Pro-life voices in the media are weaker and weaker, and practical initiatives to defend the babies are fewer and fewer. Counselling and caring services do survive with resources barely able to meet the needs of the small proportion of women pregnant and in distress who turn to them.
The Catholic Church and many Evangelicals have clearly taught that abortion is a terrible wrong but they have not been able so far to put forward a coherent plan of action to put the wrong right. The world ignores the teaching and the babies die and die.
Things do not have to be so bad. In U.S.A. right-thinking people are really fighting - and are prepared to suffer - for their country. Pro-life groups of every kind flourish. Political pressure is enormous, and has resulted in ex President Reagan and President Bush vetoing numerous pro-abortion bills passed by Congress. The Supreme Court has been pushed nearer to pro-life thinking, and Roe v Wade is expected to be overthrown soon. Meantime there are numerous and massive pro-life marches, conferences, prayer vigils, pickets and rescues and thousands of branches of caring services. The whole effort is backed by a wonderful avalanche of brilliantly produced books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, leaflets, posters, pictures, and audio and video tapes. And American pro-lifers are acutely aware of the spiritual dimension of their work. They are thinking through and practising the demands of the Gospel in a manner evocative of the spirit of the early Christians. Pro-life Americans will save their country whilst the British, the way they are going, will watch theirs sinking to destruction.
It is time to sit down and think. It is time to acknowledge the failures of the past and think through what exactly is called for now to turn the pro-abortion tide. Humanae Vitae House is only too anxious to assist in this process. Below we set out the policies we embrace, and invite you to give them your most serious attention.
We are convinced therefore that the work of saving the babies is the work of conversion of all those involved in the attack upon the lives of these little ones.
A striking offer of help specifically for pro-lifers comes today from Guadalupe in Mexico. Mary appeared there some 430 years ago and left a miraculous picture of herself on the cloak of the humble visionary Juan Diego. Although made of reeds the cloak with the picture has survived all this time. Now it has been realised that Mary in the picture is dressed as an Aztec woman would have been in those days when expecting a child. A visionary has pointed this out to the bishops of Mexico, and told them that Mary will cure America of abortion if they have the miraculous cloak honoured in pilgrimage there as Mother of the Unborn. The bishops have responded by sending, so far, two full size images for veneration in USA and indeed elsewhere. Already extraordinary pro-life successes have been attributed to this.
Catholic Scriptural exegesis, theology, and liturgy, along with Conciliar and Papal teaching, the works of spiritual writers, and the devotions of the faithful all extol the virtues of Mary and her special place to pray for us in heaven. Other Christian bodies have also made their contributions. Pro-lifers should persevere in prayer to Mother as well as Son, and unite under the banner of the Virgin of Guadalupe.
Let us begin with the contraceptive pill. It purports to be a medicine of some sort. It is in fact a steroid. It is prescribed by doctors and bought in pharmaceutical chemists, but is given to the healthy! Its status as a medicine-for-the-healthy should have condemned it in the eyes of thinking people before it was ever manufactured. Medicine and doctors are for the unhealthy. Doctors are called upon to assist nature in healing herself when some malady or injury has disrupted the proper workings of the body. The doctor's job is to determine what has gone wrong, what is at the root of the unpleasant symptoms, and how to assist the healing process. Strictly speaking the healthy have no place at the doctor's.
Despite this the contraceptive pill is "prescribed" for the healthy so that their reproductive system will malfunction and they will not conceive even when they carry out an act whose whole nature is a planting of seed which, in healthy circumstances, may well take root and grow. There never was such a travesty of medicine as this.
The advent of the contraceptive pill has been the beginning of an absurd era in "medicine" wherein the doctor has been called upon to damage the healthy instead of curing the sick.
What exactly is the damage done? We must distinguish between the damage intended, and the damaging side-effects.
The damage intended is the suppression of ovulation in the woman. Monthly ovulation is the way a woman's system works. That is the way God made her. It's as crazy to try to stop ovulation as to try to stop your finger nails growing, your blood circulating, your food digesting or your heart beating. Of course there are individual differences in our bodily functions - we all have slightly different pulse rates, and our personal rate is itself a variable, but such differences do not constitute malfunctions requiring medical attention. Similarly women have varying lengths of menstrual cycle but do not automatically need medical attention on that account. Where there are genuinely pathological conditions such as serious haemorrhaging then of course medical assistance is required and it could be that a pill which is the only way to cure the problem could have unintended but tolerable sterilising side-effects.
A pill swallowed precisely to impede the natural functions of the healthy body is a poison, not a medicine. Pope John Paul very rightly went further and spoke of the atheism of contraception because contraception constitutes a rejection of the natural and God-made functioning of the reproductive system. People are usually satisfied with their other bodily gifts, and do not for example attempt to have four or six fingers. But they think they can do better than God when it comes to the reproductive gifts.
The idea that doctors may inflict damage as well as heal has made it much easier for them to move from caring to killing. Unborn children in their millions have been paying for this development with their lives.
Damaging Side-Effects. (a) Physical. The unintended physical damage of contraceptive pills to the woman consists in circulatory troubles and cancer. Below I give a short list of publications which have amply documented these hazards.
Next, the movement of the tiny embryo along the fallopian tubes is impeded, giving rise to tubal pregnancies, lethal for the baby and very dangerous for the mother.
There is also the possibility of lethal damage to the offspring who may be conceived despite everything. The pill interferes with the lining of the womb and the newly conceived embryo finds itself unable to implant in the unnaturally inhospitable environment. The result is a very early abortion. (This horrible result may not be intended by the woman but should be quite obvious to the doctor.)
Damaging Side Effects: (b) Social. Finally, there are the social consequences - an epidemic of fornication, adultery, divorce, and abortion.
More fornication: if the use of human sexuality need not entail child bearing then inevitably people begin to think - why bother getting married? And if the "burden" of childbearing is removed a former disincentive to casual sex is also removed.
Marital infidelity is also similarly invited by the contraceptive ethos. If conception can be prevented discovery is less likely.
Divorce Marital infidelity leads readily to divorce. But this is not the only or even the major route by which contraception fosters the current epidemic of divorce. In contraceptive intercourse there is a refusal of the married partners to give to one another. Something essential and God-made is held back. Fruitful personal love is not wanted. The woman is being used as an object, not loved as a person. The same applies to the man. In these circumstances the bond between them is not strong enough to withstand the assaults of daily trials.
And this is still not all. The human sexual apparatus cannot function without stimulation from the brain. The pill, if effective, actually prevents the brain from initiating ovulation, besides causing over 100 other chemical changes in the body (as admitted by a prominent abortionist Dr Malcolm Potts). Here you are interfering with your own brain in a most delicate area. You simply cannot do so without risking damage to sexual attraction. Constant consumption of the pill can lead to the woman losing her desire for her husband, and thereupon the marriage is in difficulties. A 1974 study of the Royal College of G.Ps. found that divorce was twice as common among pill users as among non-users.
More Demand For Abortion.
And we are still not finished with the horrors of this diabolical creation. The pill is anti-baby. It invites intercourse in circumstances in which the couple are in no way prepared to accept the responsibilities of bringing up a child. But the child is often conceived nonetheless, as contraceptives have failure rates and users do not necessarily stick to the rules. And so we have the flood of demand for abortion now running at nearly 200 000 a year by surgical means alone in Britain.
Other Forms of Contraception Usually they are barriers of some sort resulting in an act which is not at all the God-made act of love. God intends a man to have intercourse with his wife, not with a bit of rubber or plastic.
Conclusion: The pill has been the master stroke of the devil in our times, the perfect diabolical reply to the opportunities of grace released by the Second Vatican Council. I believe there may have been a close connection. Pope John XXIII announced the Council on 25th Jan 1959. Europe was then recovering from the ravages of World War 11. Her population was blossoming, and the Council inspired hopes for a new springtime for Christianity. Was it only the luck of the devil that his agents began to market the contraceptive pill in that same year 1959, after a long period of research?We cannot be certain of the extent of Satan's power, but we can be confident that he can only postpone the moment of grace. One day, perhaps soon, people will waken up to the current apostasy of the medical profession from its true calling to heal the sick, and they will demand reform. They will find that the Church is still waiting for them with her message of salvation.
Bibliography:
(A) Books and Booklets: Birth Control - Why are they lying to women? by J.C. Espinosa, M.D. Published by Human Life International, 7845 Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20879, U.S.A.
Contraception - The Truth, by H.P. Dunn, FRCS, FRCOG. Published by P.S.R.S. c/o Immaculate Heart Trust, Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Chapeltown, Braes of Glenlivet, Moray, Scotland.
The Splintered Image - An International Pro-Life Conference Report Published by The Human Life Council, c/o Humanae Vitae House, Braemar, Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
The Bitter Pill by Dr Ellen Grant. Published by Transworld Publishers Ltd., 61 Uxbridge Rd., Ealing, London, England.
Birth Control and The Christian Tradition by John F Kippley. Published by The Couple to Couple League, c/o Mr and Mrs J Hickey, 8 Widbrook Meadow, Trowbridge, Wilts, England.
Gambling With Life, by Sterns, Sterns and Yaksich, published by American Life League, P.O.Box 1350, Stafford, Virginia 22554, U.S.A.
B. Pamphlets and Articles: The Pill and Sex - Risks to Health and Fertility. A Basic Guide for Parents and Teenagers. Published by The Medical Education Trust, 79 St Mary's Road, Huyton, Liverpool, England.
Methods of Birth Control - Research Reports Give Cause For Concern. Published by Medical Education Trust, as above.
The Pill and the IUD Published by Couple to Couple League, as above.
Contraception and Conscience by Rev J Morrow. Published by Humanae Vitae House as above.
Oral Contraceptive Use and Malignancies of the Genital Tract by Beral , Hannaford and Kay, The Lancet, 10th Dec 1988.
However, we mention this subject only to avoid the accusation of damning contraception and then offering no help to couples with good reason for wishing to postpone their next conception.. Thereafter we have to pass you over to the specialist pro-life societies. Literature from the Couple to Couple League, from Human Life International, from the Billings Doctors, and a host of others, is readily available. Readers who wish to consult them will find the following addresses useful:
Mr and Mrs J Hickey, 8 Widbrook Meadow, Trowbridge, Wilts. (Members of the Couple to Couple League).
Mrs. E. Toolan, 42 Conway Road, Southgate, London, N.14. Tel: 081 882 0848 (Agent for Human Life International).
Mr. K. Platt, 47 Heathhurst Rd. Sanderstead, South Croydon, CR2 0BB. (Promoter of Billings Method).
But God said "Fill the earth." The correct thing to do is to obey, and trust Him to make further provision if ever we succeed in completely carrying out the order.
Will we in fact ever succeed in filling the earth? There is no way of telling. At the moment the entire population of the world (estimated very crudely at 5.5 billion) could sit down on the Isle of Skye and the Scottish Outer Hebrides with a square yard each to sit on. Since this would of course soon be rather uncomfortable a wise Providence gave us five continents in addition.
What about food and other necessities? Just have a look at England. It is one of the most heavily populated countries in the world, and is very embarrassed at its over-production, not its over- population. (It may be revealing to many readers to learn that, from Whitaker's Almanack 1990 statistics, the population density of England is 941 people per square mile, whereas that of China is 313 per square mile!). It is extraordinary even for this irrational age that the story of over-population could be foisted on the poor of developing countries by the over-producing and often much more heavily populated nations of Europe and North America.
But what about all the hungry of the world? Hunger results from warfare, mismanagement, and misgovernment in the poor countries themselves, and from selfishness on the part of others. The examples of this in Africa and the former Soviet Union are blatantly obvious.
How many people can the earth sustain if managed according to Christian principles of loving our neighbour as ourselves, and developed according to not only existing science and technology but also the science and technology still to be discovered by future generations? Of course no one can answer. But overpopulationists should be forced to confront the question. If the eventual answer is, say, 100 billion, and the current population is 5.5 billion, then reports of over-population are somewhat premature.
The human family needs more people, not less. We are the pinnacle of the visible creation. Each one of us is called to make his or her own contribution to time and to eternity. The dazzling inheritance of the human race is being brutally despised and rejected every day by abortion. No wonder so many problems remain unsolved. We must acknowledge that the problems we must still tackle stem from man's sinfulness, not from the failure of the Creator to provide adequately for his growing family.
The principle holds good for the protection of unborn children. In safeguarding them there must be no compromise and no exceptions.
Today it is commonplace, sad to say, for governments to attempt to make exceptions to the general principle of protecting the unborn. A particularly tempting exception is that of allowing abortion "to save the life of the mother", as it is put. No one, after all, wants to appear inconsiderate of the mother, of her health or of her life. No-one wants to say or appear to say that mothers may be set at risk through too strict a law concerning their unborn child.
It is necessary to explore the implications of adopting this compromise very carefully. To begin with, we need to understand what is a right. A right is some good which is due to me from others. The supreme good of our existence is given us freely by God. We do not have any rights in relationship to God. We did not need to exist in the first place. He need not have given us the gift of existence. But God must be and is faithful to his own word. When He creates a human being with an immortal soul He will be faithful in maintaining that person in existence for the rest of eternity. When God makes a promise He is faithful to it. Only in a very limited sense do we have the right to any grace from God - we can count on Him to keep the promises He has made us.
From our fellow men we have a right to many things the most fundamental of which is our own life. Simultaneously we have a corresponding duty to all other innocent people to leave them in peaceful possession of the fundamental gift of life itself. (I will not deal here with the problems of warfare, self defence, capital punishment, which are outwith the scope of this essay.)
Furthermore, God has not given any individual or group a superior right whereby they may deprive the innocent of their gift of life itself. In relation to one another, regarding the fundamental good of life, we are all created equal.
At what point in our existence did we get this essential right to life? There can only be one answer and that is - when we began to be. When did we begin to be? The question is a biological one and modern biology tells us the answer with precise information denied to previous generations. We all began to be when a particular sperm fertilised a particular ovum. That formed a single-cell very human being which had only to grow and grow with the multiplication of cells familiar to all biologists.
Did only my body begin to be at conception or my soul as well? God made me in his own image and likeness. It is my soul which makes me like to God and sets me above the animal kingdom. It is because I am soul as well as body that I can know and love God and share his life for eternity. Now, God didn't make me first, and then later change what He had already made from not being in his image to being in his image. God doesn't do such crazy things. He made me in his image as the Book of Genesis tells us, and therefore He made me with soul as well as body.
Furthermore, no-one can provide some other stage after we began to be at which the right to life is added to the gift of life. Because God made us in His likeness, because we have immortal souls, because we are equal in certain basic gifts, because we all began to be at conception, then we all have the right to life from the moment of conception. The time of birth is an absurd alternative. We existed for a long time before we were ever born.
Furthermore, if not everyone has the right to life from conception, then we have a situation with untenable discrimination between individuals. No-one can provide a criterion whereby they judge that some acquire the right to life at conception and others do not, nor can they supply a time after conception when this limited group, which did not have the right to begin with, gained the right after all. Here we are in the area of totally arbitrary thinking. Such criteria are simply not available and abortionists, who intensely dislike this type of discussion and reflection, never attempt to provide the criteria which are necessary.
Indeed, if not all have the right to life from conception then we undermine
the right to life of the entire human race! Why? Because each of us then has the problem of determining why we got the right to life, when we got it, who we got it from and why it was not at the beginning. These questions are unanswerable other than on the basis given above. Wehave our gift from God, we must respect His gifts in one another, and we received our gift right from the beginning when we became human beings at conception.
