Labour torpedoes attempt to outlaw same sex abortions
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, faces criticism from Tory and Labour MPs after urging them to vote against an amendment banning same-sex abortions

Someone really needs to talk to the Telegraph here. No one knows anything about “same-sex” abortions.

“Sex-selective” abortions, yes.

21 thoughts on “What?”

  1. So Much for Subtlety

    Yet. Give the scientists time. If they find that gene …..

    On what basis is it possible to ban this by the way? Either it is a woman’s right to choose or it is not. Either she is going to be psychologically traumatised by giving birth or she is not.

    How can you say that most abortions are socially desirable and so women can do them but some of them are not and hence they should be banned?

  2. Oh FFS. Don’t you know the meaning of the word “usually”?

    Foetuses is fine. We’re speaking English, not Latin.

  3. “She said that the move could inadvertently outlaw abortion in cases where there are “gender specific abnormalities”.”

    And it’s beyond the wit or ability of our highly-paid lawmakers to insert a clause to deal with this?

  4. So Much for Subtlety

    Bloke in Germany – “Oh FFS. Don’t you know the meaning of the word “usually”?”

    Sure. But I was sitting here, thinking, “you know f**k it, I am going to give a berk a chance to be a complete berk”. I think of it as community outreach.

    “Foetuses is fine. We’re speaking English, not Latin.”

    I like foetae in this specific circumstance but maybe not.

  5. So Much for Subtlety

    JuliaM – “And it’s beyond the wit or ability of our highly-paid lawmakers to insert a clause to deal with this?”

    You mean like the way they inserted a clause that insisted that abortion was only legal to avoid serious medical complications? How is that working out?

    For people like Julie Bindel, and I am sure enough qualified doctors, as well as for a whole bunch of doctors called “Khan”, being of one specific gender is certainly a gender related abnormality deserving termination.

  6. And right on cue:

    “Next week, MPs will have the chance to ‘clarify’ the law to definitively ban sex-selective abortions in the UK. I’m glad they are, you may think. But you would be wrong. In fact the amendment will put more stress on Asian women…”

    For the children…!



  7. And:

    “Because this has been rushed, many women’s organisations have barely had time to digest, debate and say anything on this matter. “

    Good! What they have to say can usually be discounted out of hand!

  8. Let’s explore “abnormalities” Yvette. How many adult people (abnormal people?) are currently residing in the UK with “abnormalities that would have justified some else deciding they should never live? What would these abnormalities be? Could you arrange a TV interview with some with this abnormality?

  9. Julia,

    A shame, because women’s organisations always have such valuable insights into the plight of women in other cultures, I find. And indeed, the plight of women in this culture when they come into contact with other cultures.

  10. Just another example of the contradictions inherent in leftism colliding with each other.

    If your entire worldview is based on fantasy, you can’t expect it to follow any logical path. It’s not like this is an episode of ‘Girls’, where you can deal with inconvenient plot twists by means of a McGuffin.

  11. So Much for Subtlety – re: that “feminist aborts boy” story. It’s been doing the rounds on the intarweb and I’m pretty sure it’s a troll job.

  12. @Steve, it definitely looks like a troll job but it’s entirely plausible that “feminist aborts boy because boy is boy” has happened at least once.

  13. So Much for Subtlety

    Gamecock – ““Same-sex abortion” should be allowed when “same-sex pregnancy” occurs.”

    Maybe it refers to those three-parent babies British doctors want to produce? With three of them, I am pretty sure two of them might be of the same sex. At least.

    Although you never can tell what gender someone’s spirit animal might be.

  14. The article is fine, as far as I can see, which suggests that the error lies with… ah yes, the Telegraph’s subs. I regularly use the comments to suggest sackings and the odd execution pour encourager les autres, but there has been no movement on this front. Yet.

  15. Why do some writers (not least our host) want to guess Latin plurals? I’m curious. (fwiw, the Latin plural of fetus is fetus.)

    Why does SMFS want to reconfirm that his worldview is formed from third-hand made-up rubbish he finds on the internet? I’m not in the least curious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *