Cardinal speaks out on abortion

As we report, the Government won the vote on abortion last night. Earlier yesterday, I went along to Archbishop's House in Westminster to interview him. Back in February, the Cardinal wrote personally to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown urging a free vote on the bill. His letter is understood to have been one of the key influences behind the Brown's change of mind on this. Yesterday, arguing that even "incremental change" would a step in the right direction, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor appealed to British society to "change its mind" on abortion. The emphasis should be on helping women with unwanted pregnancies to cope with the practical and emotional complications so they can carry their babies to term, he said. He also criticised the Government over the removal of a baby's right to a father,  warning that any legislation that eroded the place of the family in society should be opposed. (Updatee: see our news report on his response to the vote.)

The Cardinal said "I think it strange that the government should want to take away, not just the need for a father but the right for a father. It seems to me that at the heart of human society is two parents, whatever circumstances it comes about. Therefore I think that the need for a father is a very important part of preserving what is at the basis of society, which is ultimately the family."

The consequence of the constant erosion of this was a loss of respect for the vital place of the family. "Anything by way of legislation, while it must protect people's rights, must also have regard for the wider issues of what is for the good of society as a whole."

He continued: "For my part, I am just rather pleased that there should be such an impassioned debate in Parliament about all the issues that have just come up. It shows that people care about these things and realise that legislation, whether it is about scientific progress or whether it is about matters that concern life, that these are matters that are of deep concern for the whole of this country."

He said he would be upset if people thought the Church was against science or against progress.

He repeated his call for a national bio-ethics committee to be set up in Britain, similar those that exist in other European countries, to help scientists in their work. "These matters demand time for reflection and time for consideration."

He warned unregulated scientific progress. "It could lead us to a kind of utilitarianism regarding human life
which does no justice to the sanctity of life. Life or life potential becomes just a product to be used instead of something to be safeguarded and cherished."

I asked if the Church would have been satisfied with a reduction in the limit to 20 or 22 weeks.

"It is perfectly  licit  for politicians who may be totally against all abortion to work for incremental change. That is a licit position for politicians to take. For my part, believing as I do, there's a sense in which this abortion debate highlights certain things which are very, very important. Namely, that everyone knows that 200,000 or so abortions a year is a terrible thing. I think people are really worried about that.

"I also have a concern and sympathy in the many cases of women who have unwanted pregnancies, feel abandoned by their partner, have no-one to turn to, no advice, no help, matters of money and career are at stake. Therefore when I speak about abortion I am really wanting a change in the minds of people in our country, that they will see this as wrong and undesirable."

He said: "I am really appealing to the country as a whole, change your mind about this situation of abortion. It should not be so easy, something that is sometimes so painful for a woman without any help."

He continued: "The best practical help we can give is understanding the situation of women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy."

He was more concerned with the British people as a whole, who are thought to be roughly two-thirds in favour of a reduction, than in the politicial process. "I think that the Church's position is clear on this. What happens in Parliament is really up to parliamentarians and the conscience of parliamentarians. Incremental change is incremental change. It happens gradually." He said the fact that there now appeared to be a widesread wish to lower the age limit meant this was something Parliament might well have to address again.

"I am quite sure it will come up again as people will see perhaps more clearly the sacredness of life." The
Church was active in finding more ways to help women with unwanted pregnancies to carry the baby to term. "My thoughts are not so much on Parliament as on the country as a whole."

He said there was no doubt there had been a change, and that few had thought 40 years ago that the liberalisation of the law would lead to more than 200,000 abortions a year.  "People have also seen in society and other ways that life is somehow sacred, it is a gift and should not be taken away. People say it is the women's choice. Yes it is but whjat I am concerned about is that often they don't seem to have a choice because of circumstances of abandonment, money, career and no help."

He said: "The life issue is not only about life in the womb, it is about the whole of life. That is where I see the Catholic church's teaching as being of consant importance. Our stand on life is not against things, it is for a fuller life."

Although we went on to discuss other issues, on this subject he concluded that the Church's image of being against things was incorrect. "It is for something. It is for the living out of what we believe is the life that God intended."

Comments

[J Pearce]

"He said he would be upset if people thought the Church was against science or against progress."

And the history of the Catholic Church has been indelibly marked by….opposition to science and human progress! Who the hell does he think he is kidding?! This is dissumulation on an heroically Islamic level!

