A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. I wrote this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work. I retired from my post on 31st August 2021 and will therefore be adding no further posts.
UK prime minister says UK should return to Christian moral values
David Cameron, the British prime minister, has called for British society to return to traditional Christian moral values. In a speech to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, Mr Cameron said: "moral neutrality is not going to cut it any more". [Telegraph, 17 December] John Smeaton, SPUC director said: "It is hypocritical for Mr Cameron to promote traditional morality when his government is bank-rolling abortion, contraception and homosexuality at home and abroad."
Dutch pro-lifers say: campaign for abortion abolition, not stricter rules
The annual Dutch March for Life took place on Saturday 10 December. It is estimated that 1,400 people took part in the march, which is almost double last year's attendance. Dr Bert P. Dorenbos, President of Cry for Life and the chief organiser of the march, said: "We're not going for stricter rules, but we are called to advocate the abolition of abortion." John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "Dr Dorenbos’s comment is particularly applicable to the UK and misguided parliamentary moves, e.g. trying to lower the 24-week upper time-limit on most social abortions." [John Smeaton, 15 December]
Other stories:
Abortion
One in five sexually-active women aged 16 to 24 has taken morning-after pills in past year [Mail, 17 December]
Under the headline "Taxman hits stay-home mothers", the Telegraph's lead story this morning reports on the British government's economic policies which, it is thought, "are designed to force mothers back to work to boost the economy".
According to the Telegraph, a study published by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finds:
"The average family with one worker and two children loses 27.0 per cent of their wages in tax, compared with 26.2 per cent before the Coalition was elected"
"The British tax take from traditional families with only one earner is now significantly above the international average"
"By contrast, single people and two-earner couples have seen their tax bills fall since 2009 as they have benefited from cuts in the tax-free personal allowance and other changes. Both groups also pay tax below the international average"
"A traditional British family with a stay-at-home mother that is classed by the OECD as well-paid – earning more than double the average wage – will pay 40.5 per cent of their earnings in tax, compared with an international average of 38.6 per cent."
The Telegraph goes on to explain that government ministers "have stripped high-earning families of child benefit this year – a policy which discriminates against households with a single breadwinner. A £1 billion policy to help families with child care costs announced last week is to be made available only to homes where both parents are working."
All of this is happening at a time when:
Cameron is personally championing, the Government's Marriage (Same Sex) Couples Bill which will institutionalize fatherless and motherless families - against the wishes of the majority of Tory MPs
An increasing body of robust research show that children do better when brought up by their biological father and mother who are committed to each other in marriage* (See footnote 5)
Statistics show that marriage as an institution (the permanent exclusive union of one man and one woman) protects children, both born and unborn** (See footnote 2)
Research submitted by SPUC to the House of Commons committee examining the government's same-sex marriage bill shows that in countries where marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, this reinforces the idea that marriage is irrelevant to parenthood and that ...
... Same-sex marriage leads to the casualisation of heterosexual unions and separation of marriage and parenthood
In brief, the flagship economic and marriage policies of the Cameron government amounts to social engineering which could not be more blatantly designed to hurt the children conceived and growing up in Britain. Please write to your MP today regarding the growing evidence of the government's policies which so cruelly discriminate against children and their best interests.
Congratulations to Bishop Egan, the Catholic bishop of Portsmouth!
Visitors to my blog may wish to visit Bishop Egan's website to read and to print out and to pass on to others his excellent letter to David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which is reproduced in full below.
Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP
Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
15th December 2012
Dear Mr Cameron
From Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth
I am writing to you to send you best wishes from the priests and people of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, and the promise of our prayers for you, as you carry the heavy responsibility of leading our great nation. However, I am also writing to ask you, indeed to urge you, to change course on your intention to introduce same-sex marriage.
You have said you are an enthusiastic supporter of marriage and that you do not want "gay people to be excluded from a great institution." Yet I wish respectfully to point out that behind what you say lurks a basic philosophical misconception about the nature of 'equality.' Equality can never be an absolute value, only a derivative and relative value. After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, and so men and women can never be absolutely equal, only relatively equal, since they are biologically different. So too with marriage. Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being ‘excluded’ from marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.
By enabling gays to 'marry' and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations. The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.
Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality? This is why I fail to see how your intentions can possibly strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. Rather they will dilute it.
More, you are ignoring the huge opposition of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, as well as that of a huge number of ordinary people. You are imposing the aspirations of a tiny minority on the vast majority. Make no mistake, the change you are proposing is of immense significance. By it, you will be luring the people of England away from their common Christian values and Christian patrimony, and forcing upon us all a brave new world, artificially engineered. What you are proposing will smother the traditional Christian ethos of our society and in time strangle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church in Britain to conduct its mission. There is no sanction whatsoever in the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition for gay marriage. I cannot see how anyone who claims to be a Christian can possibly justify what you are intending to do.
I know you have spoken of the 'quadruple lock' and other legal safeguards. Yet for me many grave concerns remain about the brave new world you are fashioning in the name of the false gods of equality and diversity. For example, will I as a Christian have to support your ideology when preaching? Will you exempt the Church, its resources and premises, from charges of discrimination if it declines to host same-sex social activities? Will Catholic schools, Catholic societies, Catholic charities and Catholic institutions be free (and legally protected) to teach the full truth of Christ and the real meaning of life and love?
I appreciate how politically difficult it can be to undertake a U-turn and to sustain the attendant criticism such would bring. But when it is a matter of the truth, and the reasons are cast-iron clear, a U-turn would be hailed by history only as brave and courageous. This is why, like a Thomas a Becket appealing to Henry II, I do not hesitate to ask you to consider doing what is the right and just thing to do. Otherwise, will we ever be able to forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party (sic) who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?
I assure you of my respect, best wishes and prayers.
Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan
Bishop of Portsmouth
CC: Priests and People of Diocese of Portsmouth
On Monday 8 March the Children, Schools and Families bill was debated in the House of Lords at second reading. As per parliamentary convention, no vote was taken on the bill and the bill now awaits debate in committee. The imminent general election - almost certainly 6 May - means that the bill might not be debated again in this parliament. However, the bill should not be regarded as dead. The bill could be rushed through in the clearing-up procedure by which bills can pass through several readings in a matter of minutes, prior to an election. It is therefore vital that SPUC supporters continue to lobby. At this point, we would ask you to write to (1) The party leaders - especially Gordon Brown and David Cameron and (2) key peers (see below).
Please urge the government members not to attempt to force the bill through without proper consideration.
Please urge the opposition to maintain their strong resistance to the bill. Thankfully, the Conservative opposition has tabled motions regarding the bill which, while not directly relevant to pro-life issues, will nonetheless help to delay and therefore obstruct the bill's progress.
Even if the bill goes no further in this Parliament, soon after the general election legislation on education will be introduced into the new parliament, regardless of which party heads the government. If the Labour party are re-elected, either with a majority or as the single largest party in a hung parliament, then the bill, or the sex education part of the bill, will probably be resurrected. Alternatively, the Conservative opposition have pledged, if elected, to introduce their own education bill within weeks of the election. There will be intense pressure by anti-life groups and bureaucrats to continue with the government's anti-life sex education plans. These include the draft sex education guidance from the department of children, schools and families (see SPUC's briefing )
Therefore, please write to:
Government peers: Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Leader of the House), Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Deputy Leader of the House), Lord Bassam of Brighton (Chief Whip), Lord Davies of Oldham (Deputy Chief Whip), Lord Brett, Baroness Crawley, Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Baroness Thornton, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Young of Norwood Green.
Opposition peers: Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Chief Whip), Baroness Seccombe (Deputy Chief Whip), Lord Luke, Viscount Bridgeman, Lord Astor of Hever, The Duke of Montrose, Baroness Morris of Bolton, Lord De Mauley, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Baroness Verma, Earl Cathcart, Earl Attlee, Lord Bates, Lord Marland, Baroness Warsi, Earl Howe, Lord McColl of Dulwich.
Rt Hon Gordon Brown, the prime minister, at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
Rt Hon David Cameron, the Conservative opposition leader, at House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. You can also email him at david.cameron@conservatives.com
Please forward any replies you receive to SPUC by:
Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, the former archbishop of Westminster, has made a scathing attack this morning on David Cameron, the UK prime minister. In a withering analysis in today's Telegraph he pours scorn on David Cameron's election commitment to strengthen marriage as an institution, on his understanding of the nature of marriage, and on the prime minister's honesty in the Conservative Party's manifesto.
Thank God that leading churchmen are standing up for our families, for the child-centred institution of marriage, not least unborn children (see below).
The Cardinal's letter to the Telegraph reads:
SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, December 15) sets out with admirable clarity why marriage is and should remain a unique and binding contract between a man and a woman, open in principle to the possibility of generating children. That in the Christian Church it is also a sacrament gives it a special value for Christian believers; but that in no way detracts from its character as an institution of central importance for the welfare of society as a whole, to believers and unbelievers alike.
Redefining marriage as simply a contract between individuals irrespective of their sex, without regard either to its procreative function or to the complementarity of the relationship between man and woman, would be an abuse of language. More important, it would weaken marriage by diminishing its implications and its significance. That, and not homophobia, is why many people outside what Mr Moore calls the culturally dominant "minority" are opposed to the Government's proposal – and why more than 600,000 people have signed a petition against it. The state has the right to oversee the administration and legal aspects of marriage, but it has never been accepted that the state can dictate to individuals and society itself what marriage should mean to us. It is clear that many problems would arise if the legislation as now tabled were to be implemented.
In the run-up to the last election, David Cameron led us to believe that the strengthening of marriage as an institution was one of his important objectives; and the Conservative Party's manifesto, which made no mention of "gay marriage", included a proposed tax break for married couples. Nothing has been heard of the latter proposal, and instead of action to strengthen marriage we have the proposal to abandon the traditional understanding of marriage on the basis of a "consultation" which explicitly excluded the possibility of a negative result. Protestations that this is all fundamentally "conservative" ring a bit hollow.
It is difficult not to wonder how far the Prime Minister is someone whose steadiness of purpose can be relied on.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster
London W4
In response to the Cameron government's announcement on Friday regarding its same-sex marriage plans, Catholic and Anglican leaders have spoken out.
Philip Egan (pictured), the new Catholic bishop of Portsmouth, has issued a statement saying (inter alia):
"[B]y attempting to change the natural meaning of marriage, he seems utterly determined to undermine one of the key foundations of our society ... If the prime minister proceeds with his intentions, he will pervert authentic family values, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations ... The institution of marriage has its ups and downs, but will we ever forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?"
Joseph Devine, the Catholic bishop of Motherwell, has written a two-page letter to David Cameron which says (inter alia):
“I suspect it is only a matter of time before you go one step further and outlaw the teaching of Christian doctrine on sexual morality on the grounds of discrimination.”
The Church of England has issued a statement, saying (inter alia)*:
"[T]he meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted ... [T]he uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.
To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.
We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage."
*Readers should note that the Church of England's statement contains a number of other comments which differ from Catholic teaching regarding the homosexual agenda.
Below are some quick-fire rebuttals by Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, to David Cameron's keynote speech to Melinda Gates' London Summit on Family Planning last Wednesday. Some of Anthony's other quick-fire comments on the Summit can be read via SPUC's Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/spucprolife Earlier in the week, SPUC issued a series of press releases and videos containing detailed arguments against the population control agenda behind the summit - see:
(David Cameron's words are marked DC and Anthony's words AO.)
DC: "We’re here for a very simple reason: women should be able to decide freely, and for themselves, whether, when and how many children they have."
