Ethics & Morality

Amendment to Serious Crime Bill could abolish sex-selective abortion

Last November, MPs voted by 181:1 in favour of Fiona Bruce’s Abortion (Sex-Selection) Bill, the aim of which was to clarify the Abortion Act 1967 and specifically outlaw abortion on the grounds of foetal absence of the Y-chromosome. You would think that this virtual Commons unanimity might guarantee the Bill safe passage onto the statute books, but it appears that the views of the one MP who voted against (Labour’s Glenda Jackson MP) are so entrenched in our abortion culture that there is little appetite on either front bench to guarantee sufficient parliamentary time – either before or after the General Election. Thus the women who are silenced will remain so. Those that have no choice will continue to have none. Those ethnic minorities who are subject to subtle coercion and physical abuse will continue to be so. Glenda Jackson would have it no other way.

While the Prime Minister and Department of Health are clear that “abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal”, they are flatly contradicted by the British Medical Association and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, who between them represent the vast majority of those who work in the sector. This is despite numerous clear ministerial statements and new Government guidance reiterating the illegality of the practice. The Government’s view is therefore reduced to mere interpretation.

The Serious Crime Bill currently making its way through Parliament seeks to outlaw Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) – a manifest gender-specific mutilation which enlightened society must repudiate and eradicate. The Bill thereby offers a creative opportunity in which sex-selective abortion – the manifestly discriminatory destruction of baby girls – might also be eradicated. After all, why should Parliament be concerned to protect female genitalia in esse if the possession of such genitalia in utero might be considered acceptable if not lawful grounds for termination?

At the conclusion of the Committee Stage of the Serious Crime Bill, Fiona Bruce MP tabled an amendment which is based upon her Abortion (Sex-Selection) Ten Minute Rule Bill. In total, 73 MPs have signed this amendment. It concerns Part 5 Section 65 of the Bill (which deals with crimes which have a disproportionate effect on girls), clarifying succinctly that: “Nothing in Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 allows a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child.” If this amendment is selected for debate at Report Stage in February, the Abortion (Sex-Selection) Amendment will be voted upon. If it wins the vote, it will become law when the Serious Crime Bill passes Third Reading. Speaking about the amendment, Fiona Bruce said:

“The amendment has two aims. First to oblige the Government to think of ways to support women who are under pressure to abort on grounds of the sex of their baby. Second, to consolidate current law, which is necessary to prevent false information being distributed to women. Still today, BPAS, Britain’s biggest abortion provider, insists that sex-selective abortion is not illegal. We must battle the prejudices which give rise to the abhorrent practice of sex-selective abortion. It would be wrong to look the other way as women and girls continue to suffer.”

Mary Glindon MP said:

“If opposing the abortion of baby girls – often under coercion – makes me anti-choice, then I will wear the label with pride.”

Jasvinder Sanghera CBE, founder and CEO of Karma Nirvana and spokeswoman for said:

“Sex-selective abortion is a reality in the UK. This is widely known in diaspora communities and beyond. The Government has a responsibility both to women suffering under cultural pressures and to their baby girls.”

FGM is an abhorrent repression of feminine identity, but sex-selective abortion is the first act of violence against females. This amendment is not a matter of ‘Pro-life’ vs ‘Pro-choice’: it is a matter of equality and justice which has united MPs from all parties and, pace Glenda Jackson, affiliated both sides of the House in a common cause. As the Independent notes:

..statistical analysis of data from the 2011 National Census has shown widespread discrepancies in the sex ratio of children in some immigrant families, which can only be easily explained by women choosing to abort female foetuses in the hope of becoming quickly pregnant again with a boy.

Before we permit the cultural norms of the Indian subcontinent to corrupt our understanding of prenatal gender parity with enlightened-sounding practices such as ‘family balancing’, we must consider the pernicious message this sends out not only to our own women, but also to those nations which routinely commit their baby girls to the gutter streams of human excrement to rot with the vomit of depraved humanity.

Please visit to register your support for this crucial amendment, and help to spread the word. Please ask you MP to support it. Time is very much of the essence.

  • Dominic Stockford

    I am uncomfortable with the use of the word ‘diaspora’ by Jasvinder Sanghera.

    Though not as uncomfortable as with the views of Mrs Jackson, or she Miss? They are utterly shocking. People vote for her!? I am amazed.

    • avi barzel

      I’m guessing it’s Ms Jackson 🙂

  • Anton

    If you believe that abortion is not evil then you won’t mind whether it is selective of not; Glenda Jackson is at least being consistent, although I would very much like to know if she explained her reasons for voting as she did.

    I recall a dry comment by Vishal Mangalwadi, a Christian from India, that in the old days newborn girls were simply put out to die, whereas today technology has improved things no end…

  • Dreadnaught

    A worthy inclusion. Signed.

  • Doctor Crackles

    Surely by signing the petition one is agreeing to abortion in principle?

