The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have announced today that according to their study, an unborn child is unable to feel pain until it is at least twenty-four weeks old. Therefore, the BBC report gleefully that there is "no reason to challenge the abortion limit".

I'm fairly sure the question of whether or not an eight weeks old fetus can feel pain is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally acceptable to kill them. You might as well say that it's okay for me to abort my toddler just as long as I slip some anaesthetic in her orange juice.

If you want evidence though, Love Undefiled has a list of studies showing pain at eight weeks. For me, the more important question is "is this a human person" because if they are human, then killing them is morally wrong.

This is a human person:

That's Baby Jessica born only 23 weeks after conception.

She survived.

The new Papal Visit booklet is a work of propaganda - it's whole purpose is to give the impression that the Catholic Church and the British Government are the best of friends with abolutely nothing to worry about. The Pope has only come to pat everybody on the back and congratulate them on a job well done.

For example, the government people killed around 200,000 babies last year by abortion, Pope Benedict's most recent encyclical mentions abortion three times yet the Papal visit booklet does not mention abortion at all.

Somebody will say "but James, they are trying to be positive" to which I respond that the Papal visit booklet mentions poverty nine times!

How come it is positive to omit abortion, but not negative to mention poverty? Is poverty something to be proud of these days?

They mention poverty because it is politically correct.

They are silent on abortion for the same reason they are silent on Terry Prendergast and Greg Pope. Because they don't want to upset their friends in the liberal establishment.

The 5th June edition of The Tablet attempts to justify abortion.

First Charles E Curran (Professor of Human Values in the Perkins School of Theology at the Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas) writes:

Killing is sometimes accepted in the Catholic tradition as in war and in self-defence. Thus killing thus is not a moral evil (which can never be done), but a “non-moral”, “pre-moral” or “ontic” evil, that can be done if there is a proportionate reason. Saving the life of the mother is a proportionate reason justifying the abortion.

The whole Church, the hierarchical Magisterium and theologians must listen to the Holy Spirit speaking in the lives of Christian people – the sensus fidelium.

In other words, he thinks that killing an innocent baby to save the life of the mother is morally equivalent to killing a man who has picked up a gun and attempted to invade one's country.

The question can be simply answered. If my wife had a deadly disease which could only be cured by killing our toddler (perhaps my wife needs all of her bone marrow and several vital organs) would you say "Saving the life of Ella is a proportionate reason justifying the killing of a three year old girl?"

No. You wouldn't. Because you recognise that my little girl is a person with as much right to life as her mum.

So why do you think it okay to kill an unborn child to save the mother?

Next, Professor Tina Beattie (director of the Digby Stuart Research Centre for Catholic Studies at Roehampton University) writes...

So, a procedure could be performed with the intention of saving a mother’s life which indirectly caused the death of the foetus (for example, by removing the cancerous womb of a pregnant woman), but the direct, intentional killing of the foetus can never be condoned, even to save the mother’s life.

This kind of argument may appeal to those who value moral absolutes over ambiguity, but many of us regard dilemmas such as the one confronting Sr Margaret and her colleagues as being too complex for formulaic judgements.

The intention in this case was not to kill the child but to save the mother, and some may regard the distinction between directly and indirectly destroying the foetus as of little ethical relevance in situations of such tragic complexity.

Those who "value moral absolutes over ambiguity"...

She values ambiguity?

The distinction between directly and indirectly destroying a person is highly relevant. If I drive my car in to a person on purpose it is a very different thing to if I drive my car to work and accidentally hit a person on the way.

Given that in Christian theology the understanding of personhood is fundamentally relational because it bears the image of the Triune God, it is hard to see how an embryo can be deemed a person before even the mother enters into a rudimentary relationship with it.

Human beings are made in the image of God and this image is found in it's fullness in the way human beings relate to one another in love. "Let us make them in our image".

To use the beautiful way in which a human person made in the image of God is fulfilled by loving relationships with other human beings as an excuse to deny the humanity of a child is a disgusting and depraved act of evil.

You haven't met your mother so you are not a person.

This is what it comes to?

Did I mention that this magazine is being sold at the back of Westminster Cathedral under the watchful eye of Archbishop Vincent Nichols?

Who does...

Nothing!

Connexions are doing exactly the same thing in Catholic Schools!

Don't get me wrong. Somebody should be picking on Marie Stopes. Marie Stopes carry out a third of the abortions in the UK and every year they end the lives of tens of thousands of unborn children. They recently had a visit from the Chinese Minister for Population Control... Marie Stopes may claim they support "a woman's right to choose" but if it's choice they believe in, why are they in talks with a government that carries out forced abortions?

Marie Stopes recently paid for the first ever abortion advertising on TV in Britain and the English Bishops are quite rightly opposed. They write...

"We believe that services which offer or refer for abortion - whether commercial or not-for-profit organisations - should not be allowed to advertise on broadcast media."

[link]

The question has to be asked. Why is it a problem for "services which offer or refer for abortion" to advertise on TV, but it's not a problem for services which offer or refer for abortion to advertise in Catholic schools...?

You think I'm kidding?

Let's compare the activities of Connexions and Marie Stopes...

• Both of these organisations promote contraception.
• Both of these organisations refer young people for abortions.
• Both of these organisations do both of the above without parental knowledge or consent.

In other words, both of these organisations are (in the Bishop's own words) "services which offer or refer for abortion" yet for some reason one of them is criticised for advertising on TV while the other is promoted in Catholic Schools (in the words of a Catholic Education Services press release) "a service to be welcomed"^link.

Here is the controversial advert for Marie Stopes International...

Notice? The Marie Stopes TV advertisement doesn't actually mention abortion Rather, it advertises Marie Stopes as a source of information and advice for young people in crisis pregnancies. The problem is we all know what the advice will be.

Funny that, because when Catholic Schools promote Connexions they don't mention abortion either, they promote Connexions as a source of information, advice and guidance for young people. Guess what? We know what the advice will be.

How do Catholic Schools promote Connexions? Let's take a look at our local secondary school - St Mary's College in Hull.

Check out the 2009-2010 prospectus...

We are in the fortunate position of having interview rooms next to the Ruth Social Area and in the Storey Centre for discreet Guidance consultations.

Connexions Humber help us to deliver Guidance and advice to students within St Mary’s, by supporting us with specialist staff. They help young people to make informed decisions during a crucial time in their lives. Students are encouraged to speak to Connexions Advisers

Students are encouraged to speak to Connexions Advisers.

Connexions is being promoted to students. It's okay though, because Connexions have promised not to mention contraception or abortion in these "discreeet Guidance consultations" in the school. Even if you are naive enough to think that staff who believe that young people have the right to such services won't let things slip in one to one meetings, the fact remains that Connexions is a highly branded organisation which young people can easily access outside of school with a website that promotes contraception on the front page and also provides information on how to access an abortion.

It's okay though, because kids these days don't use the internet to access services that they have been encouraged to trust... or something.

I wrote to Bishop Drainey about all this. I enclosed screen grabs of the website and the prospectus. I pointed out that a service which refers for abortion is being promoted in Catholic Schools in his Diocese.

Is he bovvered?

He told me...

The CES agreed a protocol for use of 'Connexions' in our schools so that sexuality is not referred to, and our schools work to this protocol. We cannot prevent 'Connexions' mentioning abortion or other sexual matters in general website literature [...]

But could Channel 4 not say the same thing? That Marie Stopes International do not refer to abortion or contraception on their TV commercial and Channel 4 cannot prevent Marie Stoped International from mentioning these things on the telephone?

The Bishops Conference condemn themselves from their own mouths when they say that "services which offer or refer for abortion - whether commercial or not-for-profit organisations - should not be allowed to advertise".

Connexions is a service which refers for abortion.

Connexions is being advertised in your children's school.

The Bishop's know about it, but they do nothing. In fact, they actually go out of their way to defend it!

So why are they picking on Marie Stopes?

Here's an idea: Why not send a quick email to the Bishop's Secretary bishopsecretary@dioceseofmiddlesbrough.co.uk to say that you have seen this blog entry and are concerned about it? Let me know if you get any response.

Marie Stopes herself was in to eugenics and in favor of "sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory" and when her son married a woman with myopia she cut him out of her will.

The folks at Marie Stopes continue this glorious tradition to this day. On their website they have a poll asking "Should abortion be legal in Ireland?" and above that poll they write...

Woman travelling overseas for abortion, include pregnant teenagers, women who have been raped or in a violent relationship, women whose life would be at risk if they continued with their pregnancy or women whose pregnancy has a foetal abnormality.

In other words, not being a perfect biological specimen should give your mother an excuse to kill you.

You can vote on the online poll here.

Another "round up" style post I'm afraid, there's really very little I can add to the excellent coverage going on across the internet...

As ever, if you read nothing else, read John Smeaton: Faith schools must promote abortion, Ed Balls confirms

Kate points out that the name of Archbishop Nichols has been dragged in to the debate with Ed Balls suggesting that Archbishop Nichols is in favour of the bill. That was two days ago and still no response from the Archbishop. Qui tacet consentire.

Damian Thompson is equally unimpressed... "Bishop Malcolm McMahon, who holds the education brief in the Bishops’ Conference: not available." "Oona Stannard, head of the Catholic Education Service (CES): not available."

Damian also asks "Archbishop Nichols, tell us: will Catholic schools provide abortion information, as the Government insists?" A question all Bishops will need to ask themselves as they are all ultimately responsible for the schools in their own diocese.

Laurence England asks "Where are they now?" (Bishops McMahon and Nichols that is) while I might ask the same of Bishop Drainey.

Jackie Parkes and Richard Marsden have more on Balls radio appearance this morning.

Fr Ray Blake suggests we should direct more of our ire at the Bishops involved... "There has been serious criticism of the Catholic Education Service, at least on the blogosphere and amongst "thinking" Catholics. Really the criticism should be aimed at Bishop McMahon, and his predecessor Archbishop Nichols, who is responsible for the CES."

For a bit of light relief, read the comments on atheist Free Thinker magazine where they are all terribly dissapointed in Ed Balls saying things like "This is no surprise from our corrupt and lying government; they cravenly give in to the demands of the religious zealots just to chase votes.", they really are deluded.

I have saved the gravest of questions until last: Fr Tim Finegan: Can Catholic schools co-operate in killing babies or not? And I agree with Mullier Fortis: "The Bishops have got to decide whether they wish to follow God or Caesar. To be silent any longer is to cooperate in grave evil."

As many blogs have said already: St John Fisher and St Thomas More, pray for us!

Well I might as well go to bed because best blog entry of the day award has been well and truly won by Matthew at Creative Minotrity Report...

Experts have noticed the problem. There's a shortage of people willing to step up and do the job. And because of that, the limited number of those who have joined are stretched thinner and have to work harder. Experts have noticed that their average age is climbing rapidly. And they've noticed that many of our best and brightest young people aren't interested in joining.

While I could be talking about priests, actually liberals are worried about the graying of abortionists. Poor things.

All I can think is that if only they let abortionists marry, none of this would happen.

[link]

Priests for Life are "an officially approved association of Catholic Clergy who give special emphasis to the pro-life teachings of the Church". They sent me the following email...

Notice: The YouTube links in this do NOT show actual abortions being performed. They show a priest talking to the camera describing what happens during an abortion. However, Fr Pavone doesn't pull any punches in his descriptions and they are not for the feint of heart.

Blessings!! He is Risen!!

I blog to you on behalf of Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life. Fr. Pavone recently posted two videos on You Tube in which he describes and demonstrates the two most common abortion techniques, using the actual instruments of abortion and the words found in medical textbooks and court testimony.

You can view these videos at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us_y9GP_-DA (Dismemberment abortion) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0 (Suction abortion).

These videos are part of a new project called, "Is This What You Mean?" It aims to educate the public about the nature of abortion and to challenge public officials and candidates who support the legality of abortion to admit what it is. A full description of the project is at www.priestsforlife.org/action/abortion-procedure-revealed.htm.

We are asking blog moderators to post a link or set-up an area on their blog for easy access to view our two You Tube videos.

As Fr. Pavone has quoted in endless homilies and talks about public servants who are pro-choice, there is a difference between serving the public and killing the public. Abortion has lost its meaning and is just a word to some politicians. In fact, as long as it has been since Jan.22 1973, the public is still not aware of what an abortion is and what it looks like. Again, we urge you to view Fr. Pavone's demonstrations and forward this to anybody unaware such as parents, pastors, teachers, government officials etc….

In Christ,

David--MEV

From Mulier Fortis:

The Innocent Foundation is a grant giving charity, set up by Innocent Drinks, that works in partnership with community based projects and NGOs.

One of the charities they support is Womankind, a group that promotes abortion.

Like Mulier Says:

It's worth telling Innocent that funding abortion (even second-hand) is likely to lose them customers. Not to mention bringing the "Innocent" trademark into disrepute! It is possible to email linda@innocentdrinks.co.uk or go to the website.

[update: In the following sentences read 'she' where I have written 'he'.]

But then, he would say that wouldn't he. He has a vested interest:

He want's us to stop buying smoothies and start buying his rice.