Sunday, March 18, 2007

Abortion Contradictions

Killing babies is the most basic of human rights (except for the baby of course).

Unless that is you kill more girl babies than boy babies. Welcome to the wonderful world of 'female foeticide', no longer a basic human right but instead 'an extreme manifestation of violence against women'. Your killing, to be ethical, should of course be race, gender, sexuality and disability neutral. Sorry, did I mention disability ? Forget about that one.

In the Observer, Will Hutton rails against "the calamity of Asia's lost women". I wonder when we'll see a piece about Britain's lost children.

Hutton's hypocrisy knows no bounds.

"Both governments are becoming more and more worried about the psychological and social consequences, not to mention the sheer criminality of it. As one Indian commentator remarks, the most dangerous period of a woman's life is her first few months in the womb."

The most dangerous period of any CHILD'S life in the UK is the first few months in the womb. Look at the figures. 639,721 live births - not all of which willbe to residents, against 185,415 abortions to residents. That's 22.5% of all conception knoocked on the head, ignoring natural miscarriage and RU486 (aka "morning-after") casualties. In India there are around 25 million births pa and according to this study perhaps as many as 6.6 million abortions. If those figures, at the high end of disputed estimates, are correct that's 21% of conceptions - LESS than the UK figure. Where's Hutton's outrage at the 'sheer criminality' of the UK ?

And as for Will's social consequences - there have been over 6 million UK abortions since 1967. I keep reading, not least in the Guardian, how mass immigration is necessary because of 'our ageing society'. Doesn't that count as a 'social consequence' ?

The guy is a total hypocrite - prepared to blather on about the consequences for other people while turning a blind eye to consequences at home. Indian women are making the same choice to abort as Brit women have been doing, only the reasons are different.

And Will can't stomach that. Cultural imperialist. I spit in his latte.


Anonymous said...

It looks like births to native Brits has declined by 40% in forty years.

Its odd because the people who came through the Depression and WW11 WANTED children but their own offspring do not.

Go figure!!!

Martin said...


I've been making the same point for two years -

It's not the backstreet abortionists that Hutton should be worried about - it's the backstreet cloners...

Anonymous said...

anon, from what I heard its because of the heavy 'pill' use that affects the desire for children.
I'm not 100% sure I believe it but then again if you compare all the Western countries which are the biggest users they are almost all below replacement levels of fertility.

I agree the hypocrisy is disgusting, but it helps to show these peoples true colours.

Anonymous said...


There might be something in what you said, several studies have found that the Pill reduces sexual desire. Very ironic that a wonder pill which gives women the opportunity to indulge in the 'consequence free' pleasures of the flesh suppresses the libido!!

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that the abortionist is the most efficient carbon offsetter of all. Each future-person whose existence is curtailed would produce 7000kg of CO2 per year. No need to waste time calculating footprints: one negative person + one person (yourself!) = perfect parity.

So for that special liberal in your life, why not sponsor a third world abortion today: it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Anonymous said...

Here are some pro life fuckwit contradictions & hypocrisy...

The argument FOR dumping women back to the stone age of back street abortions and zero contraception. Or with the advent of RU486 black market unsupervised abortion (as in Brazil)

Ya think selective abortions purely to unbalance gender equates to abortion out of fear/finance/rape? Really? What incredible insight you have into all those individual circumstances? i work in an abortion clinic and speak to these women you know more about! Fascinating insight into your selective prejuduce.

You think decline in birthrates is down to women taking the pill? - what incredible insight you have into all these friends of mine who say that men not wanting to get married is what stops them having kids and so have, like a close friend of mine given up waiting and had a kid alone. We hear about male commitment issues and treat them as a joke - useful as such for you to sidestep it though.

And as for Daves expertise on the pill...well lol. Nothing to do with male fear of commitment, 2 salaries required for a basic income, soaring house prices and instability for raising kids - why you might take the pill. You come OFF the pill to start a family boyzzz?