AO: Women can do this without contraception. The summit is about convincing women that they should avoid having children.
DC: "This is not something nice to have. Some sort of add on to our wider development goals."
AO: By prioritising contraception, the Department for International Development (DFID) is neglecting real development goals e.g. food.
DC: "It’s absolutely fundamental to any hope of tackling poverty in our world."
AO: There is no proof that contraception helps to tackle poverty. There is considerable evidence that large family sizes and growing populations help lift nations out of poverty.
DC: "Why? Because a country can’t develop properly when its young women are dying from unintended pregnancies and when its children are dying in infancy."
AO: Women don’t die from pregnancies. Pregnancy is a healthy outcome of a natural process. Women die from lack of basic healthcare. Contraception can’t save children from dying in infancy. It’s healthcare not contraception that saves lives.
DC: "As a result of this Summit, in the next eight years we will avert an unintended pregnancy every two seconds and 212,000 fewer women and girls will die in pregnancy and childbirth. That alone, frankly, is a good enough reason for us to be here."
AO: These are figures made up by the abortion-contraception lobby to justify its eugenics and population control agendas.
DC: "But there’s another reason why family planning is so important for development. When a woman is prevented from choosing when to have children it’s not just a violation of her human rights it can fundamentally compromise her chances in life, and the opportunities for her children."
AO: The issue of forced pregnancy (e.g. through rape or following a forced marriage) is a separate issue from contraception. This wrong is being cynically exploited by the abortion-contraception lobby to justify its eugenics and population control agendas.
DC: "Without access to family planning, pregnancy will often come far too early. In Sierra Leone, for example, a UNICEF survey found that a staggering two-fifths of girls give birth for the first time between the ages of 12 and 14. These young girls are not ready physically, emotionally or financially to become mothers. They don’t want to give up school or the chance to go on and run a business and build a better life for themselves."
AO: The evil there is statutory rape. Providing contraception will simply allow the rapists and child-marriage criminals to further their crimes.
DC: "And yet suddenly their dreams are broken as they become trapped in a potentially life-threatening pregnancy. Even if they survive, many are left with catastrophic scarring."
AO: Again, it is irrational to depict pregnancy, a healthy outcome of a natural process, to be life-threatening. Lack of basic healthcare is life-threatening.
DC: "They struggle to bring up children that are healthy and educated and they are likely to have many more children than they have the resources to look after."
AO: I thought the point of international development was to help mothers raise healthy and educated children and provide resources for them.
DC: "It’s a simple fact that as countries get richer, women generally have fewer children."
AO: Increases in population lead to countries become richer. The improvement in health following population-driven prosperity means that fewer children die and therefore couples are less driven to achieve more pregnancies.
DC: "And by concentrating their resources on a smaller number of children those children are healthier, better educated and more likely get a job and build a prosperous future for themselves and their own children. Family planning helps that process along."
AO: It simply doesn’t work like that. Smaller families result in fewer resources, because it leads to future shortfalls in workers who create profit, pay taxes, make products, care for the elderly etc.
DC: "The availability of contraception enables women to decide to have fewer children."
AO: Contraception has a massive real-world failure-rate.
DC: "And as fertility rates decline, having fewer children to support can help the economy to grow."
AO: Not true. The 20th century proved that economies grow as population rises.
DC: "We should be pragmatic about what works."
AO: Indeed. Contraception is based instead on the ideologies of sexual liberalism and eugenics.
DC: "In East and Southeast Asia, this reduction in children accounted for more than two-fifths of the growth in per capita GDP between 1970 and 2000. In Matlab in Bangladesh, a twenty year study found that a family planning programme together with improved support for maternal and child health led not just to smaller, healthier families but also to women being better educated and earning more and their families owning more assets with the average value of an educated woman’s home as much as a fifth higher than for women in nearby villages where this programme hadn’t been introduced. So we know this works. So family planning works not just because smaller families can be healthier and wealthier but because empowering women is the key to growing economies and healthy open societies -unlocking what I call the golden thread of development."
AO: Whole swathes of Asia are now ageing rapidly with no hope in sight. Korea is a dying society, filling more graves than cradles. Japan is the most rapidly ageing society in the world, with a elderly-care crisis with no solution. China is predicted to be the world’s first developing country that will become old before it becomes rich. Yes, support for maternal and child health and for education makes societies healthier and wealthier. But contraception impoverishes.
DC: "The UK government is taking a whole new approach to development. We know that in the long term we cannot help countries develop just by giving them money. Development cannot be done to the poor by outsiders. It has to be driven by the people who need the change. Our role is to help the poorest countries create the building blocks of private sector growth and prosperity. These building blocks are the same the world over. No conflict, access to markets, transparency, property rights, the rule of law, the absence of corruption, a free media, free and fair elections. Together these key enablers of growth make up the golden thread that runs through all stories of successful development across the world. And they are quite simply life changing. Curbing corruption means not having to pay a bribe to lease a plot of land. Transparency means that people can monitor whether revenue from natural resources like oil is being invested in roads or wells for their villages, or wasted. The rule of law means that a woman can go to court to settle a dispute knowing that her evidence will be given the same weight as a man’s. Free and fair elections mean that every citizen has a voice in their government and the opportunity to stand for office."
AO: So why are you pumping hundreds of millions of pounds into contraception instead?
DC: "But these vital building blocks of freedom and democracy can not be laid down without a transformation in the participation of women. Why? Because where the potential and the perspective of women is locked out of the decisions that shape a society, that society remains stunted and underachieving. So enabling women to have a voice is a vital part of improving governance and achieving sustainable and equitable growth. And this isn’t just the case in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is the case all over the world. A World Bank Study of 100 countries found that the greater the representation of women in parliament the lower the level of corruption. While one of the most powerful signs that real change was afoot in Egypt and Libya was when women turned up and made their voices heard, refusing to be confined to their homes while men decided their future. And one of the standards by which Egyptians will judge their new government must surely be the engagement and participation of women. Crucially, it is by empowering women that countries can unlock their economic potential. Studies show that limited education and employment opportunities for women in Africa mean annual per capita growth is almost a whole percentage point lower than it should be. Had this growth been achieved, Africa’s economies would have doubled in size over the last thirty years. Providing girls with just one extra year of schooling can increase their wages by as much as 20 per cent. And that really matters because a woman who can decide when to have children, will go to school for longer and then invest her extra money in her own family."
AO: But none of this has anything to do with contraception. The way to reduce teenage pregnancy is to promote abstinence, outlaw child-marriage, and enforce laws on statutory rape and the age of consent. The UK still has high rates of teenage pregnancy after decades of increasing provision of contraception.
DC: "When women have opportunity, resources and a voice, the benefits cascade to her children, her community and her country. So family planning is just the first step on a long journey towards growth, equality and development. But it’s an essential step – saving lives and empowering women to fulfil their potential as great leaders of change."
AO: Contraception doesn’t save lives; it prevents lives. It is insulting to women to tell them that they need pills, rubbers, coils etc to ‘fulfil their potential’.
DC: "So I am delighted that Britain is taking the lead – together with the Gates Foundation – to tackle an issue that has been ignored for so long."
AO: This is a complete myth. Western governments, wealthy foundations, UN agencies and abortion lobbyists have been flooding the developing world with contraception for decades.
DC: "Just like the money we gave last year through GAVI to immunise children against preventable diseases this aid is transparent and direct – it reaches the people who need it, and it doesn’t get caught up in bureaucracy. Last year’s vaccines summit is saving 4 million lives. This year’s family planning summit will prevent a further 3 million babies dying in their first year of life giving 120 million women and girls in the world’s poorest countries the chance to access affordable, lifesaving contraception for the first time. And I’m proud to say that Britain will contribute over £500 million between now and 2020 – doubling our annual investment in family planning. This alone will help 24 million women and girls preventing an unintended pregnancy every 10 seconds and saving a woman’s life every two hours."
AO: These figures are self-serving fantasies. In many developing countries, there are not even reliable statistics about the population in general, let alone accurate figures for estimates of healthcare outcomes. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
DC: "Of course there are some who will oppose this. There are those who will say we can’t afford to spend money on aid at a time like this. And there are those who might accept the case for aid, but who object to supporting family planning and the empowerment of women because they think it’s not our place to tell people what to do, or interfere in other cultures. I think it’s vital that we confront these arguments head on. Let me do so. First, it is morally right to honour our promises to the poorest in the world."
AO: We are unaware that the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, either separately or in the Coalition agreement, made any promises to bankroll contraception globally.
DC: "Every six minutes a woman who did not want to become pregnant will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Every six minutes."
AO: Again, this figure is a self-serving fantasy.
DC: "So how many minutes do we wait? I say we don’t wait at all."
AO: This is tear-jerking 'Mom and apple-pie' rhetoric, cynically wheeled-out to fool the naive.
DC: "But there’s not just a strong moral argument for keeping our aid commitment, there’s a second, more practical argument too. If we really care about our own national interest about jobs, growth and security we shouldn’t break off our links with the countries that can hold some of the keys to that future. For if we invest in empowering women in Africa as the key to driving trade and economic growth it’s not just Africa that will grow but Britain too. And that’s why I will always defend our spending on aid."
AO: This is another straw-man argument. SPUC does not argue against giving aid but against wasting aid on contraception.
DC: "As for those who say we shouldn’t interfere let me be absolutely clear. We’re not talking about some kind of Western imposed population control, forced abortion or sterilisation."
AO: Wrong. The UK government has for decades given tens of millions of pounds annually to the very same organisations which support and help manage China’s population control programme of forced abortion and sterilisation. In April, it was alleged that DFID money went to a forced sterilisation programme in India (Observer, 15 April). Melinda Gates' partners, Marie Stopes International and International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), were founded by leaders in the early eugenics and population control movements, and who were very open that they did not like the idea of poor people of colour having children.
DC: "What we’re saying today is quite the opposite. We’re not telling anyone what to do. We’re giving women and girls the power to decide for themselves."
AO: The easy availability of contraception enables predatory men and coercive relatives to pressure vulnerable women and girls into sexual activity.
DC: "Yes family sizes need to come down but they come down not because we say they should but because the women who have children want them to."
AO: This is a reversal of the UK government’s policy under Labour which claimed it was neutral about population sizes. In any case, what is the evidence that mothers want family sizes to come down?
DC: "And to those who try to say it is wrong to interfere by giving a woman that power to decide I say they are the ones who are interfering, not me."
AO: Most women around the world, including women in the developing world, already exercise the power to decide over the size of their family. They are not in relationships in which they cannot decide, in conjunction with their spouses/partners, to limit the number of children they conceive. In those relationships in which they cannot exercise this power, this is a problem relating to the nature of the relationship, not a lack of contraception.
DC: "I’m not dictating who runs her country. I’m not saying how many children she should have. What jobs she can do. How she can dress. When she can speak. It’s those who are imposing their values on women who are doing the interfering. I say that every woman should be able to decide her own future. And yes I say we should stand up against those who want to decide it for her."
AO: Mr Cameron is cynically adopting radical feminist rhetoric in order to caricature those who uphold traditional family values. He is pitting himself against the pro-life movement.
DC: "Because there are no valid excuses for the denial of basic rights and freedoms for women around the world."
AO: There is no international treaty or convention which declares that contraception is a basic right.
