Excellent!

Removing abortion from the criminal law would not change this. No woman turns up at 30 weeks pregnant requesting abortion because she’s a bit weary of it all – and no doctor would perform an abortion on that basis. To suggest otherwise is absurd and offensive to both women, and those who care for them.

Great, so we don’t have to change the law to make that possible then, do we?

20 thoughts on “Excellent!”

  1. Exactly so.

    If you want to legislate for choice then you must accept that choice for whatever reason. And to dismiss somebody’s, ANYBODY’S, reason as “absurd and offensive” is absurdly illogical and offensive.

  2. “While it would have minimal impact on overall numbers of abortions, it would mean abortion could be provided in the most female-centred, clinically effective way possible. .”

    You’d think men had nothing at all to do with the process, wouldn’t you..?

  3. “Female-centred”. Statistics suggest amongst certain Asian groupings it most certainly is!

  4. “There is absolutely no clinical need for women to have to obtain the permission of two doctors before undergoing an abortion, and this has the potential to build in needless delays for those who are sure of their decision. That is not good for women.”

    So, a woman turns up at an abortion clinic in a state of mental distress and a bloke that last week was pushing trolleys at Tesco gives her the drugs? Or do we just hand them out at Lidl’s? We abort a healthy child that she might have wanted a week ago because of a temporary illness rather than two doctors spotting that maybe she doesn’t look well, and perhaps need to deal with the illness?

    Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers.

  5. The Meissen Bison

    and offensive to both women, and those who care for them

    This latter group should of course have no agency in the matter though (and I haven’t followed the link) the writer is doubtless a member of this pernicious and intrusive clan.

  6. This is a manifestation of evil mad feminism.

    Mother 100 % Rights
    Child 0% Rights
    Father 0% Rights

  7. The Inimitable Steve

    So the story is, legalising abortion at any time up till just before the baby pops his little head out won’t lead to more late term abortion?

    Right.

    women in the UK are forced by our laws to attend multiple appointments. They are legally obliged to put the pills in their vaginas in a licensed clinic, before rushing home to pass the pregnancy.

    They cannot time their treatment around work or childcare commitments.

    They should probably think of that before they drop their knickers.

  8. If you’re interested (and there’s no particular reason why you should be) in moral philosophy, Pete Singer’s Practical Ethics is a very accessible account. He’s one of our leading modern moral philosophers, but (surprise, surprise) like almost all his ilk comes to the conclusion that the only logically consistent position to hold is that which he already held (in his case, standard Guardian-style ‘liberalism’).

    Anyhoo, his take on abortion is that it should be permitted at any stage of pregnancy, but it logically follows that infanticide should be equally permissible, at least up to the age where the child is capable of forming memories that could be retained into adulthood – say 18 months.

  9. The greatest example of a slippery slope there has probably ever been – to be honest I think the Social media storm from loud feminists who exert such a malign and evil influence on contemporary politics would be so great it would be a brave physician who refused a request for a 9 month abortion even now.

    I do question how people like this woman will fair under the coming ISIS rule however – they might find it a challenge I’ll hazard….

  10. “They cannot time their treatment around work or childcare commitments.”

    Oh indeed. What is the life, the very existence, of an unborn child compared with my work comittments?

  11. Is that the Pete Singer who wants human rights given to apes?
    The very same, Julia – and that is more or less what he argues, yes.

  12. I sneeze in three

    Ironman, should you be able to kill it though. If my memory is correct Murray Rothbard in Yhe Rthucs of a Liberty talks about how it is legitimate to abandon a child but I think you are meant to at least tell others of this intention so someone can help. Others in society cdn then shun you if they disagree with you actions

  13. Absolutely you should be able to kill it; it isn’t viable so isn’t really a human being. As for being required to tell someone so they can stop you or shun you: you fucking misogynist, trying to stigmatise women!

  14. I sneeze in threes

    Not stop you but offer to take it off your hands. God help granny when her hunting days are over too.

  15. Concentrating on a small part of the article, my wife (who is a midwife) is a little old fashioned. She has the quaint idea that the Royal College of Midwives should consult its members before deciding that they should support abortion campaigns or remaining in the EU. How stupid? what’s the use of power if you don’t abuse it?

Leave a Reply

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