Bring me my bow of burning gold, bring me my arrows of desire. And I’ll bring
you the hide of Patricia McKeever, the internet Torquemada of Scottish
Catholic gaydom. Ms McKeever, of Catholic Truth is, as reported in
The Times yesterday , a one-person outing operation, determined to
uncover closeted cassock-lifters, to drag them shrieking and naked from
their metaphorical priests’ holes and thereby to cleanse the Church. Ms
McKeever has restored me to myself, reminding me – at an age when I expend
my passions carefully – of just what it is in the public sphere that makes
me most angry.
It’s the gap – the abyss – between the stated reason for the actions of the
world’s McKeevers and their real (if hidden) motives that so appals. Why
does Ms M send letters and e-mails to priests and seminarians whom she
suspects of going to gay clubs? Why does she demand of an Edinburgh
clergyman to know whether he is a homosexual? Ostensibly to “raise awareness
of the problem . . . ultimately to ensure the safety of others in the
Church. Not just the physical safety of children, important though that is,
but also the spiritual safety of people and congregations entrusted to the
care of a homosexual priest or bishop.”
She is no relative, naturally, to the poison pen writer, or to the persecutors
of imaginary backsliding converted Jews or secret Trotskyists. She doesn’t
send her missives, of course, for the pleasure of it, for the excuse to
think and talk dirty in the name of purity. She doesn’t do it in the inner
hope that by identifying the shameful “other” she somehow cleanses her own
psyche of its troubling longings. She does it because she is righteous.
Ms McKeever is, in the point of general fact, not wrong. I don’t mean by this
that ordinary Catholics or their children are in any way at more hazard from
gay priests than from heterosexual ones. I mean that there almost certainly
are many homosexual Catholics, including priests, and if you take the view,
as she does, that such an orientation is an abomination and that one is
required to persecute the abominator, then her witch-hunt makes local sense.
For various reasons Scottish Catholicism – itself for many years a persecuted
creed – has acted as a lightning rod for recent electric traffic on the
subject of the citizen and his or her personal morality. Abortion, said the
Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien three weeks ago, is murder. “In Scotland,”
he said, “we kill the equivalent of two classrooms of children every day.”
He urged Catholics, in effect, not to vote for politicians who upheld the
existing abortion laws, and suggested in effect that pro-choice MPs couldn’t
be real Catholics. “I can’t change the Ten Commandments,” said O’Brien
McKeeverishly. “That’s what I’m ordained to teach and to preach: ‘Thou shalt
not kill.’ ” I should not, of course, dispute theology with a full cardinal,
but abortion is not in the commandments at all. Or anywhere in the Bible. In
fact its proscription by the Church is a comparatively late development, so
you might have thought that those who believe that abortion is wrong would
be more tentative in their condemnation of those who take a contrary view.
I was alarmed therefore, to read my good friend and colleague Gerard
Baker in these pages last week , describing abortion as worse than
slavery, in that those who have an abortion know in their hearts that it is
wrong, while slave-owners cheerfully thought that slaves benefited from
three square meals a day and all the chains they could carry. Abortion would
one day, Gerry predicted, be viewed as “a moral abomination”, when “almost
all of the time choosing to have the baby is the good and moral and
honourable thing to do”.
I’m not going to go all Dawkins on Gerry’s Catholic ass – in my half-century I
think I have learnt that the possession or absence of religion is no real
indicator of good character. But I think you do have to be a true believer
to insult so many people so badly while laying claim to such virtue. When,
in the mid-1960s, with four children already, after several miscarriages and
with little money, my mother took herself to an illegal abortionist for a
termination, she was not in my view committing a moral abomination. In fact
what she was doing was morally right. What was morally wrong was that when
the police discovered her name on a list held by the doctor who had
performed the operation, she was forced to answer their humiliating
questions. The doctor himself later committed suicide.
Now, it would be abominable for me to force a female Gerry to have an
abortion. It is abominable to me for him to try to force people like my
mother into illegality because of his own moral or religious views.
What makes it worse is that I have always sensed a low-level hypocrisy in the
claim that abortion is murder. If it is, then every miscarriage is an
untimely death, yet I don’t imagine that Cardinal O’Brien has the foggiest
notion of how many pre-term deaths there have been since 1967, or has
campaigned to improve massively the survival rates for otherwise miscarried
foetuses. It’s somehow only death if women choose it.
Let’s not make this just about Catholics. There are all kinds of people who,
for religious or cultural reasons, wish to see greater social control over
what women, homosexuals and youngsters are allowed to do. They would like
the rules on divorce tightened, the morning-after Pill discouraged, women to
wear modest headscarves so that their hair doesn’t drive men wild with
misplaced sexual desire. They want clear and stringent rules on what people
may and may not do. They forget that, from Saudi Arabia to TV evangelism,
such illiberalism always runs on the black hypocrisy of cheating husbands,
punished women, blackmail, misery and self-slaughter.
