Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Nadine Dorries: the churches are ‘pathetic, weak and cowardly’

Ed West wrote an excellent article last week on Nadine Dorries MP, concerning a matter which was largely ignored by most of the left-leaning, abortion-promoting MSM (pace The Independent).

One does indeed have to admire her bravery in walking a very lonely path to talk about abortion and its impact on women.

As a qualified nurse, she has experienced first-hand the horrors of the barbarism: “It’s something that has stuck with me my whole life,” she says. “I can still smell the sluice stream. I can still hear the sluice machine while I stood by the bed, watching this child die in the bedpan.”

And when you read stories like this one, you would be wise to consider the question of abortion again and again. For we are not simply sacrificing foetuses to Molech, and neither are we concerned with a bunch of parasitical cells feeding off the host.

We are talking about our babies.

Nadine Dorries is right to point out that abortion is viewed as a form of contraception, ‘rather than the ending of a life, or a potential life’. In the lustful passion of a fleeting moment, who cares about contraception when you can always ‘get rid of it’?

And now we move to the era of ‘DIY abortions’: Vera Drake has become the cornerstone of the family and a pillar of the community. But at least she was present to comfort those girls who were ‘in trouble’. The ‘DIY’ development means ‘very young girls going home with a couple of tablets alone in their bedroom, to experience pain in a way they have never experienced’.

Imagine it: you get a pre-natal indication that your baby may be suffering from Downs, so off you trundle back home, tablets in hand, to terminate the abnormality and prevent a ‘wrongful life’.

Ms Dorries’ analysis of how ‘Broken Britain’ came about is astute:
The problem is the churches have withdrawn. Where I grew up the priest was king. We were scared of priests – the same with the vicars. The Church played a very important role. The Church set boundaries. So did schools, doctors, district nurses. But the Church withdrew, the state became anonymous and society went into freefall. One of the things about the Big Society is to try to put those boundaries back.

But the Church has to step up to the plate. Although they get involved in charitable works they tend to be on the state-funded fringes and I’m not talking about that type of role. I’m talking about a micro level. I’m talking about priests working with communities and admitting to a level of authority they used to.

Charity has been eroded, it’s just become another arm of the state. The Catholic Church has had a huge beating and it has to recover from that. Maybe the Big Society and the opportunities it presents to the Catholic Church may be part of the healing process for the Church.
While His Grace has no desire at all to return to the era when the priest was king (no, indeed), he does regret the loss of respect for authority, reverence for institutions and admiration for moral conviction, honest industry and personal achievement.

But when the authorities prove to be liars and the institutions corrupt, it is perhaps no wonder that respect evaporates and cynicism pervades. And into this vacuum moves the relativity of a libertarian anarchy: the right of each to be as he wishes, believes as he wants, define as he wills; the deification of quantum mechanics and the assertion that we are but random atoms in pursuit of our individual interest to the detriment of the collective provision.

In 2008, Nadine Dorries campaigned almost single-handedly to reduce the abortion time limit to 20 weeks.

Today she leads the ‘Right to Know’ campaign, which focuses on giving women the objective facts about abortion and placing before them the alternatives. All across Europe, there is legislation requiring informed consent, and these countries have significantly lower abortion rates.

In the UK, there is no requirement in law for women to be informed about the abortion procedure or the alternatives. It is to be observed that the Government only funds abortion providers if the abortion proceeds. And yet it is these same providers which are entrusted to counsel vulnerable and often emotional women before the procedure is carried out.

And so we abort on average 200,000 babies every year.

That amounts to 572 abortions per day.

It is a boom industry, with some companies making many millions of pounds from the taxpayer through NHS referral.

Ms Dorries says: “Women don’t know that they have a 30 per cent chance of experiencing mental health problems after having an abortion. They don’t know there are links with various other medical conditions. They are given no advice. If you want to continue with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption you are not given support or help. They are just spoken to and channelled straight in to an abortion clinic where they have their abortion in a factory-like manner, then ejected into the street, given no follow-up, no support, no kindly words of help or advice and only provided with any degree of counselling after the abortion if they’ve already signed and agreed to continue.”

She concludes: “The way abortion takes place in this country is an abuse of women.”

Ed West observes:
Those unfamiliar with the world of blogs and social networking site Twitter will not fully appreciate how much hatred Dorries attracts over this issue, the majority of which seems to come from men, who devote an almost demented amount of time tapping at keyboards explaining why they hate this woman. “What have I done to justify this level of vitriol?” Dorries asks. “What’s it about? The only controversial issue I’ve ever taken up is abortion, and that’s the only hook to hang it on.”
Yet it is to be observed that Ms Dorries is neither pro-choice nor pro-life: like the Church of England, she takes a via media on the issue. Which is why she finds it hard to understand why anyone might disagree with her on the question of ‘informed consent’.

The problem is the polarisation of each camp into caricatures: if you’re ‘pro-life’, you’re a frothy-mouth Palin-supporting signed-up member of the bigoted ‘religious right’; if you’re ‘pro-choice’, you’re part of a satan-worshipping death cult, intent on murdering the first-born on the altars of women’s rights and sexual liberty.

And so, as Ms Dorries observes, both sides are ‘ghettoised’ on the issue.

In the world, we bear the consequences of the apotheosis of man. Non-believers do not have comfort or hope. The descent of this debate into tawdry and emotional exchanges of venom is unseemly but only to be expected. It has merely become one of many battles for hegemony in a society of relative values and perverted ideals, where fox-hunting is deemed more evil than abortion, where Christians are mocked and where Muslims are tyrants and where pragmatism tops truth.

But there is one aspect of Ed West’s article which both saddened and surprised His Grace: the withdrawal of the churches from supporting Ms Dorries’ pursuit. She says: “I need religious support. It is our core support. I need the churches being more involved, and the churches have been pathetic, pathetic, during the abortion debate in their support for what I was trying to do.

“The Church of England was the worst and the only person in the Catholic Church who made any comment was Cardinal O’Brien. Everybody was silent because the churches were weak and cowardly in their position.

“I was even told by one envoy from the Church (of England) that Psalm 139 was ‘just poetry’. Weeks later they timidly came out and squeaked their words of support, which were no use to me at this point. The churches have really angered me during this debate.”

It was in this context that His Grace sent Ms Dorries a message of encouragement, and she tweeted the response which hangs in His Grace’s ‘citation’ column:
“His Grace is of course unlike any other and had he been alive today, the situation would have been very different.”
Indeed it would have been. For either in the pulpit, on the green benches or in the Upper House, His Grace would stand ashes-to-shoulder with Nadine Dorries in this pursuit. There is no greater evil in contemporary society than the systematic murder of our unborn, with the complicity of Parliament, assent of the Monarch and complacency of the Church.

It comes as no surprise that the Church of England ‘was the worst’. Ms Dorries identifies the cause: 'The Liberal Synod contains many cowards who focus on the "hip" issue of the day and not what is relevant to congregations.'

But where was the Evangelical support? Why was Cardinal O’Brien the only person in the Roman Catholic Church to support Ms Dorries?

Do these churches find Ms Dorries somehow unacceptable? Are they awaiting a sinless and blameless saint to make the same legislative proposals?

If the aggressively secularing trend continues to inhibit expressions of Christian orthodoxy in political debate and marginalise Christians from the public sphere, they will be waiting for quite some time, if not forever.

And while they wait, we will continue to set up our detestable idols in the house that bears His Name, and defiled it. We will build the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn our sons and daughters in the fire…

We have become a ‘stiff-necked’ people who will not listen to God's words. We have forsaken God to serve other gods even to the extent that we would sacrifice our own children, spilling 'the blood of the innocent’.

Mannaseh's grandson Josiah tried to bring about reformation among the Israelites. After renewing the Covenant between God and His people, Josiah ‘desecrated Topheth which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to make his son or daughter pass through the fire to Molech’ (2Kgs 23:10).

The State may need another Churchill.

The Church may need another Luther.

Parliament may need another Wilberforce.

But the unborn cry out for a Josiah.

113 Comments:

Anonymous Stuart said...

Powerful, powerful post, one of your best ever.

25 January 2011 at 10:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On a tedious factual point. It is only the 2nd pill that is taken at home not 2 pills.

This is exactly the procedure that has existed for sometime for patients suffering natural abortion. They strongly prefer to do it this way. Why should those having a clinical abortion be treated differently and denied home comforts, other than as some form of misguided punishment?

25 January 2011 at 10:46  
Blogger Tom said...

@Anonymous: I don't think that was the point at all. Though I'm sure His Grace will defend himself if he feels the need, the article is calling for abortion to been considered as a serious matter, and that the Church should be saying SOMETHING.

25 January 2011 at 10:52  
Anonymous Asian Colonial Subject said...

Your Grace is clearly in top form. Excellent post.

25 January 2011 at 11:31  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I have two friends within my Church. One has Downs Syndrome, the other Cerebral Palsy; they are two of the happiest people I know. They have lit up the congregation with both their presence and faith. They and their friends who share a Residential Home are a delight to be with and I never leave without feeling enriched by two lovely people made in the image of God.

Those who speak of 'wrongful life" are truly Hitlerian in their views, when they speak of my friends in that fashion. Such talk would not be tolerated against any other section of the population.

25 January 2011 at 11:32  
Anonymous Justin Hinchcliffe said...

Your Grace, as you have noted, Ms Dorries is NOT pro-Life; she does not oppose abortion per se as she doesn't believe that Life start from natural conception? I can't be dealing with people like her, sorry.

