Albertus Minimus

The sentience register

The only tenable argument for abortion is that a foetus is not a human being. Thus, it depends on a separation of the idea of 'personhood' from the process, begun at conception and ended at death, of an incarnate human being. In an interesting new twist on ancient Gnostic heresies, we have a new and even more numinous concept posited as being in contrast to the Christian belief that a human being is a union of body and soul: rather than a person being a body, or a soul, a person is defined by 'quality of life'. The curious thing is that this is, as an idea, even harder to pin down than those of 'soul' or 'body', particularly since there's no agreement nowadays on what constitutes the good life in the first place.

Anyway, this is obviously the direction the argument is heading, both with respect to abortion and euthanasia. So, where is it likely to take us? If once we accept that 'personhood' is not something fundamental to a human being but rather a set of attributes acquired, or lost, by a collection of cells, then it seems to me that a logical consequence is the setting up of something we could call a 'sentience register'. This would first come into being to assess those whom society had deemed meet to kill off, and we see the first steps to this in abortion legislation, and more recently the push to legalising euthanasia, and now the so-called Groningen protocol in Holland, which defines which new-born babies can be killed.

After that, it would only be a matter of time before it became obvious that, while all humans are equal, some humans are more equal than others. For once humanity is predicated on a set of attributes, it will inevitably be the case that some people will have more, and others less. Thus the final result will be the creation of a society where worth is probably measured by some mix of genetic and developmental factors. Perhaps parents who produce children very much below or above them in their level of humanity will have those children removed and placed with more suitable carers. After all, it's in the child's own interests that it be raised by parents who can relate to it. One can ultimately envisage a society more rigidly stratified than any other in human history, one's level in it determined by psychological and genetic testing, and the eventual and inevitable slip down the sentience register accompanied by the knowledge that to fall too far brings with it a no doubt painless euthanasia. After all, you wouldn't be you anymore, you'd have ceased to be a human being.

This seems to me a likely development of current ideas. So watch out for the sentience register, coming soon to a health bureaucrat near you.

Where have all the freaks gone?

This is a supposedly an enlightended age, when we would recoil from the freak show horrors of our forbears, where the deformed and the maimed were placed in travelling circuses for the amusement of the hale and hearty. Of course, we would not point at the Elephant Man, or laugh at a dwarf. That would not be polite. In fact, we seldom nowadays have the opportunity to show our good breeding, as cripples and freaks become increasingly rare in our perfect plastic world.

Strange that. I wonder what happened to them all?

"My main memory of all of this is the doctor's incredible nonchalance.

"He was not only blase about what he proposed to do, he was even eager to do it – and he was quite forthright about his belief that any baby with even a suspicion of abnormality, or indeed any baby the parents simply did not want, should be dispatched forthwith.

"He was keen to perform this procedure on me as soon as possible, without any further testing of any kind.

"I even remember him reminding me that I was not being fair to my other larger twin if I did not allow him to kill the smaller one. This was because I was already at risk of premature birth."

Ah, yes. That's it. Let's just ensure they never get born.

The full story is here. It really is worth reading it all.

With thanks to Joel of On the other foot.

A leg, an arm or some breast?

The arguments of abortions advocates often involve the idea of degrees of personhood: that is, a newly fertilised egg does not qualify as a human being, whereas an adult obviously does. Between the two there is a continuum, so that as the foetus develops it gradually becomes a human being. If we accept this, then obviously we have to decide when the developing creature becomes a human being. Some, like Peter Singer, would say that infants do not qualify as human beings and therefore infanticide should be permissible. That is too blatant an instance of murder for most people to accept, but then the question retreats to at what point during pregnancy does the foetus become a human being. As I noted in a previous post, in different countries there are differing cut off points, with the USA allowing abortion up to birth at one end of the scale, whereas France and Germany regard 12 weeks as the beginning of human life.

But if personhood is really a continuum, then the truth is that there is unlikely to be a single cut off point at which the foetus ceases to be a bundle of cells and becomes a human being. The dividing line, far from being a line, is much more likely to be a blur, like the twilight between day and night, neither one nor the other.

I’m also quite prepared to hold that there may be no fact of the matter about when an abortion becomes impermissible; if personhood admits of degrees, then the wrongness (and hence permissibility or otherwise) of abortion may also admit of degrees.

Source.

This being the case, I propose that we should allow partial abortions. That is, while the foetus is not yet a human being, it is no longer a bundle of cells. Thus, in keeping with its middling status, we can allow for its legs to be aborted, or its arms. Indeed, as it enters this grey zone straddling humanity and inhumanity, it's unlikely that an abortion will leave the foetus with any of its limbs. As it progresses, of course, we would have to regard the limbs as, one after another, fully human, so some time further in its development all that would be permissible to abort would be its fingers and toes. Finally, its digits now safely turned into personal appendages, the developing foetus, on the verge of humanity, might have to sacrifice an ear lobe or two. In the end, having travelled into the safe waters of personhood, the newly renamed foetus (we can now reliably call it an unborn baby) can be born safe in the knowledge that it is accepted by one and all as a fully fledged human person.