Usually I don’t bother to say all this because we liberals have probably won
the culture war, and it seems more relevant to deal with some of the malign
consequences of our own victory. If David Cameron’s Conservatives now want
to be liberal, then so much the better. I have always found it repulsive
that people who used to specialise in persecution (remember the attacks on
New Age travellers?) should get so het up by speed cameras.
But I thought that one recent commenter on The Times website had picked up
something significant. Writing yesterday about the poll showing Tory MPs to
be less than fully Cameronian, Malcolm McLean observed that “there are a
significant number of Tories who don’t want secularisation, and some older
school socialists who are beginning to realise that they agree with them”.
The battle may not be over after all. Better bring me the spear too.
this is a never ending debate.
I understand the point that MrAaronovitch is making and I agree that we should not judge lighlty a woman that has gone through that experience. I think he has being very brave and open talking about a case so close to him.
nevertheless, what I am more concerned is what I would call a certain "frivolization" of abortion. if I analyze the number of abortions in my own country (Spain) during the last 20 years there is a sharp increase that makes me wonder if we as citizens should make something about that or just leave as it is, as a private issue that is not a public concern.
in any case, I think that women should never be put into jail for these issues and it should be treated more as a social issue that requires the analysis and help of everyone (regardsless of his/her creed or political ideology) than as a criminal public policy issue
gonzalo, Madrid, Spain
I agree with every word in this article, the Cathoic church is an unbelievable, hypocrital bigot.
The reason they don't like abortion, condoms, & homosexuals is simple , ALL OF THEM ROB THE CHURCH of more followers.
It's always been the case , when a woman says she is pregnant the first words to her are, congratulations, makes no difference if it is an unwanted pregnancy or if she is an unsuitable parent .
There are far too many unwanted children in the world who have a miserable life.
Instead of preaching against abortion his holy-madness, the Pope should be vigorously promoting birth control.
He has shown a cold cruelty to people of Africa & other over populated countries by not changing the Catholic stance on condoms.
Women are not only having too many babies but also being infected with HIV & Aids due to this.
Abortion should be available for Catholics or anyone who realises it is unfair to bring yet another child into poverty.
Also vasectomy , should be free in such places.
Maggie Millington, Brittany, France
What a screed!
Mary Ann Kreitzer, Woodstock, VA, USA
I used to think that the anti abortion camp had it absolutely right, that like slavery, there is no half way: you have to be entirely against abortion because it is about terminating a human life. Ceding any ground on this would set you off down a slippery slope.
I still do think that contemporary Western countries are remarkably casual about terminating pregnancies, but have also come to believe the issue is somewhat more nuanced than either end of the abortion argument allow.
Human life is very valuable, but both nature and society sanction that it can be taken in some circumstances (the former in natural miscarriage and disease, the latter in war and in self defense). And common law, as developed by you amazing English, is all about commonly understood compromises, not absolutes (which those "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" across the Channel favor).
Both sides in the abortion debate favor absolutes; both are misguided in their zeal.
Hugh Morgan, Alameda, CA
You say that the proscription of abortion is "a comparatively late development." Leaving aside the very early writings of the Church Fathers, if you mean that the ninth century is "late," then this is true, because Pope Stephen V officially condemned abortion as homicide in 887 AD.
Charlotte_S, New Orleans, USA
Since "God" chooses to "kill" one in three "babies" before birth with no help from humans, Catholic priests need to have a good long think about the implications for their theology.
Margaret, London,
In your article you condemn yourself.
Well, if I personally were a young woman with little money and having already had several miscarriages the LAST thing I'd be doing is having un-protected sex.
Abortion doesn't always go smoothly, some foetuses are still alive after having left the womb. I shall leave it to your imagination to what was done to your still-living sibling's body before he/ she finally expired. I hope you have nightmares.
Christopher Griffin, London, England
I think you are a bit confused between morality and legality. I'll agree with you that it's absurd for the Law to hound a doctor to suicide and interrogate your mother, but that's an issue concerning the legality of abortion, not its morality.
I believe that the only consistent stance to take is to regard abortion as murder, but a murder that society sanctions under certain circumstances. To say that abortion is murder when we punish it and not murder when we don't, is simply playing with words.
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US
Proscription of abortion is, in fact, one of the earliest features of Christian practice and was upheld in a society in which infanticide was relatively common and respectable. Texts like the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, and Apocalypse of Peter make it clear that the Church was unequivocal on this; that is the basis of the once universal criminalization of abortion in the West. Aaronovitz should do a little elementary research before opining in public.
Austin, Chicago,
The Church claims that possession of a soul defines our humanity. And it has not been at all consistent over the centuries about when a human receives a soul. Is it at conception? Is it at birth? The bible is silent on this, and Catholic theology has been all over the place on when a soul is implanted.
Remember that for many centuries both Catholics and Protestants had a habit of torturing innocent people to death in the name of Jesus - hundreds of thousands of people died at the hands of people claiming to be doing God's will. The descendants of the witch finders now claim that removing tissue which has no nervous system is "murder". Their logic skills don't seem to improve over time, do they?
