Autistic babies should not be killed. Period.

Under the headline “Autism test ‘could hit maths skills’” the BBC reports today that pre-natal testing for autism and the abortion of babies thought to be affected may not be far off.
In an interesting article, Professor Simon Baron-Cohen (pictured), the director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University, says that mathematical excellence and autism may be linked. He writes:

“ … assuming such a test is developed, we would be wise to think ahead as to how such a test would be used. If it was used to 'prevent' autism, with doctors advising mothers to consider termination of the pregnancy if their baby tested 'positive', what else would be lost in reducing the number of children born with autism? Would we also reduce the number of future great mathematicians, for example? … Caution is needed before scientists embrace prenatal testing so that we do not inadvertently repeat the history of eugenics or inadvertently 'cure' not just autism but the associated talents that are not in need of treatment.”

It’s not clear what Professor Simon Baron-Cohen means in his final sentence above. Is he sounding a warning against the eugenic killing of the disabled? Or is he concerned principally, or solely, as the BBC’s introductory paragraphs put it, that “caution is needed to ensure associated talents, like numerical abilities, are not lost if the test or a "cure" become available”? Or is Professor Baron-Cohen unaware that we already have repeated the history of eugenics – both in Britain and elsewhere in the world – in our determined pursuit of the extermination of the disabled (as Alison Davis who has spina bifida and who is the leader of No Less Human, makes abundantly clear in her paper “A disabled person’s perspective on eugenic abortion”)?

The killing of disabled babies is infinitely more significant than any loss of human skills and talents. Whilst the Professor’s article is interesting and thought-provoking, the BBC’s headline provides a chilling reminder of modern Britain – in which countless human beings are killed as though they’re rubbish, simply because they’re disabled, and people in the media worry about the possible loss of maths skills. Autistic babies should not be killed. Period.

Reasonable-minded citizens should be genuinely frightened of Mary Warnock

In Belfast last night, Dame Mary Warnock said that doctors who refuse to help terminally ill patients to kill themselves are “genuinely wicked”.

Last September, I noted Dame Mary Warnock’s view that people with disabling conditions have a duty to die prematurely.

And in November, she told the Irish that there is an “absolute moral obligation” to conduct embryonic stem cell research, and that a scientist who chose not to conduct it would be "failing in their moral duty".

I am genuinely frightened when I hear Dame Mary Warnock say these things. Her distorted reasoning has heralded changes in British law which have led to the killing of countless vulnerable human beings in Britain and overseas.

Go back nearly thirty years to July 1982: Her Majesty’s Government invited Mary Warnock to chair a Committee of Inquiry into the ‘social, ethical and legal implications of recent, and potential developments in the field of human assisted reproduction’. The report of that committee is called the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cmnd. 9314, London, 1984.

Follow carefully in the next paragraph the argument which her Committee used to justify lethal experiments on human embryos, up to the 14th day after conception, paving the way for the Government’s legislation in 1990 (which has been copied in many parts of the world):

"While, as we have seen, the timing of the different stages of development is critical, once the process has begun there is no particular part of the developmental process that is more important than another; all are part of a continuous process, and unless each stage takes place normally, at the correct time, and in the correct sequence, further development will cease. Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive. However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety.” (My emphasis)

In other words (my comments in red):

“ … once the process has begun … ”: Since this paragraph is all about allowing experiments up to the 14th day after conception, this phrase clearly refers to the moment of conception.

“ … there is no particular part of the developmental process that is more important than another … ”: the Warnock Committee admits there’s no special significance whatsoever (biological or philosophical) about the 14th day after conception, or any other day after conception. The significant thing is that a human life has begun.

“ … Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive … ”: Put plainly, whatever the age of the embryo or unborn child he or she should not really be killed.

“ … However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety … ” The Committee has decided to make a completely arbitrary decision in order to fool Parliament and the public into thinking that we have reached a profound conclusion based on weighty scientific evidence, and so we've plumped for 14 days. As Clarke and Linsey noted " … this is a clear case of extrinsic criteria being used to solve a problem which requires the determination of firm and unequivocal intrinsic criteria ... "(Clarke, P.A.B. and A. Linzey Research on Embryos: Politics, Theology and Law. Lester Crook, London, 1988, p. 26.)

On the basis of Dame Mary Warnock’s report, Parliament went on in 1990 to legalise destructive research on human embryos for the following purposes: promoting advances in the treatment of infertility; increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage; increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; developing more effective techniques of contraception; developing methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation; or for such other purposes as may be specified in regulations; and last year Parliament approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, amending the 1990 law, which approved the licensing of more procedures that will harm or kill embryos created in the laboratory and which extends the ways in which embryos can be artificially created and manipulated - including hybrid (animal-human) embryos.