There, that seems all quite clear to me.

Turning tides

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

So it was in St Paul's day, and thus it is in our's. And part of that struggle – a key battleground – is played out in the dark warmth of the womb, in the obscure promptings of the heart, to the accompaniment of the silent whispers of conscience. To that struggle, my American friends, it seems you have been particularly called: for in your country abortion was imposed by judicial fiat, allowing children to be killed up to birth. But to your credit – and I sometimes think that the only thing that prevents heaven's vengeance for the millions of lives lost is the great number of people who struggle against this atrocity – you have given birth to the most active pro-life movement in the world. That is why I here in England read about your Supreme Court and the efforts so many have made to bring sanity back to the robed masters of life and death. For the one thing the abortion movement still has going for it is the perception that it represents the future, that history is running in its direction, that there is no alternative. All the other arguments it makes have proven false but this one still is true: the law throughout the world has moved only in their direction. Take this excerpt from an article in 'The Observer':

Abortion, like contraception, is part of the fabric of modern society; the means by which contemporary women take control of their fertility and their lives. Perhaps it is time, finally, to think of it in the same way that we think of contraception: as a necessary and helpful intervention, as a way of making women equal, as a positive sign that women are taking control of their lives. Abortion is the way we live now.

But all this rests on is perception. Only change this perception and the rest of the whole rotten, corrupt edifice of death will come down. So, dear friends across the water, we are watching and praying for you. For once Roe vs Wade is overturned in your country the belief in the inevitability of abortion as 'the way we live now' will be exposed for the imposture and imposition it is. During the Second World War we did not win a single battle before El Alamein. After that turning point in the Egyptian desert we never lost a battle. We are now approaching a similar point in this battle with principalites and powers. Let nothing us dismay.

Parents, don't call us, we'll call you. Maybe

Once again, our berobed and bewigged masters have laid down the law: doctors can perform abortions on girls under 16 without consulting the child's parents. No matter that the age of consent is still 16 in this country. We won't bother with the fact that parents are still held responsible for making sure their children attend school. No, nothing must get in the way of the supreme and sacred right to have sex and then get rid of the results with as little fuss as possible.

The view that parents know what is best for their children is old-fashioned and out of date.

That is effectively what the High Court decided yesterday when it endorsed the approach of the Family Planning Association and the Department of Health who say parents have no right to know if their daughter is pregnant. The Government believes that the rights of parents are nowhere near as important as the right to confidentiality enjoyed by under-16s which, it says, is crucial in reducing teenage pregnancies and improving sexual health.

The number of abortions in England and Wales hit a record high in 2004 of more than 185,000. The rate of terminations has risen relentlessly since the mid-1990s. The abortion rate was highest in women under 24, but there were 157 abortions among girls under 14, up from 148 in 2003.

One in three women in Britain has an abortion and some 57,241 - 32 per cent - were on women who had already undergone at least one termination.

The full story is here.

The mortality mills keep grinding

Well, my wife telephoned her cousin last night to ask how she was. Not so great was the answer. Leaving aside for the moment the question of abortion, what the young lady had to say was interesting as to what girls go through when coming to this point.

The young lady said that she had gone to bed on Tuesday night feeling fine, set on her decision and convinced it was the right thing to do. She woke on Wednesday morning in floods of tears. But the appointment had been made, the process set in motion, and there was too much momentum to it all to stop. So she went to the abortion clinic, arriving a little early, but when she got there and was sitting in the waiting room she suddenly decided that she didn't want to go through with it. But the nurse on duty hurried her through, telling her all sorts of things, such as that she couldn't keep the doctor waiting, it had all been arranged, and so on. Emotional, overwrought, not quite knowing what to do, the young lady let the nurse take control. She was ushered into the clinic and the deed was done. Another life lost.

I wonder how often this happens: a young woman has last minute doubts, but the workers at the abortion clinic hurry her through, making use of the reluctance of people to withdraw from a course to which they are deeply committed?

My wife's cousin says she now feels like a murderer. Maybe, in some sense, that is true. But I think that, far more culpable actors in this whole sorry affair, are the man who made her pregnant and the industry of death that chivies girls having second thoughts through into the abattoir - got to keep the turnover high, hey, or the cashflow will dip.

It's sad. The young lady came over to England to make a frest start, but it's all gone wrong. She's going back to her home country in a few weeks. I hope she finds rest and forgiveness there.

Late developers

Abortion. You know, the thing is, if the supporters of abortion could tell me when a human life begins, then there would be no real problem about it. After all, in essence this is not a religious argument but one based on reason: at some point after conception, according to those in favour of abortion, the status of the creature changes from non-human to human.

