About a week ago, an article on Life News described a law case in England in
which a senior judge “ordered” a 13 year-old mentally disabled girl to have an
abortion “against her wishes.” Naturally there was considerable uproar. What is
England coming to, if she can and will allow her judges to “force” a girl to
have an abortion? Thankfully, Life News misreported and exaggerated. The basic facts were correct: an anonymous 13 year-old girl with an
IQ of 54 and the mental capabilities of a 7 year-old was impregnated by a 14
year-old boy. Social Services brought the case before Sir James Munby,
President of the High Court’s Family Division, when the girl was 14 weeks
pregnant.
It is at that point that Life News’s accuracy stops.
Contrary to what Life News reported, the girl was neither “forced” nor
“ordered” to have the pregnancy terminated. As Law and Religion UK said
in their summary of the case, Sir James simply provided the legal permission
necessary for the abortion to take place, in accordance with the United
Kingdom’s Abortion Act 1967. As they said, “[T]he role of the court is to
supply, on behalf of the mother, the consent which, as in the case of any other
medical or surgical procedure, is a pre-requisite to the lawful performance of
the procedure.” It is true that when the case began the girl was set against an
abortion, but by the end of the case she was asking to have one.
However, there is a point that no publication seems
to have picked up on. In the course of the hearing, Sir James said that “it would not be right to subject X to a
termination unless she was both ‘compliant’ and ‘accepting’. Both, in my judgment,
are important. Only the most clear and present risk to the mother’s life or
long-term health—neither even hinted at in the present case—could justify the
use of restraint or physical force to compel compliance.” Law and Religion rightly interprets his words as further evidence
that Sir James did not force the girl to have the abortion done, but his words
are actually very disturbing. Sir James has just said that he believes that
forced abortion is sometimes justified: “[T]he
most clear and present risk […] could justify the use of restraint or physical
force to compel compliance.”
It turns out that this is neither his first nor his
last time expressing frightening views on birth control. London’s newspaper The Telegraph ran a story about Sir James and his stance on giving
contraception to “problem parents,” parents who have a dozen or so of their
children taken away by social services. But Sir James does not mention
providing contraception to save the children who would be born and then taken
way. Instead, he says that “[t]he savings if you can avoid care proceedings are
enormous.” He is concerned for the financial state of the government, and
apparently thinks that it is not worth risking for children’s lives.
An article in Britain’s Daily Mail, published
half a year before the 13 year-old girl’s case was heard, sheds more light on
Sir James’ philosophy. In a speech to the Law Society’s family section at their
first annual conference, Sir James said, “All are entitled to respect, so long
as they are ‘legally and socially acceptable’ and not ‘immoral or socially
obnoxious’ or ‘pernicious.’” In other words, only some people deserve respect.
But not everyone.
What makes a person legally acceptable? Presumably
their legality as a citizen. What makes someone socially acceptable? Actions
and decisions made according to accepted social standards. This would mean that
illegal aliens, drinkers, drug users, fans of extremely loud music, psychopaths,
hedonists, people with criminal histories, and “problem parents” are not
acceptable and, according to Sir James, are therefore not entitled to respect.
I have no doubt that everyone knows at least one person with at least one of those
qualities. Does that person not deserve respect? Don’t you continue to give
them respect because they are still a person, and not simply a series of
mistakes?
Sir James seems to think that a person should only
receive respect based on their worth and quality as a person. If someone is somewhat
less than desirable socially, morally, or legally, then they do not deserve
respect. Only people who are good, admirable, useful people should be
respected.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has an entire article
on the respect of the human person. As it says, “Respect
for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity
as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it.
They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority. […] If it does
not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain
obedience from its subjects.” That last part sounds like what Sir James said
about giving contraception to “problem parents” and forcing a mother to have an
abortion. And as someone who very consciously only respects certain people, why
should he not support forced birth control?
Yet Sir James’ self-described dislike of
immoral people does not correspond with something the same Daily Mail article reported. Sir James said in a speech in London
that “Happily for us, the days are past when the business of judges was the
enforcement of morals or religious beliefs,” and that it is “Victorian” for
judges to rule in favor of “virtue and morality” and against “vice and
immorality.” Apparently the questions of morals and vices, their qualifiers,
and their consequences should be left to the people. But only until something
goes wrong and the courts have to deal with the effects.
No comments:
Post a Comment