undemocratic and free, but all the while (and here comes the cunning and deceit) telling us that it is bringing government ever closer to the people.

But as that rather paradoxical EU enthusiat, Giscard d'Estaing, has said: if you move countries' government from their own capitals to Brussels, you are moving it further away from their people, not closer!

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
' ..and now you feel like venting your frustration by sniping at a fellow-Christian.'

Geoffrey, I am a bit worried about you. Assaulted on all sides, you now seem to be showing the first signs of a persecution complex.

If you read my post again, you will see that I said nothing about YOU at all.

[emanuel appel]

A letter from America

Dear All,

To sidetrack into the Celtic question

My intellectual experience in America was this: the ones who asked the most direct and sharp questions, the ones who were unafraid of the results of their questioning were people of Scottish and Welsh descent, dissenters. The Anglican "fudge" produces mush.

The other Celts, the Irish, were a contradiction and mystery to me. The reason being that they were very conservative in behavior and intellectual inquiry. On the other hand, they were for "revolutionary" violence when it came to being sympathetic to the IRA and in their behavior in North America (Wikipedia "Molly Mcguires", please).

The contradiction can be explained in a simple way. The Catholic Church, the original multinational conglomerate like Coca Cola or McDonald's, was willing to back nationalism ( also in Poland ) in order to retain the alliegance of the group. After the rivers of blood flow, then the calls for "peace parleys" and reconciliation.

One hundred men are shot but one abortion gets all the sympathy.

You are a strange people.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I have another: if you are cunning and determined enough, you can fool most of the people most of the time!"
- David Smith, 6 NOV 2007, 12:30:59

Unfortunately, Mr Smith, you are neither cunning nor determined enough to fool Mr Pearce. You lost the argument with him, as I warned you you would, and now you feel like venting your frustration by sniping at a fellow-Christian. Mr Pearce is one cute guy. He knows who his real enemy is, and it isn't you, my foolhardy friend.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Essentially, why would an all-knowing (and therefore all-understanding) God punish innocent people for all eternity, simply for committing an isolated mistake for which they possibly carried the guilt for the rest of their life? It just doesn't add up".
- J Pearce, 6 NOV 2007, 16:31:42

The answer is, of course, that He doesn't. Not if the person who makes such a 'mistake' is truly sorry for it and repents for having committed it. If there is genuine sorrow expressed by the sinner, then God is more than ready to forgive and wipe the slate clean.
Sadly, the nature of sin is such that, once it is committed, it can so easily become a habit, especially if there is pleasure or profit to be gained by doing so, and then an ingrained habit, and before the sinner has any thought of repentance, he is mired in it for the rest of his life. For instance, one reads of cases where some women use abortion as a primary means of contraception and kill their babies on a regular basis. You don't think God will forgive this savagery, do you?

[Niamh Devlin]

Mike Homfray - thank you - it seems I have, yet again, offended 'tender' sensibilities! This is the paradox - the 'twins' feel free to berate, rebuke and hound but are the first to run screaming to teacher.

Geoff 'honey' - you KEEP doing it! Thanks again for confirming my perceptions.

Emanuel: 'May I ask the Celts?" Good question. It makes NO sense (to me) to be 'ruled' by the teachings of a foreign religious organisation.

The history of my country (pre- and post-Rome 'rule'), speaks for itself. The Celtic Church in Ireland was not 'subject' to the papacy. Its spirituality was familial, personal, and democratic rather than curial or legal. Celtic monasteries were like small villages, many admitted both men and women, married lay persons as well as celibates, and a variety of support personnel.

Many abbots were married. Women occupied a position not only equal to that of men but, in some instances, (e.g. Bridget) far surpassing it. Irish deaconesses and abbesses exercised ecclesial authority. Children were highly valued, and fostering was widely practised. It was important that orphans or the poor did not lack access to material and spiritual benefits.

To go to Rome
is much of trouble, little of profit:
The King whom you seek there,
Unless you bring him with you,
you will not find.
(Poem found in the margins of 12th Century text)

Rome did not like it of course! In direct contrast, under Rome 'rule' the poor and the orphans of Ireland were exploited and abused. It is a history of ignorance, poverty and exile; a history of fat bishops and starving peasants.

I reckon Jesus would (as in the Temple) take a whip to the bloated self-interest of the old men who still demand our unquestioning allegiance.

[J Pearce]

Emanuel, I looked Thomas Paine up on Wikipedia. Interesting fellow indeed. Strangely enough, he spent a portion of his life living in the same village as my ancestors (before writing his most famous works). Clearly a dose of clear Cornish air and clear minded Celtic thinking did wonders for his philosophical outlook!

You write from a deeply American perspective. The devolution of choice to a local level is something that becomes an ever more distant memory for us Brits. The political classes continue to accrete power to the centre (the central State - despite much spin about Mayors and regional councils) and from a religious perspective, its always been about top down enforced power. The Catholic Church is able to leverage its power at a State level (e.g. state funded Catholic schools refusing to broaden enrollment policy against Government diktat) precisely because the corporate Church can wield the kind of political clout that’s been denied to its grassroots.

Hence you get "big fish, small pond" Cardinals pontificating on abortion in absolute terms in this country, when quite clearly, there is an immense diversity of opinion within the Church itself.

I have to doff my cap to Geoff Smith on one point - the survival of the Catholic Church for as long as it has. Being an agnostic, I cannot just dismiss his argument that it is due to "divine intervention" - what if it actually is? But that still doesn't necessarily justify rigid adherence to hoary old dogmas.

If we are to entertain the theory that God exists and all Creation is his manifestation, I just cannot envisage how an almighty Creator would put into being such a diverse and potentially infinite set of situations for human beings to experience, without understanding that there would be some inherent contradictions and dilemmas for humans to wrestle with. And then to cast out of Heaven those women who may have made one single "mistake" (an abortion) when faced with an intractable situation (e.g.ostracism from their community for a child out of wedlock or rape), but otherwise lived a life of morally upright devotion and sacrifice.

Essentially, why would an all-knowing (and therefore all understanding) God punish innocent people for eternity, simply for commiting an isolated "mistake" for which they possibly carried the guilt for the rest of their life? It just doesn't add up.

Which brings me back to corporate Catholicism. Its ideology has mutated from its inception, from being a worthy if temporally fixed set of moral guidelines, to a set of unyielding commands which must be obeyed, enforced through fear and superstition (and violence at various times during history). This is not what any "God" would have envisaged His Church becoming.

Hence also David Smiths valid point about my subjective inference about what I think Christianity should be. But then, Dave's essentially in the same boat - he castigates the CC for "straying" from what he interprets is the "true" meaning of the Bible. In essence, he's saying the same as me: "my theology is better than yours".

(by the way, the "God" I'm referring to is not the God of the literally interpreted Bible - given the potentially infinite nature of time and space, I find it impossible that any such omniscient being would allow themselves to be defned in such narrow terms. I do believe that any "God" that may or may not exist, is simply so much more incomprehensible than what orthodox Christianity would like to force us to believe).

[Mike Homfray]

Niamh ; you talk a lot of sense.

Let the theocrats fulminate. The rest of us can. thankfully, ignore their ideas and their deity.

[David Smith]

Emmanuel Appel:
'Name calling, intimidation, and accusations are the stock in trade of those in power or their supporters.'

I think the post above yours blows that little theory firmly out of the water.

Pity. I thought we were at last progressing towards a personal-abuse-free-zone on this blog.

To be positive - I take my hat of to the strides forward that 'J' has made in this area. And the fire and the force of his arguments have, if anything, grown as a result.

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
'The Catholic Church, however, remains, unruffled and undaunted, more powerful and influential than at any other stage in her 2000 years of history. There is only one explanation for this stupendous fact - divine protection.'

I have another: if you are cunning and determined enough, you can fool most of the people most of the time!

[David Smith]

Niamh Devlin:
'Too bad if a child is raped and becomes pregnant; too bad about incest; too bad about the battalions of unwanted, neglected and (often) criminal waifs roaming the streets. Too bad about the young women of Darfur.'

Too bad if the one that has to lose its life is the most vulnerable and innocent of all.

[Tom Jackson]

"But how many of you really know what God really wants?"

Good question. I'm not sure in what spirit the question is asked but a good question and especially when debating issues such as abortion and blood transfusion where the interpretation of what we believe God wants is fundamental to how we act.

As a Christian and a realist, I fully accept that it is impossible to state with any certainty what God wants. All we can do is to familiarise ourselves with Christian beliefs and teaching, then apply ourselves to living our lives with that foundation to the extent and degree that our experience and character allows us.

At one extreme, there are people like Mother Theresa who apply themselves selflessly 24/7 to that objective. Others, like myself, cling perilously to our faith by our fingertips, overwhelmed to a large extent by the world we live in.

In a Christian sense, the only basic requirement is a real and honest belief and trust in Jesus Christ as our Saviour. God expects that of us, gives us the opportunity to recognise that requirement and also, no doubt, has the expectation that belief and trust will be reflected in how we live our lives, how we treat other people and how we witness our faith in the world.

But not everyone is capable of that; we are not all Mother Theresa and God knows that. If it were a precondition for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven that we emulate such a unique individual, few would get pass St Peter and enter through the Gates.

Provided it doesn't put lives in jeopardy or preach violence, I have respect for people whose faith demands that they do certain things, abstain from certain practices, witness and express their belief in certain ways.

But issues such as abortion and blood transfusions highlight and bring into question how we interpret our religious teaching. Taking precautions such as contraception and allowing transfusions in order to keep a mother alive to nature her newborn child cannot be an offence to God. In the light of even the most simplistic understanding of God's Will, that just wouldn't make sense.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Tell me JP - would you WANT to spend any time in the same room with such people? Truly a vision of Hell. Limbo seems infinitely preferable".
- Niamh Devlin, 5 NOV 2007, 22:53:53

Frankly, Niamh baby, I wouldn't want to spend any time in the same COUNTRY as you. God, what a raucous humbug you really are! To speak of a complete stranger in such abusive terms is a sure sign of emotional disfigurement. I am genuinely afraid to post any more responses to your tiresome harangues in case I tip you over the edge. I do not want to be held responsible for your mental breakdown. I think Ruth should be left to decide whether this exchange of pleasantries has now been carried quite far enough.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear all and especially the independent minded Celts ( Pearce, Devlin, Jackson, and Kay )

To me, Religion is like a pyramid where one can explore issues ranging from the most abstract at the top to the most culture-bound and mundane at the bottom such as Church organization.
I'm here because I'm searching for the voices that reflect America's. Those belong to those who Dissent.