DC: "So what we are talking about today is the beginning of a much wider battle that will define our century. A fight for female empowerment and equality that cannot be won by having special separate discussions on women every now and then but requires instead that women are at the table in every discussion on every issue. In Britain, we are scaling up and re-prioritising resources for women and girls in all of DFID’s 28 country programmes. We have made a commitment to help 6.5 million of the poorest girls in the world to go to school. We are standing up for women’s rights against horrific sexual crimes, including through the campaign to prevent sexual violence in conflict which William Hague launched in May with Angelina Jolie. We are determined to end the barbaric practice of female genital cutting making it illegal in Britain leading the way in countries like Somalia where it affects a staggering 98 per cent of women and supporting the brave leadership of the first ladies of Burkina Faso and Niger who are here today. And I will personally ensure that the fight for the empowerment of women is at the heart of the international process I am co-chairing to renew the Millennium Development Goals. Because we know today just how important that empowerment is for women, for the well-being of their families and the future growth and prosperity of the whole world."
AO: Mr Cameron is again expropriating feminism as a background of justification for flooding the developing world with contraception. Women do not need contraception in order to be empowered, equal and protected. Indeed, contraception often degrades vulnerable women to the level of sex objects.
DC: "Just before I came onto this stage today I met Aslefe. Aslefe is an inspiring young woman from Ethiopia. She told me she is the captain of her village football team. She uses football matches to distribute materials, contraceptives and HIV prevention methods. She wants every woman and girl to have access to family planning and wants improved health systems in Ethiopia so girls her age no longer have to suffer."
AO: I think the vast majority of both children and parents in the world think that what Aslefe is doing is strange and that the normal thing for her to do would be to stick to sport.
DC: "She has hope in her eyes. She has ambition in her voice. She gives you that sense that she believes things really can change. Today we are investing in that hope for Aslefe and for girls like her all over the world. Their future will determine our future. And we will help them fight for it. Today and every day until that battle is won. Thank you."
AO: Mr Cameron has now overdone the tear-jerking, heartstring-tugging rhetoric here. More arguments and less Walt Disney please.
In a powerful Easter morning sermon, Bishop Mark Davies (pictured), the Catholic bishop of Shrewsbury, has said:
" ... Dr. John Sentamu, the Anglican Archbishop of York, was accused of 'exaggerating' when he spoke of the Government’s proposals to re-define the identity of marriage as linked to a totalitarian mentality (The Daily Telegraph 31st January 2012). Yet his analysis of recent history is clearer than that of many of the leaders of opinion in our society."
Bishop Davies suggested in his sermon that the Cameron/Clegg government is attempting to turn the clock back to pre-Christian times and to discard the Christian inheritance of faith and morality as if it had never existed. He said:
"If Christianity is no longer to form the basis and the bedrock of our society then we are, indeed, left at the mercy of passing political projects and perhaps even the most sinister of ideologies."
Bishop Davies is right to refer to totalitarianism when speaking of the Government's plans with regard to same sex marriage. To understand why, consider the far-sighted reflection of another world Catholic leader, Cardinal Pell, who recently published his submission to the Australian Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Zenit, the international news agency, reports:
[Cardinal Pell] said that the Commonwealth of Australia must continue to recognise and support marriage as meaning the exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman.
Some proponents of same-sex marriage have argued that in the event of marriage being redefined, the Catholic Church and other religious communities will be protected or exempted from being required by law to perform same-sex marriages.
Cardinal Pell commented that such proposals fail to understand the immensely powerful role and influence of the law in our society. Changing the Marriage Act would, in practice, compel Catholics and other faith communities to recognize and accept same-sex marriages in their schools, social welfare, health care and adoption services, he pointed out.
When we permit same-sex relationships to mimic marriage we also say that a child gains no benefit from the knowledge that they were created through an intimate act of love between their parents, Cardinal Pell said.
Cardinal Pell's words to the Australian Senate totally apply to David Cameron's claim last week that church law will not be affected by extending civil marriage to same-sex couples and that his proposals would “change what happens in a register office, not what happens in a church”. Not so, according to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Whereas the ECHR (in a recent ruling concerning a lesbian couple in France) ruled that there was no obligation on member states' governments to legalise same-sex marriage, the judges also said:
"Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."
As Neil Addison, a lawyer, pointed out in the media:
"Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage.
"This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises."
One does not need the powers of an Old Testament prophet to understand the pressures which will be brought bear on parents and on educators not to teach children that marriage is the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman, or not to teach that same-sex marriage lacks basic elements of real marriage - for example the complementary sexual difference between spouses necessary for the procreation and healthy upbringing of children.
Thus the right of parents to be the primary educators of their children will be further undermined - a right written in to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically in the light of the Nazis' attempt "to turn Germany's renowned educational system into a mechanism for indoctrinating the young with the government's programme". (See Professor Mary Ann Glendon's authoritative book on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights A World Made New.)
Bishop Davies's comments are timely and worthy of wide dissemination and further study.
Readers of my blog in Britain may like to apply for flyers to take our message about real marriage to the general public, door-to-door and on high streets throughout the UK.
*Real 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.
Miller doesn't understand that secondary/incidental changes to marriage law doesn't change timeless core of marriage = heterosexual
Miller quotes opinion of QCs Kennedy, Lester and Pannick. Unconvincing: they're the usual suspects from the pro-gay/anti-family lobby.
No mention in Miller's introductory speech of the unique reason why society privileges marriage: protection of children, born & unborn
Lot of fluffiness from rad fem Yvette Cooper re confetti, biscuits, parties, rubber chickens etc. Just killed her PM ambitions, one hopes.
Repeated confusion btwn benefits of marriage (commitment, stability) and nature of marriage (complementary union ordered towards children)
Mention of books written for children promoting gay relationships. Coming to a school near you if marriage (& thus family) redefined.
Yvette Cooper warns anti-SSM churches that "religious freedom goes both ways". Must not prevent state from redefining marriage.
Yvette Cooper confuses legal reforms of practice of marriage with false idea that core of marriage (i.e. heterosexual) can change.
Discredited Marxist theory of social change being used to justify what even the original Marxists didn't dream of (gay marriage).
Robert Flello MP: Marriage more than just love & commitment. Gay marriage redefines everyone's marriage by reducing it to a relationship.
Steve Gilbert MP defames upholders of marriage status quo as "those who would hoard privilege". More souped-up Marxist ramblings.
Sir Roger Gale MP: assurances that civil partnerships would not lead to same-sex marriage have been broken.
Natascha Engel MP: gay couples can raise children just as well as straight couples. Thus fathers and mothers are just interchangeable carers
Nick Herbert MP also confuses reforms of secondary aspects of marriage law with abolishing fundamental nature & purpose of marriage
Stephen Doughty MP implied that it was the state's prerogative to extend marriage. But marriage doesn't belong to the state.
Edward Leigh MP: we must be careful to ensure that law and reality do not conflict. Gay marriage bill tries to change essence of marriage.
Gay marriage bill is not evolution but revolution, says Edward Leigh MP. Marriage exists for sake of children. Not just for love or sex.
Pro-SSM MPs rattled that their seats now in danger at the next election. We like rattling.
Jim Shannon MP: letters against gay marriage = largest mail-bag I've received in all my years as MP and MLA.
Simon Hughes MP used Lincoln film to draw historical lesson re gay marriage. He needs to read real history not the Hollywood spin.
Craig Whittaker MP: marriage already being eroded so state shouldn't be making situation worse by changing nature of marriage
Stephen Timms: marriage exists for children but SSM bill barely mentions children.
Gay relationships are not the same as marriage, they are different, says Stephen Timms MP.
Clear implication of Fiona Mactaggart MP interjection is that gay marriage will redefine the family by redefining marriage
Not exactly the most intelligent or original speech being given by Emma Reynolds MP re gay marriage
John Glen MP: received incredible vitriol simply for upholding marriage as it is.
David Lammy MP repeating his low-quality performance back during the Mental Capacity Bill. Comparing anti-SSM to racism. What a bore.
Chris Bryant MP conspicuously omits Book of Common Prayer text: "First, [marriage] was ordained for the procreation of children" @His_Grace
William McCrea MP: quoting Bible in Parliament often met with laughter, scorn, intolerance by MPs. Biblical marriage has served UK well.
MT @RhoslynThomas: BBC radio 4 playing the wedding march as they announce the SSM bill.
Stewart Jackson MP: comparing opposition to gay marriage to racism is complete nonsense.
Catholic adoption agencies "smashed on the altar of political correctness", says Stewart Jackson MP
David Simpson MP: neither Parliament nor Government has the (moral) jurisdiction to redefine marriage
Sarah Wollaston MP lowers debate by wheeling out old case of Alan Turing's chemical castration and suicide. Emotional blackmail.
Ian Paisley Jnr MP: Government cannot change nature. Refining marriage is a nonsense which will damage marriage.
Willie Bain MP claiming maj. support for SSM among Catholics. But such surveys usually don't distinguish btwn practising RCs and lapsed RCs
Andrew Selous MP quotes Jesus' definition of marriage as between man & woman. Not merely a cultural norm but God's design from Creation.
Matthew Offord MP: a flexible redefinition of marriage will lead to calls for further redefinitions e.g. polygamy, polyamory
Eric Ollerenshaw MP should've studied the canon law and practice of the Catholic Church re marriage rather than ramble incoherently about it
Pro-SSM MP Brooks Newmark quotes Orwell's Animal Farm. But Orwell would have opposed the state's power-grab of marriage from the people
Andrea Leadsom MP: no mandate and no public clamour for same-sex marriage
Bob Blackman MP: I've received 1000 letters against gay marriage, only 6 in favour
Richard Drax MP: element of token politics in parliamentary push to redefine marriage
Teachers who refuse to teach lessons about gay marriage will be disadvantaged, says Richard Drax MP
Equalities spokeswoman Kate Green caricatures traditional definition of marriage as religious. Repeats nonsense that marriage evolves
MPs now voting on whether to give the same-sex marriage bill a second reading
400 ayes, 175 noes on same-sex marriage bill 2nd reading
MPs now voting on the government's programme motion (timetable of forthcoming stages of the bill)
RT @Gillibrand #marriagevote Parliament has just voted to defy natural law, acting way beyond their powers.
MT @ProtectthePope: Shame on House of Commons - 400 for same-sex marriage, 175 against. Children will pay the price.
MT @labourwhips: Preliminary figues suggest Cameron failed to get majority of Tory MPs. 139 voting No, 132 Yes.
MT @LouiseMensch: David Cameron secures his place in history. > As PM who wrecked marriage in law for generations as yet unborn.
Programme motion: ayes 499, 55 noes
RT @c4mtweets Blog» C4M delighted by the scale of the Parliamentary opposition to redefining marriage bill: Res... http://bit.ly/11QZbrt #C4M #Marriage
RT @c4mtweets Blog» Gay marriage vote, ‘a disaster for Cameron’ says C4M: Tonight, 175 MPs voted against the Bi... http://bit.ly/11QZbHK #C4M #Marriage
Pro- #family MPs fight back in same-sex #marriage debate http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2013/february05 … #prolife
Last week Melinda Gates held a family planning summit, the focus of which was the promotion of contraceptive devices to women in poor countries. So far an estimated US$4.6 billion dollars has been raised by this summit to promote contraceptives in the developing world.
In this short video, produced by Human Life International, women around the world respond to Melinda Gates' controversial plans for them, and her supposed charitable assistance. Although the women in the video are addressing Melinda Gates, the same points they make could just as appropriately be made to David Cameron, who addressed the summit and whose government is spending huge amounts of money promoting contraception and abortion in the developing world.
See previous SPUC releases and blog posts on this issue.
SPUC has published an extensive briefing on how the British government, through the Department for International Development (DfID), has repeatedly spent tens of millions of pounds funding abortion and contraception overseas, at the expense of real care: food and basic medical care. Earlier this year SPUC held a conference with some of world's leading experts on maternal care. Sadly, their organisations do not have the backing of international governments and billionaires such as Melinda Gates.
The Children, Schools and Families bill received its third reading in the House of Commons on 23 February (see SPUC's alert of 22 February) and will have its second reading (first debate) in the House of Lords on Monday next, 8 March. It is then expected to go into Lords committee, possibly as soon as 22 March. It would be a huge blow against the right to life if such legislation were enacted, imposing pro-abortion sex education on all state schools.
Although the general election could be called within this timeframe, the bill could even then be rushed through in the clearing-up procedure by which bills can pass through several readings in a matter of minutes, prior to an election. It is therefore most important to raise objections to the bill as strongly as possible in the Lords. Please contact as many Lords as you can, asking them to oppose the bill. Could you do five, ten, twenty, or more Lords? You can find email addresses for Lords via http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/email/email (Please SPUC know if you experience any problems using this list). You are welcome to email Lords either randomly or according to your choice. We recommend, however, focusing upon Conservative party Lords. The Conservative party both opposed the bill in the Commons and tabled amendments which sought to limit the harm of the bill's sex education proposals. We therefore need to ensure that the Conservative party does the same in the Lords. This is particularly important, considering that it seems highly unlikely that the bill could be rushed through without Conservative support. Please visit our list of Conservative (and cross-bench i.e independent) Lords who attend Parliament regularly. You can use this list in conjunction with our lists of Lords' emails.
It is important to point out to Lords that the government's amendment (passed in the Commons) which purports to safeguard faith schools will not prevent schools from having to impart information promoting abortion. Ed Balls, Children, Schools and Families secretary, said that such schools would still have to tell children how to access abortion. Whatever the impact of the amendment, it would not in any case provide any protection to non-faith schools – which the majority of children attend.
As well as emailing Lords, please write by post to:
Gordon Brown, the prime minister, urging him to withdraw the sex education proposals, at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
David Cameron, the Conservative opposition leader, telling him of your strong objection to the proposals, at: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. You can also email him at david.cameron@conservatives.com
Please forward any replies you receive to SPUC by:
Last night's debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg demonstrated clearly their unanimity on abortion, embryo research, homosexuality and contraception (see pp.16-18 of the transcript). Britain is witnessing the fulfilment of the prophetic message of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI's historic encyclical which celebrated its 40th anniversary last year. He warned about:
"public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law".
William L. Saunders Jnr, a distinguished US attorney and bioethicist, has written:
"Article 16 [of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] declares: 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.' Thus, article 16 recognizes the common sense fact, sometimes overlooked by governments and international organizations, that the family exists prior to the state, is the foundation of the state, and that the state is obligated to protect it."
For many years in Britain, our government has been pursuing a policy of providing access to abortion and birth control drugs and devices for children under the age of sixteen without parental knowledge or consent. The Children, Schools and Families bill threatened to entrench and extend this policy by forcing all state schools to provide sex education. That danger was only averted by the pressure put by pro-lifers and their allies on parliamentarians to drop the bill's offending clauses in the wash-up prior to parliament's dissolution for the general election.
Whichever party forms the next government, the defence of human life in parliament will rely on individual MPs voting pro-life and resisting pressure from party managers. Anyone concerned for the protection of human life should contact SPUC for information and resources to help them assess their local candidates. The unanimity of the three party leaders makes it all the more important that voters base their choice on how their local candidates promise to vote if elected to parliament.
On the issue of child sex abuse within the Catholic Church, the party leaders responded as follows:
David Cameron:
"I think the Catholic Church has got some very, very serious work to do to unearth and come to terms with some of the appalling things that have happened, and they need to do that."
Nick Clegg said:
"I do welcome the Pope's visit, but I hope by the time he does visit, there is a greater recognition that there has been terrible, terrible suffering, there have been abusive relationships which have left immeasurable scars on individual people's lives and we need a process of openness and then healing. You can't undo the tragedies of the past, but you can be open about them so people can start to move on."
Gordon Brown said:
"[T]he church has got to deal with these problems, and it's got to make sure that there is an open and clean confession about what has happened, and that we help those people who have been put into difficulty by this abuse."
None of the party leaders mentioned the incidence of child sex abuse outside the Catholic Church, and their comments all gave the impression that the Catholic Church hasn't responded to the problem of child sex abuse. Although the three party leaders all welcomed the Pope's forthcoming visit, their unfair and unbalanced criticism merely adds fuel to the anti-Benedict fire. Massimo Introvigne, an Italian sociologist of religion, in an excellent analysis of the issue, has asked:
"Why are old and very often well-known cases being exhumed in 2010 on a daily basis, always attacking the Pope?"
Dominic Lawson points to the answer in yesterday's Daily Mail. He quotes Professor Richard Dawkins, the anti-life atheist scientist, who wrote in his book "The God Delusion" (2006) that:
"[W]e live in a time of hysteria about paedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witchhunts of 1692 ... The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium ... I dislike the Catholic Church, but I dislike unfairness even more. I can't help wondering whether this institution has been unfairly demonised over this issue, especially in Ireland and America."
Mr Lawson then points out how in recent months Prof. Dawkins has forgotten what he wrote and is now defaming Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church over the same issue.
As I blogged last month, it is clear that Pope Benedict is being defamed by opponents of the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. It is therefore incumbent upon pro-lifers of all faiths and none to help defend the good name of Pope Benedict, one of the world's great pro-life leaders and the head of the world's largest pro-life organisation.
