Friday 28 August 2009

Political leaders must not whitewash anti-life Ted Kennedy

Following the death on Tuesday of Edward "Ted" Kennedy, the American senator with one of the worst anti-life records, Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, said:
"Senator Kennedy was a figure who inspired admiration, respect and devotion, not just in America but around the world. He was a true public servant committed to the values of fairness, justice and opportunity ... [He was] a great and good man."
One has come to expect this sort of white-washing from Mr Blair, in which the deaths of countless unborn children through abortion and destructive embryo research are ignored in the name of vague ideas of social justice for those fortunate enough to be born. After all, Tony Blair has attempted to whitewash his own anti-life political record, firstly by being received into the Catholic Church and then by refusing to repudiate his record. Catholics in positions of leadership and influence do the unborn and other Catholics a disservice when they invite or otherwise honour people like Tony Blair and Ted Kennedy. That is why I am disappointed that Jim Dobbin, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG), signed in March a parliamentary motion which read:
"[The] House [of Commons] recognises the contribution [Senator Kennedy] has made over 46 years in the US Senate to advancing the cause of human rights, universal healthcare and a more just society; and acknowledges that his contribution to public service has established him as one of the finest and most effective US senators in the history of that august body."
The pro-life movement will never make any political or other progress as long as leading Catholics treat the sanctity of human life as just another controversial issue, or an optional extra, or a personal opinion, or a private religious belief. Until the inalienable right to life of every human being, recognised by international human rights law, is irrevocably enshrined and fully implemented everywhere, the right to life is the main political issue. If one's right to life is not secured, then one's rights to healthcare, welfare, education or anything else are nebulous. That is why SPUC is supporting a new petition to the UN General Assembly launched by Amnesty for Babies. Please visit the Amnesty for Babies website today to see how you can help.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 26 August 2009

Launch of new petition against abortion adverts on TV

The Committee on Advertising Practice, which is responsible for the Advertising Standards Authority's code of practice, wants to permit abortion agencies to advertise in the broadcast media. A public consultation has been held, but the final decision on the code will rest with Ofcom, a gov­ernment quango responsible for regulating broad­cast­ing. Lifting the ban would have a profound impact on the welfare of women and on unborn children, and SPUC is laun­ching a petition to the prime minister. Here are the main reasons why SPUC is fighting against a change in the advertising code:

  • The proposals threaten to further com­mercialise the killing of unborn children.
  • It could suggest that there were no seri­ous adverse effect of abortion on women's phys­ical and mental health.
  • Abortion remains a criminal offence on the statute book. Advertising of illegal procedures is contrary to the public interest, advertising codes, and the law.
  • Only those agencies with sufficient financial resources would be able to advertise. Abortion providers can gen­er­ate financial resources for advertis­ing by charging more for abortions. Most pro-life advice services charge nothing. Thus there will be a dispro­portion­ate opportunity for abor­tion provid­ers to advance their cause.
  • Most people want the numbers of abor­tions to decrease, not increase. However, adverts for abortion ser­vices would pro­mote abortion, and thereby increase its incidence.

The indications are that overturning the ban would be unpopular among large sections of the public. The prime minister will shortly go to the country to seek election. Our petition provides an impor­tant opportunity to demon­strate to him the strength of public feeling against such a change to advertising regula­tion. Please do all you can to gather signatures at churches, on the high street, at retail parks and at popular bus and train stations. The more signatures we gather, the greater are our chances of stopping this dreadful proposal.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 25 August 2009

William Wilberforce would have supported an Amnesty for Babies before birth

Yesterday was the 250th anniversary of the birth of William Wilberforce, the campaigner against the slave trade. I'm sure that if he were alive today, or if abortion had been legal in his time, he would have supported an Amnesty for Babies before birth - please visit the Amnesty for Babies website to find out what you can do.

The following material is taken from a leaflet published by SPUC Evangelicals entitled Who will be today's Wilberforce for unborn children? (You can order copies by emailing me):

Who was William Wilberforce?
William Wilberforce was born in 1759. An evangelical Christian and Member of Parliament, he carried on a battle against slavery for many years and finally succeeded in having it abolished throughout the British Empire. Although slavery had been abolished in Britain in 1772, it took another 61 years to eliminate slavery in the colonies. The earlier victory, led by Quakers, was due to the efforts of his friend Granville Sharp. Thomas Clarkson was another of the small group of abolitionists who fought alongside Wilberforce, and both lived to see the final victory.

Slaves were commodities
A slave 200 years ago was not considered a person, a slave could be disposed of like any commodity. Slaves could be killed at will by their owners. An unborn child today is in much the same position.

No rights
A pregnant slave could be sold and her child within the womb was part of the package. The father of her child could be sold to some other party. The child within the womb is often treated with the same contempt today. The promotion of abortion, rather than humane solutions to the difficulties faced by expectant mothers, has eroded respect for unborn children, their mothers, their fathers and the family.

Clear vision
Wilberforce could see clearly what others could not. He could see the thousands of his "brothers and sisters" and their children suffering on the coast of Africa, waiting in squalid enclosures to be transported across the Atlantic. He could see the responsibility of Parliament and its guilt in failing to end the evil practices. How many people today can see abortion in the same light?

Profit
The principal motive of the slave trade 200 years ago was profit. Captains of slave ships crammed 500 people into space for only 200 and African chiefs sold captives from neighbouring tribes into slavery for financial gain. The economic self-interest of western governments causes unborn children to be killed in developing countries today. These governments support organisations that are ideologically committed to promoting abortion in every country of the world. This destroys a nation's most precious resource -- its future citizens.

Excuses
Why should slavery, which we now find intolerable, have been accepted 200 years ago? There were many arguments for slavery, some as frivolous as saying that the slave trade "nurtured sailors for time of war", which implied that it desensitised them to the horrors of war.

Slavery pleasant?
Captain Robert Norris claimed his voyages were "pleasure cruises for slaves" and the West Indian bloc in the House of Commons said that the charges of cruelty in the slave trade were mere fictions. They claimed that the happiest day in an African's life was when he was shipped away from the "barbarism" of his homeland to the Americas. Is this not like the suggestion that some unborn children (particularly those with a disability) are better off being killed than being given the chance to live?

See no evil
One speaker in Parliament went so far as to say that the wisest thing to do about the slave trade was to "shut our eyes, stop our ears and run away from the horrid sounds", without making further enquiry. Today many people choose to avoid the truth about abortion.

Fanatical dreamers
Some pro-slavery advocates said that the slave trade had been sanctioned by Parliament and they could not give it up without breaking faith. Another said, "Men who would destroy the slave trade are fanatical dreamers." The Duke of Clarence, the future king, agreed, asserting that promoters of the abolition of slavery - including Wilberforce - were "either fanatics or hypocrites". Pro-abortionists often seek to discredit the pro-life case by portraying its proponents as fanatics, rather than addressing their arguments.

Business
Sir William Young said that the immediate abolition of slavery would lead to the loss of the colonies. He also said that other nations would simply seize the British share. Pro-abortionists persistently claim that tightening the abortion law would "drive women to the back streets", ignoring the evidence from countries such as Northern Ireland and Poland that pro-life laws protect the lives of unborn children and their mothers.

Racism
The Attorney General for the Leeward Islands, John Stanley, claimed that Divine Providence intended one set of men always to be slaves of another. Does this differ very much from the idea that some humans, such as disabled children in the womb, are somehow less deserving of life? One MP, citing the positive aspects of the slave trade, drew a chilling comparison. It was not an amiable trade, he admitted, but neither was the trade of a butcher, yet a mutton chop was nevertheless a good thing.

Integrity
Some pro-slavery advocates were converted by Wilberforce and his friends, but Lord Sheffield switched to being pro-slavery when he became MP for Bristol, a port that was deeply involved in the slave trade. Do not some modern politicians lack integrity when they claim to be "personally opposed" to abortion but will not vote to stop it?

Can't we keep out of politics?
Wilberforce and his friends fought for a legislative ban on slavery. Today our unjust laws have led to widespread abortion, often virtually "on demand". Some people shy away from supporting political lobbying for changes in the law; but this battle must be fought. Other areas of pro-life activity are vital, but are not sufficient on their own. Would Wilberforce have done better by concentrating purely on educating the public, or by going to the West Indies to care for enslaved people? No. Education and caring work are essential elements of the Christian response to abortion, but working in Parliament for just laws is essential too.

Protecting the helpless
All human beings are entitled to the protection of the law. Legislation is needed to save as many unborn lives as possible, and ultimately to protect all unborn children from deliberate killing. Wilberforce reminds us of the need to take a principled stand: "There is a principle above everything that is political. And when I reflect on the command that says, 'Thou shalt do no murder', believing the authority to be divine, how can I dare set up any reasonings of my own against it?" It took much talking, praying, arguing and deal making on the part of Wilberforce and his friends before slavery was outlawed. Bishop Porteus, an old friend of Wilberforce, described slavery as "the most execrable and inhuman traffic that ever disgraced the Christian world". Today, would not Bishop Porteus give abortion that description?

Intrinsically evil
A large bloc in the House of Commons, led by Dundas, found slavery and the slave trade intrinsically evil but stopped short of advocating the most effective measures against it. In the meantime thousands of slaves were dying on the ships crossing to the Americas, much like the many thousands of unborn babies now dying every year because of a similar failure to pass laws giving them effective protection.

In spite of numerous attacks on him over the years from all sides, Wilberforce's campaign to end slavery in the colonies was successful. Will you be a Wilberforce today for unborn children, taking a stand for the sanctity of human life in your church, trade union or college?

Who will be today's Wilberforce for unborn children? is based on a leaflet of the same title by Frank Kennedy, published by Interim Publishing, Toronto, Canada, 1995. Sources: Robin Furneaux, William Wilberforce, Hamish Hamilton, 1974; John Pollock, William Wilberforce, Constable, 1977; Charles Colson, "Standing Against All Odds", Christianity Today, Sept.1985; The New Book of Knowledge, Grolier Inc.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 24 August 2009

Video testimony of family support for anencephalic baby

As I blogged on Saturday, the Brazilian government wants Brazil's supreme court to allow the abortion of unborn children with anencephaly - babies missing the upper part of the brain. The court case has resulted from the story of Marcela de Jesus Galante Ferreira, a girl with anencephaly who lived for one year and eight months, much longer than most infants born with the condition.

Marcela's family and doctors have given their testimony in a two-part video made by pro-lifers in Brazil. Click on the images below to view the video. Subtitles for the video are available in English and Spanish (click on the YouTube logo to view on the YouTube site, click the tab in the bottom right-hand corner of the box and then click CC). Here are some marvellous quotes from the video:

Marcela's mother's gynaecologist:
"We had a very bad prognostic for Marcela, but I was completely against the termination of the pregnancy ... First of all, a doctor must seek life".
Marcela's mother:
"I said to my family that if someone wanted to talk to me, to give me support to help me to go on with the pregnancy, that person would be welcome. But if someone came to say that I should terminate, I would send that person away."
Marcela's sister:
"[Marcela]'s saving and still will save the lives of many other children. People see her story on TV and can have hope. Mothers can have hope."
Marcela's father:
"As [Marcela's] father...I would like to ask people to remove the possibility of abortion from your heads ... [D]on't eliminate this child, because it's very hard, the suffering will be much worse if you do it, you are going to kill a defenceless child."
The video is proof that there are many people around the world who support an amnesty for unborn children. Find out how you can join them - visit the Amnesty for Babies website today.





Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Sunday 23 August 2009

Parents expecting a disabled child made the right choice

Earlier this month The Daily Mirror published the testimony of Liz Crowter, whose daughter Heidi (both pictured) has Down's syndrome. Despite struggling to love Heidi when she was born, Liz says that she would never use a new test that detects the condition, because "because I think it could encourage abortion."

Alison Davis of No Less Human has sent me her thoughts about this story:
"It isn't uncommon for new parents to have ambivalent feelings when their child is unexpectedly found to have a disability at birth. Even those who knew about the disability before birth, having had scans, can still feel unsure about how much they love the new member of their family. It's what parents do with these feelings that matters, not the fact that they have them.

"Liz Crowter and her husband Steve had had the right instincts from the start, when they chose not to have pre-natal tests for Down's syndrome during pregnancy, and now Liz says she wouldn't accept the new maternal blood test 'because I think it could encourage abortion'.

"Liz and Steve learned to love Heidi when she was at her most vulnerable stage, and when they were faced with the possibility of her early death. It is often when we are faced with losing someone that we realise how precious that person is to us, disabled or not. Now they are able to say 'we feel privileged to have her as our daughter'.

"I felt sad, however, at Liz's comment that: 'It's natural to grieve for the perfect child you hoped for... We all hope to have a perfect baby', implying that Heidi and others like her are somehow uniquely 'imperfect'. Parents wanting a 'perfect' baby are bound to be disappointed, for no child is truly 'perfect'. However, each is infinitely precious, and each brings lessons and joys and sorrows that only she or he could bring. We reject the 'imperfect' at our peril - because if we take that philosophy to its logical conclusions, there will be nobody left."
As with the anencephalic babies I blogged about yesterday, babies with Down's syndrome, other disabilities and indeed all unborn children need an amnesty. Please visit the Amnesty for Babies website to see what you can do to help protect them.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Saturday 22 August 2009

Anencephalic babies need an amnesty

In Brazil, the government's attorney-general has argued in an opinion before the supreme court that women should be allowed to abort anencephalic babies - babies without an upper brain. The Catholic Church and pro-life groups are of course opposing the government's move. SPUC is consulting with colleagues in the region to see what British pro-lifers can do to protect such babies in Brazil. In 1988 Alison Davis of No Less Human wrote a paper for the Journal of Medical Ethics upholding the right to life of anencephalic babies (please email me if you would like a copy). Here are some key extracts from Alison's paper:
  • "Sadly, anencephalics have few people to speak out in defence of their short lives."
  • "I believe that each human life is of infinite value, and since infinity cannot be multiplied or divided, remaining always implicit in its infinity, so too is all human life precious and worthy of protection, no matter how long or short it may be."
  • "Length of life is quite irrelevant to this, and the law on homicide is definite on this point"
  • "If brain stem death is the criterion for other human beings to be accepted as organ donors, anencephalics are being regarded as exceptions to the rule only because they are weaker, which is clearly a political rather than a moral decision. Until their brain stem ceases to function they are no more dead than anyone else in this condition. They are genetically human children"
  • "If human rights depend only on the size of our brains, or whether certain nerves and muscles work, we cross the line very definitely from individual worth to an inevitable and irrevocable linking between 'rights' and 'utility'."
SPUC has been sent the unpublished testimony of a mother of an anencephalic child. Here are some extracts from that testimony:
"[W]hat I would really like to tell is the preciousness of the months that followed up to and including the birth and death of our son.

"We named him immediately [after diagnosis in the womb] and spent the next few months giving him as much love as we could. From day to day, we had no guarantee of how much longer we had with him, so I found myself enjoying the pregnancy in a way I never had before. Where normally I would be counting down the days towards the due date, each day of this pregnancy was a bonus.

"Our son was born on 2 Nov 07 at 10.43pm. He lived for 17 mins. I’ll never forget the feeling I had when I saw him first. Two things struck me overwhelmingly: Love and compassion - love for this little boy who was perfect to me, and compassion at seeing his brokenness. I was grateful to have known of [our son’s] anencaphaly in advance because there was no shock at the time of birth, just the knowledge that this is my limited window of opportunity to love my son.

"The mother is the giver of life to the child in every way. That is what makes being a mother such a dignity. Here is an opportunity to give a child all the love and all the care he or she will ever know in the space of a few months and then let the child move on. For me as a parent there is no greater reward than knowing I gave all I could to [our son] in the short months I had him."
The strength of these arguments and testimony provides yet another reason why SPUC is calling for an Amnesty for Babies before birth - please see and act on my blog-post yesterday.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 21 August 2009

New petition launched by Amnesty for Babies

At present the unborn are facing an unprecedented number of threats to their right to life:
What is unknown, or misunderstood, or ignored in all this, is that international law in fact upholds the equal right to life of all unborn children. Interpreted correctly, the United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments, either explicitly include, or do not exclude, the unborn from the same full protection given to all other members of the human family.

Considering the growing menace of abortion worldwide, it is time for a new response which aims to ensure that international law is applied correctly in protecting the unborn. Amnesty for Babies is a pro-life initiative to petition to the international community to:
  • ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child before as well as after birth
  • adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life and dignity in the application of life sciences.
Please visit the Amnesty for Babies website, download the petition and start gathering signatures. I hope that people in various countries will gather signatures in public places (e.g. high streets, squares), outside houses of worship, among friends etc. National and regional organisations around the world are invited to become co-sponsors of the petition - contact Amnesty for Babies to find out how. The aim is to present the petition to the UN General Assembly next year.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 19 August 2009

Mrs Clinton, it's Lockerbie and worse every day for the unborn

Hillary Clinton, the pro-abortion American secretary of state, is opposing the release from prison of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan convicted of the bombing of an American airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Mr Megrahi is dying of cancer. In a press conference (see YouTube video below), Mrs Clinton said:
"I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime."
The Lockerbie bombing, which killed 270 people, was indeed a horrendous crime. Yet more than 3,000 people are killed every day in America in the horrendous crime of abortion, which Mrs Clinton ardently promotes. Because of clever pro-abortion lawyer-politicians like Mrs Clinton, her husband Bill and her boss President Obama, it remains not just Lockerbie but 9/11 for unborn babies in America every day.

