Pro-Life Times: November 2001

Pro-lifers defend disabled lives in the High Court

by Anthony Ozimic

Pro-life coalition defeats bid for legalised mercy killing

Anti-euthanasia groups have successfully challenged a High Court bid which seeks to establish a 'right to die'.

Mrs Dianne Pretty, a motor neurone disease sufferer, is seeking to overturn the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision not to rule out prosecuting her husband should he assist her to commit suicide. Mrs Pretty claims that denying her 'the right to die' is contrary to the Human Rights Act, which outlaws "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment".

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the Medical Ethics Alliance and ALERT, the anti-euthanasia group, with support from six other national pro-life groups, have intervened in the High Court against Mrs Pretty's claim, which is backed by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

Dr Greg Gardner of the Medical Ethics Alliance commented: "The idea of the 'right to die' is contrary to the whole basis of medical ethics. Helping patients with degenerative diseases like MND to kill themselves will create a category whose lives are deemed not worth living."

Dr Michael Howitt-Wilson (ALERT) called for vigilance, saying: "We cannot allow a distorted notion of compassion to place millions of patients in danger of potentially fatal neglect."

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, observed: "Although the case was decisively dismissed by three judges, Mrs Pretty hopes to appeal. Even if she fails, we expect others will challenge the legal right to life of disabled people. Our success so far in this case is no cause for complacency."

Mrs Pretty has been granted legal aid. SPUC has undertaken pro-life coalition's costs.

Making the most of it...

Joe Heywood, 63, hasn't got long to live, but he's making the most of his life. Like Dianne Pretty, he has motor neurone disease (MND), which causes muscles to waste away, but leaves the brain active.

"MND is a terrible disease, and I have sympathy for Mrs Pretty. But I cannot accept her views. I feel she is taking a very dangerous course." said Mr Heywood. "Euthanasia makes a mockery of care - why bother to look after any disabled person if you've got the option to kill them?"

Mr Heywood's wife looks after him at home. He says that he has his grandchildren, his books, his computer and the beautiful Suffolk countryside to fill the remaining days of his life.

Comment

Guarding freedom and progress

Father Timothy Finigan is parish priest of the church of Our Lady of the Rosary in Sidcup, Kent. He is a member of SPUC and there is a branch of the society in his parish. He has made a special study of Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae.

When I read Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, I was greatly inspired by it, as were all of us in the pro-life movement. But there was one passage which stuck in my mind so strongly that I can recite it by heart: "Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?" (Evangelium Vitae 69)

The Holy Father was speaking of the many programmes of genocide which sadly characterised the 20th century. His point is that nobody has the right to commit genocide. There can be no authority for it; no person, state or process can legitimise it. Even if everyone votes for it, it is still wrong.

For example, many Nazis sincerely believed that they were the master race. They convinced themselves that it was right to kill millions of Jews and millions of other people. It was their view. They were wrong. It was a mistaken view. They were not entitled to hold it.

Of course, the Holy Father uses the same argument against abortion and euthanasia. The fact that in some places these are legitimised by popular consensus does not make them right. The sincerely held view that abortion and euthanasia are permissible in certain circumstances is a false view.

Pope John Paul II also spoke of how the mass media are sometimes guilty of "depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life" (Evangelium Vitae 17). We may assert on the contrary that the pro-life position is the most fundamental guardian of freedom and progress.

UK's first 'designer babies'

by Staff reporter

Two couples in the UK are set to produce 'designer babies' in the hopes of curing siblings who are seriously ill. An unnamed British woman is due to give birth at the end of the year to a child who has been genetically screened to provide tissue which could help her four year-old son who has leukaemia. She went to USA for IVF technology which is not currently permitted in the UK.

Raj and Shahana Hashmi from Leeds want to use IVF techniques to select a baby who will have the right cells to cure their son Zain who is seriously ill with thalassaemia, an inherited disorder affecting haemoglobin. If the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) here turn them down they too will go to the States for treatment.

Paul Tully of SPUC said: "While we have every sympathy for these couples, we are very concerned about creating dozens of embryos - brothers and sisters for the sick children - one of whom might be able to save a life. Any baby born in these circumstances has been born for someone else - not for his or her own sake."

Mr Tully continued: "Dozens of embryos may be discarded because they do not provide a tissue match for the sick children. We mustn't forget that there is massive loss of human lives in such treatment.

"Another insidious element is the opening this gives for designing babies for other reasons. There are always those who will see a commercial opportunity in something like this."

Bush says 'no' to the killing of human embryos

by Anthony Ozimic

President George W. Bush has announced that no US federal funding will go in future to destructive research on human embryos created in the laboratory. However, while many pro-life groups welcomed the announcement, others were disappointed that President Bush did not go further and prohibit research using 'cell lines' derived from previously destroyed embryos. In Britain, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) described the decision as "a courageous stand", but also expressed concerns.

John Smeaton, SPUC's national director, commented: "We fear that this could be seen as rewarding scientists who have conducted unethical forms of research."

New York's bravest

by John Smeaton, National Director, SPUC

The offer by the Planned Parenthood of New York City (PPNYC) of free abortions for World Trade Centre victims suggests that they are short of clients for their abortion service, and my strong suspicion is that many women would not go for an abortion in New York just now. Why not?

This kind of tragedy makes people realise that they are not isolated individuals, but that society is an interlinked network of individuals, families, groups and institutions. This realisation makes it clear that choosing an abortion is not an isolated, personal choice. It affects the baby, the doctor, the father, and others. Personal choices often affect others. And their choices affect us.

The fate of the New York firemen in particular has struck home with so many people. We honour them by re-thinking society's values in the light of their sacrifice.

They died trying to help others. That makes them heroes, but it also makes people realise that in a society where it's easy to become preoccupied with lesser values (social standing, wealth, personal achievement) there are higher values. In a society that is in thrall to personal choices, the fire service offers an alternative philosophy: giving up other opportunities and taking on duties that demand selfless devotion to strangers. It's a role that won't make them wealthy or powerful, or even appreciated very often.

At the loss of so many brave people that philosophy impinges on the social conscience of a whole society. And when this happens it is hard for a woman not to think twice about the decision between abortion and motherhood. I think the firemen have made it more difficult, at least for a time, for women to choose abortion.

Abortion by stealth in NI?

by Dominic Baster

The latest contribution of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) has been condemned by pro-lifers as an attempt to legalise abortion by stealth.

In September the Commission published a consultation document on Northern Ireland's proposed bill of rights which cited the "inadequacy of reproductive rights" there and recommended an "entrenched and legally enforceable right to adequate and accessible reproductive health care" regardless of age. The proposals do not use the term abortion explicitly, but recommend "timely access to [reproductive health] services and information and the freedom to make decisions concerning reproduction"

Mrs Betty Gibson, chairman of SPUC Northern Ireland, explained: "According to United Nations definitions, reproductive health services include abortion and the provision of abortifacient drugs. The NIHRC is trying to hoodwink the people of Northern Ireland, but we are on our guard and will not let this proceed without revealing their sinister intentions."

The Abortion Act 1967 did not extend to Northern Ireland but, despite the overwhelming opposition to abortion by both Catholics and Protestants, certain members of the NIHRC and the British government remain committed to introducing permissive abortion laws under the guise of human rights.

News In Brief

NEPAL - An official body of the United Nations has explicitly demanded that Nepal legalise abortion. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights claimed that clandestine abortions and unwanted pregnancies threatened women's health and demanded that abortion be permitted for 'hard cases'. (LifeSite)

KENYA - A Kenyan government report has recommended the legalisation of abortion. The document prepared for the health standards and regulatory services department and entitled "Kenya Family Health Programme", claims that social and medical evidence outweighs the "perceived moral and legal need for retaining the [pro-life] law in our books".

BRITAIN - British overseas aid has been used to promote the use of abortifacients in Africa. Financial statements for 2000 by the International Planned Parenthood Federation revealed that the UK Government contributed 13,000 US dollars specifically for the provision of "emergency contraception [in the] African region". (IPPF)

BRUSSELS - France and Germany have launched a European Union campaign to create an international convention banning reproductive human cloning, citing an imminent threat to the "entire human family". The two countries recently petitioned the UN's General Assembly to place this issue on its agenda so that negotiations could begin as soon as possible. (C-Fam)

USA - A former abortion clinic run by a doctor who used to brag about the number of abortions he carried out is to become the headquarters of Columbia SC - South Carolina Citizens for Life. The property has been empty for the last six years since the death of the abortionist Jesse Floyd, whose heirs were unable to sell the abortion centre, which was taken over by the state of South Carolina to pay for the tax debts. (Pro-Life Infonet)

What the world needs now more babies

In the drive to introduce abortion in countries around the globe, one of the reasons often put forward is that there are too many people in the world. However, the real problem is under-population not overpopulation. In the ongoing campaign to build a culture of life in our society, an understanding of the demographic trends facing our own country, and others, is important.

Here we have reprinted an article by population expert Nicholas Eberstadt. Professor Eberstadt highlights three areas of concern: firstly, sub-replacement fertility and the huge decline in the working age population; secondly population ageing - particularly in countries with no pension systems and, thirdly, the lowering of life expectancy.

Underpopulation, not overpopulation, is the real global problem, writes Nicholas Eberstadt. It may not be the first way we think of ourselves, but all of us alive to day are children of the "world population explosion". Thanks to sweeping mortality declines, human numbers leapt from about 1.6 billion or 1.7 billion in 1900 to more than 6 billion in 2000.

In certain circles within Washington (and outside the United States), that unprecedented leap in human numbers fuelled an anti-natalist obsession. But continuing preoccupation with high fertility and rapid population growth leaves us poorly prepared to comprehend (much less respond to) emerging demographic trends.

Three of these are poised to refigure our global profile in surprising - and not always beneficial - ways. The first is the spread of "sub-replacement" fertility regimens: patterns of childbearing that will eventually result, all else being equal, in indefinite population decline.

83 dying countries and territories

According to the US Census Bureau, 83 countries and territories are now thought to experience below-replacement fertility. Those places encompass nearly 2.7 billion people - roughly 44 percent of the world's total population.

Today's global march toward smaller families flies in the face of many prevailing assumptions about when rapid fertility decline can and cannot occur. Poverty and illiteracy (especially female illiteracy) are widely regarded as impediments to fertility decline, yet they have not prevented Bangladesh from reducing its fertility rate by more than half over the past 25 years. By the same token, "traditional" religious attitudes are commonly seen as a barrier against low fertility. Yet over the past two decades, Iran, under the tight rule of a militantly Islamic clergy, has slashed its fertility level by fully two-thirds, and now apparently it stands on the verge of sub-replacement.

Why the population decline?

That accounts for the worldwide plunge in fertility? The honest answer is that nobody really knows - at least, with any degree of confidence. If you can find the shared determinants of fertility decline in such disparate below-replacement societies as the United States, Guadeloupe, Thailand and Tunisia, then your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

While causes might be uncertain, results are quite predictable. Global population growth will decelerate markedly over the coming generation. By current projections, in fact, slightly fewer babies will be born worldwide in the year 2025 than at any point over the previous four decades.

Thanks to extreme birth dearth, depopulation is now imminent for both Europe and Japan. In Europe, immigration must nearly quadruple - to an average of almost 4 million net entrants a year - to prevent a decline in the size of the 15-to-64-year-old "working age" population over the next 50 years. In Japan, where net immigration approximates zero, more than 600,000 newcomers a year will be needed to keep the working age population from shrinking.

Will these territories opt for indefinite decline - or for ethnic transformation? Given the arithmetic, they have no other options. Low and decreasing fertility levels will accelerate the tempo of social ageing - the second great demographic trend of the coming era.

We all know about the coming pensioner problem in Western countries - but Western countries are rich. Many of today's developing countries, by contrast, will become "grey" before they become "rich." One of the most arresting cases of population ageing is now set to unfold in China. Between 2000 and 2025, China's median age will soar - in fact, it may exceed America's within 25 years. By 2025, roughly 200 million Chinese will be 65 or older. Caring for China's elderly will inexorably become a domestic, and global, political issue - for nothing remotely resembling a national pension system is yet in place in that country. The third, and most ominous, demographic trend of the coming era involves unexpected and brutal mortality spikes. In our era, we have come to presume that death rates inevitably decline during times of peace and order. That happy presumption must now be discarded. By Census Bureau projections, nearly 40 countries and territories will have lower life expectancies in 2010 than they enjoyed in 1990. More than 750 million people - one-sixth of the world's current population - live in such spots. Many of these countries are today's sub-Saharan victims of the HIV-AIDS epidemic.

Major health setbacks

But the international health setback is not just about Africa and AIDS. In Russia - an urbanized, industrialized, peacetime society - lifespans are shorter today than 40 years ago. In a dozen other post-Communist countries, life expectancy is lower today than in the 1970s.

Since virtually no one predicted these foreshortenings of national lifespan, we cannot yet claim to know which countries will be afflicted by - or spared from - uncontrollable bouts of mortality in the years to come. Before too long, unfortunately, our current era's widespread anxiety about health-driven global population growth may look remarkably quaint and naive.

From the desk of Joanna Bogle

Robin McNair Prize 2001

Have you seen the excellent opportunity for young people to express their thoughts on euthanasia, and win cash prizes for themselves and their schools at the same time? The Robin McNair Prize essay competition commemorates the life of the Second World War pilot, who went on to work to protect the unborn through his involvement with SPUC. Young people aged fifteen to eighteen can obtain details of the competition, an entry form, and background information to help with the writing of essays, by contacting SPUC.

Book ahead

When you get your diary for 2002, mark the date Saturday 4 May. It's the big "Celebrate Life" gathering at Hatfield House in Hertfordshire, home of the Salisbury family. This will be the third year of this remarkable event, at which all the major pro-life charities run stalls and there are lots of activities for all the family, plus a splendid lunch in the Old Palace and a chance to view the famous gardens and tour one of England's most magnificent stately homes. Guest speaker in 2002 will be the Anglican Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres.

Honestly, this is true

Some things sound almost like a spoof - but this honestly isn't. There's a BBC project called the Sexwise Online Website which promises a "global sex education project". It's run jointly by the BBC and the International Planned Parenthood Federation - the world's leading abortion promoters. An accompanying booklet describes abortion simply as a "procedure to terminate unwanted pregnancy", mentioning in smaller type that abortion is illegal in some countries.

Please join me in writing to the BBC (Director BBC, World Service, Bush House, Strand, London WC2) and telling them that this is a nasty way of wasting our television licence money. We see no reason why we should be forced to pay for one-sided views on abortion to be sent worldwide and we resent the BBC being associated with the IPPF which has supported the cruel one-child policy in China. Send a copy of your letter to your local MP. I'd be interested to see copies of any replies you receive. Send them to me at the Pro-Life Times.

And I'm afraid this is true too

Your money is also being used for a National Health Service publicity campaign aimed at encouraging children and young people to talk to their GP about sex and contraception behind their parents' backs. Children in primary schools - yes, that's right, primary schools - are to be among those leafleted in a £10,000 campaign called "Have your say". This unpleasant idea comes from something called the London Conference on Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors. Does your local health visitor know and approve?

Abortion referendum danger in Ireland

by John Smeaton

The Irish people are to face another constitutional referendum on abortion. The government has proposed a bill for a referendum that would define abortion as "the intentional destruction by any means of unborn human life after implantation in the womb of a woman."

Commenting on the wording, international abortion law specialist, Greg Smith said: "The key phrase here is 'implantation in the womb'. Implantation is not the start of human life but just a stage in its development. Science has demonstrated that fertilisation or conception marks the start of life, and the world's most respected scientific, medical and lexicological sources agree. While Irish law currently protects each human life from the moment of conception, this amendment would undermine that protection. "An amendment of this kind would almost certainly have grave repercussions outside Ireland," continued Mr Smith. "It would weaken the pro-life case in attempts in Britain to curtail the supply of morning-after pills. It might also give extra impetus to attempts by the Family Planning Association to extend British abortion law to Northern Ireland." Protect Life Ireland national spokeswoman, Assumpta Begley said: "The amendment could eventually lead to later abortions. Once pre-implantation abortion was allowed, campaigners would press for post-implantation abortion. The government's present bill would permit later abortion where, in a doctor's 'reasonable opinion' it would avoid a 'real and substantial risk' to the mother's life. 'Real and substantial risk' isn't defined, which seems to leave the whole matter to the opinion of a single doctor."

"There is also a freedom of speech issue. Ireland's predominant religion is Christian and Catholic and teaches that life should be protected from the start - from conception. We are entitled to express our views in those terms. There is no reason why the wording cannot be amended so that abortion is described as the intentional destruction by any means of unborn human life from fertilisation," said Mrs Begley.

World Trade Centre tragedy sets off NY abortion drive

by Antonia Tully

While the world was still reeling with the shock of the World Trade Centre disaster, pro-lifers on both sides of the Atlantic were stunned by the announcement that the Planned Parenthood of New York (PPNYC) was offering "reproductive health services", which include abortion, free of charge.

The initial offer which ran from September 18-22 was to the "the many New York women who have been displaced or may otherwise be in need due to the World Trade Centre Tragedy." The offer was then extended to September 29.

Jeanne Head, R.N., President of the Manhattan Right to Life said: "The PPNYC website clearly shows that abortion is part of their service. It is absolutely incredible. While men and women worked around the clock at Ground Zero, Planned Parenthood was offering to kill the unborn babies of the victims... free of charge. Planned Parenthood was looking for bodies too - live bodies they could destroy cold-heartedly. "I ask, was this anything more than a publicity stunt - offering free reproductive healthcare, including abortions, for less than two weeks? These were vulnerable families grieving for the loss of their loved ones. Why would these women be thinking about reproductive care of any kind in the first days of their mourning? Why would they be interested in killing their babies? Is this really what Planned Parenthood thinks that distressed and grieving women want? Could they think of nothing positive to do? Offering to take another life from those that have lost so much already is not a human response."

Margaret Cuthill of British Victims of Abortion said, "It is beyond belief that any woman carrying the child of a husband or partner she has just lost in such a tragedy would want an abortion. That baby would be a legacy of their love, a life to treasure not destroy. Does the Planned Parenthood of New York City understand anything about women?"