Abortion time limit fight 'is like battle to abolish slavery'
This is nonsense.
If the proposal before Parliament were for the total abolition of abortion, there may be some grounds for such a comparison. Or if Wilberforce had ever argued that slaves ought to be part-time captives, or that slave owners ought to decrease incrementally year by year the number of slaves they owned, there might be grounds for such a comparison.
But Parliament is not contemplating the abolition of abortion, and Wilberforce proposed no such compromise on slavery.
Wilberforce was absolute on the full humanity and equality of those who were enslaved. For him this was a known known. But Parliament is faffing around and arguing the toss over such unknown unknowns as when an embryo becomes a foetus, when a foetus becomes a baby, and when any of them become sentient or ‘ensouled’. Many of those MPs who are the most vocal in their laudable campaign to reduce the abortion time limit are manifestly not opposed to abortion per se, still asserting the primacy of the ‘rights' of the
It is absurd to assert that anyone can know beyond doubt that a baby aborted at 20 weeks feels pain while one aborted at 19 weeks does not.
But CARE does not assist the Christian cause when they state that ‘supporters of abortion rights believe unborn babies are not fully human, just as plantation owners justified their ownership of African slaves by claiming they should not be treated as men’.
There are very many proponents of abortion who believe unborn babies are fully human, but they quite straightforwardly reason and conclude a moral argument for the superior rights of the mother, who is also fully human, and who wishes to eradicate the parasite which is feeding on the host. That fully human beings may be parasitic is not in doubt. Many of the worst offenders are usually to be found at Westminster sitting on the Labour benches.
CARE is equally fatuous in their assertion that ‘the similarity between (abortion and slavery) shows how little English society has progressed since the 19th century’.
Have these people entertained for one moment what it was really like to live in Victorian England - to experience society before Barnardo, before Shaftesbury, before Fry; before a myriad of inspirational individuals and societal developments which have manifestly ameliorated society a thousandfold?
Yet CARE does have a point when they state that both struggles are about ‘what it means to be human’. For what is not fully human has no need to be treated as human. That might at one time have been the negro, while now it is the developing baby in its mother’s womb.
If the battle to abolish slavery was about recognising that all men are made in the image of God, the battle over abortion is about recognising that life begins at conception. The fertilised ovum is sacred not because of its potential, but because of its being. It is human not because of what it will be, but because of what it is.
As the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill comes again before Parliament on Wednesday, let us hope that MPs will reject any relaxation of the abortion laws.
And let us go on praying that sometime from somewhere a latter-day Wilberforce might arise who will lead a campaign to abolish abortion altogether, for it is a stain on the conscience of humanity, and a fearful offence against God.