I'm grateful for the development of secular law and secular government.
God save us all from those who claim to speak for God!
E Carpenter, New York, USA
"What makes it worse is that I have always sensed a low-level hypocrisy in the claim that abortion is murder. If it is, then every miscarriage is an untimely death, yet I don’t imagine that Cardinal O’Brien has...campaigned to improve massively the survival rates for otherwise miscarried foetuses. It’s somehow only death if women choose it."
I find this paragraph a little simplistic and dismissive of those who've suffered miscarriage. I'm sure any woman who has suffered a miscarriage would disagree with the last sentence: suffered is the only word that can describe the grief a woman goes through when a longed-for baby miscarries.
Comparing miscarriage to abortion not a helpful argument here, and has the potential to create more guilt and pain in women who already wonder if it's their fault - did they eat the wrong thing, walk a little too fast that day, was it because they weren't looking tripped and fell - their baby died. Please keep miscarriage out of this debate.
Jo, London,
I would have liked Mr Aaronovitch to look further into his argument 'There are all kinds of people who, for religious or cultural reasons, wish to see greater social control over what women, homosexuals and youngsters are allowed to do'. It would be interesting to see a deeper debate over this complex issue.
Roman Catholicism in particular has become a scapegoat, deserving or otherwise, in the wider debate over the issue of social choices. It is very dangerous to hide behind the notion that liberalism is 'winning'. It is also dangerous to use the argument of hypocrisy, no individual can say that they are not a hypocrite.
Furthermore, a truly liberal, pluralistic society, is upheld through compromise and tolerance. Surely those are virtues to which we should aspire. Better that than an eternity of religion-bashing.
Frances Roberson, Croydon, Surrey
You miss the point of the 10 Commandments. They include the intention as well as the act, as the 10th commandment about coveting makes clear. The reason you can't find a text which says "you shall not commit abortion" is because all acts of killing another human being are by definition included in the sixth commandment, and that includes abortion. Presumably you do not approve the blowing up of human beings for political ends, whch according to your logic should be acceptable, because we find no text in the Bible which specifically says "you shall not blow up human beings for political ends". And if your fall back on the old chesnut "the foetus is not a human being", you are on very shaky ground as the on going discoveries in foetal science make evident.
rob, london, UK
As someone described the anti-abortion position, "I am against abortion except in cases of rape or incest...... or my own special circumstances" meaning their position changes when they or their daughter is unwantingly pregnant (in many cases).
Or as Ted Heath said on capital punishment, "Are you willing to be the innocent person who is excuted?" In other words you position depends on which side of the fence you are viewing the issue from.
Paul, Whistler, Canada
It's apalling that religion is so often used as a scapegoat by people who do not want to face the secular logic that follows that an unborn fetus is life and that to take a life is wrong and unlawful. It's the most natural thing in the world to beleive those two principles, and to that extent it is disgusting to see people narrowly treat this as a religious matter alone.
Douglas, Richmond, Virginia
Isn't it odd that the Patricia McKeevers of this world are often the people most opposed to regulation and/or the clichéd "nanny state"? They just want to impose their moral code and way of life on everyone else, so that's ok isn't it? And I bet you're right, lots of them also don't like speed limits even though they save real lives.
But having said all that there are too many abortions needed each year in the UK. The anti-contraception and education leagues have much to answer for, as has the drinks industry...
Brian Hughes, Cheltenham, UK
As a Christian I have always been perturbed by the level of interest certain moralisers have for the sexual orientation or even sex life of another. It always strikes me as rather a perverse obsession unless there are genuine reasons for interference such as fear of child abuse. Whilst I agree on this point I think that many woman who have miscarried a child would consider it a death even if it has happened naturally. The lost child will never be forgotten and will be grieved for. To say that it is somehow implied that it is not a death unless the woman chooses it is stretching the point. It is surely well known that there is help available for woman who have multiple miscarriages. Those babies are fought for. Did the Cardinal need to state this in order to demonstrate he cares for those naturally miscarried?
Caroline, Milton Keynes,
You haven't looked very far in the bible for evidence of it being against abortion, David. Try Jeremiah 1:5 or Psalm 139 - it doesn't take too much intelligence to work out that if God knew us before we were born, to destroy that life in the womb is akin to murder.
I'm afraid Gerry's article was much more convincing than yours.
David , Yarm,
The priest who spoke of the ten commandments might check up on the second, the one about worshipping images (always omitted from the ten when displayed on the walls of Roman Catholic Churches)!
Stanley, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
This is my first time at doing this and I have just come to realise this is not a structured debate about the article in question but a free-for-all that would allow even the ramblings of a deranged inadequate to vent their spleen! Well good luck to all you folk, no offence intended but I have more constructive things to spend my time doing? God Bless you all!
