2. Background: Women Before Children
3. Abortion Without Time Limit
1. Introduction / Evolution
It’s no longer about men’s rights; it’s about children’s rights.
It has been apparent for some time that the feminists set women ahead of children.
I thought I couldn’t get any more implacably opposed to feminism. It seems I was wrong.
Let me remind you of the evolutionary origin of our difficulties. The preferencing of women (call it chivalry, call it gynocentrism, call it the empathy gap, call it what you will) has its origin in the pair bond, a key Homo sapiens adaptation, central to the overwhelming success of the species (amongst other attributes). But in this regard, women – as mothers – are actually a proxy for children. Evolution cares only for reproductive success, which is manifest in children and their survival to reproductive age. When women’s primary concern was the domestic, they functioned as a suitable proxy for children. What was beneficial for the mother could be assumed to also be beneficial for the child.
But in respect of women in a non-domestic role, such as in the workplace, their preferencing is an anomaly: such preferencing is not conducive to evolutionary success. Indeed, in as far as it diminishes the birth rate (as it has), it is counter-evolutionary.
And when it comes to killing babies, there can be no clearer departure from an evolutionary optimum: no clearer indication that feminism has subverted and invalidated the proxy status of women.
2. Background: Women Before Children
Where I’m heading with this post is abortion, and, in particular, the moves to permit abortion without time limit. But first, a brief reminder of how feminism has been putting women’s rights ahead of children’s rights for decades. This has long been apparent in the context of the safeguarding of children. This arises in the context of custody/contact after parental separation. For example, Karen Woodall writes,
“For four decades since the change in divorce laws, the needs of women in the family have usurped the needs of children…”
More seriously, the same focus on mothers to the exclusion of their children also occurs when social services are actively involved in a dysfunctional family. Here is Karen again, writing in 2013,
“The reports of Filicide, the murder by a mother of her child, are all over the news this week. Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Hamzah Khan, Keanu Williams being just four names that are engraved upon our consciousness, not just because of their untimely deaths, but because of the nature of the suffering inflicted upon them before they died.
Collective handwringing is in evidence up and down the land and who is to blame is being widely discussed. The sight of the Head of Birmingham Children’s Safeguarding Board attempting to squirm out of the reality of her responsibility for allowing yet another death of a child to happen on her watch, was excruciating on the BBC news last night. Her words, in a statement released this week scream out the reality of why children are dying,
‘I wish, on behalf of all the statutory agencies who sit on the Board to express very deep regret and distress about Keanu’s death. We apologise unequivocally for what were totally unacceptable and unnecessary failures both collectively and individually in every organisation which had contact with Keanu. We fully accept all the findings of the Serious Case Review and the recommendations made. Keanu died because there was failure across every agency to see, hear and respond to him in the context of what he was experiencing at any one point in time. Staff were distracted by his mother’s needs and by taking what she was telling them at face value.’
Staff were distracted by his mother’s needs and by taking what she was telling them at face value! In other words, a systemic use of gender biased practice which focuses practitioners not on the needs of children, but on the rights and needs of women. If ever there was proof needed that social work and our children and family services are, as a very senior social worker said recently, a ‘feminist industry’, this is it. Gender biased family services, upholding the rights and needs of women above those of children, are killing those children in a neighbourhood near you and until we name it, we are never going to stop it.”
The four cases named above are not isolated. Ignoring the danger to children posed by mothers is an endemic problem. This was further exposed in the November 2017 report “Learning from Cafcass submissions to Serious Case Reviews”, by Richard Green and Emily Halliday. This report derives lessons to be learnt from the 97 Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) to which CAFCASS contributed between 2009 and 2016. These SCRs involved known or suspected abuse or neglect of a child where the child died or was seriously harmed. The key findings were,
- Mothers and fathers were suspected perpetrators of a similar number of incidents of child homicide;
- Allegations of domestic abuse had been made in 71% of cases, and almost all allegations of domestic abuse were against men, or included men, usually fathers;
- Of those cases where domestic abuse allegations had been made, only in about half of the cases was the person thought to have killed or harmed the child the alleged domestic abuse perpetrator;
- In some cases, the authorities’ concentration on the alleged risk posed by the father or male partner may have masked a greater risk posed by the mother. Quote, ‘In some cases where index incidents were perpetrated by the mother, SCRs found that the mother’s history had not been sufficiently analysed, concerns about her being overshadowed by concerns about the father or other male. It is interesting to note that such SCRs do not show a simple relationship between male domestic abuse and the fatal/serious maltreatment of children.’
One might have hoped that after a sequence of very high profile cases, and the acknowledgement of an issue by CAFCASS, and repeated assurances that “lessons would be learnt” that lessons would indeed be learnt. But no. To think that lessons would be learnt is to underestimate the depth of resistance that exists within the social services and other authorities to the notion that mothers, too, can pose a risk to their children – not just men.
As Karen Woodall has identified, the root cause of the problem in acknowledging the potential risk to children from women is that the mother’s wellbeing is actually being placed ahead of that of the children. To demonstrate that lessons have not been learnt, consider the London Safeguarding Children Board (and I expect much the same will hold for other Safeguarding Children Boards). Their advice on “Safeguarding children affected by domestic abuse” runs to 58 pages and over 18,000 words. In all those 58 pages there is not even a hint that mothers might pose a risk to their children. The advice is entirely based on the assumption that the danger, to both mother and children, is from the father or male partner. For example, the primary purpose of the advice is,
- To support the mother to assist her to protect herself and the children; and,
- To hold the abusive partner accountable for the violence and provide him with opportunities to change.
Symptoms of abuse uniformly assume a male perpetrator and include, for example,
- …controlling who the mother or children see or where they go, what they wear or do, stalking, imprisonment, forced marriage;
- …the severity of the violence against the mother is predictive of the severity of abuse to the children;
- The child being abused as part of the abuse against the mother:
- The children are often reliant on their mother as the only source of good parenting, as the abusive partner will have significantly diminished ability to parent well.
One needs to imagine this sort of stuff continuing over 58 pages. Where there is an oblique nod to a potential for mother’s culpability, the blame is redirected at the nearest man, the mother having no recognised capacity for reprehensible agency, for example,
- Being forced to participate in the abuse and degradation by the abusive partner.
Since drugs and alcohol play a major role in domestic abuse, any culpability of a mother who so indulges is also explicitly deflected to the nearest man,
- Mothers may have started using legal drugs prescribed to alleviate symptoms of a violent relationship. Mothers may turn to alcohol and drugs as a form of self-medication and relief from the pain, fear, isolation and guilt that are associated with domestic abuse. Alcohol and drug use can help eliminate or reduce these feelings and therefore become part of how she copes with the abuse.
- Mothers can be coerced and manipulated into alcohol and drug use. Abusers may often introduce their partner to alcohol or drug use to increase her dependence on him and to control her behaviour.
The mindset is that women are never guilty of child abuse. And yet the reality is that mothers are at least as likely to perpetrate child abuse as men, including being responsible for child deaths. My own 332 Child Homicides concluded that, where culpability was established, the mother was the lone perpetrator in 36% of cases and either a lone or a co-perpetrator in over half of cases (58%).
But there is a steadfast refusal – as evidenced by the Child Safeguarding Boards – to acknowledge that women are not all angels, and, in fact, are no better than men. The price for this conceit is paid by children, whom the so-called Safeguarding Boards prefer not to protect if it means knocking women off their pedestal. But off their pedestal they must go, or this perversion of morality will only worsen. It already is doing.
And this brings me to the latest horror in the abortion saga.
3. Abortion Without Time Limit
Unlike many within the MRM, I’ve never been against abortion – before. I could not go along with the Catholics, or other Christians, who maintain that even a zygote is a sacred life. I was of the view that abortion, within some time limit, is the lesser evil compared to bringing an unwanted child into the world. To me, the issue was viability. If the embryo is not viable outside the uterus, then abortion could be tolerated. The current 24 week limit (in Great Britain) could, admittedly, do with review, since a 24 week old foetus can be viable with modern medical technology. So it should only be revised down.
But in January 2019, New York state passed a law allowing abortions without a time limit. This breaks new ground, though it is an objective which feminists have been pursuing for a long time, including within the UK. In May 2016, the Royal College of Midwives announced their decision to support a campaign to scrap the time limit on abortion and sweep away all current legal restrictions. Thankfully, there was a storm of protest, both from rank-and-file midwives and also MPs. It appeared that the Royal College’s chief executive, Cathy Warwick, had “ridden roughshod” over majority opinion. The new law proved more popular in New York, where the passing of the Act was greeted with an “eruption of applause” in the senate.
The rot in the USA is not confined to New York. A Bill in Virginia, proposed by Fairfax County’s Kathy Tran, is also set to permit abortion up to birth. She has confirmed that her Bill would permit “abortion” even after the women in question has already gone into labour.
The so-called “moderate” Democratic Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam, deepened controversy by stating that the baby in question might be born , alive, but then killed subject to the mother’s wish and agreement by two doctors. To be accurate, in the video recording of this statement, Northam alluded to the foetus being severely deformed and perhaps non-viable. He also suggested the baby, once born, might be resuscitated if necessary, before being dispatched if the mother so wished.
However, Kathy Tran’s Bill would not make abortion, even at the point of delivery, conditional upon non-viability, or even any problem at all with the baby. Instead either severe foetal abnormality or a claimed adverse impact on the mother’s health would suffice to justify the killing. And what would constitute a challenge to the mother’s health? Answer,
“all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient”
We need look no further than our own law of abortion in Great Britain to expose the paper thin fraudulence of this faux-protection. This is actually abortion on demand, without time limit.
Here is the existing law in Great Britain according to the Abortion Act 1967. Abortion is legal in Britain up to 24 weeks if either of the following holds: (a) continuance of the pregnancy risks injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or, (b) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. After 24 weeks abortion is legal only if there is a substantial risk to the woman’s life or there are serious risks of foetal abnormalities.
In 2017 there were 197,533 abortions in England & Wales. Only 2% of these were due to foetal abnormalities. 98% of abortions (around 193,600 per year) are carried out ostensibly due to the risk to the physical or mental health of the women. Really? How credible is this?
In 2017 there were 679,100 live births in England & Wales. Had the 193,600 aborted babies been permitted to be born, we are being asked to believe that 22% of these births would have resulted in harm to the mother serious enough to motivate the abortion. In fact, the actual implied percentage would be far bigger because this would imply that quite a sizeable proportion of the 679,100 babies actually born would cause their mothers’ harm too.
For comparison, just 0.008% of mothers die in childbirth in the UK.
And just 0.6% of babies are stillborn or subject to natural foetal death in utero.
In truth it is clear that ideological sympathy for “a woman’s right to choose” leads practitioners to interpret frustrating the mother’s wish for an abortion as a challenge to her mental health. The issue of harm to the mother is a ruse, a subterfuge. The existing British law is, de facto, abortion on demand before 24 weeks.
The NHS makes abortion on demand unambiguous. In their guidance on the conditions applying to abortion, the NHS makes no mention whatsoever that there are supposed to be medical grounds to justify it. Instead the NHS states bluntly,
“Some women may be certain they want to have an abortion, while others may find it more difficult to make a decision….The decision to have an abortion is yours alone.
You may also want to speak to your partner, friends or family, but you don’t need to discuss it with anyone else and they don’t have a say in the final decision.”
So, we should not be fooled by the new law in New York, or that being proposed in Virginia, as regards the medical proviso. That is a mere sop. What these laws will be, in reality, is abortion on demand without time limit, even up to and including the point of labour.
This is murder.
This is no longer a matter of opinion.
There is no functional difference between a baby which is just days, or a few weeks, from full term and a new born baby. The only difference is their location in space.
Feminist moral corruption and self-aggrandisement has now reached the point at which they present women as deities who may decide life and death over others. They need to be stopped.
Pingback: Allow to be, or not allow to be – Human Rights And Wrongs
Also I should point out…
Mentally imagining how many foetusses can dance on the head of a pin and in what time period is all very well but the enemy gets a vote too.
Fundamentally though abortion is a feminist construct which they even push as being a basic human right. Arguing about time limits merely opposes and confuses.
Taking a completely antiabortion standpoint on the other hand expressly forces the feminists to defend it, and therefore shows up their disregard for children and life itself.
Apparently the death toll from Feminism in the United States since Roe versus Wade alone is over 50 million children. A lot more when you consider that many of those children would themselves have reproduced.
One wonders indeed whether the feminists butcher’s bill actually exceeds that of other marxist ideologies over the last century.
Excellent work as ever. This has always been my primary issue as an F4J/MHRA, …as a father; I care first and foremost [in my case only] about the safety and what’s best for the children. This is also the heaviest burden when your opposition is the enormous gun of the state who’s attitudes and actions I can confirm from personal experience are just as you describe them to be, utterly misandric and focused on the [invariably self centered, or there wouldn’t be an issue in the first instance] mother rather than the children. If only they focused on what’s best for the children as is touted by the secret kangaroo family courts is their raison d’etre. This is in fact the central jigsaw piece without which there probably would not be a men’s movement.
