8mm
Posted on 06/11/2008 4:00:20 PM PDT by wagglebee
LONDON, June 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - During the debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, pro-life people in Britain were shocked when prominent members of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG) made statements in support of legalized abortion.
Dr. John Pugh, a Vice-Chairman of the APPPLG and a Catholic made the astonishing claim, in the debate on May 20, that "even the Catholic Church sanctions therapeutic abortion." Pugh maintains that it is only what he called "consciousness" that confers the right of a person not to be killed.
Pugh went on to say that "irrespective of any religious view...justification for abortion becomes enormously harder from the moment when the foetus becomes conscious or responsive to pain." He said, "Frankly, there is no basis for giving anything a right other than that it is conscious, and there is no more significant event in the life of any being than becoming conscious".
The pro-life position, properly understood however, is that a human being, with all the moral rights of every other human being, comes into existence at the moment of the fusion of the gametes. Once the human being exists, even at the single-cell stage, he must be afforded all the legal protections of every other member of the human family, regardless of his size, location or medical condition.
Not so in British Parliamentary pro-life circles, where to be pro-life and pro-abortion at the same time is not regarded as contradictory. At the time of the debates in the House of Commons, while MPs considered proposals to lower the gestational time limit for legal abortion from its current 24 weeks, many were shocked by the pro-abortion statements coming from the "pro-life" Parliamentarians.
LifeSiteNews.com reported on May 21, that SPUC is calling for the immediate resignation of Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, the vice-chairman of the APPPLG, who told the House, "For the record...I am not opposed to abortion. I believe that women should have the right to choose; I just hope that they do not choose to have an abortion."
Curtis-Thomas was put in charge of the APPPLG strategy on abortion despite the fact that she has a long record of abortion support, as is evidenced by her 1997 election to Parliament as an Emily's List candidate. Emily's List is a US-based organisation that funds the campaigns of pro-abortion women political candidates.
Jim Dobbin, Chairman of the APPPLG and an MP widely regarded and touted in the press as one of the strongest opponents of abortion in the House of Commons, has said, "I am against abortion, except in rare cases in which the mother's life is in real danger". In the estimation of pro-life advocates around the world, this position is known at best as "pro-life with exceptions". Nevertheless, despite his opposition to the Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life, Mr. Dobbin will be appointed a Knight of the Order of St. Gregory by the papal nuncio at a service next month for his services to the Catholic Church in parliament.
Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said he was "particularly pleased as the award is given in recognition of your service to the Catholic Church in the public witness of faith as a parliamentarian and as such a staunch advocate of the dignity of all human life".
Other MPs touted in the press as "pro-life" who are not associated with the APPPLG are also in favour of keeping abortion legal. Nadine Dorries, a Conservative MP widely called pro-life by the press and who led the charge to have the age limit for abortion lowered, told the House of Commons on 20th May, "I should like to make my personal position clear, because it has been misrepresented in the past few days. I am pro-choice. I support a woman's right to abortion - to faster, safer and quicker abortion than is available at the moment, particularly in the first trimester. That is my position."
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
"Women Should Have the Right to Choose" says Head of UK Parliamentary Pro-Life Group
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052105.html
This sounds just like EVERY pro-abortion politician in the US.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
That happens to be my position, and that of a great many other pro-life Americans.
It is based on the perfectly moral position that it is better to lose one life than two.
The problem is that pro-choice doctors invariably fudge the criteria and this policy pretty quickly becomes close to indistinguishable from abortion on demand in practice.
If the mother's life is in danger, the doctor has two patients, the mother and the baby. If he resolves to save both, but fails to save the child, then that is not abortion, but rather a medical failure with respect to the baby, no different than when several people are treated at the same time in an emergency. Being charitable to Mr. Dobbin, perhaps this is what he meant, and he expressed himself awkwardly.
"Pro-life with exceptions" means the fallacious view that if the mother suffers from a life threatening disease which could be more effectively cured if she were not pregnant, and so abortion is chosen, then that is justified. Sadly, this is most likely what he meant, and then his views ar ento compatible with Catholicism.
My post #5 was made with your position in mind.
There is a big moral difference between treating both patients and failing for one of the two, and treating one by killing another.
Obviously, I am in favor of treating both mother and child when this is possible.
Recently, an ectopic pregnancy went full term (unbeknownst to the docs) and a healthy child was born. This is probably a one in a million chance.
Is it really the proper thing to do to risk almost certain death for the mother for a slight chance of the baby surviving?
Let me give you another example. My first child was born at home. My wife and I took almost 100 hours of emergency childbirth training. In discussion with the teacher, a nurse-midwife, she described her own training that she once had to implement in a remote area.
The mother was carrying twins. They were positioned so that the heads interlocked and neither could be born.
The mother could not be transported to the hospital, and the midwife was not qualified or permitted to perform a C-section.
The only option was to remove the head from one of the babies. An awful choice, but if not done both babies and the mother would die horrible deaths.
Should she have continued trying to save all three, or was she right to implement her training and save two lives, as she did?
That “life or death” is often used to rationalize decisions made for other reasons does not mean that such decisions are not sometimes necessary and entirely moral.
I saw this movie years ago called “The Cardinal” with Thomas Tryon about the rise of a parish priest to the position of cardinal. It was a wonderful movie. In the movie, he has a sister who is very promiscuous and becomes pregnant. When it is time for her to give birth, something goes wrong and there is a situation that in order to save her life, they will have to kill the baby. I don’t remember all the details of the medical situation, but his sister is unconscious and cannot make the decision so it is left up to him (their parents are dead).
He tells the doctors not to kill the baby even though it will mean the certain death of his sister. He tells the doctors, “If my sister dies, it is an act of God. If the baby dies, it is because of my actions.” His sister does, indeed, die and the baby lives. But the decision does not come without a price. He lives with a great deal of guilt. But later in the movie, they show the little baby grown up, a girl, and she’s beautiful and alive, and he knows that he made the right call. I know it’s only a movie, but I’ve never forgotten that scenario and have always felt that it is best to leave these choices up to God. Some may disagree.
I agree with these decisions that you mention: it was medically necessary to remove one baby, thereby killing him, in order to prevent the death of the mother. Just like in a car crash or in a fire saving one victim might be only possible at the cost of another life.
But none of these scenarios are really abortions. There are unfortunate medical triage cases, in one case complicated by insufficient skill. An abortion under a grave illness exception would be to kill the baby because, for example, side effects of chemotherapy that is necessary for the mother to take would be aggravated by the continuing pregnancy.
Right decision, no matter who is in charge. The moment the killing of the baby is a separate act and not a side effect of a life saving effort, it cannot be excused.
Thanks for your response.
I agree these cases aren’t really abortion, as the death of the baby is not the point of the operation, but rather a tragic side effect.
That is pro life here for many also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.