25
2008
Labour’s Deputy Leader Whipped Abortion Vote
Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed to keep up to date with what I'm writing. Alternatively, if you want to contact Peter in relation to issues of human sexuality, please use the contact form here. Thanks for visiting!
It’s now out in the open. Despite the fact that abortion is meant to be a conscience issue in the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, organised a massive whipping operation on Labour MPs during Tuesday’s debate on lowering the legal limit on abortion.
A secret plot led by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman sabotaged moves to reduce the time limit for abortions, it was claimed last night.
She is accused of organising a group of women MPs who ‘browbeat and bullied’ their colleagues into voting to keep the 24-week limit.
The disclosure prompted claims that Labour had made a mockery of Gordon Brown’s pledge to allow MPs to vote last Tuesday according to their consciences.
Labour opponents of cutting the abortion limit allegedly got round this by persuading party chiefs to order MPs to attend the debate.
Do you see what they did? It’s a "free vote", but you have to attend.
Technically, once the MPs turned up, they could vote either way. In reality, sources say, they were greeted by Ms Harman’s group, who pressured them to vote against the move, proposed by Tory MP Nadine Dorries.
According to one account, women Labour MPs formed a ‘human corridor’ to channel their colleagues into the ‘No’ lobby. One Labour MP claimed to have heard one of Ms Harman’s team shout: ‘Vote against us and the sisterhood will never let you forget it.’
Ms Harman was assisted by fellow pro-abortion Labour MPs Barbara Follett, Joan Ruddock and Emily Thornberry.
Pretty disgusting, especially since Dawn Primarolo, Minister for Health and High Priestess of Molech, accused Nadine Dorries, Ann Widdecombe and Edward Leigh of playing party politics with the debate.
Ms Harman last night denied she had acted improperly. ‘It is deplorable that people who lost the argument now attempt to cry foul,’ she said. ‘It was a free vote and I worked with others to ensure that as many MPs as possible voted for the status quo.
‘We won because we had the most persuasive arguments. It is totally untrue that there was any kind of whipping operation.’
And yet, she was applying pressure on only Labour MPs. How does such an action tie up with the idea that she was trying "to ensure that as many MPs as possible voted for the status quo"? Surely if that’s your aim you twist the arms of all MPs, regardless of party.
Here’s how Nadine Dorries has responded:
Simon rang me the day after the vote to tell me that he had been given information that Harriett Harman had organised a huge whipping operation after the abortion vote. He wouldn’t disclose any details, however, I did get the feeling that maybe his information had come from Labour MPs as there was no way I, or any other Conservative, would have access to that kind of information.
His article today bears that out.
I love the picture of Harriet Harman watching my speech from behind the speaker’s chair, hand on hip – with a look that says it all!
Apparently, mine was the only speech she came into the chamber to listen to.
Harriett Harman’s mistake was to politicise an issue which has always been a free vote. She has now altered the basis upon which abortion discussion takes place within Westminster for a very long time.
Too right. If Gordon Brown thinks he can let his deputy abuse the notion of a free vote then Labour will get eveything coming to them. If the majority of Labour MPs lined up to support the 24 weeks position, despite the clear evidence that babies born before that time survive, despite the clear evidence that babies as young as 16 weeks (or less) feel pain, then we need to name them as what they are - men and women prepared to let others murder children. Abortion is nothing less that child murder and the Government has chosen to take a particular stance on the issue that allows thousands of children to be murdered every year then we must speak out against it.
Do you remember the film ‘Pretty Woman’ and the commission paid shop assistant on the strip, who looks down her nose with disdain at Julia Roberts as though she is not worthy of her attention – and in particular the scene where Julia Roberts walks back into the shop, arms loaded with designer bags and says to the gobsmacked shop assistant ‘Big mistake, big, huge’.
I do too.
I look forward to seeing where Nadine takes her campaign.
- The Hypocrisy of Labour
- Abortion can lead to mental illness
- Beyond the Limit - 2
- Beyond the Limit
- How Abortion obviously isn’t murder - NOT
33 Responses so far
Leave a Comment
- Do you want to change the picture next to your comment? Sign up here.
