I have watched The West Wing many times – it is still by far my favourite TV show – the characters, script, acting and directing are all superb. Yes, it has its faults – not least the ridiculous ending (a kind of liberal progressive fantasy) and its lack of reality on certain issues – like China, economics and perhaps most of all, abortion.
There are atheists and liberals (like Christopher Hitchens) who have a bit of logical consistency and are opposed to abortion – but they are few and far between. There is a collective disease within the body politic which seems to take away people’s rationality and basic human compassion. The West Wing seems to think that if you are opposed to any form of abortion there is something wrong with you…here for example is President Bartlett doing his Biden’ like act of a President who professes to be Catholic, but certainly won’t let his Catholic faith get in the way of ‘progressive’ policy. Think Premier Dan Andrews of Victoria as well. The good Premier is prepared to send parents to jail for ten years if they refuse to allow hormone therapy for their confused trans teenager – but happily advocates the right to kill your own child in the womb. Meanwhile is a supreme irony the Victorian government are going to issue certificates to parents whose children are born prematurely or die in the womb – recognising their grief at having lost a child in the womb!
I remember when I first heard of partial-birth abortion – I thought it was a spoof – or something from a horror film. Even to describe it is enough.
“The procedure in question is properly called “partial-birth abortion” because, it requires the doctor to deliver the unborn child partially from the uterus, feet first, leaving the baby’s head inside the womb. The doctor then uses scissors and a hollow needle to empty the skull of its contents. The unborn baby’s head then collapses and the doctor removes the dead baby entirely from the mother’s body. Given the nature of the procedure, the congressmen who drafted legislation to prohibit it, the “Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995”, defined the procedure as follows: “an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery”.
Partial-birth abortion was banned in 2007 – after Bill Clinton had vetoed a previous attempt. It has now been replaced:
“In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of inducing fatal demise beginning late-term abortions. Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle”
Language is important. Partial-birth abortion is a form of infanticide (something which Peter Singer calls post-birth abortion). The idea that being pro-abortion is being ‘pro-choice’ is also grotesque and illogical. Firstly there is no choice for the child involved, nor (usually) is there any choice for the father. Secondly, those who advocate ‘choice’ seek to prevent it being a real choice. They do not give adequate information to enable people to make an informed choice. Think of the teenage girl who is pregnant, alone and terrified being told by her doctor and social worker – ‘don’t worry it’s only like having a wart removed’!
If people are really pro-choice then they should want those who make the choice to have the most information. In order to make an informed choice they should know what an abortion actually is and what it involves. I would suspect that the easiest way to reduce the number of abortions would be to give counselling beforehand which shows what an abortion actually is – maybe give everyone the option of seeing a video? But that is the reason why none of the media will ever show an abortion in all its horrific detail. You can watch all kinds of violence against human beings – including beheadings – but abortion – never!
Just think – this week President-Elect Joe Biden appointed California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to be the next secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Becerra is an extremist abortion proponent who believes that Christian hospitals should be compelled to provide abortions and who has supported partial-birth abortion and defended Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby body parts. For those who think that the US is moving back to being a part of the civilised world after four months of Trump darkness, perhaps you should think again? Maybe the US is moving out of the frying pan into the fire?
I don’t care about the politics – but killing babies in the womb is just flat out evil. It is incomprehensible to me that any Christian could have voted for that. If you thought that Biden would be a moderating influence, this one appointment has put paid to that. You were suckered. And don’t give me that nonsense about ‘one issue’ politics, or the excuse that Trump was just anti-abortion for electoral advantage. You wouldn’t vote for a candidate who was an out and out racist (I hope) – even if you agreed with them on many other issues and liked them more than the other guy. Why is abortion less important? And of course Trump, who was pro-abortion and supported Clinton, is now only anti-abortion for electoral advantage. I don’t doubt he is a hypocrite. But he never made this kind of appointment. If you voted for Biden you are partially responsible for enabling that. Maybe some will argue – he was the lesser of two evils. That’s a big call. Is there a greater evil than slaughtering the weakest and most defenceless? The idea that killing one’s own child is a human right is from the very pit of Hell.
I hope and pray that one day in the future we will look back on the West’s obsession with abortion as a human right as just as absurd and immoral as the defence of slavery.
Maranatha.
(By the way I am not saying that abortion is the ultimate sin – like all sin it can be forgiven. I know of people who have had abortions or been involved who now recognise it was wrong and have repented and received forgiveness from Christ. Nor am I prepared to justify those who are against abortion but don’t support mothers who struggle. Nor is it the case that abortion is never in any circumstance justified – there are a few – very few – rare exceptions where abortion may be the lesser of two evils – just as there are a few instances where it may be right to kill an adult. But those very few exceptions should not be used to justify the 99.99% of abortions that are always the greater evil. )
The pandemic brings new threats and opportunities for our churches. The contradiction of UK people, up in arms and highly alarmed about daily Covid-19 deaths, while oblivious to the disgrace of daily UK abortion deaths is a case in point. Although care home residents are elderly and may have an average , according to one estimate, of only around 24 months of life left, we value their dignity. Compare this with aborted children who might be expected to have decades of life left. A group called CBRNI are hoping to do a pro-life public education display in Omagh, Co Tyrone, N Ireland today. It might be good to look at their event if there is on-line access and to post comment or prayerful support?
Pagan high priest child sacrifice on the ritual altar of theatre in society’s high places of hospitals, to placate and appease the counterfeit gods of today.
Gut wrenching, stomach churning abomination. Desolation writ large.
Please, Father, do not abandon us to the severity of our ways, the hardness of our permafrost hearts; for your Name’s sake hear the prayers of our groaning and tears.
President Trump is far and away the most pro-life president we have had since Roe v. Wade. There is no comparison to even other Republicsn officeholders. He has been consistently pro-life. It is the sort of dismissive, reflexive anti-Trump rhetoric you have used here which has played a large part in getting Biden elected.
It is the ‘Trump is our Saviour’ mentality which played an even larger part in getting Biden elected..! Trump was his own worst enemy…
Hes rushing to kill as many people on death row as he can before his term wins.
Hes promoted the development of nuclear weapons in the US and in foreign nations
He refused to do anything about continued epidemic of mass shootings, even using his refusal as a reason to vote for him.
Even after there was a plot to murder a governor and her family he continued to encourage political violence and praised supporters for trying to run a Biden campaign bus off the road.
Despite making a lot of noise about abortion, he has done nothing to decrease it and the decline in abortion has slowed during his presidency
Profoundly disturbing; I feel ill just reading about these terribly cruel procedures…
I don’t believe that Trump took us into darkness, but I definitely believe Joe Biden will. He seems to be a “good Catholic” in name only as he is a proponent of abortion and his son has committed unimaginable crimes in which he was involved. Of course, the media strove not to report it until after the election.The other bad thing is that the DNC most certainly cheated to throw the election to Biden and he has not once stepped up and asked for audits, recounts, or anything. He just wants the title, for however long he can hold it before handing it over to the much more liberal Kamala Harris. Our nation is in trouble and needs much prayer!
One for your Liberalism rubric :
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/509018-totalitarian-crusade-disturbing-illiberal/
It would be more accurate to say that whilst Hitchens personally opposed abortion he believed that women should have a choice.
In all your many comments about this subject you never spend a moment considering what the removal of abortion rights means for women.
Yes – I have. Removing the ‘right’ to kill your own child is to remove a non-existent right. Dealing with the pain of an unwanted pregnancy is a different issue – and no one is belittling that.
1. As abortion has been as much part of humankind as procreation and has continued unabated whether legal or illegal what possible gains do you, and all anti-abortionists, envisage by continually pushing to make the procedure illegal once again?
(Presuming this is the eventual aim of your attacks on those in favour of pro- choice?).
2. As legislation against abortion has generally proved futile in curtailing it, would you not consider alternative initiatives that strive for a win-win situation to be a much better alternative?
As slavery has been around since human history began and has continued unabated whether legal or illegal, why not just make it legal? If you don’t support slavery don’t have one…that’s your logic…
As making abortion illegal has proved futile in curtailing it, do you have any practical, workable solutions that could be implemented?
Yes – educate people as to what abortion really is…support single mothers…teach proper sex education in the context of relationships, love and family – help those who have had abortions – and much more…
Hi David,
Great article but slightly disappointed with the closing statement which reads
“Nor is it the case that abortion is never in any circumstance justified – there are a few – very few – rare exceptions where abortion may be the lesser of two evils – just as there are a few instances where it may be right to kill an adult”.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by “rare exceptions”.
Cheers
Eddie
For example when the child was going to die anyway when born and the life of the mother was threatened. Extremely rare but not unknown…
Hi David
Is this not a form of euthanasia?
Eddie
Linlithgow
No
Perhaps Biden did not need to campaign in Georgia due to his powerful ally :
Donald Trump said in a US TV interview around 2015 during the election runup that he had changed from being pro choice to pro life as a result of a friend’s circumstances. I cannot remember exactly the details but do remember him saying he had been pro life for a while, it was not an ‘election thing’. No doubt the interview is still out there.
On whose hands is the blood of each and every dead baby? Is it the surgeon’s, the clinic’s, the mother’s, or the President’s?
I do wonder about the wisdom of insisting that the responsibility for abortion rates should be piled onto the authorities of a country. Does the legality of a particular practice necessarily determine its morality?
Much is said by the liberals about ‘pro choice’, but should we not, as Christians, be preaching ‘pro responsibility’ to the women who feel they have a ‘right’ to kill their babies? Therefore it’s absolutely vital that women should be properly educated about what the practice involves, and thereby have access to the photos and videos which ought to churn their stomachs and prick their consciences.
If abortion is banned by law it merely goes on unseen in illegal clinics – albeit probably at a lower rate – but surely it’s more important for the church to preach to individuals about the evils of the practice as it is to shout about the politics and legality of it. Or maybe a good balance needs to be struck.
Hi David
Deliberately killing someone, without their consent, who is “going to die anyway” IS euthanasia, irrespective of their age, stage or location. Perhaps an actual example would help me to understand your reasoning.
Cheers
Eddie
Linlithgow
If a baby is going to be born dead and in that process be a danger to the mother it is not euthanasia – not by any definition. Capital punishment is not murder.
Hi David
I hate to press the point because I know from personal experience you are very anti abortion, but I am still struggling to understand the scenario you are proposing. If a child dies in the womb from natural causes, then removing it is necessary to protect the mother from infection. That is not an abortion. Removal of a diseased fallopian tube in the case of ectopic pregnancy is not abortion because the embryo is not deliberately killed but dies as a result of a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother. If a mother discovers she has cancer which could kill her, she has the right to treatment even if it harms the child as her right to life is equal to that of the child. In this instance, even if the child dies, it is not an abortion because the child was not deliberately targeted to be killed. But your last comment suggests that if a living baby with a potentially fatal illness is predicted to die shortly before, during, or after birth, then it is valid to kill it because of what might happen in the future. That is abortion.
Hope this finds you well
Eddie
Slavery involves the purchasing and trade of a complete, conscious human organism.
A foetus is not a complete, conscious human organism.
Adjust your thinking to reflect reality.
I prefer science to your somewhat fundamentalist atheistic ideology…..yes the baby in the womb is a conscious human organism – as to ‘complete’ – is anyone?!
I think you have to learn the actual science of foetal development.
Until full bilateral synchronisation it doesn’t even have the physical capacity for consciousness.
But rather than take my word for it, here is Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology, James Goldenring (an anti-abortionist) in his paper, Development of the Fetal Brain:
So, your comment to Ark is clearly in error, and you should adjust your thinking to reflect reality.
Will you?
I know the actual science of foetal development. The baby in the womb is a human baby. But lets take your limited definition of what a human being is and apply the consequences. Given that the brain begins to form around 5 weeks I presume therefore you would ban abortions after that period?
Your comment reveals just how little you actually know about foetal development.
A neural tube is not a “little brain.”
Without the physical hardware (thalamocortical and corticothalamic pathways most importantly) and a continuous flow of information through it there is no complete human organism for there is no capacity for consciousness.
To let Prof. Christof Koch (2009) explain:
Recognised universally in science, in law, and in medicine, the measure of a complete human organism is consciousness. Human consciousness requires hardware. The physical presence of, or absence of that hardware, and the continuous flow of information between it, is the measure.
