Thursday, September 01, 2011

The crucial deception of Abortion Rights

His Grace drew your attention yesterday to the ‘affiliation’ that exists between the public sector trade union UNISON and the aggressive pro-abortion group known as 'Abortion Rights'. He pointed out that they say of themselves:
Abortion Rights is the national pro-choice campaign. We are campaigning to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion. We oppose any attack on the 1967 Abortion Act including any attempt to lower the abortion time limit. 40 years after the introduction of safe, legal abortion in Britain women's rights should be advanced not driven back. A consistent three quarters of people support a woman's right to choose in Britain. We believe the law should be brought into line with public opinion - so that women can make their own reproductive decisions without the current unfair legal barriers, obstructions and delays.
His italicised phrases were dealt with yesterday: today he would like to turn the sentence he has placed in bold, not least because they repeat this statistic on another page:
Control over whether, when and how many children to have is crucial to control over every other aspect of a woman’s life. An overwhelming three quarters of people in Britain support a woman’s right to make her own abortion decision.
They are clearly very proud of this colossal public support for their agenda, which is based on a March 2007 Opinion Poll:
Poll results show a clear pro-choice majority

Abortion Rights and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust commissioned an opinion poll in March 2007, which showed that an overwhelming 77 per cent of people support a woman’s right to choose an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. The poll confirms that pro-choice support remains as strong as ever, despite more than two years of anti-choice attacks. It also showed 73 per cent opposition to the delays that women often face when seeking an abortion. Only three per cent stated that ‘under no circumstances would it be acceptable to have an abortion’.
Please note that the phrase ‘in the first three months of pregnancy’ has somehow been conveniently lost between the actual research and the oft-repeated headline claim.

Significantly, their Press Release is unavailable.

The eradication of this phrase is not some simple error of omission: it is a purposeful deception; a downright lie, which completely undermines the stated aims and objectives of Abortion Rights to extend provision in abortion and advance their agenda to eradicate all ‘unfair legal barriers, obstructions and delays’.

In fact, this statistic actually establishes that 77 per cent of the population support a reduction in the abortion time limit. Abortion Rights state: ‘We believe the law should be brought into line with public opinion’. If this were truly the case, they would not be campaigning to extend and advance the provision, but for a reduction in the upper time limit to ensure that abortions take place during and the first trimester.

Why do Abortion Rights purposely propagate disinformation?

Why does UNISION associate itself with a ‘Pro-choice’ organisation which not only seeks to uphold women’s rights, but extend them by deception by disseminating manifestly partial and inaccurate information?

How can Christians – and especially Roman Catholics – who are concerned with the issue of abortion possibly be members of a trade union which is proudly ‘affiliated’ to an organisation which manipulates, lies and deceives?

37 Comments:

Blogger whitespacebug said...

"How can Christians.. possibly be members of a trade union which is proudly ‘affiliated’ to an organisation which manipulates, lies and deceives?"

If we were to apply that reasoning across the board, no Christian could ever be a member of any political party. Or work for any newspaper. Or associate themselves with some other Christian groups.

1 September 2011 at 10:42  
Blogger Span Ows said...

I just think 24 weeks is so wrong for choice: in the case of very imminent danger to mother's life it is understandable but as the legal limit for nay abortion is is simply murder.

1 September 2011 at 10:50  
Blogger Albert said...

The consistent problem with all this is that the pro-death camp is frightened of the truth and needs to do all it can to prevent the truth being heard. Once you are prepared to take innocent human life, anything is possible - lying, denying freedom of speech etc. are pretty minor offences.

(Though of course, it matters little how many people are in favour of it or not. It's a vile, immoral practice that one should oppose, even if, following St Athanasius, one must stand against it contra mundum.)

1 September 2011 at 11:09  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

"How can Christians – and especially Roman Catholics – who are concerned with the issue of abortion possibly be members of a trade union which is proudly ‘affiliated’ to an organisation which manipulates, lies and deceives?"

Why especially Roman Catholics? The emphasis on Roman Catholics is unnecessary. The Vatican, unlike the leaders of many other Christian churches, is outspoken, clear and unequivocal on this issue but there can be no doubt that this is an issue that transcends denominational boundaries.

All Christian Churches, if they are true to their calling, must surely speak out publically this moral evil and provide guidance to their membership? There can be no compromise with abortion - it is wrong under any and all circumstances.

It seems to me Christians can remain members of Trades Unions if they ascertain where there their monies go, take all reasonable steps to stop payments to pro-death organisations and campaign within them to change policies.

There is also the thorny issue of 'Red Nose Day', 'Children in Need' and the 'National Lottery'. Before giving money to support these do we know what 'causes' they support and that they are in line with Christian values?

1 September 2011 at 11:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

All Christian Churches, if they are true to their calling, must surely speak out publically this moral evil and provide guidance to their membership?

Quite. I remember reading David Steele comment that he drew personal moral support for his abortion law from the position (or lack thereof) of the CofE. The then Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in favour of parts of the Bill and thought the rightness of it varied from case to case.

1 September 2011 at 11:45  
Blogger Cam Ma said...

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

Dr J Goebbels

1 September 2011 at 12:05  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

It was recently said to me by someone for whom I have a great deal of respect even though we differ strongly on the question of faith (he claims to be an atheist), that the reason groups like this and other "secularisers" and "atheists" are so vitriolic toward any faith is that they know they do not have a valid argument other than their own narcissistic belief that they, and they alone, have a "right" to dictate what others may, or may not do.

According to my friend they know there is no case to support their view, so they resort to untruths, half truths, twisted history and general mudslinging to hide it. As he put it, the more vitriolic the attack, the less truth there is to support the case being defended.

Interestingly, he also believes abortion to be utterly and totally wrong...

1 September 2011 at 13:14  
Blogger Daddy said...

@The way of the Dodo,

This is but one example of where Christians should scrutinise carefully to what and whom they give their allegiance.

Christian men, in particular, might like to consider the far-reaching and well-funded (by the taxpayer, not least) misandristic pursuits of organisations like Women's Aid, and even some trading on very old and august names, such as NSPCC, who have undergone very extreme 'mission-creep'.

What I find most curious here is that until a child is born, a woman should supposedly be allowed to get rid of it by any means, but once it is born, she must be allowed to keep it, with benefits, at all costs.

Ironically, cutting abortions and thereby increasing the number of newborn children for adoption would probably ease the pressure on local authorities to take children from loving parents in order to make their adoption quotas. Everyone's a winner.

1 September 2011 at 13:17  
Blogger Mark said...

Once you get past killing children, the lying comes easy.

1 September 2011 at 13:39  
Blogger Richard Brown said...

I would be delighted to know whether I was one of the 77% who apparently said Yes, or the 23% who said No. As it is, I can't honestly recall being asked, so I must have been asleep that day.

As Yes Minister so amply demonstrated many years ago, you can get any answer you want out of an Opinion Poll, provided you ask the right questions in the right order. Just ask who commissioned it.

1 September 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Daddy

Um, well, I think you opinion is somewhat skewed on Women's Aid and on the NSPCC and, indeed, on the notion of State intervention generally to protect children from abuse and neglect and promote their welfare.

Then, as they say, that's a whole other debate.

1 September 2011 at 14:29  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

Some Catholic theologians see the Church's position on abortion as having very clear social and political implications.

"If one contends, as we do, that the right of every foetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth.

Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care.

Consistency means we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fibre of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility."
(Cardinal Bernardin)

1 September 2011 at 15:01  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

From conception (call this a 'zygote', then a 'blastocyst', followed by an 'embryo' and then 'foetus' in deceptive, clinical medical speak), life with all its potential has been started. This potential is what the Catholic Church seeks to defend and has done so since the Second Century.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that human life begins when the woman's egg is fertilised by a male sperm. From that moment a unique life begins, independent of the life of the mother and father.
Each new life that begins at this point is not a potential human being but a human being with potential.

"Frequently man lives as if God did not exist, and even puts himself in God's place... He claims for himself the Creator's right to interfere in the mystery of human life. Rejecting divine law and moral principles, he openly attacks the family."
(Pope John Paul II, 2002)

1 September 2011 at 15:12  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Don't rock the boat Cranmer, we like being lied to, its a well Established Tradition.

We didn't get where we are today without being deceived cretins.

Word verification "hangemi"

1 September 2011 at 16:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "In fact, this statistic actually establishes that 77 per cent of the population support a reduction in the abortion time limit."

Is that just inferred from the reported finding? If the question was (as I believe is the case):

"Do you think that women should or should not have the right to choose an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy"

and 77% agreed they should then perhaps the same 77% would have agreed if the question was:

"Do you think that women should or should not have the right to choose an abortion in the first five months of pregnancy"?

That is, the question appears fairly crap for a survey. In fact, it looks quite ambiguous to me.

When one looks at the reports of the other poll a few months earlier it says that 63% agreed with the statement:

"If a woman wants an abortion, she should not have to continue with her pregnancy"

and 59% for the statement:

"Abortion should be made legally available for all who want it."

1 September 2011 at 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo - “life with all its potential has been started”

Playing devil’s advocate here, spontaneous natural ending of the above life happens with every animal that has a womb. For very unlucky women, it’s happens 100% of the time. The Morning After Pill, which can be used several days after copulation, mimics this happening and yet it’s still branded by you as an act of abortion. The church doesn’t have a problem with blood pressure pills, so have we double standards when it comes to modern intervention techniques.

1 September 2011 at 18:51  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

People die of natural causes everyday that wouldn't justify murdering.

As I've said, the Roman Catholic Church holds that human life begins when the woman's egg is fertilised. From that moment a unique life begins a human being with potential has arrived.

Regretably, life dies within the womb and infants die at birth. This is not comparable with the wilful and deliberate ending of life once it has started on its unique journey.

Blood pressure pills?

1 September 2011 at 19:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

The Inspector is against what is generally called ‘abortion’, the physical aspiration of the living foetus, as much as you. But we have to sell it to the people. The Roman Catholic Church isn’t great on changing its mind (qv Galileo and the earth going round the sun) and probably wouldn’t appreciate being reminded that unpleasant failures happen in the womb early on, so much for life on it’s journey of mystery in those cases.

Blood Pressure Pills are ‘good’ examples of a mimic of nature, and avoiding God’s intent of an early grave. Then presumably The Morning After Pill is a bad one.

1 September 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

"But we have to sell it to the people."

Do we? It is a truth that the Church should explain as morally binding on Christians. But sell it?

The Catholic Church is fully aware that nature might end human life at any of the stages from conception to birth.

How would the argument that natural "unpleasant failures" happen in the womb justify the use of a pill that "mimics" this i.e. deliberately causes it? Isn't that the central point? There can be no moral justification for doing so. Life is life and should not be terminated or aborted.

The Catholic Church has no problem with people using medical science to offset illness, ease pain or avoid death! No contradiction there that I can see.

1 September 2011 at 20:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

The Inspector is not one to labour a point, so he’ll leave it here, with one last statement - The only way to get abortion stopped is to get the people on board, and regrettably, in todays parlance, that means ‘selling’ the idea.

However, the Inspector appreciates you are taking a hard line on the subject, and it would be disrespectful to question you further on your stance.

1 September 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

Killing a person is always super-serious.

There has to be a very, very good reason.

It must also be lawful.

If the person doing the killing ever wishes any peace, it must also be moral (which is by no means the same as lawful).

Killing unborn babies, because the mother finds them an inconvenience, is just about as bad as it gets.

I find it hard to believe that any person fully familiar with the facts of abortion can think it anything other than industrialised slaughter.

A holocaust.

Rachael is still weeping

1 September 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger Gavin said...

I was distressed and depressed to read today that David Cameron intends to vote against the forthcoming Bill.

OK, I haven't read the full text of the Bill, I've only gleaned the general gist of it, and perhaps there is something in the small print, etc etc. That's the only reason I can think of which might mitigate in his favour.
But if the PM simply doesn't want to risk changing the law because this issue is a 'hot potato' and could be politically damaging to him, then shame on him. Cameron seems to be all mouth and no trousers.

1 September 2011 at 21:12  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

I appreciate we've probably come as far as we can in our discussion.

Before "selling" the pro-life argument one would have first to evangalise Britain. How many people today actually accept the basic tenets of Christianity?

Yes, my position is 'hard line' in the sense that I believe the basic principles pertaining to 'life with potential' cannot be morally diluted without grave consequences for the individuals concerned and for the common good.

As a Christian I'll leave you with one last thought.

At what point when Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit was He both human life and the Son of God? When did He acquire His predestined potential as the Christ? As a'zygote', or 'blastocyst', or as an 'embryo' or 'foetus' or at the point of birth?

1 September 2011 at 22:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

Pragmatism old chap, pragmatism. We won’t save them all, let’s try and save what we can, for the sake of the women as well...

1 September 2011 at 23:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I never trust these polls. They seem to reflect an unease about abortion that is nothing beyond the tribute that vice often pays to virtue. It's as if people are looking for some way to salve the conscience a little by expressing concern over circumstances. "Yes, surely abortion is a moral quandary and we should tighten up the circumstances." Yet when the abstract becomes personal (i.e. when little 16-year old Tiffany gets herself knocked up) then the qualms get swallowed for the sake of expedience.

Abortion is legal in the West because the body politic in the West wants it to be legal. It is an incredibly effectively solution to a whole range of problems. But then .. killing the problem is usually a very effective solution. It's just not very often that we make it legal.

carl

2 September 2011 at 00:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

Sadly, 'pragmatism' in the face evil invariably leads to compromise and yet more ground is given.

Just look around at the results of this over the past 60 years.

Try giving a Christian perpective on abortion and you're labeled a 'religious fanatic' or a 'sexist'. By conducting the debate on secular terms all we can reasonably expect is to delay the inevitable - abortion on demand, no two doctors and certainly no counselling.

I'm afraid, on this issue, as I see it now, you are either with God or against Him. The essential debate is between two very distinct worldviews. It defines you.

All the Christian Churches should have stood firm in the 1960's against 'contra'-ception pills and against abortion. Instead most compromised from a sense of compassion for families and for pregnant mothers.

Yes, on the basis of the 'lesser of two evils' , accept abortion will not be ended overnight and work to restrict its impact. At the same time let's be proud that we resist it because it is against the moral order.

2 September 2011 at 01:18  
Blogger English Viking said...

Carl,

If abortion was an effective solution to society's ills, we wouldn't be in the terrible mess we are today, would we?

It's not terribly effective;

It is dreadfully, awfully destructive.

PS And people think me a thug? But a man in a white coat, with a few letters after his name is educated? Civil? Progressive?

I've had more than a few letters after my name; most of them beginning with 'f'.

Some others too, which I now despise.

I've also been trained to kill people I don't know.

I've never killed a little one, and I thank God for that.

2 September 2011 at 01:18  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

"But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such."

The slaughtered innocent cry out for justice.

2 September 2011 at 01:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Slightly different tack but Radio4 broadcast a programme the other day about epigenetics. I need to read up some more on what they were suggesting in the programme and the ongoing research but it puts an extra moral dimension on pregnancy if it turns out to be true.

What they were suggesting I think is that if one gets pregnant during a long period of poor nutrition, such as during a war, then there will be epigenetic effects on the mother ... and on the offspring ... and here's the thing: on the offspring's offspring too way down the line.

There are obviously tough issues, perhaps involving abortion, around the high risk, or perhaps inevitable passing on, of horrible genetic diseases like sickle cell anaemia to one's offspring. But people may be passing on damage, perhaps reducing lifespans by decades, to their grandchildren simply because of their local environment at the time of gestating their grandchildren's parent.

This is not just raising the spectre of eugenics here, it's also raising social issues around the poor if this is true. Afterall, if one is very concerned about the unborn then one might feel an obligation not just to help those in absolute, have-nothing poverty but those potential parents who have poor nutrition, or even high levels of stress, through less severe forms of poverty.

2 September 2011 at 07:02  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Why are you obsessed with abortion, and why are you, and especially the RC christians so determined to interfere, AS MALES with what happens inside WOMEN'S bodies?

It's none of your damned business!

I suspect it is an integral part of the religious fantasy.
That not only is there a big invisible sky fairy, but said fairy is MALE ( Presumably with a big dick and humongous spritiual bollocks )
Well, it aint so.

Time to move on, and bloddy well grow up.

2 September 2011 at 08:49  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Selling the argument is only possible if we accept some limit to our authority. Dodo said “ you are either with God or against Him.” The issue of abortion has been an or-going wound in our society since the 1960s and although some of the atheistic contributors to this blog indicate their abhorrence of abortion, peoples’ opinions on the issue usually coincide with their view about God i.e. people who accept that there is a God tend to accept that their own opinions are not necessarily right and seek to find out what God’s law is by various methods, i.e. reason, tradition, scripture and conscience. If God does not exist then our own authority is paramount. Some will therefore be in favour of abortion because it is a lucrative business and others because they think it is a pragmatic solution to a difficult problem. If God does not exist there is no reason to label these decisions as being either good or bad. Without a higher authority it is difficult to see how humans would ever be able to come to a consensus on any matter. For many issues, that might not be much of a problem but when you are deciding to kill babies it takes on a different level of seriousness.

I share other contributors’ disappointment with David Cameron but I have been continually disappointed with politicians on this issue for over 40 years. Maybe we get the politicians we deserve because as a nation we are not prepared to vote against what we perceive to be our own narrow financial interest.

With regard to OIGs comment about Galileo, the theory that the Earth moves round the sun had been earlier postulated as a theory by Copernicus many years before and had raised no problems. New Advent has this to say on this issue:
It is, moreover, undeniable, that the proofs which Galileo adduced in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus, …were far from conclusive, and failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahé … and Lord Bacon … The proof from the phenomenon of the tides, to which Galileo appealed to establish the rotation of the earth on its axis, is now universally recognized as a grave error, and he treated with scorn Kepler's suggestion, foreshadowing Newton's establishment of the true doctrine, that a certain occult influence of the moon was in some way responsible. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

2 September 2011 at 09:08  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

DanJ0

An earlier post:

Some Catholic theologians see the Church's position on abortion as having very clear social and political implications.

"If one contends, as we do, that the right of every foetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth.

Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care.

Consistency means we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fibre of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility."
(Cardinal Bernardin)

2 September 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger whitespacebug said...

Serpents and Doves. Do you interpret this as meaning that holding to Christianity, anti-abortionism, and political conservatism is a contradiction?

2 September 2011 at 11:10  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

Do you?

It depends on your understanding of "political conservatism".

It's about striking the right balance between the State and the individual. To offer compassionate support tothose in need without undermining individual responsibility and creating dependency.

2 September 2011 at 22:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It's about striking the right balance between the State and the individual. To offer compassionate support tothose in need without undermining individual responsibility and creating dependency."

The Holy Grail of UK politics, I'd say. With an equal chance of finding it probably.

3 September 2011 at 07:39  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”

3 September 2011 at 18:00  
Blogger len said...

Christians are 'in' the World but not 'of' the World.
Its a mistake for Christians to think they can ever change this World.Huge advances have been made(in the past )by Christian Politicians but now the forces of darkness are overturning all they accomplished.
Man is basically fallen and unchangeable by anyone other than God.And now man in his fallen unredeemed state wishes to drive God out of Society and let free rein to his fallen state.
It is the persuing of this mad course of a Godless World which will ultimately lead to our destruction, the seeds have been sown and we are already starting to reap the fruit.

4 September 2011 at 08:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older