Name calling, intimidation, and accusations are the stock in trade of those in power or their supporters. The only thing one can do is realize that and not be too bothered by the heat. The issues you deal with were discussed over 200 years ago and it's a failure of the history dept's of your secondary and more advanced schools that the common man doesn't see it.

The greatest political propagandist of the last 200 years was Thomas Paine from Thetford, Norfolk. Next time I'm in the UK, I must visit to pay my respects. This man created the American Revolution and was repaid by ostracism in his old age because he dared to write a vaguely secular attack on religion called the Rights of Man. His old comrades in politics found it expedient to turn their backs on him.

The old enemies of the Catholic Church may be dead but new ones rise such as modern Mohammedans.

May I ask the Celts? Doesn't it make sense to unite under Jesus following your own local traditions rather than being led to general mayhem and bickering following the traditions of a foreign religious organization? Granted, that organization bills itself as universal. Do you feel that way?

Abortion, homosexuality, gay clergy, ban against blood transfusions - what a bunch of petty quarrels that should be settled by local initiative rather than mandates from "up high". We all have a view of it and I'm not trying to substitute "me" for Divine Rules. But how many of you really know what God really wants?

[Niamh Devlin]

JPearce: "If I'm "obsessed" with defending the virtues of a pragmatic, rational approach to some of the more complex and intractable issues human beings face on their life journey, then hell yeah, I'm an obsessive!"

Yip! With you every inch of the way JPearce. For the Smith 'twins' and the supercilious Mary Cunningham, life is black and white entirely. What narrow little spaces they must inhabit.

Spaces carefully insulated against the REAL world by Catholic (or in Dave's case, David) dogma. Too bad if a child is raped and becomes pregnant; too bad about incest; too bad about the battalions of unwanted, neglected and (often) criminal waifs roaming the streets. Too bad about the young women of Darfur.

The CHURCH (and Dave's bible) says we MUST breed. Not just that - they would deny, even married couples, God's gift of intimacy. Condoms forbidden. No sex without procreation.

What strikes me most is the self-aggrandising arrogance. The immutable narrow rule book. The pomposity! How they glory in 'rebuke'. How the farcical Geoff, indulging his obsession with 'transgression', glories in what he believes is his own erudition! How the hypocritical fundamentalist preacher Dave stalks and harasses chosen victims.

It is instructive that in debates on abortion or homosexual civil rights, the argument is restricted to the usual obsessives - those who expose by tone and words on the page their deep-rooted sense of their own religious superiority. Anybody not of their reactionary, dogma-driven, ilk is damned. Anybody who dares to THINK for themselves is anathema.

We, like you, have experienced the grief of the loss of a child. Ours had an internal malformation, detected at 20 weeks. We were advised to abort. We refused. He died in the womb at 28 weeks. He was then 'removed'.

Our agony has been not knowing if he suffered. We, in our anxiety, thought we could provide enough love and care to see him through.

The clinical absolutes of the Catholic and fundamentalist brigade, on this matter, are intellectually and emotionally repugnant.

Tell me JP - would you WANT to spend any time in the same room with such people? Truly a vision of Hell. Limbo seems infinitely preferable.

PS: Tom Jackson. Thank you for posting the pictures of your grandson. You are blessed. We too have a (scan) picture of our tiny son.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It [the Catholic Church] has a vested interest in programming the likes of Geoff, like any other multinational conglomerate, the CC depends on the wholehearted pursuit of its policy by its worker drones to survive...
Luckily, we in the West have secular democracy to reign (sic) in the worst excesses of Catholicism...
Its got form when it comes to appeasing and complying with tyrant regimes, after all".
- J Pearce, 5 NOV 2007, 13:38:15

As a well programmed worker-drone busily engaged in the whole-hearted pursuit of the policy of the Catholic Church (the 'Pope's organization' - American spelling),
in a feverish attempt to enable it to survive, I feel I should point out that the above-mentioned tyrant regimes are long-gone from the face of the earth, never to be seen or heard of again. The Catholic Church, however, remains, unruffled and undaunted, more powerful and influential than at any other stage in her 2000 years of history. There is only one explanation for this stupendous fact - divine protection.
All other human institutions have disappeared into the history books - as also secular democracy, in due course - but not the Catholic Church. So, our Cornish nasty can tilt away at his windmill to his little heart's content; the Catholic Church will be completely unaffected by his froth - which, as you know, is full of air.

[Tom Jackson]

Obsession is not the prerogative of you secularists, J Pearce; that I acknowledge. Where issues such as abortion are concerned, however, you must credit some of your fellow unbelievers with enough intelligence and moral conscience to experience a repugnance not rooted in religious dogma.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
'I have no issues with individual Catholics who display a rational interpretation of general Christian doctrine.'

