Two blog posts have caught my eye today, one from Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith for The Catholic Herald and one from Ed West for The Telegraph, both arguing the depressing futility of the abortion 'debate', in the wake of this week's thumping Commons majority in support of the caring, compassionate, ruthlessly efficient industrial killing machine that is Marie Stopes and their friends, the BPAS. Some have blamed the pro-life movement for not moving themselves, together, on the amendment, but even with the higher number of pro-life MPs, I do think that the pro-life movement in the 21st century, when campaigning and lobbying MPs, must by now realise that it is going through the motions. Our parliamentarians, apart from a small minority, are not interested in changing the law on abortion, in the slightest. I expect that most of our MPs think abortion is a good thing because it means that after they've got home from thieving from the public purse on their second homes and duck houses and go and see their mistresses, or indeed misters, then it is good to have a back up plan when one or the other gets up the duff. All in all, I expect the majority of our MPs are more feral than most youths on council estates.
Not, I might add, that campaigning on behalf of, and defending, the unborn is futile. Who knows who might be 'won over' to the pro-life cause by our words? But it does seem that the with the whole Life issue, in general you are either in one camp or the other and moral positions, however illogical and contrary to Divine and natural law they appear to us, are held by the pro-abortion advocates no matter how many heated words are exchanged. There are some people in the middle however - both in terms of the unborn children dying while the debate takes place and those born who are 'yet to decide' whether they believe that abortion is morally wrong or right in certain circumstances. It is, after all, relatively few who argue for abortion in any circumstance whatsoever...apart from in the House of Commons that is. I expect Parliament was bought off in the 1960s and that it is still being bought off today, but then, we knew that already. If you think that's prejudice, well, it is no different to the prejudice MPs had against Nadine Dorris MP and the pro-life cause as a whole, except that my prejudice is grounded in my experience as a voter.
Ed West, at the end of his article, suggests that the only way...
'...pro-lifers will ever win the debate is by publicising videos of medical abortions. This was the successful method used by the animal rights movement, especially by groups such as PETA, which forced people to see what actually went on in farms. Likewise the anti-slavery campaign publicised details about ships carrying slaves. I’d have much more respect for a metro-Lefty pro-choicer who was willing to witness the reality of medical abortion, and still back it, just as I have respect for meat eaters who are prepared to witness animal-killing. But I suspect that if most people saw the reality of “choice” they would be inclined to think twice...'
I shall not link to it, but has the Abort 67 campaign got him thinking (you'll have to look it up on Google, but be warned)?