(The photo above is from a witness by Oregon State University Right to Life. On the 35th annniversay of Roe v Wade, the group planted 3,000 crosses to highlight the number of unborn babies aborted daily in America.)



Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 17 August 2009

The battle over assisted suicide continues apace

Today's news headlines confirms that there is a battle royal being waged over assisted suicide  across the world. For example , the Wisconsin Medical Society has voted against a motion to move to a neutral position on assisted suicide, at the same time as an Australian with quadraplegia has won the right to starve himself to death. Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff has urged Catholics to opposed moves to allow assisted suicide, and Terry Waite, the former British hostage, has used his experience to explain his opposition to the practice. Proponents of legalised assisted suicide used the example of the American state of Oregon to back up their arguments. They claim that the law in Oregon allowing assisted suicide works well and that palliative care has improved there since the law was passed. Dr David Jeffrey, a British palliative care specialist, has written a new article rejecting those claims. Dr Jeffrey says:
  • "[In Oregon, T]here is no method of investigating any complications which may arise during the process."
  • "[T]here is evidence of patients finding doctors who are willing to participate — ‘doctor shopping’ is the term which has been used to describe this practice."
  • "The experience in Oregon proves that palliative care cannot flourish alongside PAS. The lack of specialised palliative care in Oregon is due in part to their PAS law"
  • "Although PAS is legal in Oregon, there is a deep sense of unease about it within the medical profession, and the practice is not permitted within any hospital in Oregon."
  • "The provision of end-of-life care in Oregon is different from that experienced by patients in the UK. The Oregon experience cannot be claimed to be a valid basis for any change in existing law in the UK."
The ongoing debate about assisted suicide confirms to me that, as long as society remains conflicted about such issues, we have a countless opportunities to uphold the value of human life. It is our duty to take advantage of those opportunities, speaking out before it's too late.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Sunday 16 August 2009

Spiritual leaders, human rights campaigners, local pastors of the world please wake up!

Francisco Caamano (pictured right) is Spain's Justice Minister. Last Thursday he said that when it comes to abortion "there is no room for conscientious objection". His words are a wake-up call to the world's spiritual leaders, pastors and human rights campaigners.

Medical leaders and human rights groups in Spain have already spoken out boldly and there's little doubt that the Spanish bishops will follow suit. The Spanish bishops are well known in Europe for their strong defence of the sanctity of human life, saying last year "no Catholic, either in private or public life, can support practices such as abortion, euthanasia or the creation, freezing and manipulation of human embryos in any case".

Francisco Caamano's declaration about conscientious objection to abortion in Spain is chilling. At the same time, it's being reported in the US that the Alliance Defence Fund is taking action on behalf of a nurse whose conscientious objection to abortion was, allegedly, overruled. It's alleged that last May she was "forced by the Mount Sinai Hospital to assist in the abortion of 22-week preborn child despite her longstanding religious objection to participating in lethal abortions". We also know of pressures on nurses occurring in Britain.

These developments are the logical consequence of the anti-life, anti-family policies steadfastly promoted and pursued by Barack Obama, the US president, Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister and his wife Cherie Booth (Blair) - as Monsignor Michel Schooyans, one of the Vatican's leading scholars, pointed out earlier this year at a conference in Rome. Monsignor Schooyans, in a masterly analysis, said that we are witnessing "an unprecedented form of political-legal terrorism".

It's not enough to congratulate brave religious and medical leaders for speaking out in defence of human life. In order to withstand the Obama/Blair "political/legal terrorism" described by Monsignor Schooyans, they must be joined by spiritual leaders, local pastors, pro-life leaders and human rights campaigners worldwide.

Thank God, last month, the Vatican came to the rescue of a brave archbishop in Brazil who was looking dangerously isolated following his courageous pastoral work in opposing a universally publicised direct abortion in his diocese.

Church-going pharmacists, doctors and nurses, should be hearing from their local pastors that they have a right and a duty to object in conscience to participating in the provision of abortion, (including "contraceptives" which, according to the manufacturers can cause an early abortion), euthanasia and assisted suicide, and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) which involves the intended death and destruction of countless embryonic human lives.

The greatest pro-life champion of the 20th century was, arguably, Pope John Paul II. He said: "Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection." (Evangelium Vitae, 73)

The Obama/Blair threat to human life, to natural law, conscientious objection and religious freedom, needs to be met by a worldwide campaign of conscientious objection and resistance to anti-life and anti-family laws policies, led by the spiritual leaders of all denominations, human rights campaigners and local pastors. Pro-life groups simply cannot do it on their own.

Everyone can play a part in building that campaign. And as well as using professional, intellectual and practical gifts, those who believe in God should, I believe, also use their spiritual resources.

A close friend of mine in the pro-life movement loves eating cakes - but he's given up eating them as long as the threat of widening his country's abortion law remains. I propose that others, who share that sort of spiritual outlook, should do something similar.

Spiritual leaders, human rights campaigners, local pastors of the world please wake up!


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Saturday 15 August 2009

Catholic Church in Scotland challenges Scottish government and GPs on abortions on under-15s

It was instructive to wake up in Scotland this morning and to read about the Scottish Catholic Church's attack on the Scottish government for its abortion policy. (I am in Glasgow for a meeting of SPUC's Scottish Board which will be discussing exciting plans for the next international student pro-life conference in March 2010. Contact Lucy McCully for more information at lucy@spucscotland.org).

Peter Kearney (pictured right), a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, makes no bones about where the blame lies for the "appalling and distressing" abortion figures for girls under the age of 15. He says:
"If anything it indicates that the government's sexual health strategy, which was created by the last administration and perpetuated by the current administration, is working perfectly.

