Quantum 75 – The argument in favour of abortion is changing. Are you ready to respond to it?

Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS (Britain’s largest independent provider of abortions) has written a new book – The Moral Case for Abortion. As Christians we need to understand what the argument is and respond to it.

In this week’s Quantum of Solas podcast, I discuss Mrs Furedi’s recent comments on a Spiked Podcast with John Deighan, Chief Executive of SPUC Scotland (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children).


Spiked Podcast: There is a moral case for abortion


Kari Atalla – The baby that would have been mine

Quantum 75


  1. Ann Furedi’s arguments are chilling, yet they will resonate with contemporary God-rejecting society. The first task for Christians is to make sure that Christians understand just why these arguments are wrong, because, as with other current societal arguments, Christians with weak Biblical knowledge and faint commitment to obedience to Jesus will be tempted to follow human “wisdom”. Then the task is to take on society, and the arguments must be marshalled and framed in a way that will have impact on those who do not start with a position framed by God’s values and his commands.

  2. Surely the more correct acronym would be BAAS – British Anti-pregnancy Advisory Service?

    The “justification” she gives for abortion is all to easily applied by any individual or group in a position of power to any other individual or group they find inconvenient/unwanted/unliked. The most frightening part of listening to this interview was the matter-of-fact banality of her tone of voice.

  3. “Yes ladies, we’re admitting it now, because unfortunately you actually do have the wit to understand basic biology even when we thought you were too poor/stupid/hormonal to even attempt to”. Human being/human person is the new sex/gender isn’t it. Flip the term when convenient.

    How do you like this from the BPAS website, under the heading of “what to expect on the day”:

    “Our clinics are not suitable for children – please don’t bring them with you.”

    Beautiful, poignant song. I can’t imagine what it must feel like to have lost a child that way. May all women and men who suffered this way find peace, and may the church be at the forefront of helping them.

  4. The question, “Are you ready to respond to it?” in the title appears to have been answered in the number of comments received. This is, in itself a comment, when compared to the number of comments garnered by your “BBC …anti Christian bias ” post.

    Any answer(s) should be clear, concise, coherent, cogent and compelling. Who are we seeking to answer, friends, neighbours, colleagues, Christians, academics, politicians; to influence the influencers?

    First, I do not think that what has been conceded should be by-passed, to now move onto the direction of the argument. Just the opposite.

    Taking a cue from this blog by Andrew Wilson:

    and his short commentary on Johnathan Haidt’s book: “The righteous mind….”

    1 Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

    “People don’t reason their way to which things are right and wrong; they sense emotionally and intuitively that they are right or wrong, and then use their reason to explain why.”

    An example from a transcript is given:

    “(The transcript of a liberal-minded Western person trying to explain why incest is wrong, and gradually coming to the realisation that she doesn’t know why it is wrong but knows it is anyway, is fascinating on this point.)”

    Conceding that abortion is killing a beating human heart brings strong emotional intuition into play.

    2 WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich Democratic) moral reasoning, comes into play. This is a lot narrower than for other societies/cultures around the world, being reduced to
    a) harm v care
    b) fairness v cheating.

    I’d add (individual v society/classes/groups/family: selfishness v sacrifice/selflessness

    Other cultures moral reasoning includes
    c) loyalty v betrayal
    d) authority v subversion
    e) sanctity v degradation
    f) liberty v oppression

    3 There needs to be an acknowledgment, an understanding that Christians start from different moral foundations and that secular emotions and intuitions are likely to be opposed/hostile to Christianity, or arguments put forward by Christians. We should therefore think hard about common ground starting points.

    4 We applaud sacrifice in some areas of life (Olympics, war wounded, and dead), selfless devotion on behalf of others, on behalf of the weak, vulnerable. the voiceless, for justice, and we abhor single minded selfishness. We weep at the needles, senseless, deaths at the loss of potential in young lives.

    5 In health, prevention is better than cure. But abortion is not a cure, it’s a killing, a prevention of life. It’s not the removal of a benign growth. It’s the exercise of an inviolable authority to kill the weak, voiceless, dependent life of limitless potential in the progress of humanity, a potential future world beater, game changer….whatever.

    6 Abortion is not one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. It is a regression to paganism , of sacrifice to the god of self, of inhumanity, and raises questions of what it means to be human.

    7 Often one of the hardest changes to make is a change of mind. The true prevention of abortion is not a one of pragmatism, of practicalities but it is also a cure: it is the true and thorough conversion to Christ, and that .

    8 As an interesting aside Wilson points out that liberals are the worst at describing what their opponents truly believe and the more liberal they are the worse they are.

  5. In the car, at about 1:50pm today I caught the back -end of a fascinating programme on BBC radio 4. In was an imaginary conversation, debate, between two adversaries in real life but now between the dead Mary Whitehouse and a still living man, whose name I did not catch.

    It was very realistic, with the man responding to edited Whitehouse archival material and Whitehouse responding to him and having the last say.

    There was discussion about unencumbered freedom of the individual, morals. ten commandments, bringing in the Abortion Act and brought up to date with gay marriage. The individual v society with a Christian base, heritage.

    The conclusion of the living protagonist was that Whitehouse had failed, was wrong of sexual morals, (and his views had come to fruition) but was right on the question of politics, much to his disappointment, where there was still so much inequality, between rich and poor, strong and week etc,

    He said that they could both agree on the commandment to “love your neighbour”.

    My view was that he could and did separate total freedom of the individual in sexual morality from any other morals. From the small bit I heard he didn’t seek to reconcile the two. It was implied that he thought that “loving your neighbour” in sexual matters was giving them what they wanted, without any sense of responsibility, whereas in other spheres it “imposed,” implied, restrictions in individual autonomy, freedom , and a responsibility for the “other.”

    A beating heart is an “other.” And this is a debate which continues today in the context of abortion.

    Well worth a listen. It seems to be listed under 1:45 pm “Unforgettable.”

    While it was an engineered, created, debate, it seemed like a throwback to another era, and something which is beyond the BBC today, It had some balance and even-handedness, and no churlish opinionated interruption from “presenters.” And clearly an acceptance of Christian roots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: