Duke of Kent’s son: Abortion a worse threat than al-Qaeda
First, just who is Lord Nicholas Windsor (pictured above with wife Paola), the Duke of Kent’s son? Before I get to the excellent op ed he has written, I think it will help Americans to know his pedigree.
The bio from his First Things op ed, December 1:
Lord Nicholas Windsor studied theology at Oxford University and is patron of the Right to Life Charitable Trust and the Catholic National Library. Great-grandson of King George V of the United Kingdom, Windsor is the first blood member of the British royal family to be received into the Catholic Church since King Charles II on his deathbed in 1685.
And from The Telegraph, today:
Lord Nicholas, 40… lost his place in the line of succession when he became a Roman Catholic….
In 2006, Lord Nicholas, whose father, the Duke of Kent, is a cousin of the Queen, became the first member of the Royal family to marry in the Vatican since the Reformation. His wife, Paola, gave birth to their 1st child, Albert, in 2007, and the couple had a 2nd son, Leopold, last year.
Now on to the story, again quoting The Telegraph:
Lord Nicholas… has written a controversial article in which he claims that abortion is a bigger threat to Europe than al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism.
He describes abortion as “the single most grievous moral deficit in contemporary life” and calls for a “new abolitionism for Europe” in which abortion, like the slave trade, can be abolished.
Be sure to read Lord Windsor’s insightful piece. In it he calls abortion “a mortal wound in Europe’s heart, in the center of Hellenic and Judeo-Christian culture.” And he calls for modern-day abortion abolitionists:
Having so recklessly carried this poison out of the 20th – the ugliest of all centuries – let us, for the sake of all that has been good and beautiful and true about the culture of the West, be clear that there is an urgent moral priority here. Call it a “New Abolitionism for Europe” – the word abolitionism emphasizing the continuity between the challenge faced now with the generational campaigns waged so clear-sightedly in late-19th-century America to rid itself of the injustice of slavery. The abolitionists, I believe, exemplify the courage and imagination required, even if they do not provide perfect templates for what we face now.
It is interesting that American pro-lifers look to English abolitionist William Wilberforce for inspiration. It was about Wilberforce’s fight to end the British slave trade that the acclaimed 2006 film Amazing Grace was made. Here’s the trailer, to bring encouragement to today’s abortion abolitionists…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
And what? Is being catholic or whatever, a new reason for discrimination?
Abortion is or it is not to kill the life of what is growing inside the mother? Why can anybody trivialize the death of a unborn?
Jill, I’m trying to get to the Duke’s own article but can’t. Is it my computer or the link?
Also, here’s a article about Europe’s court refusing to find a new right to abortion:
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=39619
The abortionists know there is no right to abortion but they are using ‘rights’ advocacy as a tool because: language is very powerful and when you frame something as a human right people give it more credence because we are inclined to think of ‘rights’ as good. But in this case the abortionists are only aping something, and there is no truth in it. Hopefully their advocates, the hapless pro-abortion bloggers included, will stop being the abortionists’ minions and start thinking for themselves.
WOW! Way to go, Lord Nicholas! And I love the term “abortion abolitionist.” Time we all adopted that title. It’s motivational, strong, and entirely accurate to our cause.
I could hear a British voice reading the piece in my head, lol. But very well written and though-provoking. Societies are dying off because they are killing so many children they cannot replace their numbers. Look at Japan. That island nation is practically disappearing as its people age and there are not enough babies born to replace them. Abortion is attacking us in a way Osama never could.
I hope someday we get to the point where we look back at the 20th and early 21st centuries and are HORRIFIED that we ever thought that aborting our unborn children was a “right”.
Comparing abortion to slavery always disgusts pro-choicers like me. It’s not only grossly unfair,totally inapt and stupid, but shows monumental intellectual dishonesty.
I and other pro-choicers resent the assumption that being pro-choice is as morally reprehensible as being pro-slavery. That’s disgusting. Abortion is a private matter for individual women.Slavery is a monstrous crime against humaity. And furthermore, while slavery can and has been eliminated for the most part,even though it still exists, abortion can never be stopped,and never will be, because you cannot control the actions of women.
If anything, the REAL slavery is when women are not allowed reproductive rights,and are reduced to baby making machines.