So when Dame Mary Warnock says that doctors who won't kill their patients are "genuinely wicked", reasonable-minded citizens would be wise to genuinely frightened.

The Guardian newspaper's anti-life ideology made crystal clear

It is now crystal clear that there was an anti-life ideological agenda behind the Guardian's censorship of comments critical of Peter Singer (pictured), which I reported on here and here. The censored commentator "ContraSign" complained to the Guardian and ContraSign has copied to me the correspondence (ContraSign in black, Guardian in red):

Dear [ContraSign],

Thanks for getting in touch. Your comment was removed for misrepresenating our author's views, and also for making an ad hominem attack: "Peter Singer, who supports infanticide and euthanasia, is no person to lecture anyone about saving human lives". Both of these fall foul of our community standards, which can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/talkpolicy

Regards,

James
Moderator

Dear James,

Many thanks for your reply. Firstly, may I ask, in what way did my comment mispresent the author's views? Peter Singer's support for infanticide, euthanasia and eugenics is widely and authoritatively documented, and in my estimation they would, if fully implemented, lead to the deaths of many more human beings than those possibly attributable to Mr Mbeki.

Secondly, may I ask why you consider my comment to be an ad hominem attack? I did not attack Peter Singer as a person, I questioned his locus standi in a debate about saving human lives, because his views on infanticide, euthanasia and eugenics make his attack on Mbeki hypocritical. My comments re Singer are similar to those of Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal re Singer to the organisers of a Swedish book-fair in 1997: "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Thirdly, why did you deem my comments as mispresentations and ad hominem, but not those of "stevehill" on the Pope (or for that matter those of "nightships": "Mbeki most likely has AIDS himself and as usual the control freak, malignant narcissists, chronic scapegoater, uncorrectable grab bagger in denial, has sacrificed millions others with coercion, reckless abandon and impunity to promote his own out/hypocrite self image of good. Unfortunately the SOB is not alone. At this time and stage of world history there are one too many SOB like him. The top of the list starts with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, mata hari Condi Rice, Tony Blair, Brown, Saddam. The Kenyan Presidents the current and Arap Moi, Robert Mughabee, Castro, A. Sharone, the Pakistani strong man Musarraf, to name a few.")

May I suggest that you have made an editorial misjudgement, reflecting the Guardian's support for its author Peter Singer and his views? As "Rapido" posted:

"Justification is that the comment criticised eugenics, infanticide and euthanasia and linked in Peter Singer's documented support of all three. Not allowed here. They only allow the Pope and Thabo to be called killers."

I look forward to hearing from you,

[ContraSign]

Hi [ContraSign],

Thanks for your reply. While Peter Singer may indeed provide a philosophical justification for regarding the killing of newborns as less problematic than the killing of other human beings, this does not amount to advocating infanticide. As your comment conflated the two, it carried potential legal problems and, in such cases, we have to err on the side of caution.

Best wishes,

Todd
(Community Moderator)

Dear Todd,

Many thanks for your reply. Sorry, Todd, I didn't conflate the two: it is abundantly clear from Peter Singer's own words (see http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm and many other places online and in print) that he advocates legal permission for infanticide (as well as euthanasia, and eugenics generally), because he believes that killing certain newborns (and certain other human beings) is morally permissable, and at least as good as, and sometimes better, than not killing them. Your assertion that:

While Peter Singer may indeed provide a philosophical justification for regarding the killing of newborns as less problematic than the killing of other human beings, this does not amount to advocating infanticide

is your rebuttable opinion, not fact. I don't see how publishing my comment could have caused legal problems for the Guardian - my interpretation of Singer's position is fair comment, and one which has been made online and in print all over the world for years. I await a reply to my second (re "ad hominem") and third (re the Pope and other figures) points.

Kind regards,

[ContraSign]

Hi [ContraSign],

The reason for your comments removal was the potential legal issue that arose. There is, indeed, a difference between advocating legal permission for infanticide (as you state below) and advocating infanticide (as your comment stated). The comment may have been an interpretation of Singer's position, but it was stated as fact, and out of context, which is where the legal problem arose.

