paralympics-2016-medal-haul
Ethics & Morality

Why do we celebrate our inspirational Paralympians, but abort the disabled in the womb?

“Finally, there are some famous words you can find stamped on the bottom of a product,” said Lord Coe, in his speech at the closing ceremony of the London 2012 Paralympic Games. “Words, that when you read them, you know mean high quality, mean skill, mean creativity. We have stamped those words on the Olympic and Paralympic Games of London 2012: ‘London 2012 – Made in Britain’.”

The Olympic and Paralympic Games were indeed made in Britain in 2012, but the Paralympic Games have their entire origin in Britain in the 1948 Olympiad, being the first organised athletic competition for the disabled in history. It was the brainchild of Dr Ludwig Guttmann of Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire, whose aim “was to create an elite sports competition for people with disabilities”. The 1948 Stoke Mandeville Games or ‘International Wheelchair Games’ might have been an amateurish attempt to rehabilitate our war-wounded, and limited to those with spinal injuries to the exclusion of congenital defects, but it was a start, and it was a British initiative.

Team GB’s Olympic medal haul in Rio 2016 was impressive enough, coming second in the world with 67 medals, 27 of them gold. Only the USA, with its population of 324,227,000, managed to beat plucky little Britain, with its mere 65,194,170 to select from. And Team GB’s Paralympians also came second in the world, with a quite remarkable 147 medals, 64 of them gold. Only China, with its population of 1,383,698,352, could beat our disabled athletes. Indeed, the rest of the EU combined were hard-pressed to beat Team GB’s Paralympians, such is their greatness. A spirit of heroism has inspired a generation, not least in shifting the perception of disability from one of insurmountable hurdles and endless inconvenience to rich possibility and the heights of achievement.

The disabled have become the differently-abled, or diffabled. They can race in wheelchairs, run with no legs, swim with no arms, play table-tennis with their mouths and football with no eyes. Closed minds have been opened; the impossible made possible; the inaccessible accessible.

All you need, as Roy Castle used to sing, is dedication. It’s about the grit and determination to be the best.

And God-given talent, of course. For the reality is that these diffabled athletes, with no eyes, no legs, dwarfism or multiple sclerosis, can still run faster, throw further, jump longer or swim faster than a good many of the ‘able-bodied’.

And yet society deems it ethically permissible to abort them.

Not all Paralympians are born that way, of course. Aged five, Jonnie Peacock contracted meningitis resulting in the disease killing the tissues of his right leg, which had to be amputated below the knee. Gaz Choudhry had a leg amputated at the age of 10; Jody Cundy lost a foot at the age of three. But Ellie Simmonds’ dwarfism, David Weir’s spina bifida, Hannah Cockroft’s cerebral palsy, Sarah Storey’s abnormal arm development– all of these would have been and are considered justifiable grounds for termination, with no upper limit. And if any of those who became amputees had been found to be lacking a leg or an arm in the womb, they, too, could have been aborted, right up to nine months, no questions asked.

It is ironic that Parliament resists calls to legalise ‘assisted suicide’ on the grounds that those who are vulnerable through age or illness might be pressured into terminating their lives, while we send completely the opposite message to the disabled, whose lives may be freely and swiftly terminated in the womb.

In his 2012 speech, Lord Coe told us of a Games-Maker he met on the Underground a few weeks ago; a doctor who was on duty on that fateful day in London on 7th July 2005. “For me this is closure,” he said. “I wasn’t sure I should come or whether I could face it. I’m so glad I did. For I’ve seen the worst of mankind and now I’ve seen the best of mankind.”

London 2012 was a summer like no other. But if “the best of mankind” is to have any enduring legacy; if, as Lord Coe said then, “we will never think of disability the same way”, surely we must lift “the cloud of limitation” on the thousands of unborn babies in the womb, whom providence has seen fit to gift with one leg, no arms, no eyes, dwarfism, cerebral palsy, Down’s or spina bifida. Who in God’s name can justify snuffing out the giftedness and limitless potential of these superhumans?

para-team-gb

As we watch these deeply impressive individuals parade in their victorious homecoming; as they blast away prejudice and we celebrate their diversity; as they receive in due course their peerages, knighthoods, damehoods and various appointments to the Order of the British Empire for services to sport, let us remember not only their spectacular personal achievements, but also the profound inspiration they are, the supreme pleasure they give, and the pride we feel that they have come second in the whole world, beaten only by a nation of more than a billion.

And then ask why we are content to justify the ethical incoherence of the routine abortion of diffabled babies who might grow up to be just like them. And beaten by China, where baby girls are routinely terminated just for being girls.

  • Anton

    An increasing number of our paralympians are ex-servicemen wounded in the line of duty. These are competitive and physical people. There are more of them today because battlefield medical care has improved and soldiers are now surviving injuries that would have killed them not long ago – but these injuries are still permanently disabling. Moreover our disabled ex-servicemen can still speak, unlike the dead. Let our politicians see and hear, and think long and hard before committing British flesh and blood under-equipped to vanity causes that do not further British interests.

  • Si_Hollett

    Don’t forget that the upper limit for aborting disabled fetuses is birth, not the 24 weeks gestation able-bodied fetuses have. Disability can still be diagnosed and destroyed within 24 weeks, making it a pretty token gesture, but that also means that this baby step against eugenics should be uncontroversial.

    So why is it that, 4 years after 2012, we still haven’t changed this discrimination?

    • IanCad

      4th Trimester is being mooted.

      • Anton

        4th trimester?? That’s a creepy euphemism for after birth. Listen to that woman wriggling under good interrogation! It starts at 20:45.

        • IanCad

          What is even more surreal; she, the lady doctor, Sarah Chan, is a bioethicist??!! at the University of Manchester.
          Dr. Mengele is not a one off.
          There is a TV debate that I linked to a year or so ago. It was even worse. Can’t find it at present.

          • CliveM

            Ian,

            The first time I heard this suggested seriously was on the R4 Good Morning programme. Likewise it was a medical ethicist. It was 10 years ago. I keep hearing this argument crop up more and more frequently. It will be the next big battle.

            Of course we’ll be accused of forcing our beliefs on society at large, causing suffering to continue etc.

            So be it.

          • Anton

            Of course it will be ethicists, and philosophers like Mary Warnock, in the forefront of this movement.

            I always ask: Choice for whom?

          • CliveM

            Some like to say we live in a society with choice. It’s not true, we live in a society where we can dispose.

  • IanCad

    “Closed minds have been opened—“
    Hmm..? As one who is rather cynical – even contemptuous – over such goings on, I must admit, you’ve hit a raw nerve YG.

    Thanks for the history of these games. God Bless all the competitors and forbid I should ever bear their load.

    As to the stunning inconsistency which is the subject of the post – it never dawned on me.

  • CliveM

    The portrayal of the disabled, at least in the press, is positively schizophrenic. In the one hand they are portrayed as “brave” and “heroic ” simply for getting on with their lives. On the other hand a “burden ” living an “unbearable” life.

    Unfortunately those that hold this assumption rarely ask the disabled themselves. Indeed some report being approached by complete strangers, telling them about Dignitas!

    Unless societies attitude changes, this hypocrisy will continue.

    • dannybhoy

      Yes and I think the reason is that society has moved from its Christian foundation to a humanistic one, where human happiness is all that matters.
      So if it makes you happy to have a disabled child, do it; if it doesn’t, abort.
      As for the media morally they could care less as long as you keep on watching..

      • CliveM

        TBH I think society has a long term, deep seated problem with disability. It’s something that needs addressed.

        • dannybhoy

          TBH what is?
          I worked with people who had physical and mental handicaps.
          I admit to being nervous when I first stated with adults with learning difficulties, but I think we have a problem, because if as some do we insist that all are born as God intended….
          Well great if you’re a handsome well formed lad like m’self (!) Thanks very much Lord.
          But what if you’re not?
          And that’s one of the reasons I reject this predestination thing. I don’t accept for one minute that God wants people born lame or minus something or warty.
          It’s the result of genes not divine sovereignty. I believe God loves every person born into this world, however they’re packaged. But He didn’t design the packaging..

          • CliveM

            To Be Honest.

          • dannybhoy

            TFTE.

          • CliveM

            Now you’re just showing off!

          • dannybhoy

            OCYNTOOWH

          • CliveM

            If you say so.

          • dannybhoy

            OfCourseYou’reNotTheOnlyOneWho’sHip

          • ‘It’s the result of genes not divine sovereignty’

            Can’t it be both. Can God not prevent this condition if he chooses, in the world or in an individual? And if he chooses to permit it, is that not sovereignty at work?

          • carl jacobs

            God decrees both means and ends.

          • Including natural processes of a fallen creation and also the free will of men.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, that’s what our Lord says and I lift this from Biblehub commentaries…
            http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/9-2.htm

            “Four answers have been suggested. (1) The predestinarian notion that the man was punished for sins which God knew he would commit in the course of his life. This is utterly unscriptural and scarcely fits the context.

            (2) The doctrine of the transmigration of souls, which was held by some Jews: he might have sinned in another body. But it is doubtful whether this philosophic tenet would be familiar to the disciples.

            (3) The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, which appears Wis 8:20 : the man’s soul sinned before it was united to the body. This again can hardly have been familiar to illiterate men.

            (4) The current Jewish interpretation of Genesis 25:22, Psalm 51:5, and similar passages; that it was possible for a babe yet unborn to have emotions (comp. Luke 1:41-44) and that these might be and often were sinful. On the whole, this seems to be the simplest and most natural interpretation, and John 9:34 seems to confirm it.”

          • dannybhoy

            (Had to go out earlier…)
            If you look at the explanations offered by various commentaries we again see the terms of the Covenant coming into play, and it seems to me that we so easily lose sight of the Jewish world view that existed then, with all its theological views -some quite different to ours.
            My understanding may not be right but I think it’s reasonable…
            From Genesis we’re told that the lifespan of man gradually shortened to round about 70 years..
            I believe that people really did live to those great ages, and I accept the hypothesis that the composition of our atmosphere was different, allowing more and bigger vegetation, perhaps animals and humans.
            God designed our bodies for reproduction and it seems reasonable to me that there has been a deterioration in our genetic pool, exacerbated by the effects of sin and disease and close relational marriages. The main point being though imv that humans reproduce and have babies without God’s direct involvement on each birth. I’m sure He could be as Sovereign God, but does He need to?
            So we have bonnie babies, not so bonnie babies, fat ones thin ones bald ones hairy ones, sick ones, ones with serious defects, some lame some missing bits, and some very sadly, stillborn. Even ectopic pregnancies .
            (What would be the Sovereign point of that, Lord?)
            But is this all a result of divine planning, or (as I see it) the consequence of the Fall, intermarriage/incest and genetic degradation caused by external factors.
            I just accept it all as a part of life.
            We then thank God and rejoice in the birth of a beautiful healthy baby (I was for a few weeks..) or we feel heartache because something is desperately wrong with our child, and we cry out to God and medical science for help. And the family hopefully gathers around, and we find help, and perhaps that child will be blessed in some other way…
            I just don’t see the need to see God’s sovereign hand in ‘everything.’
            I think it leads to shame and guilt and blame and depression. No. We live in a fallen and imperfect world and things go wrong. It’s not your fault, it’s not God’s fault either.
            What we can do as Christians is to thank God that He can work all things together for good, and achieve the best possible outcome if we will trust Him and give the situation to our loving Heavenly Father.
            I leave you with this vid clip which always touches my heart…

          • Don’t agree with any of these.

            ‘these might be and often were sinful’

            This seems to wrong in a number of ways. Firstly, if prenatal emotions are held to account (which I seriously doubt) then not some, but all, are sinful for they all flow from a fallen nature.

