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.

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.

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.

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 Christians shouldn't get drunk

(NB: Much of this stems from a recent discussion with a friend. I am grateful to that friend for engaging in that discussion helpfully and constructively. I apologise in advance for the length of this piece: I can only say that this reflects the large amount of Biblical discussion on the topic!)

“Admit that drunkenness is wrong and that you struggle with temptation. Or admit that you pick which parts of Christianity you follow on the basis of what you enjoy doing. Or, it pains me to say, if you really reflect on it and feel this way, even admit that you are not really concerned about living in accordance with Christian principles. But please do not pretend that the Biblical perspective on drunkenness is one which condones it.”

Introduction

This is not going to be a popular article. Among certain people, it will be incredibly unpopular. This article comes with a warning that you may end up feeling indignant, angry, and more. I have little doubt that at least one person will come away thinking that I am a judgmental, sanctimonious moraliser. My intention is (obviously) not for any of these feelings (about yourself or about me) to occur: I am already well aware of my own failings, and I’m not hugely keen on making myself unpopular among strangers, even less so among friends. I write this because I am genuinely seriously concerned (and have been for several years, without making it so clear until now) and because I feel it is important for people to hear this. If, afterwards, you do feel angry or judged, send me an e-mail and we can talk further.

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.

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)

News Bulletin 5 October 2012 -- The Christian Institute

News Bulletin 28 September 2012 -- The Christian Institute

The Same Sex marriage Debate: David Robertson and Peter D. Williams vs. Patrick Harvie (leader of Greens) and Willie Rennie (Leader Lib Dems)

News Bulletin 14 September 2012 -- The Christian Institute

The Same-Sex Marriage Controversy

This week, I participated in a debate on the subject of same-sex marriage before an audience at the University of Glasgow. The motion was "Politics, Religion and Expression: This House Supports Gay Marriage." The format took a parliamentary style, with teams of three representing each side. Representing traditional marriage were myself, Father John Keenan (Catholic Chaplin of the University of Glasgow) and John Deighan (Parliamentary Officer of the Scottish Catholic Church). Representing the proposed re-definition of marriage were Clare Marsh (Scottish Humanist Association), Ross Mitchell (1st Class LLB, University of Glasgow), and John McKee (LGBT & Labour activist). 

The venue was a pack-out, with likely at least 150 people present. Unfortunately, however, most people had seemingly not come for a rational dialogue and to be edified by hearing a view that they do not hold (which should be your attitude taken when you attend a debate). The audience was more hostile than even I had envisioned, and many people had come just came to heckle and poke fun during the presentations that they disagreed with.

The other side made use of the usual vacuous rhetoric and emotional appeal that one has come to be accustomed to in this debate. Their side was clearly favoured by the format since the audience was already heavily biased against us -- and 7 minutes (the time permitted for each speech) isn't nearly enough time to unpack the issues that need to be explored. The speeches were followed by a Q&A, in which almost all of the questions were directed at us, and I thought the debate would have benefitted from a formal cross-examination.

Same Sex Marriage Debate Next Monday: Willie Rennie & Patrick Harvey v David Robertson & Peter D Williams

News Bulletin 7th September 2012 -- the Christian Institute

News Bulletin 24 August 2012 -- The Christian Institute

News Bulletin 17 August 2012 -- The Christian Institute

News Bulletin 3 August 2012 -- The Christian Institute

News Bulletin 27 July 2012 -- The Christian Institute

News Bulletin 20 July 2012 -- The Christian Institute