And it’s also slaveryt when a government tries to force women to give birth to children who are doomed to abject poverty.That is slavery for those children too. And no,adoption is not the answer.
FYI Mr. Berger: As long as abortion involves the life of another human being and not just that of the pregnant woman, it is not a private matter.
Amen, Sydney!!
I am fine with disgusting you and other prochoicers, Robert.
Rob didn’t even read the article, evidently.
This isn’t a “private matter.” This isn’t about cosmetic surgery. This is about the legal killing of an entire population of human beings. It is the most egregious violation of human rights in the history of the world. But people like Rob just keep proving us right….They don’t want to admit the humanity of the unborn, because it would make them “look bad.” So they dehumanize baby human beings in order to continue killing them. I’m sorry, Rob, THAT is TRULY disgusting.
So, Mr. Berger, thus abortion can`t be stopped, lets legalize it. But, don´t stop there: let´s legalize prostitution, murder, steal, hunger, cancer, global warming, discrimination, pedophilia, etc. etc.
Today, in the XXI century, there are plenty of anti-conception methods to preserve the women´s right of avoid pregnancy, if they want to.
And, adoption is not the answer, because you say so? So, if you could predict the happiness or the sadness of a person before being born, will you have the right to decide if his life is worth, letting live or killing him?
Ninek – I link to the piece twice in my post. Scroll down: http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201012/2197491621.html
(This is an alternative site, which is likely your source of confusion. The piece is only available at the First Things site with a subscription.)
Robert Berger
December 20th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Comparing abortion to slavery always disgusts pro-choicers like me. It’s not only grossly unfair,totally inapt and stupid, but shows monumental intellectual dishonesty.
And we’re back to the insults, eh?
I know a History teacher who’s got a Masters in History, a certificate in Women’s Studies, a certificate in African American History, and a second B.A. in Political Science. He has agreed about the link between slavery and abortion. I’d say he’s got plenty of credentials to thoughtfully and intellectually figure that out. Is he stupid too? I wouldn’t say so since it took some form of intelligence for him to get those degrees and certificates. He wasn’t just handed them by someone off the streets, beleive me!.
I and other pro-choicers resent the assumption that being pro-choice is as morally reprehensible as being pro-slavery. That’s disgusting. Abortion is a private matter for individual women.Slavery is a monstrous crime against humaity. And furthermore, while slavery can and has been eliminated for the most part,even though it still exists, abortion can never be stopped,and never will be, because you cannot control the actions of women.
Being pro-choice IS morally reprehensible. Let’s be honest here. Pro-choice is being accepting of the murder and death of a human being. Conception happened–thus human being. Just because he or she doesn’t look, act or appear the same as people outside the womb doesn’t mean he/she isn’t a human being.
People have thought of a race or culture as less human for years. Look at history. Women were thought ”less” than men, Africian Americans were thought of as less than human, the Nazis thought less of the Jews…the list goes on. The point is a whole group of human beings are being executed simply because they happen to not be out of their mother’s womb.
It’s an emotional slavery. Women are told if they’re of a certain age, background, whatever, to abort because it will “take care of the problem” which doesn’t take care of any emotional, spiritual, physical or mental issues/problems said women could be facing.
If anything, the REAL slavery is when women are not allowed reproductive rights,and are reduced to baby making machines.
Right, because there’s NO family planning methods and people can’t control themselves EVER. Right?
I’ve been posting and posting and posting about Natural Family Planning. There’s been talk of chastity and abstainence.
I’m pro-life, a woman, wife, mother and I practice Natural Family Planning (NFP) and I certainly have NOT been reduced to a “baby making machine” by ANYONE thank you very much!
Neither have my sisters (I have 5 by the way) or any other pro-life married woman (practicing NFP) that I know. They WANT those babies and don’t think of themselves as merely “baby making machines” but rather participants in the miracle of life.
My mother certainly did NOT feel like a baby making machine. She loved every single child she conceived and would’ve had more if she could’ve.
Natural Family Planning provides a non-abortion non-chemical, non-barrier way for people to plan their families with reasonable accuracy when practiced properly (which is what is said about pretty much any family planning method: “when used properly…” is almost always said).
And it’s also slaveryt when a government tries to force women to give birth to children who are doomed to abject poverty.That is slavery for those children too. And no,adoption is not the answer.
Adoption is AN answer. As far as I know, there is no ONE single answer to crisis pregnancies or poverty.
But the way you worded this suggests that adoption has no purpose being a life-giving, positive answer. Gee thanks. I know ALOT of people who are adopted and would say that adoption NOT abortion is the answer:
I have an older brother and sister who are adopted. I have at least 3 cousins who are adopted. A friend of mine AND her husband are adopted. At least one of my God-sisters is adopted. All of my son’s God-siblings (2 God-brothers and a God-sister) are adopted.
I have another friend who is adopted. I lived across the street for awhile from 2 girls who were both adopted.
My family worked with an adoption agency many years when I was growing up.
So you saying “adoption is not the answer” is a real insult to me and all the people involved with adoption.
We’re trying to help situations and there’s people who do their best to offer support and encouragement to mothers within the adoption community.
Don’t insult their efforts by saying “adoption is not the answer”.
Adoption is at least an answer that would give life. Abortion is NOT.
Uh, Berger, there’s more slavery now than there was 300 years ago. I guess by your logic, it should be legal, then…
Slavery is a good analogy for abortion, primarily because both require the absolute dehumanization of another person. Slavery is okay, because Blacks aren’t really people. Abortion is okay, because fetuses aren’t really people.
“I am fine with disgusting you and other prochoicers, Robert.” Too funny Carla!
“I and other pro-choicers resent the assumption that being pro-choice is as morally reprehensible as being pro-slavery.”
Of course you do Robert! It’s because you are spiritually blind, morally bankrupt and totally deceived (no offense).
I’m guessing that attempting to get you to acknowledge a moral truth would be as futile as asking a blind man to describe the size and shape of a tree 10 feet in front of him but here goes…
Do you see anything wrong with a mother killing her preborn child of 9 months gestational age?
(cue the Final Jeopardy music)
By the way Jill, thanks for pointing us to a great article. He was “spot on” as they say across the pond.
Mr. Berger,
On the contrary, the link between slavery and abortion is abundantly clear. Let’s start with the unequivocal historical fact of states rights. Slavery in the US was originally legalized state-by-state and was codified nationally by a Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott, and the resulting Fugitive Slave Act). Identical to the journey of abortion.
The Dred Scott decision decided that the right to property (ie slaves) trumped both the rights of individual slaves to freedom and as well as the anti-slavery laws of the free states. Roe v. Wade (and you in your post) said that the right of the woman to not be pregnant trumps the right of the unborn and also negated the laws of abortion-free states.
Slavery in the US was justified by the “benefits” for the slaves, including removal from their “savage” state in Africa, introduction to Christianity, and the fact that their daily needs for food and shelter were met by the slave owner (in contrast, as was repeatedly pointed out, to free industrialized workers who might not make a living wage). Pro-choicers, and especially abortion-bound mothers, will also justify that the babies are “better off” because they escape a poor life situation, poverty, abuse, etc. In fact, you did this very thing in your post.
Those opposed to abolition told abolitionists to keep away from things that were not their business. They also repeatedly told northern abolitionists that they had no right to criticize slavery unless they could fix the situation of the grievously impoverished industrial poor first. The same criticism is used by pro-choicers today regarding abortion and poverty.
Those supportive of slavery deliberately used dehumanizing pseudo-science and language to justify slavery. Abolitionists used graphic photos to prove their point. The same is true in the abortion fight (with abortion clinics decision to hide ultra-sounds and use dehumanizing language, and pro-lifers countering with images of pre-born and aborted children)
Supporters of slavery countered that abolition would create a glut of unskilled former-slaves that would destroy society. Supporters of abortion point to over-population and a rise in “unwanted” children.
There are a few of the arguments and historical facts that support the similarities. You can’t change it just because it “disgusts” you. That would be “monumentally intellectually dishonest.”
I have an undergrad degree in US history, a Masters Degree in US History/Museum Studies, five years years a history professional and have recently been hired to teach in the history department at a small university. Since I am apparently “inept” “stupid” and given to “monumental intellectual dishonesty” I would like to know your history credentials.
Also, I would not normally get snarky about grammar in a post, but since you did go so far as to call me “stupid” I would like to inform you that it should be “pro-choicers and I” in your post, and that “inapt” is not a word.
Ed, Pip pip and cheerio!
When one looks at the absolute misogynistic medieval anti-choice zealotry of the Roman church, one can totally understand why Britain won’t change its rules regarding the religious requirements for the line of succession. While the Roman church seeks to make women into breeding chattel, the enlightened Anglican (and it’s Episcopalian American counterpart) do not view abortion as a “sin” but rather a choice made by a woman who, as an autonomous human being, is capable of making that choice. The Anglican church also accepts women priests – something that will never happen in the Roman church. While there is some contention regarding gay priests in the Anglican communion, they do exist. But the Pope, much to the consternation of “Canterbury,” has been trying to lure discontented Anglicans into the Roman fold – even Anglican priests who are able to bring their wives and families with them when they become Catholic priests! Obviously, this fellow heard the call. As he, most likely, brings some solid pound sterling into the Papal coffers, I’m sure he was warmly welcomed.
And BTW, abortion is still strongly supported in Protestant Britain which provides abortions for Catholic Irish women with the means to make the trip!
@MIT Right, because there’s NO family planning methods and people can’t control themselves EVER. Right?
Well, we do know that accidents do happen. There are many people walking around today because of contraceptive failure! But some abortion advocates act like women are walking down the street and the e-vell sperm just flies into their body, impregnating them. This isn’t how it happens!
DD…you have GOT to be kidding me. What you said is absolutely laughable. Although, I guess I can definitely see how a pro-abortionist would support a church founded by a man who treated women as usable commodities to be disposed of as he saw fit when they failed to yield what he wanted to the point of killing them. He did it with wives, you guys do it with babies.
xalisae, good one!
DD/Artemis, I think you’ve sufficiently run the one argument you have left into the ground. Not that it’s much of an argument. “All of the best, liberal-approved churches like the Anglicans and Episcopalians and oh yes, let’s not forget the Reformed Jews, are all for abortion, so it must be right! Away with those nasty Catholics! Abortion must be right because all the best people like it!” Huh??
And enough with the typical ex-Catholic anti-Catholic bigotry. Yeah, you’re going to convince a lot of people with that, given the high percentage of Catholics here. Just one more proof that your presence here isn’t meant to convince anyone; its only purpose is to spew more and more hate.
Interesting how the more the Catholic Church repeats and doesn’t change its teachings the more there seems to be “Catholic” converts. But really, you are proud to be part of a Church that started because the founder killed his wives if they didn’t have male babies? and umm, simply, the Roman Catholic Shurch can change it’s stance regarding married priests, it is not a moral law. It probably won’t as it is seen as a witness and the Church doesn’t tend to cave to public pressure. The Anglicans turing to Catholicism can preserve their own “traditions” and ways of doing things, like the Coptic Catholics, or Ukrainian Catholics, and now, Anglican Catholic.
Wen
Great article. The truth rings – and it was so wonderful to have this article from Lord Nicholas.
Killing is wrong and especially egregious when it aimed at the innocent. And the wide-spread use of abortion in controlling populations of a certain type is especially sinister. the mantra of abortion for the poor is the cover for eliminating the poor and ‘freeing’ society of the ‘burden of the poor.’
But we know that this thinking is bankrupt. Allow a segment of the human population to be used, abused, dehumanized and eventually eliminated via abortion dehumanizes us all.
Protect all humans, born and pre-born. No matter the function, length of life projected, financial status, sex or anything. If a pre-born is human we should offer protection. If the woman and family needs help, we should offer that too.
Help for all. Life for all. Let’s welcome all members of our human family, no matter their condition. Way to go Lord Nicholas!!
DD,
Go vomit your anti-Catholic bigotry somewhere else.
Mods, there is no greater defender of LIFE than the Catholic Church. When other Christian churches are persuaded to find reasons to justify abortion, the Catholic Church never has and never will. Can we please stop allowing hateful, false, insane rants like DD’s on this site? Please and thank you.
Great op-ed by Lord Nicholas. It’s great to see people speak out publicly in support of the rights of those who can’t speak for themselves.
