A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.
A reader sent me this snippet from Grayfriar News, Summer 2008, the newsletter of the Roman Catholic religious order, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal:
"It was beautiful sunny May day in St. James Park, London. The sky was blue, the foliage in lush green bloom and the birds in full spring voice. A day to thank God for the wonder of His creation and for the simple joy of being alive. Those people who were walking, jogging and cycling through the park were enjoying one of the finest days of the year so far. All seemed right with the world. But the evening before, just half a mile away, something had happened, something momentous, something most people had deemed unthinkable. In the Houses of Parliament, members of the House of Commons had voted overwhelmingly... to legalise the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos. One of the Catholic newspapers commented, `We have become used to calling ourselves a post-Christian society. But we flatter ourselves. From this week onwards we have definitively chosen to become a post-human society."
The website of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh says the following about Cardinal Keith O'Brien's engagements in July:
"The Cardinal will be absent from Scotland during most of the month of July, initially leading the annual Archdiocesan Pilgrimage to Lourdes and then travelling to Australia for the World Youth Day in Sydney, followed by a visit to the Diocese of Wollongong; and then journeying to New Zealand before returning to Scotland on Thursday 31 July 2008."
His absence in Lourdes, Australia and New Zealand, has not prevented the Scottish cardinal from continuing to provide pro-life leadership and speaking out powerfully on abortion and embryo experimentation in the run-up to this week's by-election in Glasgow East. Cardinal O’Brien says: "We are facing a crisis in society and we must ask ourselves is human life important to us or is it not?...[The Human Fertilisation and Embryology] Bill is a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life. …MPs must search their hearts and their consciences in this extra time in which they have been given to decide whether or not the value of human life really matters or whether or not it is simply one more commodity to be cast aside in our throw-away society."
Scientific research is proceeding at such a pace that it is often difficult to keep track of the latest developments that impact on human life. One of the fastest developing areas in this regard is stem cell treatment. Alison Davies, who heads No Less Human, SPUC’s division concerned with promoting the rights of people with disabilities, has written a research paper into the various forms of stem cell treatment and whether an ‘ethical approach’ is possible. Her paper is extensive in the ground it covers and exemplary in the presentation, which is both scientific and accessible to the layman.
It is very difficult to cover here all the topics which this research paper touches on. Two points of particular importance, however, stood out to me. First was the depth and clarity of Alison’s account of recent developments in adult stem cell (pictured) research, this includes great discussion of recent discoveries which have been termed induced Pluripotent stem cells (iPs) cells, which are mature cells ‘reprogrammed’ to have great flexibility in terms of the cell types into which they can transform.
It has been the contention of many scientists that the major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is that the latter has great capability (or plasticity) to transform into many different types of cell, and thus are more useful in the fight against disease. The paper reports, however, that “the evidence which has been assembled since 2007 strongly supports the proposition that induced pluripotent stem cells have a plasticity comparable with that of any embryonic stem cell line.”
The second feature of this research paper which makes it an invaluable resource is that Alison looks at the specific promises of stem cell treatment in seven specific conditions: Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and bone disorders. In these sections the research paper not only manages to pick out the milestones in recent research into the conditions themselves, but from the evidence of a multiplicity of scientists, aims to predict how stem cell treatment might help those who suffer from these conditions.
Yet, as one would expect from a pro-lifer who has spent her life fighting for the rights of people with disabilities, Alison Davies does not shy away from criticism of the many scientists who have turned a blind eye to the ethics of killing embryos simply because some good, somewhere down the line might come of it. Alison writes:
“I am totally appalled at the suggestion (made both by scientists and by the British Government) that unethical stem cell research using human embryos is somehow justified because it might “help” people like me. I cannot think of anything more reprehensible than to suggest that it is acceptable to research upon and kill the most vulnerable of human individuals because there may be something in it for me.”
This research paper provides a very useful starting point for those scientists and members of the general public who would either like a survey of the scientific situation as it stands, or would like to launch into a more detailed study themselves.
According to Reuters, a copy of a memo that appears to be an Department of Health and Human Services draft carries a broad definition of abortion as any procedures, including prescription drugs, ‘that result in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.’
Hillary Clinton’s response to the Bush administration’s initiative shows that the “freedom” to choose abortion turns out to be a triple attack on freedom, the freedom of:
the unborn to live
health professionals and others not to participate in killing innocent human lives, and
women and men to know the truth about the abortifacient properties of birth control drugs and devices.
I hope the Bush administration sticks to its guns on this issue.
With powerful and enlightened leadership, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is organizing a mass demonstration against a reproductive health bill, rushing through the Philippines Congress, which allows the use of artificial birth control in family planning. In a press release entitled “Church takes fight versus birth control to the street” the bishops point out that the Bill seeks, through various measures, to work towards a 2-child policy.
Fenny Tatad, the executive director of the Bishops-Legislators Caucus of the Philippines says that “Collective Bargaining Agreements” between employers and employees are required to include birth control and other services in their agreements and that although not “mandatory and obligatory” the bill also proposes a 2-child policy.
“This and all the above-mentioned proposals are considered gross violations of the pro-family provisions of the Constitution and the universal right to health of citizens,” Tatad said. “Public funds coming from Catholic taxpayers will fund these programs which is oppressive and in violation of their universal right to religious freedom and the freedom to live their faith in an environment that is free of coercion and harassment,” she added.
Thousands of faithful are expected to join a rally at the parade ground of the University of Santo Tomas in Manila on July 25 to show their opposition against the proposed population policy.
“The street protests will coincide with the CBCP’s celebration of the Humanae Vitae’s 40th year, the landmark encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI that deals with Church’s uncompromising stand on birth control” the bishops’ press statement says.
I have blogged recently about the fulfilment in England and Wales of Pope Paul VI’s prophecy in Humanae Vitae, that governments will impose on countries birth control measures which are considered lawful by couples in pursuit of a solution to particular family difficulties. I also explained how the Catholic authorities in England and Wales are co-operating with the British government in imposing birth control, including abortion, on families through children’s access to secret abortion in schools, including in Catholic schools.
