In an article published in today's Scotsman (Friday 6 July 2007), Cardinal Keith O'Brien reflects on the response to his comments on abortion one month ago, arguing that "the "abortion debate" in the UK rarely involves any actual discussion about the realities of abortion!" he adds " 'Red herrings' and diversionary tactics keep us from proper consideration of the value of each and every human life." and concludes, "That has largely been the tactic used by many in response to me."

Cardinal O'Brien calls for a review of the existing law and in a direct plea to Gordon Brown whose action on poverty and debt relief in Africa he commends, he states; "our compassion towards the newborn and starving child in Darfur or Eritrea is surely hypocritical and hollow if we wantonly ignore the needs of their unborn counterparts in Dunfermline or Edinburgh who through abortion face the end of their short lives just as certainly as if they were born into poverty and malnutrition on the other side of the globe"

ENDS

Peter Kearney
Director
Catholic Media Office
5 St. Vincent Place
Glasgow
G1 2DH
0141 221 1168
pk@scmo.org
www.scmo.org

Note to Editors:

The full text of the article appears below and can be viewed at http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/

A month has passed since I preached a sermon at St. Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh in which I criticised our country's abortion legislation. I have never had a greater response to any sermon or been so inundated with letters, emails and telephone calls offering support and thanks for my words.

Messages of goodwill have arrived from as far afield as New Zealand and the Philippines and from across Europe. Leaders of other Churches have indicated their support, as have many medical professionals. It is as if a dam has burst its banks and a great wave of compassion for the unborn has been released.

A surgeon wrote saying: "I am very pleased to see someone of your influence speaking out about the sorry state of this country whereby thousands of unborn healthy children are destroyed by the NHS and its abortion agencies and most politicians seem totally unconcerned or ambivalent". He went on "I feel powerless to halt the carnage and there is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing little arms and legs being sucked down a glass tube and binned for the sake of someone's lifestyle". Little wonder that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recently highlighted the "growing problem of trainees opting out of training in the termination of pregnancy". This may be one of many symptoms of a society slowly awakening to the brutal reality of what it means to destroy a sizeable portion of the next generation.

A small number of those who wrote to me and responded publicly to my comments objected to my language and criticised me for entering the political sphere. The language I used was strong, I reminded my listeners that in Scotland "we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day", I did so not because I wished to be sensational and certainly not because I wished to offend. I did so because it is true.

Likewise I did enter into a debate, which has, wrongly in my view, come to be viewed as political. Abortion is neither political nor medical, though clearly it has implications in these spheres, it is about morality and the destruction of human life. It is not something our political parties tend to campaign or give manifesto commitments on, it is rightly deemed a matter of conscience and MP's have a free vote. Parliamentary debates therefore comprise 645 individuals expressing personal views informed by faith, conscience, experience or a combination of these. Sadly, few, if any of our MP's have training in ethics, moral philosophy or theology, similarly our medical professionals tend to have very little training in these areas yet surprisingly perhaps our media tend always and instantly to medicalise or politicise this profoundly moral question.

Accordingly, the "abortion debate" in the UK rarely involves any actual discussion about the realities of abortion! 'Red herrings' and diversionary tactics keep us from proper consideration of the value of each and every human life. As Cardinal Pell of Australia recently said: "Serious anti-lifers and publicity seekers have been trying to shoot the messenger while they work to bury the message". That has largely been the tactic used by many in response to me.

Although abortion statistics are regularly published they have little or no effect. Familiarity has bred contempt. It is a contempt, which must be challenged. I believe the time has come for wide ranging and open debate in this country about abortion. It should not be dominated by our political elites or medical professionals, by religious leaders or pressure groups, but should be open to all. Perhaps the saddest letter I received recently was from an elderly lady in Edinburgh, who wrote: "I was so happy you are fighting abortion. I had an abortion in 1979. It was so easy to get the abortion with my history of depression and poor health. There was no one there to talk to at length. Please use the people who have lost a baby to counsel those who think of abortion". We must urgently consider what help we can give to those contemplating abortion as well as those who have endured it and ask why a conspiracy of silence prevents their sad and wounded voices from ever being heard. We should also ask why no public funding is given to agencies, which support women through a crisis pregnancy while large sums are provided to agencies who help women end one.

No debate however would be complete without a review of the existing law. In recent weeks Alex Salmond has expressed a willingness to consider an independent commission looking at the application of abortion law in Scotland. Last year I met Tony Blair and urged him to consider a UK wide review. He appeared willing and conceded there was a strong argument for a time limit reduction. Sadly, he failed to act allowing an opportunity to pass. I hope our new Prime Minister will not do the same. Gordon Brown is a man of principle and deeply held moral convictions. Our views on Trident may differ, but like me, he has seen the suffering caused by poverty and malnutrition in many developing countries and has sought to persuade the decision makers of the developed world in forums like the G8 gatherings to respond to the desperate need of our fellow human beings.

In doing so he appeals to their desire to save and protect human life - the most noble motivation of all. I know he will continue to advocate the cause of life in that area and commend him for doing so. Additionally, however I hope he will consider joining with me in support of human life in another sphere - the defence of life as yet unborn. In the case of life in the womb it is unarguable that from conception onwards human life has begun. What exists in the womb is not "a potential human being" but rather "a human being with potential". With that reality in mind our compassion towards the newborn and starving child in Darfur or Eritrea is surely hypocritical and hollow if we wantonly ignore the needs of their unborn counterparts in Dunfermline or Edinburgh who through abortion face the end of their short lives just as certainly as if they were born into poverty and malnutrition on the other side of the globe.

Yet isn't compassion for our fellow human beings indivisible? Doesn't it apply to all or to none? And doesn't our failure to apply it equitably leave us guilty of expediency, hypocrisy even sinful negligence?