With respect, 'J', translation:
'I have no issues with individual Catholics who display MY interpretation of general Christian doctrine.'

Also this term 'general Christian doctrine' is an interesting one. It sounds a bit vague to me... a synonym for 'my loose paraphrase of what I think the Bible says and means'.

What all this adds up to in the end for you is an exercise in combining your own ideas of how life should work with your own ideas of how the Bible tells Christians life should work.

You are, of course entitled to hold and express any number of subjective personal opinions, but, as I have said before, gain and manifest a first hand understanding (Spirit enlightened would be best) of what's in the Bible, and you would then have much more clout when you argue.

[J Pearce]

Tom J:

Obsessed? Moi? If I'm "obsessed" with defending the virutes of a pragmatic, rational approach to some of the more complex and intractable issues human beings face on their life journey, then hell yeah, I'm an obsessive!

Whereas people who steadfastly refuse to countenance any form of behaviour that isn't prescribed by medieval Catholic dogma are, I presume in comparison to me, well-rounded and balanced individuals?!

Sh'yeah, right!

I think your confusing me with some of the Cathiban around these parts...

[J Pearce]

"On the other hand, abortion becomes a litmus test for one's politics."

Absolutely agree, Emanuel. The is not simply a moral issue, it becomes a matter of power. For me, the Catholic Church, as a corporate entity, has nothing whatsoever to do with "morality" as such (you only need to investigate its historical and present day abuses of its power to see that the corporate Church acts - and has always acted - in a manner totally contradictory to its supposed teachings).

It exists to self-perpetuate itself as a political power player. It has a vested interest in programming the likes of Geoff; like any other multi-national conglomerate, the CC depends on the wholehearted pursuit of its policy by its worker drones to survive.

I have no issues with individual Catholics who display a sense of individual understanding and rational interpretation of general Christian doctrine. But I do stand amazed and rather repulsed by those who vomit out hardline corporate Catholic ideology, like some kind of Soviet-era party apparatchik. I've never suggested that abortion is anything other than extremely unpleasant - but we do not live in pleasant times and it has already been acknowledged that there are often situations where unpleasant situations require unpleasant solutions. There are times when "necessary evil" is required.

After all, I don't recall the CC vehemently objecting to the Allied counter attack to the Nazi subjugation of Europe, which completely contradicted the "thou shalt not kill" command (mind you, I don't recall it vehemently objecting to Nazism either - appeasement for a slice of the spoils is such an easy way out, don't you think?).

And of course, you adroitly summarise the personal choice issue. You rightly identify that your decisions are a matter for you, your conscience and your God. But this independence of thought is anathema to hardline Catholicism - if you are not yoked to its dogma for life, you are essentially classified as "the enemy". I'm pretty certain that when the Church was founded, it was to ensure the dissemination of the teachings of Jesus (through persuasion, if I remember correctly) - not to exercise total command and control over millions such that they devolve independent thought to an autocratic elite, which exploits their gullibility in return for financial and political muscle.

This is why Catholics have all the simple answers to abortion, but no answers to the abuses, misery and damaged lives that can occur as a result of unwanted and unloved babies. Ad nauseam regurgitated dogma does not allow for the realities of human existence to impinge.

Luckily, we in the West have secular democracy to reign in the worst excesses of Catholicism. But I can forsee a time when this control over religious extremism will come under threat, as the spectre of puritanical zealotry appear to be abroad once more. What price the Vatican bargains some unholy alliance with Islamic extremism? Its got form when it comes to appeasing and complying with tyrant regimes, after all.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Iranian Jewish women have been forced to dress like Moslem women in a sexy black tent".
- Emanuel Appel, 4 NOV 2007, 06:28:22

With respect, Mr Appel, this form of dress is a cultural thing, not religious. You won't see many 'sexy black tents' in Istanbul, unless they are being worn by foreigners from Arabia or Iran. Many, if not most, Muslim high-school girls in the UK wear the black head-scarf only. Similarly, some Muslim women in the supermarkets, such as check-out girls, wear scarves, and only a rare one or two are sitting in their 'tents'. I think it's a case of when in Tehran, do as the Tehranis do - or in Tel Aviv.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr Smith, Miss Cunningham, et al

Granted that the Pope's organization is not a democracy.

My view is that it does operate in and is constrained by a secular democracy in the U. S. and, as such, can propose anything it's little heart desires.

I would caution you that taking the view that a particular position re abortion or anything else is God's wish that should be enforced by the State is one that can also be proposed by a Moslem. Can you imagine being in a minortiy position in a Moslem State ?( see articles about Pakistani christians ). Not Good.

Therefore , I can respect any position you take re this issue as long as it's a personal one not binding on me or my family. Iranian Jewish women have been forced to dress like Moslem women in a sexy black tent. Is that what you want for your family? Probably not.

In case that you're willing to submit to a puritan government to advance your position, puritanism is not an exclusively Christian movement.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"My objection to the Church lies in the use of political muscle in the US to force the Catholic position on all whether it's abortion or other issues. Persuasion yes, compulsion no".
- Emanuel Appel, 3 NOV 2007, 04:36:39

The Catholic Church is not a House of Representatives, Mr Appel. It is not a Senatorial debating chamber.
Even less is it a Lambeth Conference or a General Synod. It is the Church established by the Messiah, Our Lord Jesus Christ. To this Church He gave the mandate to proclaim His Gospel to all mankind, an unchanging Gospel from Day One.
It began with the Jews in Jerusalem, and 3000 converts on the first Pentecost. When the Jews rejected their Messiah, they rejected His Gospel, and so the covenant was given to the Gentiles. This covenant includes the Torah with all the Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill". Abortion comes into this category, and the Church will never compromise by as much as one period over this issue. It is binding on all men and women - I repeat, ALL - and that explains 'the use of political muscle' by the Church. The law of God, like God Himself, is immutable and eternal, and not subject to a ballot or a show of hands. The modern world and its contemporary god, Democracy, cannot accept this, which is why we are in a constant state of spiritual war.
In the meantime, another 150,000 Americans are preparing to be received into the Catholic Church in a few weeks time. This is one litmus test that doesn't seem to bother them.

[MaryCunningham]

Mr Appel,

Well, a "Catholic lobby" in the US. That's a new one. I would counter that with some counting:

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=234

In answer to the question "How Important is Religion in Your Life?" American Catholics were the amongst the least religious, trailing Muslim, Protestant Evangelicals and Black Protestant.

[Tom Jackson]

"Second, the basis of opposition has always been the Hebrew Bible. How did the Catholics get involved and on what basis?"

To anyone with even a basic understanding of religious faith and the reciprocal relationship that exists with inherent moral values that are ingrained in humanity, the answer should be fairly obvious.

The longevity of teaching and faith based in the Old and New Testaments can be explained by how that teaching relates to what most people - believers or otherwise - naturally accept as what is right and what is wrong. The fact that someone is a Catholic or an Anglican, a Buddhist or Hindu, black or white, a banker or a road-sweeper has nothing to do with it.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr. Smith and Miss Cunningham,

In my experience, those who are most passionately against abortion are Catholics but not necessarily in this venue.

Israel's religion holds for the mother over the child if there's a choice to be made.

My question remains: why has the issue become so much a litmus test over the question of obedience to the Church? Second, the basis of opposition has always been the Hebrew Bible. How did the Catholics get involved and on what basis?

My objection to the Church lies in the use of political muscle in the U.S. to force the Catholic position on all whether it's abortion or other issues. Persuasion yes, compulsion , no.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"My logic tells me that if one condones physical abortion in some cases, one is hard pressed to take a near absolutist stance. For example, the product of incest is not responsible for the acts of the parents. Thus, we're punishing the victim rather than the perps".
- Emanuel Appel, 2 NOV 2007,14:44:06

Thank you very much, Mr Appel. You are absolutely correct, of course. Unfortunately, Mr Pearce is not in the least little bit interested in the justice of the situation. You are talking to a wall.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Who is on a loser, Mr Pearce? You or Mr Darling? The Treasury income from abortion may be negligible compared with the total expenditure on the NHS, but that was not the point of my post. The love of money is the root of all evil, and that is why this government of ours, and Dawn Primarolo in particular, will never permit any reduction of the baby-killing facility in the NHS, unless it is compensated for by an equivalent financial gain in some other field.
Even then, the howls from the feminist sorority are likely to drown out any Parliamentary vote in its favour.

[MaryCunningham]

Mr Appel diagnoses:

"What's really the problem here is the passionate lockstep support of the position by some Catholics."

So it's all the fault of the Catholics, eh? But the comment is palpably false. For two reasons.

Firstly, comments from self-declared Catholics posting here have been few: I have posted four times, Mr Smith maybe 3, 7 comments out of a total of 58." Others have commented against abortion but without disclosing their religious affiliation. But if someone is vehemently against abortion, he must be a Catholic, or so says JPearce *and* now Mr Appel?

Secondly, I am probably the only writer who as actually *read* the letter from the Cardinals and it's title is "Abortion--time to take a different path". Hardly an absolutist stance.

http://www.rcdow.org.uk/cardinal/default.asp?library_ref=1&content_ref=1595

What we have above is just more of the usual anti-Catholic pre-judging cant. I would say we already have too much of that.

But I would say that, I guess.

[Tom Jackson]

"if one is so obsessed with Catholic dogma"

With all respect, J Pearce, I think the subject of 'obsession' is not something that you, in particular, should get into.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear J Pearce,

As usual, the abortion issue is mixed with the usual passions re how one feels about other general issues. What is all this about? It's about showing loyalty to the Papacy and thus, God; a very roundabout way of doing it.

My logic tells me that if one condones physical abortion in some cases, one is hard pressed to take a near absolutist stance. For example, the product of incest is not responsible for the acts of the parents. Thus, we're punishing the victim rather than the perps.

On the other hand, abortion becomes a litmus test for one's politics. For example, you seem adamant in supporting it although you will never have to worry about it. It's more logical to ignore it.

What's really the problem here is the passionate lockstep support of the position by some Catholics. They want to be loyal, I can't blame them for that, but "loyalty" has to be earned, not inherited. That is Israel's position regarding her religion and the people.

[J Pearce]

Deary me, Geoff, you do need a maths revision exercise! I rather think any tax revenue from surgeons is massively offset by the overall Treasury expenditure on the NHS, don't you…?!

BTW, my post is only irrelevant if one is so obsessed with Catholic dogma, that it obliterates any understanding and acknowledgement of historical fact...

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I ought to also point out that it's the NHS which performs abortions, so the 'baby-killing industry' is actually being paid for through taxation. Mr Darling is already on a loser there".
- J Pearce, 1 NOV 2007, 10:25:21

a) abortions are performed in the NHS.
b) these operations are carried out by gynaecologists.
c) these surgeons are paid salaries.
d) their salaries are taxed.
e) this taxation ends up in Mr Darling's Treasury.
f) a nice little earner for Mr D.
The rest of your post is, as usual, irrelevant.

[David Smith]

Tom Jackson:
' "In carrying out a late abortion (under the Abortion Act) a doctor would be wise to ensure that the fetus is killed whilst it is still inside the uterus. If the fetus is alive outside the uterus it may acquire the legal protection of any new born baby. Killing it may be murder. "

As a final comment, from any moral perspective, inside or outside the womb, killing that foetus is murder.'

Thank you for this, Tom.

It just shows the artificiality of the distinction between a 'termination' or 'abortion' and murder or killing.

All in all there is this large convenience element of 'out of sight is out of mind (or conscience)', and 'in womb is out of range of the law on murder' involved in the killing of babies whilst still in the womb that we call abortion.

[Tom Jackson]

The Ethox Centre is an academic centre within the University of Oxford, Division of Medical Sciences. It provides a wide range of education and training in ethics and communication for both medical students and health care professionals.

I revisited the site to update myself on the Abortion Law where late terminations are involved. While checking out some of the key points made where abortion and foetal damage are concerned, one particular statement caught my eye.

From a rather cold, legal and scientific perspective, it exhibits a type of soul-destroying morality which should make any intelligent and caring person wonder on what basis we choose to implement standards and boundaries to govern how we, as a community, live together.

"In carrying out a late abortion (under the Abortion Act) a doctor would be wise to ensure that the fetus is killed whilst it is still inside the uterus. If the fetus is alive outside the uterus it may acquire the legal protection of any new born baby. Killing it may be murder. "

As a final comment, from any moral perspective, inside or outside the womb, killing that foetus is murder.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
'Hi David'

Hi to you, 'J'.

(Any chance that, after all this time we might be able to address you by your first name, as you do us? It seems a bit imbalanced to be addressed as Dave and mate by someone who only releases their surname!)

First of all, thank you for another courteous post, especially in the face of some quite strong things I have been saying to you.

'I have been attacked for opinions and attitudes which I have never advanced.'

That is wrong and shouldn't happen. But perhaps you are only reaping what you sow. (Another of God's spiritual 'laws of gravity' - however much people may wish that both He and they did not exist.) There are inummerable examples of your doing this yourself - my recent post to you about some comments you made to Julia Langdon being just one glaring case in point. Set a better example yourself, and perhaps you won't so much be on the receiving end of 'straw men'.

'In many cases, abortion is the least worst choice a woman can make.'

I don't believe it is ever right for the only truly innocent party in these scenarios to be murdered to make life easier for those actually responsible for its existence in the first place. The least worst choice is always to let the child live, and with God's help, for us all to love it into a happy and productive life.* But this is just repeating myself. We both know eachother's views, and will just have to agree to disagree, it seems.

' ..pompous, holier-than-thou moralising from smugly self-righteous Christians...The dogmatic acolytes of the Catholic Church have no interest a woman's freedom to choose or the welfare of children, unborn or not - they simply wish to indulge their penchant for wallowing in sanctimonious moral one-upmanship. They feel better by convincing themselves they are better.'

*THIS is actually the view expressed in the letter of the two Cardinals that Ruth referred to in the article that kicked off this thread. I don't know if you read it. If you did perhaps you would like to show how you detect any of the underlying heart-motives that you complain about in the above comments?

'I would have thought this was obvious to someone who holds such critical views of Catholicism as yourself.'

I think you are confusing my views about Catholicism and those who call themselves Catholics and your own.

On the first, my position is that the Roman Catholic belief system - as set out by the Vatican - is not the same as the Gospel set out in the Bible. It therefore neither saves a person; brings them into direct relationship with Him in the spiritual realm; or brings them the 'full life' Jesus talked about. (Hence Roman Catholic icons like Mother Teresa admitting that for them there was effectively 'no God there', but just a silent blank.)

You aren't, as yet, in any position to comment validly on this, because there is not, so far, any evidence that you have read and absorbed the relevant sections of the New Testament.

On the second, whilst I believe that subscribers to the Roman Catholic belief system are not on the right track where rightness with God and all its benefits are concerned, there are many who call themselves Catholics who are (amazingly, considering the error that surrounds them in that system) real Christians. Even if many are not, they are still capable of being as good people as you or I, and hold many very sensible and right views about many issues, and contribute much good to the world. In others words, I am capable of making a material distinction between the individual who labels themselves as Catholic and the erroneous and in places wicked belief system that attaches to that label. I can see that it is often possible for such a person to think and to do good in many areas.

In general terms you do not seem to be able to do this. Anyone who calls themselves Catholic (or even just Christian) makes you see RED RED RED. Not only must they be incapable of any good, but they must automatically be fully subscribing and, in every detail, participating members of a club ('The Religious') that is almost uniquely and primarily flawed and historically responsible for almost all the world's major ills.

The equivalent would be my thinking that, just because you don't know Jesus yourself, you are incapable of any good or godly thinking or action. I don't because, despite this, there still many attributes of the God who made you in His wonderful image alive and functioning in you, and visible to all.

[J Pearce]

"Blood-free hands, Mr B."

Interesting supposition from an infallible supporter of the Catholic Church. Said institution has more blood on its hands than the Taliban - but that was merely the blood of innocent men, women and children, rather than innocent unborn babies, so I suppose mass murder in the name of dogmatic theocracy is perfectly acceptable as long as the victims have actually been born…?

I ought to also point out that it’s the NHS which performs abortions, so the "baby-killing industry" is actually being paid for through taxation. Mr. Darling is already on a loser there.

[Tom Jackson]

"Even Mr Jackson would have second thoughts about the morality of abortion in 'some circumstances'."

Yes, Geoffrey; there are circumstances where abortion should be realistically considered.

As a Christian, the degree of conformity to moral principles that I would desire and expect, principles that are founded in a love and respect for God's Creation with the protection of that Creation in all circumstances, is central to my understanding of God and my faith and belief in Him.

But His Creation is flawed. And it is flawed to an extent that to advocate a course of action, a request for change that far exceeds the reality which exists where issues such as abortion are concerned is not only unproductive but fails to recognise the degree to which Mankind has turned it's back on God.

If a child is raped and becomes pregnant, abortion is acceptable. This is also true in certain cases where adults are attacked.

That situation illustrates the difference between a world where God rules supreme and where Mankind has turned away. If God ruled supreme, rape would not happen and the question of abortion in this situation would not exist. It would not be an issue.

But Mankind has gone it's own way and rape does happen. That is the reality of the situation and nothing you or I say or do can change circumstances to the extent that in such situations, we can impose our morality on that violated child.

And there are other situations which can be characterised in a similar manner.

Incidentally, I am not quite certain how a reference to my dog - a 10 year old, very affectionate yellow Labrador named Sunny - comes into the debate but your opening argument concerning the publication of "pictures of murdered babies with the blood still oozing out of their massacred little bodies" would have by full support. The reason I earlier provided access to a photograph of my grandson at 24 weeks in the womb was to expose to those who are unaware of a baby's development, just how much of a human being they are even before that abortion limit is reached.

[L'nae]

if abortion is illegal because a person chose sex than can we stop treating for lung cancer (smoking is bad for you, you caused the cancer) and liver cancer (drinking a lot caused the cancer)?

[Tony B]

Tom Jackson,

No I do not advocate removing all restrictions on abortion. Our opinions are actually pretty much the same, I had simply formed the impression that you were advocating a complete ban. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Your grandson is lovely.

[Geoffrey Smith]

You know who has won this argument about abortion when the Government jails a 74-year-old Catholic pensioner, diabetic and arthritic, for no other reason than that he sent some coloured photographs of aborted fetuses to his local hospital with a polite request that they should stop performing abortions. Britain will reject abortion when Britain sees abortion, but this would cost the baby-killing industry too much money, and we can't have that, can we? Why, Mr Darling would never recover from the loss of all that tax revenue! So, our Nulabor tyrants pass a law prohibiting any public demonstration against abortion that shows the British people what abortion is actually like. This includes showing them pictures of murdered babies with the blood still oozing out of their massacred little bodies. Ted Atkinson did this, and Mr Blair jailed him for it. So, Mr Pearce can waffle on as much as he pleases about 'women's rights' and 'unwanted pregnancies' and the 'pro-choice' baloney. When abortion is staring you in the face, it's a different matter, right? All of a sudden, the likes of Mr Pearce and Mr Homfray start feeling uncomfortable. Even Mr Jackson would have second thoughts about the morality of abortion in 'some circumstances'. Would you do that to your dog, Mr Jackson? Or you, Mr Pearce? Then why do it to your son or daughter? Or anyone else's child? Ted Atkinson will definitely not be nominated for a Great Briton 2008 award, but who the hell cares about that? His eternal reward is already assured.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I repeat, what is gained by criminalising abortion?"
- Tony B, 26 OCT 2007, 11:52:57

Blood-free hands, Mr B.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear J Pearce, Tom Jackson, and all men of good sense

Are your positions that far apart on this issue? Once you don't look to the Bishop of Rome and his organization for the playbook, then it's all common sense.

A nationalist or patriot should want to see his nation increase with happy children in normal families, not abort them. What do we see now? Those elements which are the most hostile to you and your culture are breeding like rabbits because you pay them money to do it. Why not pay the middle classes to do the same?

I'm in a business where I meet an awful lot of UK tourists and I spend a few hours with them. They all say that the UK is "overcrowded" and they want to move to Spain, etc. It's a polite way of saying that Moslems and Africans are making them feel unwelcome in their own country, they feel they're no longer in control. The ruling classes and the media are responsible for this state of affairs. You can't even be honest and say it. It's not "polite". So, you can be hounded out of your own country and not say a word with real feelings behind it. How sad!

[Tom Jackson]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well here are two pictures.

http://www.pixagogo.com/9794204117

Meet my grandson, Liam, 24 weeks old, in the womb. He was born 3 months later on 17th December 2006. And there he is after 6 months of his life when those easily distinguished features, that tiny hand with clasped fingers that were seen in the womb have become major sources of joy in my family's life.

How anyone can believe that it is justified to terminate a normal pregnancy at 24 weeks - or even before then when the child has recognisable physical characteristics, a functioning mental and emotional capacity - and to reduce those features and those limbs to an unrecognisable mess of bone, tissue and blood, is beyond me.

To suggest that only at the moment of birth is a child worthy of life, to ignore the visible evidence that it is a human being in the mother's womb and to distort our community's sense of worth by seeking justification in a belief that the mechanism of late abortion is something less than murder, is demeaning to the human spirit and contaminates the respect for life that underpins any civilised, secure and stable community.

[Tom Jackson]

" I think humanity is stuck with abortion, and criminalisation seems pointless ..."

To classify anything as a criminal act, TonyB, can only be to punish or to deter those people involved. Many people believe that we are "stuck" with serious drug abuse and some even suggest that the possession and use of hard drugs should not be a criminal offence but that is hardly the majority view.

The Ethox Centre which "is dedicated to enhancing patient care by improving ethical understanding and ethical standards", provides extensive information and guidance on when an abortion is criminal or not.

As I understand it, any abortion can be criminal if pregnancy is terminated other than by a registered medical practitioner and only after two registered medical practitioners are satisfied that certain conditions exist (detailed in the Abortion Act of 1967 as amended in 1990).

It is also a criminal act if an abortion is carried out after 24 weeks unless it is either to prevent unacceptable risk of considerable harm to the mother, or for the sake of the foetus/child (the latter usually being the case).

So, to return to your point, abortion is already criminalised unless certain conditions are met. The debate here is, to a large extent, what those conditions should be and what is acceptable in terms of timescales given the development of the foetus in the womb.

Anyone who fails to meet those conditions is involved in a criminal act. And that is the way it should be - unless you are advocating removal of all restrictions on abortion?

[Tom Jackson]

"Even Tom has apparently mediated his original views, such that he can see a justification for abortion in certain cases."

Is that so, J Pearce? Please check back on my first contibution to this debate.

"Now in those cases where a woman becomes pregnant through circumstances outside her control, abortion must be considered at the earliest possible time. And in nearly all cases, I support fully the right of all men and women to choose even in circumstances as distressing as an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy."

This has always been my view. There is a point, up to which it may be acceptable to terminate a pregnancy. I may not agree with the sentiment and the manner in which you expressed it but "It is a clump of cells parasitically leeching off its host " may well be valid to some extent.

But the point at which abortion becomes unacceptable is reached very early in the development of the foetus. When that "clump of cells" can be identified as a form with physical characteristics and mental and emotional capacity that exceeds what one would expect from " a clump of cells ", I can realistically accept that foetus as a child, a human being deserving of our respect and protection.

[J Pearce]

Hi David.

I have been attacked for opinions and attitudes which I have never advanced. I have been subjected to pompous, holier-than-thou moralising from smugly self-righteous Christians. I have effectively been accused of promoting infanticide and lectured by the self-anointed guardians of morality. Yet none of this misdirected and wholly spurious criticism and vitriolic aggrandising has been directed at the appropriate arguments, but instead, at my "fitness" to put forward the arguments that I have been doing.

Simply put, Catholics and their apologists cannot answer the question posited by Tony B, that being, what benefits are there in criminalising abortion. The simple answer is that there are no real benefits - the sum of human misery will only be increased by criminalising abortion. Even Tom has apparently mediated his original views, such that he can see a justification for abortion in certain cases.

This is what a rational, pragmatic approach to real world problems is all about. In many cases, abortion is the least worst choice a woman can make. The dogmatic acolytes of the Catholic Church have no interest a woman's freedom to choose or the welfare of children, unborn or not - they simply wish to indulge their penchant for wallowing in sanctimonious moral one-upmanship. They feel better by convincing themselves they are better.

I would have thought this was obvious to someone who holds such critical views of Catholicism as yourself.

[Tony B]

Tom Jackson - we're not that far apart. Of course sexual abstinence isn't a serious option; and contraception doesn't provide an effective answer. I think humanity is stuck with abortion, and criminalisation seems pointless - unless you have managed to think of a good reason why it makes sense.

[Tony B]

>On top of this, neither the pictures nor scientfic study can ever show when a child receives its spirit and soul,

I wonder why that could be? Because they don't exist, perhaps?