Michael, Newcastle,
Please don’t let these pages be vehicles for pure prejudice that do not relate to the article in question! No mention was made of aids in the article yet you allow Julia, St Albans to generalise that suddenly all Catholics are “hypocritical and sickening”, because of the no condoms stance! Abstinence is consistent with the churches teaching and one made with integrity. No hypocrisy there, nor in the fact that it is probably the largest on the ground charity helping aids sufferers throughout the world! Shame on you Times, can you not see your own prejudice? As for Julia’s point that all priests are privileged males controlling the population and bullying the most vulnerable in society. This could not be further from the truth, by and large they are humble men who have given their entire life in service, with no pay except through donations from their congregation, who seek to serve, especially the poor and vulnerable in society with as much integrity as humanly possible!
Michael, Newcastle,
A classically liberal ,undiscriminating lumping together of injustices to homosexuals and women - the outing of gay priests and the outing of foetuses from the womb,condemned with an outraged assertion of moral equivalency.
Tony Nagano, Bristol, England
The greatest hypocrisy of the anti-abortion crowd is their frequent lack of concern for real living children.
The are obsessed by fetuses, even stem cells in many cases, but really needy kids? Forget it.
All the blubber-jowelled moralists like Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, or the late Jerry Falwell unfailingly support the American government in every bombing run and brutal act it conducts.
Tens of thousands of real children mutilated and killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and other places.
And how about the same guys' support for the poor children of their own country?
It doesn't exist. They can't drop cheques in the offering plate.
John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada
Mr Aronovitch is not just smug -if he thinks liberals are in the ascendant where has he been living? Iran? he is also plain wrong. Of course abortion is murder. Typical of these media luvvies that one form of death is OK, abortion, and another, the death sentence is not! All this guff about miscarriage is the usual pathetic adolescent attempt to badmouth those who disagree with you and claim to be always right. Amazing also that he does not say that all catholics are fascists! Of course he implies it.
Emile P, Newmarket, UK
Whatever the morality of abortion, it is a horrible procedure that distresses those who perform it, and is miserable for the putative mothers. For this reason if none other, unwanted pregnancies should be discouraged, by education - propaganda, if you like - and by the ready availability of contraceptives.
Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France
"By the way, name a criminal law that isn't grounded in a moral view.
Kevin, London"
Try taxes! non-payment thereof. I am not absolutely certain but I dont think there's a commandement saying we must pay our taxes! Unless of course you are a socialist in which case the money isnt ours to start with.
Tim, Bournemouth,
'I imagine more third world people are dying through the spread of AIDS because they are not using condoms. The Catholic church isn't exactly helping that issue is it?'
With respect, you are wrong. I am African. Did you know that there is NO African country in which Roman Catholicism is the dominant faith? In any case, the same Roman Catholics forbid both sex outside marriage as well as adultery. Now what makes you think that those who disobey the Pope's teachings about extra marital sex and adultery will obey him on condoms? To be abstinent till marriage and to resist the sexual longings outside marriage requires discipline. To use condoms always to avoid HIV, also requires discipline. But there is a behavioural theory of consistency of discipline or indiscipline.
It seems obvious that the only difference between a foetus and a say, 2 year is only time. That is the problem with ab
Nike Olafimihan , Den Haag, Netherlands
I only have two comments, or questions. Firstly, why are people who are against abortion frequently incapable of spelling correctly?
Secondly, until all these anti-abortionist, self-important moralists actually do something to save the lives and improve the lot of children who are already born, they are the real hypocrites.
An article that transcends the lies and fundamentalism that are on the increase.
severin, London, UK
Sredni Vashtar,
You obviously fast forward past the "Piracy is theft" warnings on your DVDs. I hope that's not a system anyone here is inclined to abuse.
I'm not forcing my opinion down anyone's throat. I'm writing a comment on a Web site. Can't I choose to do that? I notice, however, that you would like to actually force a mother's opinion on an unborn child. If choices are alway moral (and apparently gifted with clairvoyance about the alternative consequence) then why not wait until the child is old enough to decide for itself that it's life is not worth living, like the poor soul in your second example?
Liberal choice, especially in sexual ethics, is not based on love of neighbour, but rather on the old principle of caveat emptor, or as it is colloquially known: "Too late, sucker". Thankfully we have abandoned that principle in consumer law, even if unscrupulous sellers still abuse the system.
By the way, name a criminal law that is incapable of being broken.
Kevin, London,
Fact: before a certain point, normally the cut off point legally, the 'baby' is a cluster of stem cells, no different to a small part of a human and not a sentinent human with organs, bones etc.
Ben, York,
I would make this about Catholics. The most illiberal papacy in centuries is trying to interfere in the civil administration of countries in its hypocritical (good for you Aronovitch !) denunciation of abortion. Bad enough that they try to do it in Catholic countries, like Brazil, but in Britain ! The 39 articles rule that" ...the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England..." Post Act of Union that means Scotland too. Abortion is a tragedy but, as Aronovitch has indicated, women need to make such decisions for themselves, not self serving "princes of the Church".
