Aims
No-one has the right to destroy the life of any innocent human being from fertilization to natural death.—the Society’s fundamental principle
What are the Society’s aims?
We aim to:
- campaign around Oxford for the protection of human life;
- give support to other organizations engaged in similar work;
- promote discussion and dialogue on relevant issues;
- promote an understanding of the ethical issues surrounding human life and death;
- raise critical opposition to all legislative and judicial decisions contradicting our fundamental principle.
In keeping with these aims, we regularly organize speaker meetings, workshops, debates and panel discussions.
The Society seeks to unite all students of pro-life conviction in a common endeavour. For this reason, our membership requirements are minimal. All members of Oxford University who agree with our Fundamental Principle can join. Non-University members can be admitted at the committee’s discretion. Termcards and mailing list subscription are available to non-members.
Which issues do these aims cover?
Abortion
Abortion is legal in the United Kingdom, as well as many other countries. Although not always seen as a positive course of action, it is nevertheless seen by many as better than the alternative of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. State-sponsored abortion is seen as a remedy against the bad old days of ‘backstreet abortions’.
We do not see abortion as an acceptable or desirable solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Abortion regularly stops a beating heart. We recognize that life begins at conception, and that every abortion involves the killing of an innocent and utterly helpless human life.
In addition to involving the destruction of an innocent life, abortion can also have profoundly negative effects on the woman who undergoes an abortion. As well as the risk of physical complications and the dangers posed for future pregnancies, the threat to the mental health of a woman following an abortion is significant, with symptoms of post-abortion trauma continuing for months and even years after the ’solution’ of abortion.
Human embryo research
Frequently connected to infertility treatment—with ’spare’ IVF treatment embryos used—embryo research involves the freezing and then subsequent use of unborn children as ‘lab rats’, before they are disposed of as clinical waste.
Embryo research is often done into defects such as spina bifida, in order to make early detection and abortion of those suffering from such conditions easier.
Human cloning
Authorised in 2000 for ‘therapeutic’ purposes, cloning involves the creation of human embryos for the purpose of using their stem cells, after which the embryos are disposed of as clinical waste. Given the equal success apparently available via techniques using adult stem cells, there seems no justification for recourse to such ‘therapeutic’ cloning.
Euthanasia
Unlike abortion, euthanasia is not officially legal in Britain. However, many instances of doctor-assisted suicide have been publicised, and there have been cases where patients have been allowed to die by starvation and dehydration by removal of feeding pipes. Euthanasia has in effect occurred and set a dangerous precedent.
It is important when considering the issue of euthanasia to appreciate the difference between causing someone to die, by starvation/dehydration or by administration of fatal drug doses, and discontinuing medical treatment which might otherwise prolong life artificially.
The problem of who should decide until what point human life is of value, and at what point a person is better off dead, is problematic to say the least. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, up to a fifth of the nation’s deaths involve ‘mercy killing’—a disturbing number being involuntary.
The development of palliative care by the hospice movement to relieve the suffering of the terminally ill shows that there is a preferable alternative to euthanasia, which is by its nature antithetical to medical practice.
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” —Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights