When is a child not a child?

Blogged by James Preece on 29th February 2012

When you're wanted, you're a child...

One of my Facebook friends was at the Flight 93 memorial service yesterday at Shanksville. She said the names were read. A woman’s name was read and also “an unborn child.” The bell was rung twice.

[link]

When you're not wanted, you're a blob of cells that can't even be called "human".

Oh, and it doesn't appear to matter how born you are.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+13

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

Zosia said...

You would have been interested in this debate I went to at uni last week:

'Holiness and Wisdom and the beginning of life: When does human life become morally significant?'

It wasn't that well attended, which was a shame as it was very interesting.

Nigel said...

Why should the accident of birth make any difference to the moral status of a baby? Once you have decided it is acceptable to end the life of an inconvenient human being there is no logical pont when it becomes unacceptable. That surely is one reason why any abortion is immoral.

New Friend said...

The reasoning about abortion, which is applied by Catholics, is always on the basis that a human being exists the moment after conception. For those who believe that, everything that follows is logical. If you believe in souls then what you feel about destroying them is understandable.

The problem is that not everyone believes in souls so, as a consequence that what you believe about when life is formed, is untrue. They have a different approach as to when a life can be properly classified as being a genuine human person. Catholics don't agree, and get very emotional that other intelligent people cannot see the "truth" of what they believe.

I don't think anyone would really seriously propose equating an abortion with infanticide, except perhaps as a scare tactic and to make a rather silly point.

So all the emotional finger pointing and justifcations are rather a waste of time. There is a fundamental difference of opinion, dependent on whether you have a faith based approach to this, or not.

Those who can, like me, in some circumstances accept abortion as necessary, and who also repect that there has to be a freedom to make your own decisions, under the law, respect those who disagree. You are entitled to your view. I am to mine.

I just wish those on the other side of this debate would reciprocate and learn to show the same respect, rather than seek to force their views down unwilling throats. My feeling is that you are doing your cause no good by not trying to understand the other viewpoint.

Jonathan said...

"I don't think anyone would really seriously propose equating an abortion with infanticide, except perhaps as a scare tactic and to make a rather silly point."

This is the dangerous thing about your philosophy. You think you are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine and they are all equally valid. You don't THINK anyone would seriously propose that but THEY ARE proposing that in a prestigious medical ethics journal.

What the article does prove is that your view is irrational. It makes no sense to think that some abortion is okay but infanticide is wrong. People who actually understand logic have taken your principles to their rational conclusion. Your position is not based on principles it is just plucked out of the airwaves. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

New Friend said...

Jonathan

I scanned the article too and read the reports on it. My conclusion was that they are not seriously proposing this at all. They are quite deliberately taking things as far down the line in ethical terms just to make a point. That they present it as a serious piece of work is all part of that. Devious, but so far quite effective because it has got people talking.

Of course I might be wrong. They might be serious. If so I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be completely rejected by all except those who need to be confined. It is certainly rejected by me.

There is no corelation between abortion and infanticide, unless you take the view that a fertilised egg and a baby are equal. This is why I think it is a hoax, written from a Catholic stance, to make a point.

Jonathan said...

"This is why I think it is a hoax, written from a Catholic stance, to make a point."

You think that the British Medical Journal Publishing Group is colluding with a hoax to publicise Catholic ethics? That sounds like conspiracy theory madness. Read some biographies of these people - this is not a hoax.

"There is no corelation between abortion and infanticide, unless you take the view that a fertilised egg and a baby are equal"
That is a gross simplification. In this country abortion is legal up until birth. Any rational person would take the view that a 9 month-gestation baby is as much a person as the new born baby - being born changes nothing. The authors are simply pointing out that you can kill a nine month old 'fetus' because it has Down's syndrome and is still in the womb. Why then should it be illegal to kill him the next day just because he has moved out of the womb?

Chrysostom said...

Good Catholics will be shocked by the comments of New Friend but they should realise that what he (or she) says is the common view now in England. It is rare to hear a contrary view on the BBC. It is also rare to hear abortion condemned by Catholic bishops. Go to the CAFOD Website type in "abortion" in the search engine and you will get one hit - and that one does not condemn abortion. Type in "climate change" and you will find 176 hits. Never to my knowledge has my own bishop even mentioned abortion. The Diocese of Portsmouth, not my diocese, currently celebrating Fair Trade fortnight, does not have a single hit for "abortion". Labour MPs who are most militant in their support of abortion have been praised to the skies by bishops, given official receptions, and invited to present prizes at Catholic schools.

So well done, New Friend, you have stated very well the position, in practice, of many Catholic bishops in England.

Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St David - pray for us.

Cassian said...

At least one bishop is prepared to show his support for pro-life activity

http://www.rcdow.org.uk/youth/blog/2012/02/17/join-bishop-alan-hopes-in-prayer/

Salisbury John said...

ah yes the same bishop who publicly refused to be challenged at a gathering of young adults in West London on the appointment of well known "Catholic" pro choice MP Greg Pope as deputy director of the Catholic Education Service....

Catherine said...

"It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life,upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop."
Pope Blessed John Paul II. Evangelium Vitae 101

Nigel said...

I wonder why it is that no matter how early in a pregnancy a natural miscarriage takes place, a woman always speaks of 'losing a baby'?

Catherine said...

NF says

"The reasoning about abortion....[is] dependent on whether you have a faith based approach to this, or not."

but Patrick ....an anti abortion atheist begs to differ at..

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-what-gives-me-the-passion-to-actively-opp

he says: "we can easily deduct that an anti-abortion position is not dependent upon adhering to a specific religion; thankfully"

New Friend said...

Catherine

I am happy to acknowledge that there are non believers who object to abortion, for their own reasons, just as there are some believers who don't object.

However, what I was talking about was the Catholic reasoning, why it comes to it's conclusion and why that makes it difficult to have a sensible debate on the issue.

I respect all points of view, from where-ever they come, provided they are based on reason.

Ebeneezer said...

NF: The Catholic view is supposed to be based on reason. That is, the Church itself does not hold that the wrongness of abortion depends upon divine revelation; it is supposed to be a matter of natural law, accessible to unaided human reason. The view may be wrong but you haven't shown that it presupposes religious belief. The idea is, roughly, that injustice is contrary to reason, and killing the innocent intentionally for one's own purposes is always and everywhere unjust and therefore contrary to reason. It is true that Catholics also believe it is contrary to God's law but only because they think injustice is contrary to God's law. As I say, this view may be wrong but I think the argument I just gave has at least a certain initial plausibility so it's not enough somply to say (falsely) that the view depends on belief in God.

I don't think anyone would really seriously propose equating an abortion with infanticide, except perhaps as a scare tactic and to make a rather silly point.

Why is that silly? What is the difference, morally? Why should the location of the baby make such a moral difference? I'm not saying there aren't good answers to these questions, but you can't just try to brush them off as "silly."

New Friend said...

Ebeneezer

Actually I don't argue that the Catholic view is not based on your own type of reason, which is why I can respect it, even if I don't agree with it. I argue about your concept of natural law, which I believe to be a smokescreen used to cover all sorts of prejudices, but won't repeat why here, as I have done so in recent threads, which I am sure you can find if you wish to.

If abortion was "killing the innocent" then we would be in total agreement but, because I don't believe that, it is where we immediately part company. That is the whole problem. Catholics assume that everyone believes as they do. How could they not, it's obvious isn't it? That others don't is incomprehensible to many Catholics, but until they come to terms with that fact it is difficult to see how we can have a productive debate.

That too is why it is silly to equate abortion with infanticide. If you don't regard a foetus as a baby then it is a silly position. If you regard a ferilised egg in the same way as a new born child then you can equate the two quite easily. It is exactly the same problem and such a statement could only come from those whose real agenda is to ban abortion and who just seek to shock.

Ebeneezer said...

Fine NF but if you think that abortion isn't killing the innocent then the burden of proof is on you to show this. After all you can't deny that it's killing something, that the something seems to be a human being and it is certainly innocent in the relevant sense (=not harming or threatening anyone) in standard cases. And if you think abortion is always OK then you have to make your case even for late-term abortions -- you have to show how the location of the baby makes a moral difference. You haven't begun to try to do any of this.

Catholics assume that everyone believes as they do....That others don't is incomprehensible to many Catholics, but until they come to terms with that fact it is difficult to see how we can have a productive debate

Catholics would have to be very stupid indeed to assume that everyone believes as they do since it is painfully obvious that they do not. The suggestion that the fact that others disagree is not only not noticed by Catholics but incomprehensible to them is truly bizarre. They know that others disagree. This isn't news. They just think that those people are wrong. (After all, if they didn't think they were wrong, they wouldn't count as disagreeing with them.) And I don't think that what prevents productive debate is Catholics' failure to come to terms with the fact that not everyone agrees with them. What prevents productive debate is non-Catholics making very implausible assertions (eg abortion is not killing an innocent human being), pretending they are obvious and refusing to give any reasons to justify them.

That too is why it is silly to equate abortion with infanticide. If you don't regard a foetus as a baby then it is a silly position.

But the real question is whether it's silly to regard a foetus (including a very late-term one, remember) as a baby. You talk as though it's just common sense to distinguish even a late-term foetus from a baby. But how many heavily pregnant women intending to give birth ask their doctor, "How's my foetus doing?"?

New Friend said...

Ebeneezer

Your response is indicative of what I have been saying.

I have been through this countless of times and I suspect you are as familar with the arguments as I am. I do not believe that late term abortion is acceptable, other than in the most exceptional of circumstances. I only believe abortion to be acceptable before viability. As this is difficult to define, and medical improvements mean the time is reducing, I defer to the professionals to determine this. Whether it should be 24 weeks or reduced to 22 weeks seems to be in debate at present.

Of course a foetus is "innocent", but so are many other life forms. A foetus at this stage is not a person, because it cannot survive outside the womb. So there is your evidence that an abortion before viability is not the "killing of an innocent" in the sense that you mean it.

You say Catholics already understand this position, but simply don't agree with it. If that were true, and I hope it is, we could make progress towards finding some common ground and working towards some agreement. That is not my experience. What I find is an "all or nothing" approach. We are right, you are wrong and there will be, and never can be any compromise.

The position taken by the other side of this debate is not implausible, as I have just demonstrated. It is just that you regard it as implausible, but that is very different.

No-one I have debated this with likes abortion and strongly resents the abuse hurled at them (not by you I hasten to add, you are nothing but polite and constructive) by many on the other side. To suggest those who have an alternative view, or are clinicians involved in the service, are "murderers" or "pro-abortion" is insulting, inaccurate and reduces the impact of your argument through it's lack of objectivity.

James said...

"A foetus at this stage is not a person, because it cannot survive outside the womb"

Where have you aquired this somewhat arbitary definition of a "person"?

Medical technology means that my liver can survive outside of my body if kept at an appropriate temperature and given sufficient blood/nutrients etc. Is my liver a person?

Ebeneezer said...

NF, why do you persist in characterising the Catholic position as "We are right, you are wrong," as if there were something wrong with this stance? Isn't your own position vis-a-vis the Catholic one, "We are right, you are wrong"? As I said above, this is what disagreement is. You imply that it's OK for you to disagree with Catholics, but somehow not OK for Catholics to disagree with you. Also, you say things like this over and over again, to the point that it gets rather annoying.

As for viability, you simply assert this as a criterion for the right to life without offering any argument. You certainly have not "demonstrated" that it is "not implausible." On its face this view is indeed implausible; principally because it makes whether the foetus has a right to life depend upon what the current state of medical technology happens to be.

And as others have pointed out, "person" is a pretty useless category in this debate, because it is so elastic. Anyone can gerrymander a definition of "person" such that only the beings they favour get to have a right to life. On any plausible account a new-born is no more a "person" than even a mid-term foetus.

New Friend said...

Ebeneezer

My objection to the Catholic stance is not that it is sincerely held, for I know it is. It is the lack of respect that they show to those who disagree with them which bothers me. There seems to be no attempt made to comprehend the alternative view. The only response ever given is to dismiss it as wrong. I disagree with your position, but I comprehend it and respect it. I want to find the common ground and make progress from there. I don't get a reciprical feeling coming the other way.

The reasoning on viability being the determining criteria when judging when personhood begins can be found has been argued in many places. I am pretty sure you are familar with them. The US "Roe v Wade" judgement sets the scene. I don't think there is much point in repeating everything here, when you can find it all quite easily if you want to. It can be summarised in this statement.:-

" A potential person is not an actual person; an undeveloped foetus is the former"

Viability is the point at which a foetus is developed enough to be considered a person, because survival without the mother is possible. That medical techology improvements mean this is not a fixed point in time is irrelevant. It is the concept which is under consideration.

If you believe that personhood begins when the egg is fertilised then none of this matters at all. If you don't believe that, it does. It is not a question of knowing the "beings they favour" and then fixing the answer to suit. It is trying to look at these issues objectively and coming to sensible answers, devoid of emotion.

You might regard personhood as being a useless category, but I suspect that is because you don't accept the reasoning. Others disagree. To suggest that a new born is not a "person" is nonsense. It is, beyond any argument. A mid term foetus is boarder line, for it depends upon which side of viability it falls.

New Friend said...

James

It is far from being my acquisition. This is commonly understood. Rather than explain it myself I have searched for another's words and reproduce the relevant passage below. This was taken from http://www.gerv.net/writings/foetal-personhood/ :-

"So what is the law saying about the question of whether a foetus is a person? Logically, there are three possibilities - always, never and sometimes:

Always A Person
If the foetus is always a person, then we would either need to repeal all the existing abortion control laws and ban abortion except in self-defence, or we must add some more legal justifications for killing to the list above, including having a disability and causing some other person mental or physical distress. To be consistent, we would then need to permit killing other types of people, such as adults, for the same reasons.

As either option is seriously inconsistent with the existing body of legislation, this cannot be the position of UK law on the question.

Never A Person
The second possibility is that the foetus is never a person until it fully emerges from the birth canal. That is to say, personhood is defined by the foetus/baby's location in three-dimensional space. This would make it reasonable to kill it at any time while it was still inside the womb, but it would also mean having a definition of personhood which was not intrinsic. After all, if geographical location may determine personhood, it would be reasonable and consistent if we were to choose to define those inside prison cells in Guantanamo Bay, for example, as not people.

However, it's clear that this is also not the stance of UK law. If it were, abortion laws would not exist, as they would merely be arbitrary restrictions on the entirely reasonable actions of women.

Sometimes A Person
The last possibility is that a foetus is a person some of the time. Given our elimination of the two possibilities above, this remaining logical option must be the position of UK law. This would mean that abortion law is an attempt to define under what circumstances a foetus is a person, thereby preventing it being killed when it is, and allowing it when it isn't."

Thus it is established that under UK law a foetus is only sometimes a person and the point at which the law changes is when viability is determined. That point is decided by the medical professionals at 24 weeks.

We are not talking about your liver, we are talking about the point at which a foetus, given the maximum support available, can survive.

James said...

How curiously circular you are.

I am taking about the reality of whether the fetus is a person - a reality which should dictate the law. You are using the law to dictate reality.

If the law said that Jews were only sometimes persons, would that make it true?

In reality we need a definition of a 'person' that distinguishes between my telephone (which is not a person) and myself (who is). Your definition based on the ability of medial technology to keep something alive outside the womb is insufficient because many things are viable outside of the womb including my liver.

What is it that makes my liver not a person?

It sounds a lot like you think a 24 week fetus in 1512 is not a person because with the medical technology of the time it could not survive outside the womb, but a 22 week fetus in 2012 is a person because medical technology now means it can.

New Friend said...

James

There is nothing circular in what I say. How strange that you see it that way. There is also nothing emotional, which is why I am explaining what I believe the law says. The law does not say Jews are only sometimes persons and I trust our democracy never to say that. We have fought long and hard to achieve a fair democracy, that does not allow such things to happen.

We most certainly do NOT need another definition. We need a lawful definition and we have one. We don't need a bunch of people deciding things based upon their faith based reasoning, deciding what is reality and then expecting others to follow them. Your attempt to equate your liver with a foetus is spurious. Your liver could never be a person. A foetus could be, but isn't yet.

I am not claiming that such a situation makes for comfortable thoughts, because abortion is a thoroughly unpleasant thing to contemplate. However we need to be able to separate out the emotion and consider things objectively, which is what I am trying to do.

So yes in 1512 a 24 week foetus could not have been a person because medical science was unable to provide the necessary support, but today a 22 week one possibly could be. That may seem illogical to you but not to me. It is called progress. You just have to look at things differently sometimes to see them. I am sure it will decrease again too.

James said...

So in 3012 when the technology is available to make a fertilised egg viable outside the womb from the moment of conception ...

Will the fertilised egg then be a person from the moment of conception?

New Friend said...

That would be logical.

By 3012 who knows what might be possible. We might be capable of creating human life outside the womb, with no intervention from a living human. Would they be a person or something else? If that were possible then how does God fit into such an equation? There are going to be a huge number of ethical problems to be faced which we have no need to currently even think about.

All we need to worry about now is what is lawful in 2012, because that represents the distillation of the collective wisdom of all of us.

James said...

Sticking to 2012 then...

You said that the unborn child becomes a person when they are able to survive outside of the womb. You said that a few hundred years ago a 24 week child probably wouldn't be a person but because of advances in medical technology "today a 22 week one possibly could be".

My next question then is this - the 22 week child who can survive outside the womb and is therefore in your view a person. What rights to do they have?

1) Do they have the right not to be killed?

2) If a teenager was hit by a car we would be under some obligation to try and save their life. If a baby is born at 22 weeks are we under any obligation to try and keep them alive?

New Friend said...

James

I think the answers are simple enough. Yes to both.

That seems to me the whole point. At 22 weeks we now have the possible ability to nurture the foetus so it can survive and eventually live a full life. Before that time it cannot survive, no matter what support is given. Personhood has been reached in the former, but not yet in the latter. I fully accept that this does not concur with your approach, but it is the one being used to determine when an abortion is legal or not. Nothing about abortion is an easy subject, but if it is legal and there has to be some kind of ruling on when it can be done, this seems to me to be the most sensible approach.

James said...

So in your view a doctor who invents an artificial incubator will discover he has made the unborn child a 'person' and is under an obligation to save it's life - even to the point of forbidding abortion.

Yet a mother's natural incubator does not make the child a 'person' and she is therefore under no obligation to save it's life or be forbidden from killing it?

You say that before 22 weeks the baby "cannot survive, no matter what support is given" but you are wrong because the baby can survive if given support by the mother in her womb.

How come an artificial incubator confers personhood and a right to life but a natural one does not?

New Friend said...

James

I have read and re-read this comment to try to understand the logic. I think I follow you now. The issue is not about a foetus when it is in the womb, or indeed in an artificial womb. It is about it's capacity to survive outside of that environment. Who knows what the ethical dilemma would be should an artifical womb ever be invented. In theory at least any foetus outside the womb could be placed into such an articial womb and survive, thus potentially making every foetus a person. These are questions for the future and not for now. Right now a foetus cannot survive, whatever assistance is given, before 22 weeks and that is the basis for the determination which is made. Before this date the parents, but mainly the mother, has the choice whether she wishes to carry to full term, provided her reasons meet all the other criteria. I know you don't agree with the concept, and in truth I am very uncomfortable with the way it is often applied, but that is the law and we must always abide by the law.

For most of my adult life I was, like you, strongly opposed to abortion in all circumstances. My reasoning was simple. It was killing a baby. It was only after I studied everything more fully and considered the arguments of the pro-life lobby, that I changed my mind. I still don't like it, but I accept the reality of it and I no longer see it as killing a baby. I can understand the difference between a foetus and a baby.

James said...

"Right now a foetus cannot survive, whatever assistance is given, before 22 weeks "

All three of my children did - they survived from 0 weeks with the assistance of their mother.

New Friend said...

James

As you know very well we are speaking of the foetus outside of the womb, and there is nothing that anyone, including the mother, can do to ensure survival, if it is removed before 22 weeks.

James said...

The child can't survive outside of an artificial incubator either.

You still haven't explained why an artificial incubator grants personhood but a natural one doesn't.

New Friend said...

James

I think we are going round in circles here. Firstly I have not been speaking of an incubator, you have. I mentioned the potential development of an "artificial womb" at some future time, but that is very different to a relatively simple incubator.

I am then speaking of the status of a foetus at 22 weeks when removed from the womb. Given the current state of medical science there is nothing which could be done at that time which could ensure survival. If the foetus at 22 weeks remains in the womb only a another week or so must pass before it would become viable and therefore a person. At 22 weeks it isn't, no matter where it is, because without it's mothers womb it cannot survive and it is not considered an independent person.

catholic medic said...

Read the article.
The Italian professors could have taken the next logical step and suggest that we could eat the babies.

You are entitled to your views and your comment 'ban abortion except in self defense' makes for amusing reading, though I presume you mean where the pregnancy is making the mother ill. Those who promote abortions don't want others to be able to not be involved and it is very difficult for doctors who respect human life from conception to be involved in obstetrics. Infanticide, the Liverpool care Pathway and other potential ways of euthanasia do not respect human life. Are you so liberal that you would support the rights of contentious objectors to not be involved in these things?

New Friend said...

The words 'ban abortion except in self defense' were not mine. They were a quote and in any case were used to ridicule a position rather than support one.

I believe that every consideration needs to be shown to medical professionals who have a faith based objection to abortion. However they are also contracted to perform their duties so if they feel so strongly about these things then perhaps they ought to not have entered the profession, or need to change their discipline. The LCP comes in for much unjustified Catholic criticism. I think it is a very praiseworthy attempt to introduce best practice into an important area of care. Euthanasia is not legal in the UK and I see no realistic chance of it becoming so in my lifetime. That is not to say that those who request a comfortable end when their time comes won't, in time, be able to have their wish granted. That for me is not euthanasia but there is a lot of debate to be had first to ensure all the appropriate safeguards are in place.

Seriously... said...

"A foetus is sometimes a person" - I have never heard such tosh!

It is not a person until someone wants it, then it is a person, but in the discovery of a disability, what, it is now not a person, but then if there is a cure it is a person?

I think you need to sit down and think where your logic is coming from. It is certainly not coming from the scientist's. You seemed to think in an earlier post that though scientific research gives clear evidence that contraception is not reducing pregnancy rates, that we should still pump money into it. How rich do you think people are to throw away money on a cause that does not even work?! There are so many other more needy causes and heaven forbid there should be a higher deity.

Your logic is not logical?! Get it sorted.

New Friend said...

Are you serious?

Firstly that was a quote, just to try to explain the legal position. Everything you say on that subject is indeed, tosh.

My remarks on continuing to improve our sex and education services were very much more rational than your dismissal of them. Just abandoning a programme, because it needs to be improved, is plain stupid. The only reason you are in favour is because you didn't approve of it in the first place. If your car breaks down you don't get out and walk for the rest of your life, just because your forefathers used to, and if it worked for them, it will work for you. You get the car fixed because that is a better answer which is suited to today.

What is illogical about that?

Mark Dobson said...

Obviously the difference is that the car actually gets you further faster, whereas the objection to contraception is that it doesn't actually help.

If it never worked in the first place, there's no particular reason to assume that it can be fixed.

New Friend said...

Mark

I want to understand this clearly. Are you, and others, seriously suggesting that in the society which exists in 2012 that we should simply stop all sex education and contraceptive services?

The question is not whether at the same time, and by some magical stroke, the whole world converts to tradititional Catholicism and adopts chastity and abstinence. The question is everything else remains as now, but we must withdraw the service. Is that what you want?

Mark Dobson said...

If you want to know what others think, I would suggest that you ask others. I never said anything about stopping sex education.

Are you seriously suggesting that, when a professor of industrial economics concludes � in 2012 � that �there appears to be no correlation at all between changes to contraceptive services for young people and changes in the conception rate� and the health minister � in 2012 � publicly cites �studies in the peer-reviewed literature which show that access to birth control (and in particular the morning-after pill) has little or no causal effect in reducing teenage pregnancy rates�, we should blithely continue to provide precisely these services?

It seems to me that your question is merely an attempt to make the rejection of contraception on our part appear irresponsible, but I think it demonstrates how doctrinaire your position is. Should the conclusions of the article be justified, there�s no earthly reason to be ashamed of stopping contraceptive services.

New Friend said...

Mark

Rather than repeat myself might I suggest you read the other thread for I have tried to deal with these issues there. Simply rejecting sex education and contraception provision in 2012 is a recipe for a disaster, unless you can make wholesale changes in many other areas first. That is never going to happen. It is an unrealistic concept and an idealistic, impractical answer to a real problem. We need to better understand and then improve what we do. I don't want us to "blithely continue". I want us to learn and improve.

catholic medic said...

'they are also contracted to perform their duties so if they feel so strongly about these things then perhaps they ought to not have entered the profession, or need to change their discipline.'
Most generous that we can be considerately put out to grass. The Catholic Church does not make people do things against their will or conscience. Your version of contractual requirement is the sort of liberalism that does not embrace the 'live and let be' ideal.

New Friend said...

You conveniently ignore the fact that I also said that every effort should be made to accomodate those with a religious objection and I believe that we do just that.

However it is not a one way street. Along with trying to make as many exceptions as practical come the duties expected from you. It is clearly impossible to allow everyone just to refuse duty because they object to it for some reason. It is all about being reasonable and achieving balance.

If things can be arranged so your faith based objections can be accepted without disruption to the users then they should be. The needs of the user must though be paramount, and not those of the provider, so if disruption is caused then they should not be accepted.

I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation. Do you? No one will force you to do anything against your will or conscience. They just expect you to do your duty. If your conscience says you cannot comply then you are definitely in the wrong job.

Jonathan said...

You are being naive here NF. The state has taken over so much power that it is getting harder to find any job that people with a conscience can do. You say the needs of the user should be paramount but they are not: the mores of the majority have taken over. As a "user" I would like to have my children delivered by a midwife who has not been trained how to kill them. I can't get that midwife on the NHS because the government has forced all midwives to cooperate with abortion. I can't afford a private midwife because the government has taken all my money and forced me to pay for a health service that kills children.

This is what you don't understand : WE ARE THE USERS TOO. You have turned democracy into the dictatorship of the majority.

New Friend said...

Jonathan

These are difficult times for us all. I won't relate to you all my own, but as a retired man, my pension pot buys very much less than it was expected to and my savings earn very much less than I have a right to expect. I have many commitments and lots of people depend upon me. Meeting those responsibilities is not easy.

Why should Catholics with a conscience be an exception to that? It's hard for everyone, just in different ways.

The NHS cannot provide limitless resources on a fixed income anymore than you or I can. It has to serve the needs of the majority, whilst doing it's best to accomodate those of the minorities. You may argue it gets the balance wrong, but you don't have to make the decisions.

Special interests groups will always plead for more. Look at the unions threatening to take action over their pensions during the Olympics. You are not alone, but that doesn't make you any more right than they are.

Catherine said...

NF says

"Special interests groups will always plead for more.."

indeed and the top of the pile...front of the queue is the aggressive gay rights lobbyists.....

they not only plead more..they always get more ...then plead for more and get more and more and more and more.....!!!!

New Friend said...

Catherine

I would be very interested to see a survey of the general population to know if what you say is also their perception.

I would take a bet with you, at fairly long odds, that it isn't. It certainly isn't my perception. Right now I would suggest that the "top of the pile" special interest groups are those public sector unions lobbying for their pension provision to be protected. They would be followed by those lobbying on behalf of business interests. I would also bet that most people would place the religious lobby, arguing for the continuation of their priviledges, to be higher up the pile than the "gay rights" lobby.

I would suggest that the only reason you feel as you do is that you don't agree with the way that gay rights are being developed by society as a whole. I think your perception is completely wrong, and is demonstrating the homophobic tendency to be found under the surface of your religion. The truth is that their lobbying is mostly done in a dignified way, quietly and without publicity. Yes, they have the occasional march etc, what group doesn't, but compared to the religious lobby it is nothing, and is certainly not aggressive. It is rather passive in approach, appealing to reason rather than being forceful.

New Friend said...

Catherine

I know it is only a newspaper report but it shows how others are perceiving the position being taken by your Church. This is a headline from today's Irish Independent:-

"Church war against gay marriage"

Now what could be more aggressive than war?

Jonathan said...

"my pension pot buys very much less than it was expected to"

Have you spent much time reflecting on how much trust you put in your earthly riches and how badly they have let you down? Have you thought that even if your pension paid out ten times what you expected that ultimately it cannot give you life? God is calling you to store up real treasure that can't be stolen or reduced by inflation and he's offering you eternity to enjoy it in.
You're right that lots of people depend on you. Every year in this country tens of thousands of people depend on you to recognise their right to life. Speak up for them, show them love and you will find real life.

New Friend said...

Jonathan

Oh dear,

I actually live a quite modest life. A large part of my income is spent helping others, in one way or another, most of them here in the Philipinnes where this "right to life", that you are so keen on, produces a situation where life is created, but then cannot be sustained.

I witness the results every day. Families love, but they often struggle to provide the barest necessities for life. I don't condemn them. I do my best to help. One way is to try to make you aware that this idealistic garden you imagine can be grown if only your way was followed, is not so nice in reality.

That is not to say I am in favour of abortion. I am not. I am though in favour of contraception, effective sex education, a planned economy and a society which seeks to limit, through reason and incentives, the size of the average family.