Is the BBC demonising the pro-life movement?

A British television police drama shows pro-life people kidnapping children. SPUC supporters have expressed concern about BBC1's Hunter (starring Hugh Bonneville, right) currently still showing on the internet. Betty Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland who watched the programme tells me she was horrified: "These supposed pro-lifers were shown inscribing 'sacred' on one of their captives and also killing a hostage. The BBC wouldn't dare portray other groups in this way."

It's all very puzzling, to say the least. Might it be an attempt to demonise the pro-life movement? Could BBC producers have been emboldened by the inauguration of Mr Barack Obama as a pro-abortion president? Of course, this is just a fictional situation, but pro-life people are the last to threaten children. Indeed, we defend them.

The pro-life movement lobbies for change to the law, it provides research and information on bioethical issues, and it gives practical and emotional help to women facing difficulties in pregnancy. Some of the nicest, kindest people I've met have been pro-life activists.

Then there is the grim irony that one of the extremists in the programme has spina bifida and seems to want revenge for the deaths of people with a similar disability through abortion. (The overwheming majority of unborn babies discovered to have spina bifida in Britain are aborted).

I guess playwrights and producers can do all sorts of things in the name of good drama, but is there another agenda here? We mustn't be distracted by a TV show from our defence of vulnerable human beings, but maybe it's worth remarking on such an eccentric portrayal of pro-life people just when the most pro-abortion president in US history has been inaugurated.

Obama's inauguration offers no hope for women at home or abroad

Here are my comments on some extracts from President Obama's inauguration speech:

"I stand here today ... mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors." [JS: Like the sacrifices of your mother, Mr Obama, who did not seek to have you aborted.]

"America has carried on ... because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents." [JS: Such as the Declaration of Independence : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..." under which killing children before birth should be unthinkable.]

"The time has come ... to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. [JS: except for the millions that will be aborted under President Obama's laws and policies.]

"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost." [JS: not by abusing and killing embryonic children!]

"America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity" [JS: except for millions of unborn children in America and elsewhere, who will be denied any sort of future by President Obama's pro-abortion policies.]

" ... those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents [JS: What else is abortion than slaughtering innocents?]

"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish..." [JS: But in China, farms are destroyed for violations of the one-child policy, a policy in which President Obama has pledged to be complicit, through re-funding UNFPA and IPPF.]

"It is ... a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate. [JS: How does promoting abortion encourage this willingness? What about the majority of Chinese women who are willing to have another child, but will be denied one by an Obama-funded population control programme?]

It is chilling to note that the following information appeared on the White House website within minutes of Mr Obama's inauguration:

"Reproductive Choice

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

"Health Care

Supporting Stem Cell Research: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which will allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos donated (with consent) from in vitro fertilization clinics. These embryos must be deemed in excess and created based solely for the purpose of fertility treatment."

On the right-hand side of my blog I will be recording the life- and family-related actions of Mr Obama as US president. Please use this to keep up-to-date with the challenges that the pro-life movement will face in the coming years.

Joined up thinking about the unborn is needed at University College Dublin

Pat Buckley has spotted an important article on the unborn in the Irish Times.

"Emotional well-being begins before birth ... " writes Marie Murray, a director of psychology and the director of the Student Counselling Services in University College Dublin (UCD).

"Life begins not at birth but before it" she continues. "One piece of evidence for this is the way babies respond to voices, patterns of sounds, melodies and stories that they have heard prenatally when they are provided with those same sound sequences and experiences after birth".

In a good article in the Irish Times, she concludes: "Inevitably, some of the research on womb life has been exploited in educational programmes by those who promote prenatal education for intellectual advancement and advantage over others.

"But that is not the primary purpose of research on interuterine conditions. Rather than exploiting knowledge about life in the womb for competitive gain, this is information to be used to provide the most conducive environment for the development of human potential, happiness, security and love in order to lay down the psychological foundation that will support the child through all the developmental stages that lie ahead ... "

In the light of her obvious concern for the unborn (whose "life begins not at birth but before it ... " as she puts it) I do hope that Marie Murray does something about the deeply misleading information posted on the UCD Student Counselling Services about so-called "contraception".

In the UCD Student Counselling Service webpage on "Contraception Choices" the action of the intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) the coil is described as follows: "A small plastic and copper device is put into the womb. It works in several different ways – by stopping sperm from meeting the egg, by delaying the egg getting to the womb or by preventing the egg from settling in the womb." This description uses the word "egg" three times - in the first place to denote the unfertilised ovum and, in the second and third places, to denote a newly-conceived human being.

Children have no chance of developing their "human potential, happiness, security and love" if their very existence is obscured, so that students at UCD, perhaps unwittingly, experience an early, unrecognised abortion by using the IUCD.

A fuller description of the way IUCD works would be that it can: interfere with the ability of sperm to pass through the uterine cavity; or, interfere with fertilisation in the fallopian tube; or cause local inflammation in the uterine lining, inhibiting implantation if conception has occurred and thus can induce an early abortion.

Similarly, with other kinds of "contraceptive" drugs and devices, their abortifacient nature is not mentioned at all - for example, the implant, combined oral contraception, and injectable contraception. Fuller details of how such products work can be found here.

Joined up thinking about the unborn is needed at University College Dublin - and, undoubtedly, elsewhere in the academic world. Students are entitled to the full truth about the unborn, about when human life begins, and about the abortifacient nature of so-called contraceptive drugs and devices.

Signs of growth in youth support for pro-life movement in Britain

Almost every day I hear about young people initiating significant pro-life events and activities around the UK. There are signs of a growth in youth support for the pro-life movement. Watch this space for further developments - but here are two forthcoming events on which you may wish to spread the word.

Lucy McCully (pictured above to the right of Cathy McBean, manager of British Victims of Abortion) has written to me to say:

"Due to the phenomenal success of our first international conference, SPUC Scotland will be hosting the 2nd International Student Pro-Life Conference in 2009. This conference is an excellent opportunity for those aged between 17 and 35 years to network and socialise with fellow pro-lifers from around the world. This year our theme is ‘I Am Here’ and we will be putting a face to the common pro-abortion arguments by hearing from those behind the ‘hard cases’. Our keynote speaker will be international pro-life speaker, Rebecca Kiessling (below, right), who was conceived after her mother was raped. Rebecca will share her personal story and explain to us why she believes, 'Your value is not based on the circumstances of your conception.'

"Delegates will be given the opportunity to network with established pro-life organisations such as SPUC, Youth Defence (Ireland), Stand True (USA) amongst others. In addition we will also hear from professionals in the fields of International Law, Bioethics and Post Abortion Counselling.

"This weekend will be a unique, inspiring experience filled with educational opportunities, activities, socialising and most importantly lots of fun! If young people would like to attend this conference, please book in advance to avoid disappointment. You can register by contacting me at SPUC Scotland, 75 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 6TS Telephone: 0141 221 2094 or email me: lucy@spucscotland.org"

Next month the Oxford University ProLife Society, the Oxford University Newman Society, and the Catholic Society at the University of Oxford, are joining forces for a Fertility and Faith Conference on Saturday 21st February at 10.00am. The Oxford University Newman Society website states:

"Hosted by the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics in association with the Newman Society, the Catholic Society and the Pro-Life Society at the University Catholic Chaplaincy, Fr Tim Finigan, Anthony McCarthy and Ira Winter will give presentations, and there will be a panel discussion and Q&A session after lunch. If you are interested in finding out about the Church's teaching on fertility, infertility, marriage and love, please do come along. To book your free place, or for further information, please contact Stephen Barrie, Education Officer for the Linacre Centre on 01865 610 212, 020 72667410 or at stephen@linacre.org."

Voting list on European Parliament pro-abortion resolution: Spread the word

Further to my previous blog, check here for how MEPs voted, listed by country, on the pro-abortion resolution (the Catania report) passed on Wednesday by the European Parliament.

If you have pro-life contacts in any EU country, make them aware of this appalling resolution which calls for the recognition of a so-called right to abortion (despite the fact that not one international treaty or human rights court recognises any such right). Tell them to check and to spread the word on how their country's MEPs voted.

Please email immediately the MEPs for your region, either to congratulate them or to express your disappointment, on how they voted on the Catania pro-abortion resolution on Wednesday. You can find who the MEPs are for your region and their email addresses by following the links here , specifically by clicking on your region on the coloured map on the left of the page.

The Alliance Defence Fund, an organisation of pro-life lawyers, has published a most useful commentary on the resolution which you can find in full here.

Population explosion myth blamed for conflict in Gaza

Fiorella Nash's Monstrous Regiment of Women highlights an article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that suggests (as Fiorella describes it) "the current conflict is the fault of western aid agencies for allowing Palestinians to breed".

I worry that this kind of thinking in the brave new world of Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in US history, will be translated into more of the kind of major international policy developments which took place in the US in 1970.

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, writes:

"As the populations of developing countries began to grow after World War II, alarm bells sounded in the heads of many in the national security establishment ... Demographic projections, showing population spiking in the developing world, combined with falling birthrates in Europe, were viewed with foreboding. Hushed discussions in the corridors of power followed.

"When the US birthrate, robust until the early 1960s, headed south [down] a few years later, these discussions quickly took on an increasing urgency. One of the first official expressions of concern was a classified National Security Council Memorandum [NSSM 200] dated 10 August 1970. This memorandum, signed by President Richard Nixon's national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, stated that 'The US should recommend that the UN Fund for Population Activities undertake a study of world population problems and measures required to deal with them, as a top priority item in the Second Development Decade' ... The preoccupation of the US security establishment with population growth - seen as US security and economic interests - stands here revealed. At the same time, NSSM 200 is a blueprint for preserving the global economic, political, and military dominance of the United States. Believing that people mean power, and worried about the demographic decline of the West, these practitioners of realpolitik unapologetically sought to engineer a fertility decline among more prolific peoples. And they were fully prepared to deceive other countries into doing so with spurious arguments".

I recommend that you obtain a copy of Steven Mosher's seminal book Population Control - Real Costs, Illusory Benefits

A favourite Cherie Blair charity promotes abortion in Poland and Mexico

It seems that the letter I wrote last week to Cherie Blair (pictured) was timely. One of her favourite charities, Human Rights Watch, which has a radical pro-abortion agenda, has been busy promoting legal access to abortion in Poland and in Mexico. My letter asks Cherie Blair to drop her support of Human Rights Watch – and all the other leading pro-abortion organizations she backs.

The folly of the Angelicum, a leading Catholic university in Rome, in inviting Cherie Blair to speak on women and human rights, is becoming more obvious as the weeks pass. I do hope and pray that Mrs Blair has a change of heart. Once again, I invite those interested to join me in the prayer campaign for Cherie Blair and her husband, Tony Blair, and for Barack Obama, who is set to become the most pro-abortion president in US history.

Churches and pro-lifers must act following pro-abortion European Parliament vote

It's time for church leaders and pro-life groups throughout Europe to make the right to life the top political priority in their countries. MEPs voted today to approve a resolution calling on the European Union (EU) to promote abortion and same-sex unions throughout the EU. The resolution, authored by Giusto Catania of Italy's Communist Refoundation Party (logo pictured), is built on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, part of the Lisbon treaty, despite the fact that neither the charter nor the Lisbon treaty have been passed into law.

Anthony Ozimic, our political secretary at SPUC, says: "The resolution passed today is soft-law pressure for abortion to be made a right in every EU member-state. The resolution violates national laws on conscientious objection to abortion and on public funding for abortion. The resolution calls for the recognition of a so-called right to abortion - yet not one international treaty or human rights court has recognises any such right. Abortion is the most contentious issue at United Nations conferences and any attempt even to imply a right to abortion creates heated controversy between national delegations.

"Religious leaders and pro-life groups throughout Europe must shake off their complacency about the EU and mobilise religious believers for pro-life action. The message everyone must hear is that the right to life is the most important political issue, because the right to life is the indispensable foundation of all other rights. Failure to act will mean that countless millions of unborn children will die because of the EU's promotion of abortion both inside and outside Europe."

It is interesting to note Giusto Catania, the resolution's author, is a communist. Communism was one of the first modern movements to promote abortion. Soon after taking power in Russia, Lenin legalised abortion on demand in 1920.

If you're interested in helping SPUC's new political drive to make the right to life a top political priority, please contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

The hypocrisy of anti-life politicians who present themselves as Catholic

The leader of the majority Democrat party in the US House of Representatives has spoken of her continued support for government funding for human embryo research, and says she would support a law to enforce it. Ms Nancy Pelosi (right) claims she is an ardent practising Catholic.

Pope Benedict told the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life on 27th February 2006: "God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26) in each one… Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end."

How, then, does Ms Pelosi, justify her actions? The same question must be put to certain Catholic politicians listed in the Catholic Directory of England & Wales. The following MPs supported the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act at both second and third reading:

• Andy Burnham
• David Cairns
• Rosie Cooper
• Jim Cunningham
• Hugh Irranca-Davies
• Tommy McAvoy
• Paul Murphy.
  

This act allows the licensing of yet more procedures that will harm or kill embryos created in the laboratory. It extends the ways in which embryos can be artificially created and manipulated, and it makes it easier to change the law to extend objectionable procedures like cloning.

Some British Catholic politicians, and Ms Nancy Pelosi, seem to think they know more about the love of God than Pope Benedict. MPs who hypocritically call themselves Catholic have voted contrary to church teaching. After all, Pope John Paul began his 1995 encyclical on human life with: "The Gospel of life is at the heart of Jesus' message."

Act today to stop anti-life, anti-family EU resolution this Wednesday

This Wednesday the European Parliament will vote on a resolution which seeks to promote abortion and same-sex unions throughout the European Union. The resolution, authored by Giusto Catania, an Italian Communist MEP, calls upon EU member-states to guarantee access to "sexual and reproductive health and rights", a term which is often interpreted to include abortion on demand. The resolution also calls on EU member-states to recognise same-sex unions equally with (heterosexual) marriage. The full report can be read here.

The resolution should be rejected, because it threatens unborn children. The resolution repeats the usual calls by the pro-abortion lobby for more contraception, more sex education and more confidential advisory services. Providing these things, however, does nothing to decrease the numbers of abortions, sexually transmitted infections and teenage pregnancies, and may in fact serve to increase them. (For more information about this, see my blog citing the work of Professor David Paton.)

The resolution should also be rejected because it promotes an unauthentic model of the family, by seeking to impose upon EU member-states the recognition of same-sex unions. Although SPUC is not a religious organisation, we feel that both religious and non-religious pro-lifers can understand and appreciate the following words of the late Pope John Paul II:

"It is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not help the young to accept and experience sexuality and love and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection ... Only a true love is able to protect life." (Evangelium Vitae, 97)

Please email immediately the MEPs for your region, urging them to vote against the Catania resolution on Wednesday. You can find who the MEPS are for your region and their email addresses by following the links here , specifically by clicking on your region on the coloured map on the left of the page.

Time for a change of mind at Mencap

Mencap, which describes itself as the voice of learning disability, says that Britain's state health service is failing people with mental impairments. They write: "People with a learning disability get unequal healthcare. This is leading to people dying when their lives could have been saved." Now we learn that a hospital in southern England has apologised after Mr Martin Ryan (aged 43, pictured) who had Down's syndrome was left to starve to death.

Mencap is right to be concerned and I hope that the tragic occurrences which its report describes will cause it to reconsider its support for the Mental Capacity Act. This law enshrines lethal discrimination against the disabled and vulnerable. Things can only get better once we have that act repealed or significantly amended. Mencap needs to understand that the Mental Capacity Act is the problem under which food and fluids can be withdrawn with the intention of ending the patient’s life.

Catholic parents call Catholic Education Service "arrogant" and "undemocratic"

The National Association of Catholic Families (NACF) has sent an open letter, signed by a number of Catholic parents, to Ms Oonagh Stannard, the chief executive of the Catholic Education Service (CES) which accuses the CES of "arrogantly and undemocratically [attempting] to usurp our rights and challenge our moral authority as primary educators and protectors of our children".

The carefully annotated letter challenges the authority of the CES, calls on the CES to "unambiguously" follow the teaching of the Catholic Church worldwide and to reject "its own local hybridization with this State's ill concealed and discredited birth control policies".

Oonagh Stannard is pictured above with Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the CES chairman, (to the right) and Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.

Concerned Catholic parents everywhere should have the above letter drawn to their attention and take the action it recommends.

I am a Catholic parent who's appalled at the ambiguous policy of the Catholic Education Service regarding the presence in Catholic schools of Connexions which is committed to giving schoolchildren, under the age of 16, access to abortion and abortifacient birth control drugs and devices without parental knowledge or permission. I am delighted that NACF (in association with a number of Catholic parents) has taken this action.

Britain is facing a crisis in which an ideology of evil, including the promotion of abortion and other anti-life practices, and false concepts of human sexuality, directly threatens the common good. In light of this crisis, the CES policy, on behalf of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, is, to put it politely, inexplicable.

The Telegraph reported in November that the National Children bureau and Sex Education Forum have called for every 11 to 18-year-old in England to be able to receive advice on contraception, pregnancy tests and screening for sexually transmitted diseases between lessons. Such advice can include confidential access to abortion.

The thinking behind the conclusions of the NCB/SEF reports is clearly set out in the Sex and Relationships Education Framework, the “core document” of the Sex Education Forum. It is a document to which all Forum members agree in order to meet membership criteria as it makes clear on page 4. The Catholic Education Service is a member of the Sex Education Forum.

The NACF letter begins:

"Last week's Government statistics and BBC Panorama programme, Kids behaving Badly (5th January 2009) demonstrated the crisis of premature sexualisation of little children in our schools.

"In your capacity as Chief Executive of the Catholic Education Service (CES) you have given an interview in which you are reported to have said that the CES has welcomed Government plans to make Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) compulsory in all primary and secondary schools. This policy, we know, will corrupt innocent children and at the beginning of this new school term we publicly express our opposition to it based on the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.

"The NACF: We as Catholic parents who accept Catholic teaching on the natural inalienable rights and duties of parents, categorically reject, without reservation, your current position and that of your Board. With respect, neither you nor it has any credible standing on this matter. Parents do so as primary educators of their own children.

"The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. 'The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.' ' The right and the duty of parents to educate their children is primordial and inalienable.' (our emphasis) The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2221

"You speak about how you think compulsory sex education would work in Catholic primary schools and are reported to have said: 'You would expect that young children would need to learn about body parts, that simple sort of biology'.

"The NACF: The CES arrogantly and undemocratically attempts to usurp our rights and challenge our moral authority as primary educators and protectors of our children.

"[S]ince parents have conferred life on their children, they have a most solemn obligation to educate their offspring. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it.' (our emphasis)

The Documents of the Second Vatican Council "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; ... and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others.' (our emphasis) Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II N 36. Familiaris Consortio ... " Read on.

Birthday wish for Sir Stepen Wall, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's former principal adviser

Sir Stephen Wall, former principal adviser to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, 2004 - 2005, is 62 today, according to The Times. Happy birthday, Sir Stephen.

I have a birthday wish for Sir Stephen Wall, on behalf of those fighting to protect the lives of unborn children and the lives of vulnerable patients, particularly the elderly and disabled.

It's that next December,in the month before his birthday, he does not write in the Catholic media, or in any other publication, attacking the Church's teaching on the sanctity of human life. In doing so, he further undermines the right to life of the most vulnerable human beings, and betrays the Gospel message of the Church which entrusted him with such high office.

As Pope John Paul II put it in the first sentence of his encyclical Evangelium Vitae: "The Gospel of Life is at the heart of Jesus's message."

In December, 2007, he published a badly-informed article attacking the Church on IVF, contraception and on other matters; and last month, he attacked the Church's position on euthanasia in a letter to The Tablet. On 1st December, 2007, The Tablet published his article "Rendering Unto Caesar", in which he wrote:

"Last week, the Church in our own country was arguing that giving same-sex couples access to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) was wrong, because of the harm to be done by bringing fatherless children into the world. Yet this is the same Church which, by proclaiming the iniquity of artificial contraception, wills into the world millions of children who will never know true parental love of any kind ... The Church makes another mistake by giving pre-eminence to its concept of law and disregarding its duty of love. In the case of IVF, we are talking about couples who would not go through the heartache of the process unless they wanted, out of their love for each other, to bring a much-loved child into the world ... "

One of the many problems with Sir Stephen's thinking (only to be fully appreciated by reading his article to which I link above) is its implicit rejection of children who are not "much-loved"; the countless children killed by abortifacient "artificial contraception" - birth control drugs and devices which, according to the manufacturers, can prevent a newly-conceived embryo from implanting in the lining of the womb; and IVF – which gave birth to the first IVF child over thirty years ago – has led to over two million embryos discarded, or frozen, or selectively aborted, or miscarried or used in destructive experiments. (2,137,924 human embryos were created by specialists while assisting couples in the UK to have babies between 1991 and 2005, according to BioNews.)

The recently published Dignitas Personae spells out beautifully the fundamental ethical criterion used in the Catholic Church's teaching (in Donum Vitae) which is to be used to evaluate all moral questions arising from any procedures which involve the human embryo: the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. (Donum vitae, 1,1: 45 80 (1988), 79, cited in DP, n 4)

Dignitas Personae reiterates the ethical unacceptability of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) since “all techniques of in vitro fertilisation proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected, and discarded"(Dignitas Personae n 14); and it comments on the very high wastage of human embryos associated with IVF and related procedures. “In many cases the abandonment, destruction and loss of embryos are foreseen and willed" (Dignitas Personae, n 15)

I strongly recommend that Sir Stephen Wall studies this document in order to appreciate that love truly is at the heart of Church's proclamation of the Gospel of life; and that he looks at the compassionate, realistic alternative to IVF to be found in Naprotechnology which has grown to become a comprehensive branch of women’s health medicine, which respects both the natural fertility cycle and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Fortunately, Sir Stephen's letter to The Tablet last month was answered well by Dr Julian Hughes, as you can see below.

The Tablet, Letters, 20/27 December 2008

Palliative care has limits

My sister, Mary, died from cancer in early December. The day after her death there was a renewed surge of public interest in the question of assisted dying because of the first such death to be shown on British television.In February 2006, at the age of 67, my sister was found to have fluid in the lining of her lung and the fluid contained malignant cells. For the next two and a half years she underwent successive courses of chemotherapy, with little respite. She suffered hair loss, loss of feeling in her feet (makingwalking difficult), nausea and insomnia. But she did not lose her will to live and, when she was feeling well enough, she pursued her life as normally as anyone can who has a death sentence hanging over them and whose life is geared to the rhythms of a nasty disease.