    • What petition? Surely by not supporting this amendment one is asserting that laws which seek to mitigate evil have no merit, and that only laws which are sure to eradicate evil have virtue?

      • avi barzel

        Surely, though, Your Grace, by supporting this amendment, one is then asserting that only one (as it happens a politically fashionable one) reason is evil and all other ones…say wrong race, eye colour, unfavourable position of the planets, long ago-planned vacation, interference with one’s sex life, threatened career path and whatnot…are virtuous? Still, those who stand for limits on abortion might favour such a legislation strategically, as it would provide the first stake into the heart of the “my body, my choice” doctrine.

        • James Bolivar DiGriz

          “Surely … by supporting this amendment, one is then
          asserting that only one … reason is evil and all other ones … are virtuous?”
          There is no ‘surely’ about that idea. It may be your interpretation but it is not mine.

          If there are 10 allowed grounds for someone to do something that I believe to be wrong and I can get one of those grounds removed from the statue book, then surely it is a good thing to do that. Especially if the only other option is to leave all 10 in place.

          Should I refrain from diminishing evil if I cannot prevent it in totality?

          • avi barzel

            I make no recommendations, Mr DiGriz, and I did actually provide an “on the other hand” argument. I also had the situation in my country, Canada, in mind. We have no legislation or amendments limiting abortion; it’s theoretically left up to the physician and the abortion provider which, in practical terms, means unlimited abortion rights. However, the issue of sex-selected abortions is severely taxing the pro-abortion side which rightly sees this as a Pandora’s Box.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            I did not say that made any recommendations so I really don’t understand why you want to deny having made any.

            Making an “on the other hand” argument seems, to me at least, a bit pointless if the ‘on the one hand’ argument does not hold water.

            “We have no legislation or amendments limiting abortion;” So you might not be aware (at least as far as I understand it) that the starting point is that all abortion is illegal in Great Britain[1] (under the Offences against the Person Act 1861).

            Exceptions to that ban were introduced by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (which allowed for an abortion to save the mother’s life) and the Abortion Act 1967.

            So in a rather ‘patchwork’ legal situation, introducing another ‘patch’ is what is most likely to happen.

            1. To confuse matters further, the law in Northern Ireland is different. More restrictive but I do not know the details.

            “the issue of sex-selected abortions is severely taxing the pro-abortion side”
            Were the subject not so grim, the irony would be rather amusing.

          • avi barzel

            Your question/challenge, “should I refrain from diminishing evil if I cannot prevent it in totality? suggests that I have stated a position.
            My on the “other hand” argument, that limitations on sex-selective abortions will provide a wedge precedent is hardly pointless. If nothing else, you seem to have acknowledged the irony behind it.
            I’m not a lawyer and won’t get into the particularities of your legal situation in your country, but the fundamental flaw behind this approach, as I see it, is the selective nature of the amendment. A selective law designed to curb a selective practice…now there’s another irony for you. That is not justice. In principle, it is no different (Godwin Law alert) from abortion legislation in Nazi Germany, which banned abortion among “Aryan” Germans, but allowed it and even forcibly implemented it against the disabled and the “lesser races.” Of course, the situation is different, but the principle of selective protection for a special class is the same.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            “suggests that I have stated a position”
            Phrasing your reply the way that you did (Surely … by supporting this amendment …) reads as a statement of position.

            “My on the “other hand” argument … is hardly pointless”
            I did not say that it is. I said that putting it as contrast to an unsustainable argument is pointless. Context is important. A point that you seem to miss more generally.

            “If nothing else, you seem to have acknowledged the irony behind it.” No, I mentioned the irony of a different point that you made in a different post.

            “I’m not a lawyer and won’t get into the particularities of your legal situation in your country, but the fundamental flaw behind this approach”
            I am sorry but that is a very silly position. In order to see what is possible and what is not you have to understand the context, i.e. “the particularities of [the] legal situation in” Great Britain.

            If there was to be change in abortion legislation in 1966 then the most sensible option was a root and branch reform. However that was not possible then so what was brought forward was presented as relatively small change that would prevent unnecessary deaths from back-street abortions and would not lead to abortion on demand.

            However it did lead to de facto abortion on demand and positions have become entrenched since 1966 and so there is less chance of a root and branch reform now than there was in 1966.

            So small patches are all that is politically possible.

            Also you describe the amendment as “A selective law designed to curb a selective practice” and I would strongly disagree with that characterisation. There is no “selective protection for a special class” here. The amendment aims to eliminate one form of harmful discrimination and ensure that girl & boy babies are treated the same.

          • avi barzel

            You seem to be distracted by your need to argue peripheral points to the ground with confusing arguments. If it will help you focus, declare victory, stuff them with straw and mount them on your wall as trophies. More to the point….

            I am sorry but that is a very silly position. In order to see what is possible and what is not you have to understand the context, i.e. “the particularities of [the] legal
            situation in” Great Britain.

            Please explain the silliness of my position and the context of yours. I’m not challenging the practical benefits and the perhaps necessary horse-trading sdituational ethics behind the amendment. Nor are the peculiarities of the legal history and the patchwork of laws you have of much relevance. I’m challenging the bottom-line premise and the injustice in that only female fetuses are to be granted special protection with this amendment. To wit, who decides that selectively aborting female fetuses is an unsustainable travesty we have to do something about, but should not worry about coloured ones from inter-racial trysts or disabled ones? There is a bit of culling of those “classes” of fetuses happening as well. And how does your hilarious “harmful discrimination” work with that? Abortion discriminates by its very nature.

            What you have is a feel-good issue and a useless amendment. Once this amendment is passed and more money is thrown into special women’s committees, only an utter cretin would admit they would abort because they don’t want a girl. As for pressure to abort from presumably evil sexist husbands, what about any pressure to abort by outsiders for any reason?

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            Starting your post with abuse makes me want to just ignore you.

            If anyone is dragging in irrelevant points it is you. You state a position and when I comment you claim not to have made any recommendations. When I ask for clarity you then say that when you stated a position was not intending to do so. You talk about the law but then say that you don’t want to consider the legal position.

            I have already explained why it is silly to refuse to consider the political & legal situation of abortion in Great Britain (i.e. the context) but then to talk about the inappropriateness of a having a very specific amendment.

            However you seem unable to logically link things together. You say, “I’m not challenging the … necessary horse-trading sdituational (sic) ethics behind the amendment” which are in large part because of the legal history and the way the law has evolved, but you immediately follow this with “Nor are the peculiarities of the legal history and the patchwork of laws you have of much relevance” which is in clear contradiction of your previous sentence.

            I have also explained that girl babies are not given “special protection” but just equality with boy babies.

            “I’m challenging the bottom-line premise” As you have not made at all clear what premise you are challenging I assume that you mean the availability of abortion at all. If that is what you then you have picked a very odd way of doing so, by posting in response to a piece about a specific amendment.

            Your following two sentences (starting “To wit, who decides …”) was addressed by His Grace in the post you responded to.

            I have no idea why you think that “harmful discrimination” is a topic of mirth.

            “more money is thrown into special women’s committees” That is a total non sequitur.

            “only an utter cretin would admit they would abort because they don’t want a girl” Not all people who do bad things are geniuses you know. Also it makes the legal position clear. In the piece it says that the PM and DoH say this is illegal but the BMA and BPAS say the opposite. When doctors offering sex-selective abortions were uncovered (by a newspaper), the CPS declined to prosecute because the law was not sufficiently clear.

            “As for pressure to abort from presumably evil sexist husbands, what about any pressure to abort by outsiders for any reason?” Again, you seem to want to defer doing anything until it is possible to do everything. Such a counsel of perfection leads us to doing nothing in this fallen world.

          • avi barzel

            My apologies, if my enthusiasm came across as abuse. For whatever it’s worth, that wasn’t the intent.

            So, let’s ignore each others irrelevant points as we deem them. Thus….

            “I have also explained that girl babies are not given “special protection” but just equality with boy babies.

            You have opined a distinction which makes no sense to me. Repeating it doesn’t clarify the logic. Throwing “equality” in, as seems to be the custom of late, doesn’t necessary help either. As Martin, certainly no friend of abortion put it brilliantly, “I’m not sure why aborting baby girls because you don’t want them is any worse than aborting baby boys because you don’t want them.”

            “As you have not made at all clear what premise you are challenging I assume that you mean the availability of abortion at all. If that is what you then you have picked a very odd way of doing so, by posting in response to a piece about a specific amendment.”

            Seriously? After restating the principle behind my problem with the sex-specific amendment at least three times, you conclude that I’m against the availability of abortion? How, may I ask?

            …” it makes the legal position clear. In the piece it says that the PM and DoH say this is illegal but the BMA and BPAS say the opposite. When doctors offering sex-selective abortions were uncovered (by a newspaper), the CPS declined to prosecute because the law was not sufficiently clear.”

            So, it would appear that some think there is a law, the PM doesn’t like the situation and the media is alarmed (Heavens forfend!), but it’s all sorta unclear. And irrelevant to my argument. I simply challenge the premise that sex-selective abortion is worse than any-other-kind-of-selective abortion.

            …’ “more money is thrown into special women’s committees” That is a total non sequitur.’
            No, it’s not a non-sequitur, it’s a corollary, a fairly reasonable assumption regarding the impetus behind this bill. You might have noticed by now that all additions to our ever-growing, or alarmingly expanding legislative “flora” generate positions and income for select groups. I may be wrong, but I don’t buy the notion that this odd stump of an amendment is proposed for purely humanitarian reasons by all parties.

            “Again, you seem to want to defer doing anything until it is possible to do everything. Such a counsel of perfection leads us to doing nothing in this fallen world.”

            No, I’m saying that there is no sound principle of fairness or justice which provides protection only to one class of persons…or fetuses, as is the case. You have trotted out discrimination, without explaining why sex discrimination, specifically against females, is worse than discrimination against colour, disability, bad time to be conceived or, for example and if it can be somehow determined, sexual preference. This is not a call for perfection, it’s a request for a rational approach to justice. As I said, while I favour this amendment as a wedge issue which will hopefully lead to stricter abortion laws, I’m at the same time troubled over the principles behind it.

          • carl jacobs


            It’s always best not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It is good to prevent gender selection abortion. It would be better to prevent all abortions but that is not politically possible at the moment. So you tighten the ratchet as best you can when you can. By analogy. “Maybe I can’t save all the Jews in Poland, but perhaps I can save these 2000 from Sobibor because I can employ them in my factory. I do not thereby affirm as righteous the deaths of non-employable Jews in Sobibor.” (If I got that reference correct.)

          • avi barzel

            This is why I’m fence-sitting on this one. A ban on sex selective abortions will be practically useless as it will be easily skirted, but it will open the door for new challenges to unrestrained abortion on demand under the guise of personal liberty.

            Your analogy doesn’t apply in this case, though. Not only because state-organized mass murder of people is not the same as mass abortions by popular demand, but because our legislative systems are not subjected to the pressures of war or under a tyranny. This is a short-sighted, impractical and unprincipled feel-good proposal. We have the opportunity and an obligation to make ethically sound and rational laws, which this one is not, for the reasons I stated.

          • carl jacobs


            You know. When I finished my comment, I said to myself “He’s going to reject that analogy.” I almost added some words to try to preempt you from doing so.

            I wasn’t trying to create an exactly analogous moral circumstance. I was simply offering a situation that would illustrate the moral good of doing as much as you can. I don’t agree that the ban would be practically useless (even though it would be easy to subvert in practice). The law has a pedagogical purpose. This kind of restriction breaks the absolute hold of the argument from autonomy. And there are always those revealing aggregate statistics. It might be possible to hold a doctor to account by examining the demographics of his abortions. Don’t underestimate the value of an abortionist’s scalp nailed to the prison wall.

          • avi barzel

            Carl, you’re scraping for a rationale just to grab a few scraps. Not your usual MO. But then, your goal is a total ban, whereas mine is not. Yes, the benefit will be a wedge into the entrenched “my body, my choice” axiom, but the rationale…whatever it is…stinks. And the logic is absurd: A foetus is not human until birth unless it’s female and then it gains protected status from conception. Presumably because to abort on the grounds of sex is…discriminatory! But not if the baby might turn out black, male, crippled, gay or just inconvenient…unless it’s female. Hmm, how’s this for pedagogical?

        • Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien
          Dit que le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.

          • Linus

            Sad Jack is quoting Voltaire in support of religious prohibition?

            Have none of your Catholic “thinkers” anything more appropriate to say?

            Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. I must have another look at Papa Ratzi’s abject scribblings and see what quotes I can rip out of context in support of freedom of choice.

  • Linus

    Wasn’t Glenda Jackson an actress? I seem to remember her name from some of those dull historical films my mother dragged us to see when we were children. I think she thought it might give us a taste for the history and culture of her native land. She was wrong…

    In any case, do we know why Mme Jackson voted against this measure? Is she Labour’s answer to Ann Widdecombe? She surely can’t be a right-on, PC socialist if she’s ready to see gender discrimination enshrined in law. Or perhaps she’s so right-on, PC and socialist that she believes in the absolute right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy on whatever grounds she chooses.

    It would be interesting to know. It’s not often you see unanimity spoiled by just one vote.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I seem to remember Miss Jackson writhing abut naked on the floor in a film about Tchaikovsky, though I doubt if he would have been remotely interested. She began as a shop girl in Boots the Chemist, I believe. Anyway, dear Linus, I have decided I like you after all…

      • Linus

        Just for the purposes of clarification: I have nothing against right-on, PC socialists, except when they stray into an alternate reality where “choice” becomes the deciding factor in any moral dilemma.

        We may agree (or disagree) about moral principles, but to my way of thinking they can’t all be trumped by “choice”. Merely by virtue of wanting something, it doesn’t become right.

        I would have thought that Mme Jackson would, being a Labour MP, be a feminist. Feminist thought holds that gender inequality is bad and must be rooted out. Terminating a pregnancy solely on the basis that a fetus will be female once born seems to me to be a pretty glaring example of gender inequality, although perhaps her thinking is that as a fetus is just a clump of cells and has no gender until it is born, discrimination doesn’t come into it. You can’t discriminate against a non-person.

        Legally speaking, she may be right. Morally I’m not so sure. One could envisage a future where “morning after pills” targeted specifically at XX (or XY) embryos could lead to large gender imbalances and create significant social problems. We’re already seeing this in China. In such a case, would each individual’s right to choose trump society’s need for gender parity?

        There are times when individual rights have to take second place to wider considerations. This may be one of them.

        • “There are times when individual rights have to take second place to wider considerations.”

