logo
We are being softened up to no longer believe in the sanctity of life

We are being softened up to no longer believe in the sanctity of life

Our priest told us: 'The broken body of humanity is presently not far from our eyes, including last week in the Westminster Parliament which has just passed legislation that an abortion up until birth is no longer liable to criminal prosecution: a beautiful baby expecting life but broken and killed. Or again, the bill to legalise assisted suicide being passed in the House of Commons, breaking the Hippocratic Oath that a doctor is called to save lives and comfort the dying.'
Read more by Kevin McKenna
As this priest was re-iterating a basic Church teaching, his bosses – the bishops – were living the high life while choosing to cower in the soft folds of their social media account.
At Parliament last month, a majority of those we elected to represent us decided that the state could sanction assisted dying with little or no safeguards to prevent vulnerable people – especially those with mental health challenges – being coerced to end their lives. No matter that we have the resources to ease suffering at the end of life: the state had decided that their deaths would be more convenient and less costly than easing their pain.
Almost all of the UK's main disabled groups opposed this. The state has effectively said to them that if you require state assistance to live then you are considered a legitimate target. The message to these people and their families is clear: your disability means you are a little less equal than us.
It inadvertently highlighted one of the problems that authentic Catholicism has with abortion. If you justify it by saying that an aborted foetus can't exist independently of its mother then what does this say about those in society who are also unable to exist without the assistance of a third party?
It begins to encroach on the same territory occupied by eugenics, the purest and most sinister form of capitalism: that you can arbitrarily be classed as undeserving to live if you don't garner enough points on a subjective scoring system in this human perfection procurement exercise.
Perhaps it's only a curious quirk of history, but this inhuman and repugnant erosion of human dignity has occurred at a point when – for the first time in what we might loosely call civilisation – human beings are being forced to consider questions about what it means to be fully human. How much value do we set on this when machines can now replicate much of what we once believed to be indisputably and irreplaceably human?
The development of Artificial Intelligence is in its infancy and growing faster than our ability to process it and to control it. It's thus reasonable to venture that we are the first stamp of human civilisation to be confronted with a question none before us has had to consider: how much value do we place on being human for its own sake? We are at the beginning of the post-work age and already some have decided that being fully human is now a privilege that must be earned and that a high bar must be set.
Anti-abortion protestors pictured outside an Edinburgh clinic (Image: Newsquest)
If you want to ask why the richest people and corporations on the planet are spending billions exploring the possibility of human settlements on other planets (for the right sort of people, of course) then perhaps you need to look about you and start paying attention.
In truth, the softening-up process has begun. We are already being primed to accept this new normality. Part of this was in accepting that healthy babies can be killed in the womb. Meanwhile, elderly and infirm people must now live with a new jeopardy: that the state's patience and forbearance about their physical and mental state is finite and that when their government decides that critical measures must be taken to protect the economy then they'll quickly become an expensive indulgence. After this, who knows who else the state will deem to be a luxury it can no longer afford?
The German philosopher, Karl Jaspers, who was himself persecuted by the Nazis, wrote after the war: 'that which has happened is a warning. To forget it is guilt. It was possible for this to happen and it remains possible for it to happen again at any minute.'
Kevin McKenna is a Herald writer and columnist. He is Features Writer of the Year and writes regularly about the working-class people and communities of Scotland.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Labour incompetence created welfare Bill disaster – and worse is to come
Why Labour incompetence created welfare Bill disaster – and worse is to come

Scotsman

timean hour ago

  • Scotsman

Why Labour incompetence created welfare Bill disaster – and worse is to come

Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As a former Chief Whip, I often tell colleagues that the first rule of politics is to know how to count. You have to be able to add up the votes on your side of the aisle and the numbers on the opposite side – and make sure that your figures add up. That may appear to be a pretty low bar to clear but it is one that Keir Starmer's government has spectacularly failed to pass this week. Incompetence at the top of the government created utter chaos over the welfare Bill – but there may be far worse yet to come. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A Bill that set out to cut back support for people with disabilities and health challenges was always likely to meet resistance from both inside and outside of Labour. That is why it is astonishing that the government only began to realise the scale of its miscalculation towards the end of last week, when more than 100 Labour members – led by several senior, moderate MPs – signed an amendment which would have brought down the Bill entirely. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was clearly emotional as Keir Starmer was grilled about the Labour rebellion over the welfare Bill (Picture: House of Commons/UK Parliament) | PA Wire High-handed ministers In one fell swoop, the massive Labour majority in the House of Commons was gone – and all because of the high-handed, contemptuous approach taken by those at the top. For a government to be blindsided in this way is a total failure of party management. It suggests that whips are either not doing their job, or are being ignored by those above them. Above all, it smacks of a government that thinks it is a lot cleverer than it really is, and that does not believe it is accountable to the MPs who make up their majority. What is so concerning about this week's debacle is that ministers appear to be unwilling to make the case for their policies, either with the public or with their own MPs. To govern, after all, is to choose. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sometimes cuts have to be made, tough decisions taken. If the planned cuts in the welfare budget were so necessary, as the government claimed up to the last minute, why were ministers so unwilling to win the argument with their colleagues? A lack of conviction This matters, because now that the government has shown that it cannot control its own party, every difficult vote becomes that much more difficult. The rebels have had a taste of successful rebellion – why would they stop here? What we are witnessing is a government that does not have the courage of its convictions. It may, in truth, not even have convictions to begin with – and a government that has neither the ideas nor the votes has a rocky road ahead of it. All indications, however, are that this poor management is going to continue. Just hours after the government turned tail on the welfare Bill, anonymous messages were circulating from the higher-ups, threatening that the two-child limit on benefits – one of the greatest drivers of child poverty in this country – would have to be kept in place to teach a lesson to rebellious MPs. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If the government think they have the numbers to bully their MPs, they may have another thing coming. The first rule of politics is to know how to count.

Everything We Know About Rachel Reeves' Family
Everything We Know About Rachel Reeves' Family

Graziadaily

timean hour ago

  • Graziadaily

Everything We Know About Rachel Reeves' Family

The chancellor Rachel Reeves made headlines this week after she broke down in tears during a heated exchange in Prime Minister's Questions (PMQ's) in the House of Commons. Throughout the session, conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and described her as Prime Minister Keir Starmer's 'human shield.' In the fiery exchange, Starmer refused to say whether Reeves would remain in her job until the next election in front of MPs in the Commons, while Reeves appeared to wipe away tears behind him. After PMQs, Reeves' spokesperson said she had been dealing with a 'personal matter' and Starmer said her tears had had 'nothing to do with politics.' One person by Reeves side throughout the ordeal was her sister, Ellie Reeves, who is also a Labour minister. Ellie appeared to comfort Reeves by holding her hand as she left the Common's Chamber. Rachel Reeves' sister is Ellie Reeves, the MP for Lewisham West and East Dulwich. Ellie, who is two years younger than Rachel, was elected as MP of Lewisham West & Penge in 2017. Rachel and Ellie come from a public service background - their father was a teacher and their mother worked as a social worker. Ellie studied law at St Catherine's College Oxford, where she chaired the Oxford University Labor Club in 2001 and was National Chair of Labour Students from 2002 to 2003. The siblings always had a strong interest in politics. While at Cator Park School for Girls, in Beckenham, Rachel decided to run in a mock election, and Ellie was her campaign manager. In an interview with The Independent, Ellie outlined how the pair had always supported each other's careers, even as children. 'I can remember the 1992 general election, and we were at school, and they had a mock election,' she told the outlet. 'Rachel put herself forward for this mock election, and I was her campaign manager... She put me in charge of the leaflets, stickers and things like that to give out.' Rachel and Ellie elaborated on their relationship in a joint interview with The New Statesman. Ellie quipped that Rachel could be like 'a pushy parent' who encouraged her to do her homework on time, but maintained the siblings are strongly supportive of each other. 'Rachel's work ethic is something that I hugely admire, and her loyalty,' Ellie said. 'Her schedule is really demanding but she still makes time for her friends and family. She has always pushed me and supported me in whatever I have wanted to do.' Yes, Rachel Reeves is married to Nicholas Joicey, who has had a long career in the civil service after starting out as a journalist for the Observer newspaper. In July 2023, he was appointed Defra Group Chief Operating Officer and Second Permanent Secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He also worked as Gordon Brown's speechwriter when Brown was Chancellor. In an interview with The Guardian, Reeves was asked how she balances work and family life. 'We manage it. The reason we're where we are in south-east London is because we're near my parents, and we do get help,' she said. Yes, Rachel Reeves has two children, a son and a daughter. Reeves announced her first pregnancy in 2012, and gave birth to a daughter called Anna. Rachel and Nicholas welcomed their second child - a son called Harold born in 2015. In her general election campaign speech in May, Reeves remembered how her mother's attitude to finances inspired her own economic policies. She explained how her mother sat at the kitchen table 'combing over, line by line, her bank statements and her receipts.' She added: 'Every penny mattered... The basic test for whoever is chancellor is to bring that attitude to the public finances.'

Keir Starmer faces fresh rebellion threat over Universal Credit cut
Keir Starmer faces fresh rebellion threat over Universal Credit cut

The National

time2 hours ago

  • The National

Keir Starmer faces fresh rebellion threat over Universal Credit cut

Backbencher Richard Burgon has tabled an amendment to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill to prevent the cut to the health component of the benefit. The current bill, which was gutted of controversial cuts to Personal Independence Payments (Pip) in a last-minute U-turn, still retains the reduction in the health top-up of Universal Credit. As it stands, the extra payment is set to be cut for new claimants from £97 per week to £50 per week – a reduction to £217.26 per month. READ MORE: Rachel Reeves breaks silence on tears in the House of Commons Burgon's amendment would reverse this cut, keeping the health element at its current rate of £423.27. It is estimated the UK Government's changes would affect more than 750,000 people and result in an annual loss of income of £3000 per person. It is understood the amendment has the backing of more than 25 MPs, including 20 Labour MPs. If selected for debate when the Commons debates the remaining stages of the welfare bill on Wednesday, it could trigger yet another bruising backbench rebellion for Keir Starmer. READ MORE: PM takes blame for welfare U-turn as he gives full backing to Chancellor The Prime Minister's authority was dealt a blow earlier this week when the threat of a substantial rebellion saw the UK Government scrap much of its welfare bill mid-debate. Burgon said: 'Despite welcome promises regarding Pip, a huge cut for sick and disabled people remains at the heart of this Bill. 'This cruel and unnecessary halving of the Universal Credit health element will see £2 billion per year slashed from vital support that sick and disabled people rely on. 'The Government needs to scrap this proposal. There should be no two-tier system for disability support.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store