Period.
You’re free to at any moment present an alternative measure to identify the onset of a complete human organism, and have it considered on its merits.
Can you?
Nice avoidance. Try to answer the question – are you denying that the baby in the womb is a human baby? If so at what precise point would you tell the mother your baby is now a human baby? And and what point do you think its ok to kill a human baby for ‘economic’ reasons?
Avoidance? Do you mean by pointing out to you that a neural tube is not a “little brain” and therefore your comment was absurd?
A foetus is a developing human organism, not a complete human organism as the measure of a complete human organism is consciousness, meaning the presence of the physical hardware (principally the thalamocortical and corticothalamic pathways) and a continuous flow of information through it.
And so again here is Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology, James Goldenring (an anti-abortionist) confirming my position in his paper, Development of the Fetal Brain:
Read that as many times as needed.
As to your question, there’s a very good reason why the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. National Library of Medicine call natural abortion after week 20 “preterm deliveries,” while before that date it is labelled “miscarriages.” It’s called viability. There’s a distinct line, and even then the baby will be dependent on artificial life support.
A complete human organism can survive by itself, relying on its own mechanics to persist. You should read the 2006 Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on premature babies. It spells it out in detail, noting that there is just a 1% chance of survival at week 22 with intensive care and are almost certain to suffer severe disability. Premature babies require as many as 50 interventions a day, everything from continual needle pricks, to having a tube in their throat, to brain surgery. By 25 weeks (the point in which the report’s authors state we should fight to save the baby), the survival rate is around 50%, with the risk of severe disability at 40%.
I agree with the authors.
Here are the odds of a Premature Baby’s Survival by Length of Pregnancy
22 weeks – 1%
23 weeks – 17%
24 weeks – 39%
25 weeks – 50%
26 weeks – 80%
27 weeks – 90%
28-31 weeks – 90-95%
32-33 weeks – 95%
34+ weeks – Almost as likely as a full-term baby.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about re “economic reasons.”
Now, I asked you a question, and you flatly avoided it.
So here goes again:
“Life” does not measure the onset of a complete human organism. It does not identify the point when the parts of a human organism become a complete human organism. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.
Recognised universally in science, in law, and in medicine, that measure is consciousness. Human consciousness requires hardware. The physical presence of, or absence of that hardware, and the continuous flow of information between it, is the measure.
Period.
You’re free to at any moment present an alternative measure to identify the onset of a complete human organism, and have it considered on its merits. If you cannot present an alternative measure, then you are not contributing to the actual subject, merely expressing a substanceless opinion. Noise.
So, do you have an alternative measure to identify the onset of a complete human organism?
You are struggling underneath the weight of your own verbosity (and avoidance). We wait for your answer – when is the baby in the womb a human baby? Your statement that ‘a complete human organism’ (what a callous cold way to refer to a human being!) ‘can survive by itself’ is of course nonsense. Just as your implication that if she cannot then she is not a human being. A baby one week out of the womb cannot survive by itself – which is why the ancient Greeks, Romans and Pagans, would often leave an unwanted baby ‘exposed’ so that she would die. Strange how your definition of humanity reverts back to that pre-Christian way of thinking. What’s next? Killing the disabled, sick and elderly because they are no longer able to survive by themselves?!
It’s astonishing that John Zande is so insistent that it’s OK to kill a baby regardless of its stage of development. Each and every foetus is a potential human who could live for up to 100 years and more, and John Zande is happy to claim that it’s OK to deprive that human – who has done better than win a lottery to enter existence – of its life. John Zande himself is the result of an incredible combination of chance meetings – that of his parents, of their good health, and of the meeting of that particular egg and that particular sperm out of the billions of others – which could have produced a completely different person. Quite astonishing.
So…let me see if I understand the arguments.
We’ve got abortion advocates telling us that a woman has the ‘right’ to destroy a child when the child exists in her womb. She owns the contents of her womb and can do whatever she wants with those contents.
These same abortion advocates insist that slavery is immoral because nobody has the right to own another human being.
Combining these two thoughts lead the atheists to conclude that Christians are anti-science.
Have I got it right?