Thoughts on the recent Abortion and Disability Debate - Ann Furedi & James Mumford

The abortion of those with a disability has been the subject of much media debate in recent months. You can listen to a debate on the topic between the head of  BPAS Ann Furedi and Ethicist James Mumford, the debate is based on recent tweet's from Richard Dawkin's.

I just had a few observations related to the debate and the philosophical basis for Dawkin's comments to "abort it and try again".

1. If the abortion of disabled fetuses is an affront to the dignity of those born with a disability then the abortion of a fetus without a disability ought to be an affront to the dignity of those without a disability.

2. Dawkin's comment about replacing a disabled fetus with a healthy one is not something he came up with himself, his views are based on Peter Singer's controversial replaceability principle in his book 'Practical Ethics'. What this entails is applying utilitarian ethical principles to the problem of fetal disability. Utilitarianism intends to minimize suffering and maximizing happiness, therefore, in the event of fetal disability the mother using utilitarian reasoning ought to kill the disabled fetus and replace them with a healthy one. This is because the death of the disabled fetus results in no future suffering for them and it maximizes happiness/pleasure through bringing a healthy infant into the world.

3. A few problems with the replaceability principle are that it assumes the total suffering of the disabled life will be greater than the healthy one. However, this cannot be definitively known, what if the 'healthy' fetus grows up to be a murderer/rapist/robber etc, or grows up to be a manic depressive who hates living but cannot bring about ending their life. There are numerous cases where the life of someone without a disability does not guarantee producing greater happiness on the utilitarian calculus. The replacement principle simply begs the question by assuming that the life of someone without a disability will de facto be a happier life than someone with a disability when this simply cannot always be the case. In fact numerous studies have observed that those living with a disability are as happy or happier than their counterparts with no disability.

How can the person intending to replace the disabled fetus know that their next attempt at conceiving will actually bring about a healthy fetus and not another disabled fetus? If this were the case the the suffering from a utilitarian perspective is immediately doubled, the parents must go through another abortion, knowing they are responsible for another death. Why must the disabled fetus be replaced with another one, why not a dog? Providing they were well looked after and not disabled? As long as the act brings about happier consequences then all is good and well.


4. The replaceability principle is eugenic, it supports and helps propagate the idea that humans must meet arbitrary standards of normalcy before they can be welcomed into the world. If you cannot see how this is eugenic, you don't understand eugenics.


5. The eugenic basis of the replaceability principle helps to subvert the maternal-child relationship into one which is conditional and tentative. Rather than accepting ones offspring for who they are, they may only be permitted to live should they meet certain requirements and not use more than their fair share of societies resources.

Originally posted at Mind the Evangelical.

Incinerated Human Fetuses and Pro-Choice Cognitive Dissonance

Here are my thoughts on the recent Telegraph article where it was recently discovered that some of the aborted fetuses had been used to heat some NHS hospitals.

Pro-choice Feminists gone wild

 Pro-choice Feminism

This morning however I stumbled upon an interesting video of a group of lovely pro-choice feminists who unhappy with the stance of the Roman Catholic Church in Argentina on abortion marched to a large Roman Catholic Church in San Juan to 'protest'.


Instead of rational dialogue these pro-choice feminists decided that it would be more fruitful to spray paint obscenities about the church and Jesus, spit at the men praying and protecting the church from their vandalism, draw swastikas on their heads and chests, perform sexual acts on each-other, push their breasts in the faces of the men, damage property and burn an effigy of Pope Francis.

What a fine demonstration of the fruits of 'enlightenment' thinking.

The response of the praying men is truly inspiring as they simply take what is being thrown at them physically and verbally in a display that truly represents Jesus' words to his own accusers “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

The Minority

Clearly most Feminists are not violent or nasty people like this group which is ironic seeing as how often Pro-life Christians are described and characterized by the kooky minority. Can you hear the voices of feminists all over the world shouting 'they don't represent us'. Yeah we know, just like the Kooky minority don't represent us either. It sucks to be characterised by the kooky minority who very rarely represent the majority.

Watch the video of the friendly Argentinian Pro-choice Feminists yourself below.

Anne Furedi, Gender-Selective Abortions and Legal Permissibility

With all the controversy in the press over the failure of the CPS to seek prosecution for doctors who offer to provide abortions on the basis of gender, Anne Furedi the chief executive of BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) wades in with her thoughts. You can read her article here.


Anne is never afraid to speak her mind and in fact she at-least has the intellectual honesty to follow the logic of her position to its conclusions which a vast number of pro-choice advocates fail to do. So even though I couldn't disagree with her more about her stance on the unborn and abortion, I do respect at-least that intellectual virtue. Unfortunately the reductio ad absurdum of her denial of the moral value of the developing human being are lost on her.

So lets begin. Anne points out that the 1967 Abortion Act doesn't explicitly state that rape, incest,
abandonment or being young are legitimate reasons for abortion, and that gender-selective abortions are no different. This is correct. All such reasons are based on the impact on the women's mental or physical health, therefore if a women happens to be in an environment where having another girl would bring shame on her and her family (possibly physical abuse) and the mental anguish may be such that the abortion could be legitimately and legally procured. In fact the law actually does take into account the impact the birth of the child could have on the existing family and children, perhaps the child would be hated by their father and extended family. The 1967 Abortion Act is simply so ambiguous that in reality I can see some legitimacy to her points, it is quite possible legally speaking for the law to be interpreted by doctors so that most reasons can be construed in a way that they would be legally permissible.

Upcoming Apologetics Events

- Unveiling Grace UK Tour - Leaving Mormonism

What? Lynn and Mike Wilder, 30 year members of the LDS church in the USA, tour Britian telling people about their journey out of Mormonism

When and Where? 
Kent - Saturday 14th June - Giggs Hill Church, Giggs Hill, St Paul’s Cray, Kent, BR5 2SA
Morning Session - 10 am to 1pm
Afternoon Session - 2pm to 5pm

Wimbledon - Wednesday 18th June - Saint Luke's Church, Wimbledon, London, SW19 8BZ, from 7:45pm

Bradford - Saturday 21st June - Sunbridge Road Mission Church, Gaynor St, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD1 2LF
Sunday 22nd June - 10:30am - Same as above

York - Sunday 22nd June - St Mary's Parish Church Strensall, Church Ln, Strensall, York YO32 5XU, from 7pm to 9pm

For more details email: bobbygilpin@gmail.com




- Leicestershire Contenders - Apologetics Group
What? Guest speaker Derek Tidball will be discussing 'signals of transcendence', pointers towards God's existence.
When? February 2014, 2-5pm 
Where? TBC







Other Events Calendars
RZIM Calendar -> http://www.rzim.eu/what-we-do-2/calendar

Law, Gendercide and Abortion

In a recent undercover operation two doctors were discovered to be offering such services and with more than enough evidence to prosecute them for breaking the law the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to prosecute them. The reason given was that their prosecution was not in the public interest. Surely prosecuting those who break our countries laws is in the public's interest? I'm sure the CPS would agree that doctors who offered to smother newborn girls for the parents would be in the public's interest. What this demonstrates is that the CPS have made what is in truth a logical connection between our societies disregard for the unborn, they know that in reality given some thought gender-selective abortions differ little morally from any other type of abortion. Both intend to kill and result in the death of the most vulnerable members of the human community.


I've written enough on why abortion is a barbaric and immoral act before, however the issue of gender selective abortion I was hoping would encourage us as a society to question the very nature of abortion and the unborn. If the unborn are not human beings with any or little moral value then I don't really see that there's much of a problem with gender-selective abortions. After-all if they aren't persons with any moral value and the parents don't want them the reason is really of little importance and I wish more people would be honest and consistent about this.

Mary Anne Warren famously argued that abortion could be justified if a women didn't want to cancel a planned vacation, if that is the case then doing so based purely on the basis of gender would appear justified. For instance if one is in a society where men are more able to work and earn more money for the family then it makes economical sense to get rid of the female human fetus for a small fee and hope that next time it is a boy. Or perhaps a family already has three girls and they desperately want a son to pass on the family name, this could also provide a reason for procuring a gender selective abortion. However all such reasons beg the question and assume something about unborn human beings, that they are either not morally valuable persons or that they are moral persons but a women's choice trumps the unborn right to life.

How to deal with our moral blind-spots - The Clarkson Academy 2013

Christians are funny creatures, many of us love looking back into the halls of history where we see the names of Christians like John Wesley, Elizabeth Fry, William and Catherine Booth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, mother Teresa and the thousands of other men and women who have shaped the world through their gospel inspired social reform. What makes us funny creatures is that as much as we appreciate and applaud their work most of us think we would have done something similar had we been in the same historical and social context, however in reality most of us would have done as much as we are doing today, nothing or very little.

Those men and women I mentioned never had it easy, Wesley was often assaulted, had a variety of hard produce thrown at him and even the occasional dead cat for good measure. William Booth? Same as Wesley with a number of Salvationists being murdered and assaulted. Bonhoeffer? Hanged at the Flossenburg concentration camp just two weeks before the camp was liberated by US forces in 1945.

I write this not only to you but to myself, I'm as lazy and full of excuses as the next person and even though I acknowledge that I still do very little.

How many of us would have stood up to Hitler and the Nazis like Bonhoeffer did? How many of us would have travelled five thousand miles a year by horseback just to be greeted by aggression and be assaulted regularly just to preach the gospel? We all like to think we would, but the litmus test is what are we doing today? There is more injustice on a wider scale than at any time in history and yet most of us do very little to address it. Of course this could all be seen as rather negative, however all it takes is for us to change is to acknowledge that as Christians we have a duty to love our neighbour as ourself. What this means is expanding our moral circle to include not only ourselves and close family but all human beings, who regardless of size, colour, belief or age are all made in the image of God.

Six short Pro-life responses to Six popular Pro-choice slogans - Part 1

This blog was originally posted at my personal blog Mind the Evangelical here.

If one wants to be prepared to defend the pro-life position there exists a number of great resources from philosophers around like Francis Beckwith, Stephen D. Schwarz, Christopher Kaczor and Patrick Lee. Yet very few people who hold to the Pro-life view have ever perused their pages of their books, this leaves many of them unequipped to deal with some of the popular Pro-choice slogans and arguments that are often appear at first rhetorical powerful yet in reality are short on substance.

In light of this I thought I would very briefly in a few sentences respond to some of the most popular Pro-choice slogans and arguments. Some people might accuse me of attacking straw-man arguments, however in reality these arguments are both popular and frequently used. I'm more than happy to engage with the more sophisticated moral questions surrounding the Pro-life position but that is for another day.

1. 'It's a women's right to choose.'

Of course we all respect someone's right to choose, it would make you seem like a moral monster to deny something western civilisation values so highly. However, clearly there are many circumstances where the right to choose has its limitations. No-one is trying to tell women they can't choose what to eat or who to talk to but the idea that choice is absolute is nonsense. One must clarify what is being referred to when we speak about having a right to choose to do something. If I wanted to choose to shoot my dog or beat a child for fun you would likely be abhorred at the nature of my choice and tell me that I have no such right to do so.

Why mastabation isn't mass murder

This blogpost was taken from my new personal blog here.

As someone who defends the pro-life position I'm often accused of believing absurd things that are often ascribed to me even though I don't believe anything of the sort. One common assertion thrown at me is that I believe that human sperm is also a subject of moral rights or as Monty Python put it, every sperm is sacred.

This is allegedly because I think that human life is morally valuable from fertilization in virtue of the sort of thing they are (a substance of rational nature) and therefore have certain moral rights (such as that not to be intentionally and unjustly killed) I must also believe that sperm and ovum have moral rights to. The logical conclusion is that I must believe that every-time someone masturbates they are committing something akin to mass murder or genocide.

Now I feel I have a certain obligation to the number of pro-life critics who more often than you would think seem to get mixed up what the pro-life position is, particularly between the difference between a part and its whole. Now, from conception/fertilization a new human organism comes into being, they may differ in regards to size, level of development, environment and their degree of dependency but they are a whole human being (or if you prefer a member of the human species). The pro-life position is not that a part of a human of itself has moral value, for instance a kidney or liver is a part of a human being but they are certainly not whole human beings. Of course they are genetically human but they do not function as a whole human organism but as a part of a whole human one. Gametes (sperm and ovum) are parts of a human being, they are not in themselves a whole human organism.

I suppose some of the confusion may arise from a misunderstanding of an argument from potential, that is some people think that the same sort of potential resides within a gamete cell as it does in the early human embryo. However this misunderstands two types of potential, active and passive.

Gametes have the sort of potential that ingredients have for making a cake, that is left by themselves they will not develop into a cake. However this is not analogous to the embryo which is already a whole, alive, self-directed developing human organism with all the ingredients mixed and in the oven. That is to say left by itself in the maternal environment it will continue to develop into a mature human being, however that is not the case for a gamete which left alone for a few days will cease to exist like any other human cell.

Is It Acceptable For Men To Argue Against Abortion?

Even though I don't engage in pro-life campaigning, in expressing my philosophical views I'm frequently berated with the comment as a man I'm not allowed to have an opinion on abortion. Occasionally this is made as a polite suggestion, but the overall impression I get is that it is used as an anti-intellectual manoeuvre to try to shut down critical enquiry on this ideologically-charged topic.

In any case it is simply a ridiculous argument. Firstly it's an ad hominem. There's obviously no logical relationship between the individual who happens to be articulating an argument and the soundness of that argument.[1] Do you think that whenever there's an exam question on abortion all the males get an F even if they make the same points as the females? Moreover, it is inconsistent for those people who take this line (and I say 'people' because many men do too,) to appreciate the support that men such as myself give for the provision of education and other rights for women.

Abortion is absolutely not a woman-only issue. Every child has a father and half of children are male. Many of the doctors who are asked to kill babies via abortion are men. Sometimes abortions are even solicited because a male child isn't wanted (though this of course happens much more often with girls). And as Erin Manning has said, “By making abortion a 'women's issue,' we're playing right into the notion that fatherhood is irrelevant and that men should be free to have sex without consequences for as long as they want to- if pregnancy occurs, the woman can 'deal with it.”

Christians and Abortion - Ignorance, apathy and shame

Christianity and Slavery

It shouldn't be a particular surprise to anyone that most Christians ethical views are influenced and informed far more by the media and the cultural zeitgeist than by a Christian world-view. What this means is that most Christians tend to be ignorant about a number of things that are shaping the minds and practices of people here in the UK. One example I will focus on specifically is that of abortion. I don't think it would be an overstatement to claim that abortion is the twenty first centuries ethical equivalent of the chattel slavery so prevalent in the nineteenth century. If anything it is far worse, and like slavery it has serious cultural consequences with respect to how we view certain groups of people within our society. In Wilberforce and Clarksons day the big question was whether or not it was wrong to treat black people as inferior to whites and therefore justifiably use them as a means for their desired profitable ends as slaves. The answer to this questions would affect how you would view and therefore treat them, because if they weren't a human 'person' with moral value then there really was little problem with chattel slavery.

Ireland, Abortion and Risk to the Mothers Life

I saw earlier today the tragic case of a young women who died in Ireland because the hospital saw it as their duty to not act and perform an intervention that would have saved the life of the mother.

*We should all remember of course that we are yet to have all the facts, we only know a few things from the media as pointed out at Life News. Whatever happened, this tragic case is not an argument for abortion.

I thought I would take this opportunity to write about abortion and risk to the mothers life, I don't claim to know much about the Irish pro-life movement or their politics. I also do not have access to all the facts about this particular case so I can only go on what has been said in the press. I will briefly address and make the case for a solution that would have saved this young women's life and upheld the sanctity of life.

A Response to Peter D Williams - The use of graphic abortion images

This article is in response to Peter D Williams recent article over at the Catholic Herald here. I must start by making it clear that I fully appreciate Williams point of view and other great work but maintain that he is mistaken on this point.

For some reason Williams feel it necessary like pro-abortion advocates to mention that showing images of abortion is in some way related to the US as if that's something inherently negative or even relevant. Yes, Abort67 may be supported by The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform an American organisation, but that's of little relevance when its realised that the practice of displaying graphic images was something that has its roots here in the UK and was in fact an export to the US rather than the other way round. Even if this were not the case, images and arguments have neither gender or nationality and should be allowed to speak for themselves regardless of who does or doesn't practice using them. It was in fact William Wilberforce who first commissioned images of human slavery to demonstrate to the public the horrific reality of slavery to those who were either ignorant or apathetic to the plight of African slaves.

Wilberforce realised that it's extremely difficult to argue with an image, these images made it difficult for people to ignore the obvious evil of slavery and made it increasingly difficult to justify. That's not to say that people still didn't try to justify slavery much like people still do today in the case of abortion for economic purposes, as if the value of a human life is trumped by financial circumstances. This is the strength of abortion images, they encroach on the area of support and appeal to our most basic intuitions and conscience leaving room for only irrationality or blind obedience to a radical pro-choice ideology.

Williams then argues that showing abortion images is counter-productive for the UK pro-life lobby and thus we should be in 'total opposition' to such tactics. He thinks that even if it does indeed stop some abortions it will ultimately cause offence and harden hearts, I can only imagine that this sort of thing was also said by well meaning Christians in response to Wilberforce's use of images of slavery. Of course images may offend, but more importantly they make it impossible for abortion to remain hidden, socially acceptable and out of the public's eye and instead make it something that must be addressed head on rather than swept under the cultural carpet. This of course is not to say that this is the only thing pro-life advocates should be doing but its certainly one important and vital cog in the whole operation, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

Certainly not everyone is going to be ecstatic at seeing an abortion image, but I speak for myself and a number of others I personally know where the use of images has been instrumental in changing their politically correct views into philosophical and scientifically defensible ones.

