Friday, November 10, 2006

This is not My Blog

If anyone has read this I found it necessary to add that I gave up on this blog.

My current blog is at http://lafemmecontraire.blogspot.com

Pro life issues are covered there among others.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Mother Loses 'Right to Know' Case.

Mother Sue Axon lost her battle last week with the high court, having demanded that parents be informed if their teenage children seek advice over contraception or abortion.

So the law remains that while parents must consent to a tongue piercing for a minor, they will not always be informed of the major operation that is abortion.

Supporters of the law claim that it is to protect vulnerable children who are afraid to tell their parents they are pregnant. Yet surely in the case of an abusive family situation it is for the social services to step in? A secret abortion will leave the abusive family situation intact.

Yet requiring greater action from the social services will cost more to the State than easy access to secret abortions. It is cheaper, investing in the social services requires more money and time.

Far from protecting a vulnerable minority as it claims to, the law in fact endangers those it claims to protect.

Abusive father, callous itinerant boyfriend? No problem, the State can sort that out for you in the operating theatre. Go home and it will be the same as before, and the abusive parents in your life will know no different.

The concept of a 'woman's right to choose' is meaningless when applied to teenagers under 16, they more often than not lack the maturity to make such an informed choice. Assuming that more families are supportive than not, the law undermines trust between parents and children by assuming that doctors know better than parents. Those children who lack supportive families need the help of a responsible mediator, need the guarantee of this. Not a secret abortion, which may traumatise them further and even leave them scarred for life.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Pro Choice or Pro Abortion?

In Italy last month (sorry this news is a wee bit old) came up with a policy to give financial support to women in hard up circumstances. Something the left should support, right? The scheme was in fact put forward by the Italian left.

Yet British liberals seem blinded, they often have the same polarised and skewed view of the Americans. The Guardian's report on the 2nd of December portrayed the ruling ( which would give women in straitened economic circumstances between £170 and 350 euros for up to six months before giving birth) as being a proposal to appease the pro life relgious lobby. Upsetting, as save for this bias the Graun remains my favourite broadsheet.

Is it not about quality of life? What kind of a choice is it to have an abortion because one cannot afford a child? Nobody should be forced by poverty into making such a decision, else it is no real 'choice'.

The pro choice 'left' reacted in a similiar way to Cardinal Winning's offer in Scotland nearly a decade ago as to pay women not to have abortions. Why shouldn't women accept an offer of financial assistance when pregnant in averse circumstances, regardless of the source? Bear in mind that Winning was not asking them to convert to Catholicism.

In Bournemouth there exists a shelter for teenagers evicted by their fathers for refusing to abort. A 'pro choice' male aqquaintance of mine condemned these centres as being places that 'entrap vulnerable young women to continue with unwanted pregnancies'. Unwanted by the girl's fathers , this is, not by the girls themselves. How pro woman.

I hope personal anecdotes are ok. A close friend of mine who I love dearly also was ready to feel negative about the proposals in Italy. Upsetting to see that he would rather see poor women be pressured into giving up their babies, going through a painful and unpleasant procedure and living with it for the rest of their lives, rather than receiving help and support so that they can welcome their children into the world with love. But it seems the true interests of these women (and their unborn children) can be sacrificed in the name of a pseudo 'choice'. Pro choice is often neither pro choice nor pro woman. It sometimes sacrifices the interests of both women and true freedom due to it's vested interest in the abortion industry, and well meaning individuals can be all too ready to swallow the rhetoric.

Naomi Wolf, in her book 'Misconceptions' reported a pro choice lawyer opposing the granting of free drug treatment for pregnant women on crack cocaine, in order that the foetuses (by now seven months old, beyond the British time limit for abortion but not the American) would not breathee in the smoke. The man dismissed this as being a 'violation of the women's rights', as it was putting the interests of the foetuses before the women. So it is ok for unborn children to breath in crack smoke while at seven months gestation, bearing in mind these children were not destined for abortion. And what is wrong with providing drug treatment. Is it an inherent 'right to choose' now to be self destructive with one's own self, along with your children. Again, how pro woman.

It seems some people in Britain are not immune from such thinking themselves, as my examples showed.

Friday, December 02, 2005

More Guardian Bias

The Guardian (Thursday Dec 1st) show a shocking bias when they report on the latest battle in America's abortion wars. In the report, following the new battle over parental consent for under 18s, the 'right on', pro choice liberal activists are holding signs saying 'Save Roe', while the anti abortion protesters are said to be 'singing hymns'. Sure, many pro lifers are religious, some may have been singing hymns. But all? I doubt it. In fact BBC News showed some with red tape stuck to their mouths, they could hardly have been singing with their mouths taped up.

If journalism is to be objective it must show both sides of the issue. But this is obviously too much for the Guardian. A photograph is showed of a protestor holding a 'keep abortion legal' placard outside the court. If it was an objective report then why were the banners of the opposite sign not photographed?

But bear in mind that the 'Grauniad' also failed to give adequate coverage to the abortion of Manna Begum's child following the honour killing of her fiancee( they reported the first death but not the following). Clearly they can't print anything that puts abortion in a bad light - as that would confuse readers on the issue of 'choice'. Too much for them.

Can adults decide for themselves or can't they?

Monday, November 28, 2005

More Ginemedex Crimes

Once again the Ginemedex clinic in Spain has been exposed by the Sunday Telegraph as having committed a crime.

A 20 year old woman was sent there by her father after he had arranged the honour killing of her fiancee. The matter is now being investigated. Manna Begum was six months pregnant.

What is happening? In Spain abortion is illegal after 22 weeks unless there is a medical emergency. Yet Ginemedex have themselves admitted that they play around a bit with the law. It is the same clinic that BPAS, the abortion provider subsidised by the NHS, refers women to who are above the British time limit.

Clearly no counselling takes place, no questions are asked. Begum was not making a free choice in any sense. She was most probably terrified.

To speak of the 'woman's right to choose' under these circumstances would be absurd. Where are the left whe women's rights are being violated like this?

The left generally oppose mandatory counselling, instead they call for abortion on demand. Yet this case was the result of 'abortion on demand' in action. Far from a vindication of women's rights - it is a grotesque violation.

Abortion Survivors

It turns out that 50 babies a year survive botched abortions in Britain. As usual this has been reported only by the right wing press (Daily Mail, Nov 28). It was ruled last year that if a baby survives an abortion attempt doctors must make efforts to preserve it's life as they would do others born prematurely. Prior to this many had been left to die.

Doctors are treating a toddler born at 24 weeks after three botched abortions, who suffers a range of medical problems. Most children, however, do not live this long. Calls have been raised again for the time limit to be reviewed in parliament. We can expect this to be vehemently opposed by the 'pro choice' lobby, who not long ago had a meeting on the issue.

Why should this not be a matter for concern for the left as well? It is inconsistent of a movement who otherwise fight for social justice to show such callous disregard when it comes to the most vulnerable. It seems that the 'woman's right to choose' has become a sacred cow many do not dare to touch.

28 year old Gianna Jessen from Tennessee survived an abortion at 30 weeks, and was born with cerebal palsy as a result. It was thought she would never walk again, but she is now to run next years London Marathon. As she points out, if abortion is about women's rights, where were her rights?

The left remain silent at their own expense, and alienate many potential supporters. To show an alternative viewpoint would be a step forward. This is not a right wing issue, it is an issue which transcends the catergories of left and right. It is an issue of medical and humanitarian ethics.