THE CONSEQUENCES OF LEGAL ABORTIONS

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH has carried out an investigation into gender abortions which are illegal under the 

1967 abortion act. Having sent a reporter undercover into various abortion clinics, they found that such abortions were agreed to with no questions asked.

            In a video that was secretly filmed by the Telegraph, a consultant, Prabha Sivaraman working in Manchester, both privately and within the NHS, is seen telling the ‘pregnant’ reporter; “I don’t ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination”.

            One of the reasons given for a gender termination is what is known as ‘family balancing’ where a mother wants to match a son up with daughter instead of another boy – or, of course vice versa.

            Last year in the UK there were over 200,000 abortions undertaken by our healthcare (sic) professionals, and the Daily Telegraph’s report leaves one wondering whether the cases they reported were merely the tip of the iceberg. I would not mind betting that such ‘family balancing’ is more widely practiced than the politicians would like to admit.

            Of course such sex selection was always foreseeable back in 1967, when such practices were outlawed in the bill; but no one back then believed that by the 21^st century over 200,000 terminations would be undertaken each year. We were told at the time, and have been told ever since, that no woman would enter lightly into an abortion, unless it was for the severest of physical, social or physiological reasons. Only through desperation would a woman willingly enter into an arrangement that destroys  the life of her son or daughter. Well, if this argument were taken at face value; we would now have hundreds of thousands of such troubled souls each year, (amounting to some two million over a single decade) seeking help from various clinics dealing with mental health problems.

            If such numbers had been suggested to David Steele, the author of the 1967 act at the time; he would no doubt have called such a view ridiculous in the extreme, and a reflection upon his opponents desperate reasoning for suggesting it. He would have reminded the public that his bill ensured the strictest medical checks into the background of those women seeking to terminate their pregnancies.

           

SEX SELECTION is taking place because abortion has become a mere procedure, like any other medical intervention. The foetus has been reduced to the status of tissue. Women have been told by all sorts of experts, whether they be from the world of medicine or from the Oxbridge quadrangles occupied by moral philosophers, that the foetus need not concern their consciences. The days when a strict  moral restriction stood in a women’s way; when they had to either chose to go the full term or seek out a back street abortionist, were long gone. Abortion had become part of a women’s liberation. It was progress, like the franchise…so be free!

            If the status of the foetus has been so freely undermined, by the 1967 act, why care whether parents pick and choose, as with any other ‘commodity’? Why should those who support abortion object to a women’s right to choose? Is this not the argument that set the ball rolling in the first place?

            The argument that it was ‘my body, my choice’, surely applies equally to sex selection? If there is now no moral or legal obstacle to the abortion of a foetus, then there can be no objection to the way in which it is treated by the mother. The mother has been given the final say in how her pregnancy proceeds… or not.

            The state has handed over to women, the legal and moral right to choose parenthood. But, by implication, the state has also, despite the 1967 act, made it possible for a women to select the sex of the child she wishes to go to term. It is all part of the liberation of women, and if they felt the need to start a campaign to dispose of the part of David Steels’ Bill that makes sex selection illegal, they have a very good chance of winning.

             Women now have sovereignty over the lengths they wish to go regarding termination. The liberal elites gave women this choice in the first place, and cannot set obstacles in the way of such sovereignty; and I am sure the European Court of Human Rights would agree.

            There is no such thing as being half free, which is what the 1967 act seems to suggest by standing in the way of sex selection.

I OPPOSE ABORTION; and I am a man. By legalising abortion and reducing the foetus to its current servitude as a piece of tissue, those who put forward the argument for the legalisation of abortion have, as a consequence, created the tsunami that has become abortion on demand, and cannot now take any kind of moral high ground when it comes to sex selection. After all, are not many of those unfortunate enough to have inherited the wrong kind of gene, or, in the case of Down’s Syndrome a chromosome malfunction, been given permission to terminate?

            So why leave out those who wish to sex select? Once abortion was legalised many other moral dilemmas follow. By treating the foetus in the way it has been treated; it now matters little how those who are picked to survive are or are not selected.

            It is only, after all, only human tissue several months short of becoming a human being. So why do those proponents of abortion object so virulently to sex selection when all other forms, like chromosomal and genetic selection, are perfectly in tune with current thinking on foetal abandonment; for want of a better expression?

IT APPEARS THAT, at the moment, sex selection among Indian women accounts for much of such discrimination. In Indian culture the male foetus is set as the premium and the Telegraph insinuates that it is amongst such a community that sex selection is most vigorous.

            In Indian culture, much to the displeasure of our indigenous feminists, the male of the species carries the most clout when it comes to surviving what our feminists would describe as the tissue stage of a pregnancy.

            No doubt our indigenous feminists would seek to balance this up by procuring the survival of  the female foetus; and will no doubt, in the future lay claim to the survival of the female gender at the expense of the male.

            Ho what a tangle moral web we weave, when abortion on demand is decreed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; and when David Steel introduced his Bill, he did so for the very worthy reason that women where suffering from the illegal abortionists dubious and deadly methods.

            But were such people responsible for 200,000 abortions a year before the Abortion Act was brought into law? Today abortion is being used as another form of contraception after the pill and morning after pill. To pretend that women, in the majority of cases take their termination’s seriously is undermined by the statistics.

            How long will it be before parents being choosing what they regard as desirable features. You now the kind of thing; blond hair, blue eyes.

            Before the abortion act, the foetus had the same protection in law as any other human being; which is why it was illegal to abort a foetus. Once you undermine, legally, medically, and philosophically, the eminence and rank of the human foetus – it no longer matters how you treat it; which is why female foetuses are being discard in preference to male ones in certain cultures.