Williams then states that because displaying abortion images may result in false accusations and lies that we should avoid using them so the pro-life lobby doesn't get charactered in the same way. Again going back to the use of images of slavery, it could be argued that slavery eventually would have been outlawed had images not been employed, of course this may have been the case, but it happened much quicker and effectively by using them! The truth is that when images are displayed near abortion clinics, they are silent protests, trained women are there to council women if they want to talk, there is no shouting or intimidation, just displays of what abortion does to the unborn. If pro-aborts wish to distort what happens that is up to them but we shouldn't stop doing something that has proven to be effective because we wish to avoid mud sticking to our cause.

There seems to be no perfect way of practising pro-life advocacy in the UK which is why I think its important that we use a variety of different approaches, some of which different people will be more comfortable with than others. Similarly this applies when preaching the gospel, some like Alpha, others street preaching and door-knocking. Each has individual strengths and weaknesses but I would never tell someone not to preach the gospel because I disagreed with their particular approach assuming that it was done with the right heart. It may be true that some may be further hardened by seeing an abortion image but likewise it may change other peoples minds who otherwise wouldn't have known the reality of abortion by other means. The article from the Vitae Foundation is an interesting piece even if it is based on anecdotal observations but as I've stated such methods must be used in partnership with other methods and are not in themselves stand alone approaches. To think otherwise is both simplistic and unrealistic.

Sometimes a picture says more than words ever can.

The 'gentler' approach used by Williams may make us more friends in the short-term but ultimately abortion is something urgent and it should be treated as such whether that wins us friends or not, whether we are preaching the gospel or being pro-life advocates we should not go looking for trouble or even intend it but sometimes the truth has a habit of causing controversy and conflict (Luke 12:51-53). The goal of pro-life advocacy is not to make friends but to speak the truth in love by doing what is necessary to raise awareness of the person-hood and rights of the unborn. Crisis Pregnancy Centres and the like do an amazing work and service but I think more is needed and I think the use of images can be affective at University campuses and near abortion clinics. Perhaps standing outside abortion clinics isn't ideal but I can't help but think that it's a necessary endeavour that in partnership with a number of different approaches can and will have a dramatic affect on our society. We need to make sure women are cared for and valued themselves and given any help they need to help them support their baby whilst endeavouring to create a society where the unborn are valued, and a culture that doesn't see killing as a possible solution.

The Logic of 'Pro-Choice': Why Abortion is Murder

Recently, a pair of ethicists, Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University, authored a paper that was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled: "After-Birth: Why Should the Baby Live?"[1] In said paper, they argued in favour of what they refer to as "after-birth abortion" purely on the basis of current pro-choice arguments. Whilst those of us within the Church have been arguing that the arguments in favour of abortion apply equally to those outside of the womb too, the scary thing here is that these ethicists are serious advocates of killing newborn children. Let's think about this.

The argument presented by these two "ethicists" is as follows:
1. Post-birth abortion and pre-birth abortion are morally equivalent.
2. Pre-birth abortion is morally acceptable.
3. Therefore, post-birth abortion is morally acceptable.

However, since premise two is what is under debate, this is clearly an example of begging the question. Furthermore, the conclusion flies in the face of our moral experiences. Given that the immorality of killing newborn babies is much more plausible and obviously true than the alleged morality of killing unborn babies, the correct argument should be:

1. Post-birth abortion and pre-birth abortion are morally equivalent.
2. Post-birth abortion is morally unacceptable.
3. Therefore, pre-birth abortion is morally unacceptable.

Should the unborn be given the benefit of the doubt?

Among Embryologists and other scientific specialists with no vested interest in abortion there is no controversy about when human life begins, it is unanimously at conception. Some critics argue that the unborn are not human beings whilst others grant their humanity but argue that the unborn ought to only be granted human rights when they acquire a particular function. That may be the ability to feel pain, experience self-awareness or any number of different abilities. The problem with this is that every acquired characteristic is just a subjective line in the sand, and it could just as persuasively be argued that a working renal system or eyes are the points at which we grant the unborn human rights. There is no particular function that suddenly bestows value upon the unborn, and to present this as the case is not an argument but rather an assertion. Moral consistency dictates that either we have human rights in virtue of being human beings or we don’t, not because of an acquired function at some arbitrary moment. This means that if the unborn are humans then they warrant the human right to not be intentionally killed. If the unborn isn’t human then we are left with a strange question. How exactly can human parents produce offspring that isn’t human but later becomes so?

News Bulletin 8 June 2012 -- The Christian Institute

News Bulletin 1 June 2012 -- The Christian Institute

What is the unborn?

This video is part of a series given at Biola University, if you follow the link here it will take you to a page where you can access the other great resources on this subject.

Get involved and help support the Life Training Institute.

News Bulletin 27 April 2012 -- The Christian Institute

Is God a Moral Monster? (Frank Turek)