            However, I am unclear how this relates to John 9. Is Biblehub saying prenatal sinful emotions are why this man (and presumably others) suffer disability? This is the very point Jesus refutes. A most bizarre interpretation. Jesus says, the reason for the disability is the glory of God. This tells us God intended/ordered/predestined the disability, not because of some specific sin in the man or his parents but for His own glory. The Pharisees were not wrong to see it as ordered by God, they were wrong to think of it as ordered as a result of some specific sin. God had ordered it that he may be glorified in the healing that Jesus effected.

          • dannybhoy

            Me too, but what it shows is what happens when a particular theological position is taken!
            No doubt that we do forget that Jesus was speaking into a Jewish world view, built in the Mosaic Law with its blessings and cursings and religio-civic society rules. Israel was essentially a theocracy.
            Over the years I have read quite a few ‘theology for the intellectually challenged’ books by various Godly men. J I Packer/FF Bruce/Tom Wright.
            I heard a Jewish scholar on ancient Hebrew once explaining that the original texts had no vowels and no punctuation, and that some words being spelt the same could be other words with a slightly different meaning, which changed the meaning of the text…

            One of the techniques YWAM used in my day was to bring in active bible teachers, pastors and missionaries who would describe their theological assumptions. Sometimes we would have one or two Calvinists followed by an Arminian. All being used by God, all sincere and fruitful. It could be quite unsettling at times, but what YWAM was doing was to get us thinking about what we did believe about God and His nature.

            I also enjoyed the writings of Francis Schaeffer, “He is there and He is not silent/The God who is there
            Os Guinness https://etb-history-theology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/review-of-dr-os-guinnesss-lecture.html
            Roger Forster’s “God’s strategy in Human History”
            The Bible may support different theological views, but none are water tight.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Cranmer has made a good point but you have weakened it by exaggeration. To whom are the people participating in the Paralympics a “burden”? Are they leading an “unbearable” life?

      • CliveM

        Roy,

        Please read what I said. I said often that is how society is taught to see them. Which is why they are aborted. I did say that they don’t actually ask the disabled themselves. The suggestion being that this attitude is based on ignorance, not direct experience.

        • “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
          (Ronald Reagan)

  • PessimisticPurple

    The answer is found in St Thomas Aquinas: no man ever loved evil except under the aspect of good. We love to tell ourselves that we are good people, and we find extraordinary ways to convince ourselves of it. Exterminating all those Jews is a dirty job, but – the Furher reliably informs us – somebody’s got to do it, so let’s get it done, make the world a better place, and then go home to be loving husbands and fathers.

    Same story with abortion. How could children be happy with disabilities? Obviously, “compassion” demands we spare them suffering, so far better to abort. Of course, the fact that it saves us the extra effort required to raise them is purely coincidental.

    And our seemingly paradoxical support for disabled athletes? Well, only a “bad” person would be venal about it, and what does it cost us to be nice?

    That’s the pole down which the world slides when a society’s highest value is that there are no values, that everyone’s philosophy is of equal worth and that it’s all good. Thanks , baby boomers.

  • David

    His Grace is right to point to the incoherence of society’s approach to the disabled.

    This has arisen because western society now lacks a sound philosophical approach to human life itself. Whist we believed that all humans are, as Genesis tells, “made in the image of God”, in some mysterious way, it was natural to respect human life, including the weak and defenceless like babies and the unborn.

    But once society ceased seeing us all, as God’s children, the idea being leached away from society’s collective conscience by decades of consumerist, Humanist secularism and moral relativism then, the earlier consistent philosophical coherence fragmented. We now have a harsher, more utilitarian approach to life, which prizes mainly pleasure and the gratification of ones ego. This is not dissimilar from our pre-Christian paganism in some respects. The result is the present moral inconsistency and philosophical confusion. Why even perfectly healthy embryos are aborted for no reason other than the wish of maybe, just the one parent, so depraved has our society become.

    Only a return to the love, trust and worship of God can restore the belief that new human life is a precious gift from God to be cherished, protected and nurtured. Given the degree of rebellion of this country against even the most fundamental parts of God’s advice to humanity, the Ten Commandments, containing famously the “Thou shalt not kill” instruction, it never fails to amaze me how fortunate we are, so far, not to become the subject of God’s anger.

  • Martin

    But it isn’t just the disabled that are aborted. Disability is just an excuse to abort, not a reason.

  • Albert

    Why do we celebrate our inspirational Paralympians, but abort the disabled in the womb?

    Because liberalism is inherently irrational.

    • David

      A succinct and accurate answer that – well done !

    • How can the utilitarian pursuit of undefined “happiness” form the basis of any coherent moral code for a nation? What makes a man “happy” – and how do we know?

      • Albert

        Quite. It just ends up as freedom to choose what you think will make you happy. But evil people have always done that. And if it is freedom to be choose to be happy, it is not longer reason that is deciding but will. Hence it is literally and deliberately irrational.

  • carl jacobs

    Abortion is intended to terminate obligation. Disabled children create unwanted obligations, especially given the modern attitude that adults are entitled to “perfect” children. By contrast, that disabled person “over there” creates no personal obligation “over here”. When he does, then you can bet someone will start pondering alternatives. Is this not the slippery slope of euthanasia – when someone finds freedom from obligation in the death of another? The two concepts are organically connected at the root.

    • Given the nature of man, place the temptation in his path to commit evil in the pursuit of some perceived good, then he will find a way to rationalise, justify and ennoble anything. Let’s call it the Caiaphas Principle.

  • chefofsinners

    I find John 9 instructive.
    “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” Jesus replied: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
    We are all disabled one way or another, yet God loves us and desires to heal us. We must let His works be displayed in us and strive to achieve His definition of perfection.

  • len

    ‘Why do we celebrate our inspirational Paralympians, but abort the disabled in the womb?’

    The answer to that question is the abortion industry has done a very good PR job on depersonalising the baby into a ‘fetus’ a mere bunch of cells with no perception, no feelings, and most of all no rights.

    This of course is totally opposed to the Creator of mankind who values all life right from the moment of conception.

    • I agree with this but ask a question: are all spontaneously (naturally) aborted foetuses people now populating heaven?

      • If we each receive an immortal soul at the moment of conception, then why not?

        • But do we? Since spontaneous abortions exceed births then heaven will have more people who were never born than who have lived; not impossible but it does seem improbable, or better, implausible.

          • Jack understood miscarriages are about 1 in 4 of every births. However, even so, he is sure Heaven will cope with any potential accommodation problems.

            The official teaching of the Church has always been that we simply don’t know what happens to the souls of unbaptised babies, including those never born. As the Catechism says, “the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

          • Does not the RC Church now teach universalism (all are finally saved)?

          • Mike Stallard

            Definitely – I am a Catholic – Heaven is even open to atheists and – worse – Protestants! I very much look forward to shaking hands with herr Hitler, M. Genghis Khan and that great Catholic Thinker Savonarola.

          • len

            This cannot possibly happen. What you are describing is hell.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Quite so.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I really do hope you are joking, otherwise you need a refresher reconversion course in Catholicism

          • Mike Stallard

            I think she’s got it…

          • No.

          • Mike, a Catholic, disagrees. So too do some recent popes. Ratzinger for one.

          • Is Mike being serious?
            No Pope has ever taught universal redemption. Please provide evidence for this claim.

          • I would need to do fresh research but I remember reading Ratzinger and being surprised to discover that he advocated this. He bought into Von Balthasar and seemed in favour of Rahner’s ‘anonymous Christian’.

            http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/universal_salvation_roman_catholic.html

          • Within Christianity, beginning from Origen and including theologians like von Balthasar, a view was proposed that everyone might be saved. A good God could, or would, find a way to save everyone. The problem then arose: how might this universal salvation be possible?
            Gaudium et Spes (22) and Lumen Gentium (15) of Vatican II, addressing this question tangentially, stated that, for those who did not know revelation or its terms, but who strove to live good and worthy lives, God would find a way to save them. “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (LG 15).
            Catholics believe all are redeemed through Christ but salvation requires acceptance of and cooperation with the gifts of grace and that this is possible even if one has not heard of Him.

          • Getting pretty close to universal redemption, is it not.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Jack is right on this point. There is no universal salvation. There can be no universal salvation. To say this is a denial of the existence of evil.

          • Dominic Stockford

            They have a slight slant on it, that anyone, regardless of their faith or lack of it, can be saved. Same thing in the end, avoiding the reality of the final judgement on any given individual.

          • len

            Do we receive an immortal soul at conception?.
            Man doesn`t possess ‘eternal life’.
            John 3:36 says,
            “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

            Eternal Life is IN Christ Jesus not something we can attain outside of Christ.

            (This is obviously not speaking about infants and those below the age of accountability)

            But an honest answer to your question ‘are all spontaneously (naturally) aborted foetuses people now populating heaven?’ Is….. I don`t know….

          • CliveM

            That has to be the honest answer. To come to a firm conclusion would require untenable extrapolations from biblical texts and assumptions.

            I note from Jacks post, you will be in agreement with the RCC on this question!

      • Mike Stallard

        Actually, man to man, this is a really good question. Now please explain these words to a woman who has lost her child at birth, suffered a miscarriage (like Mrs Sturgeon who then had to go on stage for a political rally that afternoon), or been forced into an abortion.

        • Dominic Stockford

          She didn’t HAVE to go on stage that afternoon – she chose to.

          • Mike Stallard

            Nice try!
            Look, I am asking what you would say to a woman who has just lost her baby if you were her vicar. That’s all. Mrs Sturgeon was an aside, not the main thrust of the argument!

          • Dominic Stockford

            I doubt she feels she is an aside – and if she was you have spoiled your argument by going there at all. You try to make people ‘feel sorry’ for her (and by extension, all who have had miscarriages) by presenting that situation, but then seek to change your argument principles mid-stream.

            And I have dealt with those who have had miscarriages, at a variety of relational levels, from close to far. You cry, and then move on, leaving it in Gods hands to know the truth of it. We’ll find out the answer in due time – in a place where there are no more tears and mourning. Worrying about it in the here and now is not going to gain anyone anything.

          • Mike Stallard

            Yup – the modern way! But how easy it would be to say that the dead baby had gone to heaven! I know of at least one case (with an atheist!) where this brought great comfort.
            A (Western) friend of mine in Saudi, of all places,had a miscarriage – born dead in hospital. The Mutawwa – the dreaded Religious Committee – were at the bedside immediately pleading to be allowed to arrange the funeral. A sinless being! Wow!
            Permission granted, they gave the dead baby a magnificent funeral and everyone was very grateful and, actually, overwhelmed!
            Islam is not all bad!
            I think this is a pastoral rather than a theological question myself. (Can you split them like that?)

          • Dominic Stockford

            I don’t think you can spit them like that – a genuinely caring person tells someone the truth, they don’t sugarcoat something to meake them feel good when in fact such a sugarcoating hides the fact that the truth is either something different, or an unknown. Humanly speaking, secularly speaking, that would be what you were told you ‘must do’*, but as a minister of God’s truth to people you have to seek to be as God is, and seek to speak as God speaks. Right into the challenge of matters like this. ‘In season and out of season’.

            *Which is why many undertakers have little true faith (though many have ‘an understanding’ of what faith is) – it would be nigh impossible to do the job as a sincere Protestant Christian who speaks God’s truth.

          • Mike Stallard

            I am afraid I have met several Ministers of religion who speak God’s truth…
            Being kindly never hurt anyone. And who knows what happens when we die? A little consolation, based on, say, Dives and Lazarus, never came amiss…

  • Inspector General

    The Inspectorate was vaguely aware the Invalid Olympics were taking place, but just like the rest of the population, had no interest in them whatsoever. The only people who did were sports commentators broadcasting to a sparse audience. Because they were paid to do so.

    It used to be called bounce years ago. We were bounced into accepting and revering this sombre business as a magnificent sporting occasion. A lot of money was spent to achieve that bounce. So it was a success then, this bouncing. The savage killer who runs North Korea must be so envious of our bouncers. Shouldn’t think his hired thugs propaganda efforts come anywhere close to our bouncing heroes…

    Anyone recall when Blair bounced the Commons into a second Iraq war? If one man, just about, could do that, then one day someone will bounce abortion out too, we hope.