This has to be one of the most hilarious bullshit indignant pieces for pro lifers to date. Way to go!

ever wondered why women wait till month 3 to announce a pregnancy? Because miscarriage occurs most often in the first 3 months and its on the RISE. Quality of life, diet and
*sperm quality* being crucial factors.

Get stuck into your share of the issue.

Those of us in the know spit in your whiskeys. After all Will is keen to keep the key component in childbith alive and well eg women - you guys are keener to see her free of the pill and proper medical facilities to do what women will do with or without your permission. Back to the cave boys - tut twat.

Martin said...


You make your living from abortion, so one would expect you to defend your own economic interest - but there is just a teensy, weensy little flaw in your skullbreaking argument.

Want to know what men don't want to get married?

Ask the guys who used to run 'Fathers4Justice'.

And thanks for spitting in the whisk(e)y as opposed to pissing in it. Your urine's probably choc full of oestrogen from all those red ones...or is it blue?

Laban said...

Ah yes - the bad old days when thousands of women died at the hands of backstreet abortionists - replaced by the happier scenario of millions of babies killed by the main street abortionist.

I assume (with zero evidence, but on past form) that the thousands of backstreet deaths are a statistic of the same quality as 'one in four women a victim of domestic violence '. Does anyone know what the true figures are ?

Entertaining contribution, BJ - please drop by again.

We've had two miscarriages before the end of month 3 - being a nurse Susan wasn't too flapped - "it's nature's way". Whether it was *quality of sperm* I'm not qualified to say.

Fulham Reactionary said...

Bridget Jones:

"This has to be one of the most hilarious bullshit indignant pieces for pro lifers to date. Way to go!"

As opposed to your own rambling diatribe, which may well be hilarious, bullshit, indignant, or a combination of all three, but which is for the most part so poorly written as to make an assessment of this point impossible.

However, one thing you said did make sense, albeit that it was sandwiched between the two most incomprehensible parts of your entire post:

"Will is keen to keep the key component in childbith alive and well eg women"

Quite right. It would indeed be stupid to create a situation where there were too few women, and Hutton is right (albeit hypocritical) in making this point. The demographic impact a few generations down the line could be enormous, since there simply would not be enough women to give birth to the next generation in sufficient numbers to keep the country running. We do need more women, in order to produce more people.

Having said that, is it not equally stupid to abort 6 million people, male or female? The demographic impact of that is pretty big too, isn't it? Since you express a quite reasonable concern for keeping the population going, don't you agree that we need to get serious in restricting abortion here, in order to guarantee that there are enough people here in the future to keep the country running?

Anonymous said...

Hey Bridget:

This one's for you!


Peter Briffa said...

Four years ago Hutton was rather down on the pro-lifers.,,868873,00.html

"This month sees the thirtieth anniversary of the Roe versus Wade judgment, which, in effect, legalised abortion. It is a continuing affront to a resurgent conservatism determined to use its intellectual, cultural and political ascendancy to restrict and reduce abortions. It is determined to mark the anniversary with a statement of legislative intent. The argument that has been won elsewhere in the West is here still contested, and again the same technique is employed. Anti-abortion lobbyists are shamelessly appointed to key federal commissions, so, beneath, the radar of what is, in any case, an impoverished public debate, gradual social gains are reversed, preparing the way for legislation to set the seal on the process".

Maybe, in HuttonWorld, dead American foetuses are cool whereas dead Chinese ones are not. Or something.

Anonymous said...

Laban, consult your Victimhood poker deck. The abortion victims in the UK will be mostly white and working class. In India they are mostly women and of an ethnic minority (though not, of course, a minority in their own country).

From this it is very easy to see why Hutton supports one and not the other.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 7:10pm has it right.

I wonder how long it is before a way is found for it to be our fault that the Indians (& Chinese) dont want girl babies.

Fulham Reactionary said...


"I wonder how long it is before a way is found for it to be our fault that the Indians (& Chinese) dont want girl babies."

We imposed our sexist patriarchal society upon them, during the evil colonialist period. Prior to that they all lived in a society based on degrees of equality and mutual respect that would warm the cockles of a Guardianista's heart.

The damage can only be undone by saying three Hail Gandhis, and repeatedly genuflecting before a statue of the Blessed Yasmin.

Anonymous said...

As a woman who campaigned for abortion in the 1970s, I have to say I am not quite as sure now as I was then.

One of the things Bridget Jones said reminded me of something that even made me uncomfortable then. Backstreet abortionists kill women. The story is patriarchial society prevents woman enjoying a right and hence woman are forced into a position where they are placed at the mercy of back street abortionists. Notice that nowhere in this story are the women free agents, they are forever, helpless victims of the whims of other people. They can't get contraception, they can't have the babies and give them up for adoption, they can't be held responsible for choosing to put their life in the hands of the back street abortionist.

This line of arument is very disempowering to women but during my youth I thought it a temporary but effective expedient. And it's not just the abortion argument where this strategy is deployed - eg The Beauty Myth. What I see now is women like Bridget Jones claiming to speak on behalf of her client group - they have made it a permanent condition.

Dangerouslysubversivedad said...

Gawd, its the backstreet abortionists argument again, as if wanting society to observe a really radical custom such as, ooooh I dont know, abortions only if the health of the mother is at risk is tantamount to sacrificing millions of poor Sisters on the bloodstained altar of misogyny.

Its really easy NOT to get pregnant you know Bridget. I'd have thought someone in your line of work would know about revolutionary bits of kit such as condoms, coils, spermicides, the Pill...and of course the time honoured favourite of *keeping your fucking legs closed if you mysteriously cant manage to avail yourself of any of the above*.

Anonymous said...

"Its odd because the people who came through the Depression and WW11 WANTED children but their own offspring do not."

Young couples can't afford a house, so they can't afford to fill a house with kids. If they have kids at all they can't afford to have too many as that would mean buying an even bigger house.

Anonymous said...

"The story is patriarchial society prevents woman enjoying a right "

Why is it a 'right'? If you do it yourself, abortion is a right, but what right does a woman have to make a clinician do it for her using modern day technology? Having access to food, shelter, basic health care etc might be "rights" but not abortion. Unless you think men should have the "right" to murder their wives?

Anyway, 10million women can't be wrong. But maybe they would have been happier if they hadn't found themselves in this situation in the first place? Just a thought...

Anonymous said...

ryan 2

I suggest you re-read my comment. I wrote down my understanding of the argument used to justify abortion and then my reasons for finding that argument problematic. I'm certainly no longer defending an absolute right to abortion on demand.

Anonymous said...

Ryan, Zoe was pointing up some of Bridgets dodgy arguments. Not defending them.


Squander Two said...

Underlying the Left's reasoning on this issue is something you see a lot of these days: a belief that it is not your own actions that are moral or immoral, but the actions of the crowd. One woman aborting one foetus is, obviously, not causing a nationwide shortage of females, and her abortion cannot therefore be judged to be good or bad on its own merits. It is only when you look at what all the other women are doing that you can decide whether her actions are moral. This is absurd.

See also the debate about whether to lock up violent criminals, based not on what they have done but on how many other criminals there are who have committed the same sort of crime and on how many criminals they lock up in France and Italy.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate that Zoe was not defending abortion, but the issue of why some people keep describing abortion as a "right" still interests me. I see no reason for making such a claim.

Anonymous said...

because you are not a woman ryan.

it would be fun seeing you get raped and pregnant.

Anonymous said...

*keeping your fucking legs closed if you mysteriously cant manage to avail yourself of any of the above*.

3:17 PM

Oh lovely.

Contraception has a failure rate. I know because i drew the short straw. Focus on giving women an alternative. Or dont. Because lets face it its easier to bang on about abortion than look at alternatives to provide a choice in these circumstances. Seriously though keep your legs closed coming from a bloke is hilarious and underlines the responsibility direction. Good to see its a wimmins issue. Keep it that way and you will keep the status quo.

Keep you penis zipped instead.

Thanks Bridget - please keep speaking for women like me :)