The bishops in the Philippines are providing more enlightened leadership – by assisting couples and families to resist public policy which will undoubtedly lead, in the fullness of time, to the type of abuse we parents experience in England and Wales.
In the opening address of his visit to Australia for World Youth Day, Pope Benedict XVI (pictured right) has said:
"The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection upon the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable."
"Protecting innocent infants in the womb, supporting pregnant, frightened young women and working to secure a better standard of living and greater opportunities for the poor and marginalised are not mutually exclusive ideals. Indeed, a nation that condemns to abortion our beautiful and blameless unborn babies betrays itself as morally, ethically and politically untrustworthy and disinclined to give due care and attention to the poorest and weakest members of our society. ... Britain has among the highest abortion rates, the highest rates of family breakdown and the worst social problems in modern Europe. Do not tell me these things are not connected."
I have blogged about Tony Blair, recently received in the Catholic Church, and his refusal to repudiate the strongly pro-abortion, pro-human embryo research and pro-euthanasia by neglect policies he and his government pursued. I have also blogged about Progressio and its partnerships with organizations which campaign for legalised abortion and against the Holy See's observer status at the United Nations.
Both Tony Blair and Progressio claim that their "concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment" are motivated by their Catholic faith.
I would like to invite readers of my blog to join me in writing to Tony Blair and writing to Progressio to ask them how they square their positions with those of Pope Benedict and the bishop of Motherwell. We are encouraged to do so by Pope John Paul II who said in Evangelium Vitae (95):
"We need to begin with the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves. Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting. With great openness and courage, we need to question how widespread is the culture of life today among individual Christians, families, groups and communities in our Dioceses. With equal clarity and determination we must identify the steps we are called to take in order to serve life in all its truth. At the same time, we need to promote a serious and in-depth exchange about basic issues of human life with everyone, including non-believers, in intellectual circles, in the various professional spheres and at the level of people's everyday life."
Ian Walker is a fellow parishioner of mine. We belong to the Catholic parish of St. Joseph's, Wealdstone, in north London.
Ian is a devout man and, in his prayers, he felt called to organize a world day of fasting for the unborn on Thursday, 14th August.
With the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill making progress through parliament, with all its terrible provisions including the creation of human-animal hybrids for destructive research, I readily gave him my support. There's also the real danger of pro-abortion MPs using the report stage of the bill to widen, in a major way, the Abortion Act, virtually stripping the unborn child of any vestige of protection.
The postponed report stage and third reading of the bill in the autumn will arrive before we know it. I believe that activities to defeat this bill and to stop parliament from agreeing to further liberalisation of the abortion law must intensify and grow in number as never before over the summer. We must work on this as though everything depended on us.
However, I believe in God and I believe in prayer and I think those who believe in prayer should pray as though everything depends on God.
It's a world fast day of prayer because the goverment of virtually every nation under the sun promotes abortion - by funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN body which supports and participates in the management of China's population control programme, the one-child policy implemented by forced abortion. 180 countries make financial contributions to UNFPA. (President Bush's administration does not do so, on account of UNFPA's activities in China.)
I therefore invite believers to join Ian Walker in a world fast day of prayer for the unborn. In our parish, Fr Michael Doherty (pictured above) is organizing the world fast day of prayer in accordance with Catholic traditions. On 14th August, evening Mass will be preceded by recitation of the Rosary and followed by Eucharistic adoration until 10 p.m.. Others may choose other ways of celebrating the day - either privately or in accordance with other Christian traditions.
I've blogged recently (4 July and 10 July) about Progressio, formerly the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR), and its pro-abortion partner organisation in El Salvador, Las Dignas. Progressio describes its work in El Salvador as including "Strengthening the women's movement on response to the needs of women's organisations". The question needs to be asked: has Progressio helped Las Dignas's work promoting abortion?
Further research into Progressio has revealed that at least two of its partner-organisations support a campaign to strip the Holy See, the government of the Catholic Church, of its permanent observer status at the United Nations. (The See Change campaign is run by the pro-abortion and falsely named Catholics For Choice [CFC] and is motivated by, among things, the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion.)
One of the two Progressio partners supporting See Change, COMUS (Colectiva Mujer y Salud) (Woman and Health Collective) in the Dominican Republic, is described by Progressio as: "a non-profit-making organisation which has been working since 1984 to defend the sexual and reproductive rights of Dominican women in rural and urban areas. The collective offers services of integral care and health (physical, mental and emotional), training, produces information materials and promotes public debate on gender issues."
"Sexual and reproductive rights" is a term commonly used to denote the right of access to abortion on demand. It would be interesting to know whether the Collective's "services of integral care and health" include abortion. The Collective lobbied its country's legislature to decriminalise abortion and condemned the government's decision to declare 25 March, the feast of the Annunciation, as the Day of the Unborn Child.
Among Progressio's areas of work in the Dominican Republic are "supporting women's organisations", "lobbying and advocacy skills training" and "training in social and political rights". The question needs to be asked: has Progressio helped the Collective to lobby for the legalisation of abortion?
Progressio describes its other partner supporting See Change, Fundacion Puntos de Encuentro (Meeting Points Foundation) in Nicaragua, as "a platform from which to take on and debate different themes from a perspective of diversity with equity and non-discrimination. Among others, it deals with the themes of health and sexual and reproductive rights". The Foundation is also a partner of the Guttmacher Institute, the worldwide pro-abortion lobby's leading research body. The Foundation campaigned against the closing of a loophole in Nicaraguan law which allowed abortion.
Progressio says that "the current focus of Progressio's work [in Nicaragua is, among other things] "to promote women's rights" and that "Progressio's development workers have strengthened advocacy by partner organisations working with networks of women". The question needs to be asked: has Progressio helped the Foundation to lobby for abortion?
A parliamentary answer yesterday showed that, in the decade since the Labour government came to power, Progressio has received over £28 million from the British government's Department for International Development (DFID), and will receive over £3 million in the coming financial year. The Labour government's policy is to promote abortion on demand worldwide as a fundamental, universal human right. Progressio itself presents a case study of DFID funding an English woman to prepare programmes for Progressio's pro-abortion partner in Nicaragua, the Meeting Points Foundation mentioned above.