Now, in Britain we say that's at 24 weeks. In America it's only at birth. In Germany and France 12 weeks, Italy 13 weeks and Sweden 18 weeks. So from this I am forced to conclude that proto-Germans and pre-French turn into real German kinder and teeny French enfants a week quicker than Italians become mini bambini. The Swedes are pretty late developers, taking five weeks longer to change from being a bundle of cells into a full-on human being - it's probably the cold that slows them down. As for we Brits, it must be the weather, or the diet or something, but it takes us a full three months more than the Germans and the French (no!) to become little John Bulls. Finally, it's almost embarrassing to mention this, given that I have quite a few American readers, but I must sadly inform you that Americans are the tardiest of all: you don't turn into human beings until you're actually born. I can only conclude that it's a result of too many burgers.

Abortion and demography

In the demographic derby to maintain their population, there are a number of handicaps each country faces: how long it takes a woman to finish her education, the availability (or not) of suitable male marriage partners, the number of marriages that take place and at what age(s) and so on. But of course, none of this matters if the child conceived only makes it out of the womb in pieces. So here we come to one of the defining factors in (some of) the West's failure to form the next generation. As a starting point, here we have the world league table of abortions as a percentage of live births. Looking down on the rest of us, presumably through a vodka induced haze, is Russia, with, in 2002, 58.2% of pregnancies ending in pieces rather than a party. Yes, that's right, 58.2%. More than half of all pregnancies aborted. Ukraine, Belarus and Romania join Russia in managing to kill half the next generation before it even makes it out of its mother.

Um, it doesn't really take a statistical genius to work out why these countries are depopulating. One interesting point to the table is how the top places are almost exclusively occupied by the former Communist countries. It seems that, even if the communists can't continue in control of those nations, their influence has left a sort of moral vacuum that may be as lethal as their government.

Moving down the list, we start coming across some interesting anomalies. As I mentioned here, it's somewhat surprising that the United States's population growth is not higher than it is, given the fact that American women marry younger (and more often) than other Western countries. One reason could be the fact that the US ranks high in the abortion league table when compared with Western European countries, with in 2002 24.3% of pregnancies aborted (although this at least shows a decline from the late 70s and early 80s when up to 30% of pregnancies were terminated - argh! I'm slipping into sanitised journo speech). In comparison, the only Western European country to have a higher rate of abortion was Sweden, with 25.7% of pregnancies aborted.

Sadly for Britannia, the United Kingdom comes next with 21.8%, closely followed by France with 21.3%. Moving further down the list we find that countries noted for their low reproductive rates, like Italy and Spain, actually have (relatively) low rates of abortion: 19.1% and 15.3% respectively. And it's interesting to note that that bastion of euthanasia, gay marriage and free love that is the Netherlands actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in Europe, 12.7%.

So what we have here, it seems, is a somewhat complicated pattern. Yes, if your country is busily killing off half of the next generation before they're even born, like in Russia, then there's not going to be much of a next generation. It doesn't take a genius to work that out. But in the case of those Western European countries where the demographic derby is reaching a climax, such as Spain and Italy, we find relatively low levels of abortion. Therefore I think we must conclude that the problem is more that women are not getting pregnant in the first place. Why? Well, I suppose that will have to wait for some more thought (and any suggestions you may have, dear reader).

Memo to self

Never get in an argument with Ramesh Ponnuru. You'll lose.

Moloch's minions are getting a little nervous

For 35 years they've had a constant stream of little bodies to keep their master's appetite sated. But now, maybe, they sense a change is in the air. The people and politicians enlisted to ensure people don't wonder quite how you get from a woman's right to choose to six million abortions in less than half a century are not doing their job properly. Time to sound a warning to the foot soldiers in the foetal wars.

Zoe Williams writes in the 'Guardian': I'm in America, fresh from a friendly airport conversation with a couple of women who think they may have to emigrate. I've heard or read a lot of American women saying they would, if their country banned abortion, and I always, while saluting their vim, wrote it off as well-intended posturing: it was daft.

And although her fear in the article was that Harriet Miers would be nominated to the Supreme Court, I doubt she'll be feeling any happier with Samuel Alito. She goes on to wonder how this dreadful situation could have come about, first off revealing an interesting insight into how a pro-choice mind looks at the views of those who oppose abortion with respect to women's rights:

'you'd expect a situation such as this to arrive on the back of a barrel of other, lesser legislative assaults on women. You know, first a rolling-back of equal opportunity laws (surely less central to freedom than control over the body); next maybe a lady-curfew, or some kind of test case where the presence of a miniskirt was a final and legitimate defence against a rape charge.'

But no, even Ms Williams can see that hasn't happened. So what has changed?

'It's been atmospheric, rather than legislative, and we're seeing the same change here, although slightly more subtle and much more slow. First, the traditional defenders of abortion law - let's call them the "leftwing", just for the hell of it - stop defending it and start going quiet. Instead of saying, "I passionately believe in a woman's right to choose", they start saying things like, "I'd hate to see this turn into an election issue" and "I personally dislike the idea of abortion" (that was Blair, just before the election).'

So interestingly what we have here is basically the application, to us, of Yeats's famous dictum from 'The Second Coming':

'The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.'

So if we feel ourselves losing hope in the battle to save the lives of children unborn, let's take some comfort from this: the opposition is scared that they're losing. Let's make sure, God willing, that those fears come true.