ABORTION YET AGAIN

THE HEALTH SECRETARY, JEREMY HUNT, has said he would like to see a 12 week limit on

 abortion: and, oh dear! As a consequence he has been castigated by the wilder fringes of the feminist lobby who assume for themselves the mantle of all womanhood: who see all men as misogynistic brutes; and the women’s body as inviolate and beyond the realm of any male viewpoint regarding abortion, including speaking up for the foetus; which is not, biologically speaking, part of a women’s anatomy; unlike the heart or lungs; but merely an incumbent tenant, whose residency is limited to nine months, and is therefore as much of a legitimate concern to men as women.

            From conception, a women is harbouring a new life; a life which will bring to it either sadness, happiness, greatness, or villainy. A life which may bring a cure for all types of cancers including those of the breast; a life that may transform the world of modern ideas, as the literary and philosophical greats succeeded in doing in the past. A life means all of this; it also means artistic, literary, medical and scientific advancement; and as such should not be so easily disposed of as these rampant feminists see it as their right to so do.

            It is not only a religious question, morally speaking, but a humanitarian one equal in its consideration to the starving children of Africa, who are cared for by the efforts of charities such as Oxfam and Christian Aid. But who speaks for the unborn? Only those few who dare put their head above the parapet and defy the ranting feminists who consider them religious fanatics or even worse … men!

            Medical science will dance on the head of a pin if required to so do by any current zeitgeist. Which means that within our hospitals there exists a contradictory (some would say hypocritical) attitude toward the unborn. Take any NHS hospital within the land. The medical profession at all levels will be giving out incongruous  information to pregnant women.

            In one part of the hospital where pregnant mothers attend a pre-natal clinic; they are told that from conception, they are having a baby, and are treated as such throughout their trimesters until the third and final one.

            However, within another part of the same hospital where abortion (effectively) on demand is carried out; the nomenclature changes, and both the embryo and the foetus (up to 23 weeks) is regarded as an accumulation of tissue, without purpose or function, that can be disregarded within this legal time spell as being none human; without the mother needing to fear she is destroying a human being.

I AM AN ATHEIST. My guidance is not the Bible, or its morality. Although much of its morality makes sense to a life worth living. But we are faced with 250,000 abortions each year, a third of which are repeat abortions. This suggests that human beings are being sacrificed on the altar of contraception; and an aborted foetus is being given the same status as a sperm filled condom, or the pill, or the morning after pill.

            These  feminists that demand their abortion rights have the right to so do. But to pretend (for a pretence is what is) to speak on behalf of the whole female gender, which the name feminist suggests, is arrogance taken to the extreme. It is a metropolitan elitist and reactionary stance to make.

            The 1970s model feminist is still sadly with us, proclaiming abortion as their right and weaving their nostrums into the whole of female culture - from the Pregnancy Advisory Council, to the very politics of the Left within all the main parties.

Abortion need not be used as a form of contraception as it so widely is. The many other none intrusive methods have, thanks to modern science, been introduced.     

Methods of contraception such as: an unrolled male latex condom; a polyurethane female condom, a diaphragm vaginal-cervical barrier: a contraceptive sponge; three varieties of birth control pills; a trans dermal contraceptive patch; a NuvaRing vaginal ring; an unrolled male latex condom; a polyurethane female condom; a diaphragm vaginal-cervical barrier; a contraceptive sponge; three varieties of birth control pills; a contraceptive patch; a vaginal ring; a hormonal intrauterine device (IUD); a split dose of two emergency contraceptive pills (morning after); and a  hormonal intrauterine device.

            Why oh why, do women resort to preventing the birth of a fellow human being? This I cannot, and wish not to be able to understand. The 1970’s brand of feminism (with its inbuilt animosity to all men) is being clung on to by so many modern feminists. It is about time they rebelled on behalf of the foetus. Modern scientific techniques regarding the imaging of the foetus, it is being said, has resulted in the a changing attitude to abortion among women.

            I hope this is true, but I doubt it. I will only believe the reality of such a suggested attitude, if there is a very large decline in the yearly abortion rate of 250,000 lost opportunities.

            When it was first introduced into law by David Steel; his Abortion Act of 1967, meant  that the legalisation of abortion, was meant to undermine and dispose of the freelance abortionists whose methods were primitive and cruel to many women.

            It was promised at the time that only a limited number of state abortions would be considered necessary; because there were a limited number of abortionists practicing their nefarious and cruel practices at the time, and the intervention of the state would end such practices, which it did – but at what cost? On top of which, people’s attitude toward such unwanted pregnancies changed.

            It is said that the road to ruin is paved with good intentions; and David Steel’s abortion legalisation proved the saying right. He did not envisage the viral nature of his Act. It has lead to abortion becoming another form of contraception in over a third of  the 250,000 cases of abortion presented yearly.

Abortion is a wicked practice that demeans humanity by, possibly, ridding it of its best minds in order to preserve a human vanity that wishes to sweep aside such a human encumbrance in order to allow it to pursue easy selfish options. Such options have become the preferred alternative for modern humanity, as the Abortion Act of 1967,  has allowed to happen, with abortion on demand.

I believe that in the decades and years to come, abortion will meet with the same distaste as slavery…especially among women! There will be a female Wilberforce who will take issue with the cruel practice of abortion.

Unlike Jeremy Hunt, I want to see this vile practice brought to an end; but I know it will never happen in my life-time, so, in the mean time, I would settle for Hunt’s 12 week limit and regard his announcement as nothing short of brave, considering the climate of the times.