As I was saying

Dr Argent also disclosed that he believed that some colleagues had arranged terminations relating to the sex of the foetus and they felt it was reasonable to do so.

“I’ve had a consultant colleague in the North who expressed a view — that consultant was from an ethnic minority … He didn’t think it was ethically wrong because he thought that the cultural reason why some communities may prefer to have four male babies is as good a reason as the, if you like, the Anglo-Saxon cultural view, \’Well I’m pregnant, I just don’t want it anyway.’? ”

As we know, I disagree with the basic view but this is at least a logical statement.

It\’s the you can if you don\’t want it but if you don\’t want it because it\’s female you can\’t that is illogical.

14 comments on “As I was saying

  1. It’s the you can if you don’t want it but if you don’t want it because it’s female you can’t that is illogical.

    Is it illogical? People changed the law hoping to create a better Britain. It turns out that they had not thought the process through – and to be honest mass immigration from South Asia was not really on anyone’s horizon at the time – and their reform turns out to have unexpected consequences. So they want another change to the law to force people to support their vision of a better Britain.

    The support for abortion was probably never support for abortion. It was a dream of what Mark Steyn calls a Pornutopia – a Britain where everyone can and should have as much as sex with as many people in the most possible combinations as possible. They are consistent and perhaps even logical. They are just not honest about what they want or why.

  2. It’s the you can if you don’t want it but if you don’t want it because it’s female you can’t that is illogical.

    Not true. There are good public policy reasons for permitting actions in some circumstances but not in others. You simply disagree that this is one of them (and that the ‘harm’ test for s1(a) abortions is, in practice, too low.)

    I can only discriminate on racial grounds if can show that it is an “occupational requirement” – eg I am running an ethnic restaurant. I can possess “extreme porn” if it is on a classified film. Plenty of examples …

  3. Surreptitious Evil – “Not true. There are good public policy reasons for permitting actions in some circumstances but not in others.”

    Yeah but the pro-abortion camp will need to re-think their justifications. They can’t say it is just a clump of cells, and a parasite, and that women have a right to abortion, if they then turn around and say that men can control women’s bodies if the aim is to prevent the wrong type of foetuses being terminated.

  4. The support for abortion was probably never support for abortion. It was a dream of what Mark Steyn calls a Pornutopia – a Britain where everyone can and should have as much as sex with as many people in the most possible combinations as possible.

    I just don’t think that’s true. Hegemonic preference for sexual libertinism was never universal and only had a brief heydey in the late 60s and 70s, before crashing to a well orchestrated halt with the convenient arrival of AIDS. There is a vastly overstated narrative on the Lind/Buchanan cultural marxism thing that sexual liberty was a plot by Herbert Marcuse, inaugurated by his book “I am a dirty old man , Freud says it’s fine”. Most obviously, the movement most strongly pro-abortion is the most furiously anti-sex movement in Western society, the Feminists.

    Ideological Pro-Abortionism far predates the permissive society. It grew out of class and eugenics ideology. It was, and still is, seen as a means of keeping the lower classes from outbreeding the upper classes; particularly by the Gibson Girls who developed Feminism, who as a class cultural thing were very keen to minimise their own birth rate (it’s dangerous, it ruins your figure, etc), but were then faced with the problem of the Residuum breeding like flies. There was also a Protestants vs. Catholics thing going on; waves of Catholic immigration was terrifying the American (Protestant) elite (again, the Gibson Girls class) and, again, unrestricted breeding was seen as a Catholic characteristic.

    That’s what the primary motivation of political abortion (and indeed contraception) originated from. It’s interesting to note that the elites were split on the best strategy. There was one wing pro-contraception and abortion, on the idea it would keep untermensch breeding rates down. The other wing, perhaps best typified by Anthony Comstock, believed that spreading information about and access to contraception and abortion would not much affect the lower orders, but would cause an even lower birthrate among upper class Protestant elite women as they took advantage of them. Comstock basically got the right way of it, didn’t he? Anyway, that was why the fierce imposition of censorship included censorship of information about contraception and abortion, by the Comstockians, while the proto-Feminists were fiercely in favour of such information being distributed.

    Nothing to do with a “Pornutopia” anyway. Conservatives like Steyn, Lind et al have this one totally wrong, due to a basic error of believing that the West is naturally puritanical, and then being stuck with having to try to explain the 1960s, which doesn’t it into their paradigm.

  5. As I remember the public debate (in Norway) before legalisation, it was very much about removing the wire cloth-hangers, motorcycle rides on the train tracks, short, sometimes deadly, visits to Poland etc, and nothing about keeping the untermensch breeding rates down or preserving the beauty ideal of Charles Dana Gibson. This might have been all posturing of course, or pure Norwegian ignorance, but I thought I’d mention it…

  6. I’m not denying that there is an ideological background to some influential people’s for or against stand, but refusing to see the people with the real pain as influential in the debate seems downright odd. I remember a dam bursting because of too much pressure, too much screaming and cursing and presentation of tragedy by people who’s never heard of any of the names you mention, or their equivalents.

  7. Jahn, I was answering SMFS’s assertion that the intention of abortion legalisation was the creation of a “Pornutopia”, which it simply never was, well, in my opinion after a lot of study. So the question I was discussing was inherently ideological. That does not deny that people not motivated by ideology will have opinions, both positive and negative.

    You’ll note that I also included contraception. I am strongly in favour of the availability and use of contraceptives. That is a different issue to why the first wave of reformers were in favour of them, which was about stopping other people breeding, not giving them the choice to be sexual libertines.

  8. At the time of the debate over the new abortion law, much reference was made to fatality rates of backstreet abortions – using figures from the pre-penicillin era. Or so I have read.

  9. dearime,
    I don’t really see that it matters, surely the argument was that since abortions were happening anyway it was better to have them done legally and safely, it’s much the same argument as that which can be used against any form of prohibition, aside from any question of the desirability or otherwise of the action.

  10. It matters because it implies that the debaters who knowingly used such irrelevant figures were being crooks. Insofar as I have a view, I incline to sympathise reluctantly with those reforms, but I just hate it when people wilfully mislead. Hate it. Mind you the other side told lies too.

  11. Well exactly, nobody is altogether telling the truth here as is usual really for any highly polarised debate and I find it a little difficult to believe that there were reliable figures for this either pre or post antibiotics anyway.

  12. Ian B: “Nothing to do with a “Pornutopia” anyway. Conservatives like Steyn, Lind et al have this one totally wrong, due to a basic error of believing that the West is naturally puritanical, and then being stuck with having to try to explain the 1960s, which doesn’t it into their paradigm.”

    Well, I don’t think the 1960s actually fits in to your paradigm, Ian: despite all the endless recycling of the myth of “the Swinging Sixties”, “The Summer of Love” etc by the media, and obviously believed by you, Britain remained – and still remains – an essentially conservative (small “c”) country. The soundtrack of The Sound of Music outsold any Beatles/Stones album of the sixties, and while the Pill may have given young people the chance to fool around for it, most of them still expected – and wanted – to settle down. Read Sandbrook’s White Heat (Little, Brown, 2006) for an in-depth look at what really happened in Britain during the 60s beyond the media myths.

    As far as the current abortion debate is concerned, I think we’re just seeing yet another example of the consequence of utopian, humanist, liberal policies throughout the ages: the Curse of Unexpected Consequences.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.