Clearing the air (1) - the disabled are a burden

Having a chilled day and thought I'd pin a few colours to the mast over the few days between now and New Year. I have done it with 'Happy Holidays' and now I feel the need to respond to people like Geoffrey Clark, a man who was standing as a candidate for UKIP's National Executive Committee, until he opened his mouth and put his foot squarely in it by calling for the compulsory abortion of all foetuses that have been identified as having the potential to be born with Down's syndrome or spina bifida.

As if it might make things better the man supported his opinion by stating that the reason for the views he held were merely 'financial' for he was concerned that such children would be 'a burden on the state and the family'. Mind you, the man's amazingly sad utterances didn't stop with children born with health issues for he also (apparently) thinks that the state should re-assess the care given to over eighties as it was 'extraordinarily costly'.

Now whilst I am happy for the man to hold his views, and happier still that he voices them, because that is what democracy does - for it gives minorities and people with different views a voice and the right for it to be heard - it also demands the right to dialogue with the views and to engage in rejoinders. So here's mine:

I write this as someone who has, for as long as I remember,  been 'pro-life'. This is a position that has attracted a fair amount of conflict in the past as I have been engaged by those who wish to demote babies into 'just a mass of cells' and render them to be an abstract 'foetus' as they support what is often little more than social engineering! [I invite those who support the aborting (not 'termination') of a child because it interferes with holidays and changes careers, lifestyle and financial circumstances.

Over the years there have been many who have accused me of being able to have my views based on their premise that: 'it's alright for you because you haven't got a handicapped child'.

Well, this is probably a food time to 'fess up and explain that I have not only held my views for a long time, but that I held them long before I became the father of a severely handicapped child who was with us for just under ten years. Ten years that taught me a great deal about the value and place of the handicapped among us and only confirmed my original views regarding the value of live and the contribution that some of the most damaged can make to the lives of the most able.

There are times when tough choices regarding life and death are forced upon us, and when these appear, the Church needs to be present to offer pastoral and moral support. There are times when the continuance of an obviously non-viable pregnancy that threatens also to take the life of an otherwise healthy woman come knocking at our doors. At some stage we may well find ourselves engaging with others who have the spectre of an abortion somewhere in their life story. What do we do when this is our reality?

I would consider that the first word to think of is always 'Love' regardless of the reasons or outcomes before or behind them.

I have decided that 2013 will be a year when I seek to turn those with 'righteous anger' away from it into a place of 'righteous love'.

The second thing to think of is the fact that in Exodus chapter Twenty we are told that we must never take life 'feloniously' - by which I mean, 'do not murder' - but where life must be taken (and it seems that there are times when the word 'must' is very much a reality, but reliance upon man's laws and the assumption that they overrule the requirements of God's is a flawed, and dangerous, state of affairs.

The third thing to remember is that God calls us to protect the weak, the vulnerable, the widow and the stranger in our midst and that we should do this courageously and without counting the cost. Too often we bring discussions regarding life down to one issue, 'quality of life', but what is really meant here is more often than not one of two things:

What will it cost - financially, emotionally, practically

or

What can they contribute - financially, emotionally, practically

I have seen a cerebrally palsied child, unable to speak, feed or toilet themselves communicate and contribute so much to the life of those around them.

I have seen the very best of people, sometimes in what appears to be the very worst of people, brought out by their encounter with frailty and helplessness.

To  consider only the difficulties that children with major disability and handicap will bring to us in terms of negative numbers - be they financial, emotional or time - is to see past our own humanity and reduce us to nothing more than components. It is to remove the heart and soul from our society  something which (with apologies to those humanists and secularists this might offend) is becoming more commonplace and more acceptable as our netion distances itself from being a people of faith.

So Mr. Clark (and those who might support your views) all I can say is that I am grateful that there isn't a 'Geoffrey Clark test' for those children who are yet unborn, and am glad that it wasn't on offer when you were as them, for each of us regardless of flaws and disability have within us that image of the invisible God that we need to treasure and that ennobles us and makes us and our society all the richer (regardless of financial cost).

Pax

£1m on Abortion Clinic checks

I see shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, is accusing health secretary, Andrew Lansley, of 'acting 'disproportionaely'' after the BBC put a freedom of information request revealed a cost of some £1m and a 'distraction' from its normal duties (and therefore a potential failing of required targets and challenge to funding) for the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Mr Burnham appears to be claiming that this was little more than a cynical attempt on Lansley's part to garner some sort of positive press after such a tough time with his NHS reforms and labels his action against abortion clinics as 'disproportionate'.

Now call me naive but when a minister is approached with information that some (or many) of the abortion clinics were failing to observe the law regarding their services then I would hope that the minister involved would take steps to evaluate and remedy this. Lansley has apparently done the right thing and it is surely made more right by the fact that breaches were found.

Mind you, not trying to be mean-spirited here but who was surprised to find that doctors were 'pre-signing' the paperwork required for approval of an abortion (a blank cheque against in vitro life) and that women were procuring abortion on the grounds of its sex. Next thing you know we'll find some have abortions to ensure that they can maintain financial lifestyles or even go on holiday!!

So, in my book it Lansley 1 - Burnham 0

Of course we have to see what the GMC does about any breaches in practice by the doctors who have been reported to them. I'd suggest that those of you out there who are pro-life don't hold their breaths.

And for those who are pro-choice, it's just an inconvenience that it has been made public I guess.

And the road to the cross is tainted by the legacy of David Steel (the Church of Scotland who advised him) and his 1967 Act. So how many less 'damaged' and 'non-viable' babies are there I wonder (rhetorical - answer is 'none' as the majority of the Act's legacy appears to be all about finance, social engineering and post-coital contraception.

A sad reflection upon our society and its values methinks.

Pax

Confused Ideas Regarding Abortion!

In dialogue with a young lady regarding attitudes to life, she informed me that she was a campaigner for animal rights. Following a little probing I discovered that she was in possession of the following facts and attitudes:

Animals had rights - This meant that she campaigned against fox hunting, animal research and anything that she considered to be cruel towards them.

Humans had less rights - This meant that euthanasia was a good idea and that abortion was a legitimate and morally acceptable act in order to maintain one's own social and economic situation.

It is for that young lady (who sadly will never read this) that I dedicate today's cartoon:

Pax

HS2 - Should the Church be involved?

Moving on from the London march today I am prompted to continue on a different vein. Office said (Harriet Monsell) and desk looking clear (it's all on the floor!), fresh tea on desk and a collection of tits, sparrows and dunnocks hanging from the feeders I am drawn to a letter which tells me that, "Churches and Christians have no place in protesting."

The focus of the protest to which the letter relates is that of 'HS2' (High Speed Two), a rail service which will provide a second high speed link from London to Scotland and one which threatens to cuts communities and houses in two.

* Leaders of industry in the region are saying that the cutting down of the journey to London by forty minutes will bring investment and business to the area.

* Ecologists and nature lovers tell us that the trains increase the carbon economy figures rather than reduce it as the trains consume three times the power of the slower existing stock.

* People can work in London and will be effectively working on the trains whilst they travel and so this is a win-win (unless you count the cost of those commuting into London leaving local workforces).

* Air travel from London to Scotland will be cut, reducing the carbon economy.

These are but a few of the issues and the question is, should the churches be getting involved in this issue. As chairman of the local churches together group I have asked this and the jury is out with many of the leaders. "we shouldn't be getting into stuff like this, it's not our business!" said one minister.

well I think they are wrong, for we are called to serve and support the communities in which we find ourselves, and this is a need which needs to be addressed.

Where I am I am finding ministers who have the attitude that we shouldn't engage in areas where there is difference of opinion and should avoid confrontational issues such as Palestine, Abortion, Homosexuality and the like. The problem with this is that if the minister's are so unsure of what they believe (or too cowardly to dialogue) how can we expect those to whom we minister to have any integrity, rational thought processes and ability to dialogue and debate.

1 Peter 3 tells us that we should be able to answer any who ask, telling them of the hope we have in Jesus.

Now if the ministers cannot do this, then what hope is there for the members?

Anyone fancy coming to a public meeting - details soon?

I love this blog, enables me to dialogue with the voices inside my head, the people outside it and the God who is everywhere.

Pax