Comment (34)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggShameful anniversary, sham inquiry
Forty years ago Britain passed a law that has facilitated 6.7 million abortions. A government inquiry has seen to it that nothing will change.
A British parliamentary committee is just concluding an inquiry into scientific developments relating to abortion since its legalisation in this country exactly forty years ago. The inquiry should have reflected the widespread opinion in Britain that the normal upper limit of 24 weeks for legal abortion is too high, if for no other reason than that premature babies can now be saved at younger gestations.
Instead, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee has done everything in its power to discredit this opinion and evidence in favour of it. It is one of the most disgraceful exercises of its kind ever undertaken, and the only consolation for those of us whose hopes for a fair hearing have been dashed is that this "consultation" is most likely the committee's swan song. It will be disbanded at the end of October in a cost-cutting exercise and, no doubt, will soon be forgotten. Hopefully, our opprobrium will not.
From the pro-choice lobby the committee invited 13 representatives to attend oral evidence sessions. Only two witnesses were chosen from those who had submitted written evidence and were known to be pro-life.
Millions of deaths, methodically recorded
Some history is required. The Abortion Act of the United Kingdom was voted through on October 27, 1967 and implemented the following April. Termination of pregnancy is permitted provided it is performed by a registered practitioner and subject to certain conditions, including the signed approval of two doctors on specific grounds relating either to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or the physical or mental health of the baby.
Since then, as has happened in most countries in the world regardless of whether abortion is more or less legal, abortion figures continue to rise. On a worldwide scale it is impossible to count the millions and millions of unborn lives that have been terminated to date, but in the UK these unpalatable statistics have been kept most methodically and the number will reach 6.7 million by this fortieth anniversary. Most will have been performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and, notwithstanding the various requirements under the Act, will have been easily obtained on grounds which can primarily be described as social.
Changes were made to the Abortion Act under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. Most significantly at that time an upper limit for abortion was established at 24 weeks gestation, and while this was a small victory for the pro-life movement, it was not all good news. A provision remained in the Act to allow abortion up to birth where there was risk of severe handicap to the developing child. Abortions could also be performed up to birth if the mother's life were in danger or if there was likelihood of permanent injury to her physical or mental health.
The provision for abortion up to birth for disability caused great heartache to the pro-lifers who campaigned at the time of the HFE Act. Some argue to this day that the situation has been made worse; others rightly claim that every time the upper limit comes down a considerable number of lives are saved, that these incremental victories are to be cherished, and should continue to inspire us to be courageous.
Abortion is now back on the agenda in Great Britain thanks to a reform of the HFE Act of 1990, which is in the preliminary stages. Although the glamour issues of IVF and embryo research threatened to dominate the review, our legal advice indicated that abortion could not be excluded from the Act, and we formed an alliance of major pro-life groups in the UK to monitor parliamentary movements in this field. The campaign group is called Alive & Kicking and is very much in the thick of the debate. Comment On Reproductive Ethics, the group I represent, is a member.
Committee of inquiry: humbug from day one
As it happens, abortion did not get written off the agenda, despite the efforts of those in power, and we were delighted to read in the documentation of the Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill that "amendments relating to termination of pregnancy (abortion) would in principle be orderly".
It was at that time also that the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced their inquiry into scientific development relating to the Abortion Act 1967.
To our frustration, it was humbug right from day one. Only scientific and medical evidence would be heard and the committee would "not be looking at the ethical or moral issues associated with abortion time limits". Even the more generic "social" issues which were part of their original recommendation were excluded.
The twelve-man committee at the time was very much that, with only one token female representative and another co-opted at the last minute. In the event only the latter, the feisty Conservative, Nadine Dorries, attended meetings. The Liberal Democrat MP, Evan Harris, already famous for his enthusiasm for fatherless families, animal-human hybrids, and such like, dominated the proceedings.
Written evidence submitted to the committee was limited but, at least in the case of pro-life contributions, mostly of the highest standard. There was an even balance with exactly 25 pro-life and 25 pro-choice submissions, from which a small number of contributors were selected to give oral evidence, as usually happens in these exercises of public consultation.
At this moment, however, the blatant distortion of the inquiry began in earnest. There was no longer even a semblance of balance, let alone neutrality.
One-sided scrutiny of 'interests'
From the pro-choice lobby the committee invited 13 representatives to attend oral evidence sessions. Only two witnesses were chosen from those who had submitted written evidence and were known to be pro-life -- a representative of Alive & Kicking and one other pediatric specialist, Chris Richards, who had not been already identified as either a Christian or a pro-lifer.
After extensive and difficult negotiations with the committee, two other leading medical specialists were also invited to give evidence, one a consultant neonatologist, Prof John Wyatt, and the other a consultant in psychiatry, Prof Patricia Casey. Both were both subsequently "outed" as being pro-life. They were subjected to questioning that should more correctly be described as interrogation, aimed, wherever possible, at discrediting their medical evidence. All five pro-life witnesses conducted themselves superbly.
The Guardian newspaper, tipped off no doubt by Evan Harris, wrote a childish but pernicious article suggesting all manner of conspiracy and subterfuge on the part of these witnesses, based on either their religious or pro-life commitment or both. The Clerk of the Committee promptly issued instructions to everybody who had given written evidence to the inquiry to declare their interests and membership of groups, with a view to winkling out more of these devious pro-life Christians. It is a safe bet they would not have dared to do so with any other religious group.
Nobody from the other side - and remember, they outnumbered our witnesses by two to one - was asked overtly about their pro-choice leanings and never was it suggested that being pro-choice might compromise their objectivity. The pro-abortion medical professionals gave their evidence unchallenged, while sociologists such as Dr Ellie Lee, from the aggressively pro-choice Research Centre for Law, Gender and Sexuality, were accorded a courtesy well beyond their academic merits. Their witnesses included many signed-up members of a political campaign called Voice for Choice, and all the known groups who fight for abortion rights were amply represented: British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas), Marie Stopes International, the Family Planning Association and, of course, the British Medical Association Ethics Group, of which Evan Harris is a member.
Were it not for the courage of Nadine Dorries and her fellow Tory, Bob Spink, these witnesses would have had a very easy ride indeed.
Birth professionals line up with abortionists
Perhaps the most shameful appearance in this farce was that of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, which long ago gave up its protection of the unborn child and usually hosts the bpas annual conference -- to ensure that we are all up to date on the best protocols for state of the art abortion.
Developments this week, however, suggest that the RCOG might get some extremely welcome come-uppance. They have issued a press release against a TV programme which went out on Channel 4 on October 17, looking at the current state of fetal medicine in relationship to abortion and the issue of fetal pain. The programme referred in some detail to the work of Prof K J S Anand, Professor of Pediatrics, Anaethesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Arkansas. Prof Anand is a well-known expert in fetal pain, highly esteemed for his work in this field, and his research indicates that the fetus can feel pain at 18-20 weeks gestation, considerably earlier than the RCOG acknowledges.
Not only did he appear in the TV programme but many of our witnesses quoted his work in their written submissions.
The RCOG refers to him in their press release only as "Dr" Anand and states that they are unaware of his work. On the basis of their appalling ignorance, they reject references to the claims he makes and presumably feel they have thereby discredited anybody who has cited his work. A quick Google search will acquaint anyone who wishes to know with the academic status of Prof Anand.
The discounting of his research is one more valid reason to discredit the House of Commons Science and Technology inquiry into Scientific Developments relating to the Abortion Act 1967 -- a stitch-up by the pro-choice lobby if ever there was one.
Josephine Quintavalle is the director of CORE (Comment on Reproductive Ethics), a non-profit organisation in the UK which focuses on the controversial issues associated with human reproduction. The group was founded in 1994 and is a key contributor to ethical debate at national and international level.
Dear All,
We certainly welcome robust discussion. However, we remind our readers that personal attacks or coarse language are not in the spirit of this website.
Consequentially, I have found myself editing/deleting excerpts from both BOTH sides of this discussion, to take out the “heat” from such a welcome debate.
I would also encourage people wishing to comment to refrain from adding many references and links to other sites.
Kind regards,
Moderator :-)
“Best regards”?
I’m happy to give my best regards to people, but I observe the convention of not concluding online comments with the phrase. Moreover, I don’t even use this phrase when I am signing off letters. It seems that there are gremlins in your system.
“The provision for abortion up to birth for disability caused great heartache to the pro-lifers who campaigned at the time of the HFE Act. Some argue to this day that the situation has been made worse; others rightly claim that every time the upper limit comes down a considerable number of lives are saved, that these incremental victories are to be cherished, and should continue to inspire us to be courageous.”
In other words, the extension of the abortion limit in the UK for disabled babies (who can now be aborted at any point during the 40 weeks of pregnancy) is, all things considered, a price worth paying for the disputed ‘reduction’ in the limit for social abortions to 24 weeks (which had no practical effect whatsoever on abortion rates)?
I thought I had heard every shade of opinion about the 1990 changes in the law, but this is the first time I have heard anyone - whether inside or outside the pro-life movement - say that the 1990 changes were anything other than a disaster for the pro-life cause.
To set the record straight: The 1990 legislation did not save a single life. There was no victory (small or otherwise), nothing to be cherished. Certainly, the 1990 legislation inspires no pro-lifer. It stopped no abortions; objectively, it made the situation worse for disabled babies.
There are arguments in favour of supporting incremental changes in abortion laws. Many of my friends support these arguments, and I respect their commitment to the pro-life cause. I believe the arguments are flawed and I do not support them. However, I am deeply disturbed by the attempt in this article to re-write the history of pro-life attempts to change the law in the UK - especially as it seems to be part of a broader plan of marshalling UK pro-lifers to go down the same path that has proven to be so disastrous for the unborn.
This article makes sad reading.
Best regards.
To Francis Phillips: abortions are “big, lucrative” business *because* women cannot get it, in many places of the world, at a proper clinic with dignity. Do you stop to think about economics before you choose to believe in certain “facts”?
In any case, I did not allude to abortions as being a “private business”. My reasoning was that whether to go ahead or not with abortion is a matter of private choice. It is “none of your business” (see, this is an expression in the English language, but the “business” in this case does not refer to gainful enterprise).
It seems most of you have a cosy view of an abortion predicament. You live in societies that have figured out basic needs on Maslow’s scale.
I have friends in Namibia, Uganda, India, China, Honduras. Let us take just one case (but the most prevalent one, from data) of a young single woman who’s pregnant by mistake. She has the following issues to contend with, inter alia:
1. Social ostracization. This makes day to day living highly uncomfortable. No man of ‘honor’ will marry her.
2. Dwindled economic options. If you are known in society as that woman who has a child out of wedlock, there go her chances for any economic independence.
3. How to feed the child? The woman may well have known before falling in to the anti-abortion rap that she may not be able to fend for the child. There is no simple adoption mechanism in place, and if there is, the woman is not aware of it, and has no way of becoming aware. As such, the child must suffer with her. Do a google and check in the comfort of your homes and cushy beliefs how many “humans” die between the ages of 2 and 8.
4. The child’s future. In your first world societies, people marry, then divorce, then marry, and so forth. The kids from these marriages manage to find a home, however broken and confusing, and grow up to inculcate the same “values” themselves. Sadly, a very small percentage of the population lives in your countries. This wonderful utopia is not possible for about 65% of humanity.
5. Health of woman. A poster above had the delusion to mention stress and traumatic depression. Well how about the previous 4 points for a woman in a predicament in a “developing country” and the long-term but day-to-day stress it causes her after having the baby? Where is your NGO trying to save women like her?
What a couple chooses to do with sperm that they have created is their choice. They’re not murdering a human being (See my note about “late term abortion”. A concept many of you may not know).
Gee golly, I replied to one comment but notice that there’s a deluge of several. I suppose the readership of this blog comes from one particular line of reason.
Point taken: “It is very rare for women to regret giving birth; all too frequently they regret the decision to abort. “—How do you know? Can you document some statistics? How were these statistics collected? I wonder how many of these are women who are in their teens and face non-trivial social ostracization if they come up with the baby.
In any case, I never said it’s a “choice” for a woman alone. A woman does not live alone in society. She has a man who put her in this predicament of “choice” to begin with, if we can call it a choice. If she, the man, and the society in which she lives, deem it alright for her to go ahead with the child, then so be it. Then abortion is unnecessary. I see that most people here come from Australia and Canada. Looks guys, it might be alright in your “open minded” societies (and from what I know, mind is not the only organ that opens in these “cultures") but life becomes greatly difficult for a woman in certain countries, and not every woman can afford to leave town and go to a culture where she and her single child will be accepted, let alone supported. So stop making blanket statements that you cannot attest to with factual data, based solely on what you feel is right.
Again, see my note about the stage of the abortion. It is useful to “argue” on either side of this debate based on clear scientific facts. Before we debate “abortion”, we should also give a moment to discuss the societal norms that make abortion an issue at all.
First, don’t call someone “honey” on a public discussion. Two, your erudite words “Tell that to God” don’t merit a further response (as further corroborated by your flimsy line of reason regarding a hard life vs. no life) but I’ll indulge.
I am against what the media tends to call “late term abortions”. These are bloody matters that have turned even the physicians who have had to administer them into anti-abortion advocates. This is not pleasant business, and at this stage the fetus has gained proportions of a human, however partially. At this stage, go ahead with the baby is what I say, and if you cannot nurture it, then consider putting it up for adoption.
But having an abortion at an “early stage”, when a couple has just discovered that they’re pregnant, is very much within the confines of what is appropriate. No it is not murder. The thing is hardly human. It’s like saying “I had sex today. I released a lot of sperm but none hit. I feel that I pre-murdered so many possible humans”.
As to your God, I hope at point you will stop, think, grow up, and learn that God was a concept created by man. For very good, noble reasons initially, but before we knew it, it produced people like yourself who would tote it as a concept in support of every little concept that they had little reasoning about.
And yes, I’m just as thrilled as you are that you’re not my child. That all of us have had a hard life and are the better for it is cute, thanks for being in the same boat, but it’s irrelevant to this discussion.
Eric: abortions are hardly private business. They are very big (i.e. lucrative) business for the private clinics that generally carry them out.
Perhaps that is why, anxious to tout for business, they give pregnant women so little ‘choice’ in the consideration of whether to abort or to keep their babies?
So many women regret the decision they made - often bounced into it by the clinics, the boyfriend, the pressures of work etc. So many say they were never given a true ‘choice’.
It is very rare for women to regret giving birth; all too frequently they regret the decision to abort. Those who work with these suffering women often discover a history of alcoholism, self-harm, clinical depression. This vast psychological distress harms not only the sufferer, but her family and society at large.
In response to Erick’s comment:
At the moment of conception a new life is created and never at any point is anything else added - or needed - to make it a human being.
Abortion does hurt another fellow being and society is deluding itself into thinking otherwise. The lost childs life is not the only victim. There are many documented cases of long term effects on mothers post abortion - both physical and psychological.
Forgive me, Mr. Papadakis --
“it doesn’t hurt any fellow being....” If dismembering a baby in utero is not “hurting a fellow being”, I’m not sure what you’d consider hurting. What is your criterion for “fellow being-hood”? Any criterion that you can think of can be shown to be fallacious by a simple test—whether killing an innocent born person who exhibits the same condition would be lawful or moral. For example, if your criterion is that the unborn child cannot speak or hear, is it lawful to kill a mute or deaf born person? If the criterion is that the unborn child is under the control, protection, care of an adult (i.e., “part of the woman”, is it lawful to kill a 3 year old? If it is that the unborn child cannot survive separated from her mother, would it be okay to murder a newborn?
These arguments about abortion being a privae matter are just excuses—pro abortion advocates fall back on them because they know that their selfish murderous practices can’t survive the light of day or the exercise of reason.
Erick Papadakis said:
“Abortions are private business.”
“[Abortion] doesn’t hurt any fellow being...”
Ah, the pro-abortion orthodoxy’s most ignorant and manipulative mantras.
“Thank you for the article, but I find that my heart is beating so rapidly and hands shaking so much that I feel the need to ask: is there any good news? “
YES!
Do not let heart fail or your hands fall limp.
A seed has been planted! The Word has been proclaimed. The Culture of death has been identified.
True, we might have to wait for a time.
A time when the John Paul II generation will rise up and take leadership.
A time for the generation of the sixty’s and seventies to pass the baton.
Then we shall see a change.
From the heart of winter, it is hard to believe in Spring -but it will come! They can not stop it.
RE:
“Abortions are private business. If a couple deems it necessary, it’s not your call or that of society/government/church to criminalize it.”
Tell that to God! Society/government/church do not have to criminalize it, God’s law has said “Thou shall not kill!”
“It doesn’t hurt any fellow being”
Tell that to your child as they burn and vaccuum.
“and if not done, it stands to hurt not only the couple but possibly also the human being that anti-abortion proponents to vie to bring into the world”
Killing it will definitely hurt the child vs. a probability of having a hard life. Listen honey, many of us have lived a hard life - and are the better for it.
I’d rather have a chance to fight than to be wiped out before the game! I’m here. I survived. I’m glad that you were not my parent.
Abortions are private business. If a couple deems it necessary, it’s not your call or that of society/government/church to criminalize it. It doesn’t hurt any fellow being, and if not done, it stands to hurt not only the couple but possibly also the human being that anti-abortion proponents to vie to bring into the world.
A nation that tolerates, nay, supports such a slaughter simply deserves to become extinct. Perhaps it is even its secret wish.
Page 2 of 3 : < 1 2 3 >