NOTICE: The following
article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to
violate their copyright. I will give some information on them.
PAGE TITLE: The Mail on Sunday
ARTICLE
TITLE:
Summing up on Abortion
AUTHOR: Peter Hitchens
AUTHOR
INFORMATION: Peter
Jonathan Hitchens (born 28 October
1951) is an award-winning British columnist and author, noted for his
traditionalist conservative stance. He has published five books, including The
Abolition of Britain, A Brief History of Crime, The Broken Compass: How British
Politics Lost its Way and most recently The Rage Against God. Hitchens writes
for Britain's The Mail on Sunday newspaper. A former resident correspondent in
Moscow and Washington, Hitchens continues to work as an occasional foreign
reporter, and appears frequently in the British broadcast media. He is the
younger brother of the writer Christopher Hitchens.
DATE: Tuesday 6 November
2007
 |
| Peter Hitchens |
06 November 2007 9:34 AM
Summing up on Abortion
Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday
Two
weeks ago I tried to do something which my many detractors would assume I was
incapable of doing, given that I am, as is well known, an unhinged
spittle-flecked extremist. That is, I sought a compromise between my own
position and that of those who disagree with me. I tried to interest defenders
of abortion in a political armistice for a good purpose, aimed at helping to
achieve a reform which would - in my view - reduce the instance of a major
evil. I hoped to do this in a way which might be acceptable to those who, on
principle, regard abortion as a procedure which ought to be available under
some circumstances. That is, rather than embarking on a restatement of
the classic anti-abortion view, I assumed that my opponents were a) broadly
familiar with it and b) unmoved by it in every sense of the word. I also aired
the widely-unknown fact that abortion was in fact legal in Britain before 1967,
and gave a broadly sympathetic view of the case of Dr Aleck Bourne, who in 1938
aborted a 14-year-old gang rape victim - even though my own moral position is
(reluctantly) unable to accept abortion as right even under these terrible
circumstances.
What
followed was yet another proof of Jonathan Swift's warning that reason plays a
very small role in politics, because you cannot reason anyone out of a position
he hasn't been reasoned into in the first place. Most correspondents didn't
even notice what was going on, and chose to use the thread as a weary
restatement of what we already know. One, rather enjoyably, took the
following passage "Does that mean that sex education increases unwanted
pregnancy and STDs? I am not sure." as a dogmatic statement of certainty
that sex education is the undoubted cause of this increase. I long for research
to be done on this, but it hasn't been. For instance, almost identical
sex-education programmes in Denmark and the Netherlands have had utterly
different outcomes, probably because of the sharply different moral climates in
those countries. Some did notice what I was up to, but alas they only chided me
furiously for weakness in face of the enemy, in one case making fantastically
sectarian remarks about the Church of England, of which I am a dissident member
who has as yet not been hunted down and driven out by the authorities. On this
blog, the harshest criticisms of the C of E are supposed to come from me,
thanks very much.
So
I am going to try again.
At
the heart of my argument was a tentative acceptance that part of the
pro-abortion case was powerful. That is to say, it is all very well being
against something, but if the effect of your opposition is to make the
thing you abhor more common, or more dangerous and equally common, or at least
not to reduce it, then your 'opposition' is ineffectual and may actually
have the opposite effect of the one intended.
It
is much like intervening in, say, Iraq, to bring about democracy. It may make
you feel good to do so, but if the actual result is not what you intended, but
a violent, chaotic mixture of dictatorship and anarchy, the moral force of your
position is , well, weakened and you should reconsider it.
Likewise,
if an absolute ban on abortion results in a continuing high level of abortion,
often conducted under dangerous and insanitary conditions, then this is an
example of a moral position taken to make the holder of the opinion feel good,
rather than actually to do good. This is exactly what liberals do - judge the
person's moral standing by the purity of the opinions he holds, rather than by
the effect of his actions.
Let
me repeat what I said:"Perhaps, if the NHS had been permitted and
encouraged to offer the same limited service as private doctors then provided,
more readily and universally, free of charge, but under close restrictions
which could land the doctor in court if he took them too laxly, the inequality
could have been removed without signalling to the world that abortion would
henceforth be a backstop form of contraception. For this is, without doubt,
what it has become."
If
anyone actually took up this point, or discussed it, then I seem to have missed
it. Some people made tart remarks about Hillary Clinton being unlovely. Well,
so what? You think I don't know? I lived in the USA during her co-presidency.
But you don't have to approve of someone to quote them, if they have said
something important or interesting. (Or in this case, deeply but unconsciously
contradictory). One even complained that I mentioned her at all,
apparently in the belief that it is wrong to mention American politicians in a
British context. But no British politician, to my knowledge, has made this
statement. The issue bubbles below the political surface here, above it in the
USA. I was simply quoting her because she typified a certain position,
not because I approved of her or even necessarily believed her, but because
that's what she said.
William
Russ made my blood run cold with his suggestion that our species is in some way
'advancing' (how can you tell the difference between forwards and backwards
with any certainty, by the way?) and that abortion is an essential part of
this.
I
thought this sort of “higher good" tripe was discredited when the
Edwardian eugenicists discovered that their arguments had been used in a
terrifying way by the German National Socialists. I also thought that the
belief in human 'progress' had taken a general pasting during the 20th century.
But perhaps as we lose knowledge of our history, we need to have all these
arguments again. Mr Russ should Google "Pirna" and "Action T4” and
"Schloss Sonnenstein" and see what he finds. I don't mean to be
unkind, and I am sure Mr Russ is as appalled by this sort of thing, in its ugly
practice, as any other decent person. People often don't see the implications
of the phrases they use, until they hear them repeated in the mouths of
ruffians. That's what happened to the Edwardian idealists. Those who look up
this episode might also be interested to see exactly who stood up against evil
in this case (For those who haven't time to look: Roman Catholics and
aristocrats, mainly, with a more muted intervention by some Protestants
and doctors, though any protests, public or private, under that regime
involved giant courage) . Some contributors were rightly disturbed by this and
urged Mr Russ to do some other reading, and I very much hope he follows their
suggestions.
There
was a long and learned discussion about the moment at which life begins, which
illustrates that, in all matters of faith, you believe that which you choose to
believe, and do not find out if you are right this side of the grave. There was
also some useful debate about the way in which those who seek to destroy people
are careful to dehumanise their victims in advance. I'd like some
pro-abortionists to acknowledge this and accept that rational people might view
an abortion as the killing of a human person, and abandon their use of terms
such as 'foetus' or 'clump of cells'. But it is easy to see why they don't.
This is also standard stuff, which leaves both sides glowering at each other
but with no lives saved.
I
have still not puzzled out what Susan Phanar is talking about. A concern for
endangered species, or for the conservation of forests (both good conservative
causes hijacked and perverted by green socialists) is quite compatible with a
concern for endangered unborn babies. Whereas it strikes me that anyone
prepared to sacrifice unborn babies for a higher good might take the same view
of elephants or orang-utans. As for the 'feminist' argument for abortion which
she appears to take for granted, it has always seemed to be that the people
most liberated by easy abortion were and are irresponsible men. Having got a
woman pregnant, they can brush off any pressure to marry the woman or support
the child, by pointing out that abortion is readily available on demand. These
days, they don't even have to pay for it.
Steven
Armstrong quoted from the Bible. Well, thank you. I like to think that at
least some parts of this great library have the power to unsettle and shake
minds that were previously certain, because of a certain echo and thunder in
the prose that suggests it comes from very far back, and a very long way away,
and from genuine authority. But may I make a request to him and any others who
wish to do this? On this weblog, we prefer the 1611 Authorised ( or, as
Americans call it, The King James) Version, not just because it is
properly majestic, beautiful and memorable, as such a book ought to be, but
also because it is in general the most accurate translation of the
original scriptures into English. If you haven't come across it, and don't own
a copy, it is time you did. When quoting from the Book of Psalms, the Miles
Coverdale version (reproduced in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) is also
acceptable.
By
the way, this is not to say that there were not a number of eloquent and
enjoyable contributions, many of them instructive and thoughtful in their own
right. I was glad that we touched on the fact that moral rules are primarily
rules we must try to apply to our own selves, and spread by example and
persuasion where possible, while acknowledging our own frequent failure to live
by them, rather than things we must seek to force on others. Though of course
this becomes more difficult when the wrong that is done affects a third party.
I was always struck, when I lived in the USA, by a bumper sticker common on
cars in liberal Maryland, which cackled "Against abortion? Don't have
one". I would grind my teeth and think of having a satirical version made
which said "Against murder? Don't commit one".This is of course an
absolutely true parallel if you accept my position on when human life begins.
But it has no effect on someone who has persuaded himself that it begins at
birth.
I just felt that the substantial point was
missed. Can we have another try?
No comments:
Post a Comment