Tom Goodfellow

Why does the life of the born have so much more value than that of the unborn?

I must admit to being totally baffled by contemporary society.

The story of poor little Charlie Gard is front page news throughout much of the world. Over a million pounds has been donated, including some very large individual gifts to fund highly experimental and completely untested therapy with little or no hope (we are told) of success.

A petition with thousands of signatures has been presented to the hospital requesting that his life support should continue. Hordes of “Charlie’s army” supporters have demonstrated outside the High Court as the Judge ponders the case.

Even the Pope and President Trump have weighed in with their pennyworth!

The serious illness or death of any baby is a tragedy for the parents, but other than the fact that Charlie has an astonishingly rare condition, the scenario will be familiar to the staff on any busy neonatal intensive care unit. Sadly some babies do die.

Why Charlie has become such a cause celebre is due in part to the campaign waged effectively by his parents aided by the media.

But is also a cultural remnant of our Judeo-Christian heritage which has always regarded human life as sacred, and indeed this principle has undergirded our health care system from its inception.

The view is that the life of a child, no matter how frail, is precious beyond measure, and you would need a very hard heart indeed to disagree with this.

But in contrast to this is the recent BMA conference call for the government to completely decriminalise abortion, and effectively to legalise abortion on demand.

There have even been calls for the time limit on abortions to be scrapped, notably by the CEO of the Royal College of Midwives, which would allow abortion up to term, a view which fortunately many midwives have rejected in horror.

DoH figures show that there were 190,406 abortions in England and Wales in 2016, 98% for “mental health” reasons. But it is generally acknowledged that the law is interpreted in a very liberal way (i.e. flouted), and we already have abortion on demand in most cases.

One in five pregnancies ends in abortion and since the abortion act came into effect in 1967 there have been over eight million abortions in the UK.

So it would appear that while the life of one sick little boy is of such value that he must be kept alive at all costs, the life of thousands of the unborn are of no worth at all, and can be destroyed in utero.

Their only crime – to be inconvenient or unwanted in some way.

This contrast between the campaign to save Charlie, and the campaign to further liberalise abortion seems to me to be Orwellian doublethink in the extreme; that is to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory views.

The life of the born has value, while the life of the not yet born has none.

This is a direct result of our current post-Christian, postmodern moral relativism where feelings and subjectivity are paramount, and truth and morality are what I chose them to be.

The brilliant German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche predicted this outcome in the nineteenth century.

I realise that abortion is a complex and contentious issue, and that anyone even questioning the current liberal zeitgeist will be portrayed as bigoted and reactionary (cf. the DUP).

But I remain baffled at the logical inconsistency of what we are currently witnessing in the case of Charlie Gard.

Bookmark and Share

One Response to “Why does the life of the born have so much more value than that of the unborn?”

  1. JohnAllman.UK says:

    IN my experience, the “inconsistency” that baffles you, always ends up being justified by quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo, a recycling of the ancient pagan doctrine of “ensoulment”.

    The mumbo-jumbo of choice

Post a Comment

Enter this security code

Submit Comment for Moderation