Monday, July 30, 2007

Abortion: ‘a conveyor belt which is impossible to stop’

Cranmer has been told numerous times that religion and politics do not mix, or should not mix, or that the Church should play no part in government, but there are some issues (and an increasing number) where the two are inseparably fused. Abortion is one such. Last year, 635,679 babies were born in the UK, and 194,000 abortions were performed. 23.3 per cent of all pregnancies last year therefore ended in abortion, and the proportion is increasing. The 1967 Abortion Act was never meant to be used as retroactive contraception, and neither was it passed to give women ‘rights’. It was in response to a public health problem, and the law gave the rights and responsibility for decision making to doctors. The Act did not legalise abortion per se, but allowed for exceptions to its illegality.

Yet there is a disturbing story in The Guardian which exemplifies the extent to which abortion has become society’s norm. It tells of a woman who was forced by an NHS trust to have an abortion despite her attempts to withdraw her consent, and despite her repeated attempts to have her questions answered. The Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, Essex, has agreed to pay £27,500 to her by way of compensation, for aborting her unborn baby against her will.

It beggars belief that a woman about to undergo what must be a profoundly traumatic experience was not handled in a sympathetic and understanding manner. She enquired quite specifically as to whether the procedure ‘would be traumatic for the foetus’, but answer came there none. Of course there wasn’t. One only has to view photographs of terminations to discern that ‘trauma’ isn’t the half of it. She was carted off to theatre ‘upset and tearful’, and there her child’s life was terminated, against her will, against her conscience, and against the purposes of God. It was, she said, as if she was ‘on a conveyor belt which was impossible to stop’.

This ought to have been classed as murder. Despite the acceptance of the out-of-court settlement, £27,500 ‘compensation’ is wholly inadequate. Is that really the value of a baby? A child has been killed by over-zealous medical practitioners, and there is to be no police investigation, no arrests, and no trial. Instead, the Princess Alexandra hospital has apologised for ‘shortcomings in the care’.

So that’s alright then.

16 Comments:

Anonymous James said...

I wish you were Catholic again Thomas; your service to God and to man would be awesome.

30 July 2007 at 11:39  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr James,

His Grace never ceased being Catholic, as you well know. Indeed, he was the last Archbishop of Canterbury to be appointed by a pope.

The Church of England considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and as being both Catholic and Reformed.

It is His Holiness who recently reiterated that this is not the case. While you may be inclined to accord with this view, it was not an ex Cathedra assertion, and therefore (at the very least) open to scrutiny.

His Grace assures you that he is most definitely part of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

30 July 2007 at 11:59  
Anonymous 16words said...

His Grace should take heart that we are all upset by this sad story. But it is in the nature of systems that they fail in the most awful ways. Criminal justice is another case in point. We know from DNA testing that many innocents have been wrongly convicted. Capital punishment (or administrative post-natal abortion) is still practiced in less civilised parts of the world. But particular systems failures do not invalidate the need that the system serves, either for justice or for abortion

Abortion provides benefits (arguably) to the prospective mother's existing and future children:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

The benefits are compelling. Hand-wringing and propogandising will not refute them.

30 July 2007 at 12:25  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

16Words

I could not disagree with you more; there is not a single benefit from ending the life of a child in its mother’s womb, not one under any circumstances, all such action is detrimental to all parties involved in an abortion, including society at large.

"Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some another.” Malcolm Muggeridge

30 July 2007 at 12:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect<<

And the act of abortion is NOT a crime in itself?

Pure moral relativism. crass ideas from academia working its way down to the masses, such as the guy kicked to death at the tram stop close to where i live a few months ago by a gang of feral kids, when you remove social norms in the name of tolerance and understanding you let rip the animal in man..and abortion is one social norm that costs us all dear.

And no I am an atheist before you start.

30 July 2007 at 13:25  
Anonymous A-Team said...

"Yet there is a disturbing story in The Guardian which exemplifies the extent to which abortion has become society’s norm. It tells of a woman who was forced by an NHS trust to have an abortion despite her attempts to withdraw her consent, and despite her repeated attempts to have her questions answered. The Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, Essex, has agreed to pay £27,500 to her by way of compensation, for aborting her unborn baby against her will."

In America it is still reasonably well understood that Socialism implies a loss of personal liberty. Back here over the Atlantic people are being turned into Eloi (go search).

In other words, "He who pays the piper calls the tune", when you don't pay - because the NHS is FREE - the NHS can do all kinds of things to you without your permission.

30 July 2007 at 14:38  
Blogger Hanson said...

"23.3 per cent of all pregnancies last year therefore ended in abortion"
Shocking. A very interesting article.

30 July 2007 at 17:40  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

16words
"The benefits [of abortion] are compelling."
Murderers usually do see compelling benefits in what they do, but that has nothing to do with the rightness of their actions.

30 July 2007 at 18:24  
Blogger Steven_L said...

Filthy, disgusting socialists, we need a George W Bush. As an adopted bloke I hate gay adoption and even moreso abortion. The only gay adopted bloke I know hates them both too.

Filthy, filthy disgusting devil-worship in the name of 'choice' and 'equality'.

31 July 2007 at 01:07  
Blogger Steven_L said...

Ahhhhh! Isn't threr something in the Bible about this, one moment, I'll be less lazy and dig it out:

"13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not suprising then that his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."

Yes, New Labour and their minions will be cast into the put of fire and brimstone!!!

31 July 2007 at 01:16  
Blogger Steven_L said...

Sorry, reference: Corinithians 11:13-15

31 July 2007 at 01:18  
Blogger A S Grey said...

One can see just from the above comments that abortion is a controversial issue because it appeals not only to the rational (i.e. which uses reason) side of ethics, but the emotional side too. (By 'rational' I mean that which uses reason, I am not suggesting emotion is 'irrational' in the sense of being absurd or not cohering with social norms).

Whilst reading His Grace's article questions of liberty, freedom, ethical principles, etc. crossed my mind, but what overwhelmed these intensely was the anger I felt on behalf of this poor mother, and the poor child.

Sadly this country is so pro "women's rights" (e.g. a woman shouldn't have to use contraception because she has the right to go and have a growing baby killed instead), that they seem to think unborn children do not have any. There is abundant evidence that so-called 'embryos' and 'foetuses' feel pain and emotion.

One would think that the birth of a 21-week old baby, perfectly well and living, would have opened the eyes of doctors. Clearly not.

I wonder just what it will take for God to wake these people up...

31 July 2007 at 18:31  
Anonymous Neo said...

Quite aside from the principles and questionable ethics of abortion, what - may I ask - was stopping the mother from walking away?

It is safe to presume her judgement was shrouded, however did she, at any point, explicitly signal her desire to not have the abortion?

Do not misconstrue this to be a defence of the medical practitioners who may or may not have acted unprofessionally, rather a scepticism towards the presumption that said young lady was entirely coherent in her dealings with the doctor(s).

31 July 2007 at 21:05  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

Not withstanding my previous comment and based on the news reports about this case, the woman in question does not appear to object on conscientious grounds let alone any religious conviction to her treatment. There seems no mention of a father to her existing children, not that this is unusual today, and seems quite ready to tell her tail of woe at mistreatment in her childhood to gain sympathy. The though arises that she is just in it for the money, egged on by some avaricious unscrupulous lawyer whose cards and services for medical malpractice are freely and abundantly available on many hospital notice boards.

1 August 2007 at 09:43  
Anonymous billy said...

I was once an ambulance man and I had to attend a woman who had naturally aborted at 20weeks. The foetus was perfectly formed and I have not been able to believe since that medical abortion is right.
It is murder of the undefended.

1 August 2007 at 23:56  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...

I think the splendid US columnist Ann Coulter
put the matter in perspective when she pointed out that abortion is the only " Constitutional Right" which it's advocates resolutely fight to ensure it is kept utterly from the public gaze.

3 December 2010 at 17:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older