25 January 2011 at 11:36  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Although I hate to admit it, I have to agree with Ms Dorres.
Apart from many of your Grace's communicants, it seems that many Christians are unsure of what or who to believe, this spirit of timidity seems to prevail in many fellowships.
We need bold leaders to ground the saints in the word & feed us with meat instead of the milk diet that we have subsisted on for so long. Then we may grow Christians of the calibre of your Grace who will stand & speak for the helpless, the defenceless & the weak.
The time is ripe before this once great Country slides finally into a bottomless slough of licentious despond from which there is no return.

25 January 2011 at 11:38  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I suggest that if there had been few or no abortions over the past 3 or 4 decades then our country would be populated with sufficient younger people and we would not have had to put up with the influx of immigrants who are supposedly here because of our aging population.

25 January 2011 at 11:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Brilliant! Thank you.

If only our vicars would speak like this from the pulpit on a Sunday morning - what a people we would become.

If only.

25 January 2011 at 12:00  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

D Singh. "If only our vicars would speak like this from the pulpit on a Sunday morning - what a people we would become."

Unfortunately our modern vicars in the C of E and other denominations do not believe the Bible's teaching.
The whole 'gender' debate and toleration of homosexuality within the church can only be accounted for through the acceptance of the delusion of post-modernity. The view that all viewpoints are valid. There is no objective truth, and to assert Biblical truth is undue dogmatism and alien to 'toleration and love'.

Nothing is further from the truth which is that the whole of society is now engaged in an unprecedented attempt to rebuild itself deliberately and self consciously without religious (that is Biblical) foundations.
The bottom line of this endeavour is that truth in any absolute sense has been abandoned.
Its a cliche, but still true. If you don't believe God, you will believe anything, whether you wear a vicar's collar or an episcopal cloak.

25 January 2011 at 12:12  
Blogger Rory the Tory said...

I agree with Nadine Dorres to an extent. Christians like myself do hold to the ideal of abortion being illegal, and strive to campaign for that.
However, to inject some realism, working towards this will require certain steps like Dorres has suggested, better information and the lowering of the limit. It is shameful that women are not informed of the consequences of this procedure, which is a very serious matter of life. I am glad that Christian charities like ALternatives http://www.careconfidential.com/Dundee do offer this kind of support. Many women would be lost and hurt without it.

25 January 2011 at 12:13  
Blogger Jonathan Hunt said...

Here is one preacher who DOES say these things from the pulpit, and I am not alone.

I am writing to Ms Dorries to encourage her to carry on.

25 January 2011 at 12:15  
Blogger David Baker said...

Super article. Well done. (And I am a vicar too!)

25 January 2011 at 12:37  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I beat you to it Jonathan ;-)

She needs reassurance of support to sustain her in her work. Others please follow.

25 January 2011 at 12:46  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Your Grace

It appears that Nadine would like to take the argument back to the initial stages prior to the legalisation of the timescale of the current abortion cut-off, to justify some kind of 'acceptable abortion' but the argument has been lost, as if abortion is acceptable IF.

From a christian point of view, based on BIBLICAL TEACHING FROM GOD'S WORD, abortion is NEVER acceptable to God!

May I ask bloggers to reflect in reverse order the stages of development of a human being from the moment of conception to adulthood. At each stage of life, ask yourself if it is morally right to kill an innocent person at that stage of development. May we kill it if it was conceived out of wedlock, or would live in poverty, have a deformity, or even it if was conceived as the result of rape?

Adulthood
The adult is fully grown. All body parts are functioning, but growth has ended. May we kill it for no wrong that it has done, simply because we may choose to do so?

Childhood
At this point all body parts are functioning, but it is still growing. May we choose to kill it?

Birth
The baby is functioning in all its parts and growing rapidly. It may not look much like it will in adulthood, but it is fully a human individual. May we choose to kill it?

Four to nine months after conception
The baby is functioning fully in all its body parts and growing rapidly. The only difference from after birth is where it lives, the care it receives and how it gets its air and food. May we choose to kill it?

Three months after conception
It can move arms and legs (but the mother cannot feel it). All body systems are present and operating; nothing new will be added from this point. The baby simply grows. Legally it may be killed with practically no restrictions during the first three months, and with few restrictions afterwards. But why would it be right to kill it now, but wrong a few months later?

Two months after conception
Fingers and toes are clearly distinguishable. Reproductive organs are developing. Bones are forming. IT IS CLEARLY RECOGNISABLE AS HUMAN. Six weeks after conception brain waves can be measured. May we choose to kill it? Yet this is the stage that is most preferred for performing abortions!

One month after conception
All major organs have begun developing: brain and nerves, eyes, lungs, stomach and intestines, kidneys, etc. The heart began to beat and circulate blood on the 18th day. The baby has its own blood type, which is often different from its mother's. Yet the mother may not even know she is pregnant.

Conception
From the moment of conception, the unborn baby is a unique individual. The genes that determine its physical nature are different from those of any other individual, including its mother and father. Its sex is determined at conception and obviously may differ from the mother's. Each cell in the baby's body is uniquely different from every cell of its mother and every other human.

At what point in this progression is it morally right to kill it, when it has done no wrong, simply because we choose to? How do you prove it is right up to one point but wrong after that point? Human wisdom cannot answer. But the Bible has the answer.

The above is only based on a moral argument and not even on The Holy Bible, which speaks explicitly about God's view of abortion and how He views what 'LIFE IS AND IT'S RELATIONSHIP TO HIM AS CREATOR'.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

25 January 2011 at 12:46  
Blogger DP111 said...

I Have a Dream that the Abortion Holocaust Will End
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

When I met Jesus in the Gospel, I was purely starved for understanding. And for the first time, I became aware of my own evil, my own shortcomings, my own selfishness and hard-heartedness. But I had learned more about Martin, too, and I knew by then that he wasn't all saint and no sinner. Jesus lit my path. Martin showed that it was possible. I picked up my own Cross that year and promised to do my best. To fight against evil in my own backyard. To be on the side against the slaveries and the Holocausts and the killing fields.

But I was still very innocent in the ways of evil. I had seen my fair share of evil's ways, means, and mantras, but nothing had prepared me for the soon-to-come Holocaust of abortion.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/i_have_a_dream_that_the_aborti.html

25 January 2011 at 12:50  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Cranmer. You said:
"One does indeed have to admire her bravery in walking a very lonely path to talk about abortion and its impact on women."

I agree that her stand is brave, and her concern for the effect on women probably principled. It is a start, but there are far more important reasons why abortion must be opposed, as you know, which she appears not to have grasped.
Abortion on any scale is infanticide and abhorrent to God and should be so for the Christian church.
It is the removal of a GOD given life, as a foetus, no matter all the theoretical arguments and irrelevant questions such as 'at what stage does "life" begin? etc.

If we are made in the 'image of God' - that is human and with the unique capacity to know God, then to abort that life is a sin against the One who is the author and giver of life in every sense.

Any Christian should therefore pray and hope that Nadine rises higher than those based on mere humanistic concerns, and that she sees the much bigger and deeper understanding of life as a gift from God. Maybe she will read both this article and blog comments and come to a different view!

25 January 2011 at 13:01  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

graham wood said 25 January 2011 13:01

We live in hope but do politicians do the right thing if it is NOT politically convenient or that they would be perceived as a 'bible basher' and challenged that they were 'fundamentalist's'?

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

25 January 2011 at 13:08  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Well said.

The Anglican church is silent because its leaders are appointed by the abortion-supporting establishment. The same process was followed in Russia, and for the same purpose; control, not support.

The non-conformist churches are silent because they are mostly derelict.

The evangelicals are not silent, but are denied access to the media.

The Roman Catholics are the subject of a sustained, mendacious and vicious assault, precisely because they have dared to resist (and, Cranmer, when you mouth off at them, remember that you do the work of the establishment in so doing). We should all have plenty of time for the only body that has dared to resist, whether we are Catholics or (in my case) not.

A society that has rejected the old testament has enthroned Moloch as its god, and sacrifices its children to him, as it was of old. But the real motive is simply the convenience of the liberal establishment.

Are we not back to the situation in Regency days, when the upper class were largely corrupt, and opinion-formers pushing vice of every sort -- and persecuting the Christians, i.e Methodists in those days -- while the middle classes were increasingly opposed to the degeneracy of the times?

We need national reformation.

25 January 2011 at 13:09  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Roger Pearse,

Could you please point to where His Grace has 'mouthed off' at Roman Catholics?

Date, article, line.

Bless you.

25 January 2011 at 13:40  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

Still in her twenties, my mother was pregnant for the sixth time - she had an abortion. She had made it quite clear to everyone that it was either that or suicide (and we all believed her too). So the foetus was dead anyway, and the five of us (I'm the eldest - the youngest was aged two at the time) would no longer have had a mother. As it is, she had the abortion and the rest of us had a mother for another 30+ years.

Stop trying to tell me she was wrong to do this. She wasn't much of a human being, as anyone who ever knew her will confirm ... but she was still our mother and we still loved her.

Would she have really suicided? You can bet your life she would have - same as if I or any of myy brothers and sisters would be believed if any of us made that same declaration.

And don@t talk about the sky-fairy - none of us believe in such nonsense. Don't talk about all the social help that's available because it wasn't in those days, and what is available these days would'nt be accepted by any of the five of us. Butt out of other peoples' lives and leave the issue of abortion where it belongs - with the women. It is no business of men.

It's not as if you have to endure the pain, is it. My mother once told me that if women had the first baby, then men had the second ... there wouldn't be a third.

25 January 2011 at 13:49  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Sir Henry Morgan, you tell us the sad story of your mother. Had she taken her position before her first child was born, you wouldn't have been here to tell us about it.

I am not a woman, but as an ex-foetus I am a deeply interested party in the birth business. You seem to think that the woman is the only person involved in birth, whereas the mother is the conduit for the person who really matters: the baby.

The state's involvement in this is not on account of it promoting morality, but because its fundamental raison d'etre is to defend the lives of those who come under its protection. If it can't do this, anything else it attempts is a fraud.

None of 'us' believe, you say, in 'the sky-fairy'. Well, I don't believe in a sky-fairy either. I believe in God, as revealed in the face of Jesus Christ. And frankly it is pathetic for you to use the Dawk's pejorative and insulting name-calling to try to discredit people who hold reasoned and intelligent views.

25 January 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Sir Henry Morgan said 25 January 2011 13:49
ALL people have the right to participate in the laws of the land and to use emotion blackmail as you have done is disingenuous.

One of the biggest problems in society at any level appears to be that people want freedom without responsibility.
Certain acts automatically demand responsibility.
You only have to look at the number of ridiculously young, unmarried mothers with children in our country despite the most unbelievably liberal laws in the land promoting free sex and contraception.(THE PROBLEM?)!

To avoid the responsibilities, we may choose to avoid the act; but we are not free to participate in the act and still avoid the responsibilities.
For example, a man/woman may choose not to drive a car. But if he/she chooses to drive, then he/she automatically obligates himself/herself to drive according to the traffic laws. People who want the privilege of driving without obeying the laws are irresponsible, illegal, and immoral.

Likewise, a man/woman may choose not to marry (1 Cor. 7:27-28). But if he/she chooses to marry, he/she automatically becomes responsible to love and provide for his wife or her husband (1 Tim. 5:8; Eph. 5:25-29). Far too many people want the privileges of marriage without the responsibilities that go with it.
Likewise, if a man and woman choose to enjoy the sexual union, they automatically assume the responsibility to care for any child that may result (Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 5:8; etc.).
So if a woman wants to avoid pregnancy, the time to exercise that choice is before she has a sexual relationship. When a couple chooses to engage in sexual relations but then kills the baby they conceived, their actions are irresponsible, immoral, and ought to be illegal. It is gross inconsistency to say that a woman has a "right to choose" not to be pregnant, even after she chose to participate in the act that made her pregnant!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

25 January 2011 at 14:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The Church of England sees Socialism as its gospel and embraces Caesar.

It is easier to act as a social pressure group especially as Congregations do not bring their vicars to heel as men leave the churches and women predominate.

There is no leadership in British society, and the feminisation of Western Europe is a sign of its decay because it has no core values to defend and has set up facile shibboleths in their place

25 January 2011 at 14:24  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

The problem is the polarisation of each camp into caricatures: if you’re ‘pro-life’, you’re a frothy-mouth Palin-supporting signed-up member of the bigoted ‘religious right’; if you’re ‘pro-choice’, you’re part of a satan-worshipping death cult, intent on murdering the first-born on the altars of women’s rights and sexual liberty.

Agreed. So abortion must be tolerated but at a much lower level than today. The reality of abortion should be shown to all youngsters before they are sexually active and contraception advice offered. Abortion is not killing and to claim it is just misleading, it is however a barbaric practice that snuffs out the potential of life but that is different.

Sex whether inside or outside of marriage is pleasure not just a biological necessity and as we now have the means to avoid pregnancy the majority of abortions should be unnecessary so we must educate the young and their parents. Of course the best environment in which to raise children is within a permanent relationship between two people who are happy to make sacrifices for the sake of their offspring. This is the way we have evolved and so for the majority this is a natural and instinctive process.

Non-believers do not have comfort or hope.

It is statements like these than reveal the motivation of religious belief. If you can fool yourself into believing that there is a god and life beyond death then good luck to you. If hope and comfort are dependent on this delusion then give me reality any day. I take comfort in my family and friends and the world around and beyond me. Hope is a meaningless concept unless you mean I hope it won’t rain on my barbeque.

You really have no idea what it feels like to be an atheist. We are happy and contented perhaps a bit miffed that it will all end one day especially as that day draws nearer. We are not nihilist, discontents without emotion or feeling, in fact we are normal. Try it.

25 January 2011 at 14:32  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Excellent post, Your Grace. Please keep it up. As for an explanation as to why the church is so weak, may I suggest it's because all the true believers have left.

25 January 2011 at 14:47  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Indeed, the silence of the churches (I think that should be so-called churches) is truly, utterly scandalous. I pray daily for the Lord to raise up someone - some person of influence, or a celebrity, perhaps - to stand against this evil, which is surely the greatest evil in human history. Yes, YG, powerful article; splendid.

25 January 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

YG

It appears you have bashed the hornet's nest with your comments on your blog, with the athiests and secularists now coming to your blog.

Here comes the emotional blackmail of uncaring and unchristian, by what right do we speak of these things, we do not understand, etc, etc.

The Bible provides the necessary steps to solve the abortion "dilemma" for those who are willing to respect its teachings:
(1) Flee fornication.
(2) Learn to love, appreciate, and care for the baby.
(3) Learn to trust God for the strength to face any hardships life brings. Study His word, pray, and seek help from other Christians.
(4) Help others who have needs or problems caused by the birth of a baby.
(5) Speak out in defense of life. Seek to deliver those who are about to be slain (Prov. 24:11,12). Do not compromise with sin, but reprove it (Eph. 5:11; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; Prov. 28:4; Gal. 6:1, etc.).
What should a woman do if she has aborted a baby and now realizes she did wrong? She does not need to spend the rest of her life with the burden of unforgiven guilt. The Bible says abortion is wrong, but it also gives something else that humanistic beliefs cannot give: a source of true forgiveness for guilt. God will forgive if we will come to Him according to His conditions. Read and obey these passages: Rom. 1:16; 6:3,4; 10:9,10; Mark 16:16; Acts 17:30; 2:38; 22:16.

Well Done YG, let them come!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

25 January 2011 at 15:01  
Blogger Daddy said...

Nadine Dorries: “I need religious support. It is our core support. I need the churches being more involved, and the churches have been pathetic, pathetic, during the abortion debate in their support for what I was trying to do."

This links back to His Grace's comments regarding state ownership of our children. I am fighting a tough battle with my own denomination on a similar issue, where I am being told to ignore 1 Cor 6 and litigate, to avoid the exposure associated with the church, scripturally, taking the role of arbitrator in a dispute between 'believers'.

Unsurprisingly, the church universal is pretty much silent on that cause, too. An end to raking in government money would go some way to buying back our prophetic voice...

http://lovefromdaddy.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-gays-hotel-room-and-family-law.html

"I recently challenged a very senior figure in the Church with the notion that taking state funding is a poisoned chalice. Yes, it allows us to deliver services within a Christian environment (although the ability to do this is receding) but at what price? Not only do we compromise our ability to speak up freely and prophetically for Christ's cause and suffering humanity, but we open the floodgates for 'charities' left, right and centre, to attack society, and specifically, us. In time, they gain the means by which to have the state do it for them."

It comes to something when people outside the Church are commenting on our collective silence. When will it shame Church leaders to clear their throats? When will we feel we can stop apologising for them?

25 January 2011 at 15:24  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

You didn't address the issue - is one woman's suicide, the death of the foetus and five children with no mother, better than just the death of the foetus?

Well?

And where exactly was my "emotional blackmail"? I don't recall saying that I intended any harm to myself. Read it again please - if you can read, that is.

Andrew - back me up please (he was the youngest of us).

25 January 2011 at 15:32  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

Can you actually remember being a foetus?

25 January 2011 at 15:34  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Nadine says " Where I grew up the priest was king. We were scared of priests – the same with the vicars."

And vicars being priests (sometimes even bishops!) she got two for the price of one.

25 January 2011 at 15:35  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

I've been coming to this blog on a daily basis for years. You do like resorting to ad hominem don't you.

25 January 2011 at 15:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is probably the best post you have ever written

25 January 2011 at 15:45  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Sir Henry Morgan said 25 January 2011 15:37

You detailed a family problem as presented by you and my reasoning followed. Consider below.

1.Defenders of abortion usually try to open the door by emotional appeals to traumatic cases, rape, life threatening, depression etc.
2.If these exceptions are granted, they proceed to argue for abortion on demand.
3.Many parents are simply unwilling to care for the baby they conceived.
4.They may not want to spend the necessary time or money.
5.They may think they are not "ready" for children
6.Or they already have enough children.
6.Maybe the child will interfere with the mother's career.
7.Maybe a child born later in life will be an unwanted burden.
8.Some even get abortions if the baby is not the sex they want!

In such cases, some argue that the mother should have the "right to choose" not to give birth to the baby: hence, "abortion on demand."

How will your youngest brother, stating the same premise as you, make it right?

'You didn't address the issue (I most certainly did)- is one woman's suicide (Her choice to leave HER 5 children without a mother UNLESS she was allowed to abort. YES??), the death of the foetus (The foetus is worth nothing nor even human then, not a missing brother or sister?) and five children with no mother, better than just the death of the foetus?'(It did not have to be so is clear to the dumbest of people!)

Emotional blackmail..what on earth could have given me THAT impression?

Simply stated, The Holy Bible teaches that abortion violates God's will.

I never speak 'ad hominem' about anything!!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

25 January 2011 at 16:00  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Good one YG. Right up there with the best you've written.
Thank you for the immense amount of time and effort you devote to this blog.

25 January 2011 at 16:02  
Blogger Sophie said...

You write: "Imagine it: you get a pre-natal indication that your baby may be suffering from Downs, so off you trundle back home, tablets in hand, to terminate the abnormality and prevent a ‘wrongful life’."