Nicklinson-Lamb euthanasia ruling welcomed but 'Martin' assisted suicide ruling carries danger for disabled people
SPUC Pro-Life has welcomed the fact that the murder law has been upheld in today’s judgment in the Nicklinson and Lamb euthanasia cases. However, the majority judgment in the case of the anonymous third man, 'Martin', is deeply disturbing. Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, said: "If implemented it could encourage the pro-euthanasia lobby to recruit paid medical and legal professionals to organise the suicides of suffering and disabled people. [SPUC, 31 July]
Ethical campaigners saddened by final approval of Wales opt-out organ bill
Ethical campaigners have expressed their sadness following final approval of a bill in Wales to create an opt-out system for organ transplantation. Members of the Wales region of SPUC are saddened that the Secretary of State for Wales has decided not to use his powers to block the Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill from being sent to Her Majesty the Queen for Royal Assent. Michael Wendell Thomas, vice-chairman of SPUC's Wales region, said: "A collective weight of opinion has demonstrated that implementation of the Bill will be fraught with risk. "Members of SPUC's Wales region will remain vigilant regarding this ill-considered piece of legislation. We will campaign wherever possible to mitigate the effects that it may have on the weak and vulnerable in our midst. [SPUC, 31 July]
Family campaigners worldwide must protest against Cameron’s plan to export same-sex marriage
SPUC is calling upon family campaigners worldwide to protest against the British prime minister’s plan to export same-sex marriage, following David Cameron’s speech last night at a reception at No. 10 Downing Street, the prime ministerial residence, to thank those who had engineered the rail-roading of Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act through Parliament. John Smeaton, SPUC’s chief executive, called for international resistance to the British prime minister’s global plans to impose sexual licence on children and poor families. He said: “SPUC will be contacting church leaders, politicians and family campaigners worldwide to alert them to this threat by the British government, asking them to protest to the British embassies in their countries. Same-sex marriage is a counterfeit version of marriage and thus undermines real marriage, which is the best protector of children, both born and unborn. [SPUC, 25 July]
The Daily Mail reports today that David Cameron, the Conservative leader, would like to vote to reduce the current 24-week deadline in what is the first Parliamentary vote on the issue since 1990. "If there is an opportunity in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I will be voting to bring this limit down from 24 weeks.”
With all due respect to Mr Cameron and the Daily Mail, they are jumping the gun.
Or rather, they are watching the wrong hare – one that isn’t even running yet.Of prior importance is the HFE bill itself – a hare that is running, and on a disastrous course. It is a wholesale extensionof the already deplorable law on embryology.The bill contains a plethora of measures that will lead to the abuse, manipulation and destruction of countless more embryonic human lives.
Talk about abortion amendments is, at best, a distraction which will prove helpful to the government which wants to maximise its majority at the Bill’s second reading.
With, perhaps, unconscious irony, the British government announced last week "A New Act is Born" - a law designed to kill millions of innocent human beings deliberately created never to be born.
"A New Act is Born" is the headline given to the press release published by the Department of Health announcing that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act had received Royal Assent.
The government release goes on to explain:
"Human-admixed" embryos created from a combination of human and animal genetic material, purely for laboratory research will be allowed and strictly controlled. There will be a 14 day limit, after which the embryo must be destroyed. Sex selection of offspring for non-medical reasons is banned. Sex selection is only allowed for medical reasons - for example to avoid a serious disease." [And, of course, embryos with the wrong sex will be destroyed] ... And there are many other clauses designed to harm or kill embryos created in the laboratory.
Let's not forget that Gordon Brown (pictured above), the Prime Minister and a total of 269 Labour MPs (out of 349), David Cameron (picture below), the Tory leader, and a total of 48 Conservative MPs (out of 193), and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, and a total of 30 Liberal Democrat MPs (out of 63) voted in favour of this barbaric law.
It's appalling that our country is led by a politician who voted for abortion up to birth for disabled three times, as did his predecessor Tony Blair, and that his main rival for the job of Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said that disabled babies should continue to be aborted up to birth, even though he and his wife have a disabled son themselves.
Please consider joining SPUC's campaign in your area - or starting such a campaign - to alert constituents as to how your MP voted in the defining issue of the 21st century, the treatment of the most vulnerable members of our community, newly-conceived human embryos. Contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk if you want to run or join such a campaign in your area.
Rhoslyn Thomas, SPUC's youth officer, has initiated a call for people to hold a one minute silence on Monday for unborn children. Here are the details, courtesy of Rhoslyn:
On Monday 27 October, we commemorate the 47th anniversary of Royal Assent given to the Abortion Act by Queen Elizabeth II. Royal Assent is approval of a law passed by a nation’s parliament, given by the constitutional monarch.
We will be holding a minute’s silence on Monday, 27 October 2014 (this Monday) at 11.04am (the time when Royal Assent was given) to remember the (over) 8 million unborn babies (including those aborted in Scotland), who have been killed in the womb since the passing of the Abortion Act.
In 2013, 190,800 unborn babies were aborted in England and Wales under the Abortion Act – at least 550 a day, including non-residents. The highest rate of abortion was among women aged 22 years old. 773 abortions was carried out on mothers under the age of 15 and 81% of abortions were carried out on mothers who described themselves as single. 98% of abortions were funded by the NHS including those in private abortion centres such as the BPAS.
These figures demonstrate why the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children exists and why we need to continue to fight for the unborn and for the family, as a whole. More than ever, we see attacks on all sides to destroy the family as it has always been known: one man and one woman, joined together in matrimony in order to raise the children given to them. Absolute respect for all human life from the moment of conception to the last moment before natural death is the overall objective of SPUC.
Many countries, not least those countries which are part of the Commonwealth, look to Britain for leadership on issues concerning the family. Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband have publicly stated that they intend to export same-sex marriage to other countries and Cameron has even said, “British aid should have more strings attached”. What is passed or rejected in Britain concerning the family has international repercussions.
SPUC invites everyone to hold a minute’s silence in honour of the children who will never be born and who will never know what it is to be loved in this life. We also remember the mothers and fathers who have made this tragic mistake which has also damaged them. We honour as well all those mothers and fathers who have withstood enormous pressures and have given their babies the best chance of life by respecting their right to be born.