- All comments must include a valid email address. Comments without a valid email address will be treated as spam. Your email address will not be displayed.
Reuben has arrived! Until I have time to do his page, 
Peter-
It’s now out in the open, is it? Hardly. The only person named in this article alleging a whipped campaign is, surprise, surprise, Nadine Dorries. Despite the use of phrases such as “it was claimed” and “it is alleged”, the journalist never gets around to naming names. I wonder why that is.
“If the majority of Labour MPs lined up to support the 24 weeks position, despite the clear evidence that babies born before that time survive”
Here is a link to a discussion on that “evidence”: http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/05/13/margin-of-error/
“despite the clear evidence that babies as young as 16 weeks (or less) feel pain,”
Now it’s 16 weeks or less!. You’ve made this claim several times. Please back it up. Provide a link to where it is claimed that foetuses 16 weeks or younger feel pain.
“I look forward to seeing where Nadine takes her campaign”.
So do I. I expect it to be more of the same: distortions, lies, evasions and dubious “science”. Prior to her 20 Weeks campaign I didn’t have an opinion on Dorries one way or the other. But having witnessed her tactics, I am convinced that she is both dishonest and dishonourable. Whether she believes what she is doing is right or not, it doesn’t justify the tactics she used to try and accomplish her goals.
Jonathan,
Firstly, Harman admits as much that she attempted to make Labour MPs vote a certain way. How you can deny then that she did is ridiculous.
Prof Sunny Anand of the University of Arkansas has presented very good evidence that babies in the womb experience pain at at least the 20 week point and possibly earlier. In particular, the practice of anaethetising babies in the womb when surgery is undertaken on them, many well before the 24 week point, has led to a dramatic rise in the survival rate of babies in such operations. All this evidence points clearly to the fact that babies in the womb experience pain. If not then why are the given injections to stupify them before being ripped apart in abortions? Surely you would think that was a waste of resources if you don’t think they experience pain?
The Ministry of Truth article simply sidesteps the statistical robustness of the research that shows that in the best units babies born before 24 weeks survive. There is not one refutation of the research - rather the piece is based on what seems to be an “only a few survive so why put all the effort in” argument. I want you to show me ONE single refutation of the fact that some babies born before 24 weeks survive.
There have been plenty of testimonies in the papers over the past few days of babies born before the 24 week limit who are now happily functioning children. If one single child can survive, why have the limit so high? And frankly, the bottom line on this is that you want to turn your eyes away, promote the selfish “rights” of the women who choose whether to have sex in the first place, and you want to allow people to murder babies. Everytime you defend the 24 week limit you are promoting infanticide. It is as simple as that. It is a straight ethical decision, a matter of justice, and you are on the wrong, ungodly and unholy, side.
Peter-
“Firstly, Harman admits as much that she attempted to make Labour MPs vote a certain way. How you can deny then that she did is ridiculous”.
I don’t deny that she did. What I do deny is that there was a “massive whipping operation”. Obviously if there was, it didn’t work, since a large number of Labour MPs voted to reduce the limit. In addition, Nadine Dorries certainly attempted to make MPs vote a certain way- if she can without comment, then why can Harman not?
“Prof Sunny Anand of the University of Arkansas has presented very good evidence that babies in the womb experience pain at at least the 20 week point and possibly earlier.”
I suspected that Anand would be your source. This is one man, and his claims are disputed. It’s currently too early to say whether or not they are correct.
“If not then why are they given injections to stupify them before being ripped apart in abortions? Surely you would think that was a waste of resources if you don’t think they experience pain?”
What you seem not to have considered is the psychological effect that the anaesthetising of the foetus will have for the woman having the abortion.
“The Ministry of Truth article simply sidesteps the statistical robustness of the research that shows that in the best units babies born before 24 weeks survive. There is not one refutation of the research - rather the piece is based on what seems to be an “only a few survive so why put all the effort in” argument. I want you to show me ONE single refutation of the fact that some babies born before 24 weeks survive.”
I have never argued that no babies born before 24 weeks survive. But the numbers that do are tiny. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this is only because doctors have been aware that premature birth is inevitable, and have taken steps to maximise the chances of survival, for instance via injections of steroids to force the growth of the foetus’ lungs. Even then, whether or not they survive depends on whether or not they have access to the best neonatal care, care of a standard that is not available at the majority of hospitals. This is why the level of viability is set at 24 weeks. It is unreasonable to suggest that the limit for all women, regardless of where they are and the healthcare they have access to, should be reduced simply because a tiny minority of premature births survive.
“And frankly, the bottom line on this is that you want to turn your eyes away, promote the selfish “rights” of the women who choose whether to have sex in the first place, and you want to allow people to murder babies. Everytime you defend the 24 week limit you are promoting infanticide. It is as simple as that. It is a straight ethical decision, a matter of justice, and you are on the wrong, ungodly and unholy, side”.
I haven’t “turned my eyes away”; I have read up on this issue. I don’t want to allow people to “murder babies”, I want them to be able to, under certain circumstances, abort foetuses. I am not naive enough to believe that the issue is black and white.
Incidentally, since I’m an atheist, being called ungodly and unholy isn’t something that particularly concerns me. But if you claim abortion to be “a straight ethical decision, a matter of justice”, how do you reconcile the fact that many, many Christians disagree with you?
So let’s be clear on your responses:
i) You admit that Harman deliberately whipped Labour MPs while at the same time Primarolo accused Dorries and others of “playing party politics”.
ii) You think that anaesthetics given to babies in the womb are simply placebos to placate mothers
iii) You admit that some babies born before 24 weeks survive and grow into healthy, normal children, yet you still want to be able to murder them.
You can try and dodge the issue by using the term “foetus” to somehow delude people into thinking that these are not human children that we’re dealing with, but the bottom line is that you support the selfish right to murder babies.
I think there was an error with my attempt to submit my last comment, so I’ve sent it again- apologies if there’s a duplication.
Peter-
A pro-life MP who voted with Dorries has said that there was no whipping operation. http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/05/fall-out-from-abortion-debate.html#4219336449180906854
Actually, I didn’t say that shedeliberately whipped Labour MPs, I said that she tried to get them to vote in a certain way. In the same sense that Dorries tried to get MPs to vote in a certain way. It’s called campaigning.
And yes, I admit that a tiny minority of children born before 24 weeks survive. But that is, as I have said, thanks to foreknowledge of the premature birth, and access to the best neonatal care facilities, access that the majority of women simply do not have. I note you ignored those details of my response, perhaps because you cannot refute them. Without those two factors, those born prematurely will almost certainly not survive.
“You can try and dodge the issue by using the term “foetus” to somehow delude people into thinking that these are not human children that we’re dealing with”
Foetus is the correct term. At an earlier stage, embryo would be the term. Unlike you, I do not pretend that this issue is clear-cut.
“but the bottom line is that you support the selfish right to murder babies”.
To abort foetuses, not to murder babies. A foetus has the potential to be a baby. And the fact that you seem to regard a woman’s right to have control over her own body as “selfish” is very interesting.
Another interesting point- I note that you did not answer my earlier question. If you claim abortion to be “a straight ethical decision, a matter of justice”, how do you reconcile the fact that many, many Christians disagree with you?
[...] is the story that I highlighted yesterday, and it’s going to run and [...]
Christians who support abortion are wrong. They forget that God knits together human beings in their mothers’ wombs. They also forget that since Jesus was 100% human and 100% God from conception, you and I were 100% human from conception also.
Interestingly though, support for abortion amongst “christians” also seems to go parallel with doctrinal and praxis laxity. Interesting….
A foetus does not have “the potential” to be a baby. It is a baby. Everytime, every single time a woman willingly has sex she understands that she may conceive a human. To willingly abort such a conception is selfish and an abrogation of responsibility.
As to the comment on pre-24 week babies, the issue isn’t a “foreknowledge” of the birth. The issue is that they survive to become healthy children. Your willful support of aborting such children is the promotion of murder.
The comment by Tom Watson MP on Iain Dale’s blog is disingenuous. The Labour order paper for the evening had an insistence on attendance.
As regards laxity among Christians : don’t most married evangelicals use/approve of birth control? I have never heards a convincing argument why this is so, as opposed to wanting to have sex and coming up for rationalisations for it.
I’ve never heard a convincing argument why conception control is immoral. Perhaps you’d care to elucidate us?
Peter-
“The Labour order paper for the evening had an insistence on attendance”.
Can you point me to who said that and where, please? I can’t remember reading it.
“Christians who support abortion are wrong. They forget that God knits together human beings in their mothers’ wombs. They also forget that since Jesus was 100% human and 100% God from conception, you and I were 100% human from conception also”.
Interesting viewpoint. Wouldn’t that make Jesus 200%? What this amounts to is a Biblical and doctrinal justification. I imagine, however, that Christians who disagree with you would also cite Bible and doctrine to support their positions. How do you determine which of you is correct?
“Interestingly though, support for abortion amongst “christians” also seems to go parallel with doctrinal and praxis laxity. Interesting….”
Yes, it is, although not for the reason you think.
“A foetus does not have “the potential” to be a baby. It is a baby”.
I don’t see much scientific reasoning backing up this assertion.
“Everytime, every single time a woman willingly has sex she understands that she may conceive a human. To willingly abort such a conception is selfish and an abrogation of responsibility”.
Ah, the “you’ve made your bed, now you must lie in it” line of reasoning. What about women in situations of extreme domestic violence? What about foetuses with severe developmental problems, sometimes to the point where they would not survive more than a few moments beyond being born? What about women with medical conditions who could DIE if the pregnancy continued?
“As to the comment on pre-24 week babies, the issue isn’t a “foreknowledge” of the birth. The issue is that they survive to become healthy children”.
Yes, in the majority of cases they survive precisely because such foreknowledge exists, and the doctors take steps to maximise the foetus’ chances of survival when it is born prematurely. I explained this in my previous comment. You cannot say that they are viable if they are unable to survive without access to advanced neonatal care and treatment. That is why the limit is set where it is, and why it should remain there.
“Your willful support of aborting such children is the promotion of murder”.
I think it has been established that that is your opinion, there is no need to keep repeating yourself. I still don’t agree, however.
There are pieces in the Mail, the BBC News website and other places with the allegation about the three line whip. So far not one single Labour MP has produced his/her order paper to show otherwise. Funny that.
As for the ontology of Jesus, that’s the Hypostatic Union (a Chalcedonian theological expression) and attempts to make jokes about “200%” just betrays you ignorance of Christian belief.
Your argument “You cannot say that they are viable if they are unable to survive without access to advanced neonatal care and treatment”, is ludicrous. That’s tantamount to saying that if a “to all intents and purposes healthy” baby is born and a problem is found, doctors shouldn’t bother to intervene. Why the difference at 40 weeks then 24 weeks? Such a reasoning would have condemned my son, who needed help to begin breathing, to death.
Peter-
why then would Tom Watson, a Labour MP who voted with Dorries, not produce his order paper to confirm that there was a conspiracy about a three line whip? Why have NO MPs come forward to support her claim? Plenty of Labour MPs voted with her.
Perhaps I am ignorant of the Hypostatic Union, but what I do know is that trying to use a theological claim, a claim for which there is little evidence, to justify a position that we are “100% human from conception” is unhelpful. In fact, at early stages of development the human embryo is practically indistinguishable from that of a starfish. It is only later that human characteristics develop.
“Your argument “You cannot say that they are viable if they are unable to survive without access to advanced neonatal care and treatment”, is ludicrous. That’s tantamount to saying that if a to all intents and purposes healthy baby is born and a problem is found, doctors shouldn’t bother to intervene. Why the difference at 40 weeks then 24 weeks? Such a comment would have condemned my son, who needed help to begin breathing, to death”.
Once again you have taken an argument of mine and attempted to extend it to a situation to which it does not apply. Your claim was that if foetuses born before 24 weeks are capable of surviving, why should the limit not be lower? My response was that those that survive are a tiny minority, and do so only because of the advanced care. That is why it should not be used as a basis for adjusting the abortion limit. Your attempt to apply my argument to a 40-week newborn, far after the abortion limit, is disingenuous. My comment would not have condemned your son to death, since that was not a situation for which my argument applies, and you know it.
Jonathan,
I’m simply taking your argument about looking after babies in trouble and showing you the logical extension of what you’re proposing. Why should doctors bother with babies who have problems at 23 weeks? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue that the only reason babies born before 24 week survive is because there is medical intervention as an excuse to deny such medical intervention or viewing the children as viable. If not 23 weeks why not 25 weeks? 30 weeks? 35 weeks? Who made you God to decide when a doctor is allowed to intervene? Would you seriously abandon children born with difficulties just because it’s a lot of effort to help them live?
It’s quite a simple question really. My son required intervention to help him live after he was born. Why do you consider him worthy of the effort because he was 40 weeks old and not if he had been 23 weeks old? If you do think he would have been worthy of the effort at 23 weeks old, why do you support murdering babies of exactly the same gestation period?
Before I address your latest comment, I notice that you left a question of mine unanswered earlier. Since it’s an important question, I’ll ask it again:
What about women in situations of extreme domestic violence? What about foetuses with severe developmental problems, to the point where they would not survive more than a few moments beyond being born? What about women with medical conditions who could DIE if the pregnancy continued? Would abortion still be unacceptable then?
“I’m simply taking your argument about looking after babies in trouble and showing you the logical extension of what you’re proposing. Why should doctors bother with babies who have problems at 23 weeks? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue that the only reason babies born before 24 weeks survive is because there is medical intervention as an excuse to deny such medical intervention or viewing the children as viable”.
Deny such medical intervention? I have never claimed that medical intervention should be denied. If a birth will occur before 24 weeks, and the mother wants to keep it, of course every medical effort should be made to ensure survival. My point was that the fact that survival is so unlikely before 24 weeks is precisely why the abortion upper limit has been set at that time.
“If not 23 weeks why not 25 weeks? 30 weeks? 35 weeks? Who made you God to decide when a doctor is allowed to intervene?”
I don’t recall claiming to be God. Nor do I have a medical degree. So I, along with everyone else, rely upon the considered opinions of doctors and scientists, experts in the fields of biology, to tell me what the threshold of viability is. They are the experts, not me or you.
“Would you seriously abandon children born with difficulties just because it’s a lot of effort to help them live?”
Again, no, that’s not what I said. My argument has always been in regards to the 24 week limit, not after.
To tackle the last point first, you simply are not following through the logic of your argument. Why would you allow some babies to be murdered at 23 weeks and some to be supported? What makes one life human and one not?
As to the first points, let me tackle them one by one:
i) Domestic Violence - Well, if there was rape then prosecute it. However, our law is very clear that a third party cannot be held liable for another party’s actions. You cannot murder a baby simply because the causes of his conception were immoral.
ii) Developmental problems - I have friends whom this happened to. They carried the child through to term because they recognised they had no right to take away their child’s life. In the end, the child who wasn’t meant to live beyond birth survived 3 months, the last month of which was spent at home. The child then died of a sudden heart attack.
iii) Life of mother in danger - Once again, I have friends whom this has happened to. They carried the child up until the last point a termination could happen, on the basis that at 20 weeks or so the baby was recognisably not human. At that point, the latest possible point, they aborted. Please note that such abortions are perfectly legal beyond 24 weeks, so dropping the limit to 20 weeks, 12 weeks or even banning social abortion altogether wouldn’t change the ability to abort failed pregnancies. I can’t think of a single medical case where the life of the mother has been in danger because of the continuation of the pregnancy AND the child has been recognisably human. Perhaps you’d like to enlighten us otherwise?
Peter, the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s teaching is pretty “convincing” re:birth control in the sense of logical-if-one-accepts-certain-premises :
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357
Personally, I don’t see why preventing conception isn’t at least as potentially worthy of the what God has put together let no man tear apart denuciation. I was seeing a girl (I wasn’t a Christian at the time) who had to take the morning after pill and it occured to me that , whilst no evangelical would say that it was scientifically comparible to abortion ,if (as Christians are meant to do) one believes in souls then it’s potentially sinful and that it represents a secular overvaluation of science to fail to regard it as such. At the very least, don’t evangelicals ever worry that granting women control over their fertility via the Pill was the thin of the wedge that made abortion possible?
I fear that the Hypostatic union is not the sort of factoid most christians (let alone atheists like Jonathan) are aware of and don’t see what good you invoking it can serve in a dialogue about abortion.
The morning after pill is murder as it gets rid of a fertilised egg. Completely different from preventing an egg being fertilised in the first place.
Peter-
When I said domestic violence I was thinking of the “normal” kind, which often intensifies when the woman gets pregnant. I’m glad you mentioned rape, since it’s an important point.
“Well, if there was rape then prosecute it. However, our law is very clear that a third party cannot be held liable for another party’s actions. You cannot murder a baby simply because the causes of his conception were immoral”.
So your position is this: a woman is raped, traumatised in a terrible fashion, which only becomes worse when she finds out she is pregnant thanks to the rapist. You would have her carry it for nine months, a constant, traumatic reminder of her ordeal. That would and has destroyed many women. And you call me immoral. And again, it would be “abort a foetus/embryo”, not “murder a baby”.
“I can’t think of a single medical case where the life of the mother has been in danger because of the continuation of the pregnancy AND the child has been recognisably human”.
Off-hand, pre-eclampsia is a potentially life-threatening condition in late pregnancy that kills hundreds of babies and something like ten women every year. Other potential problems could be placental abruption, or internal bleeding. Or if the mother has a pre-existing condition such that pregnancy would put her body under too much strain. There are many examples.
“To tackle the last point first, you simply are not following through the logic of your argument. Why would you allow some babies to be murdered at 23 weeks and some to be supported? What makes one life human and one not?”
At the risk of stating the obvious, I would “allow” some foetuses to be aborted at 23 weeks and some to be saved for a simple reason: because the action is what the woman wishes. If the woman wants to keep it, then at 23 weeks medical intervention would occur. If the woman wanted to abort it, then at 23 weeks the abortion could take place. It has always been about the woman’s right to choose. That is what separates one situation from the other.
Why is a fertilised egg an entity whose termination warrants the label murder? You could cite pictures of a foetus to prove it is more aptly called a baby but don’t see how you can do this with a clump of cells. You could claim that a fertilised egg has a soul, but I don’t see how you could convince me of this from scripture, let alone trying to get the secular world to concur.
Psalm 51:5-6 - “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.”
How can one be sinful if one has no soul?
Jeremiah 1:4 - “The word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’”
How could Jeremiah have been set apart before he was formed and yet not be viewed as a person?
All that aside, the clincher on this is the Hypostatic Union. Christ was 100% human and 100% divine from conception. Any other explanation would lead us into a Christological heresy of adoptionism or docetism. You could never have aborted Jesus at any point from his conception without murdering God. But if Jesus was 100% divine from conception then he was also 100% human. And if Jesus was 100% human from conception, why would you argue that any of us humans aren’t?
The beauty of this argument is that it centres not in human experience but in the truth about the incarnation. It is an anti-abortion argument based in the person of Christ, not the person of a fallen human.
Jonathan,
Your last sentence is the give-away. You will always promote the woman’s right to choose to murder her child over the child’s intrinsic god-given right to life. I’m sorry to say it, but such an argument promotes selfishness and self-interest over justice and compassion for innocent life.
Peter-
“How can one be sinful if one has no soul?”
How can one be born sinful if humanity evolved, there was no Adam and Eve, and therefore no Original Sin? This is very weak reasoning: all humans are sinful, you can’t be sinful without a soul, therefore there is a soul from the moment of conception. But if one assumption, that original sin exists, disappears, then the whole framework collapses.
“How could Jeremiah have been set apart before he was formed and yet not be viewed as a person?”
Er, perhaps Jeremiah was simply bragging about himself?
But this isn’t really the point. By retreating into theology and scriptural quotations, you have implicitly acknowledged that the scientific and medical issues do not support your position.
“All that aside, the clincher on this is the Hypostatic Union. Christ was 100% human and 100% divine from conception. Any other explanation would lead us into a Christological heresy of adoptionism or docetism. You could never have aborted Jesus at any point from his conception without murdering God. But if Jesus was 100% divine from conception then he was also 100% human. And if Jesus was 100% human from conception, why would you argue that any of us humans aren’t?”
As I have said before, this is merely a theological claim, with no real evidence to support it. If he was 100% divine, he was also 100% human?
“And if Jesus was 100% human from conception, why would you argue that any of us humans aren’t?”
Because Jesus was also 100% divine, and we aren’t. See how easy it is to produce an answer when all you’re talking about is obscure theological propositions. The above isn’t my opinion, by the way, but merely an example.
“The beauty of this argument is that it centres not in human experience but in the truth about the incarnation”
The truth? Prove it, then. This is an argument that doesn’t carry weight with most Christians, let alone any of the other religions, or with those who do not believe.
“Your last sentence is the give-away. You will always promote the woman’s right to choose to murder her child over the child’s intrinsic god-given right to life. I’m sorry to say it, but such an argument promotes selfishness and self-interest over justice and compassion for innocent life”.
And you think that it is not selfish to impose your morality on a pregnant rape victim, by insisting that she must carry her rapist’s child to term? I could also argue that the onus of showing that souls even exist, let alone that everyone miraculously acquires one when they are nothing more than a single fertilised cell, is on you. But that would be going off-topic. Do you now concede that your efforts to “logically extend” my arguments to situations where they do not apply was in fact incorrect?
No, I don’t concede. Your rejection of the theological arguments against abortion doesn’t mean that they aren’t true. You’re simply operating in a much smaller playing field than most of the people reading this blog.
Peter-
I was referring to where you attempted to apply my arguments around viability to after the birth of the child.
I still don’t concede. You are simply not following through the logicality of your argument, arbitrarily choosing a cut-off point where medics should support “non-viable” human lives.
Peter-
“You are simply not following through the logicality of your argument, arbitrarily choosing a cut-off point where medics should support “non-viable” human lives”.
I’ve explained all of this across various comments, but I’ll consolidate them now.
As I said, there is nothing “arbitrary” about the upper limit for abortions. It was set there based on scientific and medical opinions, the consensus of which is that it should still remain there. According to experts in the field, 24 weeks is the limit beyond which foetuses stand the best chance of surviving. I have explained that the only reason those that are born before that threshold even survive is thanks to access to advanced neonatal care, and foreknowledge of the premature birth that gives doctors the opportunity to “force” the growth of the foetus as much as possible. Even immediately after 24 weeks, the chances of survival are still low, but this is where the doctors and scientists have set the limit. Not based on obscure theology, but on their expertise and understanding of pregnancy and foetal development in the real world.
I have no issue with medical intervention being undertaken prior to 24 weeks if it is the woman’s intention to keep it. You haven’t heard me arguing against foetal surgery, have you?
My argument deals with this specific area, around the limit of viability. It does not extend beyond birth, to newborn children. The situations are not the same, nor are the issues involved.
My position has always been that, up to 24 weeks, given what we know about foetal development, the woman’s right to choose wins out. Beyond that threshold, the child’s right then comes into consideration, except in very specific circumstances that I have mentioned: the mother’s life being in jeopardy, severe developmental disability, rape, and others.
As far as I can see there is nothing inconsistent about my argument.
Your argument is illogical. You would have one surgeon working desperately to save a baby’s life in one operating theatre, while in the neighbouring one he would be murdering a child of the same age, all because of what the mother wants. Why is one life more valuable than another? Your argument seems to be “because the mothers chooses it to be”. That’s got nothing to do with 24 weeks and everything to do with selfish concerns.
I’m aware that this is rather cutting across the debate on this thread, but nonetheless would like to ask you both, if you’re willing to answer, about your views on pacifism (or should I say ‘waging peace’?). What’s behind that is partly me thinking that it would be consistent to be passionately against abortion, and also a pacifist - because the absolute respect for and valuing of life would be at the heart of both positions. Yet (and I know this is a bit crude and stereotypical, but I think there’s some truth in it), often those who are strongly against abortion aren’t pacifists by any means, while those who are pro-choice are often anti-war or anti-military. I’m not trying to imply that either of you fit those boxes by the way. Your post on May 22nd, Peter, about how the abortion vote split along party lines, was interesting - it could be illuminating to compare that with voting on renewal of Trident, say (…but was that voted on? My ignorance coming thru…).
(Answering my own question - I attend Quaker meeting and with several caveats would say I am a pacifist… some of the caveats would be around the fact that I don’t have watertight answers to the obvious or typical questions people challenge pacifists with, and around the fact that I’m very bad at dealing with my own anger. In that sense and others I’m not a non-violent person and I think non-violence is difficult. I’m also aware that there’s a kind of colourless, bloodless ‘pacifism’ which seems to be based on denied anger and so has no energy to it - and I think some of that applies to me. I take heart from the example of such as George Macleod [Iona Community founder]though - a man who was a passionate, vigorous, peacebuilder and never a ‘passivist’ (and indeed, in early life, a soldier). On abortion, I find it difficult to give a clear-cut view - I realise this could be challenged given what I said about consistency above. That said, I was almost persuaded that a reduction from 24 weeks would be right, but not entirely as I note that none of the relevant Royal Colleges seemed to feel the evidence warranted this. I’m a bit inadequate when it comes to debate about abortion - though that could be a cop-out I know.)
Scuse the lack of relevance though… :)
in friendship, Blair
I was greatly saddened to see the 20-week vote fail, and if the reported behaviour of Labour MPs is as described then that is deeply unfortunate to say the least.
However, I am equally concerned by the politicising of the issue from the Conservative perspective. If abortion becomes an issue on which people divide down party lines (as has happened to a large extent in the US) then I think the lesson of the US is that that reduces the prospect of a meaningful reduction in the numbers of abortions, because it reduces the likelihood of cross-party consensus on a change. Labour MPs voting for a reduction become not only traitors to the “sisterhood” but traitors to their party.
To put it cynically, it has suited the Republican Party in the US to be seen as the party that is “anti-abortion” - thus hoovering up the votes of evangelical Christians - while doing pretty well nothing of any real effectiveness to reduce the number of abortions in practice. It would be a shame to see the Conservatives go down the same path. I say this as someone who is anti-abortion but not a Conservative.
Sadly, the fact is that at the moment abortion does not swing many votes as an issue, and a party that scrapped abortion would lose far more votes than it would gain. I wish that were not the case, and hope and pray that one day soon the opposite will be true. But in the meantime it would be harmful both to the anti-abortion cause and the political discourse of this country for abortion to become an issue on which one party “dog-whistles” a small but useful section of the electorate, thus poisoning the issue as a subject for cross-party campaign while ensuring that little or no real progress is made.
If the Conservatives put 20 weeks in their next manifesto, call me. But until then I remain sceptical, though without taking anything away from Nadine Dorries’ admirable campaign.
Hi Blair,
I’m not a pacifist because I read Psalm 82 and I recognise that to defend the cause of the weak and fatherless sometimes involves removing those who think they are “gods”.
Peter-
“Your argument is illogical. You would have one surgeon working desperately to save a baby’s life in one operating theatre, while in the neighbouring one he would be murdering a child of the same age, all because of what the mother wants. Why is one life more valuable than another? Your argument seems to be “because the mothers chooses it to be”. That’s got nothing to do with 24 weeks and everything to do with selfish concerns”.
My argument is not illogical, and simply claiming that it is is insufficient. It is not illogical to say that, before the limit of viability, the woman’s right to choose should win out. Past that point, unless there are the specific circumstances I mentioned above, the child’s right wins out, although the woman’s are still considered of course.
Different women want different things. If a woman decides she does not want to have a baby, who are we to say that she must have it? You constantly refer to the right of the woman as being little more than “selfish concerns”, which strikes me as judgemental and condescending. The decision to abort is often the hardest choice a woman will have to make. I would say that it is more selfish to attempt to impose your views on her, especially when those views are fuelled by obscure theological reasoning and religious beliefs origniating from the Bronze Age. The world has moved on since then.
Blair-
I’m not a pacifist either. I suppose I’m anti-war but recognise that sometimes military action may be necessary, but only as a last resort (if that makes any sense!).