Threat to human life as great as ever under new British Government

Nothing has changed in the political rhetoric on human life. Here's what the Department for International Development recently put out as amongst its goals for the third world:

• Scaling-up access to family planning - Every year there are 75 million unintended pregnancies. A third of all maternal deaths could be avoided if women had access to family planning. Scaling up the provision of contraception in developing countries could help meet the unmet need and reduce the number of deaths. This includes ensuring that women can access modern methods of family planning such as implants, injectables and IUDs.
• Addressing unsafe abortion: Every year unsafe abortion results in up to 70,000 maternal deaths in developing countries. A further 8 million women and girls need medical treatment. Only 5 million receive it. Ensuring abortion services are safe, and that post abortion care is provided, saves lives. And increasing access to family planning will avert many thousands of unintended pregnancies and abortions every year.
• Making birth safe - The minutes and hours around childbirth is the time when the risk of death is greatest for mothers and their babies: a total of over 2 million birth-related deaths occur globally each year. For mothers who die around the time of birth, it is rare for their baby to survive. To address this, women need to be able to access skilled and motivated health workers in the right place at the right time, who have the drugs, equipment and infrastructure for a safe delivery.

The old, old, arguments: more 'family planning', more 'safe abortion' (whatever that is - not safe for the baby), and then, contradictorally: the quest to make birth safe - very laudable. Why don't 'uplanned' pregnancies be treated in this manner to avoid abortion?

British Prime Minister David Cameron is pro-abortion. As John Smeaton quotes from a letter from the Prime Minister's office to SPUC:

David is aware of the comments made by the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley MP, in the House on the 12 May. Andrew was advocating that early, medical abortions are preferable to late, surgical ones. Therefore, Andrew was in favour of amending the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion [i.e. only one doctor can give the consent creating a fast-track process for getting an abortion] being performed and for reviewing the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions [just pop into the practice nurse and she/he can do it as routinely as taking a blood sample]. As David is in favour of allowing women to have abortions, but supports a reduction to the abortion limit [don't people who advocate campaigns for reductions in time limits see that this always results in legislation that actually makes abortion easier?], he thinks that this is a practical and sensible proposal [oh how terribly British - such a sensible way of disposing of human life on an industrial scale; I think the Nazis also sought practical ways of killing millions of the death camps]. However, it must be emphasized that this is currently a free vote issue.

The new President of the Pontifical Academy for Life Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco speaks clearly against this philosophy which fails to recognise the rights of the unborn child and attacks the further promotion of killing by Governments around the world. In an interview with Zenit he says:

I don't know when we will arrive at the right to steal but behind these laws what exists is a relativistic logic.

More from John Smeaton here, here, here.