"It should not be so easy, something that is sometimes so painful for a woman without any help."

Yet more dissimulation! The RCC position is unequivocal - abortion should be banned. This softly, softly, catchy monkey approach masks the same old RCC modus operandi - he doesn't care one iota about womens issues or individual circumstances - all he cares about is imposing his antediluvian religious dogma.

This entire piece reads as one gigantic attempt at emotional bullying and blackmail. I'm sure that many, many people are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. But then, many, many people would be uncomfortable with the idea of how their burgers reach their plates if they knew what the process was - but I don't see the RCC campaigning for ethical farming or banning slaughterhouses.

No, this is simply hypocrisy on a grand scale. Medievalist claptrap masquerading as a touchy feely PR exercise.

"It is for the living out of what we believe is the life that God intended."

Now that’s an interesting comment. I was under the impression that the RCC was Gods official outlet on Earth. There shouldn't be any "we believe" about it - it should be "we know what God wants and we are here to enforce it".

I think that’s what they call a Freudian slip?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I went on my normal early-morning walk with a group of other women round the park today.

My friend was telling me that she'd accompanied her daughter to a scan at 20 weeks and the foetus was totally complete as far as the X ray showed.

It is puzzling that even Sweden puts a stop to abortion at 20 weeks apparently, whereas Britain has the latest abortions in Europe.

The Jewish view, by the way, is that abortion can be sanctioned if the mother's life is in danger, but nevertheless 24 weeks is extremely late. An abortion at this stage must surely be most traumatic to the mother herself.

Sometimes women's 'rights' should not be turned into a golden calf and worshipped in an idolatrous way.

All religions agree with this, and not just the Catholic Church, which appears to be turning into something of a scapegoat in this country.

[Mike Homfray]

The right decisions were made last night. I think that the smaller the influence of the Roman Catholic church on the lives of those not in its membership, the better.

[David Williams]

"24 weeks is extremely late. An abortion at this stage must surely be most traumatic to the mother herself."
All the more reason that she should have access to the best possible care, Dr Lancaster.

[George Parr]

I think that 24 weeks is very late.

I also think that the Catholic Church would not be regarded as so much of a scapegoat if prelates presented themselves less as meddling fools; for example the spectacular misinformation loudly peddled by some cardinals over the embryology debate, the policy discussions regarding issues such as aids and contraception and the general unwillingness to show transparency in the way they deal with priests who commit offences.

Equally, these people might stop making high-profile moral pronouncements which are clearly intended to influence or affect the lives of people who have absolutely no connection with the Catholic Church or its policies.

One way might be to reduce the spectacle of the office of pope together with the male-dominated Vatican circus, allowing it as an institution to relate solely to those who find it credible. This might be a rational alternative to the media assuming that its views on every conceivable moral issue are of huge importance.

[Robert Ian Williams]

No fan of the Cardinal I am glad he has spoken.

Every child should have the right to know who his /father is.

As for abortion...you can bet your bottom dollar that those rejoicing, are to a man / woman opposed to fox hunting or parents smacking their children!

I believe Hitler was very fond of his dog and worried about lobsters being cooked alive.

I am gratefull that I am the member of a Church which does not tailor its message to the spirit of the age.

[Peter Farrington]

"24 weeks is extremely late. An abortion at this stage must surely be most traumatic to the mother herself."
All the more reason that she should have access to the best possible care, Dr Lancaster."

Of course it is more than traumatic for the life of the unborn child, and it is a child. For the unborn child it is death. A brutal death at the hands of the one person most responsible for its care and nurture.

We may not smoke in public in case someone else inhales. We may not hunt foxes with hounds. But we can murder an unborn child that has every possible chance of surviving out of the womb.

[alistair]

"the Catholic Church, which appears to be turning into something of a scapegoat in this country."

Oh please, Irene, not this "we are the victims" nonsense. Christianity in general does itself no favours at present by claiming it is being discriminated against because it is no longer sallowed to freely discriminate against others. This painting of itself as a victim in such circumstances is nonsense.

The Catholic Church needs to look at itself. Even the rabbis on all shades of Judaism, from liberal to orthodox and reform, criticised Cardinal O'Brien's "Frankinstein science" argument as "ignorant histrionics" (article on 27 March in the Jewish Chronicle) and his opposition to human-animal hybrids. Are the Jews making Catholics a scapegoat too?

The cardinal's comment came close on the heels of Bishop Devine of Motherwell openly mocking gays for attending Holocaust memorial services to align themselves with a persecuted minority.

And you think the RC church is a hapless victim?

[George Parr]

'As for abortion you can bet your bottom dollar that those rejoicing are, to a man/woman, opposed to fox hunting or parents smacking their children!'

No stereotyping there then! Perhaps part of being a 'member of a church which does not tailor its message to the spirit of the age' also includes making judgments surrounding one issue, by reference to several other unconnected ones! Makes sense! Er no....

So what other disparate zeitgeist issues can we conflate theoretically? What about assuming that all homosexuals are probably Liberal Democrats living artistically in bungalows, or divorcees over fifty all go line dancing; perhaps its now obvious that those happy to see fox hunting banned are all working-class vegetarian druids positively looking forward to being buried in cardboard coffins on Lindisfarne?

OK it's much safer to live by rules that once formed part of a much older zeitgeist...!!

[J Pearce]

What depresses me (and rather reinforces my pre-existing prejudices) is the way that many religious contributors (not all, I hasten to add) present such absolutist, extremist views. The RCC line on abortion is clear: zero tolerance. The line taken by the Cardinal has to be - and is - just smoke and mirrors.

The polarised religious position is simply not reflective of the reality we live in. The issue of abortion is definitely one area where a rigid, prescribed moral imperative is the worst way of dealing the situation. The RCC agenda takes no account of the myriad of complexities that often accompnay the situation - incest, rape, medical complications for the mother etc.

Again, I'll state the bleedin' obvious - I don't believe in abortion as a contraceptive; neither would I recommend it. BUT - there exists in the real world, situations where abortion presents the least worst solution to a particular, individual problem. The world is mostly shades of moral grey; not black and white, as many religious people here seem to imagine it is.

Comparing those who support the choice of abortion to Hitler, as someone has above, is just the most facile of tactics. I think this is why the Cardinal has gone all touchy feely - he realises that by consistently pushing the zero tolerance, "if you support abortion you're a murderer" absolutism beloved of the overzealously, maniacally orthodox religious, he risks alienating the mainstream body of opinion which is troubled by the issue of abortion, but is reluctant to see it banned or denied to those who request it.

Most rational people realise that abortion is a messy, harrowing business, but sometimes a necessity. They don't like holier-than-thou, pompous religious fanatics berating them for their alleged lack of morals (which is ironic, given that these kind of fanatics are often the most morally compromised of all). Worst of all, most religious comment is often utterly ignorant of actual medical and scientific fact. Which is why such absolutism is dangerous to society, rather than beneficial - and as such, deserves to be challenged at every turn.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

So why do all other countries in Europe, including those with small Catholic populations, have an earlier cut-off point for abortions than England?

[saint]

Very well J Pearce, then you should have absolutely no problem with viewing the offerings of this Archbishop.

[Robert Ian Williams]

PS.... I have never hunted foxes, but it does seem to me that the fox has more protection than the unborn child in the United Kingdom.

[John Dale]

Once again we see the argument from ignorance and superstition rolled out by the bishop and his sheep. Thanks be to any invisible friend you care to name that parliament didn't follow this reasoning.

If the religious were honest in their opposition, and campaigned straightforwardly for an outright ban rather than pretending they favoured just a cut, then the rational majority would be in a position to honestly consider the cut. However when it is perfectly clear that this would have simply been the first step of many, it had to be opposed for what it really was. The "sheep" out there should consider this next time - behave honestly and you may well get a cut in the 24 weeks, but continue with the dishonest campaigning and you get nothing.

[Ellie]

Jesus Christ, Saint. That link is horrific. How late term what that abortion??

[J Pearce]

Saint,

Yeah, sure isn't pleasant.

Got any more medical porn you want to foist on us? How about some RTA's? Cancer ops? Animal vivisection, perhaps?

I mean, I'm not sure what your point is. Where have I ever said that abortion was pleasant? I haven't - precisely the opposite, in fact.

Consider this though - lets hypothesise that abortion was actually banned. Do you honestly think it would go away? Do you honestly think that women would suddenly keep every baby they had and that no-one would want abortions?

Do me a favour. Banning abortion would only lead to even more horrific, amateur backstreet butchery than what you see in the link you posted - and it would potentially jeapordise the life of the woman having the procedure. Giving women the legal right to choose at least ensures that the woman is ensured of a safe, sterile environment for the procedure to take place - even if that procedure is deeply unpleasant and an agonising choice for many.

It’s the classic Christian moral inversion, to make an absolutist moral stance on one issue without caring about the consequences - which in this case, would lead to innocent women being scarred for life, if not fatally injured.

But hey, this is when the inbuilt sexism in Christianity comes into play - no doubt any woman who gets pregnant and aborts the baby deserves everything she's got coming to her, right Saint?

[Eluned]

Not pleasant? Is that all you can say, it's not 'pleasant'?

I don't see how that clip can be described as anything less than crude butchery, Pearce. And, as a woman, I feel hailing it as a 'woman's right' deeply offensive to my sex. I have the right to undergo invasive, humiliating and ugly surgery to rid of the children society don't want? I am SO privileged and grateful to the (largely male) government for passing that law.

[alan]

What would the world be like today if Hitler had been aborted?

[George Parr]

Women, like men, of course do have some responsibility over what they do sexually and a considerable say in what they want to do medically and spiritually. The right to decide how to proceed in the face of a number of possible outcomes is what we are talking about here, including issues surrounding possible maternal fatality, appalling abnormality and extreme disability.

There are not enough women in parliament, so more should stand, get elected and campaign on the issues they feel disenfranchised over. Rights are rights Eluned, not instructions.

[Alistair]

"What would the world be like today if Hitler had been aborted?"

Born to a mother who was a pious Catholic, it's very unlikely he would have been.

[Tom Jackson]

“Banning abortion would only lead to even more horrific, amateur backstreet butchery”.

The classic, predicable argument. Abortion is not very nice; it is, to quote J Pearce, “deeply unpleasant and an agonising choice”, but to withdraw the availability would lead to even “more horrific” consequences.

Scare tactics; a tactic which has become more and more used in our society to prevent measures being taken to raise and improve the moral standards in our society.

Moral standards? Who cares about moral standards? What relevance do they have to modern life? Surely they are the fantasy memories of a bygone age?

Forget religion; forget justifying opposition on the basis of the over-indulgent, theological utterances of men who wear frocks!

This is about the stability and well-being of the society we live in. the value we place on human life; the example we present to those with young developing minds who will contribute to the future.

Live your life by rules and standards that suggest life has little value and don’t be surprised when violence stalks our streets, when respect for other people is non-existent and when society takes a nose-dive into instability.

And all because we allow a 24 week old foetus to be dragged from the womb?

Yes, because that is one indicator by which a community is defined, by which the strength and stability of a society is maintained. Just one indicator; there are many others and not all have to do with people’s religious beliefs. They have to do with respect for one another, respect for those who are weak and vulnerable, respect for life.

[J Pearce]

Eluned,

What are you on, exactly? Is it legal?

No-one forces women to have abortions in this country. They have a choice.

Unlike in Catholic countries, where there is no choice.

I wonder if Saint has trawled the internet to find shaky camera footage of women bleeding out on mortuary slabs, the entire contents of their womb having been eviscerated, because - having no legal choice available - they were forced to go to backstreet butchers, who's "tools lf the trade" were a bottle of whisky and a bent coathanger?

Y'know, somehow, I doubt Saint collects evidence of the realities of life which entirely contradict and puncture his comfy, self-righteous morally superior worldview.

Because that’s what we are talking about. The flipside to the priggish Christian arrogance over abortion, is essentially religiously sanctioned manslaughter. It amazes me, this cloud cuckoo belief that by banning abortion, the demand for it will somehow magically vanish overnight. History shows us that despite 2,000 years of Christianity, this has not happened. Yet Christians appear entirely happy to condone an illegal trade in backstreet abortions.

I suspect this is entirely due to the inherent sexism of Christianity - women are subservient, therefore implicitly inferior. So what does a Christian care, if some nobody dies from a backstreet abortion procedure, eh? She obviously deserved it.

In reality, its really a question of which is the lesser of two evils. Do we sanction abortion, protecting the woman by sanitising the procedure and giving them legal protections? Or do we put women into the hands of amatuer butchers, where they risk death, or at least permanent scarring? It seems the latter is entirely morally acceptable to many Christians. Not that you'll get a Cardinal to admit that, of course.

[Shama]

"What would the world be like today if Hitler had been aborted?"

... Or bumped off as a 10 year old?

Yeah, Alan, murder's not so bad after all, is it?

[John Thomas]

Where was the Archbishop of Canterbury's voice on this matter? I find it sad (as an Anglican) that the only moral leadership in this benighted country, today, comes from the Archbishop of Westminster (and others of the RC hierarchy in Britain). So, more power to you, Cardinal. But we have to remember that, but for the millions of RC Labour voters, there would never have been a Labour government to pass these vile laws. Perhaps one day before the next election - I have a dream - RC voters will wake up to the fact that Labour despise everything the RCC stands for, and abstain, and there will be no more such governments ever again ... (Dream on!)

[J Pearce]

Tom,

No offense mate, but do you have an argument that extends beyond:

"If I close my eyes and concentrate hard enough, the real world goes away" .

????

Are you prepared to tell me, that if abortion was suddenly banned overnight, there would be no demand for it?

I'd like to see you try.

[J Pearce]

Tom, my responses might be predictable, but what is even more predictable is the fact that you have no answer to the arguments put forward, except to blather on about morality, respect for life (as if Christianity has ever respected life! Do me a favour!) and other airy fairy concepts.

Where are your answers, eh? Where are your solutions to real world, intractable problems? The Christian response to abortion appears to consist of 2 simple, knee jerk reactions: 1) ban it, 2) vilify those who support it or - by extension - have partaken of it.

This seems entirely incompatible with Biblical doctrine, for a start! What happened to free will and forgiveness? Your responses, Tom, have more in common with the jackbooted theocrats that haunt religious history, than any notion of Christian charity. Is it a truism then, that when you scratch a Christian, you find a fascist?

You cannot legislate the demand for abortion out of existence, unless humans suddenly cease to procreate. As long as women get pregnant, their will be a demand for abortion. The real question is, how do you manage that demand?

The answer would seem to be to strike a balance between the needs and rights of the individual and the wider consequences for society. It may be that the balance has gone too far in one direction right now; but that does not warrant the knee jerk, extremist religious reaction we've witnessed in this debate. It is a historical given, that religious absolutism is always part of the problem, not the solution.

What this debate shows is that when it comes to the real world, a worrying number of Christians appear utterly incapable of dealing with it. They appear to want to vent their fury at their declining influence on any scapegoat that happens to wander into view - in this case, pro-choicers like myself or women who have abortions. Next week, no doubt it'll be gays who become the victim du jour again. But the end product is always the same - society is fatally bankrupted and everyone but Christians are to blame.

Change the record, will ya?

[George Parr]

Tom, 24 weeks is a limit, not a qualifying period. Abortions can take place considerably earlier.
I personally think it is far too long.

However, abortion is not going to go away, no matter how much moralizing Anglicans and others do over it. Since this is the case, it seems to me far better to organize it medically, as an alternative to returning to the days of unqualified, unregulated poisonous charlatans who exploited young women, with no regard for their dignity, rights or welfare.

It seems typical that Christians are again attempting to re-write history in order to exploit their position as arbiters of morality. Possibly they believe that this is what is expected of them.

Our society is not actually broken, contrary to what some gloomy Christians constantly assert. This may be in order to strengthen their own position. Equally, since religious doctrines are finite and immovable, the faithful may desparingly believe their own ideals to be far removed from reality. That's their problem, and redolent of the tension found within concepts of tradition and innovation.

This one issue is certainly not the only defining factor in a sliding scale of values that measures standards. In order to prove moral decadence standards in society have to be generally defined; not imagined by faith groups, who rely on issues of guilt in order to exist at all.

There is a distinct tendency among those claiming religion thoroughly to ignore the immense positivity found within modern culture. Optimistic generations of highly qualified and intelligent people have replaced past cultures of repression, where opportunity was defined by class. To an extent this presents some new challenges, with much more to be done, but what is evident among the pious is a mass jumping onto the bandwagon of suitably 'religious' issues, together with an eager overstatement of a myriad of perceived problems, adduced from relentless and depressing media presentation.

[Ricki]

I think the crucial point you are missing is that most *women* actually want the time limit lowered.