Now let us consider the tempting suggestion that some babies may be sacrificed in order to save the life of the mother. The baby to be sacrificed has on this hypothesis already been conceived. It began to exist when the maternal contribution, the ovum, was fertilised by the paternal contribution, the sperm, and it needed like the rest of us to get the right to life then. Later, we have to assume that it is discovered that the mother has poor health and may perhaps be unable to bear the child until it is viable and has a`reasonable prospect of survival outside of the womb. In some way the child's previous right to life is over-ruled, making the previous right meaningless in the first place. Are we to decide that God abandons His gift to that child when the sad prognosis is made about the mother? Are we to decide that this particular child did not have the right to life after all from the moment of conception? Are we to say that the strong are entitled to deprive the weak of their divinely created existence and human, physical life? All these ideas are ridiculous. The baby had his or her right like everyone else necessarily from conception and continues to enjoy the right to life even when the pregnancy's development at that time proves to be dangerous to the mother.
To take that baby's life is evil. It is deliberately killing the innocent. It cannot be justified. Sound medicine simply requires that we do all that is within our reasonable resources and power to protect both that baby and its mother. People can easily see that we must not deliberately execute the mother in order to save that baby and they should also be able to see that we must not undermine the right to life of the entire human race in order to justify killing that baby and saving the mother.
There is more can be added. Two prophecies would have to be made before proceeding to kill the unfortunate baby. First prophecy would be that the mother would definitely die unless the baby were deliberately and directly killed. (I am not talking here about early delivery at a time when the baby has a chance of survival: this is an entirely different thing.) The second prophesy would be that if the baby is killed the mother would definitely live. Neither prophesy can be absolutely guaranteed. And it will easily be discerned that pro-life doctors will be vastly more reluctant to make these prophecies, if at all, than pro-abortion doctors.
Many nations of the world have attempted to defend exceptions to the right to life. The British in particular have spelled out all sorts of conditions under which a baby may be killed. They thereby made the whole class of unborn children a disposable class of humanity. They are second class citizens. These second-class citizens are weighed in the balance by the strong and healthy and adult and whether or not they are allowed to live is determined by the strong. Any legislation anywhere which makes any exceptions falls into the same category as the British. As soon as the strong may pontificate over the weak and decide that in certain circumstances, however rare, however exceptional, however strictly hedged round with conditions and apparent safeguards, the weak may go to the wall, then the entire class of unborn children is gravely undermined. As a group their right to life has still to be determined by others and those others are human beings like themselves. This is all totally and utterly unacceptable.
The world will not be cured of abortionism by unsound legislation, unsound thinking, unsound moral principles. We look for some country somewhere to stand up firmly for the right to life of all and spread that message to those who have gone in our day so very far astray and have a fantastic holocaust to show for it.
Lastly, let us note the immense practical difficulties which confront those who would legislate on a basis of protecting "almost all". Take the case we have dealt with so urgently above. Conditions have to be clarified, safeguards have to be spelled out. The kind of arrangement likely would be that several doctors have to make the two prophecies above and put their guarantees down in writing. Soon further questions will be asked. How soon during pregnancy can one kill the baby with a view to protecting the mother? Why wait until the last minute? If the mother has cancer or heart disease of some kind, why not kill the baby sooner? What degree of cancer is necessary and in what parts of the body? What degree of concern over the health of the heart? With abortionists signing the forms guaranteeing that the mother needs the abortion to save her life, such questions get answered with more and more liberalism. Before long, the most trivial of conditions is enough for certain types of doctor to give their assurance that the woman is entitled to an abortion. And so the abortions are done earlier and earlier for more trivial reasons, and there is no way that it would ever possible to prevent this. It is simply not possible to hold back the flood once the wall has been breached.
I must make it clear that when God gives each of us the gift of life, we are then obliged to safeguard that gift in ourselves with reasonable means and prudence and are also obliged to safeguard that gift in others to the best of our ability. Once God gives the fundamental gift of life, it must be treasured in me and in others as something from Him to be looked after and which only He may reclaim.
In 1929 the British passed supposedly strict pro-baby legislation, the Infant Life Preservation Act, which allowed abortion only to save the life of the mother! By 1966 this exception was being used to justify over 20 000 abortions per year (before the British Abortion Act was ever passed) as was admitted by a British Government Report, the Lane Report. That is where all such compromises will end up.
In March 1989 sixteen people were arrested in Manchester for blocking the doors of an abortion clinic. Individuals had previously done the like, but it was with this event and the many similar events which followed in its wake that for the first time the national media began to take seriously the idea of an active resistance to abortion in the form of action at the places of death. This was the beginning of the Rescue movement in this country. (For some ten years previous to this event, people of similar opinions had been taking similar actions in the USA. It is through the direct influence of some of these people, and their subsequent, tireless support, that the Rescue movement exists in this country.)
The rationale of the people who rescued ran somewhat like this: in order to show that we mean what we say when we say that a procured abortion is the murder of a human being, we have to act as if it were such. If I say that my next door neighbour is being killed, and calmly go on sitting still, perhaps writing a letter to my MP, or setting up a telephone help-line for other potential murder victims, then people are not going to take my assertion very seriously. I cease to be concerned with that individual, my neighbour, and become concerned instead with an issue.
The normal response to the knowledge that a murder is about to take place is to inform the police, and then to do what one can to intervene (or possibly the other way round in some cases). In the case of procured abortion, the legislature has abandoned its duty to the citizenry, and the only recourse, if one is concerned to save the individuals about to be slain on that day, is to go to the place of death and try to intervene. So Rescuers intervene.
The Rescue movement has two main characteristics. The first and most important is that Rescuers are openly Christian (mainly Catholic and Evangelical). They rely on God for their strength to continue, and make public and unashamed avowal of that reliance. (There has been an atheist who attended and rescued. However, no-one who has persisted in rescuing in Britain has been a non-Christian.)
The second crucial characteristic of a Rescue is that it is non-violent. The police may use force in the prevention of the crime of abortion: rescuers must not. In the struggle for justice for all conceived children, it is appropriate for rescuers to meet violence with a Christ-like refusal to do violence - to say in effect "The buck stops here. The cycle of violence is here broken." and to accept peacefully whatever is meted out to them while trying to protect the lives of the innocent. Practically this means that Rescuers may link arms and block doors; occupy buildings; go limp when and if they are arrested; perhaps they may put killing machines out of action and so disarm the aggressors. However they may not meet violence with violence in either word or deed. A solemn undertaking to this effect is usually taken by everyone involved before any such Rescue takes place. Ideally this undertaking should also be made by those who are accompanying the Rescuers, but not risking arrest. There is also a back-up team of people who are ready to offer help to any pregnant woman who seeing the Rescue decides to give her child the chance of life, and these should make the undertaking as well.
Rescue is not an organisation, but a philosophy for action. However, if you are interested in joining in a Rescue, Fr. James Morrow at Humanae Vitae House, Braemar, Aberdeenshire, may be able to help you.
Objection 1. Christians should give good example in obeying the civil law and civil authorities. "Fear God. Honour the Emperor." (1 Peter, 2, 17) But rescuing involves breaking laws on public order and trespass. Therefore rescuing is wrong.
First Response: Rescuers are by no means disorderly. We could not be more orderly and peaceable in trying to prevent abortions. If we jumped on top of bank robbers or Moors murderers to prevent crime people would not dream of calling us disorderly. We don't jump on top of abortionists - merely stand in their doorway. The oft repeated accusation of being disorderly is utterly ludicrous.
Second Response: Laws on trespass do not apply in emergency to save life or property. Who ever accused a fireman of trespass? That such accusations are made against us shows how intellectually bankrupt our critics are.
Third Response: St Peter also tells us that when God's law and man's conflict we have to obey God. (Acts 5.29.) God's law says that we must love our neighbour as ourselves. That has to include our unborn neighbour. God's law says that we must go to the aid of the one in danger (The Good Samaritan, Luke 10. ). If you stand aside at the abortion centre (even though in a position to help) and allow the baby be taken in to be murdered, you are not exactly loving that baby as yourself. Government and police, and others, say "Stand aside! Someone wants in to kill this baby!" God says: "Love this baby as yourself!" The two positions are in categorical, diametrical opposition. It is obvious which we must choose.
Objection 2. There are better ways of saving babies. Fight to change the law, improve education, expose law breaking by abortionists.......
Response: We support all the other honest attempts to save babies' lives. But only rescuing and picketing can save the baby going to its death at an abortuary near you tomorrow morning. And note that strictly speaking we can never actually save a person's life - we can only postpone his or her death, which will supervene sooner or later. Rescuing postpones the death of all the babies scheduled to die in that death camp for as long as the rescuers are able to stay there.
Objection 3. Not everyone can possibly rescue. It is at best a vocation for the chosen few.
Response: 1) Everyone should assist with rescuing. All can assist in some ways, notably by prayer, and many readers will in fact have been doing so.
2) All should be doing their best to recruit rescuers! Naturally your powers of persuasion will be more authentic and convincing if either you are a rescuer yourself or it is quite clear to those whom you are sending to the front line that you have to be further back yourself for good reason.
Why should you all be helping? In a sane society you would have a duty to pay the police through legitimate taxes to protect unborn children and indeed imprison abortionists. In this insane society you have to find people other than the police, or do the job yourself. It is possible to protect some babies: you cannot imprison anyone but you can challenge and expose the killers.
It may not be necessary to win many, or even any seats, to accomplish our purpose. The Labour Party has made an enormous contribution towards improving the lot of working people despite only rare periods in office. The Green Party has never come near to winning a seat, but still has all the parties vying with each other in boasting how green they are.
One shrewd political commentator assured me that there is nothing the British establishment fears more than a Christian revival "with lots of little Jesus's all over the place" . I am sure that this is true. When Christians have the courage to challenge the horrible establishment at the hustings, with all the persecution that will mean, the same establishment will hastily trim its sails to the prevailing wind.
Can you get one person to join you at the gates of an abortion centre - probably your local hospital? Hold up a paper saying, e.g. prayers to end abortion here, say some prayers, and you already have a campaign. The Holy Spirit will push you a lot further than that - if you are willing to let Him push.
Does your church do anything for the babies? If in accord with the above principles, join in. If not, can you begin to correct it? If doing nothing, see your pastor. Ask what is being done. Make proposals.
If you feel happier to begin with rescuers and picketers who are already in action, you may have to travel some distance. There would be no harm in that. You are trying to save someone's life after all.
Pray earnestly for guidance and the Lord will tell you if there is something more you can be doing for the least of his brethren.
We applaud attempts to establish an alternative pro-life medicine to replace the courrupted medical profession of modern Britain. A real pro-life hospital, staffed by consistent pro-life, God fearing,non-contracepting doctors and nurses would be a great boon to the whole pro-life movement, as well as of course to all who use it. In our day the less civil governments have to do with medicine the better. Governments think of money and will ruthlessly calculate whether it is cheaper to kill the patient or to cure him. The British Government Report into neonatal and perinatal mortality - The Short Report - did precisely that, and concluded that it is often cheaper to search out and kill unborn handicapped babies rather than care for them after live birth. Hence the ongoing witchhunt for the handicapped by amniocentesis.
We encourage research into how our society could win World War 11 and then embrace Nazism - a frightful achievement in which the Eugenics Society has played a key role.
We encourage and pursue pro-life action in the law courts. The abortionists made a dramatic and frightful advance by setting up and winning the Bourne Case of 1938, and in principle pro-lifers can do the same. The rescuers' court cases are more likely to bring about the turning of the pro-abortion tide than anything currently in Parliament.
Of course we endorse carrying the Rescue programme to every country of the world.We hope and pray for the blossoming of all manner of pro-life activities in accord with the above principles.
Whilst we endorse all manner of human activity to attempt to save the lives of our unborn brethren we have to recognise that Almighty God has been astoundingly patient with the human race, and may intervene directly - and painfully - to accomplish what his feeble servants have only been able to attempt.
Rev. James MorrowIndex
Return to Leaflets Index