Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said that pregnant women and doctors actively “pretend” that the women’s mental health is at risk so that they can sign off abortions without questions being asked.
And the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners said a woman simply saying that she did not want to be pregnant now counted as enough evidence to justify an abortion.
Opponents of abortion said the arrangement amounted to widespread “perjury” by doctors in defiance of the law. But pro-choice campaigners said it showed that Britain’s abortion laws were out of date and in urgent need of reform.
We\’re breaking the law so change the law so that we aren\’t.
And I can\’t reject the argument out of hand: I use the very same argument to shout about the necessity of legalising drugs (and in favour of flat out legalising of prostitution as well). It\’s all going to happen anyway, the damage and danger is in the illegality so yes, it should be legal.
But I will admit that I find the argument unpersuasive here. For the usual reason that puts me out of step with everyone on this basic question anyway. The two (and many more) cases where I use it concern the activities of consenting adults. None of whom end up in pieces in a bucket. We are talking about those consenting adults exercising their rights of freedom and liberty.
In the abortion case (and it is this that makes me out of step, I do realise this) we have one person asserting their right to deprive another of their rights to life, liberty and freedom.
So, from my point of view, \”abortions like this are going to happen so let\’s make them legal\” would be closer to \”child abuse is going to happen so let\’s make it legal\”. Rather closer to NAMBLA\’s position than many \”pro-choice\” campaigners might feel comfortable with.
Of course, if you don\’t believe that an embryo, fetus, blastocyst, is a person with rights then none of the above makes any sense at all.