It takes a nation to protect the nation
During a recent debate it became apparent that we are having trouble defining exactly what "English Culture" really was. Some of us feel that there should be some kind of datum to decency. Some of us believe that we should revive the notion that England is a Christian Culture but then we have problems defining what, as Christians, we actually stand for.
One of things that I have seen in my life is the damage that Abortion has done to friends and relatives and it worries me that out Liberal culture tries to sell Abortion as a form of contraception and then leaves the Parents and the family to pick up the phycological pieces later. I have attached Melanie Phillips article on Abortion for your interest.
Strictly speaking this has nothing to do with the fight against Islam but one of the charges that I have heard made by Islamists against our Culture is that it is decadent and evil, and despite the fact that that is a bit rich coming from a culture that thinks Murder and dismemberment is a legitimate family activity, but be that as it may - they have a point. I have kept this off the main walls as it is pretty irrelevant but I put it here in case it may interest anyone else.
What hope is there if doctors won't respect unborn children?
By MELANIE PHILLIPS Last updated at 11:52 AM on 28th February 2011
You really do have to wonder which is the more extreme effect of our politically correct culture — the way in which it brutalises people, or the way it turns them into cerebrally-challenged automatons?
Both attributes were on startling display in the latest piece of advice to emanate from no less august a body than the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
This guidance, intended for all doctors, nurses and counsellors advising women contemplating having an abortion, said such women should be told that terminating a pregnancy was safer than having a baby.
Savage: 'It is dismaying that even doctors specialising in bringing babies into the world have succumbed to this savage reductionism'
To which one can only ask: safer for whom, precisely? Not for the baby, certainly.
This is not meant to be a flip comment. For the point is that these doctors seemed to have totally lost sight of some basic humanity here.
Abortion is — or should be seen as — at best, a necessary evil. Some religious people, of course, do not accept even that. They regard abortion simply as the killing of the unborn and a crime against humanity and the Almighty.
Although their views should be respected, the fact is that very few people would want to return to the days when abortion was illegal. Nevertheless, there is widespread and increasing disquiet about abortion — on account of both the rate at which it is occurring and the coarsening of values that it has brought in its wake.
For like so many other liberalising measures, what started as a humane response — in this case to the dangerous back-street butchery of desperate women — has turned into something quite different.
The framers of the original legislation never foresaw that abortion would turn into a routine form of contraception. But that’s what has happened.
The official figures for 2009 show that there were 189,100 abortions in England and Wales — with no fewer than 42.4 per cent of all pregnancies to women under the age of 20 ending in a termination, rising to around 60 per cent among under-16s. Indeed, from 1969, the number of abortions to girls under 20 more than quadrupled to over 40,000 in 2009.
Experts have said that although some progress has been made in reducing Britain’s world-beating rate of teenage pregnancies, abortion is increasingly being seen as the major method of contraception for many young women.
These figures are horrifying. Abortion should be a last resort. The law was framed as a balancing act between different levels of harm. The destruction of the foetus could be undertaken only if the harm to the mother of having the baby was considered too great.
This was because what was produced at conception was considered an early form of human life. And even though it was not considered to have the same status as a developed baby, it was once deemed vital to treat it with respect. To do otherwise was to devalue life itself and our common humanity.
Well, this is precisely what has taken place. That sense of balance went out of the window long ago under the pressure of ideologues screaming about ‘a woman’s right to choose’, which reframed abortion solely as concerning the interests of the mother.
It is dismaying indeed — even if not altogether surprising — that even doctors specialising in bringing babies into the world have succumbed to this savage reductionism.
Simply as a procedure, it may well be the case that having a baby is more dangerous than an abortion.
Controversial: 'Abortion should be a last resort. The law was framed as a balancing act between different levels of harm'
But to imply that having a baby is a dangerous procedure is a disreputable piece of scaremongering. It amounts to the psychological manipulation of women who are already in a vulnerable state. It is a form of bullying and a gross abuse of medical power.
Nor is that all. The guidance also says that women who are deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most do not suffer any psychological harm from the procedure.
But rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who have had an abortion. While cause and effect cannot be proved, it defies common sense to say that there is no connection.
'Rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who have had an abortion'
Indeed, according to consultant psychiatrist Professor Patricia Casey, there are more than 30 studies showing an association between abortion and psychological trauma.
Moreover, this new guidance is even more extraordinary since doctors are always supposed to base their advice on the individual circumstances of every patient. Yet these are blanket guidelines for the treatment of all women considering abortion. They are, therefore, not geared to every woman’s own best interests.
They are intended rather to achieve one aim — to get all such women to have abortions.
This is by no stretch of the imagination a medical agenda but an ideological one — and a terrifyingly inhuman one at that.
It appears that, taken aback by the ferocity of the reaction to this guidance, the Royal College is now having second thoughts about the wording.
But the question remains how doctors can have lost their ethical compass so badly that they dehumanise life in this way, and dress up as ‘treatment’ the manipulation of fragile patients.
The answer is that medicine itself has been progressively brutalised under the impact of abortion.
In 1948, in the wake of the atrocities of the Nazi period, doctors subscribed to a professional oath enshrined in the Declaration of Geneva which contained this clause: ‘I will have the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception . . .’
By 1984, however, the last five words had been altered to read ‘from its beginning’ — and, in 2005, they were deleted altogether. The beginning of life had been written out of the world’s medical ethical script as just too inconvenient.
It could not be allowed to interfere with the ‘rights’ of a woman or girl, including the ‘right’ to indulge in unconstrained sexual activity. The early product of conception was thus stripped of all human value.
'The question remains how doctors can have lost their ethical compass so badly that they dehumanise life in this way'
The result of this profound cultural shift has been not only that a solemn and even tragic dilemma has been turned into an unthinking extension of ‘lifestyle choice’ which has all but destroyed the intrinsic respect for human life which defines a civilised society, it has also helped undermine childhood and exposed ever younger girls to both psychological and physical harm and exploitation.
The belief that the only harm arising from the sexual activity of young teenagers is the unfortunate consequence of a live baby has helped promote not just the normalisation of abortion, but the premature sexualisation of even very young children.
As an investigation by this paper found last week, businesses are targeting children under ten with ‘Lipstick and Limo’ parties and U.S.-influenced ‘mini-model’ fashion parades, complete with pageant-style tiaras and scaled-down catwalks, ‘pamper parties’ and cosmetic tips previously confined to the adult market.
In addition, children are being pushed by their parents to make YouTube videos in which they sing sexualised or drug-influenced pop lyrics, mimicking the provocative routines of stars like Lady Gaga and Madonna.
Treating children as if they are mini-adults in this grotesque manner illustrates once again the collapse of the understanding that adults have a duty to parent children by providing appropriate boundaries, and thus protect them from harm.
Indeed, if individual safety really were the top priority, our society would be seeking to reverse the disastrous doctrine of ‘lifestyle choice’ which has produced this rampant sexual promiscuity and catastrophic rise in teenage abortion.
But don’t expect the dehumanising automatons of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to say so.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has any views on what exactly "English Culture" is and how we can define it. I would be particularly interested in hearing views from other Christians who would like make sure our religion is never subverted to justify violence and hatred.
God Bless to all
Add a Comment