Best wishes,

Todd
(Community Moderator)

Dear Todd,

Many thanks for your further reply. I really can't see how there could have been a potential legal issue. Countless times over recent decades, online and in print, all over the world, people have stated as fact Peter Singer's position in exactly the way that I did, and no legal issues have arisen. (In any case, Singer is clear in his work "Should the baby live?" (OUP, 1985) that new-borns in certain circumstances should be killed.) May I suggest that your assertion that

There is, indeed, a difference between advocating legal permission for infanticide (as you state below) and advocating infanticide (as your comment stated)

and the deletion of my comments reflects the Guardian's own rebuttable opinion that pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion/infanticide? To advocate legal permission for infanticide is to advocate for and support infanticide. There is no effective or real difference between the two: it is a distinction without a difference. Your deletion of my comments denied Guardian readers the opportunity to challenge me on these points. My comments were not out of context: the context was an article in which Peter Singer expressed opinions about personal responsibility for lives which may be, or may have been, saved or lost as the consequence of an individual's ideas. My comments addressed the same subject and the credibility of Peter Singer's opinions on it. I still await a reply to my second (re "ad hominem") and third (re the Pope and other figures) points.

Kind regards,

[ContraSign]

Vatican heaps more praise on Bishop O'Donoghue's defence of Humanae Vitae

I have often mentioned the prophetic significance of Catholic church teaching on the separation of the unitive and the procreative in the conjugal act - as expressed in Humanae Vitae. I believe that the rejection of this teaching both inside and outside the church has led directly to the catastrophic devaluation of the sanctity of human life both inside and outside the womb - as well as to the provision of secret abortions, without parental knowledge or consent, to schoolchildren under the age of 16, (including in Catholic schools not least as a result of the ambiguous policy of the Catholic Education Service in England and Wales).

It's therefore extremely good to hear of the Vatican heaping yet more praise on Bishop O'Donoghue, the bishop of Lancaster, (pictured top) and his powerful promotion of the Church's teaching in Humanae Vitae in Fit for Mission: Church?

Last month it was the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who gave the bishop's teaching document strong backing.

Now, Cardinal Antonelli (pictured right), the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has added his warm commendation. Very pointedly, Cardinal Antonelli points to the exact page in Bishop O'Donoghue's Fit for Mission: Church in which he sets out some of the disastrous social consequences - for families, for young people and for respect of the sanctity of human life - of rejecting, arguably, the Catholic Church's most important encyclical letter of the 20th century.

The Cardinal writes:

"The section on Marriage and Family Life is also well done and a good response to the perils of the philosophy of gender which is so widespread nowadays. Your underlining the importance of Self-Gift is also very pertinent as well as giving explicit example and statistics (p.69) regarding the consequences of the culture of death that surrounds us, is also useful in bringing home the point. The encouragement to deepen the notion of the Theology of the Body is also a sound idea to be encouraged."

So let's see what Bishop O'Donoghue says about the consequences of separating the unitive and procreative nature of sexual love on page 69 of Fit for Mission: Church?

"10.6.2 The Current Situation

"The following statistics provide a snap shot of the health of marriage in our country:

• There were 17.1 million families in the UK in 2006.
• Most families are headed by married couples (71%), although the proportion of cohabiting couple - families increased from 9% in 1996, to 14% in 2006.
• The average number of children per family in the UK has dropped - from 2.0 in 1971 to 1.8 in 2006.
• There were 148,141 divorces in 2006.
• Marriages in England andWales fell by 4% to 236,980 in 2006, the lowest marriage rate since records began in 1895. Religious marriage ceremonies only accounted for 44% of marriages in 2006.

"I believe a reliable indicator of the health of marriages is how it impacts on the well-being of children.

• More than a quarter of British under-16s regularly feel depressed. (UNICEF)
• Around 13 per cent of girls and 10 per cent of boys between 13 and 15 years old suffer from mental health problems. (UNICEF)
• More than 1,300 mentally ill children are currently being treated on adult psychiatric wards. (UNICEF).
• The NHS reports that between 2006-2007, 4,241 children under 14 attempted to commit suicide.
• 193,700 unborn children were killed through abortion in 2006; a rise of 3.9%.
• 2,000 potentially handicapped children were killed by their parents through abortion in 2006.
• A total of 40,244 abortions were carried out on girls aged between 15 and 19 years in 2006.
• 3,990 abortions were carried out on girls aged under 16 - the age of consent – in 2006.
• Teenage pregnancy rates for girls under 18 in England and Wales in 2003 was 42.3 conceptions per 1,000 girls.

"These statistics reveal the shocking depth and extent of the suffering and impoverishment of so many families and children due to the separation of the unitive and procreative nature of sexual love, and the wide-spread practice of pre-marital sexual behaviour. I am convinced that there must be profoundly damaging consequences for the family in a country where contraception and abortion are so wide-spread. No wonder so many children are suffering depression and mental illness in a country that is such a hostile environment for human life. Nowonder divorce is so prevalent when family life is so often characterised by a lack of generosity or self-giving love.

"10.6.3 Proclaim the Theology of the Body

"We, the Catholic Church, must be more confident and proactive in presenting our rich and fulfilling understanding of marriage, sexual love and the family. The strength of the Church’s doctrine of the inseparability of sexual love and procreation is that it respects the unity between the spiritual and biological dimensions of humanity. Personal meaning is informed by the biological meaning of the human body, which Pope John Paul II calls ‘the language of the body’.

"The Catholic theology of the body understands the meaning of married, sexual love as follows (cf.WilliamMay, Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, p. 68-69):

"The Unitive Meaning: Husband and wife become personally ‘one flesh’ in and through sexual intercourse, renewing the covenant they made during the sacrament of marriage. The marital act expresses their sexual complementarity: the husband’s body, which expresses his person as male, has a ‘nuptial significance’, for he is so structured to give himself to his wife by entering into her body, and so give himself to her. The wife’s body which expresses her person as female, also has a nuptial significance, for she is so structured to receive his body into herself, and in receiving him, to give herself to him.

"The Procreative Meaning: In becoming ‘one flesh’ – through the sacrament of marriage – husband and wife also become one complete organism capable of generating human life. Precisely because they are married, they have capacitated themselves – according to revelation – to be co-creators with God in a way that responds to the dignity of persons – self-giving love that is faithful and permanent.

"As a people, culture and Church, we must get over misplaced shyness about sexual matters which inhibits us from spreading the Church’s positive and personal vision of sexual love. We cannot leave this area of human life to the purveyors of pre-marital sex and so called safe sex to the detriment of families and young people. As I wrote in Fit for Mission? Schools, continence outside marriage and fidelity in life-long marriage are the only true and secure ways of protecting our families and young people from physical and psychological harm, such as STDs, HIV/AIDS, cervical cancer, psychological lack of self esteem and an inability to express love.

"I recommend that clergy and parents study and teach the theology of the body. I recommend the following:
• John Paul II, The Theology of the Body, Boston: Pauline Books, 1997.
• Theology of the Body for Teens programme. www.tobforteens.com
• Christopher West, Theology of the Body for Beginners, Ascension Press, 2004. Theology of the Body
Explained, Pauline Books, 2003; Good News about Sex andMarriage, Questions and Answers, Charis Books, 2000."

I pray that Victoria Lambert will forgive herself for her abortion

Victoria Lambert (pictured right with Rowena, her daughter, aged four), a journalist, writes a must-read, powerful article in today's Daily Mail about the abortion of her disabled baby.

It begins:

"When I see boys at my daughter's school, all gangly limbs and scruffy hair, I wonder what my own son would have looked like. He would be nine now. He would have blond hair and blue eyes - his father and I shared that colouring.

"He might have my prominent chin, definitely a grin all his own. But my son would also be unable to speak, walk or possibly even think for himself.

"He would have extra digits and a heart defect. For the first child I conceived had Patau's syndrome - also known as trisomy 13, which affects one in 10,000 births ... Over the years, I've allowed my imagination to run unchecked; I've seen him playing conkers, glued to a PlayStation, eating pizza. Yet all this can only ever be conjecture, for I had a termination in my 13th week of pregnancy, two weeks before the turn of the millennium.

"It was an experience that has scarred me in ways I could never have anticipated. Put simply: my decision and its consequences have tortured me for the past nine years ... "

With harrowing honesty, Victoria Lambert takes the reader step-by-step from the joy of her pregnancy, looking forward to her baby being the start of a large family, to being wheeled to the operating theatre for an abortion and waking up crying. Her story speaks volumes about the tragic reality behind one woman's experience of ante-natal testing and abortion - the fear, the bitter regret following an abortion, and the difficulty in self-forgiveness (which is so important for women and men who have experienced an abortion, and is the principal focus of the outreach of British Victims of Abortion, a group run by the SPUC educational research trust). She writes:

" ... In the past nine years, not a week has gone by when I haven't thought of him. Despite the support that others - including those closest to me - expressed for my decision at the time, I don't think I can ever truly forgive myself for what I did ... "

Sadly, Victoria Lambert continues "I'm not against abortion per se, and never have been" and she appears to accept, albeit, perhaps, reluctantly, the eugenics which may motivate others to abort a disabled child.

But I think Victoria's deepest feelings about abortion have already emerged in the article when she writes:

" ... The decision was not mine alone, anyway: my husband was convinced of the correctness of this course of action, and his point of view was as valid as mine. He was worried for my health, too - would carrying such a sickly child put me at risk? We knew so little.

"We struggled on until Monday and drove to the hospital for the operation. Here, I met the one person who allowed me to question what was happening - an anaesthetist who threw everyone out of the room and sat down on the bed to ask whether this was what I really wanted.

"I wish she had been there 24 hours earlier; by this time, it was too little, too late. I'd lost all willpower, all ability to do anything but cry. I said: 'Yes, I'll do this.' And with that, I gave permission - and I cannot put this any other way, try as I may - to murder my unborn baby ... "

I hope and pray that Victoria Lambert's story will help other women who may be under pressure to abort their child - whether that child has a disability or not. And I pray, above all, that she will find peace and learn to forgive herself.

Peaceful prayer and witness at Marie Stopes abortion facility

I am delighted to see that the Helpers of God's Precious Infants have a Vigil at the Marie Stopes abortion facility, Brewer Street, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1RV, on Wednesday 21 January. Catholics may be particularly interested in this important initiative. You can find the details here.

You can find more about the work of this group of pro-life people, dedicated to defending and upholding the dignity of human life, here. Their mission is to save the lives of unborn children through the spiritual conversion of their mothers.

This is a time when Christians, including Christian leaders, are being seduced by politicians who are firmly committed to promoting abortion worldwide. It's therefore all the more important to support pro-life action (and prayer) which witnesses fully to the evil of abortion. As Pope John Paul II put it: "Disregard for the right to life, precisely beause it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good" (Evangelium Vitae, 72).

He also pointed out the nature of the problem pro-lifers are facing within the Church when he wrote: "We need to begin with the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves. Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting." (Evangelium Vitae, 95)

Higher risk of mental health problems and substance abuse after abortion

Southern Cross Bioethics Institute has sent me the following commentary on important, recently published, research looking at whether abortion carries the potential adversely to affect the psychological well being of women (Priscilla K Coleman, Katherine T Coyle, Martha Shuping & Vincent Rue, Induced abortion and anxiety, mood and substance abuse disorders: Isolating the effects of abortion in the national comorbidity survey, Journal of Psychiatric Research, in press, 2008).

"The data source that was used in this study was the “National Comorbidity Survey” (NCS). It is recognized as the first nationally representative survey of mental health in the USA. The sample of individuals interviewed in this survey was very wide. It provides the most comprehensive epidemiological data on the prevalence of psychological disorders in the US. The respondent’s ages range was 15-54 and they represent the non-institutionalised civilian population in the 48 coterminous United States. A response rate of 82.6% was achieved with a total of 8098 respondents participating in the survey. However, for the purposes of this study a subsample was used, which only included women for whom there were data available on all variables of interest. So the sample size was based on 399 women who had had one or more abortions compared with 2650 women who did not report an abortion. This is a relatively large sample size for a survey study of this kind.

"The paper begins with a brief discussion citing the expanding body of research conducted in previous years. Many of the studies indicate that there is indeed a link between abortion and mental health problems. However, most studies were limited in terms of their analysis of potentially confounding variables, which introduces a degree of uncertainty about whether there is a direct causative link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems. Coleman et al therefore set out to rectify this by using a large sample size, and also by including useful data regarding situational predictors of several different mental disorders, such as rape history, history of miscarriage or still birth, as well as childhood and adult abuse, amongst others.

Summary of Main Results

"In the first part of the study the authors looked at whether there were general differences between women who had previously had an abortion and women who had not had an abortion. There were differences observed in the following categories: marital status; race; number of residents in respondents household; educational attainment; feelings of being worthy/equal to others; history of miscarriage/still birth; rape; sexual abuse as a child; having been physically attacked as an adult; having experienced a life threatening accident.

"For example, of those women who had a history of abortion, 19.9% were separated or divorced, compared to 11.2% in the group who had no abortion history. Furthermore, amongst those with a history of abortion, a greater proportion were black - 17.9% compared with the non-abortion group of which only 11.8% were black.
In the analysis of the impact of abortion, all of the differences were taken into account to determine the specific effect of abortion alone.

"No differences were observed between the two groups in relation to: the degree to which the respondent relies on familial help; the frequency with which relatives make demands on the respondent; number of children; having been physically abused as a child; other terrible experience; difficulty paying bills; health problems.

"The next part of the study compared in detail the incidence of particular disorders between the abortion and non-abortion groups. The results indicate that the abortion group had a higher frequency of disorders including anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders and mood disorders. For example, in the abortion group, 18% suffered from panic attacks compared with 12.3% in the non-abortion group. There was also a large difference in relation to alcohol abuse, 36.8% versus 16.3%. In relation to major depression, the difference between the two groups was 40.7% versus 26.6%.

Summary of discussion

"The results reveal that women who have had an abortion are at a higher risk of a variety of mental health problems and substance abuse, compared with women without a history of abortion. There were also interesting personal history variables that differed between the two groups. For example, women with an abortion history were more likely to be older, more educated, black, separated, divorced or widowed, live in smaller households, to have been working, have had a personal history of sexual abuse, and have reported unusually stressful events in adulthood.

"The most notable result in this study is that abortion independently contributed significant negative effects in relation to mental health problems above and beyond other traumatizing and stressful life experiences. The authors calculate that abortion is responsible for more than 10% of the population incidence of alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, drug dependence, panic disorder, agoraphobia and bipolar disorder.

"Indicative of the difficulty and complexity of deciphering the precise nature of the link between abortion and various disorders, the authors conclude that further research is required to elucidate the factors mediating this link. They suggest that it is likely that there are other variables that have to be taken into consideration, such as personal beliefs, which include moral or religious beliefs about abortion. A point the authors make is that while women may initially be ambivalent about their decision to abort, it is reasonable to assume that their beliefs may contribute to, or play some mediating role in, future episodes of anxiety or depression.

"The precise relationship between abortion and mental health disorders is potentially very complex; however, the results of this study and the significant body of previous research does indicate that having an abortion is likely to lead to an increased risk of developing mental health and other behavioural disorders."

Tony Blair’s Christmas greetings ring hollow

“To everyone celebrating Christmas, I send my very best wishes” Tony Blair said on the Tony Blair Faith Foundation website last week.

His greeting reminds me of King Herod (pictured right) saying to the wise men: “Go and diligently inquire after the child, and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I also may come and adore him”.

Indeed, the anti-life laws and policies Tony Blair supported and promoted as prime minister and which he refuses to repudiate since his reception into the Catholic Church, continue to cost far more lives than the number of babies killed in King Herod’s massacre of the innocents, even according to the highest estimates.

The scandal of Tony Blair’s position was highlighted in Newsweek just before Christmas. The printed edition of Newsweek’s report was published on the same day as Tony Blair issued his hollow greetings “to everyone celebrating Christmas”.

Tony Blair’s message says: “On this most joyful of Christian festivals, we celebrate new light coming into the world. We rejoice in the chance of a new relationship between God and humankind and the hope which that inspires. We commemorate the birth of the Christ child, and the willingness of God to humble himself for our sake in the shape of a helpless baby. [JS: Tony, don't forget that every one of the countless thousands of unborn children who were killed because of your support, and your government's support, for abortion was a helpless baby.]

"Christmas subverts so much of the world's wisdom. God the all powerful becomes vulnerable; the king of glory whose first shelter in this world was a stable; the infinite reduced to the smallest human form. [JS: Just like newly-conceived embryos, don't you think, Tony?] Usual expectations are confounded by the Christmas story [JS: in which a teenage mother whose child was conceived out of wedlock continued the pregnancy to birth under difficult circumstances], which challenges us to look beyond the world's order and priorities. [JS: Yes, like your government's expectation and priority that teenage mothers should have abortions.]

“So, in the midst of all the celebration, let us not lose sight of the radical challenge which Christmas poses us. [JS: I'll pose you a challenge, Tony, but not too radical: just tell us whether or not you stand by your anti-life, anti-family record in parliament and government] And above all let us remember the divine care for the world which Christ's birth represents. Let us do whatever we can to show our care for the word and for all our fellow humans [JS: What are you going to do, Tony, to show that you care for unborn children?], so that the world becomes a better place in which everyone may find and fulfil their God-given potential. [JS: Amen. A pity you and your government denied that opportunity to so many people.]

“Happy Christmas. Tony Blair”

I continue to pray the Our Father daily for Barack Obama and for Tony and Cherie Blair: that they will have a change of heart - and that they will use their influence in the world to save lives and become powerful ambassadors in the world for the unborn and for the value and inviolability of human life. If you would like to join me in this prayer commitment/campaign which I launched last month, write to me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk and pass on this message to others.