Abortion is a tragic choice no woman should have to make

Abortion is something so horrible it has to be described with euphemisms: ‘a woman’s right to control her own body’; ‘a woman’s right to control her reproductive choices’. But the most common is ‘a woman’s right to choose’.

Abortion is something so horrible it has to be described with euphemisms: ‘a woman’s right to control her own body’; ‘a woman’s right to control her reproductive choices’. But the most common is ‘a woman’s right to choose’.

The sentence is left incomplete: it is short for ‘a woman’s right to choose between a pregnancy she fears may destroy her financially or professionally, possibly even physically, and the killing of the baby in her womb.’

In other words, many if not most women who have abortions feel they have no choice. Overworked women with low incomes, unsupportive families, unsympathetic employers, no partners and/or existing children to care for may simply be unable to cope with a baby; nursery care in the UK is prohibitively expensive – on average around £50 per child under two per day in London.

Women may find their careers or education derailed by pregnancy. Not to mention the stigma attached to unplanned pregnancy, particularly for teenagers; this may literally be fatal for those whose relatives are of the ‘honour killing’ variety.

A woman-friendly society would readjust itself to support pregnant women and mothers, removing the shame of pregnancy and alleviating the burden of childcare.

And yet contemporary Britain despises fecund low-income women. When Mick and Mairead Philpott were convicted of killing their six children, conservatives from chancellor George Osborne to the Daily Mail seemed to feel the problem was not just that they had killed them but that they had had them in the first place.

Tory politicians such as Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith have suggested limiting child benefits to the first two children.

In a culture where children are viewed, not as the citizens and taxpayers of the future in whose support the current generation has a stake, but as a luxury to be supported only by parents prosperous enough to afford them without burdening the taxpayer, it is unsurprising that the extermination of unwanted babies through abortion is effectively encouraged.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, abortion was rightly viewed by almost all first-wave feminists as a terrible symptom of women’s oppression. According to Sylvia Pankhurst:

“It is grievous indeed that the social collectivity should feel itself obliged to assist in so ugly an expedient as abortion in order to mitigate its crudest evils. The true mission of society is to provide the conditions, legal, moral, economic and obstetric, which will assure happy and successful motherhood.”

It is a great coup for Moloch when the ugly expedient can be passed of as a ‘choice’ for which women should be grateful; still more when supposed feminists, instead of seeking to free women from it, celebrate it as their totem.

For some women – financially better off, with supportive family and employers – abortion might really be a ‘choice’. But it is a ‘choice’ whose exercise increases the burden for other women. If an unplanned baby is viewed not as the responsibility of both parents, but purely as the woman’s choice alone, it effectively absolves the father of any moral responsibility for it.

It also absolves society of the duty to support her. So abortion undermines women who don’t want it.

Our culture fetishises personal freedom, choice and self-gratification but despises concepts like duty and responsibility. So the idea that when two adults conceive a child through consensual sex, then find themselves faced with an accidental pregnancy, they should both take responsibility for the baby even if they didn’t want it, is not popular.

And it really is a baby: anyone who has seen an ultrasound scan of a twelve-week-old fetus and listened to its heartbeat, but still claims that it is merely a ‘clump of cells’ rather than a tiny human being, is in denial; turning their eyes and ears away from the evidence and clinging to an unscientific (libertarian, pseudo-feminist) dogma.

Dehumanising the unborn baby (‘fetus’) turns it into a disposable commodity with no value except as an extension of its parent’s desires, after which all liberal values go out the window. In the UK, an unborn baby after twenty-four weeks is legally protected from abortion – but not if it is disabled, in which case it can be legally killed right up to birth.

Thus in the UK, the overwhelming majority of unborn babies detected as having Down’s syndrome, spina bifida or cerebral palsy are aborted; even a ‘defect’ as minor and correctible as a cleft palate or a club foot can spell a baby’s doom.

This murderous discrimination is taking place in the country that indulged in an orgy of self-satisfaction last summer when it hosted the Paralympic Games.

In other countries, other groups are disproportionately killed off through abortion. In the US, as well as the poor and the disabled, it is Hispanic and particularly black babies. In India and China, it is baby girls: abortion is popular in both these extremely misogynistic societies, greatly contributing to their huge gender imbalances in favour of men over women.

Women, of course, have the right to control their own bodies. But it is questionable if this principle encompasses a procedure that in the UK is performed by largely male NHS doctors, paid for by largely male taxpayers. And for every body so ‘controlled’, another is destroyed or mutilated.

As a result of failed attempts to abort them, Gianna Jessen was born heavily disabled with cerebral palsy, Ana Rosa Rodriguez was born with her right arm missing, while Carrie Holland-Fischer was born with a facial disfigurement, as a result of which, she recalls, ‘society had labelled me as ugly and unacceptable. I was made fun of all during school, and even the teachers made fun of me.’

These women were at least lucky enough to survive.

Women who seek abortions are victims of a society that does not respect them or their babies; they should not be stigmatised or treated as criminals. But let us stop pretending that this ongoing bloody tragedy is a manifestation of their emancipation.

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

75 Responses to “Abortion is a tragic choice no woman should have to make”

  1. GO

    “What horrendous, eugenicist, bigoted anti-disabled views you hold, poorly hidden behind the veneer of ‘choice’.”

    This just beggars belief.

    Far from using a ‘veneer’ of choice to make her position look more palatable, Catriona has expressed a position that genuinely has as its starting point the belief that women have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Everything else she says – e.g. that women have the right to abort disabled fetuses without being shamed or made to feel guilty – follows from that.

    Your position, on the other hand, takes as its starting point the belief that fetuses are human beings towards whom we – and the parents especially – have huge moral responsibilities. Women who have abortions, you say, are ‘killing their babies’. The practice of abortion is ‘murderous’. Women should ‘take responsibility’ for their babies even if they’re unwanted. Any woman who thinks it’s morally permissible to abort a disabled fetus because of concerns about that potential child’s quality of life, or the impact of a disabled child on their family, is an anti-disabled bigot.

    But you don’t think this murderous practice should be *prohibited*. You don’t think anti-disabled bigots should be *stigmatized* if they choose to kill their babies. Oh no. “Women, of course, have the right to control their own bodies.”

    Now *that* is a ‘veneer of choice’.

  2. Marko Attila Hoare

    I take it then that you have no problem with a woman aborting a fetus because it has the ‘wrong’ gender or skin colour ? And that you have no problem with the sort of sex-selective abortions widely practiced in India and China in order to kill off unwanted baby girls ?

    Or do you consider disability the only legitimate grounds for discrimination ?

  3. Catriona Sharp

    No. I believe in families making practical choices that suit the society we live in. My parents made that decision because they did not want to burden my sister. I think the choice to go ahead with a pregnancy knowing that the child is severely disabled is a courageous one, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right for every family or every child. If you were pregnant knowing your child would never mature beyond the mental age of one, would never think independently, would never experience anything but either a care facility or your desperate and possibly inadequate attempts to care for them, would you seriously want that for your child?

    Right so you care about foetuses more than women. *slow clap* Guess that’s my place in society decided.

    I find it really fucking hilarious that you seriously think you have a right to preach to women about their reproductive choices. Check your privilege.

  4. Catriona Sharp

    I note you haven’t chosen to address the fact that you’re preaching highly disputed and controversial research as fact. But then again, I suppose you as a man get to define what’s true and what’s not, just like you, as a man, get to define what’s moral for a woman to do with her own body.

    Again, check your privilege.

  5. GO

    There is a genuine debate about the rights and wrongs of sex selective abortion among people who share a basic belief in a woman’s right to choose. See here, for instance:


    I’m not going to get into the nuts and bolts of the arguments here, and I don’t mind admitting I’m on the fence. Still, two points:

    1 – it’s certainly not *obvious* that having the right to choose whether or not to carry a baby to term entails having the right to choose to carry only a baby of a preferred sex to term. (Is it obvious that my having the right to decide whether to donate blood or organs entails my having the right to decide that they can only be used for the benefit of people of some preferred sex, colour, sexuality, etc.? Surely not.)

    2 – while being female (say) might be a Bad Thing in the eyes of a particular person or even a whole society, plainly it’s not a Bad Thing in itself. Being disabled *is* a Bad Thing in itself, though, or so we usually think – hence our attempts, as a society, to prevent, cure or treat the conditions responsible for disability where possible, and to mitigate the negative effects of disability where not (e.g. through the provision of guide dogs and wheelchairs). So there’s a glaring disanalogy between abortion on the basis of sex and abortion on the basis of disability.

    Mea culpa: I averted my eyes from the complexities here with that rather glib statement about how ‘everything else follows’ from the simple principle that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body. Plausibly at least, it is not as simple as that and there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to have an abortion.

  6. Marko Attila Hoare

    ‘Check your privilege’

    Says the person enjoying all the privileges that come from having been born alive and without disability, as she argues in favour of killing off the disabled unborn.

  7. Catriona Sharp

    Christ almighty. Says the Oxbridge educated man who has never and will never have to experience the panic of a pregnancy of a child that he has no way of caring for and that could ruin both foetus and his lives. I have no idea where you think your right to judge women on reproductive choices comes from. I’d be curious to know.

    A woman doesn’t want an abortion like she wants a new washing machine or a holiday, a woman wants an abortion like an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw it’s own leg off.

    THIS is why I get really fucking pissed off when men try and preach to me about abortion. Fine. Tell us all about your utopian society in which no woman ever has to consider abortion (though you conveniently look over the fact that many women just don’t want children, just like many men don’t, unfortunately our biology makes it a bit tougher for us to just walk away) but don’t judge the women who are making that choice now in this society.

  8. Marko Attila Hoare

    I don’t have any right to judge women ‘on reproductive choices’. I made clear in my article: ‘Women who seek abortions are victims of a society that does not respect them or their babies; they should not be stigmatised or treated as criminals.’ I do however have a right to judge a society that puts women in such a position.

    As you rightly say: ‘a woman wants an abortion like an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw it’s own leg off.’ That is precisely the point I was making. Upholding a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion makes as much sense as upholding an animal’s ‘right’ to gnaw its own leg off when it’s caught in a trap. The point is to get rid of all the traps so it doesn’t have to gnaw its own leg off, not to institutionalise and celebrate the leg-gnawing.

    In fact, any man with a sense of responsibility can feel the panic of an unwanted pregnancy; an ethical man will not abandon a woman he has got pregnant, though he may not have the means to care for the baby either. Viewing an existing pregnancy purely in terms of the woman’s ‘choice’ does however make it easier for a less ethical man to walk away, as he can claim it is nothing to do with him.

  9. Catriona Sharp

    You might want to move away from language like “murderous” then. In using language like that you are shaming and possibly triggering women who have been through an ordeal that you will never experience and I hope with all my heart I never will.

    You have manipulated statistics (foetal pain at 20 weeks – hotly debated, by no means a recognised fact) and this lack of concern for truth, this selectivity in your use of studies betrays a desire to get an emotional reaction from women and essentially shame them into continuing with pregnancies which may destroy them.

    Right, well, women are making these choices based on the society that they are in. Accusing me of being a disablist eugenicist because I recognise that in this culture many women make that very reasonable choice in a horrendous situation is completely hysterical. I’m afraid I don’t see a world without traps any time soon, and our rights must be protected until that world exists. Even the most effective of contraceptives can fail. And despite your clear passion for the rights of the disabled, surely you can recognise that for some severely brain damaged or mutated unborn, abortion is genuinely kinder than a short life full of excrutiating pain.

    I agree that for a man who is invested it is difficult, but you cannot claim that he is truly trapped in the way the woman in that situation is. I feel uncertain about including the man so completely in the decision to abort, he should be a part yes, but at the end of the day he will not have to bear the full psychological, emotional and physical trauma of a pregnancy. I believe men can empathise, but empathising is not the same as being trapped in that body. There are things that happen in men’s lives that I can empathise with, but never truly understand. I do not seek to control the choices men make on those issues (not that I’d ever have the opportunity, yay for patriarchy), I’m afraid this is one of the issues that men cannot control or seek to control.We have to trust women to make these decisions for ourselves, lest we infantilise womenand discredit our status as equals any more than society already does.

  10. carryinthefire

    Why do the people opposed to the argument (GO, AM Clare etc) in this piece find it so disagreeable? Because it is the uncomfortable and unspeakable truth? If a parent responsible for a disabled child for example decided to kill them because it interfered with their social life or ability to make money they would face a murder charge and much opprobrium. So euphemisms are used instead. People make cold, cruel, calculating choices all the time. If you made someone the proposition that they would get one million pounds if a person unrelated and unknown to them was killed by some anonymous agency and that no one would ever know their decision, I suspect a lot of people would be tempted. Abortion strikes me like that. A classic example of reductio ad absurdum but logically valid…except if you can convince people (especially yourself) that the unborn child is a fetus(sp?) and not an eligible human. It is refreshing to see an article like this in a left wing publication – there seems to be a rule that lefties have to be woman’s choice and can’t be pro-life but actually the two are very compatible.

  11. Ross

    I would be against the whole use of the word ‘natural’ in any discussion that involves sex or fertility. Our bodies don’t spontaneously reproduce themselves, like self-fertilisation and we don’t actually have small brains in our genitalia. We have to make a choice who to pair up with, whether that be for primitive physical reasons or more intelligent higher brain-function reasons or a combination – and we will make mistakes. If a woman finds herself attracted to the idea of mating with a 14 year old boy, that is possible according to nature, but that doesn’t make the decision ‘natural’ and thereby the law a regulation of ‘nature’ – there is still some sort of decision to be made as to whether an instinct can be trusted or not, even before the moral issues that crop up. If any fertility is deemed ‘natural’ we would also have to conclude that the increasing sperm infertility of modern men is also ‘natural’ and nothing to be concerned by, despite the fact that it does not appear to associated with any particular genetic traits that would be undesirable in future generations, but rather environmental factors in the womb and beyond e.g. the inactivity of the modern lifestyle. Cause and effect is natural, and that’s about it – if you eat, you will shit. There’s nothing inherently ‘natural’ about anything an individual human chooses to do. I seem to recall fascist speeches from the 1920s and 30s often referred to what was ‘natural’ – its the kind of vague concept that can fill any void and absolves people of responsibility for their actions. More recent political movements have also misused the idea of natural in relation to the male and female contraception drugs – e.g. the idea that it’s ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’ to have much more sex than previous generations because supposedly our body is telling us to, therefore we need powerful hormonal drugs to convert our bodies into the pleasure devises that our sex drives need them to be, ‘naturally’. Any large scale political intervention in private sexual behavior is loaded with some sort of agenda to direct people towards some perceived better world or more stable status quo. The level of divorce, infidelity, STD’s and depression in the countries that have easy access to contraceptive and sexual performance drugs should tell us that what we have moved towards is no more ‘natural’ than religious repressal of sex in the past. The pharmaceutical industry has resorted to lobbying psychiatrists to invent sexual disfunctions so they can sell fem-viagras to women for the sex they are ‘entitled’ to expect ‘naturally’, It is true that the first people who get hit by the worse effects of social experiments in industrialised countries are often poorer communities due to the learning of lessons through experience rather than education (which is deliberately devalued in those parts of society in order to maintain a status quo). If maleness or femaleness is concerned with the ability to choose as an individual whether you feel the need to reproduce, in a sense these things are under threat – there have never been so many organisations and conferences as in the last decade concerning population control justified by environmental problems – some of these utopian intellectuals would resort to any propagandist means to achieve their ends, which may involve decoupling the idea of femininity from motherhood in some contexts i.e. in Africa, although I don’t detect a unified message globally – in developed countries the emphasis is more on control and planning rather than outright limits. In Israel we see one of the most blatant and disturbing example of why govt, should not interfere with fertility – the long term contraceptive injection given to the majority of Ethiopian Jewish women, but only a tiny percentage of ‘white’ Jews.There does seem to be a pattern of birth rates being inversely proportional to economic development, a hopeful pattern if it is considered that a fairer system of world trade would mean a less erratic and extreme variation of birth rates – but positive effects of this pattern are cancelled out when corporations and governments endorse hormonal contraception and pregnancy cancellation as means of sexual expression and choice, rather than simply one of a number of options which should be used sparingly, not least because of the health risks involved in repeated use of either. The comment about comparing femaleness to a ‘XX Syndrome’ is not just a sweeping generalisation – it also assumes that most governments with an abortion policy of some sort have the same concept of femaleness – in fact they are not driven by a one particular form of sexism – they will define femininity in whatever way suites the particular agenda of that time. So, we could again easily experience a period like the 50s of promoting the idea that femininity equals realised motherhood – that may be happening now in some sense with the obsession with celebrity babies and pregnancies such as the Duchess of Cambridge. Any sort of attempt to pigeonhole femininity as one thing should be treated with suspicion. If everyone is well educated in the consequences of sexual choices, most individuals will make relatively sensible decisions for themselves and the small number that have serious psychological problems can be helped by a NHS – the current British approach doesn’t seem to be about a free choice but rather, if you fit the model of affluent informed parents then you are encouraged at the cost of the tax-payer and if you go to the NHS with any doubts or woes then counselors will tend to discourage giving birth. In other words, there is a patronising tendency rather than encouraging people to take responsibility for their own actions one way or the other – in particular, the fathers. In the meantime, doctors and nurses find themselves doing some things which will disturb and haunt them for the rest of their lives, perhaps just as much if not more than the patients.

  12. Ross

    While I don’t really agree with the author of the article, surely ’emancipation’, as you put it would consist of a state of being whereby you didn’t have to worry about having an abortion, rather than ‘on-demand’ abortions? i.e. the answer is in prevention of the situation arising through education and alternatives, rather than being dismissive of the fact that many people find abortions, particularly large numbers of them in one country, fairly disturbing and a sign of some sort of general moral decay in both genders? I would never want to prevent any woman who felt she needed an abortion from having the operation, however there’s a big difference between saying that and presenting it positively as a good option in family-planning/fertility (which in turn influences young women long before they face the rather more grim reality). What’s emancipated about a society where many women resort to protection free sex with men that care nothing for them and employment with companies that actively discriminate against their choice if it is in the affirmative? It’s a bit like saying, ‘Would you like shot quickly or drowned slowly?’ It worries me that abortion is presented as either a form of contraception by ‘pro-life’ or a legitimate ‘choice’ of every woman – I can’t see it as either of those. Statistically, the vast majority of abortions appear not to be rapes or to avoid the birth of a seriously disabled child, meaning the main reason behind them is that the father is basically such a bastard and the woman’s opportunities so crappy that rearing a child has zero appeal. That’s pretty depressing for our society whatever way you look at it. If men have no intention of being fathers, why don’t they get a vasectomy in their 20’s? Or why don’t young women have their ovaries removed and eggs stored? Or as a bare minimum at least ensure the correct usage of a condom or other contraceptive or morning after pill? It appears that there is some sort of desire to have children in most, but when presented with the reality of it, something is making it deeply unappealing. And many assume that this is a free choice mainly influenced by the aspirations of the mother – that’s a big assumption. What if, it was more like, women felt pressured into aborting by the apathy or discouragement of those around them – that would not be so ‘liberating’, would it? In fact, it could be seen as simply another form of misogyny. There’s little doubt that some political groups love to try and form all manner of theories around the totemic single mother on child benefit – why is that the only grim option presented as a vision of young motherhood? As if they were the ones too ‘stupid’ to get an abortion, as some would see it?

  13. Ross

    Equally, are you spelling out the view that fetuses are non-humans? In what way are they not humans? They are at least potential humans or primitive humans, are they not? There is little doubt that a fetus of over 20 weeks must have some perception of distress and pain – so are we really saying that we don’t care about that, essentially because the fetus cannot answer back or tell us that they are in pain? So then, by extension, we could perform medical experiments on mentally retarded people because they are not able to object, right? Being uncaring about the death of a fetus may not be murder as such, but it’s not far off, and I find the suggestion that the normalising of that behavior does not have some social effect on people’s sexual behavior is highly unlikely. We could read differing statistical reports on that over the next 50 years and it would still not change the basic logic of the argument – it is surely wise to take a precautionary principle when it comes to the value of genetically human lifeforms.

  14. Ross

    Whether or not a fetus is ‘human’ is not really the heart of the debate – the main issue is when is it justifiable to end human life. If someone is running at me with an axe and wants to kills me, I would probably be justified in using fatal force to defend myself – that would not be murder. If a person has no brain activity or chance of recovery and we remove them from life support, that would not be murder. If a woman takes a pill which uses her hormones to prevent the full fertilsation of an egg, only nutcases would regard that as murder. However, when you deliberately refuse to consider the formation of a primitive human lifeform in the womb, then at some random point that suites you, decide that you no longer wish your body to support the body of that other lifeform – that is less clear – it’s certainly not a ‘necessary’ killing. This is why I am somewhat worried by the repeated use of the word ‘choice’. While civil rights and choice are related, I don’t see any reason why a right to choose should be absolute, unquestionable and supreme to everything. It is a basic socialist principle that the rights afforded to some individuals to ‘choose’ can deny other people opportunities and rights in some situations, or have some detrimental effect on the choices of the wider community. If you have a child and choose you don’t want it, someone will take it – but you must go through the proper channels – it is right that you should be prosecuted if you just dump a baby in a bin (which actually happened to a boy I went to school with – he has had problems with arthritis and brittle bones ever since). Unquestioned abortion on demand is the moral equivalent of dumping a mentally retarded baby in bin.

  15. Ross

    morally or ethically, I cannot see any major difference between terminating a late stage disabled child, regardless of the disability, and allowing it to be born then shooting it or smothering it (as was practiced in Nazi Germany). What is the difference? The child is conscious, it feels, it experiences – it has perhaps somewhat limited intelligence, but is still considerably more intelligent and aware than an animal in most cases. So the real difference is in that the parents don’t have to face the horrific image of the act. Only 12 were based on cleft pallet only, but how many on other non-fatal disabilities. This is where ‘choice’ hits it limit for me – that should be a decision made by a medical professional, not the unqualified and potentially irrational decision of parents. And in a world where some people do want to try and control the appearance or gender of their child, I don’t think that’s being unfair to all parents.

  16. Ross

    He’s preaching to you about what you do with a fetuses body – the fact that it’s connected to yours is incidental in his argument. I don’t agree with his argument, but its better that these views are expressed and discussed rather than suppressed. Are you preaching to him about what he can type with his own fingers? And why would being a woman/ potential mother/aborter give you a greater capacity for moral or legal judgements that affect everybody? That’s like saying, I have a penis therefore only people like me should get to decide on laws concerning sperm donation. Logic?

  17. Ross

    I wouldn’t say your piece is equivalent to straight up homophobia, however you are cloaking your message in familiar propaganda – it would be much more honest if you just started the piece with a message saying that you support groups X, Y and Z (e.g. the Northern Irish parliament) rather than pretending you are just a concerned individual. You support your opinions with reference mainly to other supposedly authoritative opinions – where as at least some of the activists on here have attempted to concentrate on stats. The suggestion that you are concealing your agenda is further supported by the fact that you are an expert on former communist nations and are then attempting to lump in all socialist view points with brutal communist regimes – very similar to the way that an anti-abortion mainstream politicians in America would do, to try and raise people’s anti-red sentiment. If it was not for certain socialist ideas, very few women would now have any choice on this matter, so it is disingenuous to then suggest you are merely trying to ask for moderation and informed choice – many women in Northern Ireland don’t have that option. As far as I am concerned, the scientific case is that it is medically and socially better for fetus, mother and society if unwanted pregnancy is dealt with at the contraceptive or termination stage rather than a later stage and NHS policy should emphasise the medical profession’s preference for this, while not excluding the legal civil right to an abortion as last resort at the insistence of the mother. Abortion, the medical procedure, is not the social evil itself any more than any other sad situation which the NHS has to deal with: It is the reasons which create the situation where it becomes seemingly necessary that are the main ethical and moral problem – your argument places far to much emphasis on what to do when the fetus has already developed (as if you are willing people to give birth regardless, in the same manner as some evangelicals) i.e. trying to persuade women to incubate adoption children (as happened in Australia in the 60s to disastrous effect) or live in some sort of government prescribed nuclear family. In a democracy, it is not a governments place to chastise or pressurise women in this paternalistic way, but rather to ensure the facilities and information to prevent the situation from arising are readily available – the only sort of consensus that will ever be practically achievable in this regard. You should note that while abortions have risen in the UK in recent years (against the trend of countries with better sex education like Holland), birth rate has also risen in the UK – so the issue is not that people are becoming more totalitarian about the humanity of a fetus or the desire to be parents, but rather they are disconnecting the idea of child rearing from stable relationships and community, which has the unintended side effect of more irresponsible family planning and treatment of children as possessions to be desired or rejected. You can see this also in the way that children and motherhood is ‘marketed’ as a lifestyle choice in our magazines and TV, rather than just a normal everyday process by which communities regenerate themselves – something which we must plan for and integrate into the modern bi-gender work environment as they do in places like Denmark and Norway.

  18. bluedog

    I love both of you, whoever you are 🙂

  19. Marko Attila Hoare

    It turns out ‘Unity Ministry’ doesn’t actually support a woman’s right to control
    her own body or make her own reproductive choices – see this article by her in
    support of forced caesarians and forced adoptions, full of sexist, Victorian- sounding references to ‘this unfortunate woman’, made in relation to a woman whose rights and whose body were brutally violated by the state:

    ‘That said, the point already made about this unfortunate woman’s mental state at the time remains entirely valid. There is nothing the least bit odd about not asking the woman whether she wanted the delivery of her child to undertaken by caesarian section or not if she was no fit state make such a decision or, most especially, if there was a substantial risk that any such discussion might actually make her condition even worse than it already was.’


    To which one might reply: ‘it smacks of “let’s pat the poor dears on the
    head they don’t really know what they’re doing” rather than accepting that
    women are fully independent moral agents with the capacity to make their own
    rational choices.‘

    So if a woman actually wants to give birth to her baby as she chooses, and to
    mother it – as opposed to having it killed – then Unity is fine with her choices being denied by the state. From the systematic extermination of disabled babies to the disenfranchising of ‘unfortunate women’ – it’s eugenics and state tyranny in the name of ‘care’.

  20. unity_ministry

    Really, Marko is that the best you can do?

    A pathetic and intellectually dishonest ad-hominem based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the context of my remarks on the so-called ‘forced c-section’ case in which the woman capacity to act as an independent moral agent and make her own rational choices was, to say the least, significantly compromised by her having been admitted to a psychiatric hospital in the grip of a psychotic episode in which she was experiencing intrusive paranoid delusions?

    As should be entirely obvious from that last statement, and from the full article to which Marko links, there are very specific reasons why the woman in this case was unfortunately deemed to incapable of making decisions in her own interests, reasons that are quite simply not applicable to the wider debate surrounding women’s choices in relation to abortion, not least because the state plays no part whatsoever in such decisions.

    As such, Marko is simply outing himself here as yet another run of the mill anti-abortion zealot, not that that wasn’t already obvious from the OP.

  21. Marko Attila Hoare

    On the contrary, it is Unity who has outed herself as the
    promoter of an extreme-conservative agenda of eugenics and social control. A couple of generations ago, it was entirely possible for a woman to be labelled as ‘mad’ or ‘morally unfit’ simply for being single and pregnant out of wedlock, and maybe to be confined to an asylum for decades or have her baby shipped off to Australia. Today, if people like Unity can’t shame or manipulate the ‘wrong’ sort of women – poor, single, teenage, disabled, ‘mad’ – into having abortions, they might still be able to take their babies away. Acting in the women’s own ‘best interests’, of course !

    Stealing babies from ‘unfortunate women’; supporting sex-selective abortions; condemning viable unborn babies to death because they have cleft palates – that’s the Unity Ministry world of ‘choice’ and ‘women’s rights’. A world where the ‘responsible’ thing to do with a child you can’t care for is to kill it.

  22. unity_ministry

    I think it fair to say, that you can fuck off because I really don’t care to continue plumbing the depths of your dishonesty.

    As ever, when push come to shove and anti-activists find that cannot win the argument because the evidence simply doesn’t support their position, they resort to desperate smears and lying about their opponent’s views.

    I much have better things to do than engage with your infantile PRATTing and desperate efforts to project your own reactionary values onto others.

  23. Marko Attila Hoare

    That’s fine, because I’m really not interested in debating with you, but just in exposing your reactionary political agenda.

  24. Marko Attila Hoare

    It appears I owe unity_ministry an apology for confusing him with a woman. According to Iain Dale’s Guide to Political Blogging in the UK, ‘The Ministry of Truth is the online home of Unity, a globally renowned wit, raconteur, international playboy and congenital liar’.

    My apologies, Unity.


  25. Leftist media trolling sucks

    Oh look the LEFT is trolling its own people again. Isn’t that cute? This troll media shit is extremely tired and pathetic.

Leave a Reply