No exceptions. No compromises.

Blogged by James Preece on 11th September 2012

Francis Phillips is right: Pro-lifers cannot win the debate by bargaining over the lives of the unborn. Gaining some lives at the cost of others is to surrender the principle that every life is of equal value.

Those who think they can beat the culture of death by negotiating a compromise in parliament are not only wrong, they are actually harming the pro-life cause.

“she was a tireless warrior for the unborn and her motto was no exceptions, no compromises”.

Nellie Gray’s motto made me sit up and pay attention. What she meant was that she would have absolutely no truck with “strategies” to save the lives of some preborn babies – but at the expense of other babies’ lives. To do a “trade off” that would grant exceptions, such as women whose babies were handicapped or who were pregnant as the result of rape or incest, was, in her view, to surrender the principle that every preborn baby had a right to life and to collude with wrong-doing. In her interview with Mother Angelica she emphasised that “you cannot do evil that good may come”.

In that interview Nellie said she had been present as a young serving officer at the Nuremburg trials. As she said, “crimes against humanity” had been committed and the US served judgment on the Germans. What appalled her was that this same America was now committing a wholesale crime against the humanity of the unborn. She pointed out that the incremental approach, where some abortions were conceded by pro-life strategists in the hope that this figure would gradually be reduced, had been proved a failed policy; once you accept that “it’s all right to kill some babies” you have lost your case, in law and in morality.

The interview between Nellie Gray and Mother Angelica confirmed my own standpoint on abortion law reform: that to bargain for some lives at the cost of others – and the latter are always the most vulnerable babies – is to surrender the principle that every life is of equal value; and judging from the history of the pro-life movement it doesn’t work. I was converted to this standpoint by reviewing Colin Harte’s book, Changing Unjust Laws Justly. Colin, who had supported David Alton’s proposed upper limit Bill of 1988, had himself been converted after meeting Alison Davis, who was then running the disabled branch of SPUC. Alison, who has spina bifida, is a fiercely eloquent reproach to those who would concede a disability exception clause in the drafting of pro-life bills.

Another convert to the recognition that “gestational laws”, as they are sometimes referred to, do not work in principle or in practice is John Smeaton, director of the SPUC. In an interview with Angela O’Brien on LifeSite News in July this year, he courageously admitted that he had been wrong in the past to support an upper limit bill. “After the upper limit of 24 weeks was instated [in 1990], the number of late abortions actually increased because the majority of politicians had voted to introduce new and broad exceptions to the abortion law,” he said. He has changed his mind in the face of strong opposition from other pro-lifer groups, and echoes Nellie Gray’s own words: “You cannot vote for intrinsically unjust legislation and you cannot campaign for it.”

I recently blogged about the late Dr Jerome Lejeune, the world-famous geneticist who discovered the extra chromosome that causes Down’s syndrome. He was devastated when he realised that his discovery was being used, not to find a cure for the syndrome, but to abort these babies. “If I do not protect them I am nothing,” he told his family. What would his response have been to the strategic approach that allows for upper limits and exception clauses?

My own position has recently been described on Twitter as “stupid”, “naive”, “misguided” and “untenable” by those who stubbornly cling to the mistaken belief that they will win this debate by bargaining over human lives. Nellie Gray was adamant that such a policy could not work; so is John Smeaton. More and more people are coming to accept this position; as James Hanink wrote in his essay Abortion, Prudence and Solidarity: “If a ‘reform’ proposal excludes some human beings from protection, it is intrinsically unjust and attacks the law’s very foundation. A law that excludes the disabled from protection is such a law.”

Some readers of my blog will know I have a daughter who has Down’s syndrome: is it stupid, naive, misguided and untenable for me to want justice for her: the right to life in law?

[link]

Countercultural Father has also been discussing this on his blog.

There are people who like to blame SPUC for the lack of a pro-life victory, they say that if SPUC had only compromised then we would have won something by now.

Oh yes, I'm sure we'd have won something... A reduction in this and an increase in that and a my mates sister knew somebody who wouldn't have had an abortion if this law had passed earlier and hooray for somebody or another MP who thinks abortion should be legal but did us a deal and well done to all the self proclaimed pro-life heroes on the London social scene you've finally fulfilled your wet dream of being a part of something...

Meanwhile, the babies continue to die but it's okay because maybe in a few years time it will be the turn of another generation to make another compromise and be a part of something...

Who are we kidding?

The fact is that this is a cultural fight and the only way to save the lives of babies is to change the views of the man/woman/child on the street. If we can increase the number people who oppose abortion by 1% then we eat in to the number of people who will have abortions. Eventually the number of people who oppose abortion could get so large that a change in the law becomes realistic. Hows that for an incremental approach?

It starts with a simple leaflet campaign around your local area or a chat with your mates in the pub or a sticker in the car window or a picture on Facebook or a letter to your local paper. It's not glamarous and it doesn't make any folk heroes but that's how you join in with the cultural conversation... by actually saying something.

Figure out where people are and take the message there: The unborn child is a person - they have a right to life. No exceptions. No compromises.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+23

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

Chrysostom said...

Those of us who have been fighting against the slaughter of the unborn since the evil act came in during the 1960s know how much we owe to SPUC. It is the bishops who have let us down. Read the current edition of THE CATHOLIC HERALD. Bishop Kenney, who is called the Bishops' Conference spokesman on "Europe" says how wonderful the EU is. Not once does he mentioned the huge financial support the EU gives to abortion. Apart from the Bishop of Shrewsbury which of our bishops as much as mentions abortion? Have a look at the diocesan websites on Justice & Peace. You will find much on the government "cuts" and plenty on coffee but never a mention of abortion.

Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St. Charles Lwanga and Companion Martyrs of Uganda, who died resisting homosexual rape - pray for us.

Today's Collect: "Let Thy continual pity, O Lord, cleanse and defend Thy Church: and because it cannot continue in safety without Thee, may it ever be governed by Thy goodness. Through..."

Philip said...

It is interesting that you are saying this and, at the same time, you complimented (rightly) Phyllis Bowman on her wonderful work when she died. I think you confuse two things. The cultural fight must be to change attitudes to life, without compromise. Without that, nothing will ever be achieved in parliament other than a viability term limit. But, when seeking to change the law, one may have to move one step at a time (precisely becaue the cultural fight has not been won). This is simply prudence and a recognition that all lives are infinitely valuable. Do you think that Wilberforce would have opposed the abolition of the slave trade because the first act did not abolish slavery? Did Wilberforce oppose the abolition of slavery because the act excluded Sri Lanka? What would we have thought now, if he had done? Would any of you oppose the abolition of abortion for disabled babies up to birth because it did not abolish all abortion (in other words oppose the reinstatement of the infant life preservation act)? Of course, I agree you should not trade one life for another (e.g. lower the term but widen the exceptions), but to refuse to take any tightening of the law that is possible on the grounds that it is not the best possible law is simply imprudent.

John Smeaton is wonderful at persuading people who already agree with him completely. Phyllis Bowman, I found, much more effective, appealing, as she did, to the principles of natural law and trying to show and persuade that abortion was killing a human being. In the course of one meeting when I set up a SPUC branch (when she was in SPUC) she persuaded my then-atheist girlfriend (now wife), using only arguments and materials that would appeal to all people of goodwill. I should add that my then girlfriend, came to the faith partly as a result of the witness of those in the pro-life movement like many others who came across Phyllis Bowman. Culturally, she got the arguments entirely right. However, she also understood that some laws are less bad than other laws when a choice is put before Parliament, whilst continuing to fight for the best of all possible outcomes and win the battle culturally entirely.

James said...

Phyllis Bowman was pretty clear: I ask if this would still be the case if setting them aside temporarily meant achieving a reduction in the time limit for abortion for social reasons from 24 to 20 weeks. �No,� she says firmly. �I�ve been down that road. It doesn�t work. It just does not work. [link]

Obviously it would be silly to reject a clear improvement in the law, but it would have to be an actual improvement and not simply saving the babies on the swings at the expense of the ones on the roundabouts. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

My aim was to contradict the current narrative from the incrementalists that John Smeaton's failure to canonise Nadine Dorries as a pro-life MP is the reason why another time limit reduction could not be made. SPUC is the big bad wolf who blew the house down... The reason we keep failing in parliament has little to do with SPUC's failure to massage egos and everything to do with living in a country where a majority of voters think the abortion law is just fine as it is.

Promoting as "pro life" an MP who thinks abortion ought to be legal isn't going to change the culture but it will make changing the culture harder to do. As will inviting pro-abortion MPs to hand out awards and give talks on justice and peace. All those things do is tell the culture that Catholics are okay with a bit of abortion sometimes...

Philip said...

of course, I agree. Nadine Dorries does not describe herself as pro-life and she isn't and I had not realised that anybody but her enemies described her as such. It is good to have Phyllis' sense of prudence - she was very good in that respect and I am really not convinced that John Smeaton has got that.

Caroline Farrow said...

James, I can't help but feel that this is something of a dig.

Nadine Dorries is not a pro-life MP and no-one suggests that she is or is blaming SPUC's failure to lionize her.

However when or if a bill to reduce the limit to 20 weeks materialises, it is sheer folly for MPs to reject it because it may not be ideologically flawed.

What is clear is that so far, neither an absolutist or an incrementalist approach has any proven success, but it is likely that a reduction in the limit could well be achievable and so it seems ridiculous not to take the opportunity to save some lives so long as this does not come at the expense of others.

As for your jibe about a mate's sister etc, I do have pretty raw personal family experience of someone who was coerced into a late term abortion of healthy twins, a situation which would undoubtedly not have happened had a lower limit been in place. Good Counsel will also testify that some of their clients face similar coercive pressures, many making appointment after appointment right up until the limit. I went through a harrowing experience aged 15 watching a family member be forced to abort healthy twins against her will
at 23+6 and being powerless to intervene. Those two lives matter as does every life lost to abortion. The fact is that until such time that abortion is a thing of the past, a reduction in limits will save lives. 91% of abortions are carried out under the RCOG recommended limits of 12 weeks. Do you really think that if the limits were reduced to 12 weeks the number of abortions would dramatically rise? Is there statistical evidence to bear this out? That's approximately 18,000 abortions a year in the UK performed after 12 weeks. 18,000 lives a year not worth attempting to salvage, until we can salvage all?

Incrementalism should not be the goal, total abolition must be, but that is not to say that those who would support a reduction in limits as a worthy step along this path are immoral. Or perhaps you don't think lives such as the ones in my family are worth saving?

I also think your crude comments about what you perceive to be the motivations of the "pro-lifers on the London social scene" are beneath you. Who on earth are you to judge and who do you think you are judging? Those doing great work attending 40 days for life vigils? The Good Counsel Network? Pro-life is not a London social scene, as you suggest people ARE in fact doing a lot of very unglamorous grass roots work, attending a prayer vigil is not a social event and it seems like you are denigrating the attendees who face enough abuse from the pro-choice lobby and the abortion industry. Is being pelted with horse manure and eggs by abortion supporters an act of vanity? Of course leafleting and writing to MPs is important, as is outreach to young people via schools etc. How do you know what is or isn't being done by individuals?

As for SPUC/John Smeaton, no-one has criticised him for failure to praise Nadine Dorries. Where did you get that impression from? It wasn't in the comments on Francis' piece. SPUC are rightly criticized in that they have an annual income of around �1 million and yet seem to have achieved relatively little in terms of lobbying MPs and changing the legislative framework. They are a secular lobby group, not a registered charity, who seems to spend a disproportionate amount of time engaging in criticism of what they perceive as liberal Catholicism and also in pursuing personal feuds such as those against Vincent Nichols, Catholic Voices etc. Whatever one thinks of these individuals it is not the role of a secular lobby group and shocking that money from the faithful is used to attack their hierarchy in such an uncharitable way as evidenced on John Smeaton's blog.

Criticism of SPUC is valid and has nothing to do with incrementalism or Nadine Dorries and everything to do with how the organisation seems to be run and their failure to work with the many pro life MPs who do exist. Nadine Dorries is not pro life, she will not work with the all party Pro Life committee for example and neither was the former MP Louise Mensch. No-one has to my knowledge criticised SPUC because of these MPs.

I think discussions of incrementalism work better when the ad homs are left out. No doubt the comments field will become increasingly acrimonious and unpleasant from here on in, but there is a difference between criticizing SPUC, an organisation and its leader on the grounds of their lack of efficacy and having a pop at individuals. I have no doubt Mr Smeaton's motives are good and well-intentioned.

I support any moves to abolish abortion which includes a lowering of the limit if that does come on the table, provided it does not come at the expense of other lives. Pro-life activists know that it comes at great cost, to them and often their families. Phyllis Bowman told me in February that she believed this was the area that really rattled Satan and that every pro-life activist she knew had been attacked via their family. She warned me that this was likely to happen to me over the next few months and to be prepared. She was actually very prophetic in this regard.

Those who put themselves out there, on the net, in real life whether at vigils, or leafleting or giving talks, writing to MPs or even by living a life of pro-life witness by using NFP and accepting and welcoming difficult unplanned pregnancies, open themselves up to bullying and abuse as a result of public pro life witness, abuse that has real life consequences. Nobody wants or needs praise for their efforts, motivations for engaging in pro life activism vary, but any individual who takes a public stand against the culture of death deserves support, they are doing the work of the Kingdom, not innuendo and insult.

It is not for anyone to doubt motives, to claim that this is about "being part of something" a social scene, or to equate with a "wet dream", unless you are claiming an insight into peoples' souls.

Apologies for the long post, personally I am sick of the internecine squabbling. By all means debate whether or not incrementalism is wise as an approach or as part of a strategy as Ben did, but is the crudeness and detraction really necessary? And next time you go to SPUC's AGM ask them where their �1 million a year comes from and where it goes? And what changes to legislation have we seen in the past few years? And whether their anti SSM campaign has been a productive use of funds? That's the issue at stake here.

Ttony said...

"living a life of pro-life witness by using NFP"

I don't want to target Caroline specifically, or to turn comments on this post into something else, but, for the record, I, at least, find the idea that NFP might in any sense be "pro-life", an idea which has been mainstream in the doctrine of the CBCEW for 20? 30? years, bizarrely grotesque, and hope that somebody turns this into a formal proposition somewhere so that it can be knocked down and ground into little pieces. No criticsm of those who have allowed their consciences to be formed by those who should know better.

Caroline Farrow said...

Maybe I didn't phrase myself correctly Ttony and I appreciate that you don't want to be personal, but why is the idea that using NFP as a pro-life witness, bizarrely grotesque?

By using NFP, we accept that sex could well result in the birth of an unplanned child and are open to life in this respect. It's something I have taken an enormous amount of flak for, the most vile, unpleasant comments regarding this, still flood my comms box on a depressingly frequent basis.

NFP does have to be employed with the right mindset obviously, I accept that it can be used with a contraceptive mindset, but broadly speaking "responsible" use of NFP to space one's family and to ensure that one doesn't avoid without very good reason, is generally speaking both in accordance with church teaching and a pro life witness.

How is following Humanae Vitae and eschewing the culture of death, even when a pregnancy could prove life-threatening, not a pro life witness? How is trying to live according to the teaching of the Church not pro-life and why is it "bizarrely grotesque" to claim otherwise?

mike cliffson said...

Caroline:
This particular thread is not an ideal moment,and I do not want to make you feel personally attacked, but consider just one thing you've written: despite all my many great and grevious sins,my wife and I have been blessed with eleven.For the moment, that seems to be our allotted blessings.
If we'd "responsably spaced " them , we'd have had perhaps five or six.
Should we have?

Caroline Farrow said...

Responsible spacing depends on an individual couple's circumstances surely?

I don't regret any of my children nor would I want to wish them away, nor can one change the past, but for us, 3 children in 3 years has stretched us to our limits and has not been "responsible" given our personal circumstances. We are blessed nonetheless, it was clearly what the Lord planned and that is being open to life. I can tell you that conceiving when child 2 was 8 months and child 3, 7 months was contrary to medical advice.

Now we are in a situation where sadly we have been strongly urged to avoid, if not permanently, but at least for a few years due to complications experienced when number 4 was born a few weeks ago. To conceive again would be totally reckless, for a number of reasons, not least being that I need a break, physically and emotionally and we have more than enough on our plates in terms of life circumstances.

How is using NFP and eschewing contraception in these circumstances, not pro-life? I don't get it. If I had to, like any parent I would sacrifice my life for my children born or unborn. But is it responsible to take no action to avoid another pregnancy and risk leaving my family without a wife and mother? Or is it bizarrely grotesque to follow the teaching of the Church on this, Humanae Vitae expressly allowing for sensible spacing, temporary avoidance of pregnancy if there are grave or serious reasons for doing so.

I'll leave it there. I am finding it too distressing to continue this any further. But being pro life is not just about the political activism, it's about living in a way that befits us as Christ's followers.

To quote James, perhaps it is fulfilling a "wet dream" after all. I want to be a part of something, namely to experience the beatific vision and that starts with actions. That means making tough decisions and being prepared to accept consequences. I think that is authentic pro-life Christian witness, no matter how bizarrely grotesque, ignorant or un-Catholic others may find my attitudes.

Teresa said...

Can we please focus our thoughts and energies on the injustice being done to the millions of aborted human beings, rather than squabble about perceived injustice to Caroline Farrow?

Caroline Farrow said...

Mike and Ttony raised points regarding NFP and pro-life Teresa. It seems reasonable to answer them.

Surely it is up to James to moderate the comments as he sees fit, or are you now in charge of directing the flow of conversation and keeping on topic?

I am still struggling to understand what is so bizarrely grotesque about fighting against the culture of death by the way one lives one's life, particularly in a society that endorses and coerces its citizens to use abortifacients.

This is not about perceived injustice (peculiar phrase by the way, what do you mean) but I am trying to get to the bottom of what Ttony and Mike are saying.

Let's not be uncharitable and/or personal. It's neither becoming, helpful nor good witness.

If we are concerned about the destruction of the unborn surely we have to include those aborted via contraception and campaign for an end to the pill, implants and the coil? Surely an absolutist campaign must call for that as well...

Teresa said...

Caroline- for the sake of clarity I will answer your question, tedious though this is.
You said: "This is not about perceived injustice (peculiar phrase by the way, what do you mean?)". I was referring to your statement: "James, I can't help but feel that this is something of a dig."
Try not to take everything so personally.
BTW I made a request about keeping on topic. That does not mean I think I am in charge of directing the flow of conversation does it? Don't be snide.
"Let's not be uncharitable and/or personal. It's neither becoming, helpful nor good witness." Agreed.

Caroline Farrow said...

Okay, but James hasn't clarified who he was talking about with his quips about the "London prolife social scene" or where he gets the idea that SPUC are criticised for failing to lionise Nadine Dorries from.

Perhaps he should clarify to whom he was referring? I think these narratives are not only erroneous, but also, as previously pointed out, uncharitable and unfair.

James has used a sexually explicit and quite offensive metaphor to attack the motives of those with whom he has an ideological difference in quite an unkind way. I therefore think criticism is merited on this occasion as well as a factual correction as to SPUC and Mrs Dorries.

This is not, as you contend, about "me" per se, but given that I have publically criticised SPUC and given that I mentioned Nadine in the comments on Francis' piece, it does seem as if James has conflated the two and drawn an incorrect conclusion. When it comes to the "London pro-life social scene" I have no idea to whom he is referring but it is still not the most charitable, helpful or even true narrative. I don't like to see good people attacked and I would stick up for James if I saw his motives or actions impugned in a similar fashion by someone else.

Most comments do tend to deviate off on a tangent, however given you named me, then it is hard not to take this personally, particularly given the unkind nature of the original post towards pro-lifers who may support a form of incrementalism in terms of achieving some legislative progress.

But let's move on, as you say, although I still don't understand Ttony's NFP assertions, although I don't doubt Ttony's motives any more than yours or James.

+10

James said...

I spoke in the plural and I didn't name names, in response you told me off for "having a pop at individuals".

If I had a pop at individuals why are you having to ask me to clarify who I am talking about?

Catherine said...

Caroline - given your circumstances healthwise regadring your children it is perfectly morally responsible and ethical and pro life to 'manage' your fertility through natural fertility awwreness as you advocate and even in some circumstances indefinitiely. Hence the correct translation of the Latin editio typica in HV on this is not 'responsible parenthood' but rather 'conscious parenthood' - it's still a morally brave decision to resist the pressure and temptation to use contraception and or be sterilised.

Paul Priest said...

Seconded:

Incrementalism's potential immorality through co-operation & compromise; together with its [obvious 45yr record of] inefficacy are what's at issue.

Colin Harte's arguments need due consideration given our 'establishment' are in a presumptive 'pro-Finnis' position which is being seriously challenged by an increasing amount of voices on grounds of morality and strategic integrity.

If people won't - or can't discuss the issues at hand providing informed, ethically cogent, non-anecdotal, non-personality-driven
arguments?

Maybe their efforts will be more useful elsewhere?

Ttony said...

I really don't think we can have this discussion here: my argument is NOT about Caroline Farrow at all, but as has been demonstrated below, it seems to be hard to debate this at a non-personal level. I can blog what I mean on my blog, leaving it up to you whether or not you want to join in or, if you wish, James is free send you my e-mail address and we can take this off-line.

James said...

Caroline, I'm sorry you've taken this personally. I didn't even think you lived in London. However, your comment does suggest that you share the obsession with legislative progress in the capital...

"SPUC are rightly criticized in that they [...] have achieved relatively little in terms of lobbying MPs and changing the legislative framework"

"Criticism of SPUC [...] everything to do with [...] their failure to work with [...] the many pro life MPs"

"next time you go to SPUC's AGM ask them [...] what changes to legislation have we seen in the past few years? [...] That's the issue at stake here"

The issue at stake is not and never has been "what changes to legislation have we seen in the past few years?" The only thing that matters is how many lives have been saved and the answer so far as SPUC is concerned is clearly far from zero.

Parliament, MPs and lobbying is obviously important but it is not the be all and end all of pro-life work. Cardinal Cormac had a special relationship with Tony Blair... how far did that get us? Is it really such a big deal that John Smeaton doesn't spend all his time in London building a special relationship with other MPs?

As for the million pounds - I have no idea how SPUC spend their money and I have never been to their AGM but I don't suppose it all goes on John Smeaton's solid gold Bentley. I doubt lobbying at the UN comes cheap? How about paying lawyers in Northern Ireland? Do a quick google... the Diocese of Philadelphia spent more than $10 million on legal fees in the last two years. Yes, I know... the pro-life lawyers should all work for free and feed their children with manna from heaven.

The fact is that when it comes to the cultural conversation about abortion, the Archbishop of Westminster and the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales are enemies of the pro-life cause. They play down the Church's teaching and then invite people who are pro-abortion to come and chair talks/hand out awards etc. SPUC are right to call them out on it.

Meanwhile, the silence from some circles is deafening.

Paul Priest said...

James what's the point?

Nobody wants to know...

Nobody will listen..

Meanwhile this 'in-crowd' of elitist luvvies and associated hangers-on, friends of friends or parents with pulling power in the old-boys network have now concluded that they don't really need to do anything except regurgitate the same trite mantras and engage in the group-hug socials and attend the same futile committee meetings where they discuss intensifying and concentrating already proven-failed strategies...

Inexperienced, untrained, unqualified enthusiastic amateurs playing at being important and thinking that events organising and hand-wringing and trite,doleful expressions or picking nasty online fights is actually authentic pro-Life advocacy...

Why is Incrementalism the preferred strategy?
Because politicians will brook nothing else and starry-eyed but spineless & over-sentimentalised activists conform in a ludicrous genetic fallacy of 'the experts must know best'

Anyone not supporting Finnis-type incrementalism is repeatedly denounced as 'unconscionable, stupid, naiive, misguided and foolish'

Why?
Because it's 'laughably', 'recklessly' 'idiotically' 'obscene' to 'cruelly' 'squander lives' 'in the name of ideological purity'

No appeals to why it can be morally coherent to the teaching of Evangelium Vitae 73.2 or other Papal/Vatican directives/teachings

No justification as to why it has been an effective and successful strategy...

It is what it is and that's the way it's done and that's the way it's going to remain...

Meanwhile their bills are paid, their lives comfy, their social lives continue unabated and there's no need to worry about there not being any future opportunity to have socials/attend committees/stand on platforms making heartfelt handwringing speeches about how terrible it all is...

..because after 45 years it's all still here! And the abortion industry's thriving...

...which means there'll always be room for more friends and relatives and a few cushy jobs on the faux-Pro-Life bandwagon...

...especially while +Vin and Conference have their heads under the duvets.

The status quo remains - don't dare question it or threaten its comfy [and lucrative] existence.

Colin Harte's appeals to Moral Integrity and Solidarity

[and Iron-clad resistance to ensure any attempt to negotiate comes from the enemy - not us!]

and enthusiastic inspiration to tell the public we have one message: No Exceptions: No Compromises could change everything like water dripping on stone...

But no - you can't upset the applecart - there has to remain ineffective [Alinsky-type] oppositions from both quarters who maintain the status quo - despite the insult hurling and ideological badinage and accusations of barbarisms & misogyny...it's still all a game and everyone goes down the pub afterwards...

The only real enemies being those Pro-Lifers [like orthodox Catholics who are so uncouth as to suggest the present situation might be wrong] or the inevitable arrival of the US-style jazzy professional protestant pro_life brigade with the money & the guns to put up a fight [and alienate the whole population in the process]...

Don't get me wrong..our present Pro-Life mob are filled-to-brimming with the best of intentions and ideals and they carry loads of anecdotal sentimentalist baggage to boot...

But they're wrong in what they're saying and doing and worse they're wrong in the underlying principles and motives...

Which is why we won't get anywhere...

Until one Bishop takes a stand!

Caroline Farrow said...

I'd just be interested to know to whom you were referring James and whether this is a fair assessment. I think pro lifers do take a huge amount of abuse for their witness so it's sad to see them impugned by others.

I am not obsessed with legislative progress but like many I am frustrated by the lack of ANY pro life progress over the past few years.

I see the fantastic work that organisations like Good Counsel and the Manning project achieve, yesterday LIFE charity managed to secure lottery funding and do for now, at least, have a seat on the sexual health forum and yet SPUC don't seem to be achieving a great deal, or if they are, are certainly hiding their light under a bushel.

No-one expects anyone to work for free, but certainly it seems that Mr Smeaton refuses to work with anyone who questions his MO, such as, for example, a fine Catholic lawyer, whom he laid into and would not give a right of reply to, as said lawyer used to Equalities Act to successfully get some nurses reinstated following their dismissal for refusing to comply with abortion.

I am not going to launch into a detailed attack, no-one is suggesting that SPUC funds go on gold Bentleys and no-one ever has, but I do know, for example, that they recently offered to pay for a priest friend of mine, to attend a conference in London and swanky lunch at a hotel. Is that a great use of funds, courting Catholic priests, or shouldn't it be taken as read that Catholic priests will support all pro life initiatives? Again, I stress that SPUC are allegedly a secular lobby group so why do they only criticise Catholics who deviate from the magisterium, or who are pro SSM? Why not other faith groups?

Now I realise that there is a debate to be had around Catholic pro-life solidarity but is it SPUC's role as to act as the religious police? Pro-life in the UK has not made any advances, either legislatively or in terms of building any sort of coalition and we therefore need to question why this is and the efficacy of the various groups. I was struck by Phyllis Bowman's words in her interview with Madeleine Teahan in the Catholic Herald before she died, which chimed with what she had said to me personally in a series of conversations in February. Phyllis, incidentally, did not mince her words when it came to how let down she felt by the Catholic hierarchy and establishment in the UK.

Let me be clear. I do not favour incrementalism as a goal, but I do think that provided it doesn't come with any price tag, a lowering of abortion limits is something that pro lifers can support, in a culture that is a million miles off recognizing the horror of abortion. I don't believe that any proposed lowering of limits should be rejected if it is achievable at no extra cost. I also think that more effort needs to be put into changing the abortion laws around disability. But supporting a reduction in limits does not preclude continuing to fight and change perceptions of abortion, which, by the way, should logically campaign for an end to abortifacient contraception.

My issues such as they are with SPUC is that I don't feel that they have achieved a great deal in pushing the pro life cause forward.

When it comes to abortion and euthanasia, academic discussion is all very well, but there is one underlying ideology, namely is it acceptable to kill other people? The answer is always no. Anecdote is not the plural of data, we do know that hard cases make bad law, BUT women should be listened to. We should not disregard the experiences of post abortive women who were sold lies by the abortion industry, nor should we ignore the realities of what is happening on the ground, namely that many women are being coerced into late term abortion. All abortion is abhorrent, and frankly I welcome anything to stem the tide of spilt blood, even if it is only sticking a finger in the dam, until a new wall is built.

James said...

Obviously John Smeaton doesn't have a solid gold Bentley (so far as I know). That was a metaphor for whatever ludicrous excesses the whole "where does the �million go? huh? huh?" thing was supposed to imply. It turns out they blow the lot on swanky meals. Who knew?

You say you won't launch a 'detailed attack' but then you critique a particular meal with a particular priest in a particular city. Could you get any more detailed?

The fact is that SPUC would be a pretty shoddy lobbying operation if they didn't invite people out for meals. If you want somebody to listen to you - invite them out for dinner! Was it swanky or was it just pretty typical for whatever part of London they happened to be in? Some priests can bring in a lot of money through collections etc.. �100 on a meal might be a very good investment. Who knows, the meal may well have paid for itself.

You say "shouldn't it be taken as read that Catholic priests will support all pro life initiatives" then five seconds later you say "Phyllis, incidentally, did not mince her words when it came to how let down she felt by the Catholic hierarchy" Which is it?

I know you are frustrated by the lack of progress, we all are, but if you want to play the blame game then try looking at the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales. What's that? You seem to be mumbling? Something about your husband's job?

So throw a few more rocks at SPUC. They obviously deserve it. Anybody with a million pounds is in need of a good kicking.

Caroline Farrow said...

James, my criticism of SPUC is wholly justified. Let's not conflate criticism of a secular pro-life organisation with criticism of the Bishop's Confetence. The two are wholly separate.

While there may have been errors of prudential judgement with the CBCEW, I am not going to comment on them, not because of my husband's vocation, which is incidentally utterly irrelevant, but mainly because I do not know all the history.

Generally speaking I think there is a difference between questioning areas of prudential judgement and the downright levels of disrespect shown to the Bishops on social media and in various coms boxes. I refer to diminutive nick-names and comments on appearance and motivations. You are correct in that it is utterly inappropriate for me to make comments which would indicate a lack of respect for any clergy.

There is generally speaking too much impugning of other's pro-life motives or Catholic credentials and it's a trap that we should all be aware of falling into. Hence my issue with your original post. Some of your comments were totally unnecessary as is your comment about my husband. You are wholly correct in that I do not intend to start posting unpleasant comments doubting the holiness or questioning the prudential judgements of Catholic clergy all over the internet in an uncharitable fashion. I think it's an unfortunate and unpleasant side to the blogosphere as a whole.

When it comes to SPUC, they are a secular lobby group, not a registered charity and thus questioning their lack of transparency seems wholly appropriate, especially given the lack of secular progress in the pro life arena. Personally I am uncomfortable with the lobbying of clergy in order to be able to host collections in church.

I would note that the Scottish bishops have been very outspoken with regards to opposition to SSM and yet it has had little impact, the Scottish government seem to wish to press ahead with this regardless. We have had a very strong message sent from the CBCEW not least in terms of the pastoral letter. Again this has been wholly ignored by the government despite strong Catholic opposition. How do we know whether or not repeated statements on pro life would have had any effect? We need secular and political support. The church's teachings on abortion and sexuality are well known. I remember David Cameron stating in the pre election TV debate that the Pope was wrong on condoms and abortion.

It seems way too simplistic to say blame it on the Bishops. I think however we can criticise or certainly question the way a pro life secular lobby group is run. These criticisms have nothing to do with incrementalism or ego stroking and everything to do with why we should donate. Are hearts and minds being changed? If so why the lack of progress?

James said...

Nobody is asking you to "make comments which would indicate a lack of respect for any clergy" or to "start posting unpleasant comments doubting the holiness or questioning the prudential judgements of Catholic clergy all over the internet in an uncharitable fashion". That's a straw man. I never said that - you said that.

St Thomas Aquinas said that in some situations "a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly"

You are right that I have not always done so "in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect" as Aquinas prescribes. Please Caroline, show me the correct way to do it - but please don't claim that my failure to be polite stops you from speaking at all.

Don't pretend that blaming Bishops is "simplistic" when both Phyllis Bowman and John Smeaton report after many years at the heart of pro-life work that they have been "sold down the river". It's not a controversial point requiring a detailed historical knowledge - it's a well known, readily observable fact.

Meanwhile your criticism of SPUC comes down to petty squabbles about how much money a secular organisation ought to be spending on meals. Perhaps you feel their secular character binds them to a monastic existence? Do you think that switching to McDonalds would bring an end to abortion?

You are straining out gnats and swallowing camels and it's so painful to watch I am almost embarrased on your behalf.

Caroline Farrow said...

James, I was going to elaborate on the example I gave but on reflection have chosen not to out of confidentiality.

This wasn't about taking a single priest for lunch, apologies if I failed to make that clear. This was about a group of priests being offered corporate hospitality which made one of the invitees, feel quite uncomfortable and questioned whether or not it was a wise use of funds.

This whole comment thread has gone way off track. Basically I take issue with your derogatory comments about people on the London pro-life social scene as you describe it. Those I know in London give their time and energy and often incur huge amounts of abuse for their efforts, so it just seemed terribly unkind and unfair, not to mention unnecessary for you to attack them in this way. It's not clear who you are talking about, yes, I know groups of people who meet together to pray outside abortiaries and give each other support. It seems mean spirited to knock them, but then it's not clear exactly who you are knocking.

Why this had to come into a point about incrementalism is beyond me. You then went on to claim that it's because of SPUC's failure to lionize Nadine Dorries that it attracts criticism. As someone who a) criticises SPUC and b) noted that her very mild proposals get no support from either side, it seemed like you were conflating the two issues. Mrs Dorries doesn't garner support for a variety of reasons. Criticism of SPUC is not, in my opinion, related to incrementalism or Mrs Dorries which is what I am attempting to explain.

I am happy to detail my criticisms, based on a number of factors, offline. But as often happens here, the thread has got rather personal. There is absolutely no need to make digs about my husband. And when I criticise the way the Bishops are critiqued, I am not referring to you, I have just seen a lot that seems highly unnecessary and unbecoming, such as diminutive nick names etc.

I just cannot bear all this impugning of other's motives or perceived Catholicity. I don't doubt you, John Smeaton and others are well intentioned, very devout, upright and upstanding men. I don't doubt your sincerity or your opinions. I don't think you are necessarily "wrong" on incrementalism. What I objected to here was the attack on others and a mistaken narrative, i.e. SPUC/Dorries.

Perhaps it's a gender thing or perhaps it's just the tone of how your comms box end up, but really, is there any need to personally attack others and be quite so aggressive?

It's possible that those whom you disagree with could be principled, decent people too. This online circular firing squad needs to stop. We can and should be able to disagree without resorting to invective or attacking each other in such an unpleasant way.

If I am embarassed by anything, it should be by getting upset by the unkind and incorrect insinuations of other people on the Internet.

Yves Congar said...

Just to be clear about this, Caroline, you never met Phyllis Bowman. Not once.

Catherine said...

CF says "It seems way too simplistic to say blame it on the Bishops. I think however we can criticise or certainly question the way a pro life secular lobby group is run."

with respect - rubbish!
when Cardinal HInsley was busy trying to negotiate with Churchhill on the 1944 Education Bill re funding for Catholic education and geeting nowhere he demanded to see Churchill and slammed on his desk in Number 10 a long long list of all the Catholic military personnel who had been awarded Victoria Crosses during the war and said; "now we can talk Prime Minister!"
Chruchill didn't have a leg to stand on and the rest as they say is history. In other words sometimes and often force majeure is the way true shepherds ought to do business with secular powers and not cosy up to the metropolitan establishment to preserve their own position over and above the real care of souls at their personal cost.

On average the Mass going Catholic gives about 35p a year to SPUC's White Flower appeal - while the CBCEW Day for Life collection will go to any number of non abortion preventing/campaigning projects -shame!

Yves Congar said...

Er, Caroline, you never actually met Phyllis Bowman, did you?

+10

Jane Porter said...

As a Catholic Voice, Wife and Mother you think you have the God given right to Criticise SPUC and good men like John Smeaton. As ever, it is attention seeking with you Caroline, and when people object to, or question your views, you retreat and squeal bullying!
You are a Mother, you have a husband, best to spend all the time and energy you squander on twitter and blogs devoting yourself to your family. Abortion may be the ultimate sin against the unborn, neglecting your children in favour of social networking does not follow far behind.

Caroline Farrow said...

Hello "Jane". Or would that be "Edward James", "Steve Burns" or a number of other pseudonyms you take, always with the same comments. I'd be interested to compare your IP with a number of others. Is your IP still Preston? In the meantime I suggest you worry about your own family or professional life. Or perhaps you don't have one, hence the obsession with mine which has lasted months.

In any event, I can assure you that my children are certainly not neglected, perhaps I ought to upload a video clip of my not yet 3 year who can actually read or send you a schedule of our daily activities for your approval. As for the bullying, I am not suggesting that has happened on this thread, but you do seem to be proving the point nicely. Your contribution is solely to add spite and cause upset. You don't know me, my family, how much time I spend online, I would wager not half as much as the time you spend stalking me. In any event, there is very little point engaging, your mind is made up and I certainly am not going to change my activity to suit your agenda.

As for "Fr Congar" whose identity is obvious, I didn't meet Phyllis in the flesh but spoke to her a few times in February. I don't claim to have known her well. Is it a competition? Obviously touched a nerve though didn't it?

I really don't know why James allows troll comments. I do hope you pair find the peace that seems to elude you. I shan't feed you again. God Bless.

Thirsty Gargoyle said...

We've been through this, I think, Caroline. Not any of those pseudonyms, but almost certainly Alison Dylan, or else Alison and married to someone called Dylan. Due to turn 40 next year. In the northwest, though I now suspect in the Welsh hinterland of Liverpool, rather than in Lancashire.

But anyway, someone to ignore, whether harassing you, Paul, Clare, Ben, or others. Always the best policy. Best not even to acknowledge the trolls.

Yves Congar said...

The nerve which has been touched is yours since you've had to admit that you didn't know Phyllis even though you've been misleading readers by giving them the impression that you did.

You've also been misleading people by claiming Phyllis Bowman, who you didn't know for your position.

There shouldn't be any misleading in debate, Caroline and it's perfectly proper that the claims you make are assessed.

You can't play the victim and wail that you're being bullied when your claims are found wanting.

Caroline Farrow said...

Let's be clear "Yves".

I have not been misleading reading or attempting to mislead readers by giving an impression that I knew Phyllis Bowman well. I did however have a series of long phone conversations with her in February, we were hoping to meet and had tentatively arranged something before she fell ill and died.

I have not been claiming that Phyllis was a proponent of incrementalism, it is very clear that she was not, however, she did go into great depth with me as to her feelings about SPUC, which is why I mentioned them. These were echoed in her interview with Madeleine Teahan.

I am not playing the victim. Some of the unpleasant comments, do however, speak for themselves.

Yves Congar said...

But you have misled people by giving the impression that you knew Phyllis Bowman and you are continuing to mislead them when you say " ... by giving the impression that I knew Phyllis Bowman well."

You did not know Phyllis Bowman at all.

Not done with misleading people you then launch into a string of dubious claims: "I did however have a series of long phone conversations with her in February ..." which is doubtful given how ill Phyllis was at the time and that she wasn't in the habit of having lengthy conversations with anyone still less perfect strangers; "... we were hoping to meet" you can't speak for what Phyllis who you didn't know at all and who was barely aware of you was hoping to do or meet; "... and had tentatively arranged something before she fell ill and died" again doubtful given that she wasn't up to making any arrangements in February and that you barely registered on her radar.

Still not finished with the doubtful claims, you add another for good measure "she did go into great depth with me as to her feelings about SPUC," unlikely, you were a perfect stranger and Phyllis wasn't a Jerry Springer guest type of person who'd go into great depth about her feelings with random people who phoned her up about of the blue "which is why I mentioned them". No.

All the way through this thread you have been trying to give the impression that you knew Phyllis Bowman, were her trusted confidante and that she agreed with your position. None of that is true and it's a bit off for you to try and corall a dead woman who you didn't know at all into your online argument.

I can't see that there have been any unpleasant comments levelled at you on this thread at all. Where are they? I can see you claiming that there have been unpleasant comments but like your attempt to portray yourself as a good friend of Phyllis Bowman it's just so much nonsense.

If you insist on making outlandish claims you mustn't be surprised when people challenge you about them.

Paul Priest said...

You are the Jane Porter of Catholic Youth Ministry?

Sorry to ask but I thought it might avoid confusion from third parties :)

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

LOL To campaign against abortion is a waste of time & a compromise for the faithful Catholic. Let the protestants devote their time to that cause. The Catholic has the task of evangelising the people of the Earth. A 100% Catholic society will reject abortion out of hand. What is a few hundred thousand dead unborn compared to virtually an entire nation of people who are unsaved? The Catholic must tell the world about the One True Faith so that the world may see & repent of their sin. Faithful Catholics don't abort.

+12

ALDU said...

What a pity that the comments following this important post should, as usual, degenerate into sniping.

Instead of attacking other pro-lifers, anyone really interested in judging which proposed "pro-life"measures can be supported morally should start by reading Colin Harte's seminal book, "Changing Unjust Laws Justly: Pro-Life Solidarity with the Last and Least", mentioned above in James' blog.

Colin has worked closely with SPUC for many years, in particular with No Less Human. He has learned a lot from SPUC and SPUC has learned a lot from him.

Perhaps if we all read his book we could begin to have a sensible and civilised discussion about the issues instead of the personalities.

Teresa said...

An excellent post James.
I agree with ALDU - in order to promote strength and unity we must focus on the issues instead of on egos, personalities or personal sensitivities.
If we are united it will help us to be strong and courageous - and courage is needed, even for " a simple leaflet campaign around your local area or a chat with your mates in the pub or a sticker in the car window or a picture on Facebook or a letter to your local paper."

+12

Catrin said...

Quite simply,I practice my faith today because of the pro-life teachings of the church. I only learnt these,thanks to SPUC. I certainly didn't learn anything worth anything in "Catholic" school.
Several of my children owe their lives to these SPUC conferences which are a "waste of money". My heart had already been prepared to welcome our son with down's syndrome, despite the terror and the uncertainty I felt.
I don't really care about the politics of it all, or if John Smeaton is whatever. My 15 year old owes her life to SPUC, whether she cares or not, certainly my 8 year old with Down's. And I owe my Catholic faith to SPUC, whether that was their intention or not. It was the only place I ever met women with larger families, and people who practiced their Catholic faith with conviction.

+12

Jane said...

God bless John Smeaton and all at SPUC. They are truly a light shining in the darkness. They receive my pro-life pound because their integrity has and always will be totally and utterly reliable. If you want a glimpse of what they spend "all that money" on, look at the Ocean to Ocean website. Every penny spent is utterly worth it.

philip said...

Can we not get some principles clear in order that we have a temperate discussion that also provides a good witness?

1. Catholics cannot in good conscience believe in abortion or believe that it should be legal. But...

2. Exactly how, tactically, we get from where we are now to where we want to be is a matter of prudential judgement.

1. All pro-life organisations should make clear the principles on which they stand. But...

2. We do not have to agree on whether particular pro-life organisations are doing a good job in the circumstances in which they find themselves or agree on tactics and strategy (clearly Phyllis Bowman and John Smeaton did not agree or there would not be two organisations).

1. All pro-life organisations need to be clear about their function and mission. But...

2. Their function and mission will be different from each other and those that try to (say) change the intellectual climate will not have the same constraints as those that (say) try to change the law.

1. Catholics believe that contraception and closing marriage to life is wrong. But...

2. The spacing of children is quite legitimate and a matter for the conscience of those taking the decisions. Why is it necessary for other people to be examining poor Caroline's conscience on this matter?

My own view is that I happen to think that SPUC does not do an especially brilliant job in trying to build a pro-life coalition open to all people of goodwill who know the truth of natural law in their hearts but have not yet found the Christian fervour to follow Christ or accept other teachings of the Church on related issues. Other people are entitled to disagree and can reflect that in their support for whichever group (there is room for more than one think-tank/lobby group/educational group etc in any sector such as this). But, why not assume the best motives in those with whom one disagrees? It tends to make arguments much more powerful.

Paul Priest said...

I'm afraid you're confusing tactics with strategy:

a] Evangelium Vitae 73.2 prohibits formal or proximate material co-operation with any intrinsically unjust law.

CDF declaration on procured abortion [1974]
22...a Christian can never conform to a law which is in itself immoral; and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion.

CDF: Participation of Catholics in Political Life [2002]

...a well formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.

& again in 2003 when discussing the possibility of voting against same-sex union legislation it cites EV 73 but adds the conditional:

"This does not mean that a restricted law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable..."

i.e we are absolutely forbidden from voting for restrictive measures which simultaneously endorse an intrinsically unjust law - we can only repeal an unjust law - not amend it.

This is not a scenario of 'cafeteria legislation' where we may tolerate regrettable unjust side-effects within a whole bill to ensure its benefits

[e.g. a bill to fund a hospital , a school and [unjustly] a golf course for local wealthy businessmen]

...but rather a scenario where we are absolutely forbidden from voting for the bill in its entirety as it includes that which in being intrinsically unjust we are absolutely prohibited from supporting

[e.g. a bill to fund a hospital, a school and an abortion clinic]

One is absolutely forbidden from ever performing an evil so that good may result - voting for any law which distinguishes between the killable & unkillable is intrinsically evil - even if it includes the removal of a few from the killable list.

Now a certain individual has suggested that the Good Counsel Network support the incrementalist position - I ASKED THEM - they responded that even though they concede that time limits have indeed saved lives in their experience...

[one of course may argue that a lengthy abortion limit may well prevent hasty decisions to abort and therefore save lives; but nevertheless...]

...The Good Counsel Network DO NOT support the incrementalist argument [adding that such a strategy has led to failure resulting in abortion up to birth]

..and guess who they told this to?

NOW

Practising NFP is not bearing authentic Catholic Pro-Life witness.

One is expressly forbidden from recourse to any form of contraception by omission UNLESS one is at a critical juncture and has justifiable appeal to the double effect.

In other words NFP is a critical last resort position - not some form of normative Catholic praxis which can be promoted as always acceptable, permissible or excusable within marriage...

IT ISN'T!!!

Contraception by omission is always morally disordered but that moral disorder may be diminished and mitigated within the strict remit of the double effect.

But it is never a good-in-itself or something to be advocated as available for all Catholics to perform without any sin involved.

It is ONLY ever right action when justified by a critical juncture which is discerned by an informed conscience.

Certain individuals may have every right to justly appeal to it in a crisis - but to suggest that Catholic couples may use NFP as an 'acceptable equivalent' to the way others use contraception is a grave misrepresentation and scandalous distortion of Catholic teaching.

Unnecessarily breaching the sanctity and confidentiality of the bedroom for anything other than a grave reason is however, far from appropriate.

mike cliffson said...

Paul priest
Thanks.
I regret sticking my oar in, a saintlier, more scholarly,and better communicator than me was needed.
For the record:
I don't know Caroline from Adam, and have no wish to Judge anyone.
Licit circumstances exist.
within limits.
"One is expressly forbidden from recourse to any form of contraception by omission UNLESS one is at a critical juncture and has justifiable appeal to the double effect""It is ONLY ever right action when justified by a critical juncture which is discerned by an informed conscience."
Just so.
I DO have a practical complaint about the term ,( as with much with NFP ,) "responsable spacing" in that I have found it , NOT universally, but certainly commonly, understood by good, not only nuchurch, catholics in every segment of the church in more than one country to mean:
"It is responsible to space, ," (offspring, all of them, regardless,by natural means)AND irresponsible to not space!
My own family's circumstances are relevant in that a large family provokes revealing remarks, rather than wishing to be holier than thou.( Yes, of course I'm always tempted!)
Equally when applied, if NFP is "sucessful" (more vocabulary, no-baby is a goodinitself!) we are going to be talking about families with fewer children, the good lord in his wisdom having endowed couples with naturally limited fertile lives. So perhaps 2 not 6, 5 not 12 , who knows!
Now, without going into everything about NFP, starting with the name, the question is not in fact irrelevant to James' post.
I was one of most of us in the sixties, before HV and who did not need Humanae VItae to remind us contracetion was wrong, yet,when the Uk legalized abortion,we justified it for non-catholics, so as to avoid the ghastly murder of the innocent: it seemed obvious then, 1967,that , if by sinful means that they were unaware of being sinful, noncatholics, poor ignorant souls who couldn't be expected to know better, didnt concieve unwanted children, they wouldn't be tempted to murder them.
Wellmeaning, but..
we were doubly , nay triply, wrong.
The rest I know not, but I was sinfully being lady Muck of T*** Hall bringing culture to the abos.
And in fact I needn't here go into how we were historically wrong,how Satan sets up the contraceptive mentality as a trap leading to many sins and evils , abortion and the culkture of death.
Triply , we had a foot on their turf.
We lost: a baby is a blessing, full stop.
I was very struck reading Mr Smeaton's interview that James refers to.It resonated.
And just as, tho I would welcome Mr Romney over Mr obama, and every life saved, Incremantalism is a snare, so also, welcome tho contraception-accepting prolife protestants are in prayer and in action , that isn't where catholicism IS,
the many things( having nobaby is a goodinitself is an extremely dangerous idea to have in one's head, for however short a time, and much more could be said) I have commonly, if not universally, observed around the average NFP mindset within the church are not Catholic either.
And in case there should be any doubt: personally Im a grave and grevious sinner.

philip said...

Whatever I am confusing it is not tactics and strategy. Nobody is suggesting that we trade disabled babies for a lower term limit (these straw men appear regularly on this blog). But, from the above, are you seriously suggesting that a Catholic could not vote (for example) to amend the existing law to reduce 24 weeks to (say) 10 weeks with no other amendments being up for discussion because the law taken as a whole would still allow abortion. That seems odd to me. And the points that you make regarding NFP do not relate to the points that I made. I did not even mention NFP in the comment, merely the spacing of children and an appeal for people to leave Caroline (whom i have never met, by the way) alone.

James said...

"Nobody is suggesting that we trade disabled babies for a lower term limit (these straw men appear regularly on this blog).

Philip - we have already done that.

philip said...

I am lost, James. Who do you mean by "we" in your last sentence? You are attacking a straw man. If you want to attack (say) Tony Blair for voting for this, all your readers will agree with you. But this blog post is about the divisions you want to create between different parts of the pro-life movement. I am not aware of any part of what you gratuitously and insultingly call the London pro-life social scene calling for the trading of disabled babies lives for 20 week old babies lives. Though because I do not know, recognise or cannot find such a grouping, I guess I would not know.

Paul Priest said...

I'm afraid you are.

...and James is indeed right - we already did it - the deal brokered was 28 to 24 abortion limit with disabled or any causing 'serious psychological distress'[whatever that means?] to the mother - aborted up to birth.

Finnis argues this secondary aspect is a mere side-effect that has nothing to do with the moral culpability of the legislator solely intending to vote for the limit reduction - voting for a bill is like a buffet where irrespective of supporting the entirety one only really supports the nice bits!

Now if the legislation was worded differently and did not intrinsically permit abortions within a specific time period - and it was possible for it to be solely repealed within itself - according to EV 73.3 it is not intrinsically unjust and may be voted for.

BUT one must therefore ask SHOULD one vote for an anti-solidaritist position which discriminates between any of the unborn?
Especially when the premise of an abortion-limit restriction is a reduction in abortions but it might actually be both ineffective and counterproductive, promoting hasty decisions to abort AND furthering a socio-cultural acceptance of an ostensibly 'less barbaric' procedure; together with projecting a public inference that certain members of the unborn are of less worth and value than others - as Pro-Lifers seem to endorse that paradigm...

Have you read the Herald blogpost and the comments therein? Or watched the Nellie Gray video or read the James Hanink link?

Because from the way you've expressed your argument so far I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the principle inherent within Catholic teaching.

Your hypothetical contains a direct act of will towards the permissiblity of abortion up to ten weeks - thus discriminating upon the worth and dignity of foetuses according to their age.

Now regarding other issues: Excuse me your defence of a position held by another poster in regard to the spacing of children was laden with all manner of supportive & dismissive enthymemes which needed to be countered.

Perhaps you should read the postings of the individuals involved more closely and see what people are REALLY saying rather than what they say they are saying [it's a neat trick but please don't be hoodwinked by it]

philip said...

The logical conclusions of your position are grotesque, especially: "furthering a socio-cultural acceptance of an ostensibly 'less barbaric' procedure". In other words, the more barbaric we allow it to be the more likely we are to foster the right climate of opinion. This seems like doing wrong so that good may come from it.

But, thank you anyway for your comments. I clearly do not understand Catholic teaching; do not pay proper attention to things others have said; but, nevertheless, do feel free to read whatever you wish into comments I make in defence of others rather than read the comments themselves.

I think I have had enough of this blog

James said...

I think Paul's point is that society might be tempted to think abortion is now okay because it all happens before ten weeks.

Meanwhile, girls who might have spent an extra few weeks mulling it over and figuring out what support is available might get an abortion quick because there's no time to think.

Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better if the limit were raised. That way women could hold off and hold off and not be sure and not be sure and all the while the baby inside them is getting bigger and more obviously human.

Perhaps limit itself forces their hand?

It may seem grotesque to want all abortions carried out at birth, but is it really "pro-life" to want baby's life to be as short as possible?

Are those extra weeks in the womb worth nothing? or do we only value life after birth?

Paul Priest said...

Defending others while they were saying X, Y and Z...

You can't eliminate the arguments being countered while claiming the arguer is being picked on...

Now I'm afraid you're imposing 'logical conclusions' by engaging in the obverse fallacy of presuming the antinomial of 'beneficial abortion-limit tactics' - as if one the cons of a late limit are reversed/negated in an earlier one [and vice-versa]

what is the ontological/teleological difference between a very early and a very late abortion?

when does life begin?
when is there pain awareness, recognition, mnesis and the higher-brain function to recognise & endure the horror of what's happening?
and why should the barbarity of the murder have anything to do with the fact a future life is being denied?
what the hell difference is there between 23:23:59:59 & 24:00:00:01?

If this blog has unsettled you well I'm afraid it's not my fault...everything about this issue is unsettling and anyone who isn't unsettled isn't confronting the situation.

philip said...

the confusion, I am afraid is illustrated by James' point: "Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better if the limit were raised. That way women could hold off and hold off and not be sure and not be sure and all the while the baby inside them is getting bigger and more obviously human." Is this a matter of principle or not? The most effective piece of legislation might be one that only allows the killing of a human life on its first birthday. But, you are saying there are some principles involved are you not and it is not a case of weighing up under which bill fewest lives will be taken - one is simply not permitted to vote for a lower term-limit bill. Is that correct? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if I am in parliament and a bill is put forward that does nothing other than amend the current act to reduce the time limit to 10 weeks, I cannot vote for it because I would, in effect, be voting for an unjust act rather than against the existing law. Or is it a matter of prudence? Do I make a judgement about how many babies would be killed under the two alternatives as James is suggesting? And please do not bring up disabled babies being aborted until birth again, because that kind of trading is not the issue. I might add, that the consensus opinion at the time was that this was not a deal brokered but a grave error that was not understood (which is why there was a second vote, was there not?). And, what is this all of a sudden about a future life? Is it not a life from conception? I am struggling with the mix of practice and principles.

James said...

"one is simply not permitted to vote for a lower term-limit bill. Is that correct?"

To clarify, in my humble opinion: I have no idea.

My view is only that we cannot "know" that lower limits are better and therefore should be careful about campaigns in either direction especially when there is the risk of legislation getting tagged on (last time it was disabled babies, next time perhaps restrictions on who can offer counseling?)

Paul Priest said...

You see it's this 'nothing other than' clause...

It's not merely a 'nothing other than' -

Colin Harte uses the example of a multiple law where

a] abortion is permitted up to 16 weeks on request
b] abortion up to 24 weeks is permitted with the agreement of 2 doctors

against another country's law of

c] abortion is permitted up to 24 wks

now a vote to repeal b is not intrinsically unjust - one is not directly co-operating with any other legislation

one may vote for such a bill - but on grounds of solidarity of all the unborn

[where worth and dignity is not a matter of distance from conception, or the [dis]ability of the foetus, or the manner by which the foetus was conceived - no exceptions:no compromises]

..SHOULD one vote for the bill?

now when it comes to c] if a bill was brought forward to amend the number to e.g. 16wks one would still be co-operating with a law enacting the permissibility of abortion up to that time limit...

it would be voting for an intrinsically unjust law and would be absolutely forbidden...we're not utilitarians or situationists..you can't buy the lives of some by authorising the deaths of others to pay for it...

irrespective of the unknown factors of the consequences of it all which may not produce any ultimate benefit and may even aggravate the situation? e.g. a sanitised socio-cultural acceptable abortion paradigm which results in a century of slaughter and even its furtherance into a form of contraception?

and what of an incrementalist strategy that does deals and compromises starts from a position of weakness by declaring itself open for negotiation against an absolutist strategy of the pro-aborts which is gaining ground at every turn?

Solidaritism might be not merely the only moral position - but also the only feasible future strategy to gain any ground...

philip said...

well, I disagree with this: "and what of an incrementalist strategy that does deals and compromises starts from a position of weakness by declaring itself open for negotiation against an absolutist strategy of the pro-aborts which is gaining ground at every turn?". The successful strategy of the pro-aborts has not been to be absolutist but to appear reasonable (eg by inserting clauses such as "health of the mother" etc). But, that is beside the point as far as the main argument is concerned. So, applying this to slavery. Of course, I do not know what the actual circumstances were but, am I right in saying that it would have been wrong for Wilberforce to either:
a. vote for a bill that permitted slavery only in Ceylon, St Helena drafted in that way etc etc (though not necessarily wrong to vote for an amendment to existing legislation to make it illegal everywhere but Ceylon) or
b vote for a bill that banned all slavery with the punishment for trading being capital punishment (assuming the usual extreme conditions allowing capital punishment did not apply)

Paul Priest said...

Yes

Caroline Farrow said...

Nobody has suggested Good Counsel advocate incrementalism as a strategy, but their experience that lives can be saved by lower limits is alluded to. I don't think this can be ignored.

In terms of NFP, Humanae Vitae discusses responsible parenthood, and therefore most Catholic couples, regularly receiving the sacraments and entering into the spirit of NFP will take this seriously, i.e they will be generous and open and only avoid if there is serious and just reason to do so.

In a culture that throws its hands up in horror at the idea of more than 2 children, a medical profession who refuse to take NFP seriously, was lectured about "proper contraception" as my husband will testify whilst still on the operating table as well as coming under a lot of post natal pressure to contracept, actually using NFP, when a future pregnancy could result in serious problems IS a pro life witness.

Couples using NFP will discuss every month whether or not to conceive, which in itself builds a respect for life. Even if reasons to avoid are not sufficiently serious, actually every single act is open to life, which does, experience shows, tend to affect the general overall attitude of the couple. Most Catholics using NFP will tend to do so in good conscience and with the right mindset. Like anything it can be abused, but it seems to me NFP is an excellent counter to the culture of death. How many children a couple should have is a matter for them alone. It certainly is not responsible to state that a family should aim for as many as possible regardless of the consequences. NFP fosters mutual respect and dignity.

NFP is a good pro-life Catholic witness if used correctly. I tend to assume most Catholic couples who use it, do so in good conscience. Of course I forgot everything has to be massively qualified.

James said...

Paul Priest - I've removed one of your comments as a gesture of good will for someone (not Caroline) who asked nicely.

You're a nice man so I reckon you'll forgive me :)

Paul Priest said...

Not a problem - the message wasn't intended for public scrutiny anyway.

Nothing to forgive.

I just wish I hadn't needed to say anything...