Does the old adage "He who pays the piper calls the tune" apply here?
As a Catholic myself I think its wrong that Progressio is listed as a Catholic organization in the Catholic directory and that its publications can be found in Catholic churches.
At least two news articles today highlight the fact that rates of sexually transmitted diseases in teenagers are at a record high (The Independent and Guardian). This is hardly surprising. Nor is it particularly new. The Government’s strategy of promoting birth control, including abortion, as some sort of panacea for society’s ills is not solving any problems. The victims of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy are not only growing numbers of unborn children being killed daily, but also the teenagers themselves.
There is hard evidence for this, as I have mentioned before. Professor David Paton, who holds a chair in Economics at Nottingham University, has shown in a paper entitled "The economics of family planning and underage conceptions" (this paper is not available free online, but if you would like a copy please contact me) that family planning, and increased access to it, increases the likelihood that teenagers will engage in sexual activity. Prof. Paton says: "I find no evidence that greater access to family planning has reduced underage conceptions or abortions. Indeed, there is some evidence that greater access is associated with an increase in underage conceptions..."
Elsewhere, Prof. Paton discusses a principle which in the insurance industry is called “moral hazard”. The principle is that the greater the level of coverage afforded by any insurance scheme the more likely the insurance holder will be to take chances. Applying this principle to the current debate, Prof. Paton explains: "For those youngsters who are not opposed in principle to abortion, it provides a way in which, if pregnancy occurs, birth can be avoided, i.e. if pregnancy occurs either through failed or non-use of contraception, there is a possible let out clause."
As much as the Government would like us to believe that their policies are evidence-based, the truth is that they are driven by an ideology proving harmful to our teenagers. The Government is sowing the seeds of family breakdown and public health catastrophes, and the public, particularly young people, are beginning to reap the harvest.
It has been reported that Christoph Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, has given a high papal honour to a pro-abortion politician"for services to the nature of healthcare". Renate Brauner, the deputy mayor of Vienna, received the Pontifical Order of St Gregory the Great. In autumn 2005 she is reported as having said: "If we socialist women speak about lasting values, we mean lasting women's values - abortion rights are part of it." Surprisingly, Cardinal Schönborn is reported as saying at Mrs Brauner's investiture: “It’s good if the finance minister in the city council has first been responsible for the health care system because, this way, we can be sure that the state money will be in good hands." I will be writing to Cardinal Schönborn regarding the award to Renate Brauner.
The reference in the Tablet insert is by no means an isolated incident of MSF complicity in the culture of death. In November 2001, an MSF spokesman admitted that MSF doctors perform abortions, saying: "In some countries abortion is an important part of family planning policy."
MSF's own website has many references to MSF's provision of abortion and abortifacient birth control, and its programmes of "reproductive healthcare" and "family planning" (both euphemisms for abortion). For example, in December 2005 an MSF article said:
"The obligation to give resources - even when operating in dangerous situations - is above all the obligation to provide care and to ensure its quality. In cases of sexual violence, it could be a matter of giving antibiotic treatment to combat a sexually transmitted infection, giving prophylaxis treatment to prevent HIV infection, providing medicine to avoid pregnancy, performing an abortion or reconstructive surgery, or, of course, addressing psychosocial issues."
"Providing medicine to avoid pregnancy" refers to the morning-after pill - MSF deny that life begins at conception. ("Prophylaxis treatment" is a reference to condoms and possibly early drug treatment.)
Last year, the president of the International Federation of Associations of Catholic Doctors, Jose Maria Simon, claimed that an MSF internal protocol advises MSF doctors how to get away with performing illegal abortions.
I will be writing to relevant Catholic authorities about this. In the meantime, anyone wanting more information about MSF's complicity in the culture of death can email me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Today's knife-crime news and questions about the causes of violence in Britain (and its solution) bring to mind Mother Teresa's speech on 3rd February, 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast in the US, in Washington DC - attended by President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, the first lady.
Mother Teresa said:
"Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion which brings people to such blindness."
Peggy Noonan, best-selling author and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and present at the prayer breakfast, described the audience's response, including the reaction of Bill and Hillary Clinton, in an article in Crisis magazine:
"Well, silence. Cool deep silence in the cool round cavern for just about 1.3 seconds. And then applause started on the right hand side of the room, and spread, and deepened, and now the room was swept with people applauding, and they would not stop for what I believe was five or six minutes. As they clapped they began to stand, in another wave from the right of the room to the centre and the left. But not everyone applauded. The president and first lady, seated within a few feet of Mother Teresa on the dais, were not applauding. Nor were the vice president and Mrs. Gore. They looked like seated statues at Madame Tussaud’s. They glistened in the lights and moved not a muscle, looking at the speaker in a determinedly semi-pleasant way."
I'm sure Gordon Brown is entirely genuine when he says: “
The terrible stabbings that have occurred this week are shocking and tragic and my thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have been hurt or killed in these attacks".
In saying such things the Prime Minister expresses the thoughts of virtually everyone in the UK; and if Gordon Brown were to discover the cause of this epidemic of violence and begin to address it, his premiership will go down in history for this reason and he will be well remembered by the British people.
I believe that what Mother Teresa said in 1994 about violence in the United States applies equally to the situation in Britain today; and I believe that if Gordon Brown begins to see the mistake he (and Parliament) made in voting for legalised abortion, in vitro fertilisation and destructive embryo research - and thus completely undermining respect for the sacredness of all human life - he will have discovered the greatest destroyer of peace in Britain and the biggest cause of knife-crime.
Now that debate and voting on pro-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill have been delayed till the autumn by the government, pro-life leaders and church leaders should waste no time in echoing the words of Mother Teresa:
"...this is the greatest destroyer of peace today, abortion...".
Tony Blair, Bill and Hillary Clinton have never repudiated their pro-abortion positions and the worldwide consequences of their policies have been catastrophic. Even one small step for Gordon Brown, using his Government's influence to stop a complete meltdowon on respect for unborn life in Britain, could prove to be a giant leap for humanity.
I blogged recently on Ruth Kelly, a UK cabinet minister, and Clare Curtis Thomas, both of them Catholic MPs, avoiding their responsibility to the unborn.
Dr Tom Ward, a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, provides a balanced and penetrating analysis of Ruth Kelly's apparent position on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (NACF news, 6th July), the report stage of which has now been postponed by the government till the autumn. His letter appears in
Dr Ward writes: " A Catholic does not have the moral right to abstain from voting because such a grave omission is to refuse to protect human life at its most vulnerable. It is grave matter. Furthermore she is now the best known Catholic Member of Parliament in the country and the scandal of her evasion of her moral duty as a legislator will do great damage to the Church."
Last month I blogged on how Siobhan Fearon, a medical student from Merseyside, did a sponsored 14,000 feet parachute jump for SPUC, both to raise funds and to highlight threats to medics' freedom of conscience. Now, you can see her jump on this YouTube video.
Mr Frank Dobson, a former Labour health secretary, made a revealing observation this week when expressing his support for pro-abortion amendments to the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. He said: "These amendments would make it easier for not very well informed women to have an abortion."
I asked Margaret Cuthill, a post-abortion counsellor of 20 years' experience, to comment on this and she writes: "The proposed amendments are tantamount to abandoning emotionally vulnerable women at a point of crisis in their lives.
"One amendment would allow the first pill in a chemical abortion to be administered in a doctor's surgery and the woman would then take the other pill at home. This is fraught with danger. The mother would be faced with going through a painful labour and with the possibility of an incomplete abortion. This could require surgery or heavy loss of blood, and could even lead to death. Ms Manon Jones, aged 18, from Caernarfon died after a doctor did not recognise the seriousness of the haemorrhage that the abortion drug had caused.
"Many chemical abortions are performed on girls and women aged under 26, often with their first pregnancy. Such young women will have no idea of what to expect and are not fully informed of the physical risks associated with this procedure. Others are faced with the psychological impact of giving birth to a small but perfectly formed baby.
"I recently had a call from a woman who had used drugs to kill her unborn child and then to cause a miscarriage. She had kept her 14-week baby's tiny body in her fridge for weeks after the abortion. She could not bear to part with it. She had been alone in her hospital room when the baby came away. She was devastated and still is. This lady is just one example of how psychologically damaging this type of abortion experience can be.
"This amendment to the bill presents a dark picture of back street abortion by another name. A woman in a crisis pregnancy, on her own, faces the trauma of the death of her child by her hand. Women deserve better than abortion as the answer to her crisis pregnancy.
"Mr Dobson says: 'These amendments would make it easier for not very well informed women to have an abortion.' Is he suggesting that we keep these women in ignorance? In his own ignorance, he has no idea of the effects of abortion. I would suggest that his concern is definitely not for the woman or her child but for a political agenda that lets down women in a crisis. Politicians like him seem to have no interest in finding out about the plight of women or their families. They seem just to go along with the abortion industry fundamentalists. Their propaganda is that abortion is good for women when, in fact, quite the reverse is true. I know this from the experience of my counselling work."
The story of Seema Sood, who petitioned the president of India for euthanasia, provides evidence of why euthanasia must be unceasingly resisted both politically and, sadly with increasing frequency, by the bedside. See my earlier post Resisting euthanasia at the bedside.
Alison Davis, who has spina bifida, and leads No Less Human, a division within SPUC, says:
"The story of Mrs. Seema Sood explains in a nutshell why allowing legalised killing of vulnerable people by euthanasia is wrong. Mrs. Sood, who is now 37, longed for death two years ago, and even petitioned the President of India for euthanasia. She had lost all movement of her limbs for 15 years following a severe attack of rheumatoid arthritis, and was in despair. Now two years later, after surgery paid for by the Government of her state and her university alumni association, she says 'I regret the letter to the President. Everything was so dark for me ealier, but I'm excited about my mobility now and I'm confident I will improve.'
"Euthanasia would have robbed Mrs. Sood of the chance to recover her love of life, and to benefit from the surgery which revolutionised her life, and no one would have known that life held something better for her in the future. She is not the only vulnerable person who has changed her mind about wanting to die. I've been through the same experience myself.
"But euthanasia allows for no changes of mind. It is the philosophy of despair. What sick and disabled people who want to die really need is the sort of help and support which Mrs. Sood received both from politicians and her friends. Note well, politicians. Your actions could save a life like Mrs. Sood's rather than condemning her and others to death."
And, readers, note also SPUC's service to those who want to protect their loved ones from euthanasia: Patients First Network. By supporting and advising the friends and relatives of patients who are at risk of euthanasia by neglect, Patients First Network is enabling ordinary people to mount a bedside resistance to a premature and distressing death for their loved ones.
The United Nations has declared today to be World Population Day. An organisation which respected the gift of human life and the dignity of the family would celebrate such a day by welcoming the report that Britain's birth rate is at its highest (1.91 children per woman of child-bearing age) since 1973. But the United Nations, in particular the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), has created World Population Day as an opportunity to promote abortion and contraception as a means of population control. The organisers of World Population Day should have the honesty to re-name today World Anti-Population Day!
Steve Mosher, an expert colleague of SPUC and the president of the Population Research Institute (PRI), has written a very information piece about World Population Day here. PRI has also written:
"Some will find population decline a cause for celebration. But keep this in mind: The world's population will age rapidly in that time, due to the few births. Most of the world, including its poor nations, will develop the same massive social security and health care problems that increasingly plague fast-aging First World nations in Western Europe and North America as well as Japan. The UNDP [United Nations Development Program] projects the median age of the world will go from 28 today to 38 by 2050. The proportion of the population over 65 will go from 7.4% to 16.1%, the oldest old - those over 80, who cannot work and usually require daily if not constant care from others - will more than triple from 1.3% to 4.3%. That's a big bill for any society. At the same time, the proportion of the population of productive working age, defined as between ages 15 and 64, will go from 64.5% to 63.7%, while the next generation - those under 4 - will go from 9.5% to a crippling 6.7%."
But it's not all doom-and-gloom. Naturally, pro-lifers have, and continue to have, more children than anti-lifers, passing on their message to the next generation. So, population controllers, in the end we will outsmart you by outbreeding you.
Harriet Harman (pictured), the (pro-abortion) Leader of the House of Commons, announced this morning that the report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill will now be postponed until after the summer recess. Speculation about the delay has featured in reports in the Guardian, the Telegraph and in the BBC news.
This delay gives us more time to lobby MPs on the pro-abortion amendments which have been tabled.
The effects of these amendments would include:
reducing medical scrutiny of abortion from two doctors to one;
abolishing the need for any legal grounds for abortion up to 24 weeks;
allowing nurses and midwives to carry out an abortion;
extending locations where abortion can take place to include doctors’ surgeries, local health centres, school sick rooms etc.;
up to a 2 year prison sentence for any pro-life counselling group which “misled” expectant mothers by its adverts.
Over the summer months SPUC intends to initiate widespread action highlighting the plight of unborn children and their mothers. We will continue to build our campaign against the bill and against the pro-abortion amendments to the bill. SPUC will be urging its supporters and local clergy to contact prospective parliamentary candidates in their constituencies to ask them how they would vote on the pro-abortion amendments if they were in Parliament.
Such amendments, if approved by Parliament, will greatly increase the numbers of abortions, increase the growing number of women harmed by abortion, and place even greater pressure on women to submit to abortion – often under pressure from boyfriends or other parties motivated by self-interest. It is important to make this Bill, and the proposed pro-abortion amendments, an issue for parliamentary candidates at the next general election.
Contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk for further information on how to participate in SPUC's vital summer campaign against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. This legislation will have catastrophic consequences in Britain and, without doubt, in other parts of the English-speaking, common-law world.
Following my post on Progressio, a Catholic aid agency, one of my readers pointed out that Progressio’s partner in El Salvador, Las Dignas, is one of a number of organizations to put its name to a document entitled Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Central America. The document takes a somewhat surprising position on the Church’s teachings. (I find I get "You are not authorised to link to this page" message but I have the document for anyone interested and you can find it by googling '"Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Central America" Las Dignas')
Its ‘agenda for action’ includes:
“Defence of the Secular State. By persuading the region's governments to stop following the dictates of the most conservative sectors of the [Catholic] church, one of the principal obstacles to more progressive laws and policies would be removed.”
“Abortion. The right of each woman to take decisions about her own body should be a fundamental aspect of advocacy on this issue, in addition to arguments for decriminalisation based on public health and social justice. This includes the possibility of seeking that, in the first place, therapeutic abortion be decriminalised in those places where it is prohibited and that women are guaranteed access to this procedure where it is still legal.”
The document goes on to present a caricature of the Catholic Church’s teachings on human sexuality: “The churches, especially the Catholic Church, teach that sexuality is something bad, that it should only be exercised in limited circumstances, and that it must be related to reproduction…Women are taught to equate the exercise of sexuality with love and with reproduction, and even to believe that 'sexuality is something dirty and impure, only allowed for men, not for we women who should be clean and pure'. Women, but not men are obliged to accept a formula in which love = sexuality = reproduction = the maximum expression of love. Pleasure has no place in this equation.”
A little further on it states: “It should be emphasised that the church's opposition to abortion is not only due to its much trumpeted position that life begins with conception but also derives from its vision of motherhood as the destiny of all women."
Well, yes, the Church does teach that sexual activity should be loving and open to life. How Las Dignas works out that this renders it ‘something bad’ that should not involve pleasure is rather puzzling. It goes on: “sexual health includes 'the absence of feelings of shame and guilt, of unfounded beliefs and of other psychological factors which inhibit sexual activity or disrupt sexual relations'.” Furthermore, “to enjoy this right, women require information and access to high quality, dignified and efficient medical attention so as to be able to enjoy maternity without risks or to terminate an unwanted pregnancy safely, as well as for the prevention and treatment of infertility.”
The Catholic Church emerges as the enemy in a later discussion of the Millennium Development Goals: “Turning to the effects of religious fundamentalists and conservatives, their influence in international political forums has significantly increased. An important example of their success is how pressure from the Vatican and a small number of conservative governments led to the elimination from the Millennium Development Goals of a goal that would have established that 'all people of appropriate age should have access to reproductive health services by the year 2015 at the latest' even though it was supported by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and had been adopted in 1996 by the 21 governments that participate in the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)." "Reproductive health services" is a term used by UN bodies such as the UNFPA and CEDAW to promote legal access to abortion on demand – and to put pressure on developing countries worldwide to legalise abortion.
It is not just the Catholic Church that is attacked for being pro-life. The document warns: “It should also be noted that the differences between evangelicals and the Catholic Church on these issues are more a question of form than substance. Evangelicals are also very conservative and equally opposed to the decriminalisation of abortion and the recognition of diversity in sexual orientation.”
I repeat what I said in my post last Saturday, how can Progressio canvass for support within the Catholic Church? Indeed why should it continue to be listed as a Catholic organization in the Catholic directory? This scandal must be addressed.
I was very moved to read about a religious brother in the US who describes his experience and insights gained from caring for a brain-damaged member of his community for over 12 years. Brother Paul O'Donnell rejected both medical and church authorities' advice that he should allow Brother Michael to be dehydrated and starved to death.
Brother Paul effectively resisted euthanasia at the bedside of his fellow brother where it was most effective. This is where we need to resist euthanasia. And Patients First Network (logo, right) is doing exactly that. By supporting and advising the friends and relatives of patients who are at risk of euthanasia by neglect, Patients First Network is enabling ordinary people to mount a bedside resistance to a premature and distressing death for their loved ones.
A "coma stimulation programme" was developed by Brother Paul to help Brother Michael, although the doctors poured scorn on this loving care. It is a reality here too, that sick and disabled people are likely only to receive such dignified and individual treatment from friends or relatives, because hospitals have lost sight of this.
Alison Davis of No Less Human (NLH) can testify to this. NLH is a group within SPUC of disabled people and their carers which upholds the right to life and dignity of disabled people. Members of NLH show us all that the critical ingredients needed to look after vulnerable people are love and compassion. Sadly these are in very short supply in our hospitals.
We are going through a difficult time in our country's history with euthanasia by neglect enshrined in law through the Mental Capacity Act. My colleagues and I at SPUC's London headquarters want to speak in localities around Britain to explain how we can re-establish and re-build a campaigning movement which defends the sanctity of human life from conception to the grave. Resisting euthanasia at the bedside and how to go about it through Patients First Network will be one of our most important messages.
In the past 6 days, pro-abortion MPs have tabled about a dozen new amendments to the Abortion Act 1967 via the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill, to be debated on Monday. More amendments may be tabled in the next few days. Among the latest amendments, one tabled by Labour MP Frank Field would produce a sliding scale for the number of doctors who must authorise any abortion: one doctor for less than 13 weeks, two doctors for between 13 and 24 weeks, and three doctors for greater than 24 weeks. Given that over 90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks, most abortions will no longer be subject to the two-doctor rule. The effect of the amendment is primarily to streamline the majority of abortions taking place under 13 weeks gestation, possibly leading to more abortions.
The Telegraphreports that the amendment has the support of David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition.
David Cameron has been in the headlines today, calling for firm action to mend our "broken society". Mr Cameron said in a speech:
"[W]e're going to be uncompromising in taking on any vested interests or establishment cultural attitudes that stand in our way. ... Social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make. ... [C]hildren are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them."
So Mr Cameron, why are you compromising with the vested interests and establishment cultural attitudes which promote easy abortion? What about the social problems which are the consequence of abortion - psychological and emotional trauma, relationship breakdowns, suicide and substance abuse? What are you doing to stop secret abortions for children as young as eleven, which parents are powerless to stop?
Sometimes it's right and necessary for constituents to remind MPs, not least Catholic MPs, of their responsibilities to the unborn. That's exactly what Mrs Pat MacDonald, a SPUC supporter in Crosby, Liverpool, did recently when she wrote to her MP, Claire Curtis-Thomas (pictured), a Catholic. Mrs MacDonald wrote:
"Dear Claire Curtis-Thomas,
I again urge you to vote against the pro-abortion amendments that are expected to be placed before Parliament on Monday, 14th July. Your comments on May, 20th expressed during the debate are not acceptable for any member, and particularly not for the Vice-Chair Person of the "All Parliamentary Pro-Life Group" - "I am not opposed to abortion. ... I would be happier with 12 weeks - and that's where I stand, let women have the choice". The unborn child has no voice except ours. It is therefore imperative that you vote against any amendments which will make abortion easier to obtain.
The right to life is not for you or I to decide. It is a God-given right that only He can give and take.
Your comments and continued support and membership of "Emily's List" are a major cause of concern. They are a contradiction of the position you hold. If you do not oppose any pro-abortion amendments then you will be culpable and held responsible for your actions, or lack of them.
Yours sincerely, P.E. MacDonald - Mrs"
Mrs Curtis-Thomas replied:
"Thank you for your very rude E Mail. As the vice chair of the Parliamentary Pro Life group I take my responsibilities very seriously! Regards,Claire Curtis-Thomas MP"
Mrs MacDonald has commented to SPUC HQ: "I do not see why Claire Curtis-Thomas considers the truth rude; she persistently refuses to respond to my queries re 'Emily's List'.".
Mrs Curtis-Thomas received a grant from "Emily's List", which helps elect female Labour candidates to Parliament, but only if they are pro-choice i.e. pro-abortion.
If Mrs Curtis-Thomas really took her responsibilities as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group seriously, she would not have taken offence at Mrs MacDonald's points.
Similarly, another north-west Catholic MP, cabinet minister Ruth Kelly (pictured), is avoiding her responsibility to the unborn, by reportedly arranging with the Prime Minister to be absent on Monday when Parliament again votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill.
Mrs Curtis-Thomas and Mrs Kelly should be reminded that the Catholic Church teaches that:
the late Pope "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church,...reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life", 2002)
"Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good." (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Catholics in Political Life", 2004)
What is it about "obligation" and "any law" that Mrs Curtis-Thomas & Mrs Kelly don't understand?
Mrs Curtis-Thomas should resign as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, and not rejoin the group until she is prepared to take her responsibilities to the unborn seriously, by stating a total opposition to access to legal abortion at any point of pregnancy. Also, Mrs Kelly should resign from the government and campaign against the HFE bill (as well as the government's stem cell research policy, which she endorsed in 2005). The unborn deserve no less. Indeed they are entitled to a lot better.
Dr James L. Sherley, a stem cell biologist in Boston, Massachusetts, examines here the positions of John McCain and Barack Obama on the right to life of the unborn. He concludes: "The clarion credo of the Abolitionists who upended slavery in our great nation must be applied to the unborn: 'None of us are truly free, unless we are all free.' This transformative ideal of human beings must apply to us at all stages of our existence, including embryonic and prenatal, if we want to become the nation of truly free women and truly free men. Hence, we should vote to elect a president who puts principle before political expediency. Now is the time for all Americans to demand that our presidential candidates are men and women of integrity. Now is the time to demand that our presidential candidates make patriotic declarations of independence for everyone by vowing to protect the fundamental right to life of one and all: born, unborn and embryonic."
This international congress is important for Catholics and for everybody. It's especially important for the pro-life movement. As I have mentioned before on this blog, the prophecy of Pope Paul VI regarding artificial birth control has been fulfilled in ways that even he did not predict. He wrote:
"Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.” (Humanae Vitae 17)
Nowadays in Britain and elsewhere, the Government is "imposing" the use of birth control, including abortion, on families; and the Catholic Church authorities in England and Wales are co-operating with the government in imposing it in England - by welcoming into its schools Connexions whose job it is to make abortion and contraception available to children, without parental knowledge or consent, a point I made last year in an interview with Zenit.
As a father and a grandfather and as a Catholic I can say, without reservation, this is the worst thing that's happened since I got involved in the pro-life fight 34 years ago. By what right do Government and Church authorities rob parents of their God-given right to protect their children from such grave moral harm and from such serious risks to their health? By what right do their rob parents of the right to protect their grandchildren from being aborted?
The "lectio magistralis" is being given by Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, archbishop of Bologna (pictured above). Cardinal Caffara is a contributing author to Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, edited by Janet E. Smith, which reproduced, as an article, his keynote address for a conference held in Rome to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. In her introduction to his article, Janet E. Smith writes: "He demonstrates that the use of contraceptives violates the dignity of man since it entails a rejection of the goodness of being...".
Elsewhere, Cardinal Caffara writes about the "intrinsic illicitness" of in-vitro fertilisation since it "establishes between the one performing the fertilisation and the one to be born a relationship of 'production of an object'".
As millions throughout the UK relax to watch the Wimbledon final tomorrow, as thousands of churches fill up with the faithful coming to worship God - spare a thought for what MPs have the power to do on Monday week, 14th July: to strip away as much of the little protection that is left in British legislation for unborn children, increase the pressures on mothers-to-be and on doctors and nurses striving to oppose abortion by conscientious objection.
I am pleased to report that Cardinal O'Brien, the archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, has sent out another clarion call in "The Scotsman" which I pray will not only reverberate in the hearts and consciences of Members of Parliament but will prompt many other Christian leaders to mobilise the faithful and all people of good will in defence of life.
With characteristic prophetic bluntness and in entirely appropriate dramatic terms, he writes:
"My letter to MPs is more than a piece of political lobbying. It is a cry of alarm; a final desperate effort to prevent our nation sleepwalking into one of the most shameful decisions of its history...Our spiralling abortion statistics are already a badge of shame for our nation and it confounds the reason of any decent person that such a situation should be exacerbated. From the time of the Abortion Act in 1967 we have watched the growing tragedy whilst its architects have refused to repent their handiwork. Now those who have demeaned every human life by targeting the most vulnerable would have us remove what little restraint there is in relation to abortion...As I grow older myself I will look back at the legislation we pass and ask myself whether I did everything possible to fight for the right to life of the unborn and I ask everyone in our nation, most especially our politicians who will be directly responsible, to ponder the same question themselves. A society which sacrifices its most vulnerable, for whatever reason, invests in its own future ruin."
Now forgive me, Cardinal, if I add my own heartfelt comment.
Never before in our history has outstanding pro-life leadership, such as yours, been needed from Christian leaders and religious leaders of all denominations. Not only will millions more human lives be destroyed and the lives of countless women blighted in Britain, anti-life legislation passed in Westminster will have a catastrophic, life-destroying, impact worldwide, especially in the English-speaking common-law world, as we have seen again and again since the passage of the British Abortion Act in 1967.
If the right to life of one priest, one politician, one nurse or teacher was to be swept away by the raw power of Parliament in the coming weeks, would we not be called to prayer, would we not be called to action, in urgent terms by religious leaders? The unborn in their desperate plight are entitled to be treated in exactly the same way. Pro-life lobbyists, pro-life politicians, pro-life clergy cannot win these battles on their own.
As a Catholic, now that our offices have moved south of the river, I have started going to St George’s Cathedral, Southwark, for Mass whenever I can. On a recent visit, I noticed newsletters on display from Progressio, the working name for the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR).
On Progressio’s website, they describe themselves as "an international development charity working for justice and the eradication of poverty", combining “a heritage of radical Catholicism and secular thought." Reflecting on its history, Progressio claims that after the Second Vatican Council (1962-5) "there was a clear division within the church between the progressive and the more conservative elements" and that "CIIR's then education department supported the progressive elements of the church in various liberation and human rights struggles in Central America, southern Africa and Asia. CIIR published booklets on liberation theology and promoted progressive church speakers."
64% of Progressio's funding comes from the British government – the Department for International Development, which the website links to ”with grateful thanks”. Catholic Action UK has compiled a dossier on Progressio’s work. Whilst some of the issues raised do not fall within SPUC’s remit, it makes sobering reading…
…Not quite so sobering as the spring 2008 issue of Progressio’s own publication Interact, in which a development worker working with Progressio’s partner La Dignas writes of her desire to make a documentary about ‘the serious consequences of the total criminalisation of abortion’ in El Salvador.
By the sound of it, this documentary won’t share the sentiments of a pro-life petition signed by every one of the 84 lawmakers in the El Salvador Congress. "Every human being should be protected and respected from the moment of conception…until his natural death," the petition reads. "Our primary responsibility as legislators is to unconditionally defend life. We condemn abortion as an abominable crime." Possibly Progressio’s principal funders, the British Government, which promotes abortion on demand worldwide, would have something to say about it if the documentary adopted the same line as El Salvador’s lawmakers!
Progressio's position on the abortion law in El Salvador is ambiguous to say the least.
Not only is Progressio being promoted among worshippers at St George’s Cathedral, Southwark, it is listed in the Catholic Directory under “International/Third World Catholic Agencies”. Catholics have a right to expect agencies that claim any connection with the Catholic Church to uphold the Church’s teachings on sexuality and the sanctity of life. Agencies that fail to do so have no place looking for support in a Catholic cathedral.
The amendments attempt to remove safeguards on abortion, such as a second doctor's signature and specified medical grounds on all early and mid-term abortions. The amendments would also allow abortion providers to use nurses and midwives to perform abortions instead of doctors and allow abortions to be performed in a wider range of health care centres. SPUC has posted an analysis of the effect of the two main pro-abortion amendments here.
Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, has commented today: "These amendments are trying to say that abortion is no different to other medical procedures. But it is vastly different. The pro-abortion MPs insist that abortion is a woman's right to choose but there is no right, either in law or in ethics, for patients to demand a medical procedure with no medical benefit, let alone one which kills another human being, and may harm themselves.
"There is no legal requirement for abortion providers to offer counselling or tell women about alternatives to abortion. These amendments promote the abortion providers' 'conveyor belt' approach which denies women the opportunity to consider fully the gravity and possible consequences of an abortion. It will leave many women vulnerable to pressure and even coercion to have an abortion they don't want.
"An increasing proportion of doctors are refusing to be complicit in abortion, many for ethical reasons. Removing restrictions on abortion will place considerable pressure upon medical staff with a conscientious objection to abortion. Nurses and midwives should not be pressured to become abortion practitioners. Dumping abortion work on nurses and midwives will also put women's lives at risk, as they are not equipped to deal with emergencies that will arise during an abortion.
"It is expected that some MPs will also table amendments to restrict abortions in certain ways. If this happens MPs must be wary not to get embroiled in a trade-off, agreeing to sacrifice some babies in order to help others. SPUC therefore urges MPs with pro-life sympathies not to promote amendments on abortion, as Parliament's pro-abortion majority may well use the Report stage as the opportunity for a new settlement on abortion which will lead to more, not fewer, deaths of unborn children."
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, has written to all MPs, also urging them to vote against the pro-abortion amendments. The full text of his letter can be read below:
My dear Member of Parliament
As you may know, I recently had the opportunity of visiting the Houses of Parliament, of celebrating Mass and preaching in St Mary Undercroft, and of hosting a reception in the Scotland Office. This visit had been pre-arranged, but occurred shortly after the debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. This is a Bill, as you will be very much aware, which deals with extremely sensitive and controversial issues.
You will be aware also of the opposition I have expressed on behalf of my Church and many others to specific aspects of the bill specifically around inter-species embryos, abortion, saviour siblings and the role of fathers. These have been dealt with in Committee stage albeit not favourably from my perspective.
I wish now, however, to ask you to consider seriously any proposals at Report stage which would make early abortion more readily available. We already have a shamefully high level of abortions in the UK which continues to climb. This cannot be good for anyone involved in the whole process and I ask you respectfully to vote against measures which would exacerbate the situation.
I know that there is still no date set for the Report stage of the Bill. I am aware, however, that amendments have been put down to allow abortion on request up to 24 weeks gestation, with approval needed from one doctor only and a further amendment to allow nurses and midwives to perform abortions. These amendments do reflect very sadly on our society at this present time.
I would hate to think that as I myself grow older, I will look back at the passage of the legislation and ask myself whether or not I did everything possible to fight for the right to life of the unborn. Consequently, I am asking you to seriously use your conscience at this time and let that be your guide as to how you will vote in the short time which lies ahead concerning this Bill.
You are in my thoughts and prayers.
Yours sincerely in Christ
+ Keith Patrick Cardinal O’Brien Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh
A first-year medical student performed a 14,000 feet skydive on Saturday to raise awareness of the pressure on medical staff to take part in abortion against their consciences. Siobhan Fearon, 19, of HullYorkMedicalSchool did the jump from Black Knights Parachute Centre, Cockerham, Lancaster. The sponsored parachute jump is also raising money for SPUC.
Siobhan experienced 50 seconds of freefall and then descended the rest of the way by parachute for eight minutes. Though admitting to terror before the jump, afterwards she wanted to do it again. Siobhan writes: "I think it is vital that society understands and appreciates the sanctity of every human life whether it is a developing child in the womb or somebody approaching the end of their life. When I graduate and become a doctor I am hoping to be able to use my skills to help save lives. I think abortion is never the answer and hope that one day, as a doctor, I will be able to help women to make the right decision."
Two years ago, Siobhan, of Crosby, Merseyside, did a sponsored walk for SPUC around Hyde Park in London. She is one of six children who have all been involved in pro-life work. Mrs Anne Fearon, her mother is an active member of the local SPUC branch and region. Abigail Smith, also 19 and at HullYorkMedicalSchool, was prevented by bad weather from jumping on Saturday. She plans to skydive for SPUC in September.
Recommended Standards for Sexual Health, a government-endorsed document, has intensified pressure on doctors and nurses and is putting more unborn babies at risk from abortion. The document demands access, without hesitation or delay, to abortion and to "morning-after birth control". These are drugs and devices which may cause an early abortion only days after conception.
The document steps up pressure on health professionals to provide these so-called services which promote the killing of unborn children. It also includes a thinly-veiled warning of severe punitive action against health care professionals who break a strict code of secrecy concerning abortions for children under 16.
SPUC recently also criticised Recommended Standards for Sexual Health for being part of government policy to fast-track abortions. Figures for England and Wales out earlier this month showed the highest-ever abortion totals (205,598), the highest abortion rate (18.6 per 1000 residents) and the greatest rate of child-abortions.
Anne Fearon, Siobhan's mum, left, has written a vivid and witty account of the day. Our website has a page with more about the event and details of how to sponsor the jumpers.
Spanish parliamentarians could pass a law giving rights to apes. Proposed measures would stop the animals from being used for experiments, filming, television advertising and circus performance.
The Spanish proposal takes animal welfare into the realms of rights. This runs contrary to the widely-held beliefs that animals are not persons and that only persons are capable of possessing rights. Indeed, permission for abortion, embryo experimentation and (in certain cases) euthanasia is often predicated on the erroneous belief that unborn children and the severely mentally incapacitated are not persons.
The Spanish measure is inspired by the Great Ape Project, which calls for human-style rights for several types of mammal. A leader of this initiative is Dr Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, New Jersey. Peter Singer has been quoted as saying: ''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''
The proper treatment of animals is a legitimate concern. We need to treat all aspects of our world responsibly, and it's wrong to abuse any creature even if it's not human. One could debate whether it actually is cruel to get animals to perform in public. There's also the issue of whether medical research on other creatures can be justified if it benefits humans.
What is striking, though, is that we find concern for animals among those who are happy to deprive humans of their right to live. Like so many western countries, Spain allows the abortion of human babies. There will be a tragic irony if that country affords extra dignity to apes while continuing to deprive some of its youngest human inhabitants of every possible dignity by killing them.
A reader sent me this snippet from Grayfriar News, Summer 2008, the newsletter of the Roman Catholic religious order, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal:
.JPG)
