The abomination of judicially-enforced abortion
Lord Justice Munby - Head of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales - has featured a number of times on His Grace's blog over recent years. He is the "self-regarding, pompous, publicity-seeking pillock" who says the law of this country is secular, and that Christianity no longer informs its morality or values. He has also declared that "secular judges" ought not to view the precepts of one faith as any higher than those of another, and that sexual ethics have nothing at all to do with Christian belief.
And now, not content with insisting that "problem parents" ought to be forced by the courts to use contraception to prevent "repetitive pregnancies", Sir James Munby has forced a 13-year-old girl to have an abortion.
The President of the Family Division of the High Court seemingly has the power to order the destruction of a baby in the womb.
Yes, we are told that the girl was "very damaged", "impaired", "largely out of control", and has an IQ of just 54. And yes, we are also told that the father of this child was just 14 years old, and manifestly reckless and irresponsible.
But the court was informed that she "initially wanted to keep her baby". She might have wavered on this, but what 13-year-old wouldn't? In any case, Social Services thought the pregnancy inappropriate, so they asked the High Court to decide whether it ought to be allowed to continue.
And Sir James Munby, the anti-family High Priest of Secularism, ruled that an abortion was in her best interests: "Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings, the preponderance of all the evidence is clear that it would be in her best interests to have a termination," he decreed.
"Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings"?
Do we now live in a country where one's IQ determines whether "wishes and feelings" ought to be taken into account? We're not talking here about whether she would like her bedroom painted orange or pink; we're talking about a baby - a new human life. Surely if a pregnant girl lacks the capacity to decide matters for herself, the unborn baby has the right to an advocate?
But Lord Justice Munby determined that if the girl were allowed to give birth there would be "very little chance" she would be allowed to keep her child.
So what about adoption? Is that not preferable to termination?
Does a girl with an IQ of 54 and the vocabulary of a six-year-old not still think and feel? Is an enforced abortion not still potentially greatly injurious - physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually?
But, of course, in Lord Justice Munby's aggressively secular world, there is no moral code but that which is pragmatic and accords with human rights; there is nothing spiritual to consider. And the physical, emotional and psychological must be subsumed to the utilitarian imperative. This girl would not have a "full understanding of what the pregnancy would involve", and so it's in her "best interests" to abort the child.
Does any woman really have a "full understanding" of what pregnancy involves before they have carried a baby to full term and finally given birth?
Does any man ever have a "full understanding" of what pregnancy involves?
Do only those with an 'acceptable' IQ have the right to be pregnant?
What if this girl had been Roman Catholic?
Since Lord Justice Munby is of the view that “the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form”, we know the answer. He is persuaded that "reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunise the believer from the reach of the secular law".
In this brave new secular world, everything is rendered first unto Caesar, in whose honour our babies are routinely sacrificed - even against the wishes and feelings of the half-witted mother.