          Hmmm …. imagine if there was a prenatal test to establish possible sexual inclination. (Not that there ever will be) What chance the survival of those where a predisposition to homosexuality is suspected?

          • Linus

            If their parents are Catholic, virtually nil I’d say.

            In the hierarchy of Catholic sins, homosexuality far outweighs murder. It must. Catholics talk about nothing else.

          • No Lupus, there are greater sins that homosexuality.

          • avi barzel

            Have no doubt that such will be invented. I’m also certain that a reliable test can never be devised (because the issue is cultural and psychological, rather than physiological), but nothing will stop claimants. The beauty of such a scam is that it can’t be falsified, as the subject who would have supplied the evidence later in in life invariably winds up in the medical waste bin.

          • Indeed, Avi. But will those given ‘clearance’ seek to sue if their off-spring then exhibits homosexual inclinations? Someone has to be blamed. If not nature, who?

          • avi barzel

            Undoubtedly they’ll sue, Jack. T’is the way of the world nowadays. But after they win their lawsuit, they’ll be dragged in front of Human Rights Tribunal for homophobia. It’s how money moves around in the 21st century.

          • It will make for interesting times, Avi.

            The child will be removed by the State, of course, and placed with a suitably approved and sensitive homosexual couple who have had their pair-bonding recognised as ‘marriage’.

      • Hobnobs – low salt and fat content – on their way to Gay Paree – hand delivered by Slope?

        • Linus

          The parcel will be sniffed out at customs by specially trained labradors on detachment from the Police Culinaire and then be impounded and destroyed under the Offences Against Cuisine Act of 1905.

          It will probably be used as fuel for our nuclear electricity generation programme. Our looming energy crisis will be resolved in one fell swoop. France salutes you, Mme. Proudie. Shall I ask M. Hollande to lob a Légion d’Honneur your way?

      • The Explorer

        Great sense of humour, Linus has. Not that far removed from your own.

  • carl jacobs

    If I was a cynic, I would think abortionists are worried about legal liability for performing abortions that nominally meet legal criteria but in fact are requested for the purpose of gender selection. They don’t want to be the gatekeepers. For what happens to them if aggregate statistics show the facts behind the nominalism? Who then is responsible?

  • Martin

    I’m not sure why aborting baby girls because you don’t want them is any worse than aborting baby boys because you don’t want them.

    The plain fact is, we have abortion on demand in the UK and the claims that we don’t are false. Parliament may have laid down rules to restrict abortion but there is a clear absence of will to enforce those rules from those who govern and the courts.

    If a law were passed, if it were possible, to ban abortion on the basis of the child’s gender, that would be ignored as well. If a baby is inconvenient, for any reason, there are those who consider it their right to kill it, and they will.

    Herod is alive and well and living in the United Kingdom. (actually he was more selective)

    • Dreadnaught

      Hard to find myself agreeing with you but I think you have it right, until at least the last sentence.
      Living as we do in an age of forcible equality, making the argument for gender selection opens the door to bring the entire issue to the forefront.
      I am not against abortion on medical grounds or in extreme situations for the woman over which she had no control. I am against abortion as a form of birth control. I am against abortion beyond 12 weeks.
      The law has been on the statue books for almost 50 years and requires review and revision. It will never be right as far as many people are concerned but that horse has bolted. We have seen how medical interpretation of the legitimate reasons for abortion has been allowed to drift far from the original intentions of David Alton the proposer of the Bill.

      This Amendment Bill I would have thought would be welcomed by anyone with more than one brain cell.

      • Martin


        Sorry, I’ll try to be less agreeable in future. 😉

        I find it difficult to welcome something which I suspect will be ineffective when there an existing clear requirement for the law to be strictly applied. I just see it as an attempt to salve consciences rather than save the lives of the innocent.

  • Inspector General

    Futile really. Sub-Continent types need merely to sign on to a GP of their ilk. They’ll get their sex selective abortion every time. Everybody knows it’s been going on for years in brown vicinities of English cities. Even if the poor things are allowed to be born girls, they’ll be marked down for an arranged marriage to a far off cousin who will share so much DNA with her, he’s virtually her brother. Another blasted one coming to these shores. We need to stop that now.

    So much for the marvellous benefits of multiculturalism that apparently trump Britishness every time according to our lying politicians. Surprised at Jackson though. Shouldn’t she be lighting her feminist cauldron over this, not acquiescing to nasty patriarchal men.

    • William Lewis

      It’s the perfect feminist’s dilemma, I think Inspector. Though one suspects the more radical the feminist, the more likely he/she/it is likely to keep abortion as sacred and unencumbered, with petty things like reasons, as possible.

      • carl jacobs

        Leave aside the real and omnipresent issue of coercion for a moment. Consider only the case of a woman who desires to abort her daughter because this woman authentically wants a son. The typical feminist escape clause for this situation is “false consciousness.” The woman, you see, has been conditioned by the “Patriarchy” and so cannot make a legitimate autonomous choice. In effect they deny that any woman could ever make a consensual choice to abort a girl if the reason for the abortion is rooted in a cultural preference for boys. They will not however support a blanket prohibition lest some woman be prevented from aborting a girl for “feminist-approved” reasons.

        • William Lewis

          I think that they instinctively know that any positive prohibition is essentially a chink in the armour of abortion on demand, and a partial lifting of the veil of what is actually going on here. For how can the reason that a woman decides to abort be used in outlawing some abortions if abortion is about a woman’s choice? Unless perhaps a woman’s choice is not the only moral imperative here! This bill amendment should be supported, I think.

  • Peter Hitchens wrote about gendercide in China in his recent e-book ‘Short breaks in Mirror’ which I heartily commend.

    3 million Chinese men of the rising generation will be unable to find a wife, that’s the extent of it. What outlet for their natural desires will be found? Answers please on a tablet like the Chinese made device I’m tapping on now.

    Perhaps they will all join the navy.

    • The situation is almost as bad in India. How do you get rid of large numbers of inconvenient males? Why, start a war!

      • The Explorer

        It would have to be against China!

        • Ivan M

          The Chinese have to strike first. We are unsure of our footing against them.

      • DanJ0

        Simply turn them into homosexuals by acknowledging that homosexuality exists and legalising same-sex marriage?

    • Linus

      Some probably will join the navy. But no more than 5-10%. The rest can always join their sufferings to the Cross and by their brave witness to Christian chastity be transfigured in ecstasy like Saint Catherine of Siena. Indeed, if they don’t, they’re just not trying!

  • I saw a cartoon some years back in which a lady is asked by a friend if she has grounds for divorce.

    ‘Are you married?’ the adviser asked.

    ‘Yes’ came the reply.

    ‘Then you have grounds for divorce.’

    The same applies to abortion. I saw an advert on the London tube once that said ‘If you’re happy to be pregnant’ fine. If not, contact BPAS.’

    Like many others I gave up campaigning on abortion law after the failure of the Alton Bill left us with more liberal abortion laws than before. The hypocrite Thatcher was seen cracking a joke with Marxist Dennis Skinner as they queued up to vote together for abortion up to birth. That was the day I realised that the commitment of this country to fornication and the practices of Moloch were too strong to overcome without a ‘Great Awakening’scale of revival. I also realised that Saint Margaret was no conservative but a liberal and had lied to get my vote.

    By all means make this gesture, but abortion on request is a ‘British value’ and unassailable. Until perhaps Sharia law is imposed when the Muslims have out bred us in about 2060 or so.

    • Incidentally, and in support of my assertion that Thatcher was a liberal (at least a social liberal) I remember about 20 years ago seeing Matthew Paris on a homosexual BBC magazine programme ‘Out on Tuesday’ being interviewed about Margaret Thatcher. He had served as her private Parliamentary secretary.

      The interviewer asked Paris ‘what does she think of the MORAL RIGHT?’

      Twinky replied ‘She doesn’t like them. But she recognises their electoral importance.’

      The scales fell from my eyes as I realised the significance of all the hints she had dropped that she MIGHT do something about pornography, abortion on request, state sponsored destruction of the married family etc but it never materialised into anything.

      She was always just as socially liberal as the rest of them but with skilful spin managed to hoodwink a number of people into thinking otherwise to get their votes.

      • Anton

        You categorise her as a social liberal. I think that this categorisation is a consequence of a deeper belief of hers, that people should be free to do as they like. It is a belief that held her in good stead in regard to free markets, but is regrettable in ‘social’ situations like this.

        • Linus

          Yes, free will. It’s just not Christian, is it?

          • The Explorer

            What is your definition of free will?

        • carl jacobs


          Literally no one believes that “people should be free to do as they like.” Instead they appeal to conflicting authorities that would each impose different moral constraints on behavior.

          • Anton

            You’re right of course, but what I’d hoped would be inferred from what I wrote was that Mrs Thatcher believed in minimal interference in moral as well as economic issues and that it worked less well in the former.

        • I don’t blame her unduly for being a social liberal, just for swindling me out of my vote by pretending otherwise.

    • Linus

      Poor old Lilibête Mountbatten! It’s hardly fair to describe her as Moloch. No horns, no scales … at least when her appearance generator is working properly and hiding that green alien reptilian skin of hers.

      And why worry about Muslim domination? If it’s all set for 2060, you won’t see it. Moloch will surely bump you off long before then. You and David Icke and all the other conspiracy theorists.

      Après vous, le déluge …

      • Ivan M

        How does this bother you, stupid arse?

      • The Explorer

        I suppose it’s an issue for those who worry about the future of their country and their descendants.
        The most popular boy’s name in Britain in 2014.was Muhammad. More children were born in London to immigrant parents than to native Brits. If that trend continues into the future, the result is not a conspiracy theory: it’s simple mathematics.

        • carl jacobs

          Interesting article over at the Spectator about why French homosexuals are supporting Le Pen.

          • The Explorer

            Thanks, Carl. I’ll check it out. Dutch homosexuals are said to be supporting WIlders. I suppose it’s understandable if there’s a risk of ending up hanging from a crane.

          • carl jacobs


          • Linus

            Hitler came to power by inciting fear and hatred of the Jews.

            So why shouldn’t some other fascist copy his example and come to power by inciting fear and hatred of Islam?

            Hopefully because we’ve learned the lessons of the past and won’t fall for manipulative demagoguery again.

          • The Explorer

            Jews, surely, were not the primary part of the message? I thought Hitler came to power for promising to make Germany great again. Jobs for German workers. Overturn the humiliations of Versailles. Abolish the Polish Corridor. Get back the Germans in Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia. That sort of thing.

          • CliveM

            Wasn’t the Dutch ant immigration politician who got killed a few years ago gay? It’s not a new thing for Holland.

          • The Explorer

            Pym Fortuyn. Yes he was. His point was that Islam would erode homosexual freedoms unless checked.

      • Hey Linus, I haven’t described ‘Lilibete Monutbatten’ as Moloch.

        Moloch is mentioned in the Old Testament, a demonic entity to whom children were sacrificed. It didn’t work out too well for those who devoted themselves to Moloch. The sovereign God takes a dim view of the shedding of innocent blood. Sometime He hands over to destruction a nation so wicked as to sacrifice its children to Molech .

        Laugh about it while you can.

        • Linus

          So if Moloch isn’t represented by the head of state of this country of yours that’s been given over to evil, who is it? It can’t be Thatcher now she’s dead and gone. Blair, maybe? Surely not Cameron?

          Oooh, I know! It must be that dreadful blonde from “The Apprentice”. You know, the mouthy one who says fat people are lazy dole scroungers, and who won’t let children called Chantelle and Kevin play with her own little darlings, one of whom I believe is named after a former British colony. Botswana or Nigeria, or something like that…

          Anyway, she certainly has the look of a tribal demon about her. Has the Daily Mail staked out her house and found suspicious quantities of blood-stained shawl in her wheelie bin yet? If so, that might be a clue as to where all these child sacrifices are taking place.

          I don’t know where she lives but if you find out, make sure you keep your grandchildren away, won’t you? And let Sad Jack know too, although you’ll need to be careful how you say it. He’s so busy fending off all those NAMBLA pedophiles that finding out he now has to guard his grandchildren against tribal demons may very well send him over the edge!


          • I mean, Linus, that Moloch is a real supernatural entity. I appreciate that a materialist will regard that as ridiculous superstition, just as I regard big bang cosmogenesis, multiverses and molecules to man evolution in the same light.

            The Canaanites sacrificed their children to this demon god. God found this so supremely offensive that He judged them. Their civilisation was terminated with extreme prejudice.

            The sacrifices to Moloch are taking place in our hospitals, mainly funded with public money and with the full approval of the state. Interestingly, or perhaps amusingly, the Muslim and other immigrants have been invited in to Britain to do the work our exterminated youth are not available to do, being dead. The numbers of immigrants over the last 40 years roughly match the number of abortions.

            The immigrants will look after their own elderly but may not wish to look after the old of the host population. Could this tie in with the growing push for euthanasia?

            As Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship says, the generation that killed its children may be killed by its children.

            Time will tell, but I have a feeling that this nation may follow the Canaanites into extinction.

  • The thing is you can make gender selective abortions illegal, but how do you prove the motivation unless the woman states “I want an abortion because this is a girl”, there’s no way of denying the abortion as they’d just think of another reason to ask for an abortion, e.g. “my mental health will suffer as a result”. Of course you could automatically assume that certain “demographics” only want an abortion because of gender… but that’d hit the road block of discrimination laws. Secondly you could make it illegal to know the sex before birth, but how are you going to enforce that with the internet and the ability of people to travel to locations which would tell you the gender? Also what about the rights of people who do want to know the sex of the child and wouldn’t ever contemplate abortion?

    I think that where it will tighten the ratchet is in the philosophical arguments. A pro abortion position is often based around a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion in ANY circumstances, whereas the actual legislation was designed to permit abortion in the cases and limited circumstances if it bought harm to the woman (yes it’s been broadly interpreted). What this debate does is to bring this into focus. If we say there are certain circumstances that the state says no to abortion, rather than the current principles based approach and clearly this legislation is based on a moral , not a rights based argument, then it clearly shifts the philosophical ground-however slightly-from a pro abortion position. That’s why pro abortionists are so against this legislation .

    • CliveM

      Hi Hannah

      Just one comment when we had our son only 10 years ago we were told they wouldnt divulge his sex.
      That policy seemed quite common at the time, but seems to have changed. It would be interesting to know why.

      • avi barzel

        New sonograms go for about $1500.00 on eBay, used for half or less. It’s not rocket science to operate one…takes about an hour to get the system going and to get results. Will make a nice side business for a lot of ambitious entrepreneurs. At home, urine samplw tests are being developed…e.g., IntelliGender…and together with the difficulty of establishing the purpose of wanting a specific abortion, the amendment will be next to useless. Although, it will make many feel good and generate a few thousand jobs with life-long benefits for people whose main task will be to parade as human rights warriors and lie about their successes.

        • CliveM


          I am reasonably convinced that in reality any such amendments to the Bill will have minimal practical impact.

          So the question I ask myself will it be useful in laying down a marker in the ongoing battle against the current situation of abortion on demand. On balance I think not. For two reasons. Firstly because I think it will ease the pressure for change. It will give the impression of ‘something’ has been done and therefore the problem of abortion is less of an issue. Secondly because those opposing any limitation on a woman’s right to choose will argue that enough is enough, no more compromise. Indeed it may even make further substantive changes harder.

          It’s well meaning but flawed I think.

          • avi barzel

            Well, Clive, we can both agree that the amendment will do next to nothing for the perceived travesty. I say perceived because my objection is to abortion on demand, without accountability and as an absolute personal right. Choosing protection of the female foetus alone, under the guise of equality or whatever argument has yet to be brought forwards, is a blatant logic-fail and abuse of the principles of justice. There are four notions I imagine drive this cause: 1) radical feminist opposition to the devaluation of the female sex; 2) traditionalist, protective gentlemanly concern over the (mis)treatment of the “weaker sex;” 3) a pro-life, take-whatever-little-mercies-you-can approach; and 4) the hope that this will be the wedge which will seriously challenge, through precedent, the absolutist “my body, my choice” doctrine.

            Of all, I think that it’s the last which is the most logically and ethically consistent choice…and with a fairly good chance of happening. Now, you doubt the wedge-effect and you may turn out to be right, but I think it not only possible, but inevitable. Once an exception is made to the choice doctrine, once intervention for whatever reason is justified, and once the bureaucratic structures and mechanism (which always seek to expand) are in place, the very same “human rights” principle will be used to argue for an equal defense of all other groups; racial, disabled and socially disadvantaged. Salaried board and committee members, justices, this-and-that-rights NGOs and lawyers will simply love this one. This is the path all “social justice” issues have been taking for at least the past two decades.

          • CliveM

            You put forward a cogent argument but the question I would ask is who are the human right lawyers going to represent? The foetus? I think this is why it will be difficult for the wedge effect to take place.

          • avi barzel

            Nah, human rights law has moved outside of the proverbial box. Beyond our wildest imaginings. They’ll be representing the complaints of “stake-holder” representative organizations for all the grievance groups with the clout and the dough to join the fray.

            You’re behind the times, Clive…I bet you still say “groovy”….

          • CliveM

            Well I will certainly agree that human rights law seems to be like a giant spiders web drawing everything into it. I still think on balance ( and I am often wrong) this legislation is likely to do more harm then good.

            Bit concerned about the entrepreneurial opportunities as well!

          • avi barzel

            My wife never heard of it, but I remember her mom using it, although I had to look up the meaning. Another now near-extinct linguistic oddity, Cockney. Her dad, a Cambridge prof with an Oxbridge accent, taught himself old Cockney just to annoy he mom. “Take a butcher’s” he’ll say…from “Butcher’s hook” for “look”! Sabbath time coming up, time for me to get going…

          • CliveM

            Have a good one.

          • CliveM

            Hey just seen last sentence!!

            I am not behind the times, I have just purchased a new tangled phonograph :0)

          • avi barzel

            They’re “in” again. Which shows to prove that if you hang on long enough….

          • CliveM

            Are we talking wardrobe now?

          • avi barzel

            No, still talking phonographs. I was going to add, “…if you hang on long enough, you’ll look hip grooving to your Swing collection on your Victrola,” but thought better of it.

          • CliveM

            That’s a relief! I thought someone had cliped!

          • avi barzel

            Cliped ? Now we’re going back to Caledonian!

          • CliveM

            A clipe is a tattle tale. I’m sure your wife will translate!

          • CliveM

            The up vote is for the cheek……

        • CliveM

          Just had a thought. You can see some budding entrepreneur buying said machine and setting them self up in business and as part of their fees a bonus for every female baby identified. So by worsening the problem.

      • Six years ago, they offered to tell our daughter the sex of the child she was carrying, but she didn’t want to know. But then a large number of Asian immigrants use the hospital concerned; when the baby was born they tried to discharge her within hours of the birth due to lack of beds. (They’ve now closed the maternity ward and moved it to a hospital 15 miles away, explain that!)

        • CliveM

          At the time we had a choice of two Hospitals. An Edinburgh one or a Borders one. We chose the Borders because we were told Edinburgh kicked you out within hours of the birth. The Borders Hospital let us choose our own time.

          We didn’t want to know the sex either, we were just told the Hospitals policy.