David, Ligneyrac, France
I have always thought it strange that so many catholics (the Polish government as one example) can proclaim the sanctity of life at the same time as being in favour of the death penalty. Something a little hypocritical in that maybe?
sim, Warsaw,
Read Jeremiah- "before I formed you in your mother's womb I knew you". Life begins there, it is YOU in the womb, it is YOU that dies in abortion or miscarriage.
Moses said "Choose life, that it may be well with you". Life is a gift from God, to be protected.
Erik Ronneberg, Chicago, USA
The hypocrite here is you Mr. Aronovitch. While I'm not religious, I'm anti-abortion, and fully believe it's murder. Abortion is only justified in very, very limited circumstances.
The fact that the Cardinal probably can't tell you how many miscarriges there are, means nothing in the debate. Thats a fog, thrown by you to cover your lack of basis for unlimited abortion.
Death in war, is still death, executions are legalised murder, and abortion is also legalized murder. The taking of human life is murder, plain and simple. Here's where your hypocrisy shows sir....you oppose the death penalty, but support abortion on demend....why??...how can you justify those polar opposite views???....why is one murder and the other not???
You may think your view of the liberalization of culture is a won war, but your so wrong. What your form of Liberalization has wrought is nothing more than a sterile desert, full of hedonists, and not some kind of utopia.
Joshua, oxford, UK
What utter tosh! How can an intelligent person compare abortion with forcing a woman to wear a headscarf? Presumably Mr. Aaronovithc objects to genital mutilation of female babies but he doesn't object to them being killed before they are born. That is sheer, liberal hypocrisy. It is also deeply insulting to assume that those who oppose abortion are either religious fundamentalists or cultural and moral conservatives. I am neither religious nor against homosexuality, womens' rights, and much of liberalism but I still believe abortion is wrong. Of course a woman can do what she likes with her body (I am in favour of liberalising drugs for example) - but a foetus is not her body! As for not knowing how many miscarriages there are, that is pure sophistry? Does not knowing how many people die each year from cancer alter the number of people stabbed to death or that stabbing somebody is wrong? There is not a single, relavnt point made here.
Tim, London,
I can't understand how anyone can make a moral issue out of another's sexual preference. However, abortion is another matter. It involves the taking of life and that is a serious business and one that has moral and emotional effects on all the people concerned. A lot of the issue revolves around the point at which you consider the life to be sentient and human. When you are just dealing with a few cells it probably isn't really, but when there are arms and legs involved it becomes infinitely more problematic. I remember seeing my own son on ultrasound at just 12 weeks, perfectly formed, bouncing around, and seemingly enjoying himself. However, it would have been legal to have aborted him at that age. I find that disturbing. If my partner's health had been at risk, fair enough. If he had been handicapped in some way...maybe. But just for convenience, or out of preference...no matter how strong...no way. We have a "right to choose" to terminate our own life, but surely not someone else's
Alan Goldwater, london, UK
Hang on, David, before you go too far down the road of pigeonholing anyone who sees things differently to yourself, there are some of us who refuse to be shoved into your restrictive little coup. I am no Catholic - I have no religion and regard myself as agnostic. I do consider myself reasonably liberal in outlook and I certainly do not advocate keeping women under strict social control. Nor do I have any ill thoughts about homosexuals nor do I expect my daughters to conceal their hair. Yet I cannot help myself in thinking that abortion is the destruction of a human life and so my conscience tells me it is abhorrent under all but the most dire of circumstances. To me, and those who share my view of this, the body of an unborn foetus is not simply part of the body of the mother to be excised at her will. It is rather a discreet entity and should be afforded the right to continue his or her existence and has a moral right to be protected both by the mother and by our society.
S Foster, Doncaster, UK
I'm so pleased you wrote this article - I was quite disturbed by the piece last week and the idea that 'everyone knows abortion is wrong'. I believe in saving children's lives but that includes the 15 year old girls who would otherwise lose their whole childhoods to look after babies they don't want and may well resent.
If people believe abortion is morally wrong then they should have their babies and offer support to young and single mothers who need it - but not everyone feels the same way about something that is -8 months old and I really don't think this is something that can be generalised, particularly with the history and danger of back street terminations.
Claire, London,
It's interesting to note that the majority of commenters here are male.......
Also, as a female who has suffered both a miscarriage and chosen to go down the painful route of abortion, I can add that no woman chooses the second path without a great deal of 'soul searching and agonising'. But at least I had the choice!!!!!