"Because part of that strategy was fast and instant access to widespread abortion services. Unfortunately, it is completely the wrong strategy."
In the Scottish edition of today's Daily Telegraph, Peter Kearney is even more challenging. He says:
"They are all girls below the age of consent and that asks a very serious question of GPs in Scotland. To what extent did they follow this up and make sure cases were referred to the relevant authorities? Each of these cases represents a potential crime."
This is the kind of challenge which churches, pro-life groups, and parents should be making to the British government. Its policies have the potential to lead to crimes - crimes against life, crimes against the family and breaches of the criminal law in relation to the age of consent.

Earlier this week I referred to the state-sponsored abuse of children in Yorkshire, courtesy of the National Health Service in Sheffield. And I have frequently expressed my concern about the ambiguous policy of the Catholic Education Service of England and Wales which welcomes the presence in Catholic schools of Connexions. Connexions is a government agency which is committed to giving schoolchildren, under the age of 16, access to abortion and abortifacient birth control drugs and devices without parental knowledge or permission. As a result of this policy, it's clear that children in Catholic schools are being given such access, in spite of Connexions' undertaking to respect the Catholic ethos of the schools.

Whatever the disastrous chain of decisions which led to the CES policy, it must be changed.

Why should parents have to fear having their children handed over to the abortionists?

The robust comments of Peter Kearney are exactly the kind of thing that's needed  - from headteachers, parents, church-leaders and authorities acting on behalf of bishops.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 14 August 2009

Two pro-life talks, London, this coming Monday, 17 August

This coming Monday (17 August), there will be two pro-life talks at St Patrick's Catholic church, Soho Square, London, W1D 4NR (nearest underground station is Tottenham Court Road).

The evening's schedule is as follows:
  • 6:30pm: Mass.
  • 7pm: talk, "Why Catholics have to be visibly active in ending abortion", by Janet Morana, executive director of Priests for Life and co-founder of the Silent no More Awareness Campaign.
  • Questions.
  • 8pm: talk, "The Rachel's Vineyard Apostolate and the need for Catholics to reach out to those hurt by abortion", by Theresa Burke, founder of Rachel’s Vineyard, co-author of "Hidden Grief, the Unspoken Pain of Abortion" with David C.Reardon (Acorn Books).
  • Questions.

The evening's organiser is The Good Counsel Network, a Catholic, pro-life group which provides advice, information and practical support to women facing a crisis pregnancy. Contact The Good Counsel Network for details or to book: telephone (020) 7723 1740 or email info@goodcounselnetwork.freeserve.co.uk

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday 13 August 2009

The BBC reports on the practice of "slow euthanasia" in Britain

Adam Brimelow, BBC news health correspondent, warns in a report yesterday that "there is evidence that some clinicians may already be using continuous deep sedation (CDS), as a form of 'slow euthanasia'".

Quoting Clive Seale, professor of medical sociology at Bart's and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, the BBC reports that "there are fears that CDS is being used inappropriately". According to Professor Seale, in the UK "the prevalence of continuous deep sedation until death" is very high indeed, "16.5% of all UK deaths" which is twice as high as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

The BBC report echoes concerns voiced last year by Dr Adrian Treloar in a letter to the British Medical Journal. Dr Adrian Treloar, a senior consultant and lecturer in old age psychiatry, wrote about the Liverpool Care Pathway and, particularly, "serious weaknesses in its design".

"The Liverpool care pathway (LCP) is the UK’s main clinical pathway of continuous deep sedation and is promoted for roll out across the NHS", he wrote.

The NHS claims that the Liverpool Care Pathway is "used to care for residents in the last days or hours of life once it is known they are dying". However, in his letter to the BMJ, Dr Treloar warned:

"The eligibility criteria do not ensure that only people who are about to die are allowed on to the pathway. They allow people who are thought to be dying, are bed bound, and are unable to take tablets on to the pathway. In chronic diseases such as dementia, dying can take years, but such patients may be eligible ... GPs often put patients on to such a pathway without palliative care advice ... "
Quoting a previous study published by the British Medical Journal (Murray SA, Boyd K, Byock I. Continuous deep sedation in patients nearing death. BMJ 2008;336:781-2. [12 April.]), Dr Treloar reiterated the concern expressed in that study:

" ... that sedation is being used as an inexpensive alternative to assessment and specialist treatment."
Dr Treloar continued:
"The LCP recommends sedatives and opiates for all patients on an 'as required' basis, even when they are not agitated, in pain, or distressed. An automatic pathway towards prescribing heavy sedatives incurs risks. Moreover, the LCP recommends setting up a syringe driver within four hours of a doctor’s order. This is laudable, if it is needed. But the pathway encourages the use of syringe drivers even when symptoms can be managed without them ... "
Dr Treloar goes on to cite the research of Dr Judith Reitjens and others also writing in the British Medical Journal (Rietjens J, van Delden J, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Buiting H, van der Maas P, van der Heide A. Continuous deep sedation for patients nearing death in the Netherlands: descriptive study. BMJ 2008;336:810-3. [12 April.]):

"The pathway doesn’t mention the need for food and fluids. Reitjens et al show that withholding artificial nutrition and hydration is the norm. The LCP’s omission of prompts to reconsider nutrition and hydration may allow serious errors in the care of dying patients. It is not acceptable, as Murray et al suggest, that assessing nutrition and hydration are not part of the pathway.

"Sedation is right in some situations. But as Murray et al point out, the anticipated outcome of continuous deep sedation is death. We must learn from Reitjens et al’s observation that continuous deep sedation may replace euthanasia. If the methods and pathways that we use for continuous deep sedation in the UK are flawed, then patients will die as a result of inappropriate use. I hope that the LCP will be reviewed and modified."
Last year in the British Medical Journal was not the first time Dr Treloar had spoken out about the nutrition and hydration of patients. His warnings about the Liverpool Care Pathway must be taken very seriously and the BBC's report yesterday  highlights a much wider, more serious, problem being encountered throughout Britain.

