Dangerous Days

As I wrote at the start of the year (see A Momentous Year and What's the Agenda?) the pro-abortion lobby is planning a major offensive this year. 

The date of the next skirmish in the House of Commons has now been revealed: it is 23rd October, when there will be a 10 minute Rule Bill put before the House for a vote.

The vote on 23rd October is the start of the process: and it will give great heart to whichever side wins, influencing when and whether further attempts are made to remove abortion from all specific legal oversight.

What should we do? I have spoken with a number of MPs and former ministers over the years, and they all agree that personal lobbying by individual constituents is the thing that is most likely to influence how they vote on many issues. This has far more influence than (eg) large postcard campaigns organised by lobby groups, which are easily disregarded (I am old enough to remember the huge Mail Maggie A Mountain campaign back in the day: thousands of postcards delivered - and disregarded...)

Of course, the die-hard pro-abortionists will not be swayed, and the die-hard pro-life MPs can be relied on. But they are a minority (in both cases). There is a large 'muddled middle' and these are the MPs who are open to influence.

It is worth noting that an MP need not be pro-life to recognise that the proposed de-regulation is extremely unwise - as long as someone takes him or her through the implications.

So what we must do is make the time to visit our MPs' surgeries, if at all possible, or failing that, to write clear and courteous personal letters or emails, outlining why this is a bad idea.  If you don't know why it's a bad idea, or think that as we have virtual abortion on demand already, then it makes no difference, read my posts linked to above; or better still, perhaps, go to the excellent introductory brief  video by Life, and more importantly, read and use their excellent comprehensive guidance, that gives all the background you need.

If we lose this legislative battle, we risk setting the pro-life cause back by decades in this country, and opening the door to abortion on demand for any reason up to birth, to the indoctrination of our children in schools, to the imposition of abortions as a compulsory aspect of training for medics and nurses, and of course, the continued bullying and exploitation of young or vulnerable women - and worst of all, even more young lives destroyed before birth.

Don't tut and do nothing.  Don't salve your conscience by sending a pre-printed postcard. Take personal responsibility and lobby your MP personally: it is the most powerful political tool we have. Encourage others to do so.

And pray.

--

Lest you be in a position to ask: Lord, when did I see you unborn and fail to protect you?...

Discerning God's Will

It can be hard, at times like these, when Ireland has unleashed abortion on its population by a popular vote, and when MPs in Westminster signal that many are quite ready to remove even what little restraint there is on abortion in England and impose that regime on Northern Ireland as well... it can be hard, I say, to remember that all this is in line with the permissive will of God.

Of course, not His active will; but the price He is prepared to pay for giving mankind free will: the ability to choose to love, and the necessary counterpart to that, the ability to choose not to love. 

But despair at these developments shows a very limited historical perspective; God allowed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and countless others to kill in huge numbers; he has allowed the evil of abortion on a far greater scale, already, than that being introduced at present; and He has paid the price - on the Cross.

Why this is His will - even His permissive will - is always a challenging question; but it is scarcely a new one. One might speculate that the West has to reach a certain depth of depravity in order to recognise the need for conversion, to be re-born as a Christian society. But that is speculation.

What is easier to discern is what His will is for us in this situation. As St Teresa of Calcutta said, our job is not to win, but to be faithful.

Sometimes, of course, when one is feeling oppressed by the World, even discerning God's will for oneself is tough; in those cases, I find it easiest to consider what the Devil wants from the situation (it is sad that I find it easier to discern his mind than God's, but there it is...)  

So the Devil would like me to give up and despair of good ever triumphing (sin against hope); to hate and abuse those who wreak this great evil (sin against charity); to doubt that God is omnipotent or all-good, or that the Church is right on these matters (sin against Faith) and so on.

Which makes my immediate plan clear: I must keep working for life and keep hope alive; I must love and pray for those who have done such evil, as Our Lord loved and prayed for those who crucified Him; and I must keep the Faith, particularly by recourse to the Sacraments, and an active spiritual life, in this terrible time.

--

May our Blessed Mother, St Joseph her chaste spouse, St Michael and all the angels and saints pray for us, for all who promote, procure or perform abortions, for all victims of abortion, and for all who work for the cause of life.

Ill-liberalism

Tomorrow, Ealing Council will be deciding (whether) to impose a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in Mattock Lane, so as to prevent Good Counsel Network and other pro-Life organisations from maintaining their vigil outside an abortion clinic, and offering help to any women who want it.

If imposed, this will be a grave injustice, for a number of reasons.

One is that it removes a last line of defence from women who are being bullied or otherwise coerced into an abortion they do not want. The number of women who have accepted help from Good Counsel Network over the years is significant. Even Ann Furedi, CEO of BPAS, freely admits that women entering an abortion clinic have not necessarily made up their mind.  So the offer of an alternative - and genuine support in pursuing that alternative - is crucial

A second reason that it is unjust is that it is a wrong use of law.  That is a serious issue.  PSPOs were designed to enable local authorities to clamp down on anti-social behaviour (such as unruly consumption of alcohol in public places) that was distressing local residents. Here the order is being used (at best) to prevent women arriving at a clinic from the distressing knowledge that some people disagree that abortion is a legitimate solution to a crisis pregnancy, and (at worst) to outlaw the peaceful expression of a lawful view.  It is very wrong to use the law in ways so at variance with its intention: bringing the law into disrepute is a serious dereliction of duty for a public authority.

A third injustice springs from the way in which the Council have gone about their decision-making. They have accepted unsubstantiated allegations made against those who hold the vigils there; and have assumed their guilt, claiming that women have been harassed, even when the clinic's own cameras, trained permanently on the entrance to the clinic, have collected no such evidence - and nor have the police ever had to speak to, still less caution or arrest, the vigil-holders. Yet Ealing Council passed a motion to take all “necessary actions within its powers, utilising all necessary resources, to prevent anti-abortion protestors from intimidating and harassing women”

A fourth injustice is the way in which the group calling itself Sister Supporter has, for years, been allowed (and even encouraged by Ealing's MP, Rupa Huq) to run a noisy protest, designed to provoke and intimidate those holding the vigil, and to create such a nuisance that the Council would have an excuse to take action.

And of course, there is the fundamental assault on the most basic of our democratic liberties: the rights of association and of freedom of speech. Of course these are not absolute; but they are weighty considerations - and the hypocrisy of Ealing Council and Rupa Huq MP may be readily manifested if one asks oneself a very simple question: would they use PSPOs to prevent picketing in the case of an industrial dispute. And I think the answer is clear: of course they would not. A PSPO is only considered because they are hostile to the pro-lifers.  And that is a very grave injustice indeed - a 'liberal' worldview so sick that it has become illiberal.

How it works

A local charity provides support for families that are struggling in one way or another. That is, in fact, their focus and their purpose.

One of their volunteers recently wrote to one of the paid coordinators, about a particular family, when it became apparent that the mother was proposing to walk out on the father, taking their young boy with her. The question the volunteer had, was whether anyone had suggested other options to the mother, in terms of support for, or improvement of,  the relationship; or had even told her that this might not be in the young boy's interests (given that this charity is dedicated to family support). The volunteer mentioned that research tended to support this view.

In response he was told that research can be used for many purposes, and while in an ideal world a child would tend to fare better with two parents at home who have a good relationship, if the relationship has broken down, the child would be better off if the parents separate.  And then the kicker: Those of us in the office who have been through divorce, feel it would have been to the detriment of our own children to remain in an unhappy marriage.

There is so much to unpack here. The first is the statement that research can be used for many purposes.  Of course it can. That's not the point at issue: the question is, is the research reliable? And what does it suggest?  For, whatever other uses research might be put to (such as inducing guilt, which I suspect lies behind this comment) an appropriate use is precisely to inform policies of agencies such as this.

The second is the false antithesis: a child with parents in a good relationship, versus a child with parents whose relationship has broken down. That suggests that relationships can be so categorised, in the first place; and secondly that a relationship that has been deemed to have broken down is necessarily beyond saving.  Both are very questionable propositions.

Of course, a child doesn't want his parents fighting all the time. But we know that the vast majority of children want their parents to stay together. So why is it so unthinkable to explore the option of staying together and making the relationship work?

And the clue to that is in the last sentence: because I have had a divorce, and my friends have, it must be acceptable. 

Dismissing research, and then using such an argument is extraordinary. Any researcher knows about confirmation bias: that tendency to notice and lend weight to things that support what we want to believe. And of course a mother who has left her children's father has a strong psychological interest in justifying her decision to herself. She knows she is not a bad person, and would not choose to do anything to the detriment of her children. So of course she looks for (and finds) evidence to support that belief.

Moreover the women in the office have jobs and stability - to some extent they can shield themselves and their children from the consequences of their decisions. But their clients, people who are already struggling to hold their fragmented lives together much lower down the social scale, are in a very different position.

But rather than face the facts - or at the very least, the implications of the research - they flee into denial. The rich and the middle classes indulge their vices, and the poor suffer - just as with pro-abortion campaigning.  That's how it always works.

Oxymorons

I have long been incensed at the effrontery of 'Catholics for Choice.' The 'choice' for which they campaign, of course, is the choice to kill the unborn.  To call themselves Catholics whilst proclaiming this Satanic doctrine is an oxymoron of the highest order. Abortion is a sin of the world, the flesh, and the Devil.

I was reminded of this when I learned of Catholic Schools that are proclaiming themselves 'Stonewall Schools.' Whilst Stonewall presents as an organisation that aims to promote equality and address bullying, its underlying philosophy, ethos and anthropology are all contrary to Catholic beliefs.

That reality comes to the surface from time to time, revealing Stonewall’s profound antipathy for Catholicism.  Cardinal O’Brien was awarded the title ‘bigot of the year’ by Stonewall, for standing up for Catholic teaching about marriage; and Stonewall was behind the legislation on adoption that forced the closure of Catholic adoption agencies.

The fundamental point of disagreement, of course, is Stonewall’s belief that homosexual and other non-procreative sexual behaviour is a positive good, and their mission to normalise and gain acceptance for such behaviour. That stands in stark contrast to the Church’s teaching, founded on the words of Christ Himself, that human sex is only good in marriage, when it expresses the nuptial union of a man and a woman, in love and open to life.

That then leads to very different approaches to, for example, the practical issue of education to prevent bullying. Stonewall’s approach is to teach children that 'gay children' (for example) should not be bullied because 'gay' is natural and good.

The Church, of course, teaches that nobody should be bullied, whether we approve of their behaviour or not, as we are all made in the image of God, and none of us is free from fault or defect, due to Original Sin.

So Stonewall’s anti-bullying work is at the service of their larger agenda, which is in contradiction to the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. The construction and promotion of the notion of a ‘gay person’ as an identity is philosophically and anthropologically unsound, and leads children (and indeed adults, including teachers) into error.  That error is compounded with the assumption that ‘being gay’ (ie subject to homosexual desires) can only find authentic expression in the indulgence of such desires. That error then leads people into sin and depravity.

 It is for that reason that it is incompatible for a School to be both Catholic and a ‘Stonewall School.’ And it is for that reason that I am delighted that the lamentable CES document 'Made in God's Image' is being quietly re-written. Let us hope that the next version is Catholic, not oxymoronic.

And let us hope and pray that the relevant bishops have a quiet word with the heads of the 'Stonewall Schools' and put them back on the straight and narrow; for the broad and popular Stonewall path leads somewhere quite different.

Fear and Abortion

The driver behind many abortions is fear.  Time and again, women speaking to counsellors say that they are afraid that they will not be able to cope, that their relationship will be put under too great a strain, that their parents will be unsupportive (or worse), that their education or career will suffer if they have a baby at this time, and so on.

All of these fears are about imagined futures.  But we do not know the future.  And further, if we choose one course of action (say, an abortion) we will never know what would have happened if we had not.  Moreover, we have a psychological investment in validating our decision, so we will tend to assume that all that we feared would indeed have come about, had we not had the abortion.

So we now have huge numbers of women in society who have a need to believe that their fears were well-founded, and that their abortion(s) saved them from some terrible fate.

But experience suggests that is not the case. Women who proceed with their pregnancies, even in very difficult circumstances, do tend to cope. Hardly any seem to regret their decision, and large numbers look back and say with hindsight that the (at the time unwanted) pregnancy was in fact a blessing in disguise.

This is an example of a larger phenomenon: very often we think in advance, that we won't be able to cope with some new change or challenge; yet more often than not, we do, when the occasion arises. As my mother used to say, we never get the grace until we actually need it...

But the abortion industry and its advocates thrive on fear.  Young women are taught to believe that an unintended pregnancy is the worst possible disaster; that a handicapped child would be impossible to cope with; that they will know when it is the right time to have a baby, and that any other time is the wrong time and will wreck their lives.

If we are to win the war against abortion, we need to discover how to combat these fears. In part, that means continuing to provide  (and better publicise) the support that so many women have already benefitted from. But we also need to challenge educational projects that inculcate these fears, and protect girls and young women from those aspects of popular culture that indoctrinate them. And, which will be even more difficult, we need to find ways to enable those who have had abortions to view them differently, and to be allowed to confront their loss and their grief.

For unless we convert hearts as well as the minds, we will never make real progress on this issue.

The urgent task, as I have blogged recently (here and here), is to resist the abortion lobby's push for Abortion on Demand; but we will also need to turn our minds to the truly important longer-term task of making abortion both (demonstrably) unnecessary and completely unthinkable, rather than the apparently easy option it appears to be today.

What's the Agenda?

Further to my recent post about the concerted effort to 'De-Criminalise' abortion, I want to consider what the real agenda may be here.

Since I wrote that, we have witnessed the fury of BPAS and their allies at the appointment of Maria Caulfield as CCHQ Vice Chair for Women.  The ostensible reason for their fury is that she 'supports the criminalisation of women who end their own pregnancies.' The charge arises from her opposition to the bill to 'De-Criminalise' abortion.

In fact, the number of prosecutions of women for ending their own pregnancies is miniscule. The abortionist apologists' efforts are disproportionate: so what is their agenda?

I think there are a few things, some defensive and some aspirational (if one can use that word in this context).

On the defensive side of the ledger, I think there are (at least) three issues that worry them.

One is that very few doctors want to perform abortions. This is a problem they discussed at the meeting in the Royal College of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists last year. One doctor there, who performs abortions, said that no doctors want to do this; and his proposed solution was simply to pay them more.

But if they can get 'De-Criminalisation' through, they will be much better placed to enforce abortion practice on trainee doctors and young doctors - 'normalising' it for the next generation. They will also remove all conscience clauses (as these are part of the hated 'legislation') and thus be able to compel compliance by medical and nursing staff - and keep those horrid Catholics out of the professions.

A second is that, for all their noise, they are not winning the debate. ComRes polling last year suggests that most people, and women in particular, think that there should be more, not fewer, restrictions on the availability of abortion.  This Bill is quite out of step with public opinion.

So I think that they are trying to use legislation to change social attitudes (as happened with so-called Gay Marriage).

Their third worry is a sub-set of the second, but quite focused: the pro-life movement, and in particular the younger generation of the pro-life movement, is getting strong.

So they want both to curtail its activity, and impose an educational framework that indoctrinates children early about the 'good' of abortion: 'De-Criminalisation' is a step towards that goal.

On the aspirational side, of course, the abortion providers would love to be free of all constraints on their businesses.

And there are those, such as Ann Furedi, who seem genuinely to believe that it is an essential element of women's rights, and so want to ensure no legislative interference. It is worth engaging with Furedi's thinking, as she is coherent and consistent: she is quite clear, for example, that what she wants is the right to abortion up to birth, for any reason, with no restrictions whatsoever.  She is also clear that this involves killing living human beings, but believes that the self-determination of women is more important than the right to life of their unborn children.

And as I mentioned previously, there is a desire to use the UK as an exemplar to the rest of the world, and so export our murderous practices to all countries, with the weight of the UN and many wealthy countries behind this drive.

So for those who may be wondering why this is a big issue, given that we already have, in practice, abortion on demand in this country, those are some of the issues at stake.

A Momentous Year

2018 promises to be a momentous year in the UK, and one with global ramifications.

I am not thinking here of Brexit or other (relatively) trivial political issues. Rather, it is the year that the abortion industry has been planning for - the year in which they plan to push for Abortion on Demand.

As a clever piece of marketing, they are using the expression 'De-Criminalisation' to describe their aspirations. After all, who wants to 'criminalise' either women in desperate circumstances, or doctors?

They have also ensured that the various Colleges (of doctors, nurses, midwives etc) are all lined up - regardless of the wishes of their members.

There is a draft bill ready and waiting, and a huge campaign ready to be launched.

So we need to understand what 'De-Criminalisation' is likely to mean, and to consider what we can do to oppose it.

'De-Criminalisation' will mean that there is no legal framework surrounding the provision of abortion in this country.  It will be treated purely as a medical procedure, and any guidelines will be at the discretion of medics and in practice (judging by the way the Colleges have operated recently) based on the wishes of the abortion providers.

The probable consequences of this will be:

• Abortion on demand, up to birth, for any reason.  That will include abortion for being the 'wrong sex' (typically female), as well as for any reasons of social convenience.  
• The removal of any rights of conscience for medical or ancillary staff to refuse to participate in abortions.
• The inclusion of abortion as a compulsory part of medical training for medics entering Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
• The removal of safeguards for those taking abortifacient medicines: ie DIY abortions, at home.
• The inclusion of aggressive pro-abortion 'education' in our schools

It is quite conceivable that the work of pro-life organisations will be dubbed 'hate crime' and made illegal. The current campaign for 'buffer zones' around abortion clinics, in the absence of any evidence of intimidation or harassment, shows the direction of travel here.

In a country where abortion has already been implicated in various Serious Case Reviews as facilitating the abuse of young girls in Rochdale etc, removing abortion from any kind of legal framework seems particularly perverse.

And the UK is being used as the pace-setter: the goal is to use the UK as an exemplar to all other countries in the world, and make abortion a universal right, the denial of which will lead to severe sanctions (again, we can see the ground work being laid for this already).

So it is imperative that all people of good will, who believe that human life is inviolable, should do whatever they can to oppose this evil movement this year.  I hope and expect that the various pro-life organisations in the UK will be mounting various educational and political campaigns; and they will need as much support as we can muster.  If we fight, it will be hard work, but we may conceivably stop the spread of this evil. If we do nothing, we are sacrificing future lives not only in this country, but globally.

More good news from Lancaster

Our venerable bishop, +Campbell, has published a blog post in support of the pro-Life movement.  In it he writes, inter alia:

As we approach the 50^th anniversary of the (1967) Abortion Act in Britain, we recall we’re citizens of heaven first and we have pro-life obligations to the poor, the homeless, the disabled, the elderly and the refugee.  But abortion is foundational. There’s no way around it. It’s the cornerstone issue for any society because it deals with the most basic human right of all – the right to life.

He also takes a passing swipe at the Tablet, which has further degraded itself (who knew that was possible?) by publishing an attack on Catholic teaching on abortion.  +Campbell writes:

Some Catholics – including some periodicals and newspapers who claim to use that name – seem simply embarrassed by the abortion issue.

The Tablet's editorial is behind a paywall - and even if it were not I would hesitate to link to it - why encourage them?  However, I have read it, and it is described in brief here, which also contains an excellent response from another of our good bishops, +Davies.

+Davies also attacked the Tablet:

'Sadly there are journals which use the name "Catholic" but are not reliable guides to the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church.'

Damian Thompson, Editor-in-Chief of the Catholic Herald, asks (on Twitter) what the Tablet would have to do to get banned from Westminster Cathedral. However, I also note that so far it is Christian Today, and not the Catholic Herald, that carries +Davies' criticisms.

Nonetheless, the question is a good one: when will Westminster Cathedral set the lead and stop selling the Tablet?  And if it continues to sell it, why does it do so?

I haven't been to check, but I would be astonished to find that it is still being sold in either Lancaster or Shrewsbury Cathedrals, after the comments from the respective bishops - and I hope that all the churches in their dioceses (and, indeed, in others) follow suit. When good bishops lead, it behoves us all to follow.

Beyond the rhetoric

Those who style themselves pro-choice are fond of rhetoric. 

Some is simply silly (Keep your rosaries off my ovaries being a prime example).

But some sounds as though it might mean something. Who could argue with A woman's right to choose? But of course, that sentence is never finished. For most could argue with a woman's right to choose to kill a child.  And that is the choice in question.  Indeed, when people are audacious enough to offer other choices to women, as the Good Counsel Network does, they must be prevented, and the full weight of Officialdom will be brought to bear on them.

Listen to these women, who thought their only choice was to abort their babies, but who were offered an alternative:

 And of course, women who choose, as Clare McCulloch and her brave associates do, to offer such a choice to women in distress... why their choice is not valid at all.

And the reality of choice exposed by videos like this is that many women 'choosing' abortion are forced into it, whether by the circumstances of their life, or by the men in their life...  Some choice...

The other slogan that is particularly popular at present is Trust Women.  But of course, they are only to be trusted if they are doing what the abortionists and their fellow-travellers want them to do .  They are not to be trusted to offer support to other women in distress, to help them to find other solutions than the killing of their children. 

When confronted with reality, the rhetoric rings rather hollow...

Abortion after rape

Today, Jacob Rees-Mogg scandalised the world (apparently - or at least that part of it that comments on social and main stream media) by saying that he disapproved of abortion in even in a case where the woman is pregnant as a result of rape (see here).

The howls of outrage, the astonishment,  and the terms in which it was expressed ('barbaric' and so on) were so intense, you might have thought that he was advocating killing innocent children, rather than standing up for them.

The rape question always comes up, of course. Let us pass over the fact that it is used by those who want to legitimise abortion in all circumstances; and the fact that we know that hard cases make bad law. Let us look it squarely in the face, on its own terms.

If one accepts what science (specifically biology and genetics) tells us - that is that a new and distinct human being comes into existence at the moment of conception - then even if it were proven that a therapeutic abortion might ease the distress for a woman pregnant as a result of rape, it is unjustifiable.

There is no circumstance in which killing an innocent human being in order to ease the distress of another human being can be justified.  We do not have to apologise for that truth.

Having said that, we can then look at some of the other aspects of this hard case. 

Firstly, of course, we deplore the terrible evil of rape, and the trauma that results. But in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that abortion eases that trauma or that carrying a resultant child to full term makes it worse. The evidence we have, as a SPUC post on the topic makes clear, points in the other direction.  And that post is notable, too, for the additional distress caused to the victims of such terrible crimes by those who appropriate their suffering to push for the liberalisation of abortion laws, as described by some of the women interviewed. It is truly wicked to subject women to a second assault on their bodies and their dignity by invading their bodies to abort their children. There is no evidence whatsoever medically or psychologically to justify this, and there are many women who will testify that, whatever one might imagine, having the baby was the one positive thing to come out of that traumatic experience.

Secondly, note the dishonesty of the way in which the debate is often conducted. This hard question is used as a tactic, almost one might say as emotional blackmail, to break down the absolute opposition to abortion that a principled person has. But the person using it has never (in my experience at least) any interest in restricting abortions to such hard cases.

Thirdly, and related, is the rhetorical dishonesty that then follows: 'You mean, you would force a woman to carry her rapist's child?!!' Timothy Brahm, of the Equal Rights Institute dismantles that particular rhetorical device here.

And finally, there is the underlying question of justice and compassion. These must apply not only to the victim of the rape, but also to the child. Justice or compassion applied to either one, without the other, is no justice, and no compassion. And no good will come of it.

What Price Free Love?

Since the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s (yes, I know, it is more complex than that, but as a shorthand, let that suffice...) we have seen an extraordinary change in attitudes towards human sexuality.

Even the more extreme and completely unscientific idiocies we see around us (gender theory, and 'different models of family' for example) are being normalised and imposed on our children by the school system - and Catholic schools seem to be falling obediently into line on this. 

The only morality seems to be consent, and an over-simplified view of consent, at that; one which views sex as no more significant (or complex) a human activity than offering someone a cup of tea.

But the price that has to be paid is enormous. 

The liberation of women (as it has been styled) has led to the expectation that they should take regular hormonal pills. This is not just bad for them, (both physically and in terms of their ability to sustain relationships) but is having dangerous effects on the environment.

Moreover, as these pills, and other contraceptive practices, are prone to failure, abortion is required as a back-up, as Ann Furedi has made clear: 

'The 200,000 abortions that taken place in Britain every year are evidence of what you get when you raise women’s expectations of birth control, and provide both a range of contraceptive methods and safe legal abortion. ' (from this article).

And on top of this terrible price - 200,000 children a year sacrificed on the altar of Free Love - there is the societal cost. The destruction of stable family life, and the crisis of masculinity, precipitated by the collapse of committed marriage as the normative model for the raising of children, is having devastating effects, particularly on children. We should be greatly concerned about the ever-increasing number of children who are presenting with mental or psychological problems.

But it is unthinkable that any policy maker or politician will raise the question: Should we re-consider whether our approach to sex, as a society, is a contributory factor? Instead, we inculcate the young with a broken model to assuage our own guilt.

And yet, I remain convinced that sexual discipline is essential to civilisation. And that the current fashion for self-indulgence and self-justification is essentially selfish and the antithesis of love.

As Henry, in Stoppard's The Real Thing remarked: "What free love is free of is love."

Savage

Wendy Savage has given an interview to the Mail On Sunday that deserves some comment.

Professor Savage said: ‘Because of this sort of anxiety [ie that women may choose to abort female children] some places won’t tell the woman the sex of the foetus, which is outrageous. It’s her body and her foetus, so she should have that information... If a woman does not want to have a foetus who is one sex or the other, forcing her [to go through with the pregnancy] is not going to be good for the eventual child, and it’s not going to be good for [the mother’s] mental health.’

There is a lot that is wrong here. Firstly, let's look at the use of the possessive pronoun, 'her.' Savage refers to 'her body' and 'her foetus' as though the word has the same meaning in both cases. But it clearly doesn't. Consider 'her body' and 'her daughter.' Clearly the implications are different: in the first case, 'her' signifies identity, agency and autonomy; in the second, a complex web of relationships and responsibilities. To say it is 'her foetus' is true in the second, not in the first, sense.

Secondly, she appears to be arguing that 'this sort of anxiety' is unfounded  and therefore the response 'is outrageous' and then immediately afterwards, arguing that women should be able to do precisely what she claims is unfounded. 

Thirdly, the use of the word 'forcing' is particularly loaded. What she opposes is not the use of force; rather it is the law preventing the use of force against the unborn child. To talk of allowing a natural process to proceed as 'forcing' is intellectually dishonest.

Fourthly, her claim that allowing the pregnancy to proceed to full term in such circumstances 'is not going to be good for the eventual child' is particularly problematic. 'Eventual' is another lie: the child is already present. And there is no evidence to suggest that if a woman who originally wanted a boy then has a girl, the girl suffers any adverse effect from that. Whereas abortion, of course, is certainly not going to be good for the child.

Fifthly, her claim re the mother's mental health is without any foundation whatsoever.

She has previously signed a letter claiming sex-selective abortion is ‘not gender discrimination’ as that term ‘applies only to living people’.

That is just silly. It is a classic 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. It is no argument at all to define terms in such a way that you do not have to address the substantial issues.

Speaking today in a personal capacity, Prof Savage also insisted a woman should have the legal right to demand an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, saying: ‘It is the woman’s right to decide.'  ‘It’s her body. She is the one taking the risks.'

Again, Savage departs from the truth. It is not the woman's body that is most germane here, but the body of her unborn child - a completely separate, even if completely dependent, human being.

‘The foetus is a potential human life at that stage [in the womb]; it is not an actual human life... I think you’ve got to concentrate on the [rights of the] woman.’

And this is simply untrue. It is demonstrably alive, and it is demonstrably human. We have arrived at the post-truth world where facts count for nothing at this stage in her argument.

Her problem, of course, is that she needs to justify abortion, as she has performed so many in her career; it would take huge courage and honesty to face the truth about that. And that problem is compounded by the fact that there is no sound justification for abortion on this scale (or on any scale, of course).

Pray for her.

A Better Way

In my last post, I highlighted the evils of the BPAS's pushing of abortion. Today, I am delighted to highlight the alternatives.

Life has just launched its new website, following its successful re-launch event, Ignite, last weekend. The site is modern and user-friendly. More importantly, it offers a range of responses to the evil of abortion.

Life is now organised into two main divisions: Pregnancy Matters and Life Matters. Pregnancy Matters offers support of many types,  for women in many different situations. This ranges from pregnancy information and advice, through counselling for women who are pregnant unexpectedly, support for pregnant women who are homeless, post-abortion support, and so on.  Life Matters is the home of the educational and campaigning work: school and university talks, research, campaigns and media work.

On top of all that, there is Life FertilityCare, offering alternatives to IVF, and the Zoë's Place network of hospices, offering respite, palliative and end-of-life care to babies and children.

So go over to Life's new website, and familiarise yourself with their new approach and the wide range of work they do in support of women and children - you never know when you may need to tell someone about it.

And then consider what you are doing for the unborn - and what more you should be doing.

Call this advice?...

There is an organisation that calls itself the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.  I wonder what sort of advice they give?...

--

Dear BPAS

I am in a relationship with a man whom I love, but who is somewhat controlling. He has always made clear it is up to me not to get pregnant, and that he will throw me out if I do, as he doesn't want to be tied down. Unfortunately, due to contraceptive failure, I am pregnant. What should I do?

Sincerely, A

Dear A,

Abortion is a quick and easy procedure, which will solve all your problems.

BPAS

Dear BPAS

I was raped at a party. Now I am scared to socialise, I suffer from flashbacks, I am pregnant, and I feel suicidal.

Despairingly, B

Dear B,

Abortion is a quick and easy procedure, which will solve all your problems.

BPAS

Dear BPAS

I am so worried. The tests show that my little boy, who I've wanted for so long, has Down Syndrome.

Yours, C

Dear C,

Abortion is a quick and easy procedure, which will solve all your problems.

BPAS

Dear BPAS

I am pregnant by my dad. He says Mum must never know, nor the Social Worker.

Yours, Frightened

Dear Frightened,

Abortion is a quick and easy procedure, which will solve all your problems.

BPAS

--

As they say, to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail... BPAS have a particularly bloody, and lucrative, hammer.

I am not, perhaps, being wholly fair: they also offer vasectomies - the other crucial piece of advice with regard to pregnancy.

Their site is, in fact, completely chilling. From the notion of  'click and collect' abortion, through to the euphemistic language: 'Removes the pregnancy by gentle suction' and The pregnancy is removed using narrow forceps through the neck of the womb (cervix).
They know precisely what they are doing, but it is better if potential clients don't dwell on it.

--

Orare et laborare!

Who is the rapist?

In our brave new world, in which the only criterion of morality, with regards to sex, seems to be mutual consent, with a nod in the direction of protecting children given by the law on the age of consent, we find some puzzling anomalies.

The Irish case, in which a boy with learning difficulties is being prosecuted for statutory rape of a girl of his own age (both 16 - the age of consent being 17 in that jurisdiction) highlights these. 

Why is it the boy who is deemed the rapist? Because the girl has parents who complained to the Gardai, whereas the boy is in care?

Likewise, we repeatedly hear of cases in which both parties were incapable of proper consent through drink or drugs. Is that mutual rape? If not, why not? But typically, it will be the man who is deemed the rapist. But surely that is a hangover from those dark days when we thought there was some difference between the sexes...

The current moral consensus (if such it be) is clearly not working. Having abandoned all other criteria, in our collective hedonistic desire to justify whatever we feel like doing, we find ourselves exposed to base forces that we do not know how to deal with.

And notice how that came about. People always decry 'slippery slope' or 'thin  end of the wedge' arguments. But the progression is fairly clear. Firstly, contraception which had always been attempted by the depraved, but always reviled by the majority, was deemed acceptable within marriage. 

So the separation of sex and reproduction was begun. That has gathered pace, with abortion its natural consequence. That then, of course, opened the door to all sorts of other aberrant sex, including between people of the same sex, multiple partners, and so on.

But always in the name of love, of course. 'But if two people love each other...' was always the plea. But now even that pretence has gone. What's love got to do with it? If two (or fewer, or more) people desire physical gratification is all that remains: as long as there is consent, all is good.

And the results: physical sickness (soaring STDs, AIDs etc), mental sickness (it is no secret that those with aberrant sexual lifestyles are disproportionately high users of mental health services, and have high suicide rates), huge social harm, with broken families now so common that we have a growing and potentially catastrophic social problem on our hands, as we struggle to raise a civilised younger generation; and of course, worst of all, the carnage of the abortion industry, leading also to the barbarity of human embryo experimentation, the butchery of IVF pregnancy reductions, and the commodification of human life.

As we approach Passiontide, let us redouble our prayer, our almsgiving, and our sacrifices: for that is the only way some devils can be driven out.

The Flight from Reality

In Christopher West's introductory book on Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body there is a memorable sentence, which I shall have to quote from memory, as one of the children (Bernie, I think) has the book at present. It says something like: 'The argument about abortion is not an argument about human rights, it is an argument about the meaning of sex: nobody arguing for abortion is arguing because they want the right to kill their offspring, but because they want to have sex free of any consequences.'

That, of course, is why contraception is so closely related to abortion; and why pro-life organisations that don't recognise that relationship are incoherent.

That is also why there is a connection between the LGBTQ+ movement and abortion.

That is why gender theory had to be made up.

Because the reality is that sex is about bonding and babies; that is an empirically verifiable fact. So in order to justify other uses of sex, and the ways in which the natural consequences of sex can be thwarted, elaborate theories have to be developed, to flee that reality.

The role of academia in this is truly shameful. Not only the social scientists, who have nearly all long since abandoned any notion of truth, but also the medics, whose training is rather more rooted in reality, have not only colluded with, but often led, the pseudo-intellectual justification of evil.

So we have gender theory, to deny the biological reality of the basic division of human kind into male and female, and the sexual complementarity inherent in that. 

We have theories that deny the humanity of the unborn human child.

We have theories that see personal autonomy as the greatest human good.

We have theories that suggest that sex outside of marriage is a good; or that contraceptive sex is good.

We have theories that suggest that chastity is harmful.

We have theories that suggest that children do not need both their parents.

We have theories that suggest that it is good to create human beings in petri dishes.

We have a proliferation of theories, all of which are a flight from reality. As T S Eliot wrote, Humankind cannot bear very much reality,' - especially when it gets in between the individual and his desires.  So we construct these elaborate tissues of lies, which we know in our heart to be lies, in order to justify ourselves in our sin.

And we know who is the father of lies...

The Just War argument

The comment by Ttony on my blog about lying to save lives, seems to me to be the nearest we have yet come to a solution to this dilemma.  He uses the Just War argument as an analogy.

To tease that out a little further, it seems clear to me that just wars were possible before Just War theory was properly articulated.

By the same token, perhaps what we see in the exposure of Planned Parenthood's evil, by way of means involving subterfuge, is a just lie, even though we have not yet been able clearly to argue a Just Lie theory.

Just as it seems clear to most people that the war against the Nazis had to be fought, for to fail to do so would have been collusion with a great evil, so one could argue that exposing the deception of Planned Parenthood had to be done, to avoid colluding with a worse evil.

I'm nearly there.

But I'm not quite.

Interestingly, it seems that in the original draft of the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, the version that was first published in French, it included in its definition of a lie that a lie was committed when one deceived someone who had a right to the truth. That would have settled it.  However, when the official Latin text was released, that clause had been removed. Clearly, in the editing and checking process, it had been found that there was not a sufficient consensus that such a clause accurately reflected Catholic teaching.

So, perhaps a straw in the wind, but on the other hand, one that was rejected...

My moral intuition tells me that no sin was committed in the deception of  Planned Parenthood staff to reveal the evil at the heart of the organisation, but my intellect still isn't sure.  And taking the Just War argument a little further may help to explain why.

The Second World War, I think most would agree, met the criteria for a just war, from the point of view of the Allies. However, that does not mean that all that the Allies did was justified. I think the dropping of the atom bombs was morally illegitimate, as was the blanket bombing of Dresden.

Moreover, there is always the risk, inherent in war, I think, that we demonise the enemy, when our instructions are to love our enemies.

And I further believe that the Allies' damaged themselves by the way in which they conducted some aspects of the war; a moral compromise that has borne bad fruits in Western Europe and the USA ever since. But again, that is more an intuition than something I can make a strong rational case for.

So I remain conflicted: I still feel that lying in this case was probably justifiable, though I cannot quite see how to justify it, theologically. I remain deeply convinced that lying is dangerous and normally damaging to the one who lies, and that any sin, however trivial, is simply wrong. Further, I am very wary of the precedent we set when we lie for a good cause, and the risk of a slippery slope if we erode our fundamental understanding of the natural law. And there is that risk that in order to justify our actions we demonise Planned Parenthood as the enemy...

Let me be quite clear: I am not condemning the actions of those who made the films: I am exploring my own moral understanding and the limitations thereof - and anyone who can help me clarify it further will be very welcome!

The Enormity of the Pro-Life Challenge

It may be that I am a bit out of the loop these days, but it seems to me that the pro-life movement in this country has not really developed a coherent strategy, designed to win people over to a pro-life understanding.

And that is an enormous challenge. 

In one sense, history has moved in a pro-life direction. The science of embryology, the growing understanding of neuro-psychology, and the technology such as ultrasound all support the pro-life cause. 

Whereas in 1967 it was easy to believe the 'blob of tissue' argument, that is no longer intellectually possible.

But in another way, I would argue, history has moved against us. For we now find ourselves in a position in which a large proportion of the population has a psychological interest in believing abortion to be morally acceptable.


The reason is simple. Over the last 47 or so years, large numbers of women have had abortions; large numbers of husbands, lovers, mothers, friends have been close to them; and large numbers of medical and ancillary staff have performed, assisted or otherwise been involved in them.  Few, if any, of these people are likely to have a self-image that they are evil. Therefore, when confronted with the idea that abortion is evil, they may suffer from cognitive dissonance: they need to reconcile that notion with their self-understanding that they are not evil.

As I have had occasion to mention before, one of the many things I lament in the change from the Traditional to the New Rite of Mass is the loss of the wonderful prayer from Psalm 140 (said at the incensing of the altar): Pone, Dómine, custódiam ori meo, et óstium circumstántiæ lábiis meis: ut non declínet cor meum in verba malítiæ, ad excusándas excusatiónes in peccátis. (Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips.  Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins.)

So one way, and I think the most frequent way, that we may try to resolve the type of cognitive dissonance I am concerned with, is to convince ourselves that our bad actions were not so bad, after all ('to make excuses in sins'). The unspoken, and scarcely adverted to, inner dialogue goes something like this. 'I am not an evil person. I had (performed, collaborated with, etc) an abortion. Therefore abortion cannot be such an evil thing.'

And of course, our media, entertainment industry, political establishment, medical establishment, schools and universities all confirm that judgement. I wrote some years ago about my nephew's tragic case, and I think it may well be very typical. They (he and his girlfriend) really believed - they needed to believe, and were taught to believe - that they were doing the responsible thing. They still feel the need to believe that. So we need to think carefully about the implications of that for our long-term pro-life strategy.

There is also another, almost opposite, psychological state that we may encounter. That is, the person who had an abortion, but does realise that it was evil. With time, she may forget the duress she was under, the lack of freedom she experienced, when pushed to abort her child. So the guilt may be disproportionate; not to the objective evil, which is grave indeed, but to the subjective guilt. If, for example, she was young, vulnerable and confused, and parents, teachers and boyfriend all told her that the only choice was to have an abortion, her personal culpability may be very limited.  But we need to think about her, too, as I am sure there are many in such a position.

It may be that people are discussing such things, that a strategy exists or is being developed, to address these issues: if so, I would love to know about it.

But if I am right, and that conversation is not being had, I think it is time to get on with it.