Stirring Memories of Disturbing Historical Parallels -- Part One of Two

Editor's note. Part Two is an intriguing interview with Michael Clancy who took the famous photo of "Baby Samuel." You will want to read Liz Townsend's story. Mr. Clancy is speaking at the NRLC Convention July 3-5.

As Great Britain revisits the abortion issue for the first time since 1990, it's been like a time warp to me, a back-to-the-future experience. As I read the British newspapers and blogs, it's like revisiting a dark and dank place. It called to mind memories of my early days in the Movement when going into battle against far superior pro-abortion forces I routinely got my intelligence ridiculed, my sanity called into question, and my ears boxed.

This is not to say either that we have reached Nirvana in the United States or that the pro-abortionist forces in Great Britain are uniquely out to lunch. There are plenty of pro-lifers closer to home who still have to walk the gauntlet and we have lots of pro-abortionists in office whose contempt for unborn life rivals anything you might read about across the pond.

Having said that, my jaw often drops when I read what MPs (Members of Parliament) and representatives of the British Medical Establishment routinely say. When it's their agenda--when they propose to create animal/human hybrids on which to experiment, for example-- it's all high road and noble sentiments, at least on first pass.

As one MP wrote his constituents, "It is the job of this body to ensure that human embryos used for research into reproductive technology are treated with the greatest possible respect, whilst allowing research and fertility to continue."

"Greatest possible respect"? Please don't insult my intelligence.

In the next sentence we're told, "This means that some embryos will be destroyed but I understand on the basis of expert opinion that this is an inevitable part of progress in fertility treatment, which itself results in the creation of new life." The creation, exploitation, and manipulation of life are just the price we pay for "progress." It is only to state the obvious that such rationalizations are just to disarm opponents and put a cheery gloss on an ugly reality. It also conjures up memories of many disturbing historical parallels.

But when pro-lifers (and even those pro-abortionists whose eyes have not been sown shut) propose the slightest rollback--minutely lowering the upper "limit" for abortions--the full arsenal is rolled out. Proponents are "fundamentalists." If they be so bold as to show a picture of an unborn child at 16 weeks, they must be "rebuked."

That's just a start. Somehow mention the possibility of making the upper limit 22 weeks instead of 24 weeks and that same MP reverts to the default position of all militant, never-enough-abortions pro-abortionists: back alley abortions and victims of rape and incest.

Right now, the skids have been greased for the anti-life forces to win everything they wanted: enshrining and extending the destructive and unethical use of human embryos, which includes human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, "savior siblings," and human-animal hybrids.

Proposed changes to the Abortion Act (via amendments to the government's "Human Fertilisation and Embryology" bill) to limit ever so slightly the reach of the abortionist's lethal arsenal appear to have all lost. And of course the underlying tragic irony is that there already exists a loophole in the law that allows abortion up to birth.

All the child need have is a "severe fetal abnormality," which has and does include babies prenatally diagnosed with cleft palates and club feet. If that weren't grim enough, as the bill moves toward completion, there will likely be further pro-abortion amendments, including one to allow nurses to be abortion practitioners.

A final note on the attempt to squelch pro-life voices, to paint them as ridiculously outside the mainstream. As we recently reported, pro-life students at the University of Queensland cannot distribute brochures showing an eight-month-old unborn baby, according to the student union president. The literature, described by the Catholic student group the Newman Society as "pro-woman" and "pro-pregnancy," violates the student body's official pro-abortion stance, The Australian reported.

Even if "the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe, abortion on demand so all women have a genuine choice when faced with unwanted pregnancy" (to quote union president Joshua Young), when I first read the story I didn't understand how censorship followed. Then I read further and discovered that the Australian had asked Young if the student vote "precluded other viewpoints being put forward in debate on campus."

"It does," Young responded.

That could easily be the situation here, and on a much wider scale, were it not for your refusal to allow your voice to be muzzled. Keep up this most important work.

Part Two: "Photo of Unborn Baby's Hand Continues to Change Hearts and Lives"