    • Disabled people are no longer invalid.

      • Inspector General

        To listen to the hype, they’re perfection…

      • Inspector General

        What’s next in the brand. The ‘Homeless Olympics’ or maybe the ‘ADHD Olympics’….

        Thoroughly wise to it all. And yes, there really is such a thing as the Gay Olympics, but they cannot call themselves that, by legal threat.

        • Jack is eagerly awaiting the Transsexual Olympics. Imagine! How would one qualify as transsexuality is a phenomena of the mind? And shouldn’t the transsexual person simply participate in the Ordinary People Olympics?

          Now what events and competitions ……

          • Anton

            “shouldn’t the transsexual person simply participate in the Ordinary People Olympics?”

            It is believed that many have, Jack, gaining advantage in the women’s events.

          • Dreadnaught

            Wait no longer – book your tickets now.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Games

        • Dominic Stockford

          I await with hope the couch potato over 54 but under 60 Olympics for those who live on my road and take Warfarin. I’m a shoe-in for that one!

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Clever…

  • “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.”
    Mother Teresa

    • carl jacobs

      acts of grave evil become rationalised to avoid the truth about motives

      You get an upvote for that thought. Oh, and “rationalize” is spelled with a “z”.

      • “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”
        (Hillary Clinton)

        Decided who to vote for yet?

        • carl jacobs

          You are enjoying this, aren’t you?

      • Anton

        It izn’t.

  • Not all disabled people get to become Para Olympians.
    The second half of Ch4 news this evening had a debate with disabled people including Robert Halfon called “The Big Disability Debate” about how lacking in the facilities to help them lead a fulfilling life we are, and how degradingly the government treats them taking their mobility cars away, reducing their money and making them go through gruelling re-assessments of their conditions every few years to see whether they can reduce their benefits. Until we learn to treat those with disabilities better is it any wonder people want to abort a disabled foetus!

    • Mike Stallard

      Every been to Great Yarmouth – or actually come to think about it, a lot of other seaside towns recently? Quite a lot of people on crutches, in wheelchairs there.
      I have been on the dole and not everyone who is on the dole ought to be there.
      I wonder how many “disabled” parkers are in fact that?
      It is human nature to swing the lead and I am glad the government is in there checking up – as it once did on me.

      • There is an active Fraud Dept. to catch those who are swinging the lead Mike.
        And yes of course I’ve seen may disabled people on a break in seaside towns that I’ve visited over the years too, is that a crime? I’ve also seen plenty of unemployed migrants, drunks etc… too.

        What the nasty party are doing taking away the supports that keep them functioning from people who are partially sighted, or with cerebral palsy or any other disability is nothing short of inhumane.

    • Dominic Stockford

      What? Murder unborn babies because their life might not be as easy as it could be? What an odd response!

      • Not really. The disabled are always on the front line when the government make cuts, why bring another disabled baby into the world to suffer.

        • Dominic Stockford

          If you are so perverse as to seriously be proposing that, far better that you use contraception or avoid sex entirely.

  • “The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts–a child–as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the dependent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.”
    (Mother Teresa – Saint Teresa of Calcutta)

    • Anton

      It is scarcely new, because unwanted babies used simply to be exposed. But she is right – absolutely right.

  • Dreadnaught

    “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot; to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,”… was Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu’s reply to criticism of the lack of such simple things as bandages and other basic medical sundries – but there was no lack of funds that found the way to Rome or for her and other nuns’ airline tickets to exotic destinations.
    She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. This hypocritical crone was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from some of the most despotic tyrants on Earth. No doubt in the same the manner as selling indulgences as before.
    Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The Vatican Bank of course.
    The primitive ‘hospice’ in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been; it was not a hospital or clinic, it was a charnel house.
    She however, preferred expensive California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit
    There was no call from the dalits of Calcutta to make Aggie the sanctimonious money grubber a ‘Saint’, but Rome couldn’t move fast enough by claiming a miracle cure by a shaft of light from a picture of her, that ‘cured’ a random woman of whom it is attested, was not as sick as she claimed.

    • len

      ‘Mother Theresa’ was a hypocrite of the worst order…Another to add to the RCC `s collection.

      • Dreadnaught

        Careful Len – they’ll be talking about us as the Odd Couple 🙂

        • len

          😉

          • Dominic Stockford

            Can it become a gruesome threesome…?!

          • Dreadnaught

            Welcome to the League of Idiots DS.

    • Ivan M

      You and the len fellow below are idiots when you don’t know what you are talking about. How did you expect her to travel to Rome or NY, by sail? Or swimming there?
      When she started her mission in Calcutta, India was a very poor place. Or have you not seen the pictures from the 60s and 70s? She did more than could be expected of anyone. Her mission is to show the love of God to all men, however base their condition. Many who were found by her and her nuns were at death’s door, everyone who saw them walked by. I know this as I have done the same (in other places and times), the poverty is overwhelming and their condition utterly derelict. To these men and women, a smile from the nuns was the only human warmth they had experienced in a long time. As a Muslim beggar put it after having been treated as to the nuns’ humanity – “Now I know that there is a God, and can die in peace.” These people are like King Lear in their last days. What does it matter to them if you hand them a banana or two. What matters is that in their last hours, the Universe made sense. That is the gift that Mother Theresa gave to the sick and dying.

      Which does not preclude charitable works, though condemned by the nut Len when performed by Catholics. Ask yourself (here I am quoting Patrick? Cockburn) who would be more likely to give you a bowl of hot soup, if you are sitting in a ditch in Bombay? Mother Theresa or the drunken sod Chris Hitchens?

      • len

        ‘Mother Theresa’ did a great deal less than most secular Charities do daily worldwide.
        Beams of light coming out of a picture….really?.

        • Ivan M

          So that is what is troubling you? Ignore the beam in your eyes then.

          • Dreadnaught

            UB; Can’t really speak for Hitchens, but I have done similar things for DAOs here wihthout the need of religious motivation. There is goodness in humanity on display the world over – with no need to make a song and dance out of it.

          • len

            Beams in eyes? Sounds spooky to me.

      • Dreadnaught

        How did you expect her to travel to Rome or NY, by sail? Or swimming there?
        A leisuely stroll across the waves perhaps?

    • Dominic Stockford

      Well said sir.

  • preacher

    For real life inspiration read Nick Vujicic’s book ‘ Life Without Limits ‘, an amazing guy who’s been a real overcomer, despite being born with a handicap that would destroy many people.
    His example has strengthened & inspired many ‘ Able ‘ bodied people.

  • Dominic Stockford

    The handful of us Christians who protested outside Parliament against the Euthanasia Bill were joined by many members of the ‘disabled community’. They see the threats of both abortion and assisted suicide more clearly than most Christians.

  • Darter Noster

    Back when I worked for a disability rights group as their ethics spokesman, we looked into what happened when, after pre-natal testing, parents were given the news that their unborn child had a disability. Often it was Down Syndrome. The parents were confronted with everything that could possibly be wrong with their child – a huge list of health problems, worst case scenarios, all the problems they might ever have to deal with. It is like something from a nightmare; your child will have all these medical problems; you will have to face all this; they will never do these things; prepare to be broke paying for care, and fighting with local authorities.

    However, if we act quickly you can spare yourself and your child all of this. All we need is a signature on the abortion forms and this can all go away. We’ll chalk it up to experience and you can try again.

    The choice is yours, but it’s not really a choice, is it? Just do the responsible thing.

    Trying to get parents in this situation into contact with families who had disabled children, who could say how fantastic they were and what their lives were like, was and is controversial because it gets in the way of a woman’s right to choose; you might be seen, horror of horrors, as pro life.

    • CliveM

      Due to her age my wife was urged to take the test, she refused as the result wouldn’t have changed our mind about having the child and came with a risk of miscarriage.

      More then one ‘friend ‘ felt it their duty to tell us how selfish we would be to have a Downes child. There is a lot of societal pressure.

      Good post DN.