This scenario is fantasy. Medical abortion tablets are only an option for women who are 8 weeks pregnant or less. None of the pre-natal tests can be done before 11 weeks and the biggy, amniocentesis, usually happens weeks later.

Nadine Dorries is promoting the idea that abortion risks women's mental health. This is another myth. Check out what the more reliable RCOG and the RCPsych have to say. The medical evidence is that in both senses, physical or psychological, safe legal abortion presents significantly fewer risks than carrying a pregnancy to term. If you're at all scientifically inclined, this seems obvious.

Nadine Dorries promotes some very dodgy science, including "post-abortion syndrome" - a condition not recognized by any medical or psychological organization.

In countries where abortion is illegal, unsafe procedures account for 14% of maternal deaths. Nadine Dorries talks of her memories of legal abortion. She is lucky not to remember, as my old Dad does, the results of illegal abortion in the UK.

Incidentally, doctors working to reduce the incidence of malaria do not assume that existing malaria patients are therefore valueless. And women who decide to abort a foetus with spina bifida, aren't seeking to reduce the rights of people who already have the condition. Conflating these into some sort of eugenic movement is unreasonable.

25 January 2011 at 16:06  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Sir Henry Morgan, you ask KINGOFHIGHCS if he can remember when he was a foetus. Perhaps you intended to direct that question towards me, as I was the one who claimed to be an ex-foetus. I'll address it anyway.

No, I can't remember my time as a foetus. Does that mean that my foetus period was pre-human? Was I not a human being whilst I was a foetus, and is that proven by the fact that I can't remember those days? I must assume that is the thrust of your question.

But neither can I remember popping out of the womb and the cervix as a new-born infant. Nor can I remember the severing of the umbilical cord. Nor can I remember anything that took place in my life until I was about four years old. And after that my memories are few and confused.

In fact, I can't remember very clearly what I watched on the telly last night. I can never remember my dreams.

Does my inability to remember mean that on those occasions I was not human?

Was I suitable material for shredding on those occasions?

If not, then I fail to see the force of your question. If so, then may heaven help us all.

25 January 2011 at 16:34  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Pathetic weak and cowardly, get in there!

Hypocritical and Sanctimonious, keep em coming!!

What do the hand wringing bedwetters stand for.

25 January 2011 at 16:35  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

You assume a god - I don't, and haven't since I was about five.

Fair enough - sorry - it was the other bloke alngside you that claimed emotional blackmail.

1. It was life-threatening
2.I don't argue for that - I just say men should keep out of it; nothing to do with having once been a foetus thus playing a part - do you remember the pain of birth? Women do, and some don't like it.
3. And some women are UNABLE - this one obviously was willing to care for children (not very well, I'll admit)because she raised five.
4.She had the time - unfortunately not the money.
5.Obviously inapplicable.
6. Oh yes - too many in fact.
6.6. That's a big assumtion. What career? How old are you?
7.I'd hardly call the late twenties "later in life" in the sense you mean.
8.Entirely irrelevant to a woman who already had three boys and two girls. Nobody had even thought of that issue in those days - again, how old are you?

You have no clue of the poverty we lived in. We lived in an old 2up2down terraced house with no running water, no central heating, no double glazing, several miles for the kids to walk x-country to get a bus to school every day - r-sunshine, rain snow or hail. You really know nothing at all. Miss Snuffy might understand - you certainly don't, possibly can't.

How would you fancy, by the age of nine, a daily chore of going to the well - about half a mile downhill (Wales) - to fetch two buckets of drinking water (Sunshine rain snow etc)for the family - during the daytime at weekends, in the dark after walking back from school on weekdays. Or helping empty the chemical toilet once a week?

I don't think you are even capable of sympathising with a poverty-stricken and very ignorant young woman from back in those days. I don't know why I'm bothering with you lot.

25 January 2011 at 16:54  
Blogger oldmaid said...

The loss of a child, at whatever stage of its development is saddening. Making an industry of this, is sickening.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day we must all recognize the planet has an over-population problem and as you point out the adoption process is just as bad.

Very much a moral dilemma with such a lack of compassion for the real victims on both sides of the street.

25 January 2011 at 16:56  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Sir Henry Morgan said 25 January 2011 16:54

'You assume a god - I don't, and haven't since I was about five.'(I guessed this by your referral to Dawkins and Hitchens use of 'sky-fairy').

Number 1 is indicative of the basis of the argument for abortion on demand.
Number 2-8 are the arguments used to take advantage of the first number 1 to gain equal status even though number 1 is tenuous at best.

'You have no clue of the poverty we lived in.( I think I do as I was a child of the sixties from a poor area of the north east.) We lived in an old 2up2down terraced house with no running water, no central heating, no double glazing,(same as you except we had running water) several miles for the kids to walk x-country to get a bus to school every day (Could not afford a bus so I jogged to my grammar school every day)- r-sunshine, rain snow or hail. You really know nothing at all.(You guess at too much!) Miss Snuffy might understand - you certainly don't, possibly can't. (As if poverty or hardship is an excuse for an abortion!)'
'How would you fancy, by the age of nine, a daily chore of going to the well - about half a mile downhill (Wales) - to fetch two buckets of drinking water (Sunshine rain snow etc)for the family - during the daytime at weekends, in the dark after walking back from school on weekdays.(My chores at 10 yrs old were to go out early on a milk round at 5.00 am each morning 6 days a week, come back after this to deliver papers, then go to school..jogging there and work on saturdays from 9-6 in a local cafe, all to provide food for my family) Or helping empty the chemical toilet once a week?'(I never did this but we did have an outside toilet that, thankfully, my father cleaned out).
'I don't think you are even capable of sympathising with a poverty-stricken and very ignorant young woman from back in those days.(Not much different from my own mother but she stood by our family of 4 children despite all the above!) I don't know why I'm bothering with you lot.( I genuinely sympathise for your tough life also but you are WRONG!)

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

25 January 2011 at 17:32  
Blogger Geoff said...

Perhaps His Grace should watch My Big Gypsy Wedding on Channel 4. He would find that we could all learn something from the Travellers and their way of life. Their 'authority' comes from within their community. Community is the key.

25 January 2011 at 17:47  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Geoff,

His Grace has been watching: he has concerns about their 'courtship' rituals...

25 January 2011 at 17:51  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Good luck to Nadine. A grown up debate on abortion is needed and not as you point out a polarised one. There is a need for abortion in some cases but the way it is now viewed as a right or commodity is very wrong. Yes more councilling should be given both before an abortion is considered and after having one.

25 January 2011 at 17:58  
Anonymous greg tingey said...

Well, the non-existent and imaginary big sky fairy ("god") in whom Cranmer believes in commits far more abortions than any human agency.
And it has always been thus.

I agree that abortion is a third-rate option compared to proper birth-control, but so many believers are against THAT, that, erm, err
I think you get the message.

25 January 2011 at 18:02  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Sir Henry Morgan @ 13:49

I have a certain sympathy for your views, which doubtless will make me equally as unpopular. I cannot bring myself to deny a mother's ultimate choice.

Yes, I have great reservations concerning many abortions; but I've had many reservations concerning the 'living' examples of unloved, unwanted children too.

God help me, my heart may well be faulted, but I cannot bring myself to call all abortions murder.

25 January 2011 at 18:19  
Anonymous len said...

The Abortion industry has depersonalised the whole business of abortion and the clinically sounding 'terminating a foetus'has made the process socially acceptable.
Nadine Dorries has with great courage highlighted the 'other side'of the abortion process( for want of a better word). For a foetus to be aborted (alive) and left to die is callousness beyond my comprehension.It is a true mark of our Society how we treat the helpless and vulnerable.
The Secularisation of our society,the philosophy of 'no moral absolutes', the Evolutionary theory which reduces Humanity to 'just animals 'and the natural progression of this 'theory' is we are'just clumps of cells' are all contribution factors to the Society we are becoming today.
The Church united with the State has become emasculated.
The early Church changed Society, but when the 'World' entered the Church it ceased to function in its proper role!.
The Church needs to get back to basics and preach the Gospel! (whatever the cost )

25 January 2011 at 18:23  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Sophie said: "Nadine Dorries is promoting the idea that abortion risks women's mental health. This is another myth. Check out what the more reliable RCOG and the RCPsych have to say. The medical evidence is that in both senses, physical or psychological, safe legal abortion presents significantly fewer risks than carrying a pregnancy to term. If you're at all scientifically inclined, this seems obvious."

What is obvious is that you are ignorant of the facts. You claim that in countries where abortion is illegal, unsafe procedures account for 14% of maternal deaths. There are many lies in circulation concerning maternal death rates due to abortion.

The reality is strong restrictions on abortion, have better maternal mortality ratios. Ireland and Poland, which maintain strong restrictions on abortion, have better maternal mortality ratios than the United States. Ireland ranks first with 1 death for every 100,000 live births. In recent years Poland has tightened its abortion law and ranks number 27 on the list with 8 deaths per 100,000. In the United States where there are virtually no restrictions on abortion, the maternal mortality ratio is 17 out of 100,000 live births. ...continued.

25 January 2011 at 18:36  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

The African nation with the lowest maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, a country with some of the continent's most protective laws for the unborn. Ethiopia, which decriminalized abortion has a maternal death rate 48 times higher than in Mauritius. South Africa has the continent's most liberal abortion laws and also a high maternal mortality ratio of 400 deaths per 100,000.

Chile, with constitutional protection for the unborn, outranks all other South American countries as the safest place for women to bear children. The country with the highest maternal mortality is Guyana, with a rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Guyana eliminated abortion restrictions on abortion in 1995 in a naive attempt to "improve" mortality rates.

Nepal, where there is no restriction on the procedure, has one of the world's highest maternal mortality rates. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, with a rate fourteen times lower than that of Nepal.

25 January 2011 at 18:38  
Blogger Tim said...

I have many questions about this post and the case you put in it, but for now will settle for this one, single question:

Why do you not point out to Nadine and others in this post, as you did earlier on Twitter, that in your view the Psalms ARE poetry? (link)

25 January 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tim,

Because it is a statement of the blindingly obvious, and those who read and comment upon His Grace's blog are mostly highly intelligent and educated people.

25 January 2011 at 18:55  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Tim, There is a significant difference from a text being poetry and it being only poetry.

25 January 2011 at 18:57  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Sophie:
You also claim that "Nadine Dorries promotes some very dodgy science, including "post-abortion syndrome" - a condition not recognized by any medical or psychological organization."

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of this condition. See for example:

The British Journal of Psychiatry (2008) 193: 444-451. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.056499© 2008 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study
David M. Fergusson, PhD, L. John Horwood, MSc and Joseph M. Boden, PhD Christchurch Health and Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, New Zealand

For those needing help with Post Abortion Syndrome I recommend the excellent organization Rachel's Vineyard.

25 January 2011 at 19:18  
Anonymous Papal Bull said...

"Wrongful life"... what a truly chilling piece of Nuspeak.
I've a lot of time for Nadine Dorries as she ploughs her lonely furrow.

25 January 2011 at 19:56  
Blogger David Cooke said...

I too am a Vicar.

Miss Dorries spoke in the same week that I read that only 37% of evangelical Christians are opposed to abortion in the EA's recent survey:

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/01/22/uk-evangelicalism-report/

There seems to be much more preaching courage the other side of the water on abortion as witnessed by John Piper's address on abortion last Sunday. We would all do well to listen to it.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/abortion-and-the-narrow-way-that-leads-to-life

25 January 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger XKawFive said...

Ah, Your Grace has brought tears to my eyes with this one. I used to be a very angry person, not so long ago in fact. I have always considered myself a Christian but have for many, many years been disillusioned and confused about churches and denominations.

I am far from perfect, and have in the past behaved quite shamefully in some of the ways I have expressed myself. But maybe this was necessary for me in order to come to terms with personal issues and being able to look back at myself with humility.

Many things have changed over the past few years and religion does seem to be back on the menu again in society, and this has indeed been a catharsis for my anger. There still remains a lot to be said and done, but this will always be the case I suppose. I myself have somehow been transformed into a very passive and humble Christian after meeting someone on line. This person has transformed my entire outlook on everything. She is in fact a student of theology up in Scotland, and she is Catholic. After years of moaning about churches and denominations, I am now attending a local Catholic church, and instead of being angry and abusive I have been transformed into a better and more relaxed Christian. I can attend church and pray, and I have learnt to appreciate people like His Grace and Nadine who are better placed to make the changes that we all hope and pray for.

In the past, it was mainly what I perceived as the church's inability to speak out and bring the Christian light out from under the bushel that used to fuel my anger and frustration, but looking back, I can see my own hypocrisy reflect back when I think that I was not actively involved with any church at the time. Now I am in church every Sunday morning, I seem to have lost the ability to get angry and I have become paralysed with a concern to be more humble and less aggressive. I don't know why this has come about because the passion is still there but I can't seem to find a voice or the suitable means of expression, so I am grateful more than ever for posts such as this one.

I don't agree with everything you say Your Grace but may God be with you and may you continue to articulate the Christian voice of concern.

25 January 2011 at 21:49  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Oswin said, "I've had many reservations concerning the 'living' examples of unloved, unwanted children too."

"There's no such thing as unwanted child. If nobody else wants them, bring them to me, I want them." - Mother Theresa

Oldmaid said, "the planet has an over-population problem"

Says who? What is the correct population? [Interesting fact: all 5 billion of us could live in Texas and EACH live in a detached house within 139 m2 of land ... the average UK house size is 76m2]

Those of us who have campaigned against abortion for many years predicted that once abortion was common place, calls for euthanasia would follow closely behind, followed then by infanticide ... just as night follows day.

Choice is now more sacrosanct than life.

And of course, it comes as no great surprise that the Church or its hierarchy remains silent. Our spirits are too oppressed by pleasure & wealth.

25 January 2011 at 22:08  
Anonymous UK Fred said...

Your Grace, I must agree with your views on the Church in all denominations in the UK.

Unfortunately, too many Christians are afraid to be labelled "fundamentalist" that they leave behind all the foundations of Christianity. I think it is time to put the fun back into fundamentalist.

For those who are looking for good sound biblical teaching, I would recommend the sermons from Mars Hill Church url is for a sermon on birth control. http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/birth-control

For those who do not believe in God at all, I would ask them to examine the evidence of the early Church. Why would the leaders be willing to face death, and be so insistent that they be truthful at all times. Why suffer for something you don't know to be true?

On another matter, why do we allow the destruction of an unborn child, but no matter what heinous crime an adult has committed we do not allow them to be put to death?

More power to Your Grace and to Nadine Dorries on this matter.

25 January 2011 at 22:44  
Blogger Owl said...

An excellent post YG.

Just two points.

1. I have witnessed the long term effects of an abortion. The feelings of guilt, sad comparisons with children "around that age" are common. The women in question did not take the step lightly but on the advice of doctors and psychiatrists. I cannot fault the reasoning and am not qualified to question the suicidal tendencies, depressions etc. I cannot be judgemental.

I can see the long term hell which no one seems to have mentioned to these women or to have even considered possible.

Where are the supporting people many years later?

Do the doctors and psychiatrists really understand the long term damage done?

Maybe a different type of support was needed at a very difficult time for these suffering women.

Perhaps a total rethink is required.

2. I get the impression that more and more people are standing up for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. There definitely seems to be an awakening.

We are so used to "group think" that we tend to accept being put in the "loony fringe" group. We have been well programed.

We are slowly beginning to realise that we are not the loonies.

The loonies are running the show.

Nadine Dorries will most certainly have my support, for what it is worth. A bit of standing up to be counted is long overdue.

25 January 2011 at 23:47  
Anonymous sophies choice said...

Hmm....A 'fraught' issue to say the least.

Also an issue that seems to naturally polarise with never the twain assuming a more powerful significance than usual.

There are numerous examples of morality becoming entwined in areas where it was not so in times gone by.

As with most (I suspect) I have quite mixed views on the subject.

I recall my own mother repeatedly saying to me her wish that she could have aborted me if it were legal at that time (1964). I don't say this to in any way to tug at heart strings and it is not something that I myself emote over. I state it in the context of the debate above.

From my own mothers point of view she had a point (steeped in unfortunate economic circumstances) and had the law allowed I would never have possessed a consciousness with which to write this now. How does this make me feel about abortion?,impossible to answer with certainty.

Despite the above I feel quite strongly that the woman should have (at least) a choice whether to continue with a process that she may, in the here and now, feel is no longer a sound one.

In my own life I have been in the position where I have been given (by the woman concerned) the choice whether to have an abortion or not...I personally felt strongly that she shouldn't but always retained the stance that she had the final say...always.

What are the rights and wrongs?. I dunno...I really don't. I am, however, certain that the world is a much better place with me now in it (I would say that wouldn't I but there are now many many people in this world who also would not be here if I did not exist) but this doesn't necessarily hold true always for every new life.(Think Mao/Stalin etc).

I honestly don't know.

I feel Sir Morgan above probably skirts the line over which one senses a degree of deliberate provocation with kingof seeming to take the bait (but understandably so I suppose given the nature of the discourse).


In short....abortion as contraception feels very wrong indeed. Abortion to mitigate new and unexpected impoverishment....possibly. Abortion for severe congenital conditions....very much down to the woman to choose...Abortion to save the life of the mother....an absolute right to abort at any stage of gestation.

Yes yes....I will have missed multiple nuances in the debate..that's ok...just how I feel currently but I'm open to debate.

26 January 2011 at 00:11  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Me amaste a mi ...

26 January 2011 at 00:15  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

<a href= "http://aprodefa.org/?p=208>Me amaste a mi …</a>

26 January 2011 at 00:17  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

I thought that some of you might like the following video.
Me amaste a mi …

26 January 2011 at 00:21  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

sophies choice said

'I recall my own mother repeatedly saying to me her wish that she could have aborted me if it were legal at that time (1964). I don't say this to in any way to tug at heart strings and it is not something that I myself emote over. I state it in the context of the debate above.'(You are a very forgiving person indeed. Why did your mother feel like this?)

'In my own life I have been in the position where I have been given (by the woman concerned) the choice whether to have an abortion or not (Did you have the abortion or the woman concerned??)...I personally felt strongly that she shouldn't (Is that the woman concerned?) but always retained the stance that she had the final say...always.' (Did you have the final say or the woman concerned?)

'I am, however, certain that the world is a much better place with me now in it (I would say that wouldn't I but there are now many many people in this world who also WOULD NOT BE HERE IF I DID NOT EXIST)' (WOW, have many progeny have you given birth to ie. come from you in particular?)

'Abortion to save the life of the mother....an absolute right to abort at any stage of gestation.(What medical circumstances do you envisage that cover that situation. Cancer??).

I like your blog name. Good movie!
Noun
Sophie's choice (plural Sophie's choices)
A choice between two persons or things that will result in the death or destruction of the person or thing not chosen.

Look forward to hearing from you.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

26 January 2011 at 00:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

'Yet it is to be observed that Ms Dorries is neither pro-choice nor pro-life: like the Church of England, she takes a via media on the issue.'


