Nadine Dorries’ Valiant Campaign

It has been in the news a lot recently: Nadine Dorries’ effort to have the abortion term limited from 24 to 20 weeks. Much of the liberal press, though, has sought to fight this on purely biological reductionist lines, which reduces the unborn child to nothing more than a clump of cells and tissue. Such a reductionist philosophy is rarely concerned with issues of morality, suffering, wider social and community impact, and so on. The long and short of this de-humanising philosophy is, is a prematurely-born foetus likely to survive between 20-24 weeks? As the likely answer is `no’ (though many babies born between 20-24 weeks do survive and go on to live full, active lives), this is then cited as the `scientific’ basis for retaining a 24 week limit. Yesterday, this was the entire basis for rejecting Nadine Dorries’ effort by one particularly liberal UK daily. But what about the wider issues which a reductionist philosophy ignores, such as the intense pain and suffering of the unborn child aborted at 20-24 weeks? Or the massive psychological trauma experienced by women who abort so late into their pregnancy, together with its social and community effects (for example, within the woman’s family left to pick up the pieces)? Or the morality of aborting a 24 week unborn child while protecting animals? This latter question demonstrates aptly the entire reductionist approach, which rejects the concept of Man being different and unique (ie made in the image of God). For the reductionist, a living animal is a successful clump of cells and tissue which, by virtue of its survival, takes precedence over an unborn foetus which will likely not survive unaided at 20-24 weeks.

Nadine Dorries’ campaign is intensifying and a vote will take place very shortly in Parliament, and given Labour’s recent slump in the polls and how various Labour MPs are genuinely frantic about losing their seat, this gives people of all political persuasions who reject late-term abortion an opportunity to have some considerable impact here. The question is, will we exploit this opportunity and spend some time and effort to make a real difference when, for the first time in many, many years, we can actually do so.

This morning I wrote a letter to my MP, Dr Stephen Ladyman, which is reproduced below. Use it as a model if you like, but be sure to express your own views. Always be courteous, but to the point. Let your MP know this will be a major issue you will decide your vote on in the next General Election.  And when you have finished, pass on the details of this blog, or your letter, or the letter circulating from Nadine Dorries’ office, to someone else for them to act upon it also. What we need to see is a snowball of activity over the next week in the lead up to the vote.  MPs need to see this is an issue which has caught people’s imagination, one which gives them a chance to reconnect with voters, or else one which they ignore at their (or rather their Parliamentary seat’s) peril. You can write to your Member of Parliament here:  http://www.writetothem.com/  Also, Keith Waters will shortly post additional information on this blog about other ways to express your views. Get all people of voting age in your family to write their own letters. Let your church know about this on Sunday. And pass on this blog message to others. As I state in my letter to my MP, this need not be seen as a rejection of liberalism, when even liberal France and Germany have lower abortion terms than we do. I believe we should play on this. Anyway, thank you for passing this on to as many people as possible. Here is the letter I wrote to my MP.

Dear Dr Ladyman

I am writing to ask if you will be supporting Nadine Dorries’ forthcoming attempt to reduce the abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks.

In recent days the debate in the media has focused on whether there has been an increase in survival rates of babies born prematurely between 20-24 weeks. But such biological reductionism totally ignores other core issues, specifically whether an unborn child experiences great pain, trauma and suffering when aborted at such a late stage, together with the long-term psychological effects on a woman having such a late-term abortion.

We recently moved to the area and I was pleased to learn of your strong support for Israel as a Member of Parliament. Given the irrational hatred of Israel in the West you stance demonstrates a willingness to stand for what is right and vote according to conscience.

The issue of abortion is particularly important to our family, and I humbly ask you to consider carefully the wider issues and similarly vote according to conscience rather than political affiliation. This is not a question of somehow voting for something illiberal. If even liberal, secular France has a maximum 10-week limit, while both Germany and Italy also have lower limits than the UK, then what is the justification for us retaining a 24 week limit?

SincerelyDr Calvin Smith

My MP’s Reply and My Counter-Reply

As you know I wrote my local MP, Dr Stephen Ladyman, who represents South Thanet, Kent, about the forthcoming vote on abortion. Find below his response, together with my counter-response. BTW, time is running out for us all to make our views known to our MPs. Neither are we the only one’s fighting to try and mobilise support for our point of view. I just came across several pro-abortion attempts to sway MPs’ votes their way, so we really must stand up and be counted, and quickly. Here is Stephen Ladyman’s response to my letter:

Dr Smith

I have listened carefully to a range of views from my constituents, including your own, in respect to abortion and decided that I will not be supporting this amendment.

The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester and we should do everything possible to avoid late abortion. That said, the vast majority of abortions at this stage are the most tragic cases - rape victims, mothers with learning disabilities and poor education backgrounds who failed to realise they were pregnant and severe foetal abnormalities that cannot be detected until this late stage. Reducing the age limit would have a disproportionate impact on these key groups.

If amendments come forward that would tighten up the monitoring and approval of abortions at this late stage or improve education and information delivery to encourage women who want to consider an abortion to do it at an earlier stage then I would consider supporting such amendments but I cannot, in conscience, support a blanket ban on 20-24 weeks.

Steve Ladyman

Here is my counter-reply. If your MP wrote back to you also somewhat dismissively refusing even to acknowledge other views on this vital issue which so many people feel so strongly about, a similar counter-response might be useful. The present governing political party knows it is going to suffer badly at the next election, and one of the themes emerging from their own ranks is that they have lost an ability to empathise and listen to their constituents. This point needs to be driven home. Here is my letter:

Dear Dr Ladyman

Thank you for your reply.

I am disappointed, however, by your decision not to support the ammendment. There is no reason why any unborn child so late in a pregnancy should suffer the intense trauma and suffering of a late abortion. The pictures I have seen of such procedures are truly awful. What is particularly surprising is that a Labour MP can so easily ignore the impact late abortions have on the very vulnerable women you refer to. The intense psychological trauma, depression and feelings of guilt many women who regret having late-term abortions is well-documented.

In light of your response, which fails even to acknowledge sincere concerns about the suffering and dignity of an unborn child or the suffering experienced by women, I cannot in all conscience support you at the next election. As a churchman and academic I will also be sharing your response with my colleagues, friends and students who are also deeply concerned about this issue, as well as strongly encouraging those I know locally not to vote for you.

Unfortunately, your reply is typical of how people are increasingly viewing this Government: unsympathetic, aloof and dismissive. It is one thing to agonise genuinely over an issue and vote according to conscience, but your response fails even to acknowledge and engage with opposing views based on sincere and genuine concerns. It is this very attitude which is currently shaping the evolving political narrative of an aloof Government, and which will, I believe, have a quite catastrophic bearing on your party at the next election. At least David Cameron gives the sincere impression of empathising and listening to the concerns of others.

Sincerely

Calvin Smith

Dr Calvin L. Smith
Editor, Evangelical Review of Society and Politics
Course Director and Lecturer in Theology
Midlands Bible College and Divinity School
St. John's Cloisters, St John's Square
Wolverhampton WV2 4AT
(United Kingdom)
Tel. +44 (0)8700 421 704
E-mail: calvin@midbible.ac.uk
Website:  www.midbible.ac.uk
Blog:  http://collegeblog.midbible.ac.uk/