J, Swindon, Wiltshire
There is a difference between having a moral oppinion and airing it and enforcing that oppinion on others. Gerrard Baker is entitled to his opinion, i do not think he necessarily wants to impose it on others. Your mother's decision needs to be viewed in context. Today most women have a choice whether to have 4 children and can choose to use contraception if they want to, in the 1960's this was not the case. Your argument is confused and understandably emotional. I think you are fearful of all unfashionable moral positions which threaten to offend and to that extent, reflect the zeitgeist of our time.
vivienne, sheffield, england
It seems a crying shame that all the hard-earned availability of contraception, which liberated us women in the '60s, sems to have had so litle effect in the new generation, who, almost sem to view abortion as a form of contraception. Abortion is a last resort, and, even though it should be legally availabl, more shoud be done to teach youngster to be sexually RESPONSIBLE. Just because you have a buoy does not mean you can jump off a ship anywhere in the ocean. But it seems a sad fact that every generation has to learn everything all over again by their mistake. There's the pill, there' IUDs and there's condoms. What there isn't is the kind of education that makes youngster understand what a boon it is, and how they are responsible for protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancies, because they have the immense luxury of having it all at their disposal.
elizabeth schumann, Paris, France
I go along with the church.By its very nature abortion is the destruction of life.Some rant,Mr.Aaranovitch.You are as fundamentalist and intolerant as any religious fanatic in pursuit of your 'secularism' and 'liberalism'.
Joe Dignan, Frodsham, England
Yes, you liberals have won the 'culture war' and look what a mess the Uk is in. The tv programme 'Big Brother' is a suitable epitaph to your achievements!
andrew brown, derby, UK
Why are people like Kevin so afraid of choice? The family of someone incapable of sustaining their own life are given the chance to stop the artificial support, so why can't someone who is capable of making a decision about the quality of their own life choose not to end it? Why should a mother who knows that her unborn child will have a poor quality of life not terminate it? If your answer is "because people may abuse the system", then I have news for you, people will ALWAYS abuse the system if the reward is high enough, hence back street abortionists and the horrors that that entails. Or the trips to Switzerland to visit specialist clinics there. Do not force your beliefs down my throat and do not require everyone to believe as you do. Choice is important.
Finally: copyright infringement. Where's the morality there?
Sredni Vashtar, London, UK
I have always wondered why people seek to have thier religious views enshrined in law. It seems to me that a person of strong faith, who truly lived by the tennets of their religion, would live according to their values regardless of the legal status of their actions.
Which makes me think that those who seek to have their regious laws made into the state's laws are those who have a weak faith - those who lack confidence in their ability to be strong in their religion. They are people teetering on the knife edge between faith and secularism - they are the weakest of their religion.
Think about that next time you see someone campaigning against abortion, or homosexuality, or for Shariah law. Look at them hard, and ask yourself, what is it inside them that they are afraid of letting out.
Damian, London, UK
"abortion is not in the commandments at all. Or anywhere in the Bible. In fact its proscription by the Church is a comparatively late development, so you might have thought that those who believe that abortion is wrong would be more tentative in their condemnation of those who take a contrary view"
We obviously don't have the same Bible in mind. Bearing in mind that the Bible condemned to death those who provoked miscarriages by striking pregnant women, and that volunatarily killing a human being generally comes under the heading of "homicide", I'd be careful about talking about books I hadn't read if I was Mr Aaronovitch
Pierre, France,
I imagine more third world people are dying through the spread of AIDS because they are not using condoms. The Catholic church isn't exactly helping that issue is it?
I agree with this article It's the same old story of privileged males using the church as a vehicle to control the general populace. They bully the most vulnerable members of society because they are the easiest target.
Hypocritical and sickening.
Julia, St Albans,
Abortion is a difficult subject to get into, with feelings running high on both sides of the debate. But it is surely no more helpful to compare abortion with miscarriage than to compare suicide and murder with no-fault accidents that result in death.
Ken Miller, Benfleet, England
The statement: 'It’s somehow only death if women choose it.' is an insult to all those who have mourned the death of a miscarried child.
David Easlea, Philadelphia, USA
Is that it? "I have always sensed a low-level hypocrisy in the claim that abortion is murder." is based on the idea that miscarriage is not seen as death by Catholics? What utter rubbish! Many Catholic chaplains offer bereavement care at every hospital up and down this land when a miscarriage takes place and services have been developed on the basis that such an event is a death. Furthermore, there is no lack of pressure by the church into the causes of such deaths either! As for winning the cultural war this is just self denial by his "parasitic barbarian ilk" of what is still essentially a Christian culture and civilisation (ask any Muslim) I am sorry about your mom, (no hypocrisy there) but what she did was morally wrong! Killing human life surely can never be the general answer? If we have to make a rule then it should not be the freedom to kill human life as the basis of a civilisation which he seems to espouse! This can surely only undermine the bedrock of any decent society ?
Michael, Newcastle,
"The battle may not be over after all."
"Battle" is an interesting word. You make no attempt to persuade the reader regarding the virtues of a la carte Liberalism. I say, "a la carte", because I assume you have imposed SOME limits on Liberalism's destructive logic. For example, it is possible that you support the killing of elderly "burdens" on the NHS but you probably draw an unexplained line on the slaughter of handicapped people who have managed to escape abortion.
As for your sexual morality, it hinges on enthroning the "choice" of those people capable of expressing one. As long as we give our "consent" we can't cry "rape", right? We were literally asking for it, weren't we? And if we change our ways then we're the worst sinners of all - why we're hypocrites! All you need is to propagandise against all other moral principles that militate against "choice", e.g. that consent is no defence against assault.
By the way, name a criminal law that isn't grounded in a moral view.
Kevin, London,
Quite by chance I once saw the "products of conception" in an ordinary coffee cup, one of those sturdy cups we find in diners. It was all liquid. "Where's the fetus?" I asked the nurse, who was my wife. "There," she said and pointed to a little thing no bigger than a grain of cooked rice.
A pregnant woman of any age will know right off if she wishes to carry the baby. For God's sake let her make that decision.
Ernest Werner, Trumansburg NY , New York USA
Can I point out, as a Catholic, that the last pope himself stated that to hate gay people was a sin. The church is, following its theology, focussed on any sexual act which does not increase the love of a married couple or which is not procreative, that exception apart. The reason it puts forward is that any such acts cannot be other than a person using another for their pleasure and that this is not good. It ought to be an obscure matter of theology not intruded into the public sphere to say this, but unfortunately this entire society (and the church exists as a social church) is obsessed by defining people by sex and hanging moral identity on sexual acts. There is an awful lot more to catholicism than the bedroom stuff secularists are gripped by!
Martin, London, England
The article is as full of prejudices and misconceptions as the claimed attitudes it is seeking to attack. Just on one factual point, so far from being a “comparatively late” proscription, the Church’s teaching against abortion comes from Apostolic times. The 1st Century Didache, possibly older than some of the books of the New Testament, says “you shall not murder a child by abortion”.
Patrick, London, UK
Terrible flaw - life or not?
'Mote of a being'
Is it when we come out of the vagina that we are human; or are we human at the point of conception? Or is it Politicions or Doctors or femininsts who decides when you are a 'Life'. We Love you Big Brother
For those that seek to proscribe; give us a figure please: 28 weeks or 3 minutes or what?? And please never pull out that disengeneous arguement about rape. That has to be dealt with entirely separately
Katie Muir, Dundee, UK
'The number of children molested by gays is so small it's not even worth metioning' ?! I am unable to comprehend that as a statement from a rational person and would suggest those children, their families and all right thinking people would would think it more than worth it mentioning and decry it from the rooftops whoever was committing repulsive acts.
tricia reilly, dorset,
Oh dear. I find myself in total agreement with Mr Aaronovitch. Now I am worried.
John, London, UK
Most abortions/terminations today are for cosmetic and convenience reasons - because I find this morally and ethically reprehensible, does this make me a hypochrite? Did you have more right to a life than your aborted brother/sister? Interesting choice! I thought Baker was more or less right - I m an atheist and I too would suggest on balance the choice to abort seems to be given little weight with the means to deliver so little restriction. We are talking about lives, and not yours.
Analogous to Dawkins, I think we have been too respectful to a fault to the liberal stance of pro-choice.
Stephen_R, Belfast,
Yes David, you liberals do seem to have won the culture war, but it seems to me questionable whether or not our society is better as a result. Lets review some of the achievements of liberalism: soaring rates of sexually transmitted disease, the highest European rates of teenage pregnancy, increasing divorce rates with all the misery this brings to children, an epedemic of binge drinking with all the associated health and social consequences, an obsession with materialism and rising levels of consumer debt, an increasingly brutal society that has no respect or care for the old and lets not forget the emergence of a politically correct totalitarianism that is completely intolerant of anyone who does not sign up to the liberal agenda.
andrew brown, derby, UK
Ah, the old rhetorical technique of implying that anyone who disagrees with you is - now where do we start? - a poison pen writer, a Nazi collaborator, a pervert "talking dirty in the name of purity", a control freak, an adulterer, a wife-beater and a blackmailer. Really, David - are the grounds for your views so shaky that you have to resort to this kind of sophistry?
Ollie, London, UK
Thank you, David. At times there seem to be so few sane voices in the debate over abortion. And homosexuality. Who cares?! And why? The number of children molested by gays is so small it's not even worth mentioning. The problem lies with the Catholic church and its outdated views. Why do they feel the need to buy off victims in the U.S., U.K., Mexico, and Latin America? There are reliable, documented accounts of this happening. Why don't they focus their considerable resources on eliminating the child abuse and pornography that's done by 'straight' men?
Rose, Canada,
A repulsive article.
Guy Langley, Los Angeles, USA
It is handy for liberals to regard the foetus as a lump of jelly of no consequence. it can then be disposed of without a pang. The Abortion Act of 1967 was supposed to legalise termination for compelling reasons. It was supposed to have safeguards against the abuse of abortion on demand. There has been flagrant ause of the act condoned by officialdom . Lliberals wish to overturn the idea of a law-abiding society by ignoring laws they don't like but doing their best to introduce and enforce those that pander to their views.
Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,
Dr Stuart, according to my information, the Catholic Church in Africa has a solution to the condom problem. "Dogma" is one thing, "pastoral advice" another. Call it humane hypocrisy if you like.
What puzzles me about the anti-abortion lobby is that no-one proposes how abandoned, unwanted babies are to be cared for, let alone AIDS orphans. And why isn't birth control irreligious (in the case of protestants)? Birth control also destroys potential human lives.
Puzzled, Johannesburg, South Africa
Good article and illustrates the difficulties of being a Catholic when the likes of Ms McKeevor is in the flock. The church specifically regards homosexuality as a natural state - its what you do with the sexual side that the church disagrees with not on whether you are homo or hetero.
However (and with respect ;-)David) you have a certain self righteous fundamentalism of your own - your dismissal of Gerard Bakers comments misses his point, why do so many women feel something emotional after an abortion if something isn't pricking their conscience.
And while I'm on my soapbox, David then talks about his half century which seems to me to have been the second worse half century ever (the previous half being worse) - yet how many of the mass murders were caused by religion vis-a-vis secular political creeds - fascism, socialism etc., ?
Perhaps that can be the subject of another article - say on the inhumanity of secularism ?
Ed Murray, Berkhamsted, UK
It would be interesting to know how many of the 'two classrooms a day' spring from dire circumstances like those of Mr Aaronovitch's mother. Such knowledge would not resolve the issue but it might help us to evaluate the quality of the arguments which have enabled 'us liberals' to 'win the culture war'.
Alex Steel, London,
I really don't like the Catholic Church ( not catholic people, I don't have a problem with the people) but after yesterdays article about Ms McKeever I actually felt sorry for the priests. My faith is in the people, we may have made a bit of a messy of things so far but I firmly believe we're going to get better. With people like DA writing for our side I'm cofident we can hold our own with the Bakers and McKeever sof the world. Thank you Mr A for another good article.
Susan, Barry, S Wales
I was born illegitemately in 1956 under circumstances that I have never been able to clarify. Adopted and raised by a couple who gave me all they could, I have had a good, happy and productive life. Personally I am very grateful that my birth mother did not have an abortion. I would, however, never deny any woman the right to make her own decision based on circumstance even if that decision may seem frivolous. Any view that we hold on the unborn is anthropomorphic in that a foetus is no more human than any other combination of cells. If the result of sex is always sacred then logically we are sinning by not having sex at every opportunity and with as many partners as we can get to stay still long enough.
Steve, L'Eliana, Spain
Considering that it is a very well documented fact that most pedophiles are heterosexual, not gay. Why is she leaving potential heterosexual pedophiles alone?
Does she think it's okay for straight priests to molest children, or is she really that ignorant?
The woman is certainly free to hate and percecute and rant about gays. Why not? Hate and predjuice and fear are easy. Love, compassion and forgiveness are hard.
I wonder: what would Jesus do?
Nancy, northeastern, USA NY
Thank God for David Aaronovitch, with apologies to Catholics. It is vitally important that the liberals who feel so relieved to have triumphed in the culture battle do not fall asleep at the wheel. Issues like abortion will never go away, but the debate is healthy. It is only when voices supporting new freedoms fall silent that there is a danger.
Meanwhile, am I the only person who finds the idea of a vehement Catholic merrily outing men who have taken a vow of chastity faintly absurd?
James Torrance, Beijing,
In saying "There are all kinds of people who, for religious or cultural reasons, wish to see greater social control over what women, homosexuals and youngsters are allowed to do" and arguing like he does, David is making an argument for anarchy.
The fact is that all laws are coercive; the only debate is whose coercion will win out; that of abortionists or pro-lifers? That of those who wish to suppress homosexuality as unnatural, or those who wish to suppress criticism of homosexuality as unnatural?
David, like many atheists, fails to see that his ideas of how society should be run also amount to a form of coercion. Like most secularists, he tries to hoodwink us with the fallacy that secularist coercion is neutral or liberal.
David Anderson, Derby,
Yes, Mr Aaronovich, but it's you liberals who are bringing in a whole raft of illiberal laws which restrict the liberties of Christian groups. They will not be able to choose not to employ a homosexual. They will not be allowed to voice the kind of vociferous criticism you make in this article against another faith group or they will be guilty of race hate. They will not be allowed to do an increasing number of other things because of laws passed by your "liberal" colleagues. Secularism is the new fundamentalism that brooks no contradictions to its creed.
John Tindall, Birmingham, UK
Exactly, DA. The church may as well say that every sperm is sacred.
Jonas, Sydney,
The battle is certainly not over here in the States. In Virginia there are people serving life sentences for possession of marijuana and this month a couple began a three year prison sentence for serving alcohol to 16 year olds at their son's birthday party. I wonder also how the catholic church reconciles its prohibition of the use of condoms with the Aids epidemic in Africa?
Stuart, Frederick , MD USA