So stop thinking she's a 'good-guy'.

The taking of human life, without God-given authority, is an horrendous sin.

Life begins at conception.

26 January 2011 at 01:14  
Anonymous Jonathan Stuart-Brown said...

Your Grace is of course absolutely correct and still as courageous as ever.
By the way a movie on this lady would be an antidote to Vera Drake as she has shown you can keep abotion out of most of her island...albeit she gets beaten up 3 times a year by some men trying to force girls into abortions

http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/01/when-will-the-british-film-industry-make-a-movie-about-bernadette-smyth-of-precious-life-ministries-one-of-the-bravest-women-in-the-nation/

26 January 2011 at 01:40  
Anonymous DJ said...

English Viking: "Life begins at conception."

But not the bit that makes that life a person in his own right, that comes later.

26 January 2011 at 05:07  
Anonymous DJ said...

UK Fred: "For those who do not believe in God at all, I would ask them to examine the evidence of the early Church. Why would the leaders be willing to face death, and be so insistent that they be truthful at all times. Why suffer for something you don't know to be true?"

I'm no sure how much an Islamist can be said to be a Muslim but Islamists might well use the same argument. That doesn't actually make it true, it just shows that some people truly believe unlikely stuff.

26 January 2011 at 05:13  
Anonymous Sophie's choice said...

KINGOF

Thank you for the reply and the grammatical correction. I can see that this is an extremely sensitive issue for you (personally) and I apologise if I inadvertantly trod on sensitive toes, that wasn't my intent at all. I was simply trying to contribute in a dispassionate way.

Your attack on my reproductive proclivities was most unworthy but I do forgive you. Many people are alive today who wouldn't be if I didn't exist because I am a doctor.(I would suppose the point I would be trying to make there is how abortion, in those terms, may be considered an inherent bad, I just don't see it that way as I explained).

If you choose to respond please try to hold back on the vitriol if you are able to, otherwise may I please request you stay silent?.

26 January 2011 at 07:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DJ said...
English Viking: "Life begins at conception."

But not the bit that makes that life a person in his own right, that comes later.

26 January 2011 05:07

Could you point out to me when later, so that I may become the wiser?

26 January 2011 at 08:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Circle jerk in full swing today?

26 January 2011 at 08:19  
Anonymous CRT said...

Using abortion as a form of contraception is certainly not the best way to go about things; it always puzzles me how young women seem to have knowledge of the abortion pills, but no knowledge of the standard forms of contraception.
However, there are other circumstances that present some deep-seated problems. Carrying the child of someone who has raped you (and it does happen) must be a nightmare. Is this an Act of God also? Any woman who has been physically attacked, raped and then found herself pregnant must be horrified at the thought of being forced to give birth to a child under such circumstances.

Someone earlier sneered at the idea of abortion to save a mother whose pregnancy threatened her life, such as ectopic conditions, very high blood pressure, etc. I'd suggest putting yourself in the position of a husband who is given the choice of "it's either your wife or the baby".
Again....Act of God? Such circumstances are thought-provoking.

26 January 2011 at 08:26  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

In all it would be more preferable,to our state and nation,if women,rather than act like alley cats,discovered moral fiber and kept thier drawers on,instead of behaving like whores.

26 January 2011 at 09:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said 26 January 2011 08:19


Circle jerk in full swing today? (maybe there is method in the 'jerks' madness. Too many trolls on here that need revealing. It's a Mystery. Man I wish I knew the answer?).

26 January 2011 at 09:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

crt said 26 January 2011 08:26

'Using abortion as a form of contraception is certainly not the best way to go about things; it always puzzles me how young women seem to have knowledge of the abortion pills, but no knowledge of the standard forms of contraception.'(It is a MR.E is it not?).
'Someone earlier sneered at the idea of abortion to save a mother whose pregnancy threatened her life,(IT did NOT. It was a selfish motive for getting rid of an INCONVENIENT problem!) such as ectopic conditions, very high blood pressure, etc.(With modern medicine a womans life is rarely threatened if pregnant. Does this give 'Carte Blanc' for 200.000+ babies to be aborted yearly?) I'd suggest putting yourself in the position of a husband who is given the choice of "it's either your wife or the baby".(When is this a regular occurence?)
Again....Act of God? (Bad things happen, do they not, or can we blame God for everything..Colds, Kidney Stones,building villages on the rims of volcanoes, having 5 children when you can only afford 'in your opinion' to care for 4 etc?) Such circumstances are thought-provoking (NEED TO BE CAREFUL THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE MAKING VAGUE ASSUMPTIONS. AGREED).'

YKWIA

26 January 2011 at 09:28  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

And if you want to have a child,you get very little help or support from the NHS. My daughter had numerous miscarriages, and on the last occasion when she saw a consultant he effectively said "I don't know why you are bothering, no-one wants children these days". She finally managed to have a child as a result of treatment when she went on holiday to Sardinia started to have yet another miscarriage. They had her on a ward, in bed, before she would have even seen the triage nurse in our local A&E, and a specialist summoned from the other side of the island. Perhaps it was the Roman Catholic ethos which made a difference, I don't know, but I've now got a grandson who gets very spoilt by his granddad!

26 January 2011 at 10:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@English Viking

'Yet it is to be observed that Ms Dorries is neither pro-choice nor pro-life: like the Church of England, she takes a via media on the issue.'
I think her point is, that when a woman goes to a 'family planning clinic' she only recieves counselling and advice IF she chooses abortion. If she wants to know what 'choices' are available to her = no advice and no counselling. She is on her own UNLESS she chooses abortion.
Shame on the Government for its one-sided support!

26 January 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace,

First of all, I am a new man and repent, deeply.

Now, though, I am back and I find it very refreshing to read that one of the most inspiring pro-life events in the world took place in Washington DC this week. I know not all of His Grace's communicants will share my feelings, but such is life.

Anyway, here is the story if anyone would like to read it:

Let’s take courage and hold a March for Life in Britain.

26 January 2011 at 11:15  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

CRT said...
"... there are other circumstances that present some deep-seated problems. Carrying the child of someone who has raped you...."

The rape exception is the standard appeal to emotion, typically used by judicial activists, to promote the legalisation of abortion. It ignores completely the dangers inherent in weakening fundamental ethical principles protecting human life. Undermining these moral axioms has lead to a climate of infanticide and euthanasia --which may well have implications for your old age. The rape exception argument ignores completely the long term psychological and physical damage to women caused by abortion -often resulting in lifelong depression, sterility, suicide or breast cancer.

CRT: You argue that "Carrying the child of someone who has raped you (and it does happen) must be a nightmare."

Far less of a nightmare than seeing the child's brain sucked out in front of your eyes --as in partial birth abortion, or bearing guilt for fifty years. And what of the pain suffered by the child as it is torn apart, or burned alive in saline solution, or decapitated by scissors (see this grand jury report) ? It is abortion which is the cause of nightmares.

26 January 2011 at 11:19  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Anonymous said 26 January 2011 10:23

I think you will find the point is that the church is able to, very comfortably, sit on the fence just like politicians.

I remember years ago, when Charles Kennedy was outed as an alcoholic, that his character was being discussed.
It was revealed that he was once invited to attend a rally and on arrival he was overheard to ask a spokesman ' What side of the argument am I on, For or Against'.

That just about tells you all you need to know about politicians and the stances they take!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

26 January 2011 at 11:22  
Anonymous JayBee said...

The unwanted unborn, a defenceless and voiceless minority has been deprived of its right to life for more than a generation. The womb has become a very dangerous place indeed. The numbers aborted are staggering, victims of a silent holocaust that is defended mainly on the grounds that these are not children, merely foetus's and only potentially human. I do not subscribe to this view. When a foetus is just a bunch of cells they are human cells. When developing it is human development. Therefore human life begins at conception and if we pretend otherwise we are deluding ourselves. We are not aborting potential humans we are killing humans with potential.

Abortion doesn't just destroy a single human life it wipes out all the children and grandchildren they might have had. Their line dies with them. Decades and centuries of human potential destroyed in a single act of expediency or desperation. Abortion on demand is not only indefensible it is madness.

26 January 2011 at 11:47  
Anonymous Rat-u-Like said...

Excellent post, Your Grace. But I fear our church leaders have other matters on their minds. Appeasing the latest PC agendas for instance.

26 January 2011 at 13:25  
Anonymous uk Fred said...

DJ said...

UK Fred: "For those who do not believe in God at all, I would ask them to examine the evidence of the early Church. Why would the leaders be willing to face death, and be so insistent that they be truthful at all times. Why suffer for something you don't know to be true?"

I'm no sure how much an Islamist can be said to be a Muslim but Islamists might well use the same argument. That doesn't actually make it true, it just shows that some people truly believe unlikely stuff.

I would point out to DJ and all of those who are asking the same question that the early Church never mudered anyone else, but let their own lives be taken only. There is a world of difference between saying that I will not refuse to acknowledge my God even though you will put me to death for for continuing to acknowledge God as God and killing yourself and others as some suicide bombers have done.

26 January 2011 at 14:16  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Jared Gates @ 11.15

Welcome back!

26 January 2011 at 14:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those interested the Hansard record of the December debate in the House of Commons is here:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101102/debtext/101102-0004.htm#1011036000002

26 January 2011 at 14:56  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace,

A most excellent article here for the argument of being a person. It highlights the case quite well that embryos are human beings and leaves one asking one's self whether they are in fact persons being murdered because of their non worth.

Being a Person

26 January 2011 at 15:32  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Oswin

Thanks, but I must tell you I am not the man I used to be. I attend a Catholic church every Sunday and gone have the days of my profane and aggressive writing.

Your Grace,

Nearly 50 Million Abortions Have Been Performed in U.S. Since Roe v. Wade Decision Legalized Abortion

93 percent of all abortions occur for “social reasons” such as a mother’s decision that the child is unwanted or “inconvenient.” Shockingly, Catholic women account for more than 31 percent of all abortions performed in the United States.

26 January 2011 at 18:51  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

UK Fred: "I would point out to DJ and all of those who are asking the same question that the early Church never mudered anyone else, but let their own lives be taken only. There is a world of difference between saying that I will not refuse to acknowledge my God even though you will put me to death for for continuing to acknowledge God as God and killing yourself and others as some suicide bombers have done."

There is a huge difference. However, that's not the underlying point: those islamists are prepared to die for what they believe in and what they believe in is a god and an afterlife. Hence, believing so much that one is prepared to die for it is not proof that it is true.

26 January 2011 at 19:52  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

D.Singh: "Could you point out to me when later, so that I may become the wiser?"

You must come to your own understanding in order to be comfortable. However, here's mine.

We switch off the life support machine for people so injured that there is little or no upper brain activity even if the body looks like a person because the body has no mind.

At some point, the foetus reaches the stage where it starts to have a mind. For me, the mind is the ethically valuable thing. Potential is not enough even though that, in itself, has some ethical value.

Switching off the machine is not murder and neither is aborting zygotes or early foetuses. Both, however, are decisions which shouldn't be taken lightly.

26 January 2011 at 20:38  
Anonymous len said...

DanJo,

Have people with little brain activity ever recovered? Providing you haven`t switched off their life support of course!.

If the mind( in your opinion) is the most valuable asset would you say that these 'foetus`s' all had in them a 'potential' mind and this just hadn`t come to fruition, and never will. So you have disposed of a 'potential' human being with a perfect mind, potentially?

26 January 2011 at 21:07  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"Brain Death"--The Hoax That Won't Die

26 January 2011 at 23:56  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

CRT said...
"... there are other circumstances that present some deep-seated problems. Carrying the child of someone who has raped you...."

The rape exception is the standard appeal to emotion, typically used by judicial activists, to promote the legalization of abortion. It ignores completely the dangers inherent in weakening fundamental ethical principles protecting human life. Undermining these moral axioms has lead to a climate of infanticide and euthanasia --which may well have implications for all our old ages. The rape exception argument ignores completely the unborn child, as well as the long term psychological and physical damage to women caused by abortion -often resulting in lifelong depression, sterility, suicide or breast cancer.

26 January 2011 at 23:58  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

CRT: You argue that "Carrying the child of someone who has raped you (and it does happen) must be a nightmare."

Far less of a nightmare, surely, than seeing the child's brain sucked out --in a partial birth abortion,
or suffering guilt for fifty years. And what of the pain suffered by the child as it is torn apart, burned alive in saline solution, or decapitated by scissors after delivery (see this grand jury report) . It is abortion which is the cause of nightmares.

26 January 2011 at 23:59  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Sir Henry Morgan says, "Don't talk about the sky-fairy."
Hear, hear! It is supercilious, patronizing and insulting.

27 January 2011 at 11:22  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Jared @ 18:51

Welcome back regardless.

However, ''profane and aggressive writing'' doesn't seem to be precluded by faith, hereabouts.:o)

I am truly glad that you have found comfort/succour/strength/solace/whatever, in your new-found circumstance.

27 January 2011 at 20:23  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Ien: "If the mind( in your opinion) is the most valuable asset would you say that these 'foetus`s' all had in them a 'potential' mind and this just hadn`t come to fruition, and never will."

Yes. Wasn't that completely obvious from what I wrote?

27 January 2011 at 21:14  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo.
I think you missed my point.

Perhaps you really don`t see what you are doing.

27 January 2011 at 22:45  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

len: "I think you missed my point."

Well, either that or I simply don't agree with your point and you find that inconceivable.

I suspect the latter. I think a potential person ia not the same as a real person for the purposes of medical ethics.

28 January 2011 at 07:02  
Blogger Tim said...

But... but... surely his point is blindingly obvious. Perhaps he can be more convincing by being more hostile and/or patronising. It worked for me. I'm totally convinced. I was instantly blinded, and everything became obvious.

28 January 2011 at 07:16  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said...
"At some point, the foetus reaches the stage where it starts to have a mind."

No-one has identified such a "point". There is no scientific evidence for such "point". Please read the
testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a world-renowned expert in human genetics regarding the nature of human embryos

28 January 2011 at 11:54  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said..."At some point, the foetus reaches the stage where it starts to have a mind"

Which "point"? There is no such "point". Please see the testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a world-renowned expert in human genetics regarding the nature of human embryos

28 January 2011 at 12:40  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Sorry. The URL in my previous post is incorrect. It should be:
Jerome Lejeune's Expert Court Testimony
regarding the nature of human embryos

28 January 2011 at 12:49  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI: "Please read the testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune"

Well, thanks for the link. I confess I have merely skimmed it end-to-end given its length so I might have missed something along the way.

It talks extensively about DNA and I could see no surprises there. It also talks about Dr Lejeune's personal beliefs but so what of them?

I couldn't see where it talks about minds in my brief skim through. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to help me zoom in on the pertinent parts to what I actually wrote earlier? Thanks in advance.

28 January 2011 at 13:52  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said...I couldn't see where it talks about minds in my brief skim through.

That is precisely the point. It was you who said "At some point, the foetus reaches the stage where it starts to have a mind." Yet here is a description of human development by a world class scientist which does not mention this "point" . In reality there is no such "point". Nor is there a body part called the "mind". I feel you are mixing metaphysical considerations with science.

You also claim that: "It also talks about Dr Lejeune's personal beliefs but so what of them?"

-which ones?

28 January 2011 at 18:54  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Nor is there a body part called the "mind". I feel you are mixing metaphysical considerations with science."

Omg, you mean you invited me to read an enormous lump of text like that simply to demonstrate that you yourself struggle with the idea of a mind?

Oh this is too much.

Look, you know you have a mind because that's how you experience the world. You think, therefore you are, and all that. You assume, I hope, that the people you perceive around you are similar to yourself. Hence, for you to get on in the world, you assume they have a mind too.

Yes, consciousness and mind are something different to physical things in that they are inherently and entirely private to the person experiencing them. One really has to think of them functionally.

People have brains. We know that people who suffer brain trauma often suffer changes to their mind. We know that people who suffer brain disease usually suffer changes to their mind. We know that alcohol and other drugs, acting on the body, affect the mind.

Through neuroscience, we can observe the brain and recognise similar activity there between different people doing similar things. We can even very roughly predict what happens to personality when parts of the brain are damaged.

We know that the brain has areas such as the front lobes, the cerebellum, and so on, and we can surmise their evolutionary history. We know roughly what part they play in the function of the brain. And we know the very sad result of a baby suffering anencephaly.

A recent news story actually suggested that magnetic fields can change moral behaviour although I'm not sure about the science behind that one.

When people die, their minds seem to disappear when their brain activity stops and we can see this using electroencephalography.

In short, our minds are intimately related to our brains! A zygote has no brain. The brain of a foetus is a developing thing. It starts off as an idea in DNA and develops as organ suitable for sustaining life as an independent body. Somewhere along the way, stuff links up, memories become possible, and the brain becomes capable of hosting a mind.

Saying that the brain simply hasn't developed enough in the early stages to provide the functions necessary to hold the mind is not metaphysics, you mindless oaf.

28 January 2011 at 20:11  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"You mean you invited me to read an enormous lump of text like that simply to demonstrate that you yourself struggle with the idea of a mind?" —DanJ0

No. I wanted you to understand the enormous complexity of the zygote and that world class geneticists do believe it to be fully human.
If you cannot be bothered to read expert opinion why should I believe anything you say?

"Saying that the brain simply hasn't developed enough in the early stages to provide the functions necessary to hold the mind is not metaphysics." —DanJ0

I did not claim you said this. I was merely under the impression that you believed the "mind" to be a "bodypart"

And just which functions are necessary to hold the mind? How exactly does the brain "hold" the mind? At which "point" does it fully hold the mind? Is the mind more than the sum of the atoms in a certain biochemical structure? Does science even have a description of the "mind"?


"The brain of a foetus is a developing thing. It starts off as an idea in DNA" —DanJ0

Developing in which sense? size? weight, complexity? And in which sense is the brain only an idea in DNA? At which "point" does this idea become reality. Is this DNA code isomorphic to the underlying biochemical reality or merely a primitive description of some subset? How is this DNA code processed to form the brain?

Let return to THE point. If abortion is not really murder of the unborn, at which "point" does it so become? I really would like to hear your answer.

You call me a mindless oaf. I think you are avoiding the hard questions by resorting to ad hominem.

28 January 2011 at 21:07  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"No. I wanted you to understand the enormous complexity of the zygote and that world class geneticists do believe it to be fully human. If you cannot be bothered to read expert opinion why should I believe anything you say?"

The complexity of a zygote? It's a fertalised human egg. For sure, the mechanism of encoding information in DNA, its replication, and the production of a individual entity from that information are gob-smackingly amazing. But none of those facts is a surprise to an educated person.

I have already told you I have skim read the enormous contents of that largely pointless link and I don't really care whether or not you 'believe' what I say in my argument. Afterall, it's hardly revolutionary stuff, it's basically paraphrasing public domain facts.

"I did not claim you said this. I was merely under the impression that you believed the "mind" to be a "bodypart""

Well, that's your own slightly strange misunderstanding. Who on earth believes the mind to be a body part? It's almost certainly a phenomenon arising from a body part but that's a very different thing.

"Let return to THE point. If abortion is not really murder of the unborn, at which "point" does it so become? I really would like to hear your answer."

Clearly it's not actually 'murder' by definition for a mother to abort a foetus before the third trimester any more than killing an animal for food is murder other than to a 'meat is murder' animal rights proponent.

The point when a foetus becomes of significant ethical value is in some ways arbitrary of course but we need medical ethics so that's okay. We put enormous value on the idea of an individual, and an individual is the sum of its body, its mind, and its subjective life experience. Hence, for me it is when a body gets a mind because before that it can have no life experience. That point is the passport to significant ethical value as far as I am concerned.

But where does this take us? The idea you started arguing with me about is the very existence of that point, not when it happens. Why? Because you aren't using the existence of a mind as the criterion for gaining significant ethical value. If one accepts the criterion then the point becomes a debate about detail which is then fact-based.

I stated at the start that I think embryos have some ethical value. Your 'appeal to authority' says much the same sort of thing. Yes, a fertalised human egg does not develop into a chicken because it has all the information encoded in it to create a unique [1] human being, given the right environment and time and assuming no damage to the data and its replication.

In the DNA sense, the zygote is the blueprint and the embryo is the first stages of constructing a human being from the blueprint. But so what? That's not news and it's not the same as saying that an embryo has, or ought to have, fundamental human rights akin to a human infant. Not least because that creates further ethical issues which may need to be resolved in some instances.

Finally, I called you a mindless oaf because I had developed a headache and was cross-eyed from pointlessly reading the enormous amount of data in your link, looking for the gold nuggets of your argument only to find that you, for some weird reason, read my argument as saying the mind is a bodypart. Sometimes, it helps to vocalise what one is thinking but it's not in the absence of an argument that's for sure.

[1] In DNA terms and assuming it does not subsequently split.

29 January 2011 at 07:01  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"The complexity of a zygote? It's a fertalised [sic] human egg. For sure, the mechanism of encoding information in DNA, its replication, and the production of a individual entity from that information are gob-smackingly amazing. But none of those facts is a surprise to an educated person""— DanJ0

How do you know this? Did you carry out a survey? Actually, I am totally amazed by the the complexity of the zygote which is of the same order as the adult human and entirely worthy of human personhood. But, maybe I'm not "educated"

"Clearly it's not actually 'murder' by definition for a mother to abort a foetus before the third trimester.""— DanJ0

You are putting the cart before the horse. By whose definition? Please clarify. On the contrary, if the foetus is endowed with personhood, then, by definition, its deliberate killing is murder.

"The point when a foetus becomes of significant ethical value is in some ways arbitrary of course but we need medical ethics so that's okay.""— DanJ0

No, that's precisely what is not "okay". You finally concede that there is no "point" (after the moment of conception) at which a human attains personhood. Nor is medical ethics likely to find such a (non existent) point.

Rather you posit an ad hoc, ill defined criterion, "the body gets a mind" as the moment of personhood.

Why should "functional" neural hardware be necessary for personhood when there are numerous other necessary conditions? Why should a being who has achieved consciousness but permantently lost it in a coma be more valuable as a being who is about to achieve consciousness?
As you point out, I do not accept your criterion. I lack the the omniscience to so devalue the lives of others.

"In the DNA sense, the zygote is the blueprint and the embryo is the first stages of constructing a human being from the blueprint. But so what? That's not news and it's not the same as saying that an embryo has, or ought to have, fundamental human rights akin to a human infant. Not least because that creates further ethical issues ..."— DanJ0

I disagree totally. The zygote IS a human in an early stage of development. It is not "merely a blueprint" for its future, just as you are not "merely a blueprint" for yours. It is precisely the failure to recognize this that "creates further ethical issues".

29 January 2011 at 21:00  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"The complexity of a zygote? It's a fertalised [sic] human egg. For sure, the mechanism of encoding information in DNA, its replication, and the production of a individual entity from that information are gob-smackingly amazing. But none of those facts is a surprise to an educated person""— DanJ0

How do you know this? Did you carry out a survey? Actually, I am totally amazed by the the complexity of the zygote which is of the same order as the adult human and entirely worthy of human personhood. But, maybe I'm not "educated"

"Clearly it's not actually 'murder' by definition for a mother to abort a foetus before the third trimester.""— DanJ0

You are putting the cart before the horse. By whose definition? Please clarify. On the contrary, if the foetus is endowed with personhood, then, by definition, its deliberate killing is murder.

"The point when a foetus becomes of significant ethical value is in some ways arbitrary of course but we need medical ethics so that's okay.""— DanJ0

No, that's precisely what is not "okay". You finally concede that there is no "point" (after the moment of conception) at which a human attains personhood. Nor is medical ethics likely to find such a (non existent) point.

Rather you posit an ad hoc, ill defined criterion, "the body gets a mind" as the moment of personhood.

Why should "functional" neural hardware be necessary for personhood when there are numerous other necessary conditions? Why should a being who has achieved consciousness but permantently lost it in a coma be more valuable as a being who is about to achieve consciousness?
As you point out, I do not accept your criterion. I lack the the omniscience to so devalue the lives of others.

"In the DNA sense, the zygote is the blueprint and the embryo is the first stages of constructing a human being from the blueprint. But so what? That's not news and it's not the same as saying that an embryo has, or ought to have, fundamental human rights akin to a human infant. Not least because that creates further ethical issues ..."— DanJ0

I disagree totally. The zygote IS a human in an early stage of development. It is not "merely a blueprint" for its future, just as you are not "merely a blueprint" for yours. It is precisely the failure to recognize this that "creates further ethical issues".

29 January 2011 at 21:12  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"The complexity of a zygote? It's a fertalised [sic] human egg. For sure, the mechanism of encoding information in DNA, its replication, and the production of a individual entity from that information are gob-smackingly amazing. But none of those facts is a surprise to an educated person""— DanJ0

How do you know this? Did you carry out a survey? Actually, I am totally amazed by the the complexity of the zygote which is of the same order as the adult human and entirely worthy of human personhood. But, maybe I'm not "educated"

"Clearly it's not actually 'murder' by definition for a mother to abort a foetus before the third trimester.""— DanJ0

You are putting the cart before the horse. By whose definition? Please clarify. On the contrary, if the foetus is endowed with personhood, then, by definition, its deliberate killing is murder.

"The point when a foetus becomes of significant ethical value is in some ways arbitrary of course but we need medical ethics so that's okay.""— DanJ0

No, that's precisely what is not "okay". You finally concede that there is no "point" (after the moment of conception) at which a human attains personhood. Nor is medical ethics likely to find such a (non existent) point.

Rather you posit an ad hoc, ill defined criterion, "the body gets a mind" as the moment of personhood.

Why should "functional" neural hardware be necessary for personhood when there are numerous other necessary conditions? Why should a being who has achieved consciousness but permantently lost it in a coma be more valuable as a being who is about to achieve consciousness?
As you point out, I do not accept your criterion. I lack the the omniscience to so devalue the lives of others.

"In the DNA sense, the zygote is the blueprint and the embryo is the first stages of constructing a human being from the blueprint. But so what? That's not news and it's not the same as saying that an embryo has, or ought to have, fundamental human rights akin to a human infant. Not least because that creates further ethical issues ..."— DanJ0

I disagree totally. The zygote IS a human in an early stage of development. It is not "merely a blueprint" for its future, just as you are not "merely a blueprint" for yours. It is precisely the failure to recognize this that "creates further ethical issues".

29 January 2011 at 23:07  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"How do you know this? Did you carry out a survey?"

It looks like you might again have got the wrong end of a different stick as I said that list of facts is widely known. It's been a while since I've been at school but isn't the concept of DNA and genes taught any more? Readers of good newspapers must also see stories on a regular basis about gene therapies and the like. Heck, the success of the human genome project was widely reported a few years back. Why would I need a survey here?

"You are putting the cart before the horse. By whose definition? Please clarify."

English law. Ask yourself how many medical staff have been prosecuted for murder in the UK for performing a second trimester abortion on request?

"No, that's precisely what is not "okay". You finally concede that there is no "point" (after the moment of conception) at which a human attains personhood."

You think I 'finally concede' what based on what I wrote?? Look, this will be my last message here because you're obviously not actually 'reading for comprehension' and it is pointless trying to clarify everything I write.

"Nor is medical ethics likely to find such a (non existent) point."

Personhood is essentially a legal or philosophical term. It's what we choose it to be. People don't 'find' it in a laboratory, it's argued for.

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

And before you misunderstand again, I'm not offering up that as a 'proof' of anything, just offering it as a bit of background reading.

30 January 2011 at 09:08  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

I was using the term "murder"" in the sense of the deliberate taking of innocent human life. I apologize for the imprecision of language.
The point at issue is whether the zygote has personhood. You say that personhood is what we choose it to be... People don't 'find' it in a laboratory, it's argued for. Yet, at the same time, you argue that personhood -in the sense of having "significant ethical value" is based on having "functional" neural hardware -something that you claim can perhaps be found in the laboratory. But you fail to explain why this ad hoc choice of condition for personhood should be used when there are numerous other possible criterion all of which are ethically less problematic. Using neurological structure as a criterion for personhood, it is possible to argue for partial birth abortion and infanticide --as the philosopher Singer has done. It is playing God to say that second trimester abortion is OK but not third -after all, even in "pioneer" quantum physics, time evolution of the wave function is continuous and reality wholistic.

30 January 2011 at 12:02  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older