SPUC’s Patients First Network receives calls from distressed relatives saying that their loved ones are not being fed properly. Patients First Network is a support group which promotes good medical care until natural death. Anyone concerned about a friend or relative can call the Patients First Network confidential telephone support service on 0800 1691719.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 12 August 2009

Kenya's Vice-President calls on Kenyans to support anti-abortion campaign

Kalonzo Musyoka (pictured), the vice-president of Kenya, has called on Kenyans to support the anti-abortion campaign. Speaking at a dinner last Friday, he praised Kenya's Protecting Life Movement for not only supporting a religious stand on the right to life, but also expressing African cultural values about human life.

"I know that the Cabinet or even parliament will not pass any Bill that would legalise abortion ... the legislation would definitely be shot down", Vice-President Musyoka said.

By way of contrast, President Obama, three days after his presidential inauguration, took decisive action to seek to destroy these "African cultural values about human life" to which Vice-President Musyoka refers. Infamously, Barack Obama, whose father was from Kenya, signed an order "that will put hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of organizations that aggressively promote abortion as a population-control tool in the developing world" according to the US National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The Bill to which Vice-President Musyoka refers is the "Reproductive Health and Rights Bill" which, if passed, will promote and allow easy access to abortion on demand, with virtually no safeguards to protect unborn children.

Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI) has prepared on SPUC's behalf a commentary on the bill.

Earlier this year Cardinal Njue, the archbishop of Nairobi, called on Kenyan Catholics to "stand firm against this evil of abortion" in a powerfully worded message; and Dr Stephen Karanja, the head of the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association, said about the result of the US election: “They have no business electing a person who is going to destroy our countries. And that is what they have done. This is something that a lot of people don’t realise, that what these Americans do affects innocent people thousands and thousands of miles away.”

Let's pray that Kenya's vice-president, and the Kenyan people, can stand firm against President Obama's neo-colonialist plans: to kill Africa's babies, undermine the health and welfare of African women, and to seek to destroy Africa's culture and values.



Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 11 August 2009

Compulsory sex education involves state-sponsored abuse of abused children

There's a serious danger that compulsory sex education will involve state-sponsored child abuse of already abused children.  Let me explain.

Reuters reports on a study published yesterday (in Pediatrics, online August 10, 2009) that:
"all types of maltreatment, physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse, increase the risk for emotional distress at age 12 and sexual intercourse by age 14 and 16".
According to the researchers:
"adolescents who had suffered any kind of maltreatment, not only sexual abuse, were far more likely to have sexual intercourse by age 14 and age 16 than adolescents who had not been maltreated".
It's not unlikely that the area covered by the National Health Service (NHS) in Sheffield, Yorkshire, has its share of maltreated children. Sheffield is the area where the Government has published a pamphlet called "Pleasure - a booklet for workers on why and how to raise the issue of sexual pleasure in sexual health work with young people".

The booklet says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day ... What about masturbation twice a week?!"

There then appears a mock-up of a teenager's diary reproduced here.
Do the government's experts seriously believe that promoting such ideas amongst teenagers (including, probably, some teenagers who have been abused) will help them develop into mature, well-adjusted, adults? Isn't the State, by blatantly promoting sexual activity in this way - alone or with others - subjecting youngsters who may already have been abused to state-sponsored child abuse?

And isn't the Catholic Education Service, by supporting the principle of making sex education lessons compulsory (providing that what's taught is in line with parents' wishes and upholds the ethos of the particular school) also running the risk of effectively supporting state-sponsored child-abuse? What if what the Sheffield NHS's corrupt material is upheld by the ethos of the school - does that make it OK?

I urge all concerned parents to contact me at SPUC if you're concerned.  It's vital that parents take a stand against government authorities and church authorities whose policies lead to usurping parents' rightful role - the role spelled out so clearly yesterday by a leading official of the Catholic Church at the World Congress of Families in Amsterdam. Bishop Carlos Simon Vasquez, the under secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family, said:
“Only the vocation to paternity and maternity can transmit a responsible education in responsible procreation, which brings with it the necessary union between personal and social ethics through a harmonious existence that only the family can offer.”
This is kind of thing the Catholic educational authorities in England and Wales should be promoting, not compulsory sex education, albeit hedged around with provisos which still result in our children being thrown to the wolves.



Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 10 August 2009

Sarah Palin is right to be worried about a "death panel"

Sarah Palin's concern about a "death panel" which decides who gets treatment should be taken seriously. If Britain's experience is anything to go by, as a loving mother, Mrs Palin is right to worry about health-care rationing and the long-term interests of Trig, her baby son, who has Down's Syndrome, in an anti-life political environment.

Only yesterday, the Guardian newspaper reported that the UK's National Health Service (NHS) was "developing a simple blood test that could save the lives of hundreds of unborn babies". However, the real purpose of the blood test, known as non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), becomes clearer as the article proceeds - to search more efficiently for disabled babies, including Down's Sydrome babies, over 90% of whom will be aborted.

In 2005 the British Government went to the trouble of working out the cost to the country of prohibiting the abortion of disabled babies. They announced:
"The extra cost to care for disabled children is estimated at £5 million a year ... An approximate estimate of the additional cost (excluding normal living costs) to care for 240 severely disabled children is likely to be of the order of £4 million a year ... and it is assumed that the extra costs to care for 240 moderately disabled children about be about a quarter of this cost (£1 million.)"
The British Government went on to outline the overall financial benefit to the National Health Service of maintaining Britain's permissive abortion legislation as follows:
" ... The option also saves the NHS the cost of funding 185,000 maternity events, estimated at £576 million a year, based on an average total cost of £3,117 per birth, which gives the NHS a net saving of £500 million, if the cost of NHS funded abortions (£76 million) is deducted ... "
Negative attitudes to those with disability permeate the health system in Britain. Last month, Lady Jane Campbell, who has spinal muscular atrophy and is 50 years old ...", spoke about the struggle she and her husband had to convince doctors to provide her with necessary life-saving treatment when she was rushed to hospital at the brink of death with acute respiratory problems.

''Those of us who know what it is to live with a terminal condition are fearful the tide has already turned against us,'' Baroness Campbell warned in a House of Lords debate on assisted suicide in July.

Maybe Sarah Palin's maternal instinct is telling her that the tide is turning against the disabled in Obama's America. Given his commitment to killing innocent human lives, this would hardly be surprising.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Sunday 9 August 2009

Pro-abortion lobby acknowledges "huge surge in maternal deaths" in South Africa

For decades the pro-abortion lobby has fought for legalized abortion in order, they claim, to reduce maternal mortality, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Now the IPPF, the world's largest abortion-promoting agency, is acknowledging a huge surge in maternal deaths in South Africa where abortion was legalized with the implementation of the Freedom of Choice Act in 1996. The Centre for Reproductive Rights, which campaigns for legalized abortion worldwide, boasts that South Africa's "is one of the world's most liberal abortion laws".

It's high time that the pro-abortion lobby were honest with women and with politicians and that they now go on to acknowledge facts like the following: that countries like the Republic of Ireland, with its constitutional ban on abortion, also has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world, according to figures published by the World Health Organization in 2007; that Northern Ireland, with its comparatively restrictive abortion legislation, has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the UK; that pro-abortion claims about illegal abortion being a major cause of maternal deaths are, according to the UN population division in World Population Monitoring 2002, "quite speculative since hard data are missing for the large majority of countries"; and that the legalization of abortion does nothing to solve the underlying problem of poor health care in the developing world.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Saturday 8 August 2009

Beware of the UNFPA's overtures: Urgent appeal to world's religious leaders

This blogpost is an urgent appeal to religious leaders of all denominations to beware of the obviously dangerous overtures being made to them by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and its executive director, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid - and my thanks to the ever-vigilant Marie S. Smith, Director of Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues for drawing this development to my attention.

Earlier this week, like King Herod telling the three wise men that he wanted to worship the child Jesus, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid (foreground, right) told a "round table" group of faith-based organizations, that the UNFPA was aware of "the profound moral authority that religious leaders have" and of "the fact that religious organizations are the older social service providers humankind has known".

Ms Obaid went on to speak about how between 30 and 60 per cent of basic healthcare services in the developing world are provided by religous organization, according to the UN World Health Organization (WHO), "while the World Bank has found that in some instances, health and education services offered by the religious organizations are better than those of governments".

According to Ms Obaid, areas "ripe for cooperation" between UNFPA and religous groups "include HIV/AIDS, women’s empowerment, maternal health, migration, humanitarian relief, reproductive health and gender-based violence".

I must point that that is the very same Thoraya Ahmed Obaid who in 2001, as the new executive director of UNFPA, said that in the previous twenty years, China had seen notable achievements made in population control by implementing the family planning policy: the notorious, well-documented, forced abortion policy in which UNFPA has been deeply involved for over thirty years.

This is the same UNFPA which ten months ago signed a memorandum of understand with Islamic Relief in order to work together to ensure that "more women and men have access to reproductive healthcare information and services, including during times of emergency … " – which entails the promotion of abortion on demand, even in the desperately unsafe environment of refugee camps.

This is the same UNFPA which in 1979, the very year that China introduced its brutal one-child policy, signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the Chinese government.

This is the same UNFPA which in 1983, the year commonly regarded as the worst year for coercion, gave one of its first two Population Awards to the minister-in-charge of China’s State Family Planning Commission. (The other award that year was given to Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, whose government enforced compulsory birth control including sterilisation.)

This is the same UNFPA which in 1991, under its then executive director, Nafis Sadik, said: "China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth.” (Xinhua, 11 April 1991)

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 7 August 2009

The implications of the Debbie Purdy case are profoundly disturbing

Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary (pictured below), worked with the Society's lawyers on our intervention in the Debbie Purdy case. He explains here the disturbing implications of the law lords' judgment last week.

Several commentators, including Dominic Lawson and Baroness Finlay, have suggested that the euthanasia lobby are being unduly enthusiastic about the Lords decision in the Purdy case. They suggest that the outcome is not so bad from a pro-life perspective. But is this so?

The Law Lords have said that Ms Purdy should get her way in as much as she wants the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to issue an “offence specific” policy on when he will or won’t prosecute people for helping others to commit suicide. So is this such a bad outcome?

SPUC, as the only intervening party in the Purdy case, is well positioned to comment. I think the outcome is bad, because it may mean that those assisting suicide will know how to avoid prosecution for doing so. Not only those who take relatives abroad but also those who want to help others kill themselves here in England and Wales will be bolder. But I’m also concerned because of the thinking that underlies the judgement.

In SPUC’s submission to the House of Lords, one of the major arguments we made was this. That, if ending one’s life is part of the “right to privacy” (known as “Article 8” in human rights law), then it has to be weighed against the right to life (“Article 2”). And our submission pointed out the legal arguments why the right to life should always outweigh the right to privacy in this sense.

In contrast, when you read the Lords judgment, there is extended commentary on the right to privacy but barely a mention of the right to life. Lord Hope (who wrote the main body of the judgment) spends 13 paragraphs explaining his approach to the right to privacy, but not one about the right to life.

Lord Brown ignores the right to life of the suicide victim - and seems to think that Article 2 is there to protect others - not those wishing to end their lives. He says: “In short, as it seems to me, there will on occasion be situations where, ... it would be possible to regard the conduct of the aider and abettor as altruistic rather than criminal, conduct rather to be understood out of respect for an intending suicide’s rights under article 8 than discouraged so as to safeguard the right to life of others under article 2."

