Today I will do something I haven’t ever done before. Well, I have checked articles for accuracy from a small variety of sources. But nothing from Breitbart, the now infamous favored platform of president #45’s administration.
Let us begin.
Women should be able to abort their babies simply because they are the “wrong” sex, a leading ethicist at Britain’s doctors’ union has said.
Professor Wendy Savage, a member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association, said women should be able to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy for whatever reason, even when the child would be able to survive outside of the womb.
She also said that abortion pills should be available online without the need to see a doctor or nurse.
I am curious as to what is entailed by this vague term.
The first thing that comes to mind is the morning after pill. Is this what they mean? I know people that have found themselves needing to fetch the pill after a night of “Shit happens!”. I’m sure most of us can relate in some way.
As for pills that work further into the pregnancy, I think that at least a doctor visit would be advisable. But I would not mandate it. The responsibility is fully on those involved with the situation, after all.
There has been growing concern in Britain that an increasing number of women are seeking abortions simply because they do not want girls, leading to some hospitals refusing to tell parents the sex of their babies.
However, Professor Savage told the Mail on Sunday: “Because of this sort of anxiety some places won’t tell the woman the sex of the foetus, which is outrageous.
“It’s her body and her foetus, so she should have that information… If a woman does not want to have a foetus who is one sex or the other, forcing her [to go through with the pregnancy] is not going to be good for the eventual child, and it’s not going to be good for [the mother’s] mental health.”
I agree. Though that is indeed a controversial stance to have . . . it shouldn’t be.
To put it another way, if you are looking into getting a pet and have a dislike for dogs for whatever reason, are you going to love and cherish that dog as much as you would a cat (if that were your true preference)?
Indeed, you will likely learn to love the pet none the less (so the cliche goes). But even so, there may well still be a nagging sense of dissatisfaction, possibly even eventual hostility. Call it horrible all you want from your high horse . . . its not like going to a restaurant and being stuck with a food you don’t like because they are out of your preference. Its more like your 2ed choice is all that is going to be available for at least 2 decades MINIMUM.
To ignore the fact that this may well lead to drastic measures is frankly, to bury your head in the sand. Not to mention that this does not necessarily make abortion the only option available. However, one should not be chastised if this (sex selection) is the main reason for such a decision.
In terms of ethics of medical procedures, its almost hilarious that THIS issue would still be so polarizing. Were moving into an age of potential designer babies. Think about that . . . you might be able to CONTROL many (if not all) characteristics of your future children.
A common argument against abortion is “they do not have a say”.
One should note that suicide is generally also frowned upon in our culture (WHICH IS IT?!), but I digress.
The argument will remain the same (“They do not have a choice!”). But the context will shift from Life V. Death, to . . . gay or straight, male or female, athletic or not, intelligent or not, white or other.
I may be an outlier, but personally, THESE questions are/should be of much more importance than “abort or not abort”. With one, the organism never developed in ANY way into anything even close to a person, so nothing is known. And if nothing is known, then nothing is lost!
With the other, you could have a developed person with a dissatisfaction in who they are. Yes, that is common even now. But the big difference is no one is directly blameworthy with the genetic lottery.
If it was the result of parental influence on the other hand . . . a COMPLETELY different story. This could potentially tear families apart.
If people are this bent out of shape over just the abortion question . . . boy do they have a shock in store.
She previously caused outrage after signing a letter claiming sex-selective abortion is not “gender discrimination” because that only applies to “living people”.
She then doubled down on those views, claiming the unborn child is not really a person.
“The foetus is a potential human life at that stage [in the womb]; it is not an actual human life… I think you’ve got to concentrate on the [rights of the] woman.”
Gotta say, I like this women. She has balls.
Pro-life campaigners have branded her comments “utterly abhorrent”, with Conservative MP Mark Field saying: “To have someone like Wendy Savage with her extreme views at the heart of the BMA is a very worrying sign. The majority of people in this country, even those who support abortion, think sex-selective abortion is a step too far.”
“Effectively we have abortion on demand nowadays, and all the safeguards we are supposed to have are being ridden roughshod over,” he added.
For starters, if many hospitals refuse to reveal the sex of the child as a policy, no, the safegaurds that are a joke to begin with, are not being run roughshod over.
But more importantly, what the majority thinks . . . is irrelevant. Most people are idiots. Easily distracted by flashy and jarring information that makes sense on its face, but falls apart after even minor scrutiny.
In conclusion . . . Really?! That’s it?!
This is more anti-climactic than ordering a Bieber blowup doll and receiving a Trump one instead.