Thank you. I also agree on the issue of the inevitable afterbirth of such institutionalised sexist gynocentrism, abortion. Full term abortion is ridiculous and frankly it’s murder. As soon as possible is the ideal, at 12 weeks you are aborting, not a clump of multiplying cells, but an entity with all twenty digits that looks like a very small human, after three months it’s highly questionable after 20/22 weeks, keeping in mind the level of development and medical science’s ability to save a child born this young, is a sin, at full term it’s simply murder.
Thanks for your usual fine-tooth analysis, very much appreciated. On a point of principle I must emphatically disagree with your espousal of the foetus’ physical ‘viability’ as the sole moral determinant in respect of the morality of abortion. A life either is – or is not – at all stages a life, and equally valuable at all stages of life. Why? Because the development of life always and only takes place in a continuum. Left to play out its gestational destiny, a healthy human zygote will never not become a boy or girl. Indeed, without external intervention a mere ‘zygote’ will always become that ‘paragon of animals’. Certainly, one must exercise imagination to see that the zygote (your very use of the word betrays a scientific distancing from the reality of the being in question) is, in fact, already human, albeit at the initial stage of development. But imagination is a faculty we very much possess (surely on an equal footing with reason), and to decommission it in the service of our own selfish needs nearly always results in terrible errors of judgement. Indeed, a lack of imagination could reasonably be said to be the cause of much of human misery throughout history. Conversely, a truly imaginative view of the cycle of birth sees that the healthy embryo is (in this context of the continuum) ‘viable’ from conception.
But then what exactly do you mean by ‘viable’? I ask because it seems to me that your ‘viability’ criterion is specious on a vital level. Let me put it this way: how is a baby abandoned by its mother ‘viable’? A neonate is every bit as dependent on its mother’s emotional cooperation as a foetus is on her body’s physical cooperation. In this context, it is merely the source of attention which changes. During gestation the mother’s body nurtures the foetus; after birth the mother’s love nurtures it. ‘Viability’ is a protean, three-dimensional word: to be properly understood it must take in a radial view of emotional and psychological input as well as physical. Ultimately, abortion will always be a moral question not a scientific one. Even if, in the (probably not far off) future we reach a stage whereby we can evacuate the ‘contents’ of a woman’s womb almost unnoticeably to her, it will diminish the moral gravity of the act of abortion not one whit. For what is at stake here – and always will be – is the very sanctity of life itself. I am aware the word ‘sanctity’ is not a favourite one in the scientist’s lexicon, but this does not diminish its value and meaning. I myself am an atheist. That does not mean I don’t believe in forces within the human mind that make demands transcendent on us. After all, if Darwinism taught us anything (!) it is that nature is morally neutral (red in tooth and claw) and that therefore a moral sense must come from something (not god) above and beyond the motive for survival and procreation of the fittest. May I suggest to you it comes, indeed, from the faculty of Imagination with a capital ‘I’, which, supreme among our faculties, is capable of envisioning a unified field of experience and drawing together all the strands thereof into a coherent moral, scientific and aesthetic whole. Therein lies meaning and value – and, yes, goodness too.
In the advent of an artificial womb, which is not beyond credibility, then the zygote does become viable. My position is therefore problematic.
“I could not go along with the Catholics, or other Christians, who maintain that even a zygote is a sacred life.”
I don’t know where you got the word “sacred” from. What those opposed to abortion point out (including members of all faiths and none) is that the human zygote, embryo and foetus, are all stages in an individual human life. Killing any of them is literally homicide. That is not a matter of opinion, or a value judgment. It’s scientific fact.
The way you have expressed yourself, strongly suggests to me that you have unresolved issues with Christianity, or rather its founder. What should have been obvious, staring you in the face years and years ago, you just couldn’t see, and still cannot see properly, because of prejudice against the very idea that anything that Christians of all people had to say, could be something important that you hadn’t thought of yourself. Is that about right?
But why then, even now, do you still defend abortion in general, even though now objecting to late abortions? I really thought you had intended to imply that it was because yoou saw this as a Christian ethical stance, associated with ideas of the “sacred” (as you put it). If not because this was how you saw things, from the point of view as to where your own life’s journey so far has brought you, why did you (so-to-speak) Christianise the generic pro-life position, in the sentence in which you rejected it?
You see certain aspects of this phenomenon with remarkable clarity, and express your ideas well, but still you seem trapped in the mindset that if one kills an unborn child early enough in his or her life, this is different morally from killing the same individual at a later stage of his or her life. And it was you, not I who, associated your reluctance to be consistent (as I put it) with what you saw as the “Christian” nature of opposition to all abortion (self-defence excepted).
Surely, what’s wrong with abortion (like any homicide) is not (primarily) that it causes physical pain to the child. If that was the case, we could simply anaesthetise the older victims whose central nervous systems enabled the sensation of pain. What is wrong is rather that abortion deprives him or her of his potential future – the same thing that is wrong with even the most “humane” termination of a human life deliberately. It is the killing itself that is wrong, not that it hurts. It is the same women’s supremacy that justifies all abortion.
I regret having mentioned Christianity now, since this has caused misunderstanding. I did so only as an illustration of a body of opinion which judges life to start at conception. My purpose was more to give this view some status rather than to criticise it. This position has the merit of temporal clarity, which my position does not.
I have no problem with Christians. I was raised in the Church: church attendance every Sunday morning and Sunday School in the afternoon. My father was extremely religious and a church Elder. We children had to learnt the catechism by heart at home. However, as is commonly the case, I rebelled as a teenager and became an atheist. Of late, my lifelong staunch atheism has waivered, though I cannot honestly call myself anything else. And I have belatedly realised that I took for granted a moral stance which came to me from a Christian background. I arrogantly assumed that others would have no need of the ladder which I had myself made use of.
However, I have trouble agreeing that killing a zygote is “literally homicide”. The zygote is a single cell. Our bodies create and destroy the order of 60 billion cells daily. Admittedly most of these are red blood cells with no DNA, but there are still billions of cells killed, and created, daily with identical DNA to that in the zygote. That does not mean there is nothing special about a zygote cell. Clearly there is. It is uniquely capable of multiplying in the coordinated manner required to produce a viable embryo. This totipotent capability inevitably has a biochemical basis – namely a host of epigenetic features controlling the activation of individual genes. A miracle (metaphor!) of biological evolution, certainly, but not unqiue to Homo sapiens. A plant seed is essentially the same thing, with the same “miraculous” potential to produce a complex, beautiful living thing capable of reproduction in its turn. But we grind them up in their millions to make our bread.
And in as far as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, to regard the zygote as equivalent to a fully developed human (baby) is analogous to considering the first single-cell creatures to evolve on Earth billions of years ago to also be equivalent to a human. These primitive things also evolved into humans: the difference is merely how long one wishes to wait – 3.7 billion years or 9 months.
A human is an emergent result of a vast assemblage of around 30 trillion cells. It is the interaction between this myriad of cells, of a huge range of different specialised types, which gives rise to a person. Nevertheless I admit the weakness of my position is there is no clear dividing line. I take your point that one cannot define such a line by the feeling of pain – though the capacity to feel in some sense may be relevant. A single cell certainly cannot.
Having said all that, I also admit to being less than confident. And there is merit in the clarity of “the line is the zygote”, especially now we know that giving an inch has resulted in taking a mile.
Thanks for such a thoughtful response.
The only part I couldn’t get my head around, was the paragraph that contained the proviso (for the paragraph being of any importance), “in as far as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. I had to remind myself of the superstition of a certain bygone age – about 200 years ago, which I had no idea anybody still took seriously. I would simply say that I don’t believe that ontogeny recapitulates anything. I therefore feel safe ignoring that particular paragraph of yours.
All placental mammals have similar lives. They all start out as zygotes. I don’t suffer from the delusion that non-human zygotes (dogs, cats, sheep etc) are humans, still less the seeds of plants. I am always disappointed to find anybody educated who thinks that whether killing a human zygote is literally homicide is a matter of opinion not fact. I don’t have a special conern for protecting zygotes in general. I am concerned to protect humans, all of them, even when they are still zygotes, lest they fail to fulfill their potential. However, by the time a woman suspects that she is unwantedly pregnant, any former zygote will already have become embryo, and will be well on the way to becoming a foetus.
Since you are reconsidering things, I’ll leave it there, except to say that you might find my 2013 blog post “The mumbo-jumbo of choice” thought-provoking. It one of my JohnAllman.UK posts in the category “feminism”. You can find the feminism posts using as a shortcut the humourously-named domain http://patriarchy.org.uk. 🙂
Similar backstory, raised a Catholic etc…
And I feel your pain.
However I would point out that trying to remain cerebral, intellectual and scientific about simple moral questions simply does not work unless one takes a frankly mockable position that science is entirely free from politics.
Also take your zygote or 23 week old foetus who has a father desperate to lavish all of his love and care on him or her. The fact the he has no say and is repressed from even uttering an opinion on such is a clear moral obscenity.
Your basic premise, namely that feminism intrinsically does not care about children, is proveably accurate. Hell even feminist teachers mark exam papers with male names lower than female.
I agree that morality is seated in the emotional psyche
You are so right about the whole social services industry. Yet far from being radical their stance is in a way simply extreme extensions of the Victorian notions of women and mothers in particular being saints. The story just out about the conviction of a woman fof FGM, the first case with a conviction and only the 5 case since the law 30 years ago. The unsuccessful cases were of men and two at least were so flimsy that the Judges commented so. The 30 years is the measure of the privileging of women. As a public servant over my career I attended two courses on FGM as part of the periodic rounds of training all public sector workers on FGM. Both were very interesting indeed and very informative of the cultures involved. In both it was clear that because the cultures had very strictly applied rules of sexual segregation the perpetrators of FGM, either the doing or taking a child to be done , will be women. Most likely the mother or aunts. Attempting to find and prosecute men was always a fools errand because they are not permitted to be involved ( in the same way that in the same cultures women have no involvement in MGM).
It seems the political pressure to “do something” has built up sufficiently to override the feminist ideology that says perpetration is always Male. Took 30 years to take the action that was obvious right at the start, look to women family members if you want to actually prosecute the crime. I suspect that this symbolic case will be enough to quieten political pressure for a bit and all the various teams and units funded across the nation to “combat” this crime will return to the pointless hunt for men to prosecute ( the case before this one was a member of just such a unit claiming a Male taxi driver admitted it to him while driving , the CPS and Police got rebuked by the judge when that one collapsed).
Even in this latest case they did also prosecute the father – but he was found not guilty.
As a Canadian I’m ashamed to say we have no abortion laws what so ever, None of our political parties have the backbone to even mention it except to say its off the table before any election debate begins. Of course e have a feminist prime minister so this can only continue to get worse for children and men here. Thanks for all your hard work !
You write, “In truth it is clear that ideological sympathy for “a woman’s right to choose” leads practitioners to interpret frustrating the mother’s wish for an abortion as a challenge to her mental health. The issue of harm to the mother is a ruse, a subterfuge. The existing British law is, de facto, abortion on demand before 24 weeks.” I’m surprised it’s taken you so long to understand this fraud! The “mother’s mental health” lie has been part of the scam for over 40 years, despite a complete lack of evidence that child birthing significantly increases mental illness for women. This justification for killing the unborn does not have limitations. A woman should be, logically, free to choose to kill her infant after birth, if her mental health is adversely affected. It appears that the US legislators are taking just that path.
Ordinarily, someone wanting to kill another person, regardless of motive or reason, would be the target.
In extreme necessity, someone wanting to kill another person would be killed.
So how is it that we can end up with the ugly logic – which I don’t refute – that a woman can kill a child because of her mental health, rather than society kill the woman (if it comes to absolute need) to save the child.
* Statistically, the most dangerous place for a child to be is inside a mother’s womb. *
Thank you for another great article.
I have seen this move towards later abortions, including post birth, and have been baffled by the immorality of it. I’ve come to the conclusion that feminists are just trolling pro-lifers and are bizarrely finding success. The subject is so polarizing that it is difficult to find common ground, which I believe breeds extremists on both sides. For what it’s worth, my opinion is a 12-13 week limit, with later term abortion only allowed if extreme physical risk is posed to mother or child, or extreme abnormalities may cause the child serious issues after birth and throughout it’s life.
Thanks for looking at the London Safeguarding Children Board’s advice on domestic abuse that I recommended (maybe not the best choice of word!) recently. I see you found its contents as horrific as I did.
Yes, thanks for that link
That women are treated as a higher priority even than children is obvious when you consider the offence of infanticicde which was created to treat the murder of a child by its mother as of less significance than murder by anyone else and in practice never results in jail giving a mother the de facto right to kill her child.
Like you I am not opposed to abortion per se as long as there is a reasonable time limit. To me the core factor is the extent to which the developing foeteus is sentient but this is difficult to assess and theerefore viability makes sense as a pragmatic criteria. I don’t see that viability shoud be assessed with the full panolpy of modern technology as eventually we may be able to support the development of a foetus entirely outside the body. No time limit is outrageous and I am sure will cause widespread opposition. Immediately prior to birth it is clear that what is being killed is a fully developed baby any test of sentience, viability etc is going to be passed.
And of course, the father STIL has no say!
One can presumably conclude that the baby is born, does the father then ever get to hold it? To even see it before it is murdered???
Men will continue to allow this insanity and therefore should shut up and stop complaining…