Gordon Gets it Right

It was good to see that the Prime Minister has written a piece in the Daily Telegraph today against assisted suicide. (And as I write that sentence it strikes me forcibly just how much the country has changed in my life time. In earlier and, at least as far as this is concerned, better, times the subject wouldn't even be discussed; the possibility that such an act could be legalised would have been laughable.)

He begins by saying...

Many times in the past 80 years, Parliament has considered – and rejected – the legalisation of assisted suicide. If, in the wake of revived debate on these matters, a new proposal were to come forward, I do not believe the outcome would be any different.

Cases dominating the public arena make for harrowing reading and the first and most obvious response is to say that something must be done. But when these complex, individual and distressing cases are considered in detail, a solution that at first might seem sensible – the right to die in a manner and at a time of one's choosing – swiftly becomes less straightforward and more worrying.

And rightly concludes (my emphasis)...

The law – together with the values and standards of our caring professions – supports good care, including palliative care for the most difficult of conditions; and also protects the most vulnerable in our society. For let us be clear: death as an option and an entitlement, via whatever bureaucratic processes a change in the law might devise, would fundamentally change the way we think about mortality.

The risk of pressures – however subtle – on the frail and the vulnerable, who may feel their existences burdensome to others, cannot ever be entirely excluded. And the inevitable erosion of trust in the caring professions – if they were in a position to end life – would be to lose something very precious. For when I think of the kind of care Sarah and I saw in our local hospice, where we worked as volunteers, I know in my heart that there is such a thing as a good death.

And I believe it is our duty as a society to provide the skilled and loving care that makes it possible; and to use the laws we have well, rather than rush to change them.

Now if only he could think as clearly about abortion, sex education and religious liberty we might be getting somewhere!

Please Stop

The RSPCA reported this week that some 7,300 pets were abandoned in the UK last year. This made headline news in a number of media outlets.

The Daily Mail, reporting on a recent inquest, rightly expressed horror that a baby girl was mauled to death by two Rottweilers.

But where are the headlines about the ongoing killing of our nation’s children?

Why isn't there more outrage about the way we treat our unborn? They are dismembered and poisoned, subjected to all kinds of humiliation and torture, before being killed.

Last Sunday, 27th April 2008, saw the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act coming into force in the UK. It serves as a marker of a sad and appalling period in British History.

During that time, some 6,500,000 – six and a half MILLION – babies have been killed. In 2006 alone (2007 figures are not yet available) there were over 200,000 abortions. That's over 500 a day. Day in, day out.

Some 97% of these were because of potential "injury to the physical or mental health" of the mothers. This broad category, widely misused and misapplied, effectively means that abortions are more or less available on demand.

Today we hear the disturbing news that more and more 12 year olds are being given abortions.

And there are renewed calls to allow “abortion on request” by ending the need for doctors to give permission for a termination.

All this in the name of sexual freedom; all this because women (and men) are unwilling to control the way they behave or to face up to the consequences of their own actions.

When will the killing stop?

40 Years On - Where Are We Now?

If you are in the vicinity of Childs Hill Baptist Church next Saturday (19th April), do come to what promises to be an informative and challenging talk by John Ling on recent trends in bioethics.

This year sees the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act coming into force in the UK. Is 200,000 abortions each year in England and Wales too many?

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (2008) looks set to legalise human-animal hybrids, fatherless children, saviour siblings and “family balancing”. Is this a step too far?

And what about the “old” topics like euthanasia, IVF, cloning and surrogacy?

What should Christians think about these issues? What should we be doing?

Dr John R Ling will tackle these questions. He will construct a robust bioethical framework based on principles derived from the Bible — leading to the proper response: principled compassion.

More details.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

Inspired by Exiled Preacher, I have just written to my MP, Dr Rudi Vis, about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which is making its way through Parliament:

Dear Dr Vis,

I am writing to you about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which I understand is soon to be debated in the House of Commons.

Please will you consider voting against the proposals on additional embryo research and for any amendment that would lead to the reduction in the abortion limit?

The Bill raises some serious ethical issues and I find some of its aspects very disturbing.

Researchers should not be allowed to work only on the basis of what is possible in the laboratory without regard to ethical principles. The unique dignity of human life should not be undermined by allowing the production of human/animal embryos for the extraction of stem cells. This is especially the case now that scientists are discovering the potential of adult stem cells, culled from human skin. See, for example, http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-reprogram-human-skin-44173.aspx. Money should be invested in developing the benefits of this kind of research rather than in ethically questionable work on embryonic hybrids.

I am also very concerned about the proposals in the Bill regarding therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. These also represent a serious attack on the value of human life.

Regarding abortion, I find it incomprehensible that this country is not horrified that there are now some 200,000 abortions occurring every year. The Bill will give an opportunity for MPs to table an amendment reducing the abortion limit from the current 24 weeks. In specialised neonatal units, up to 82% of babies born prematurely at 24 weeks now survive. Added to this is a new appreciation of foetal sensitivity to pain.

The Christian Institute has a helpful set of resources on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2007/hte_bill/index.htm.

Abortion Petition

Since 1967 there have been almost 7 million abortions in the UK, now 200,000 a year, with one in four pregnancies ending in abortion.

Please take the time to sign this petition that has been organised by a number of pro-life organisations.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, now in the House of Commons, provides the first opportunity for 18 years for changing the law on abortion.

Please sign the new petition at http://www.aliveandkickingcampaign.org/petition/ calling on Parliament to support amendments to reduce the number of abortions in the UK from 200,000 a year and to oppose amendments that would further liberalise the abortion law.

Shame on the BMA

The number of abortions carried out in England and Wales has been steadily increasing from the moment it was legalised 40 years ago.

In 1968, the first year after abortion was legalised, just over 22,000 terminations were carried out. In 2006 the figure was a staggering 193,700. (Source: http://www.dh.gov.uk/)

The vast majority of abortions - almost 97% - are because of "injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman" - a broad category which covers almost every cause of an unwanted pregnancy.

And what does the BMA call for in response? To relax the rules even further and to make access to abortion even easier.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

It Has to Stop

Marks and Spencer killed nearly 6,000 children at 9 stores in the UK during January 2007.

No, it's not true, but imagine the public outcry there would be if it were.

The truth is that Marie Stopes International provided nearly 6,000 (5,992) abortions to women at its nine UK centres last month—the most in its 32-year history, and 13 per cent more than January last year. (See, e.g., the BBC news report)

The silent killing goes on, vulnerable women continue to be traumatized, and society is not perturbed.

The response from the so-called pro-choice lobby is to campaign for greater access to the "morning after pill", to encourage the distribution of condoms, for greater "education", …. The same arguments have been used time and time again in the 40 years since the 1967 Abortion Act, yet the number of abortions keeps rising (in England and Wales: 163,638 in 1995, 185,375 in 2000, 186,400 in 2005). There are even now demands to make access to abortion even easier, for example by removing the "two doctor" rule.

It's time to stop this killing spree. The complacent attitude to human life needs to be challenged. Abortion should not be promoted as a "back-up" method of birth control. More support must be given to women in difficult situations who want to keep their babies. The beauties of sex only within marriage should be extolled and encouraged.