Sex-selective abortion vs gender fluidity

Professor Wendy Savage, of the British Medical Association, reckons that "... if a woman does not want to have a foetus who is one sex or the other, forcing her (to go through with the pregnancy) is not going to be good for the eventual child, and it's not going to be good for (the mother's) mental health." (Story here.)

What's this? "[O]ne sex or the other"? As we all know, there are many more than two sexes! And, furthermore, we now know that one's sex isn't settled until, well, ever.

And yet Professor Savage is angry that "... some places won't tell the woman the sex of the foetus, which is outrageous." 

Maybe they're unwilling to assign sexes to babies based on antediluvian pseudoscience about anatomy.

Prospective parents who still, in 2017, follow such outdated opinions, should realise that a baby's physical characteristics no longer have the last word on what it will be.

Only after the child has made its selection should the parents consider termination...

Dorothy Day on abortion and birth control

Context here.

The relevance of camels while discussing gnats

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, I'm seeing a lot of judgments being made about the fitness of those who voted Leave (of whom I am one), and worry about what lies ahead.

We're a bunch of racist xenophobes, apparently. And even if many of us are not personally, we've enabled a bunch of racist xenophobes to usher in a Fascist state.

And people are very worried about that prospect. (I do not relish the idea either.)

But, what do we actually have today? What are we tolerating? What doesn't bother us too much? In fact, what do many actually support?

Well, if you point out that, while worrying about racism and xenophobia, we're tolerating the murder of unborn children, you'll be told that that is a separate issue, totally irrelevant, beside the point.

Now, let's go back to the Gospel and imagine an exchange between Our Lord and a Pharisee. The latter is criticising someone over a gnat-like matter. Our Lord points out that the Pharisee is actually swallowing a camel.

The Pharisee says, "We're not talking about that camel! This is about a gnat! Don't change the subject!"

Or, maybe the Pharisee is telling someone to address a mote that is in his eye. Our Lord comes along and says, "Erm, what about the beam that is in your own eye?"

The Pharisee says, "This is about that man's mote, not my beam! My beam has nothing to do with it!"

We live in a world where abortion is not merely tolerated. It is defended as a right. And we vote for politicians who support it. Even if we oppose abortion personally, we still hold politicians who support it in esteem.They are not beyond the pale. Why? Why is racism, or xenophobia, the only thing that would put them beyond the pale?

If we tolerate abortion, we are in no position to take exception to xenophobia.

In support of Katie Price

What did Katie Price mean when she said that, if she had known her son was going to be blind, she would have had him aborted?

Clearly, she was referring to what she would have done before she knew what having a disabled son was like. Now she is glad she didn't know in advance, because she would have missed out on so much.

And, furthermore, now that she is in a situation where she does know, she would not only not abort a disabled child, but she would be willing to adopt one.

Her words, which some have complained would be upsetting for her son, are surely rather a tribute to him for what he has taught her.

Harvey has been a blessing, changing her whole outlook.

God bless them.

Red Nose Day

Once again, Red Nose Day will be occupying another Friday in Lent, promising fun and frivolity in aid of charity.

For the moment, let's ignore the fact that Comic Relief isn't 100% sound from a Catholic perspective. Just imagine that there are no moral or ethical issues against it at all. All it should take to raise the millions of pounds it intends to raise is a 15 minute broadcast about the plight of poor people here and abroad. As is, the 6+ hours of daftness is just self-indulgence on the part of the celebs (who could raise the equivalent sum or more between themselves). Why do people need to be entertained in order to donate? Would they not donate otherwise? Is it that people will only give to charity on condition that they are amused?

What are people thinking of? If people were motivated by real charity, all that should be needed to raise money for a good cause, is telling them that money is needed and why.

Now to turn to the ethical problems. SPUC has this article from a couple of years ago:

Raising money for Red Nose Day means that some of that money will go to charities and projects that are inimical to building a culture that respects all human life from conception. Red Nose Day has made, and continues to make, grants that fund groups that advocate and promote abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Terrence Higgins Trust.

No one wants to be a spoil-sport when it comes to fundraising for worthy causes, a good thing in itself. However, fundraising efforts should not be spoilt by having the money used to fund the destruction of human life.

It's not just Comic Relief, of course. Many other charities are kind of Trojan Horses, raising money for anti-life causes under the pretext of supporting good causes.

SPUC also has a charities bulletin (which could do with being updated), giving details of where various charities stand on pro-life issues.