This From Hilary Jane Margaret White's [ http://anglocath.blogspot.com/
and http://earlylifeissues.blogspot.com/ ] reply to a post on Ches's "The Sensible Bond" Blog http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/ - This kind of posting should be on every catholic Blog... [H/T to Ttony at 'The Muniment Room' http://ttonys-blog.blogspot.com/]
I've been writing and researching and lobbying in the areas of bioethics, abortion and biotechnologies for some years now. I thought I had got past the phase of being able to be deeply upset or disturbed by what I read and write about. But in the same story, I discovered that there is a standing protocol for British doctors who, when having accidentally delivered a live child instead of a dead one in a "botched" abortion, the doctor may inject the child with a chemical that will stop its heart.
When I read that, I froze and could not move for a moment.
There is never a point at which one is unmoveable. Human beings cannot become so calloused as to be insensible. It is recorded that the German T4 euthanasia project in which disabled children and other vulnerable patients were killed by lethal injections, gassing and starvation, went slowly mad. Drug and alcohol use rose significantly among staff and they began to display bizarre psychological problems.
We do one of three things to try to justify abortion, I have observed:
1. partial denial. This is the position of most American legislators. From these you will hear most often the line, "I'm personally opposed to abortion but..." You will hear people like Hillary Clinton saying that abortion is a "sad" or "difficult" decision and that it can be "tragic". They regard it in much the same way as heart disease or road accidents, or possibly drug addiction, as though it were a mostly preventable phenomenon.
2. Complete denial. This is the position of almost all feminist abortion activists who try to deny the existence of an unborn child. There is no child present. (I've never been able to figure out where they think children come from...perhaps the stork). Therefore abortion is a purely innocent medical procedure that spares women hardship, mostly social and economic hardship. They look upon it, essentially, as cosmetic surgery that resolves a tragic disfigurement. This is also the position of the Canadian government and legal system that literally denies the existence of a child before birth.
3. No denial but a forthright assertion that a child is of no inherent value before or even at birth and can be killed at will by parents. This third position is slowly growing among abortion advocates, particularly in Europe and in the academic world and among the more highly educated feminists. It is a complete reversion to the position of the pre-Christian pagans who saw no particular sacredness in individual human lives. In Roman society, as in many others of the ancient world, the parents had the full right of life and death over children and an unwanted child was simply killed and no one had any moral or legal qualms. This third, and most advanced position, seems to be the one held by the legal and medical authorities of the United Kingdom.
is abortion the of out and child no there a it that in child. any for with most directive. British carrying difficulty some have doctors acknowledged generally this, connection saw I hesitation note only The whatever. compunctions No hesitation. or equivocation need had authorities health killed. summarily lives, instead abortion, slated when Therefore, kill to intention admit They barbarism. level unprecedented new issue brings Britain But
The problem, therefore, remains unresolved in Britain.
It is something of a hobby between myself and my Canadian colleagues to send each other news items about abortion or euthanasia or embryo research from our respective countries. We are having a contest to show which country is furthest gone into darkness.
But with this one, I think I pulled my native country far out ahead in the running.