At the end of November, my sister was found to have a perforated bowel. She was not strong enough to undergo a repair operation and, on the advice of her doctors and with her consent, treatment was stopped because it would have been pointless and painful and she was admitted to hospital for palliative care. She said that she hoped she could go out "on a pink cloud"and the palliative care team said they would do their best to achieve just that. In the event, she died exactly two weeks later.

Ever-increasing doses of morphine and other sedatives kept my sister's pain under control. But she was not at all times pain-free and she was certainly not free from distress. Some days before her death, when she was still able to whisper, she asked me, "When is this going to end? I cannot bear it much longer". At that point, had her carers had the power to give her an amount of morphine, or other drug, that would have peacefully ended her life she - and we - would have accepted with gratitude. Yet all of us were powerless under the existing law.

There is something hypocritical about the present law. It allows ever-increasing doses of morphine, which are undoubtedly a contributorycause of death, however precisely and clinically they are measured. Yet it does not allow the combined consent of the patient, family and medical advisers to foreshorten the period of pain and anguish. Is that the will of a loving God? I cannot bring myself to think so.

(Sir) Stephen Wall, London SW18

The Tablet, Letters, 3 January 2009

Yes to care, no to killing

Even those of us who are very inclined to agree with Clifford Longley’s arguments (20/27 December) about the dangers of autonomy as far as physician-assisted suicide is concerned cannot but be moved by Stephen Wall’s story about the sad death of his sister (Letters, 20/27 December). Nonetheless, Sir Stephen’s suggestions must be challenged.

Sir Stephen accepts that medication kept his sister’s pain under control, but goes on to say that she was not always pain-free and "certainly not free from distress". He says he cannot bring himself to think that this is the will of a loving God. He is right that we are confronted by a difficulty here, but it’s not one confined to palliative care. It’s the problem of evil generally: how does the loving God will any of the enormous suffering that occurs in the world? If we cannot answer this question, and understand to some degree the role of suffering in our lives, there are difficulties for our belief in the idea of a loving God.

Secondly, Sir Stephen suggests that ever increasing doses of morphine are "undoubtedly a contributory cause of death". Palliative physicians would rightly respond that morphine, when used for pain, even in high doses, does not cause death. And there is still the doctrine of double effect, that it is licit to do things, foreseeing their bad consequences, but intending good. This is a cause of much philosophical dispute, but the doctrine underpins quotidian medical decisions: I foresee side effects from all drugs, but I aim at some sort of good when I prescribe them.

Sir Stephen asserts that there is "something hypocritical about the present law". But the prohibition on ending innocent human lives remains a cornerstone of civil society, which would be removed by Sir Stephen’s call for euthanasia. My suggestion would be that we need better palliative care, not intentional killing.

In saying this, however, I suspect that the line between the two is often thin and indistinct in practice. Clinical judgements have to be finely made with a good deal of practical wisdom, courage and compassion. One fear about a change to the present law is that it would undermine the basis of such virtues.

(Dr) Julian Hughes, Newcastle upon Tyne

Support Helpers of God's Precious Infants to give witness to the evil of abortion

I mentioned last week a pro-life vigil on Wednesday, 21st January, in Maidstone, organized by the Helpers of God's Precious Infants, which will be of particular interest to Catholic supporters.

The same group is holding a vigil later that week, Saturday, 24th January at Buckhurst Hill in Essex and you can find details of Fr Finigan's blog here.

Abortion is a crime against humanity. Here's a group of people who, through their prayer and witness, are working to save mothers and babies from abortion; who refuse to allow the killing of babies in the cities and suburbs of Britain to be seen as normal and acceptable.

Tragically, through the unknown numbers of silent killings through abortifacient birth control drugs and devices - misrepresented by the manufacturers as contraception - acceptance of the killing of babies has spread right into the heart of the community, even of the church communities upon whom the pro-life movement depends for its support. With virtual total silence on the prophetic teaching of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae on the part of so many church leaders, though not all, no wonder there is such opposition on the part of church leaders to making abortion an issue in the general election. And yet nothing could be more important than the killing of 500 - 600 innocent children daily. Why are people, with the power to influence opinion in the country, failing to point out the most terrible abuse of human rights to have occurred in British history and to urge voters to judge parliamentary candidates accordingly? Imagine if the killing of born children were allowed by law and hundreds of politicians supported it! Wouldn't all other issues pale beside the importance of such a terrible enormity? Will someone please explain to me: what's the difference between unborn children and born children that we're prepared to treat them differently in this way?

I hope that the vital witness and prayers of the Helpers of God's Precious Infants - as they seek to give witness, save lives, and implore for God's help - is well supported. We must turn this country round, and pray for key groups and the spiritual leaders in this country of various faith groups, so that appropriate action is taken - politically, educationally, spiritually - to seek to stop the evil of abortion.

Anti-life Tony Blair's enduring political ambition is dangerous

Today’s Guardian (Tony Blair for President of Europe? Interview suggests he wants the job) explains why pro-lifers must keep pressing Tony Blair, the UK’s former Prime Minister and one of the world’s leading architects of the culture of death, on his refusal to repudiate the anti-life laws and policies he has steadfastly pursued throughout his political career.

He should not be allowed to shield himself from political scrutiny simply by being received into the Catholic Church and/or by virtue of his invitation to speak in Westminster Cathedral.

Since leaving office he has compounded his anti-life political record by reinforcing his pro-abortion links and I have recently challenged Cherie Blair, his wife, on her long track record in supporting anti-life and anti-family causes.

Tony Blair’s political ambition is dangerous and reception into the Catholic Church is proving no guarantee of a Pauline conversion. In fact thus far, the contrary seems to be case.

Open letter on abortion to Cherie Blair

I've sent the open letter below to Cherie Blair, about whose scandalous invitation to speak at a conference in the Angelicum (a leading Catholic university in Rome) I have blogged in recent weeks. I will let you know her reply.

8th January 2009

Open letter

Dear Mrs Blair,

I am writing to you further to your participation in the Angelicum university's conference on women and human rights.

Our supporters remain deeply concerned about the support you give to some of the world's leading pro-abortion organisations, including those to which I refer below.

Will you now state publicly your opposition to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Family Planning Association (FPA) UK, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW committee), considering that these organisations are among the world's most prominent promoters of legal access to abortion?

Will you state publicly that no country should interpret the reference to "reproductive rights" in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW convention) to include abortion?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Smeaton, SPUC national director

Autistic babies should not be killed. Period.

Under the headline “Autism test ‘could hit maths skills’” the BBC reports today that pre-natal testing for autism and the abortion of babies thought to be affected may not be far off.
In an interesting article, Professor Simon Baron-Cohen (pictured), the director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University, says that mathematical excellence and autism may be linked. He writes:

“ … assuming such a test is developed, we would be wise to think ahead as to how such a test would be used. If it was used to 'prevent' autism, with doctors advising mothers to consider termination of the pregnancy if their baby tested 'positive', what else would be lost in reducing the number of children born with autism? Would we also reduce the number of future great mathematicians, for example? … Caution is needed before scientists embrace prenatal testing so that we do not inadvertently repeat the history of eugenics or inadvertently 'cure' not just autism but the associated talents that are not in need of treatment.”

It’s not clear what Professor Simon Baron-Cohen means in his final sentence above. Is he sounding a warning against the eugenic killing of the disabled? Or is he concerned principally, or solely, as the BBC’s introductory paragraphs put it, that “caution is needed to ensure associated talents, like numerical abilities, are not lost if the test or a "cure" become available”? Or is Professor Baron-Cohen unaware that we already have repeated the history of eugenics – both in Britain and elsewhere in the world – in our determined pursuit of the extermination of the disabled (as Alison Davis who has spina bifida and who is the leader of No Less Human, makes abundantly clear in her paper “A disabled person’s perspective on eugenic abortion”)?

The killing of disabled babies is infinitely more significant than any loss of human skills and talents. Whilst the Professor’s article is interesting and thought-provoking, the BBC’s headline provides a chilling reminder of modern Britain – in which countless human beings are killed as though they’re rubbish, simply because they’re disabled, and people in the media worry about the possible loss of maths skills. Autistic babies should not be killed. Period.

Reasonable-minded citizens should be genuinely frightened of Mary Warnock

In Belfast last night, Dame Mary Warnock said that doctors who refuse to help terminally ill patients to kill themselves are “genuinely wicked”.

Last September, I noted Dame Mary Warnock’s view that people with disabling conditions have a duty to die prematurely.

And in November, she told the Irish that there is an “absolute moral obligation” to conduct embryonic stem cell research, and that a scientist who chose not to conduct it would be "failing in their moral duty".

I am genuinely frightened when I hear Dame Mary Warnock say these things. Her distorted reasoning has heralded changes in British law which have led to the killing of countless vulnerable human beings in Britain and overseas.

Go back nearly thirty years to July 1982: Her Majesty’s Government invited Mary Warnock to chair a Committee of Inquiry into the ‘social, ethical and legal implications of recent, and potential developments in the field of human assisted reproduction’. The report of that committee is called the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cmnd. 9314, London, 1984.

Follow carefully in the next paragraph the argument which her Committee used to justify lethal experiments on human embryos, up to the 14th day after conception, paving the way for the Government’s legislation in 1990 (which has been copied in many parts of the world):

"While, as we have seen, the timing of the different stages of development is critical, once the process has begun there is no particular part of the developmental process that is more important than another; all are part of a continuous process, and unless each stage takes place normally, at the correct time, and in the correct sequence, further development will cease. Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive. However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety.” (My emphasis)

In other words (my comments in red):

“ … once the process has begun … ”: Since this paragraph is all about allowing experiments up to the 14th day after conception, this phrase clearly refers to the moment of conception.

“ … there is no particular part of the developmental process that is more important than another … ”: the Warnock Committee admits there’s no special significance whatsoever (biological or philosophical) about the 14th day after conception, or any other day after conception. The significant thing is that a human life has begun.

“ … Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive … ”: Put plainly, whatever the age of the embryo or unborn child he or she should not really be killed.

“ … However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety … ” The Committee has decided to make a completely arbitrary decision in order to fool Parliament and the public into thinking that we have reached a profound conclusion based on weighty scientific evidence, and so we've plumped for 14 days. As Clarke and Linsey noted " … this is a clear case of extrinsic criteria being used to solve a problem which requires the determination of firm and unequivocal intrinsic criteria ... "(Clarke, P.A.B. and A. Linzey Research on Embryos: Politics, Theology and Law. Lester Crook, London, 1988, p. 26.)

On the basis of Dame Mary Warnock’s report, Parliament went on in 1990 to legalise destructive research on human embryos for the following purposes: promoting advances in the treatment of infertility; increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage; increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; developing more effective techniques of contraception; developing methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation; or for such other purposes as may be specified in regulations; and last year Parliament approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, amending the 1990 law, which approved the licensing of more procedures that will harm or kill embryos created in the laboratory and which extends the ways in which embryos can be artificially created and manipulated - including hybrid (animal-human) embryos.

So when Dame Mary Warnock says that doctors who won't kill their patients are "genuinely wicked", reasonable-minded citizens would be wise to genuinely frightened.

The Guardian newspaper's anti-life ideology made crystal clear

It is now crystal clear that there was an anti-life ideological agenda behind the Guardian's censorship of comments critical of Peter Singer (pictured), which I reported on here and here. The censored commentator "ContraSign" complained to the Guardian and ContraSign has copied to me the correspondence (ContraSign in black, Guardian in red):

Dear [ContraSign],

Thanks for getting in touch. Your comment was removed for misrepresenating our author's views, and also for making an ad hominem attack: "Peter Singer, who supports infanticide and euthanasia, is no person to lecture anyone about saving human lives". Both of these fall foul of our community standards, which can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/talkpolicy

Regards,

James
Moderator

Dear James,

Many thanks for your reply. Firstly, may I ask, in what way did my comment mispresent the author's views? Peter Singer's support for infanticide, euthanasia and eugenics is widely and authoritatively documented, and in my estimation they would, if fully implemented, lead to the deaths of many more human beings than those possibly attributable to Mr Mbeki.

Secondly, may I ask why you consider my comment to be an ad hominem attack? I did not attack Peter Singer as a person, I questioned his locus standi in a debate about saving human lives, because his views on infanticide, euthanasia and eugenics make his attack on Mbeki hypocritical. My comments re Singer are similar to those of Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal re Singer to the organisers of a Swedish book-fair in 1997: "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Thirdly, why did you deem my comments as mispresentations and ad hominem, but not those of "stevehill" on the Pope (or for that matter those of "nightships": "Mbeki most likely has AIDS himself and as usual the control freak, malignant narcissists, chronic scapegoater, uncorrectable grab bagger in denial, has sacrificed millions others with coercion, reckless abandon and impunity to promote his own out/hypocrite self image of good. Unfortunately the SOB is not alone. At this time and stage of world history there are one too many SOB like him. The top of the list starts with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, mata hari Condi Rice, Tony Blair, Brown, Saddam. The Kenyan Presidents the current and Arap Moi, Robert Mughabee, Castro, A. Sharone, the Pakistani strong man Musarraf, to name a few.")

May I suggest that you have made an editorial misjudgement, reflecting the Guardian's support for its author Peter Singer and his views? As "Rapido" posted:

"Justification is that the comment criticised eugenics, infanticide and euthanasia and linked in Peter Singer's documented support of all three. Not allowed here. They only allow the Pope and Thabo to be called killers."

I look forward to hearing from you,

[ContraSign]

Hi [ContraSign],

Thanks for your reply. While Peter Singer may indeed provide a philosophical justification for regarding the killing of newborns as less problematic than the killing of other human beings, this does not amount to advocating infanticide. As your comment conflated the two, it carried potential legal problems and, in such cases, we have to err on the side of caution.

Best wishes,

Todd
(Community Moderator)

Dear Todd,

Many thanks for your reply. Sorry, Todd, I didn't conflate the two: it is abundantly clear from Peter Singer's own words (see http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm and many other places online and in print) that he advocates legal permission for infanticide (as well as euthanasia, and eugenics generally), because he believes that killing certain newborns (and certain other human beings) is morally permissable, and at least as good as, and sometimes better, than not killing them. Your assertion that:

While Peter Singer may indeed provide a philosophical justification for regarding the killing of newborns as less problematic than the killing of other human beings, this does not amount to advocating infanticide

is your rebuttable opinion, not fact. I don't see how publishing my comment could have caused legal problems for the Guardian - my interpretation of Singer's position is fair comment, and one which has been made online and in print all over the world for years. I await a reply to my second (re "ad hominem") and third (re the Pope and other figures) points.

Kind regards,

[ContraSign]

Hi [ContraSign],

The reason for your comments removal was the potential legal issue that arose. There is, indeed, a difference between advocating legal permission for infanticide (as you state below) and advocating infanticide (as your comment stated). The comment may have been an interpretation of Singer's position, but it was stated as fact, and out of context, which is where the legal problem arose.

Best wishes,

Todd
(Community Moderator)

Dear Todd,

Many thanks for your further reply. I really can't see how there could have been a potential legal issue. Countless times over recent decades, online and in print, all over the world, people have stated as fact Peter Singer's position in exactly the way that I did, and no legal issues have arisen. (In any case, Singer is clear in his work "Should the baby live?" (OUP, 1985) that new-borns in certain circumstances should be killed.) May I suggest that your assertion that

There is, indeed, a difference between advocating legal permission for infanticide (as you state below) and advocating infanticide (as your comment stated)

and the deletion of my comments reflects the Guardian's own rebuttable opinion that pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion/infanticide? To advocate legal permission for infanticide is to advocate for and support infanticide. There is no effective or real difference between the two: it is a distinction without a difference. Your deletion of my comments denied Guardian readers the opportunity to challenge me on these points. My comments were not out of context: the context was an article in which Peter Singer expressed opinions about personal responsibility for lives which may be, or may have been, saved or lost as the consequence of an individual's ideas. My comments addressed the same subject and the credibility of Peter Singer's opinions on it. I still await a reply to my second (re "ad hominem") and third (re the Pope and other figures) points.

Kind regards,

[ContraSign]

Vatican heaps more praise on Bishop O'Donoghue's defence of Humanae Vitae

I have often mentioned the prophetic significance of Catholic church teaching on the separation of the unitive and the procreative in the conjugal act - as expressed in Humanae Vitae. I believe that the rejection of this teaching both inside and outside the church has led directly to the catastrophic devaluation of the sanctity of human life both inside and outside the womb - as well as to the provision of secret abortions, without parental knowledge or consent, to schoolchildren under the age of 16, (including in Catholic schools not least as a result of the ambiguous policy of the Catholic Education Service in England and Wales).

It's therefore extremely good to hear of the Vatican heaping yet more praise on Bishop O'Donoghue, the bishop of Lancaster, (pictured top) and his powerful promotion of the Church's teaching in Humanae Vitae in Fit for Mission: Church?

Last month it was the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who gave the bishop's teaching document strong backing.

Now, Cardinal Antonelli (pictured right), the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has added his warm commendation. Very pointedly, Cardinal Antonelli points to the exact page in Bishop O'Donoghue's Fit for Mission: Church in which he sets out some of the disastrous social consequences - for families, for young people and for respect of the sanctity of human life - of rejecting, arguably, the Catholic Church's most important encyclical letter of the 20th century.

The Cardinal writes:

"The section on Marriage and Family Life is also well done and a good response to the perils of the philosophy of gender which is so widespread nowadays. Your underlining the importance of Self-Gift is also very pertinent as well as giving explicit example and statistics (p.69) regarding the consequences of the culture of death that surrounds us, is also useful in bringing home the point. The encouragement to deepen the notion of the Theology of the Body is also a sound idea to be encouraged."

So let's see what Bishop O'Donoghue says about the consequences of separating the unitive and procreative nature of sexual love on page 69 of Fit for Mission: Church?

"10.6.2 The Current Situation

"The following statistics provide a snap shot of the health of marriage in our country:

• There were 17.1 million families in the UK in 2006.
• Most families are headed by married couples (71%), although the proportion of cohabiting couple - families increased from 9% in 1996, to 14% in 2006.
• The average number of children per family in the UK has dropped - from 2.0 in 1971 to 1.8 in 2006.
• There were 148,141 divorces in 2006.
• Marriages in England andWales fell by 4% to 236,980 in 2006, the lowest marriage rate since records began in 1895. Religious marriage ceremonies only accounted for 44% of marriages in 2006.

"I believe a reliable indicator of the health of marriages is how it impacts on the well-being of children.

• More than a quarter of British under-16s regularly feel depressed. (UNICEF)
• Around 13 per cent of girls and 10 per cent of boys between 13 and 15 years old suffer from mental health problems. (UNICEF)
• More than 1,300 mentally ill children are currently being treated on adult psychiatric wards. (UNICEF).
• The NHS reports that between 2006-2007, 4,241 children under 14 attempted to commit suicide.
• 193,700 unborn children were killed through abortion in 2006; a rise of 3.9%.
• 2,000 potentially handicapped children were killed by their parents through abortion in 2006.
• A total of 40,244 abortions were carried out on girls aged between 15 and 19 years in 2006.
• 3,990 abortions were carried out on girls aged under 16 - the age of consent – in 2006.
• Teenage pregnancy rates for girls under 18 in England and Wales in 2003 was 42.3 conceptions per 1,000 girls.

"These statistics reveal the shocking depth and extent of the suffering and impoverishment of so many families and children due to the separation of the unitive and procreative nature of sexual love, and the wide-spread practice of pre-marital sexual behaviour. I am convinced that there must be profoundly damaging consequences for the family in a country where contraception and abortion are so wide-spread. No wonder so many children are suffering depression and mental illness in a country that is such a hostile environment for human life. Nowonder divorce is so prevalent when family life is so often characterised by a lack of generosity or self-giving love.

"10.6.3 Proclaim the Theology of the Body

"We, the Catholic Church, must be more confident and proactive in presenting our rich and fulfilling understanding of marriage, sexual love and the family. The strength of the Church’s doctrine of the inseparability of sexual love and procreation is that it respects the unity between the spiritual and biological dimensions of humanity. Personal meaning is informed by the biological meaning of the human body, which Pope John Paul II calls ‘the language of the body’.

"The Catholic theology of the body understands the meaning of married, sexual love as follows (cf.WilliamMay, Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, p. 68-69):

"The Unitive Meaning: Husband and wife become personally ‘one flesh’ in and through sexual intercourse, renewing the covenant they made during the sacrament of marriage. The marital act expresses their sexual complementarity: the husband’s body, which expresses his person as male, has a ‘nuptial significance’, for he is so structured to give himself to his wife by entering into her body, and so give himself to her. The wife’s body which expresses her person as female, also has a nuptial significance, for she is so structured to receive his body into herself, and in receiving him, to give herself to him.

"The Procreative Meaning: In becoming ‘one flesh’ – through the sacrament of marriage – husband and wife also become one complete organism capable of generating human life. Precisely because they are married, they have capacitated themselves – according to revelation – to be co-creators with God in a way that responds to the dignity of persons – self-giving love that is faithful and permanent.

"As a people, culture and Church, we must get over misplaced shyness about sexual matters which inhibits us from spreading the Church’s positive and personal vision of sexual love. We cannot leave this area of human life to the purveyors of pre-marital sex and so called safe sex to the detriment of families and young people. As I wrote in Fit for Mission? Schools, continence outside marriage and fidelity in life-long marriage are the only true and secure ways of protecting our families and young people from physical and psychological harm, such as STDs, HIV/AIDS, cervical cancer, psychological lack of self esteem and an inability to express love.

"I recommend that clergy and parents study and teach the theology of the body. I recommend the following:
• John Paul II, The Theology of the Body, Boston: Pauline Books, 1997.
• Theology of the Body for Teens programme. www.tobforteens.com
• Christopher West, Theology of the Body for Beginners, Ascension Press, 2004. Theology of the Body
Explained, Pauline Books, 2003; Good News about Sex andMarriage, Questions and Answers, Charis Books, 2000."