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.
Erick, I apologize for not responding to your proposal for a definition of human earlier. You say, “The moment a fetus shows “human reactions"--I hope the medical community is absolutely clear on this, which I know it is not--then it becomes human and should be treated with more compassion and consideration for the woman, then the “baby”. Not before this stage.” This obviously raises two questions: (1) what “reactions” do you consider to be “human” and (2) on what basis do you propose that definition? Perhaps clarity in (1) will help you clarify (2).
I believe that what makes us human is not our synapses, but our non-material soul. That soul enables us to act as a free moral agent, and be ultimately responsible for our actions.
Erick,
I may be an “armchair critic” (although what this term may possibly mean in the context of abortion escapes me entirely) but the fact remains that you are unable to answer my arguments. For the sake of brievity I shall repeat only one of them: what makes you feel that you have the right to judge who lives and who dies?
Tim, destruction of something or someones created by human beings is prevalent all over the world. Where have you been? It’s called poultry farming, pig farming, cattle rearing for beef, and so forth. It’s a convenient tweak of your argument to put “domestic pet” in there.
Anyway, whether a fetus is a “someone” or not is a contentious point. You seem to have plain bounced over my question of which is more inhumane. People on this site will conveniently say “you’re pulling out the usual sentimental demagoguery”. What? Want numbers to prove it? Or are you guys arguing about selective administration of your theories about abortion? The biggest examples of abortion happen in certain parts of the world, and that’s where my examples will come from.
Besides, if an American 13-year old (in a “first world” country, but not necessarily “first world” citizen of it—check your stats people) ends up pregnant, are you sure that letting the baby live will help humankind more? So, point me to one formalized mechanism for adoption of poor or discarded babies in US, UK, Germany, [insert “first world” country here].
The armchair moralization in the comfort of your homes must be satisfying. For the rest of us out in the Real World (whether it is first, or second, or third per your silly pedantic) the choices are more straightforward.
Erik, you think that because you created something, you own it and can do what you like with it? If you bred domestic pets, and wanted to mistreat them, you’d be stopped.
And you extend this to ‘someone’? That emphasises the parallel with slavery. Slaves are the master’s property, to dispose of as he wishes.
You say that a ‘less than late-stage abortion’ (I forget how many weeks from conception you reckon that is) is wrong. This does you credit - many are so determined to uphold the right to abortion that they say it must be available up to birth (and not all stop there - a distinguished UK medico has said that ‘no miracle occurs in passing down the birth canal). The fact is that the humanity of the ****** (foetus, embryo, unborn child - there is no neutral term) is given at day one. The humanness increases as it gets older - some of us are almost human by age 30 or so, a few never really get there. A child 4 weeks from conception looks a bit Martian, by 12 weeks it looks - and acts - much more like a born baby. You can construct irrelevant tests (like viability, which is statistical and depends on the state of medicine and the environment), but they are arbitrary. What you are doing is to construct your own definition of what a human being is. If you do that, you need to be quite sure you are right. Otherwise, you run the risk of being very badly wrong - like the Nazis, who denied that Jews were human, slave owners who thought you weren’t really human if your skin was black, and the Japanese military who thought soldiers who surrendered weren’t human.
Best wishes…
Erick,
Your reply is a typical mixture of demagogy, sentimentalism, arrogance and plain inconsistency. In defense of abortion you trot out the usual sob stories from the Third World even though the most glaring problem are millions of cosmetic abortions in G8 countries and the rest of the developed world. You assume to know who deserves to live and who doesn’t - in this vein, why don’t we just start sterilizing African-Americans from the inner cities since most of their kids (especially males) are going to be in jail or dead by the age of 20 anyway? You also assume that death is better than life in suffering - perhaps you should ask the sufferers if they would rather die than live as such, and see what they tell you. Finally, you call the selective abortion “infanticide” only to approve of it “for economic reasons”. I’m sorry but these mental contortions are not convincing at all.
Marius, Larry: The moment a fetus shows “human reactions"--I hope the medical community is absolutely clear on this, which I know it is not--then it becomes human and should be treated with more compassion and consideration for the woman, then the “baby”. Not before this stage.
As for what the woman (plus father) wants to do with the baby, unless a society can provide a clear and financially viable mechanism to support a discarded baby, the society needs to shut its trap about what the woman should do. I’d rather have a “baby” NOT brought into the world than to have to brought it to screw up at a minimum two lives (including its own) and often that of many around it as a corollary. The society did not create this “human”. I consider it much more inhuman to see babies suffer day in day out the hunger, the torture.
Many of you are indulging in armchair Christian-type morality. Try spending a week in the abjectly poverty-stricken places of Ghana or Honduras for instance. Tell me how humane it is to see a discarded girl of 5 years (because the mother couldn’t support the child, much less herself) being raped on a daily basis by men and then going basically hungry. Until you provide support for these kids with miserable life, please stop pontificating about “taking a human life” from your air conditioned rooms.
I’m all for the banning of infanticide for stupid reasons such as the Chinese or rural Indian line of reasoning, “Oh but we want a boy!”. That ought to be discouraged with punishment if necessary. But for economic reasons, it makes all the sense.
Francis, semantic jugglery aside, the usual reference to “slaves” is one of men and women that a master can hire to serve him. Outside of this arrangement, the “slave” is a full adult. A late-stage fetus barely groks his own habitat let alone have articulated feelings and wishes. Just because it “responds” doesn’t mean it’s a “slave”. The logic is strange.
Erick wrote:
“A less than late-stage fetus is hardly a human being and is very much the property of the two who created it.”
Can you prove it (as medical experts can prove that a foetus displays full human reactions at a very early stage), or is it just your opinion?
Erick, that’s precisely the issue, isn’t it. Is a fetus a human person, or not? If a fetus has a human soul, a spirit which endows it with free will, then it is not merely an animal. If a fetus does not have a human soul, then what makes us think adult human beings have a human soul? What makes us think that adults are not mere animals? Why is anyone’s life not expendable?
Surely the definition of a slave is one who is not in a position to make his own private choices; one who is very much the property of his masters?
Tim Roberts, that’s an interesting but, upon thought, a meaningless comment. A slave is not a half-created “human being” that the two people in question have created. He’s already a different human being with his own private choices. Created by someone else. A less than late-stage fetus is hardly a human being and is very much the property of the two who created it.
Abortion is no more a matter of private choice than slave-owning. In both cases, two human beings are involved. In the 19th century, in the case of slavery, that was denied. Everyone can now see how wrong that was. How long before the unborn can be admitted to be human?
Killing a very vulnerable human child, whether in the womb or outside of it, is a crime against that person. By talking around it, many in society want us to overlook the fact that there is a victim whose most fundamental right to life has been permanently denied. It is unfortunate that in places like India most of the aborted lives are girls. Yes, there is a problem with the social structure there. If the problems in the structure are not identified and dealt with appropriately, these killings will continue. Sadly, to appease the conscience, some try to describe these babies as anything but human.
Hi All,
I would like to say that the Moderator’s previous remarks were in no way addressing anything that Colin Harte had said in his comments.
Cheers,
Moderator :-)
. . . and still they come: bits on abortion.
I remember a Knights of Columbus advertisement in a newspaper in Kirkland Lake, Ontario 35 years ago. It was headed: The Diary of An Unborn Child . . Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 etc. . . and at Day whatever it was the entry was headed To-day my Mother Killed Me. Sad. Charles+
Further to Colin Harte’s post, I would like to say that his book ‘Changing Unjust Laws Justly’ is a very important addition to the pro-life debate; it should be read by all who are concerned with the moral dilemmas involved.
Page 1 of 3 : 1 2 3 >