Jennifer
Aw, but it’s so much fun to watch DD make an ass out of him/herself ;)
DD,
Please keep posting. I always feel like a genius in comparison to the inane stupidity of your comments.
While the Roman church seeks to make women into breeding chattel
DD,
Um I’m a Roman Catholic and I was never told I HAD to have a ton of children or that I had to be “breeding chattel” as you put it. The Catholic Church (and I will break it down to the simpliest terms I can so that it’s very clear) says we do not have to have hoards of children. We merely have to be open to the POSSIBLITY that we could have a child. With Natural Family Planning (NFP) we can prayerfully and carefully plan our family as a married couple.
Even more simply…we’re just not meant to do anything that would purposefully bar life. Abortion bars life.
It’s possible to get pregnant almost at any time, but the likelihood goes down during a woman’s infertile phase. And during the fertile phase the percentages I’ve heard in NFP class the possiblity of getting pregnant is 43 percent. That’s less than half a chance. Still possible, but it’s not guarentee. Some couples are more fertile than others–my parents definitely were. However, other couples aren’t as fertile.
The Church does not frown on couples who are unable to conceive–on the contrary, many couples who are unable are often treated with a lot of compassion by their Catholic Brothers and Sisters.
The point is, regardless of what phase a woman’s cycle is in (whether menstrational, fertile or infertile) a couple isn’t supposed to do anything on purpose (and consciously) to bar life.
Since abortion bars life by killing a conceived child, then that is the reason the Catholic Church forbids it.
I’m almost glad DD dove into the typical anti-Catholic rant.
DD, I hope you check back cuz here are some stats:
If you combine the entire Crusade period (which at the time weren’t called the Crusades) PLUS the entire Spanish Inquisition, PLUS, add in the entire body count for the European witch trials, guess how many people were killed in a period of more than 400 hundred years? Less than 200,000. Ok, let’s be conservative and assume it is exactly 200,000 people died directly as a result of the Catholic Church during medieval times.*
Since 1973, we can account for at least 52 million abortions in the United States up to 2008. Let’s do the math, shall we DD?
In 35 years, 52 million deaths is 1,485,714 deaths per year approximately. That’s one million four hundred eighty five thousand deaths per year.
That’s about 128,809 deaths per month.
That means the Catholics, with 200,000, killed less people in four centuries than Planned Parenthood kills in two months. I tried to calculate how many children PP would kill in 4 centuries at the current rate, but my poor little calculator can’t do it. Perhaps if my cell were 5 feet wide, I could accommodate the numbers. If the Catholic Church kept up the Crusades and the trials up into the current century and beyond, it would take the Church 103,600 years to reach the same body count. Read that DD, one hundred three thousand six hundred years! That’s how much more deadly is abortion. Also we can we can expect to calculate that about 26 million women have been aborted before they were born. 26 million women never got a chance to argue for ‘rights.’ And that is assuming all the pregnancies were singletons not twins or triplets.
My stats are from Dinesh DeSouza’s book “What’s so Great about Christianity?.” The abortion stats are from PP’s little B, the Guttmakeruperofnumbers Institute. I suspect the abortion numbers are even higher.
We’re pleased that a member of the British family has converted, but we’d be just as pleased if he were the day laboror down the street with no fancy pedigree at all.
“Your anti-choice arguments are full of holes.” Those which you´re not going to tell.
So your solution to all the problems is to kill who you think is creating that problem. I pity you.
The rest of the reply is a bulk of falatia ad hominem.
I’ve been calling myself an abortion abolitionist for a while now. I even have a name tag that says it. The parallels between slavery and abortion are staggering.
Ninek,
I got a calculator on my computer and here’s how I roughly figured it:
4 centuries. 100 years in a century and there’s 12 months in a year so…
400 x 12 = 4800 months
4800 months x the 128,809 deaths per month approximately, which equals: 618,283,200 deaths for 4 centuries.
This is very basic and rough math on my part and it may be inaccurate, but based on the numbers you gave, that’s what I came with and how I cam up with it.
*just realized a typo in my last post. The last line “…with and how…” should read: “This is very basic and rough math on my part and it may be inaccurate, but based on the numbers you gave, that’s what I came up with and how i came up with it.” ”Came” was missing an “e”.