data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/93cc6/93cc676f8b48d3e1294ccc2cf681814275e63333" alt=""
This is a very difficult topic - not the morality of it, there's no doubt that abortion is killing an unborn child, but how best to combat it.
I posted a link to an
online petition which called for the UK government to reduce the time limit for abortions, and I signed the petition myself, though I had serious reservations in doing so. As I thought, it provoked quite a bit of comment.
Fr John Boyle (
South Ashford Priest) put up a very good post on the reason he wouldn't sign the petition. His view, one I sympathise with very much, is directly opposed to that of
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Fr. Boyle, and regret signing the petition - my reservations won't be noted there!
Now
Damian Thompson has weighed in with his views. I often enjoy reading his blog, but I do not always agree with his views. In this case, I think he is wrong. He describes two polarities in the pro-life debate: SPUC on one side (the "hard-liners") and LIFE on the other (he considers these to be the "realists.")
I think that suggesting that there is a sort of "civil war" between the two groups is far from helpful.
Damian Thompson points out that SPUC are happy that the government have no plans to change the abortion laws, while LIFE is pushing for a reduction in the upper time limit.
I have friends working in both Pro-Life Organisations. However, when it comes to a question of the UK parliament and the attitude of government, I would follow SPUC's advice. They have far more experience with the legal and legislative side of things.
Damian Thompson has rather simplified the reasons behind SPUC's opposition to amending the Abortion Act. The numbers in the House of Commons suggest very strongly that any attempt to change the Act (by reducing the time limit) would be bound to fail.
I am also worried by the murmurings I've heard on Radio 4 (the Beeb at it again) which suggest that there are moves afoot to remove the requirement for two doctors' signatures. This is a nominal requirement (I've never heard of an abortion being refused because someone hadn't been able to get two signatures) but it
is the law, and we should fight to retain that safeguard.
As for the
pragmatic approach so applauded by Mr Thompson, I would just like to point out that it was tried with the Mental Capacity Act, and went down like a lead balloon, with the government assuring Church leaders of all sorts of protective measures, which in the end failed to materialise. SPUC opposed all compromise, but the Hierarchy didn't listen. And now we have death by starvation and dehydration enshrined in law...
The Cardinal would do well to remember the old adage: "Once bitten, twice shy."