Another Law Lord, Baroness Hale, also implied that the point of article 2 was "protecting the rights of others" i.e. others apart from the person intending to commit suicide.

They say nothing of balancing 8 against 2. They talk as if, having decided that a would-be suicide's right to privacy is engaged, their article 2 rights have evaporated. Like the Bland judgment in the House of Lords in 1993, this judgment shows how little regard England’s highest court has for the right to life.

The immediate upshot of the judgment will be a document from the DPP, and he has moved quickly to say that it will not apply only to suicides abroad. The wider implications are even more profoundly disturbing.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday 6 August 2009

Black American minister reviews Obama's first 200 days

The Reverend Arnold Culbreath is a Christian minister, a black American, and a national pro-life educator. He runs Protecting Black Life and will be speaking at SPUC's national conference in Derbyshire, 4th - 6th September, 2009. If you're interested in hearing him and other major international speakers, you will find the programme and booking form here.

In his emailed newsletter dated yesterday, Rev Culbreath provides a powerful critical analysis of Barack Obama's first 200 days as president. In particular, he looks at the way in which the black community has suffered under his presidency. He observes: "Abortion continues to remain the leading cause of death in the African American community. Every day in the U.S., approximately 1,200 black babies die by abortion. Every month in the U.S., approximately 35,000 black babies die by abortion. Every year in the U.S., approximately 425,000 black babies die by abortion. In fact, over 14 million innocent pre-born black babies have died by abortion, since 1973. Abortion has significantly contributed to African Americans no longer being the largest minority in the US.

"Furthermore, our research shows that 62.5% (that's approximately 2 out of every 3) of Planned Parenthood's facilities, our nation's largest abortion chain, are strategically located in black communities, continuing to carry out Margaret Sanger's original agenda to exterminate Blacks, according to details contained in her "Negro Project." One would think that an African American President's first order of business would be to move quickly to protect the lives of precious, innocent pre-born Black babies, as well as shielding their families from the all too often long-term physical and emotional aftermath of abortion. But such has not been the case."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 5 August 2009

Courageous Irish politician speaks out against assisted suicide

Congratulations to Dan Neville TD (pictured right), the Fine Gael Spokesman on Mental Health, who has represented Limerick West constituency in Dail Eireann (the House of Representatives in the Parliament of Ireland) since 1997. He speaks out fearlessly and clearly today on assisted suicide in the Irish Examiner , following last week's dangerous judgment in London.

Last Thursday the House of Lords judicial committee (also known as the Law Lords), Britain's highest court, ruled in favour of Debbie Purdy's assisted suicide legal challenge.

Dan Neville, the President of the Irish Association of Suicidology, pointed out:

" ... travelling for suicide 'has never been tested in Irish law'.

"[He] expressed concern about the introduction of such laws in Britain. 'It has been expected for the past 10 years that Britain would make such a move because of developments in Europe,' he said.

"He fears similar laws will eventually be introduced here because 'western society is so homogenous and we tend to follow what is happening in the rest of the world'.

Mr Neville said: 'If we do introduce it, there will be a move towards questioning who is dispensable in society and who is not. Will older people become disposable or people with severe mental disabilities?'

He said: 'There is also concern about pressurised euthanasia. People may feel they are a burden on their families or those who care for them and might be under psychological pressure to end their lives.'

'The sanctity of life is paramount and any interference with it, apart from being unethical, is dangerous,' he said.

One person who I know would be pleased with Mr Neville's stand is Mrs Betty Gibson (pictured left), who for nearly thirty years has led the pro-life battle in Northern Ireland for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Those who know me will know that I can pay no higher tribute to Mr Neville for his intervention, by mentioning the pleasure it would give Betty, who died yesterday. She was the dearest friend that the unborn in Ireland could have - deeply loved by Albert her husband, her children and her grandchildren. She was my own dear friend and a friend to countless others, including many who are alive today and who never knew her. On behalf of SPUC's National Council and SPUC's executive committee in Northern Ireland, I send love and deepest sympathy to Albert Gibson and to all his family. May she rest in peace!

And thank you again, Mr Neville.



Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Vigil takes place next Wednesday at Marie Stopes abortion facility Maidstone

Helpers of God's Precious Infants is a Catholic, international pro-life group founded by Msgr. Philip Reilly under the direction of Bishop Thomas Daily of New York. Its main apostolate is prayer vigils at abortion facilities. To date, 5, Cardinals and over 100 Bishops worldwide participate including Bishop Thomas McMahon Brentwood, Bishop John Hine, Southwark, Bishop Arthur Roche, Leeds.

The spirituality is one of solidarity with Jesus in the person of the forgotten poor: “Whatever you do for the least of these my brethren, you do for me.” Matt.25:40.

The next vigil at Marie Stopes abortion facility, Brewer Street, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1RV,will be held on Wednesday, 19th August 2009, from St. Francis Church, Week Street, Maidstone, Kent. It will be led by Fr Timothy Finigan. The event enjoys full police co-operation.

At 12.30 p.m. there will be Mass at St. Francis's Church; at 1.00 p.m., there will be a prayerful and peaceful procession with an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Marie Stopes Abortion Centre. At 2.15 p.m. there will be a return procession and the day will conclude with a blessing and refreshments in the parish centre.

Directions: Connex South East runs a direct line from Victoria to Maidstone East Station, which is directly opposite St. Francis Church. By Road: The M20 – come off at Junction 6. Follow signs to Town Centre then to Maidstone East Station. There is a car park at the station and also 2 car parks in Brewer Street and 1 in Wheeler Street, both of which are accessed by Lower Boxley Well Road. The shaded areas on the map are pedestrian areas only.


For further information contact: The Helpers of God's Precious Infants, P.O. Box 26601, London, N14 7WH Telephone: 020 8252 3109
E-mail: info@hgpi.co.uk Web: www.hgpi.co.uk




Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy