Friday 30 November 2012

I receive a beautiful gift at meeting about new abortion clinic in Preston

Handed to me in Preston
I spoke at a public meeting in Preston this week about a new local abortion clinic. Whilst I was there I received a beautiful gift.

My talk centered on the recent opening of a Marie Stopes International (MSI) abortion unit in the Avenham Health Clinic. In our blurb about the public meeting, delivered door-to-door to local residents, the local SPUC chairman said:
"Marie Stopes will be doing abortions in our local health centre which is meant for families and local residents ... It will be using the abortion pill RU486. The action of this pill kills a baby in the womb and can cause medical problems for the woman".
I am delighted to say that over 60 local people turned up, including a large number of devout Muslims from the nearby mosque and a similar number of students from Preston University. One of the students thought he should be speaking rather than me at various points during my talk (!) - and I'm most grateful to his fellow-students, including those who shared his pro-abortion opinions, who firmly told him to pipe down, let me speak, and to respect my wish that comments and questions be taken at the end.

Many of those present signed up to continue the task of spreading the truth locally about the nature of the business of Marie Stopes International, an organization which demonstrates such lack of compassion for unborn children and their mothers. Also, most of those who attended were shocked to learn of the brutal racist and eugenic ideas of Marie Stopes herself and, like the author of an excellent piece about Marie Stopes in the Daily Telegraph, many attending the meeting seemed to be concerned about "the motivation of an organisation which takes Marie Stopes as its founding heroine".

Half an hour before the meeting started I was standing alone in the massive sports hall in which it was held. A gentleman arrived, around my age, and walked over to me. He handed me an envelope, addressed to me, with "THANK YOU" written in block capitals on the back. He said he wasn't able to attend the meeting that evening, but he wanted to deliver his message personally. He wished me well and left.

I opened the envelope. Inside was a donation and the following words written on to a page from a diary dated 20th February (see photo of the diary page above). It read:
Your first smile ... I will never see
Your first words ... I will never hear
My strong hands will never stretch out
To guide your unsteady steps
No whispered lullabies to a sleepy head

I will never wait at a school yard gate
Or watch with pride a nativity play
No school photographs on my mantelpiece
No first communion dress for me to buy

What would you have been like?
Pretty or plain? ... Clever or slow?
It doesn't matter ... You were mine.

When you died you were not tenderly laid in a snow-white coffin
No family or friends were gathered
To say goodbye
A man in a mask
Was your only companion
A plastic bucket
Was your resting place
Your only headstone
"Clinical Waste"

No-one remembers you
But I do
No-one misses you

But I do.
I don't know anything about the gentleman who honoured me with a brief visit on Wednesday evening at St. Augustine's Leisure Centre Sports Hall in Avenham; and, of course, neither do I know anything about the history of the beautiful, deeply moving poem he gave me.

I simply pray for everyone whose personal history may be reflected in the lines above.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 27 November 2012

In Ireland, allow abortion in one case and it's allowed in every case

Enda Kenny, Irish PM
SPUC, which was officially represented in the A, B & C case before the European Court of Human Rights, has called for "widespread resistance" to the report published today by Ireland's Expert Group on abortion. The report's recommendations are unconstitutional and a door to mass abortion on a British scale.

As I told the media this afternoon, the expert group's report is based on the erroneous judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the A, B & C case. That judgment not only misrepresented the European Convention on Human Rights, but also failed to respect Ireland’s national sovereignty by unilaterally misinterpreting the Irish Constitution's protection of the right to life. The case was never about helping women faced with a crisis pregnancy. It was instigated by the international pro-abortion lobby, which has the ultimate aim of forcing governments across the globe to recognise access to abortion as a legal right.

This report is undemocratic. It fails to suggest as an option consulting the Irish people through a referendum. Conversely, it suggests proposals which the Irish people rejected in the 2002 referendum, namely repealing the ban on abortion in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Also, it is an outrageous violation of the consciences of parliamentarians for Enda Kenny to threaten to suspend any Fine Gael TD who will not vote to legislate for abortion. One despairs of politicians like Mr Kenny, who fail to respect basic human rights, such as conscientious objection and the right to life of all members of the human family, including the unborn.

Any Irish parliamentarian who votes for this report will be giving-in to unelected judges in Strasbourg who have tried to usurp the Irish people's constitutional right to decide on abortion. The Irish Supreme Court ruled that the Irish Constitution trumps the European Convention on Human Rights, because the Convention is not part of Irish law and therefore not directly applicable in Irish cases. (McD. -v- L. & anor, 10 Dec 2009 http://bit.ly/g5k35B )

In the A, B & C case, the court confused abortion with healthcare. The Irish Constitution does not confer any right to abortion, nor can the right to life of unborn children be seen as in any competition with their mother's equally inalienable right to life, or with life-affirming healthcare. Ireland has one of the world's best record for maternal health. Abortion does not treat or cure any medical condition.

Not only is abortion not genuine healthcare, but in Irish law it is a criminal offence. It would be wholly wrong for a criminal offence to be 'regulated'. If the expert group's report is implemented, it would in fact allow abortion in a wide range of circumstances. It would 'medicalise' abortion, introducing structures and procedures which will allow doctors to approve abortions as a matter of routine, then carry them out at designated facilities.

Once abortion is allowed in one case, there is no compelling logic against allowing abortion in every case.

We call upon all people of good-will in Ireland, including the Catholic bishops, to back an all-out campaign to defeat - not just amend - any options allowing abortion. This will require widespread resistance to be mobilised. Ireland's politicians should be put on notice that they will lose their seats at the next election if they vote to legislate for abortion.

Also see SPUC's release yesterday "Expert report could lead to British-style abortion system, warns SPUC

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 26 November 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Mon 26 Nov

Top story:

Irish expert report could lead to British-style abortion system, warns SPUC
The recommendations of Ireland's Expert Group on abortion could lead to a British-style abortion system in Ireland, warned SPUC. SPUC was commenting after various media outlets claimed to have seen the expert group's report, due to be published later this week. John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "According to a leaked copy of the report, the so-called experts recommend that 'termination of pregnancy should be considered a medical treatment regardless of whether the risk to the woman arises on physical or mental health grounds'. If this principle is followed to its logical conclusion, Ireland will end up with a similar abortion regime to Great Britain." > [SPUC, 26 November]

In related news:
Other stories:

Embryology
Population
Sexual ethics
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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Irish expert report could lead to British-style abortion system

Mr Justice Sean Ryan, who chaired the expert group
Various Irish media outlets claim to have seen the Irish expert group's report on abortion, due to be published later this week. As I told the media earlier today, according to a leaked copy of the report, the so-called experts recommend that:
"termination of pregnancy should be considered a medical treatment regardless of whether the risk to the woman arises on physical or mental health grounds".
If this principle is followed to its logical conclusion, Ireland will end up with a similar abortion regime to Great Britain. Britain’s Abortion Act 1967 is based on the false premise that there are circumstances in which abortion is a clinically-indicated medical treatment, such that abortionists should be automatically exempt from prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, under which abortion is a criminal offence. It is no surprise, therefore, that the report calls for the 1861 Act’s provisions on abortion to be removed from Irish law. The Irish people must rise up and demand that the Irish constitution’s ban on abortion be upheld against this report, which is the fruit of the international pro-abortion lobby’s machinations.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Saturday 24 November 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Sat 24 Nov

Top stories:

Savita Halappanavar death tragic but abortion doesn’t save women’s lives
The death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland is tragic but does not justify allowing abortion, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to claims that Mrs Halappanavar’s death was due to a hospital's refusal to abort her unborn child by inducing labour. According to reports, Mrs Halappanavar was 17 weeks’ pregnant when she came to the hospital in Galway. She miscarried and later died from septicaemia. The case is currently subject to investigations. Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, commented: “The full details of this case are not yet known, so we must await the investigations which have been launched before we can make definitive comments. What we do know is that miscarriage and infection can be managed by proper medical treatment. Abortion is not medicine - it does not treat or cure any pathology." [SPUC, 14 November]

Savita case round-up:
Other stories:

Parents criticise primary schools in Tower Hamlets
Parents in Tower Hamlets are unhappy with sex education in the borough's primary schools. SPUC Safe at School www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/safeatschool and SRE Islamic have released a report which contains statements from 20 local parents on their poor experiences with sex and relationships education (SRE). The report can be read at http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/safeatschool/towerhamlets201211 Antonia Tully of Safe at School said: "I am supporting parents in this area to protect their children from explicit sex education. [SPUC, 19 November]

Abortion
Embryology
  • Why would we want to 'cure' our daughter's Down's Syndrome when we love her just the way she is? [Mail, 22 November]
Euthanasia
Sexual ethics
General
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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 21 November 2012

Appointment of leading abortionist to head Savita inquiry bodes ill

Following the sad death of Savita Halappanavar and her unborn child in Galway, Ireland's Health Services Executive (HSE) has announced that Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, the head of obstetrics and gynecology at St Georges Hospital, London, is to head the HSE's inquiry into Savita's death. This bodes ill for the outcome of the inquiry, as Sir Sabaratnam is the president-elect of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), which is one of the world's leading advocates of abortion. In 2009, he called upon governments to make abortion a legal right. And in 2007 he co-authored a paper which defended secret abortions without parental knowledge or consent for girls under 16.

We therefore must double our prayers for Ireland and especially for our pro-life colleagues, who are having to deal with a virtual tsunami of anti-life vitriol unleashed by the pro-abortion lobby and its fellow-travellers in the mainstream media.

By the way of summary, here are some key points about the Savita case:
  • the full details of this case are not yet known, so we must await the investigations which have been launched before we can make definitive comments
  • miscarriage and infection can be managed by proper medical treatment
  • abortion is not medicine - it does not treat or cure any pathology
  • many women have died from infection or other causes because of supposedly safe and legal abortions.
 Here are the statements and blogs SPUC has published about the Savita 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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

A close look at the BBC exposes its inbuilt bias against the pro-life message

On 25 October I blogged about how "BBC World helps Marie Stopes vs SPUC", following an interview between George Alagiah of BBC World and Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications manager. SPUC spokespersons are of course well-accustomed to the anti-life bias of the mainstream media, including frequently on the BBC. Yet the intensity of Mr Alagiah's attack suggests something more. Let us look at the part of the BBC for which Mr Alagiah works.

BBC World News is the BBC's overseas television arm, and began life as the BBC World Service Television. BBC World News, BBC World Service (the BBC's government-funded overseas radio arm) and BBC Media Action (formerly named as BBC World Service Trust) are all part of the BBC's Global News Division. Mr Alagiah is both a trustee and a director of BBC Media Action, and is one of the BBC's representatives on BBC Media Action's board. Among its objectives BBC Media Action lists:
"raising public awareness of subjects such as sexual and reproductive health issues."
'Sexual and reproductive health' is a term commonly used by pro-abortion bodies and is interpreted by them as including access to abortion. BBC Media Action, which is both a registered charity and registered company, is entirely "funded by external grants and voluntary contributions." Among the main donors to BBC Media Action are:
  • Department for International Development (DFID)
  • Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
  • European Union (EU) 
  • Norwegian government
  • Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • US Agency for International Development (USAID)
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  • United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
These governments and foundations are the very same bodies which are bankrolling abortion around the world - including funding and working closely with Marie Stopes International.

In July, the Gates Foundation and DFID co-organised the London Summit on Family Planning, which was a jamboree for the worldwide abortion lobby, including Marie Stopes. Sarah Montague, the well-known BBC presenter, hosted one of the summit's sessions. Prior to, during and after the summit, she and other BBC journalists ran news-pieces and published Twitter posts which were thinly-veiled advertorials for the summit and its main participants.

In 2010, BBC World broadcast a news-piece, including a sound-byte from Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, which was entitled:
"Western anti-abortion campaigners' threat to African sex advice"
The blurb for the piece read:
"Western-based anti-abortion campaigners are undermining efforts to improve sexual and reproductive health education in Africa, according to some international agencies. Family planning and abortion are contentious issues in large parts of the continent, where access to reproductive health is far from universal. Zeinab Badawi reports on the challenges facing health workers in Uganda."
It should be noted that Zeinab Badawi is not just a BBC reporter, going about the usual business of a reporter, but is also:
  • a trustee of the BBC Media Action
  • the founder and chair of the Africa Medical Partnership Fund (AfriMed)
  • a former trustee of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
  • a Vice-President of the United Nations Association
  • a member of the Foreign Office Public Diplomacy Strategy Board
  • a board member of the British Council
Finally, returning to George Alagiah, in 2004 he gave an interview to The Messenger of Saint Anthony, a Catholic magazine run by the Franciscan Order. During the interview Mr Alagiah was asked:
"You were brought up a Catholic. On the basis of your personal experience, who is God for you?"
Mr Alagiah replied:
"For me God is a forgiving, understanding, figure. I find that some of the Church’s rules run against that."
Given that:
  • Mr Alagiah allowed his professional standards to drop so markedly in his vehemence towards SPUC’s straightforward position on Marie Stopes (i.e. it quite openly breaks the law on abortion in countries in which it works)
  • he is a trustee of BBC Media Action, which is funded hugely by pro-abortion bodies
I wonder if one of the church rules which, in Mr Alagiah’s view, run against God as a forgiving, understanding, figure, is its rule that:
“that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being ... No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995, #62

In 2003, Fiorella Nash of SPUC authored a paper entitled "Bias and the BBC: A study of BBC Panorama’s investigation Sex and the Holy City broadcast on 12 October, 2003". I recommend reading this as a detailed expose of how BBC bias works against the pro-life cause.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page

Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 20 November 2012

Pius XII's teaching on double-effect did not allow induced delivery of non-viable children

Further to SPUC's statement and my blog on the sorrowful death of Savita Halappanar and her unborn child, Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications manager, has written a letter to The Catholic Herald,  explaining that the principle of double-effect, specifically as taught by Pope Pius XII, does not justify induced delivery of non-viable children. The Catholic Herald has kindly given us permission to publish the full text of Anthony's letter - see at the end below.

Anthony's letter is very timely, considering that today the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference has issued a statement in response to the Savita case, in which they re-state the important principle of double effect. But, as I blogged last week, the Church's Magisterium made clear over a century ago that double effect does not allow induced delivery of non-viable children, where such delivery is itself intended. Saving the mother’s life or health is a further intention (a good intention, which should be pursued in other ways) but the immediate intention and immediate effect of induction is the termination of the pregnancy. In the case of a non-viable child, this is abortion.

By the way of summary, here are some key points about the Savita case:
  • the full details of this case are not yet known, so we must await the investigations which have been launched before we can make definitive comments
  • miscarriage and infection can be managed by proper medical treatment
  • abortion is not medicine - it does not treat or cure any pathology
  • many women have died from infection or other causes because of supposedly safe and legal abortions
Letter by Anthony McCarthy to The Catholic Herald, 18 November 2012:
SIR - The sad and painful death of Savita Halappanavar, in a country whose maternal health record far excels that of Britain, is prompting discussion of abortion definitions in regard to pre-viability induced labour. It is worth getting this issue clear, even if, as some doctors believe, it is doubtful whether removing the baby earlier would have saved Savita.

Of interest here are the words of Pius XII in his Allocution to Large Families in which he refers to life-saving interventions on a pregnant woman, "independently of her pregnant condition" , which are permitted, even if they have the unintended, but inevitable, effect of causing the death of her baby. These words were cited by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as recently as 2009.

In contrast, an intention specifically to expel a pre-viable child, perhaps without the intention to kill the child, is impossible to justify, as witnessed by Church teaching over the past hundred years and more (carefully tracked by John Connery S.J. in his book Abortion: the Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective). Abortion is not always defined by the Church in terms of deliberate killing, but sometimes in terms of deliberate expulsion or "acceleration of birth" before viability, which has been excluded even for the good end of promoting a woman’s health. Good ends must be promoted by good means, which good doctors can and must employ.

Where the woman’s own body needs treatment of a kind which does not target the presence of her child, all would agree that such treatment ought to be provided. That could include the giving of antibiotics or blood transfusions, the clamping of the woman’s blood vessels to prevent bleeding, hysterectomies for uterine cancer and, for ectopic pregnancy, the removal of a damaged fallopian tube. Irrespective of the unborn child’s continued presence, the damaged tube or uterus would need to be removed: an operation which targets the woman's body alone, and is therefore legitimate, despite its impact on the child.

In short, it is extremely important to distinguish between deliberately abortifacient procedures which are aimed at removing a pre-viable child (though in practice they also require a harmful separation of foetal tissues) and procedures which may result in a baby's removal via miscarriage as a genuine side-effect of treatment aimed to help the pregnant woman (in the words of Pius XII) "independently of her pregnant condition". Foetal removal should not be deliberately intended, any more than foetal death.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony McCarthy
Publications and Education Manager
SPUC
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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 19 November 2012

Parents criticise primary schools in Tower Hamlets

Parents in Tower Hamlets are unhappy with sex education in the borough's primary schools. SPUC Safe at School and SRE Islamic have released a report today which contains statements from 20 local parents on their poor experiences with sex and relationships education (SRE). The report can be read at http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/safeatschool/towerhamlets201211

Antonia Tully of Safe at School told the media today:
"I am supporting parents in this area to protect their children from explicit sex education. I encourage the parents who contact me from across the country to try to work with their child's school to eliminate inappropriate sex education which is harmful to children. Sadly many parents in Tower Hamlets feel that the schools are not listening to them sufficiently.

"Parents are worried that although some schools are removing the most graphic elements from the SRE lessons, the sex education programmes in use are fundamentally flawed. These programmes are based on the Alfred Kinsey premise that children are sexual from birth. Parents know this is not true."
The report on SRE in Tower Hamlets includes the results of a questionnaire sent to all the borough's primary schools under the Freedom of Information Act and shows that many schools use highly explicit materials.

The Tower Hamlets Parents Action Group on SRE is holding a meeting today to inform parents about how they can protect their children from SRE. The group is angry that the Mayor and Isobel Cattermole, corporate director of the Children, Schools and Families Directorate, have so far not responded to their concerns, despite repeated requests for a meeting.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Saturday 17 November 2012

Congratulations to Archbishop of Westminster for challenging government on same-sex marriage

According to a Daily Telegraph report this morning, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster,  speaking in London, told George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to use marriage as a political football and to publish in full the results of the government consultation on marriage.

The archbishop is speaking this evening at an evening for marriage - defending marriage as the bedrock of society - in St. Monica's Hall, North Finchley.

According to The Daily Telegraph the archbishop has said: 
“He is the politician not I – I just think it is too important to be made simply as a political football.
“This is not simply a redefining of marriage to accommodate a few, it is a redefining of marriage for everyone and therefore all marriages, if this bill is introduced, will be different.

“It is a different reality for everybody and that is a very serious matter and one to which we are very strongly opposed and will remain strongly opposed.

“It is a very important building block in society and it is very foolish to alter that when as far as we can see there is not a specific identified problem that that change is supposed to be addressing ...

“ ... My own sense is that many people feel deeply uneasy about this move, it was not in any election manifesto, it has not in that sense been put to the country.
“That is why the strength of opinion expressed in the consultation ought not to be hidden and that’s why we want the full disclosure of the results of that consultation.”
According to The Daily Telegraph report, at their meeting this week, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference agreed a resolution insisting the results of the Government’s consultation on same-sex marriage be published in full.

I congratulate Archbishop Nichols. Not only Catholics but citizens throughout Britain will be greatly encouraged that the archbishop of Westminster is challenging the government in this way. Upholding marriage is in everyone's interests, including people with no religious faith. Marriage - the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman - is the basis of the family, the fundamental group unit of society.

Last November, SPUC's national council launched a campaign against the Westminster government's proposals for same-sex marriage. Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information see SPUC's position paper and background paper on same-sex marriage.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Fatwa/Islamic ruling is issued on presumed consent organ donation legislation in Wales


Hizbul Ulama in the UK (Association of Muslim Scholars/UK) has issued a Fatwa/Islamic ruling opposing the Welsh Government's plans to introduce legislation allowing presumed consent in organ donation. The Welsh government is calling it "deemed consent", in which people living in Wales for a period of six months or more will be opted-in automatically as organ donors. This will include prisoners, tourists, and students.

The Islamic ruling calls on "all Muslims who are living in Wales to oppose strongly this unjust, unislamic, inhumane bill by all legal and peaceful means"

The ruling, signed by Molvi Yakub Ahmed Miftahi, Hizbul Ulama UK,states:
"Fatwa/Islamic ruling from Hizbul Ulama UK in Britain regarding presumed consent, 2nd Muharram 1434H/16th November 2012

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Assalaamu alaikum warahamtullah wabaraktuh

Our organs and our bodies belong to our Creator: ALLAH. We are ordered in Islam to protect all our organs from any harm like alcohol and smoking, and to allow them to be satisfied physiologically with all their needs and as ALLAH wanted. We do not own any of our organs and no one has the right (Muslim or non Muslim) to take any of our organs especially at time of death.

ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION is a controversial issue in Islam: Some Muslim scholars agree with it but with many strict conditions, others oppose it! However if any Muslim is interested to give any of his/her organs: The law in Britain allows him/her to do that. But this should be done voluntarily by doing a WRITTEN CONSENT in advance and during one's life and after been made aware:

 Of the details of the surgical procedures being agreed to, including the possibility of organs being taken while the patient is still alive and the heart is still beating or pain is still felt
 Of any harm resulting to the donor when he/she is still alive. And without any interference with the natural moment of death as fixed by ALLAH Almighty and not by doctors. There should not be any interference with the natural moment of death.
 Death should occur first NATURALLY when both the heart and respiration (and all brain activity) stop naturally and normally the soul leaves the body after natural death.
 That there is no other alternative to help the patient

We became aware lately of a draft Bill in Wales called: PRESUMED CONSENT or DEEMED CONSENT
In this Bill, if it becomes law: the doctors/hospitals in Wales have the full right to take our organs at time of death, WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM US BEFORE AND DURING OUR LIFE ... THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE HUMANELY ISLAMICALLY AND MEDICALLY.

We all know that before any medical or surgical procedure in hospitals today, we have to give our own informed consent before.

So why our basic human right: CONSENT is taken from us in this Bill?

Besides, almost all Muslims who will die in Wales and who did not know about this Bill, their organs will be "TAKEN AND STOLEN" by force, if the Bill is implemented, without giving their own written consent before. Also, those Muslims who were against organ donation and organ transplantation during their life, their organs will be taken, without their knowledge before[hand] and without their consent.

Finally: WE LIKE TO APPEAL TO ALL THE MUSLIMS WHO ARE LIVING IN WALES TO OPPOSE STRONGLY THIS UNJUST UNISLAMIC UNHUMANE BILL BY ALL LEGAL AND PEACEFUL MEANS:
WE ASK EVERY MUSLIM (man or woman) in Wales TO WRITE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE WELSH ASSEMBLY TO EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION AND TO ASK THEM TO STOP THIS BILL AND TO EXPLAIN CLEARLY HIS/HER OBJECTION AS A WELSH CITIZEN.

MAY ALLAH GUIDE US AND GIVE US THE VICTORY OVER THIS DREADFUL BILL.

Wassalam Alaikum

Molvi Yakub Ahmed Miftahi
Hizbul Ulama UK
www.hizbululama.org.uk
Those seeking further information on the Fatwa should contact Dr A Majid Katme, Health/medical adviser to Hizbul Ulama UK on 07944 240622

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday 15 November 2012

Induced delivery of non-viable children is neither ethical nor Catholic

In the wake of the tragic death of Savita Halappanar, various pro-life and Catholic commentators have been claiming that inducing delivery of Savita's child would have an appropriate course of action. They claim that an induction does not constitute abortion and is standard medical practice in Ireland.

These commentators are wrong. In its 2009 "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services", the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) teaches [my emphases in bold]:
"45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion..."
....
"49. For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable."
Savita was in the 17th week of pregnancy. There is no scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of surviving outside the womb at such a young age. If the doctor in Savita's case had agreed to induce her child,  he would have been performing an abortion. The principle of double-effect would not have justified inducing Savita because:
  • the termination of pregnancy before viability (which would certainly have killed the child) would have been directly intended, and would not have been (as double-effect requires) an indirect and unintended effect
  • the sole immediate effect of the inducing would have been the termination of pregnancy before viability, thus killing the child
  • there are alternative ways of managing these highly distressing cases (see my blog on the International Symposium on Maternal Health held in Dublin in September).
The intrinsic wrongness of inducing babies before viability has been taught clearly by the Catholic Church. In the late 19th century a doctor who practised premature delivery of non-viable children in the belief that it could save mothers' lives asked the Holy Office (now called the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith) if his practice was licit. The Holy Office replied* in 1895:
"In the negative, according to other decrees [of the Holy Office]".
This reply of the Holy Office was approved the next day by Pope Leo XIII himself. One of those "other decrees" (1889) had declared as not "licit":
"every surgical operation that directly kills the fetus".
Another papally-approved reply by the Holy Office in 1898 referred to the 1895 reply above (condemning premature delivery of non-viable children) as a
"decree...on the illicitness of abortion". 
The Church was thus making clear that premature delivery of non-viable children is abortion.

In 1902 another reply of the Holy Office decreed that it was not permitted to extract from the womb an unborn child earlier than six months after conception (at that time, the point of viability), explaining that:
"[W]ith respect to time...no accleration of the birth is licit, unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which in the ordinary course of events the life of the mother and that of the fetus are considered."
In other words, premature delivery of non-viable children violates their right to life. Pro-life and Catholic commentators should take care not to deny that truth nor promote such inducing as an ethical response to medical emergencies.

*See "The Sources of Catholic Dogma", Henry Denzinger, Loreto Publications, 1955, section 1889 onwards.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 14 November 2012

Savita Halappanavar death tragic but abortion doesn’t save women’s lives

SPUC has responded to claims that Savita Halappanavar’s death was due to a hospital's refusal to abort her unborn child by inducing labour. According to reports, Mrs Halappanavar was 17 weeks’ pregnant when she came to the hospital in Galway. She miscarried and later died from septicaemia. The case is currently subject to investigations.

Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, told the media earlier today:
“The full details of this case are not yet known, so we must await the investigations which have been launched before we can make definitive comments. What we do know is that miscarriage and infection can be managed by proper medical treatment. Abortion is not medicine - it does not treat or cure any pathology."
Leading obstetricians with extensive experience in dealing with these situations have found that they can be successfully managed without abortion, while sometimes the pregnancy can be saved. This was recently confirmed at a symposium in Dublin by Dr Byron Calhoun, a US obstetrician http://youtu.be/RA1UJEHafLk

Mr Tully also said:
“It is not ethical to induce delivery of an unborn child if there is no prospect of the child surviving outside the womb. At 17 weeks’ pregnancy Mrs Halappanavar’s child was clearly not viable outside the womb, as there is no scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of surviving outside the womb at such a young age. Rather than removing the protection of the womb from unborn children, the ethical response to emergency situations in pregnancy is medical treatment of the mother for the conditions causing the emergency. In the case of infection, this is usually timely administration of antibiotics. It is also not ethical to end the life of an unborn child, via induction or any other means, where the child is terminally-ill.
We do not oppose medical treatment which is necessary for the mother and targets her own body but may have an adverse side-effect on the baby such as unintended death/miscarriage, provided this is truly unintended and proportionate to the threat to the mother.
What is rarely reported are the many cases of women who have died from infection or other causes because of supposedly safe and legal abortions. Manon Jones, Jessie-Maye Barlow and Emma Beck would all be alive today if they had not been subjected to abortions in Britain. The Republic of Ireland has the world’s best record in maternal health, without recourse to abortion. By contrast, Great Britain and the United States, with their high abortion rates, have poor maternal health records. It is therefore entirely spurious to argue that Ireland should legislate for abortion in order to save women’s lives.”
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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 13 November 2012

Pro-life analysis of US presidential election reveals need for Church support

Below is a list of articles from pro-life commentators analysing the results of the US presidential election (see my blog of last Thursday about the election). These articles provide useful arguments and data which rebut today's article in The Times by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which argues that Mr Obama won the election partly because of his strong support for abortion and same-sex marriage. The pro-life commentators' analyses reveal the urgent and essential need for the Catholic Church and other faith communities to throw their full weight behind the pro-life and pro-family movement. The re-election of Mr Obama, the most anti-life and anti-family US president ever, is an historic tragedy, the likes of which will be repeated unless Christians everywhere are converted to believing in and implementing fully the Gospel of Life.

N.B. My inclusion of any article below does not imply endorsement of any of its content.

LifeNews.com:
LifeSiteNews.com:
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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday 8 November 2012

Obama's re-election is tragic, but failure to preach the Gospel of Life is worse

The re-election of Barack Obama, the most anti-life and anti-family president in US history, is indeed tragic. The truth, however, is that his re-election is but a symptom of a greater evil which extends not just across the US but across the world.

One clue is in the demographics of those who voted for Mr Obama. Analysts of the poll results pointed out that women, Hispanics, immigrants and young adults were more likely to vote for Mr Obama than for Mr Romney. A large proportion of those groups (which also overlap considerably) is Catholic - yet they voted to re-elect a president who has declared himself effectively to be a enemy of the Catholic Church over the issues of abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

Another clue is the fact that, as Fr Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said:
"Many in Church leadership failed to connect the dots between personnel and policy. They prayed and preached against the HHS mandate [President Obama's anti-life healthcare plan], but then were silent about the election, and called the police to remove citizens who leafleted the Church parking lot trying to inform voters about where the candidates stood on this issue."
A third clue is in a comment made to me recently by someone who has attended Mass every Sunday for four decades in Wales. He told me that he had never once heard a pro-life sermon.

These clues - and there are countless more I could list - tell me that the failure of Catholic leaders to preach and apply the Gospel of Life will make future elections of anti-life politicians inevitable.

It is all very well for Church spokesmen like Cardinal Dolan and Fr Lombardi to highlight the culture of life, religious freedom etc. in the wake of Mr Obama's re-election. But unless the Gospel of Life is actually used in practice to stop abortion, contraception and the destruction of marriage among Catholics themselves, there won't be any Catholics left for Mr Obama to persecute. This radical application of the Gospel of Life requires some of the following actions (and many other similar ones):
  • the dismissal from office of prelates who give succour to the culture of death - such as Archbishop Rino Fisichella
  • the banning from every Catholic church of publications which undermine the Gospel of Life - such as The Tablet
  • the removal from Catholic schools of pornographic sex education programmes (such as "Living and Growing") and the unequivocal banning of government agencies committed to giving schoolchildren access to abortion which have operated in Catholic schools with the co-operation of the Catholic Education Service in England and Wales.
In 1988, Pope John Paul II said*:
"The common outcry on behalf of human rights is false and illusory if the right to life is not defended with maximum determination."
Last night's election results are a rude reminder to the Catholic Church today of that fundamental reality.

* My thanks go to Paul Kilbane of SPUC Crosby branch for reminding me of this quotation. 

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 7 November 2012

Pro-life, pro-family commentators react to Obama's re-election

Top story:

Pro-life, pro-family commentators react to Obama's re-election
Pro-life and pro-family commentators have reacted to the re-election of anti-life and anti-family Barack Obama as US president. Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood centre manager now pro-life figure, said: “Time to get involved in the prolife grassroots movement." [LifeSiteNews.com, 6 November] Dale O'Leary, an expert on the homosexual agenda, wrote: "We must protect ourselves and our families by strengthening our own institutions. We must create an alternative culture, one which will resist the culture of death." [Dale O'Leary, 7 November] Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant Catholic newspaper, wrote: "Barack Obama is not the problem, by the way. We are!  Abortion is ... Obama has been reelected because America, like any nation, will always get the leaders she richly deserves." [The Remnant, 7 November]

Other stories:

Abortion
Embryology
Sexual ethics
General
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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 6 November 2012

Bishop Hopes preaches the Gospel of Life in Westminster Cathedral

DSC_0816Yesterday Westminster Cathedral was the latest stop on the pro-life "Ocean to Ocean" pilgrimage, during which a copy of the icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa is travelling across Europe as a focus for prayer and hope for the Gospel of Life (see more details in my blog last Wednesday).

Alan Hopes, Catholic auxiliary bishop of Westminster, celebrated Mass and led devotions attended by an estimated 2,000-plus faithful. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, represented SPUC in the Cathedral and many SPUC supporters were there too. Earlier in the afternoon, SPUC held a meeting in the Hinsley Room, connected to the Cathedral, on the theme of "Ocean to Ocean", which was addressed by several pro-life speakers.

Below are some key extracts from Bishop Hopes's sermon. I wish to thank the bishop for his powerful words and encourage readers to read the sermon in full. Among other things, Bishop Hopes said:
DSC_0863"Tonight we welcome into our Cathedral the replica of the famous and much venerated icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa. It was commissioned in January of this year to be a witness to the Gospel of Life and to the Civilisation of love – pro Life and pro Family ... entrusting to her maternal intercession a reclaiming of the dignity of human life and of respect and support for the Family and of a restoration of family values."
...
"The icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa...has been the object of desecration, abuse and contempt. Scarred by assaults the message of this sacred image is a reminder in spite of anything man can do, the true beauty of God’s love will shine brightly. How marred is our own world by such assaults on the dignity of human life – from the easy discarding of innocent lives in the tragedy of abortion, to the easy discarding of life as it nears its completion in the so called “right to die” and “mercy killing”."
...
"How marred too, is our world by the assaults on the dignity and the sacred nature of marriage and family life. From the beginning God shows us that the family is a sacred unity given by him to provide stability for the human race ... Today’s ideas of living with one another and entering into the commitment of marriage, the acceptance of unfaithfulness and sexual immorality, the provision in law of pre-nuptial agreements which is symptomatic of a general disregard for marriage, the proposed marriage of same sex couples – none of these can replace the ideal of the family – mother, father children - which God intends should provide stability for society as a whole."
...
DSC_0870"Let us pray fervently, today, before the image of Our Lady of Czestochowa that those who are in power will seek to uphold the dignity of human life until the tragedy of abortion and assisted killing is no more; and to support and strengthen the family and the values of family life."
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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Sunday 4 November 2012

Nadine Dorries-style radically pro-abortion 'time-limit' legislation must be rejected

Last Wednesday, members of the House of Commons debated the issue of abortion time-limits (full text). Nadine Dorries MP had secured parliamentary time for an adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. Such debates last typically for 90 minutes and no vote is held on the debate's subject. The debate served to show the dangers inherent in the campaign to reduce the upper time for social abortions.

Among other things, Nadine Dorries
  • promoted abortion on demand:
"I am pro-choice, and I believe that, up until 12 weeks, that should be the case. I am delighted that more than 90% of abortions in this country take place before 12 weeks."
  • called for the Abortion Act to be extended to Northern Ireland:
"[T]he law on abortion should be equal in all parts of the Union. Abortion law needs to be reformed in the UK, and there needs to be parity across the board."
"If any abortion provider is to come to Northern Ireland, Marie Stopes is probably the best bet. Marie Stopes is one of the most professional and non-advocacy-driven abortion providers. It has no political ideology and is concerned only for the health of the woman, and it operates in a professional manner. So I think that, if Northern Ireland is to have an abortion provider, Marie Stopes are the people to have."
  • mispresented the history of abortion law reform - "In 1990, the 1967 Act was amended to reduce the upper limit from 28 weeks to 24 weeks." - which is not true. Because of amendments to the abortion law made by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act 1990, the previous limit - which was based on the capability of the baby to be born alive, not a fixed number of weeks (28) - was abolished. A 24-week time limit was introduced, but only for certain cases. In other cases, including where the abortion is carried out on grounds of disability, abortions can be and are now carried out right up to the time of birth. Every child who had reached the stage of development of being "capable of being born alive" was protected by the pre-1990 law. Since 1990 that protection has been removed. So the effect of the HFE Act 1990 was to increase the time-limit for abortion in most instances and in many cases right up to birth. 
  • backed discrimination against disabled babies:
"I want to make it clear that my proposal to reduce the upper limit does not include babies with foetal abnormalities or, sadly, disabilities. That is a discussion to be held, as I have said, between parents and doctors. Abortion is available up until birth for foetal abnormalities. My proposal applies to abortions for social reasons."
    So let's be clear about the implications of the Westminster Hall debate on the abortion 'upper limit' last Wednesday. Nadine Dorries made it crystal clear that she wants:
    • to introduce radically pro-abortion legislation in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy,which would have the effect of increasing substantially the numbers of abortion during that period
    • extending such legislation to Northern Ireland; and
    • reinforcing current discrimination against disabled babies, allowing them to be aborted up to birth.
    A Nadine Dorries-style bill must be firmly rejected by the pro-life movement.

    Such radical pro-abortion legislative thinking - sometimes wrongly and grotesquely presented as being based on good pro-life tactical thinking - has a tragic history, to which I allude above and to which I will return again shortly.

    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
    Like SPUC's Facebook Page
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

    My talk on ending abortion in the UK

    On 15 September, SPUC Midlands Region held a conference in Loughborough. I addressed the conference and William Astor kindly made a video of my address, entitled "Ending Abortion in the UK". You can watch the video below on on YouTube:



    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
    Like SPUC's Facebook Page
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

    Thursday 1 November 2012

    What's going on at L'Osservatore Romano?

    Two stories about the new James Bond movie appear in The Daily Telegraph today .

    One is by Byrony Gordon, a feature writer, who says:
    "I couldn't help but laugh out loud at one of the prerequisite seduction scenes, in which ... James Bond steps into a woman's shower uninvited, having only met her an hour or so before. I know the man is a legendary lover ... but I'd have slapped him round the face ... and threatened to call the police".
    The other story by Nick Squires in Rome headlined James Bond, licensed to thrill ... by the Vatican reads:
    " ... L'Osservatore Romano devoted an entire page and five articles in praise of the fictional spy on Wednesday.

    "As the latest Bond film, Skyfall, opened in Italian cinemas, the Vatican paper said it was one of the best of the 23 films made since the franchise began 50 years ago ...

    " ... it lauded this incarnation of Bond ... as being 'more human, capable of being moved and of crying: in a word, more real."
    Now I'm a father who over the past few decades, with the support of my wife, has cautioned his children against James Bond movies which glamorize the permissive lifestyle. Dare I quote in support of the position I've adopted the following extract from Humanae Vitae? ...
    "Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture (25) or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities."
    Of course, it's argued that James Bond films are not to be taken seriously, it's just good fun, and it's extraordinarily difficult in today's moral climate for parents to make a stand on such issues. Do we really want to risk making our children a laughing stock if their friends know they're not allowed to see such films?

    My position on this is rather simple. If the film in question depicts an actor, in a brazenly glamourising and explicit manner, committing what for me, if I were doing it, would be a mortal sin, should I be watching that film, let alone allowing my children to watch it?

    No serious commentator today is in any doubt about the social consequences of permissive lifestyles which are a fundamental part of James Bond movies. Consider, for example, cohabitation and its lifetime cruel consequences compared with marriage.

    The conclusions of research include:
    • Living together leads to living alone
    • Cohabiting relationships are always more likely to break up than marriages entered into at the same time, regardless of age or income.
    • Cohabiting also influences later marriages. The more often and the longer that men and women cohabit, the more likely they are to divorce later
    • Both men and women in cohabiting relationships are more likely to be unfaithful to their partners than married people.
    • At all socio-economic levels, cohabiting couples accumulate less wealth than married couples.
    • Cohabitants have more health problems ... Cohabitants are also much more likely to suffer from depression than married people.
    • Cohabitations with children are even more likely to break up than childless ones.
    • Unborn children are four to five times more likely to be aborted than babies conceived inside marriage
    Like practically everyone else reading the newspapers this morning about L'Osservatore Romano's coverage of the James Bond movie, I have been reading about the L'Osservatore's coverage rather than the coverage itself. Maybe it's much more nuanced than The Daily Telegraph reports today. Maybe the line L'Osservatore takes, reflects the kind of caution struggling parents seek to adopt about such cultural phenonemena when raising their children.

    But enormous damage has been done. A few google searches I carried out when I got to my desk this morning at SPUC headquarters in London suggests it's been reported, literally, in millions of news/internet outlets. What is happening at L'Osservatore Romano?

    If  L'Osservatore's coverage has been mischievously misrepresented, will a front-page apology be made to parents around the world, the primary educators, and to their children, for what appears to be, at best, a gross misjudgement and lack of editorial prudence?

    If it has not been misrepresented, will anyone in the Vatican care about parents and their children sufficiently to seek, urgently, to redress the situation?

    What's going on at L'Osservatore Romano and will someone bring it under control please?

    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
    Like SPUC's Facebook Page
    Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy