Gendercide2
Ethics & Morality

Gendercide Abortion – a Bill to unite Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates

 

Fiona Bruce MP has drafted a rather important Ten Minute Rule Bill which she intends to present to Parliament on Tuesday 4th November. It has the support of a considerable number of MPs, though others say it isn’t necessary at all. It is designed succinctly and straightforwardly to clarify the law on abortion, since some doctors appear to believe that being pregnant with a baby girl is sufficient grounds for approving a termination. Those MPs (and GPs and pregnancy advisory services) who oppose the Bill are of the view that there is nothing in the Abortion Act 1967 which permits the discontinuation of natural gestation simply because a foetus is female, and so no clarification is necessary: to abort a female foetus in esse for being baby girl in posse is already prohibited simply because femininity is not a disability.

And yet we have seen time and again that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service tramples upon the law and makes a mockery of Parliament. Since the Telegraph proved (here, here, here and here) that some doctors in the UK were willing to permit sex-selective abortions “no questions asked”, the Government has taken a consistent line: “Abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal.” This seems to be a reasonable, not to say literal, interpretation of the law. But up pops BPAS with their contestation: “Is abortion for reasons of foetal sex illegal under the Abortion Act?” they ask. “No,” is their unambiguous response. And with that declaration they give the green light to gendercide, seemingly in agreement with the former Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, who says the law “does not prohibit” sex-selective abortions (ergo the prosecution of doctors who approve of or carry out such procedures is “not in the public interest“).

When it comes to abortion, it would appear that being a law unto oneself is something of a contagion. Even the British Medical Association has become a little feverish, convulsing at Jeremy Hunt’s categorical avowal against gendercide with “We feel that it fails to reflect the complexities and full legal situation regarding abortion and gender.”

Funny how feelings have become the authority by which abortion law is made. Whatever happened to truth, morality or rightness? Does the law cease because an interest group feels that it fails? Established custom is held as law and can, on occasion, overrule the common law. And in the United Kingdom we take the view that girl babies are of equal worth as boy babies. So what, precisely, does the BMA mean by the “full legal situation”?

“We recognise that in some cases doctors may come to the conclusion that the effects of having a child of a particular gender are so severe to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman as to provide legal and ethical justification for an abortion,” he said. ‘This is in addition to the gender-related serious fetal abnormalities referred to in the DH’s guidance.

How charmingly reasonable. How unutterably admissible and fair. Having a child of a particular gender may constitute a mental health risk, thereby falling within the purview of the 1967 Abortion Act. Surely no further proof is necessary that the provisions and protections in the Act are being construed and annotated way beyond the clearest intents and confines stipulated by Parliament. Setting aside the moral deficiency and reprehensible logic which underpin the positions of the BMA and BPAS, it is evident that Fiona Bruce’s Bill is both virtuous and sound. Ann Furedi (BPAS CEO) advocates the decriminalisation of abortion altogether, in order that it might be regulated like any other medical procedure. So, terminating a baby will become as simple as removing an irritating wart or troublesome verruca – a purely cosmetic enhancement which a single doctor might perform simply because the client requests it. In this world, baby-killing becomes more effortless and accessible than breast enhancement.

We cannot permit the core abortion constituency (BPAS and the BMA inter alia) to ride roughshod over Parliament and the Executive. When the Department of Health speaks to make guidance on the the law explicit, it is not for professional lobby groups to sneer, impugn and stick two fingers up to the Secretary of State. He is accountable to Parliament, and Parliament to the people. And, pace “some British Asians”, the people tend to love their baby girls just as much as their baby boys.

Consider, for a moment, a topical parallel. The Government has determined that Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is so culturally offensive and such an abhorrent crime against women that coercive cutting is now prohibited by law. Let us say the BMA disagrees with this proposition, insisting that such a crass prohibition “fails to reflect the complexities and full legal situation” of ethnic rights and socio-cultural diversity. Do you think the Home Office would simply set aside its prevention programme and abrogate its police guidance? Would they conspire with Social Services and fail to prosecute because it’s “not in the public interest”? Is it remotely likely that Theresa May would just shrug her shoulders and simply concede a difference of opinion?

So why the decades of chronic inaction from the Department of Health? Why months of blind-eye indifference from Jeremy Hunt? Might it be that ‘Pro-choice’ is so endemic in the DoH that a ‘Pro-life’ Secretary of State is being humoured with guidance notes and patronised with press releases, but nothing will change because the culture of state bureaucracy is amorally fixed and immovable? When it comes to abortion, from the DPP down, there is almost a civil-service conspiracy of apathy and callous disdain.

Fiona Bruce is a Christian, and doubtless her faith drives her political passion. But her Bill is worthy of support by believers and non-believers alike – not to mention pro-lifers and pro-choicers allied in an ethical matter of justice – because it is concerned with a fundamental issue of civil rights, liberation and gender parity. If women are equal in the High Court of Parliament and in the boardroom, pulpit and private members’ club, how can they not be equal in the womb?

Since the doubt appears to arise from the letter of the law, it is evident that the Abortion Act 1967 is no longer fit for purpose: it is an inadequate statutory instrument of protection for those women who suffer under the cultural patriarchal yoke of male-primacy and son-preference. It is therefore time to revisit its provisions, clarify its intentions, strengthen its exemptions and confirm its protections.

Please support Fiona Bruce in her quest for gender justice. Visit www.stopgendercide.org to express your support and encourage your MP to back this worthy Bill.

  • sarky

    I am pro-choice, however, gender should never ever be grounds for a termination and I fully support anything that enshrines this in law.

    • Athanasius

      Why should gender not be a reason? If personal convenience is acceptable, who are you to tell any woman she can’t abort just because it’s a girl ? Will you force her to carry to term against jet will?

      • I would also be pro-choice, but a way has yet to be found to discover the choice of the unborn child…..
        Theologically, of course, the killing of infants is an abomination to God (Jer. 19:5 etc.). Practically, baneful consequences of abortion are already being seen in Britain as an aging population no longer has sufficient young people to support of look after it. The inevitable consequence of this will be the enforced killing of the elderly: ‘euthanasia’ if you prefer. As someone or other has pointed out, we are the generation that has killed its children; now the survivors will be killing us.
        Gender-based abortions are particularly disastrous. In India and China, the populations of young people are already seriously imbalanced. What do governments do with large numbers of young males who are never going to marry and have families of their own? That’s right. When war breaks out between China and India, remember you heard it here first.
        It may well also be that the series of appalling rapes that have been occurring in India recently have something to do with young men being unable to enter into honourable relationships with increasingly scarce young women.

        • Uncle Brian

          I would also be pro-choice, but a way has yet to be found to discover the choice of the unborn child…..
          Is this the first time I’ve ever agreed with you on anything? Conceivably. As you might say.

          • Thank you, Uncle Brian.
            Perhaps one day I may agree with you on something………
            Conceivably.

        • Apparently, the number of aborted children in Britain is now greater than the total number of immigrants here. Evil has consequences – here and now.

        • Phil R

          I would also be pro-choice, but a way has yet to be found to discover the choice of the unborn child…..

          That is a good response

          One to file for use at another time……

          Phil

        • Albert

          So you are in favour of voluntary euthanasia?

    • Good job your parent weren’t ….

      • sarky

        You?????

        • Jack?????

          • sarky

            Yes jack you!!!!!

          • Wot?

          • sarky

            Good job my parents weren’t you!!! (Not that difficult! !!)

          • We are in entire agreement on that.
            Just be thankful they weren’t abortionists. To think, if they had been, you might not be here today with your pro-choice stance. We are all called to make sacrifices. How great theirs was.

          • Albert

            Well at least you wouldn’t have been aborted.

          • No but he’d most certainly have been placed for adoption.
            *chuckle*

          • sarky

            Would have put myself up for adoption!!!

          • sarky

            I wasn’t? ???

          • Albert

            No, Sarky, I can assure you, you weren’t aborted. If you suffer confusion on the topic, may I suggest you ask your mother if you were dropped on your head as a baby? But note: being dropped on your head is not the same thing as being aborted. 🙂

    • Martin

      Sarky

      So justify that statement. Why should not gender be grounds for termination. If a family already has two boys why should not a third be aborted.

      Or are you saying that a view that values a female lower than the male is unacceptable? On what basis do you say that another societies mores is worse than yours? It sounds as if you are becoming racist to me.

      Since abortion is killing the weak who have no voice on what grounds can it ever be justified.

    • The Inspector General

      Weep over this Sarky. A muslim women goes to her GP and says “If I turn out a girl, he’ll beat me black and blue”. For the GP, what to do….

      • sarky

        If you believe someone is in danger of domestic abuse,
        Advise them of the support they can use,
        And before the poor girl walks out the door,
        Reinforce that gender selection is against the law!

        • carl jacobs

          This reason for abortion is against the law.

          1. Gender selection.

          These reasons for abortion are perfectly acceptable under the law.

          1. Have you seen the new maternity fashions? I would look terrible.

          2. But I just bought a new bikini for my vacation to Bermuda. I can’t have stretch marks right now.

          3. Do you know how much I pay each month for my Jaguar?

          4. Bob… or was it Bill… No, it was Edward. I remember because he gave me directions when I lost my way in Reading. Yes, I don’t think Edward would make a good father.

          5. Look! I am entitled to a perfect child! Do you understand how embarrassing it would be to have to deal with a kid in a wheelchair?

          Western culture is insane.

          • sarky

            Carl, I totally agree with you!!!! However, I believe there are ‘limited’ situations where a mother should retain the right to abortion. (Hence calling myself pro-choice). I also know this is a minefield because where do you draw the line?? Look, in a perfect world there would be no abortion, but we dont live in a perfect world do we??

          • carl jacobs

            sarky

            However, I believe there are ‘limited’ situations where a mother should retain the right to abortion.

            1. What would those situations be?

            2. Why wouldn’t they apply after birth as well as before birth?

            carl

          • sarky

            1) if continuation of the pregnancy would kill the mother.
            2) if the child was conceived through rape

            I do not believe in abortion as a form of contraception. I’m sorry, but in the above cases, the physical and psychological welfare of the mother must be put first.

          • carl jacobs

            sarky

            As for item 1, I agree completely.

            As for item 2, that is a very common and understandable position. It is essentially the position I originally defended. FWIW, I will tell you why I don’t any longer.

            I got into an argument one day with a man who asked me a simple and direct question. “Why are you holding the child to account for the sins of the father?” I tried for two hours to break the question. I tried every strategy and tactic I could muster. I tried frontal assault. I tried envelopment. I tried bombardment. I tried evasion and trickery. And I utterly failed. No matter what I tried I could not silence that question. After two hours, I admitted my defeat. I have never before or since been so completely routed. And why? Because the question demanded consistency from me, and eventually I had to offer it up. I had to. If I assert that the unborn child is a human being, then I must treat it as a human being. I cannot treat it differently than a child since born.

            That’s why I asked you why your conditions would not apply after birth. Because logically, they should. For if it’s not about the child but the mother, then it shouldn’t matter if the child is born or not.

          • sarky

            But if it is about the child, surely this applies to item 1 aswell, surely it doesn’t stop being a human being just because it endangers the mother? Who decides who’s life is worth more??? Not that easy is it??

          • Albert

            Well said, sarky. Any act that directly and deliberately kills the baby to save the mother is plainly wrong. We do not kill children to save parents. Hence I think Carl’s position is incoherent. He says:

            If I assert that the unborn child is a human being, then I must treat it as a human being. I cannot treat it differently than a child since born.

            And that means he cannot support 1. unless he is prepared to kill a child to save his or her parents.

          • sarky

            Carl talks about consistency, but in order to achieve this he must:-
            A- support the death of the mother in exchange for the life of the child.
            ‘Or’
            B – change his position

            The thing is we know what this change of position would mean. I dont think there is any such thing as pro or against, there are far to many variables to make this a viable position. I think all we can do is try and ensure that abortion is as limited as possible, no easy task i know.

          • Albert

            No. Some of us are just against. I am. Christian tradition is opposed. The Catholic Church is. Don’t directly and deliberately kill innocent people other people. It really is that simple.

          • sarky

            Albert, to get to my current position I asked myself the following hypothetical question.
            “If my wife was pregnant with our fourth child, but was told the pregnancy would kill her, what would I do?”
            I then asked myself what would have the greatest impact on the life of myself and my other children, the death of my wife? Or the death of the unborn child?
            I’m sorry, but for me it was a no brainer. Therefore i cannot be against.

          • sarky

            If a man begets a hundred children, and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but he does not enjoy life’s good things, and also has no burial, I say that an untimely birth is better off than he. For it comes into vanity and goes into darkness, and in darkness its name is covered; moreover it has not seen the sun or known anything; yet it finds rest rather than he.” (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)

            sorry but church tradition confuses me. Surely this says its better to be aborted than to lead a miserable life????

          • Albert

            That’s because you’ve adopted a utilitarian approach to human life. You’ve asked “Would killing this human being allow more happiness than allowing this human being to live?” I just wonder if you would allow that principle in any other context. I agree, the example is a terrible one, but I think that if you follow that principle to its logical conclusion and apply it strictly, you would find yourself against it. Hence, I think you are still in a position of inconsistency.

            The only way to justify abortion is to deny the humanity (or similar) of the unborn child. If that is done, any abortion is acceptable (until the foetus becomes a human being), if not, then not – except for those cases of killing which one permits when the child is born (which are few).

          • carl jacobs

            sarky

            You are simply wrong. See above. The life of the child is dependent on the life of the mother. You can’t prefer the life of the child to the life of the mother if the pregnancy would truly kill her.

            Now, I do know a woman who almost died from her fourth pregnancy. She chose to incur the risk for the sake of her unborn daughter. Her logic was simple “We both live or we both die.” That was her choice. You cannot compel one to die for another. But the one can choose to assume the risk for the other.

            That daughter was recently married.

          • carl jacobs

            Editors Note:

            Albert’s position on ectopic pregnancy is to:

            1 Declare the Fallopian tube decective for no particular biological reason.

            2. Remove an otherwise completely normal Fallopian tube for being defective… while being very careful to make sure the unborn child is resident in the section removed.

            3. Note that he has not committed an abortion because the child died incidental to the removal of the Fallopian tube, and its death is therefore covered by Double Effect.

            Because this is different somehow. Well, it is different, I guess. An organ has been removed from the woman’s body for no particular reason whatsoever. And she has been subjected to the risk of major surgery for no particular reason whatsoever. But at least the tangled logic the RCC has been satisfied.

          • Albert

            Claim 1 is bogus. The fallopian tube is now defective because it contains something that shouldn’t be there. That is sufficient to make the tube defective. Moreover, the something which shouldn’t be there means the tube is incapable of functioning properly, and has become dangerous. That means it is defective. It may even be causing symptoms such as bleeding. Under these circumstances, the tube should be removed, and would be removed if the something in the tube were not an foetus but a cyst. Therefore Carl’s claim is entirely wrong and his argument fails as a result.

          • carl jacobs

            Albert

            Even should I grant that the tube is defective, there is still no medical reason to remove it. Doctors do not otherwise remove organs that can be treated by other means and restored to full functionality. But in this case, there is no rationale for calling the organ defective. We don’t know what causes ectopic pregnancies. We have no reason to expect that the condition will re-occur. You are transparently doing what I have always said. You are inventing a medical condition in order to perform an abortion without calling it an abortion.

          • Albert

            We have no reason to expect that the condition will re-occur.

            On the contrary. A woman who has had an ectopic pregnancy has a higher risk of another one. There are two reasons for this: firstly, the tube was possibly defective to cause the ectopic pregnancy in the first place, and secondly, the tube will have had further damage from the ectopic pregnancy. Thus, there is every reason to remove the tube.

            But the point is: the tube is dangerous because it has an obstruction in it. That is reason to remove the tube. Says Wiki:

            Salpingectomy refers to the surgical removal of a Fallopian tube. It is often related to tubal pregnancies and is a procedure that is preferred over its ovarian tube-sparing counterparts due to the high rate of recurrence in said ectopic pregnancies.

            And a study in the Lancet said this:

            In women with a tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube, salpingotomy does not significantly improve fertility prospects compared with salpingectomy.

            This is because, although more women get pregnant after having had the former, the former also brings with it significant risks, to the mother and any future pregnancy:

            The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was 60·7% after salpingotomy and 56·2% after salpingectomy (fecundity rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·81—1·38; log-rank p=0·678). Persistent trophoblast occurred more frequently in the salpingotomy group than in the salpingectomy group (14 [7%] vs 1 [<1%]; RR 15·0, 2·0—113·4). Repeat ectopic pregnancy occurred in 18 women (8%) in the salpingotomy group and 12 (5%) women in the salpingectomy group (RR 1·6, 0·8—3·3).

            So since salpingotomy increases risks to the mother’s health, and to her future pregnancies, without bringing any fertility benefits, it follows that removing the tube is medically and morally preferable. Indeed, it seems pretty inconsistent to do a salpingotomy, since the purpose of that procedure is to save the mother without diminishing her chances of getting pregnant.

          • carl jacobs

            sarky

            If the mother dies, the child dies. If the pregnancy would kill the mother, then the child is doomed. There is no way to save it. So you act to save the one life that may still be saved.

            carl

          • Albert

            The normal place to draw the line is to be found in the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt do no murder.

    • Albert

      I am pro-choice, however, gender should never ever be grounds for a termination

      In that case, you are not pro-choice: you expect the law to make the choice for a woman. But if a child cannot be aborted because she is female, why cannot the child not be aborted because she is human?

    • CliveM

      “I am pro choice”

      Well for things you approve of, like slaughtering children. But not pro choice when it comes to parents being allowed to choose the type of school they sent their children to.

      Interesting priorities.

  • Athanasius

    Dear dear… Surely a woman has an absolute right to kill her children for any reason or none. Is that not a central tenet of liberalism? Just as it was a central tenet of the Spartan state that any Spartan could kill any helot at any time for any reason. I mean
    isn’t personal freedom the only virtue? What is the country coming to….

    • CliveM

      Or ‘expose’ their girls and disabled babies if they wished.

      All the Greek States of the time allowed the man to decide if a baby was worth allowing to live.

      We really haven’t improved very much. I suppose it’s the women who make the decision now.

  • Little Black Censored

    There is no reason for the word “gender” to appear in this discussion. If you mean “sex” you should say so.

    • The Inspector General

      Greetings L****e B***k Sambo…

  • carl jacobs

    It’s not just the letter of the Law. It’s the essence of the law. Is it a woman’s choice or not? Is it a woman’s body or not? The entire argument for abortion hangs upon the golden thread of autonomy. “A woman has no obligation unless she chooses the obligation.” That’s the Creed of the abortionist and he recites it daily in his charnel chamber of dismemberment. That’s the Creed of the feminist and she recites it daily as she celebrates her most holy sacrament of maternal death. The purpose of this law is to impose upon a woman the very obligation that abortion was intended to remove.

    Now the feminists are hung upon their own hook in some sense. Selective abortions have been devaluing the vulnerable and weak (i. e. Downs Syndrome, the Disabled) for years. And feminists didn’t care. The right to accept or deny the obligation was paramount. But now it is used to devalue the powerful – even worse, themselves. And the powerful don’t like being devalued. Yet to maintain the integrity of that golden thread, the consistent feminist should say ” The right to accept or deny the obligation is still paramount.” Otherwise, she detonate the basis of the abortion law they have so carefully defended for so many years.

    The danger in repudiating gender selective abortion is that it places something over the autonomy of the woman’s choice. Someone is suddenly telling her why she can’t have an abortion. The easy solution to the dilemma is to assert that she is not actually making an autonomous choice. They will say she is under the sway if the patriarchy. False consciousness and all that. But it’s a weak argument and they know it. A woman could theoretically demand an abortion because of gender on her own initiative and for her own reasons. Who then should have the authority to impose their decision on her body and her choice?

    Don’t pity the abortionist, and don’t make common cause with him. Don’t pity the feminist in her dilemma. Shove it down their collective throat until they choke on it. The Law is pointless in any sense. The only way to enforce it is to outlaw gender determination in utero. Because the easy response to “It’s illegal to get an abortion for purposes of gender selection” is “Well, then I don’t want stretch marks.” And in the perpetually inverted moral universe of the West, that is a perfectly valid reason to butcher one’s child. We defend the powerful for the sake of vanity and yet kill the weak for the sake of the trivial. It’s no wonder we shall be delivered into bondage.

    • Not much else to say …………

    • James60498 .

      Brilliant, Carl

      • Steady, James.

        • James60498 .

          I may not always agree with what Carl says but sometimes he just writes exactly what I would like to write if I could write so well.

          • Well, yes, but do remember he’s from the colonies and might get ideas above his station.

          • carl jacobs

            Shouldn’t you be occupied with learning how to spell without extraneous “u’s”?

          • See what Jack means !

          • James60498 .

            Ok. True.

            Still very good though!!

    • David

      Excellent explanation.

  • IanCad

    YG, With all the evil in this world you are a busy man. Still trying to digest yesterday’s epistle; this latest post is far simpler and immediate in its effect to demand revulsion for this wicked industry.

    Humanity – or that little still remaining – can only pray for the soon coming of Our Saviour.

    In the meantime let’s not be coy, or too polite, or worry about causing offense.

    Let us call by name those spawn of Moloch whose wickedness is of such depth that the stones must cry out.

    God Bless the remnant.

    We must offer all support to Fiona Bruce.

  • The person in the womb has a sex, not a Gender. To murder the unborn on grounds of Gender is not illegal – it is conceptually impossible.

    The nature of abortion is such that a unique legal effect arises from abortion laws: if abortion is not wrong nothing is wrong; it follows that there can be no class of person in the womb whom it is wrong to murder.

    We can have legal recognition of right and wrong. We can have legalised murder. But we cannot have both.

    • carl jacobs

      Except I don’t understand your distinction between sex and gender.

      • “Gender” is a social construct and is being used to confuse and confound. Sex is whether a child is male or female. For example, you may be a male by sex but consider your gender female.

        • David

          Well explained, in clear, simple terms.

        • carl jacobs

          That part I understood. But that definition is usually not employed by someone who would write paragraphs two and three of his post. It’s a usage that in my mind correlates with a Pro-Abortion position.

          Hence my confusion.

          • I made the distinction between sex and Gender, not to be pedantic or some kind of Feminist policer of language, but to highlight the danger of using the term Gender in the Bill. Such a Bill would be unenforceable, because law does understand the distinction (even if our MPs do not). A properly worded Bill will almost certainly be defeated, mainly for the reason you give below.

  • carl jacobs

    Remember that Pro-Abortionists are not, Not, NOT interested in banning gender-selective abortions. They are interested in eradicating the cultural preference for sons in some communities. One of the unintended consequences of abortion was that it provided a tool to instantiate this preference. The Pro-Abortionists are trying to find some way to remove the ability of abortion to fulfill that purpose. They aren’t seeking to defend the unborn. They are seeking far less noble ends:

    1. To defend abortion from the stigma attached to its use in the creation of gender imbalance.

    2. To defend themselves from the profound consequences of gender imbalance.

    If it wasn’t for the way abortion is being used by Asian communities to implement a preference for sons, the Pro-Abortionist wouldnt care a damn one way or the other. One can hypothesize the Amazon who would rather not bring another man-child into the world, and the enlightened classes who would chatter their approval. But the current usage threatens both abortion and women directly. So they seek to remove the threat. Pro-Abortion support for this law is entirely self-centered. It should earn them no credit at all.

    carl

    • CliveM

      Carl

      Agreed. When people sneer at the slippery slope argument, point them to what has happened in this country with regards abortion. When abortion was legalised we were told it wasn’t allowing abortion on demand. Well that is a sick joke. It is interesting that the previous head of the prosecution service Keir Starmer whatever, ignored the problem of the abuse the law and effectively allowed gender based abortions and is now standing as a Labour MP at the next election. Shows the level of subjectivity of his decision making.

      Btw I do remember him being interviewed before taking up his post, declaring it was an objective of his to defend liberal society. Obvious why he was selected for the job.

      • Martin

        Clive

        And although it is well known that some doctors have been breaking the law as it applies to abortion no one is willing to prosecute them even now. One has to wonder at the outrage over ‘gender selection’!

    • …. and if they ever do identify a gene that might predispose one to homosexuality? There’ll be some squawking then as parents consider the‘pain’ of their ‘poor child’ ‘foetus’ being born into a world of homophobes and bigots.

      • carl jacobs

        Jack

        You are exactly right. A parent may dispose of a disabled child, or an inconvenient child, or an unwanted child but he must not be allowed to dispose of a putatively homosexual child. Why? Because the tolerance of homosexuality is almost entirely abstract. If parents are given that option, they will exercise it. And that would devalue homosexuals. So parents must be forced to carry that obligation. The right to a designer child only goes so far in our world of enlightened egalitarian autonomy.

        • The Inspector General

          You are right Carl. Any aborting of gay foetuses will be classified as a ‘hate’ crime. (Pink News, passim). A hate crime by the way is a crime against people who are better than you and me, and thus carries a sterner sentence.

        • Parents of homosexual children are being listened to by the Church about the hurt of raising them in Christian communities. Instead of preserving moral teachings and developing orthodox responses and support systems, the approach is to downplay the sin of homosexuality and all stigma associated with it.

          It must be a great burden being a Christian and homosexual or the parent of one. In Jack’s strong view, we do not help those in sin, or tempted by sin, by pastoral approaches which change or ignore moral teachings.

      • carl jacobs

        And the tragedy of course is that there is no ‘gay gene.’ The slaughter of the innocent would serve no purpose whatsoever.

        • …. other than making the killer feel better for a time until their conscience starts to spill through.

        • The Inspector General

          Homosexuality tends to run in families. One suspects brain structure, which itself is the cause of male black behaviour being passed down through the generations. Don’t think there’ll never be a womb test for that…

          • carl jacobs

            Inspector

            That’s all total nonsense. You know that, right? This is a polite weblog so I can’t openly state the anatomical area from which you extracted that observation. But I think it might be obvious anyways.

            carl

          • The Inspector General

            Carl, not the thread to expand on, so no more will be said. One thing though, one does delight in reading the biographies of the best musicians and gifted singers on Wiki. Rarely is it found they did not come from a musical family. Not inherited brain structure then ? Oh well, back to the drawing board…

          • One of your very best …..

            “Good Lord, Mrs Proudie. You’re so ‘alternatively sexual’ of a sudden. Have you been attending a CoE synod discussing queer things, and how the message of buggery can enhance Christ’s mission ?”

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Well no more hobnobs for you! Assassin!

          • The Inspector General

            The Bishop of Buckingham. Come here and present yourself. There is to be an inquisition, to root out Judas priests as Christ would have it. YOU are the first to face the tribunal….

          • Wrong thread, Inspector. The man has been and gone. Tail between his leg, so to speak. Fraternises with those tortured souls over on that other site when he’s not acting as minder for that lesbian vicar he’s so fond of. .

          • Back on the table then?

          • carl jacobs

            Eh?

          • For the Inspector … some medical examination of his nether regions … ?
            Oh, never mind.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Goodness! Do you think so Inspector? Why, King Edward II was supposedly into sword swallowing, so does that mean members (and I use the word in all innocence) of the current royal house are similarly inclined? Perhaps Mr. Slope will shed light on the matter…

          • The Inspector General

            Good Lord, Mrs Proudie. You’re so ‘alternatively sexual’ of a sudden. Have you been attending a CoE synod discussing queer things, and how the message of buggery can enhance Christ’s mission ?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            ‘Alternatively sexual’? Goodness, I don’t think so! I adopted the Missionary approach when I married his Lordship and have maintained it ever since. After our two daughters were born all such nonsense ceased and I discovered hot water bottles. I would recommend them to anyone. That and a copy of Mrs Arbuthnot’s ‘Thou Should’s Not Even if Thou Fancies It.’

          • carl jacobs

            And people wonder why there had to be an American Revolution.

            😉

          • The Inspector General

            By the way Mrs Proudie, King Edward II rests in Gloucester cathedral. Do visit. It’s not that far from Barchester. Unfortunately, the poor sod suffered death by hot poker, so the descendants of the locals who did the deed will tell you…

          • The Inspector General

            Well, when one says ‘rests’, he’s not going anywhere after he recuperates, not with a burnt out a***h***

          • CliveM

            Wish you had said earlier! I was there Thursday, I would have gone looking if I had known.

          • Shadrach Fire

            Can’t see that Inspector. That is supporting the LBGT’s claim for a gay gene which their isn’t. Gays become gays because they chose to or are coerced to. That’s all there is about it.

          • What a black and white planet you hail from ‘Shadrach Fire’. If only life was so simple. We know there is choice about acting on the desire of homosexuality. Just how the desire is formed and takes root, we just do not know.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Do not people choose to steal, murder lie and commit other sins? Do we assign to them an ‘orientation’?

          • They do indeed, Martin.

            In my experience, very few grow up with a continuing awareness of the need and a growing compulsion to express it through stealing, murder or lying. Yes, yes …. we are all sinners. Situations, generally, determine the extent of the temptation, the degree of choice and the amount of will power needed to resist sin.

            The morally objective disorder of homosexuality seems to be of a different nature. It is still sin and Jack does not believe the condition should be given protective status in law or treated differently morally. However, to deny there is such a preference as same sex attraction is to deny reality.

          • Martin

            HJ

            I think the only difference with homosexuality is that our soft headed society sees something different in it when it is just a sin.

          • The Inspector General

            Really don’t believe they choose to be of homosexual orientation. However the annoying buggers who broadcast their unhappiness DO choose to be bloody nuisances…

        • Apart, that is, from one Gene Robinson ….. boom .. boom.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            That… was awful. You should withdraw for a while and think about what you have done. Comedy is not something to be trifled with by amateurs.

  • The Inspector General

    I say, Cranmer’s on top form this week, what !

    Another masterpiece to wade through….

    As to the question “Whatever happened to truth, morality or rightness?” allow this man to contribute the following…

    After decades of mass alien immigration, the procedure of integration is well under
    way. That’s the English integrating with the recently arrived races of course.
    Not the other way round. Thus the previously unthinkable, abortion for reason of gender, becomes thinkable.

    Abortion is a disgusting practice foisted onto us by cultural Marxists and Feminists.
    It’s available on demand. The English who govern the English seem happy with
    that, allowing the next (white) generation to be destroyed, but what’s this…

    We can’t allow muslim female babies to go the same way, that would be beyond the pale !

    Christ almighty, if ever we needed a return to the sanctity of human life, all human
    life, we need it now. We can’t go on like this indefinitely, or the indigenous white race will become a minority in time and then the country is finished. We can but pin our hopes on fresh right wing thinking a UKIP government will usher in. All Christians should consider UKIP now, in one’s not so humble opinion…

    • CliveM

      I agree with a lot of what you said, with only one or two ahem minor quibbles.

      It’s good having one of the blogs star talents back!

      • The Inspector General

        Good to have you on board Clive. One would like to take this opportunity to apologise to His Grace’s regulars who sport beards. All good men and true, probably. One feels a right arse after his unconsidered denigration yesterday…

        • Well, just leave the arse on the left alone then. What !

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I should warn you two boys that Mr Slope is taking an unhealthy interest in your thread…

  • DanJ0

    The law needs rewriting to reflect the established ethics [1] because this stretching to breaking point of the defences in the law against illegal abortion makes a mockery of the whole thing.

    [1] The established ethics seem to based on a gradualist approach to the moral value of a foetus.

    • Thus far: how developed must a child in the womb be before we can’t kill it ?
      To come: how old does a baby have to be before we can’t kill ‘it’ after birth ?
      Then: what’s the lowest age of consent for agreeing to self murder ?

      It’s called the culture of death.

      • DanJ0

        I see you’ve edited it to include homosexuality now because I ignored it first time around, you creepy little pest.

        • It’s not about you. In fact Jack had quite forgotten it was originally a reply to your observation about ethics.
          No, its developing a theme.
          Undermine sex and procreation, then promote love of self and pleasure and devalue life long marriage Homosexuality follows as does abortion and then assisted self murder. No moral restraint, you see.

          • DanJ0

            Fecking obsessive-compulsive nutter.

          • Rainy day, Danjo? Unlike you to be so ill-tempered.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    Goodness! The last time I saw Fiona Bruce she was holding up some antiques on the Sunday night magic lantern…she does get around, doesn’t she? But I digress…I think her bill is admirable and excellent and needs to be fully supported. The world has changed a lot since my day of course – can’t get my head around this moral relativism malarkey…when I was a gel it was all so simple. Things were either good or bad…now you have Harriet Harman and the like…oh dear oh dear…will I ever become attuned to it all?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      However, I noticed La Harman wore the wrong Tee-shirt in The Commons the other day…surely it should have been emblazoned with the legend ‘This is what a paedophile-apologist looks like.’

  • Abortion is bad enough as it is without adding gender selection to the misery. What next, only brown eyed boys are desirable!

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace,
    Whilst having an abortion because of the sex of the foetus is appalling, I thought that any woman could have an abortion for just about any reason nowadays so where the difference.

    • carl jacobs

      Shadrach

      The difference is not found in the unborn child at all. The difference is found in the group for which the unborn child stands as surrogate.

      1. Down’s Syndrome – weak group. Abort.
      2. Girls – strong group. Don’t abort.
      3. Disabled – weak group. Abort.
      4. Homosexuals – strong group. Don’t abort.

      And then there is this ugly reality that is only whispered at catered parties held by the urban cosmopolitan fashionably modern set.

      5. Minority illegitimate children from the lower classes. Dangerous. Abort. As many as possible.

      But don’t say it too loud, and for God’s sake, don’t ever admit it to the outside world.

      carl

      • The Inspector General

        One does appreciate your ‘ugly reality’. These godless bastards who rule us will appreciate it too.

      • That was the whole point of the prophetess Marie Stopes’ New Gospel to All Peoples. To limit birth rates amongst the poor and also to eliminate all mental and physical defects from future generations. This utopia was to be achieved by contraception. She apparently experienced a vision and claimed to be speaking for God.

      • Dreadnaught

        Aborting a girl baby simply because of that fact, is commonplace within Pakistan/Indian culture; especially easy given the number of clinicians from those cultures in the UK and in the NHS. It stems from wanting to keep from the ‘obligation’ of providing a dowry for girls or for holding on to land and wealth in the male line, back in the home country .

    • The Inspector General

      Just had a shock. Read ‘appalling’ as ‘appealing’

  • The Inspector General

    An Islamic woman has contacted the Inspector to tell him how easy it is to
    get a termination on grounds of sex…

    “You go to doctor and say doctor give me abortion or my husband Mohamed
    will beat me black and blue and you have to live with that I am in pain all time”

    The Inspector then asked the woman if this was a ruse or was she really in
    danger of extreme physical violence.

    “He beat me black and blue anyway. If I present him with daughter, maybe he
    take my head off”

    • sarky

      Wow, you do accents too! !! What a talented bigot you are!!!!

      • The Inspector General

        Oh dear Sarky, you’re upset.
        Well, that’s this man’s Saturday wrecked…

        • sarky

          Every cloud…….

          • The Inspector General

            Alright, Alright, the Inspector will update his notes…

            Let’s see. Can’t find you Sarky. Ah, here you are, filed under ‘lightweight commentators’

            Not much on you. Just says ‘Sarky – bit of a twit’. To which we can now add ‘doesn’t like Pakistani culture criticised’. Also, ‘likes bigot word. Possible queer’.

            Happy now ?

          • sarky

            Flattery will get you everywhere inspector!!!!

            Glad to know I’m important enough to have a file created, for that I thank you, makes me feel special.

          • We’re all special, Sarky. Haven’t mummy and daddy told you yet? That’s very naughty of them. You pop downstairs this very minute and ask them.

          • sarky

            Well I just did, but they told me some people aren’t so special, especially those gay bashing, racist christians. But they said dont worry, because like the story you had last night, dinosaurs eventually go extinct!!!

          • Athanasius

            Isn’t it past time we started ignoring people like Sarky instead of “reaching out” to them, and just began taking back our countries?

          • sarky

            Who is ‘our’ ????

          • Clue: its not “theirs”

          • sarky

            British or foreign???

          • Very good, Sarky.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            Well, by stated definition, it must be British chefs. I heard that some pigs were once fed British food, and in response promptly hurled themselves off the the cliffs of Dover and into the sea.

            I think there is a biblical lesson in there somewhere.

          • Eh ?

            What’s the rate of clinical obesity in the States these days, Carl ? Britain can’t be too far behind the ‘American Dream’ in this respect. My son tells me a standard helping of food in your nation would feed a family of five. The way things are heading, people wont be able to get to cliff edges or have the energy to hurl themselves over.

            Not too long ’til kick-off. Jack is excited and optimistic.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            Well, by stated definition, it must be British chefs. I heard that some pigs were once fed British food, and in response promptly hurled themselves off the the cliffs of Dover and into the sea.

            I think there is a biblical lesson in there somewhere.

          • Suffer the little children ….

          • DanJ0

            Aren’t you Corrigan, reinvented?

          • There you go then ….
            Now, you put a nice reassuring film on and spend the rest of the afternoon in your room. ‘Pig in the City’ or ‘Toy Story’ are cool. Do try to avoid sucking your thumb though. Once your second teeth come through it can interfere with their growth.

          • Hi happy Jack,

            Actually ‘toy story” is a cool movie, along with “ice age”. But not as good as” mega shark verses mega croc” or “sharknado”( both classic films of the highest production calibre).

          • Kung Fu Panda tops all those. Didn’t recommend it to Sarky as he may have then gone all Zen on us. Imagine !

          • Hi happy Jack,

            Ummm, yeah kung fu panda is another classic…. but as far as commentary here goes, “Bob the Buddhist” springs to mind….

          • One wonders whatever became of him?

          • The Inspector General

            “Gay bashing racist” eh ? Do you know, there was a time only a few years ago, when you were filling nappies, when such an accusation would have brought traffic to a standstill.

            But when you have gays prepared to picket a toy shop because dolls are marked ‘for girls’ and toy tanks are marked ‘for boys’, people ask themselves whether opposing the gay way is the right thing to do.

            As for racism, mass alien immigration was a gamble. Our social engineers were hoping that it would turn us into a country of raving socialists. They knew if it didn’t, we’d all be racists instead, not forgetting the racist attitudes of the newcomers. Remember, Rigby was murdered because he wasn’t brown and he didn’t have a beard…

          • Inspector, “picket a toy shop because dolls are marked ‘for girls’ and toy tanks are marked ‘for boys’ “ !

            You exaggerate, surely Sir?

          • The Inspector General

            Not at all. The threat was made, and the manufacturing companies concerned agreed to cease making gender recommendations on its products. Was covered by Pink News.

          • Dear, oh dear. Next there’ll be demonstrations because boys and girls do not have access to authentic looking medical instruments for when the play ‘Doctor and Nurses’. They have to be helped to become acclimatised to the modern world.

            Is one still allowed to use the term “Nurse”?

          • The Inspector General

            Get with it Jack. No gay activist refers to boys and girls these days. And neither should you !!
            {WAGS FINGER}

          • Apologies and to think Jack has been on countless equality and diversity programmes. Good job he’s retired.

            Young female – with unlimited gender and sexual preference options (surgery as required).

            Young male – as above.

            Ummm …. ageist statements.

          • The Inspector General

            There can’t be fixed genders anymore you see. After all, an 8 year old ‘boy’ might decide he wants to wear a skirt from now on, and thus he’s now a ‘girl’. Gender confirmation will of course follow, and his gift for womankind removed. Gender is now whatever the individual says they are, irrespective of age.

          • So our 8 year old is a ‘male-girl’ ? How terribly confusing.

          • The Inspector General

            The term is trans. Whatever you do don’t call them ‘trannies’ which infuriates them…

          • So what’s the difference between a transsexual and a transgendered person?

            And are they he or she ?

          • The Inspector General

            Is there one ?

          • Worked it out …. one still has their God given genitalia. And one addresses them according to their chosen gender. Of course, one has to be sensitive. With current dress styles of the “alternatively sexual”, good phrase that, its difficult to discern. Safest way is to watch what toilet they use.

            Imagine playing the courting game in such bewildering times !

          • Royinsouthwest

            I can remember when a “tranny” was something you carried with you so that you could listen to Radio Luxembourg.

          • Hi inspector,

            Glad you’re back!! Was getting worried that you weren’t well or hopeful that you’d met the love of your life and went to Vegas to get a quickie marriage (:

        • CliveM

          Do you ever get the feeling someone has completely missed the point?!

  • Albert

    We recognise that in some cases doctors may come to the conclusion that the effects of having a child of a particular gender are so severe to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman as to provide legal and ethical justification for an abortion

    I love the euphemism here: “a child of a particular gender” means of course, a girl. Apparently, the BMA think that girls (rather than boys) can severely affect the mental or physical health of the mother. How wonderfully egalitarian!

    Of course, it’s not that the BMA think that girls are a threat to mothers. It’s that a woman might find herself in that position because her culture (i.e. the male members of if it) may object to a girl for whatever reason, and this provides the threat to the mother. But that means the woman is being denied her own choice – it is being made for her by her culture. Shouldn’t pro-choice people be challenging that (I mean, if they really are pro-choice)? And while they’re about it, might they deign to challenge the inherent sexism in all this (I mean if they really have women’s best interests at heart)? Or is the real issue here that abortionists are either stupid or wicked?

    • carl jacobs

      Albert

      I can’t fault your logic. What you say is true given your presumed starting point. But I read this statement 180 degrees out of phase from you. To me it said (once all the euphemisms are stripped away) “Yes, abortion because of cultural gender preference is terrible. But let’s not chuck the baby out with the bath water… as it were. We can hypothesize a woman who might require a girl baby to be aborted for reasons that have nothing to do with cultural preference. We have to make sure we don’t foreclose her options.”

      • The various doctors and *interested* parties want it to be a private decision, based solely on the woman’s choice. It is abortion on demand which, although illegal, is Britain’s de facto practice. More money for those in the ‘industry’, no accountability or unnecessary state interference.

      • Albert

        So the girl is a threat to the mother’s health, not because of cultural reasons, but because she is a girl. Thus, the position is even more invidiously sexist than before!

        • carl jacobs

          Albert

          Actually I have tried for two days to come up with some semi-reasonable situation that would fit into the category of “I need to abort this child because it’s a girl but not because my culture prefers sons.” I haven’t been too successful. The best I have come up with is “I have a daughter already. I want a son. And I am only going to have one more kid.” I’m not sure that’s so different.

          Anyways, that’s what I think the issue is. They don’t want a blanket prohibition because they want to allow for unanticipated cases. They don’t see aborting a girl per se as the problem. They see a culture that prefers sons as the problem. If the later can be eradicated, then the former becomes moot.

          • CliveM

            Carl

            Chilling but well put. Humankind becomes ever less appealing.

          • It’s already accepted as grounds for an abortion, Carl. For either sex. The mother just has to indicate mental health *stress* of some sort.

            Here’s the blurb from the NHS website:

            “A woman may decide to have an abortion due to her personal circumstances. But there are also medical reasons why an abortion may be necessary.

            The Abortion Act 1967 states that provided a pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week, an abortion may be carried out if:
            continuing with the pregnancy would involve a greater risk to the woman’s life than ending the pregnancy

            continuing with the pregnancy would involve a greater risk of injury to the woman’s physical or mental health than ending the pregnancy

            continuing with the pregnancy would involve a greater risk to the physical or mental health of any of the woman’s existing children

            there is a significant risk that the baby would be born with a serious physical or mental disability – read more about termination for foetal abnormality

            The Act also makes it clear that two registered medical practitioners must both agree about the above points. In practice, this gives doctors a great degree of flexibility in referring women for abortions and supporting their request to proceed

            They want to retain maximum flexibility i.e. abortion on demand.

          • Albert

            I think you are slightly misreading this. Certainly, they want to allow for unanticipated cases (and for the sake of such cases they are prepared to do entirely sexist killings, which are contrary to the will of the mother). But the real issue is that they want to maintain the principle of the woman’s right to choose. Anything that undermines that, has to opposed. Of course, this cultural thing does undermine that, but not in such a way that sets any kind of precedent of limitation on a woman’s right to have an abortion. Remember, these people are (insofar as they think at all) utilitarian members of the culture of death. They are happy to sacrifice one woman’s right to choose, and the life of a baby girl, for the greater good of any woman being able to kill any unborn child, any time, any place. Looking for “semi-reasonable situations” is beside the point – if they were reasonable, they wouldn’t be in favour of abortion.

          • carl jacobs

            Albert

            No, I don’t agree with you. I think they are looking for some way to get abortion out of the gender selection business without impacting autonomous choice. But I don’t think they can afford to accept gender specific abortions for the sake of absolute autonomy. There are powerful Pro-Abortion constituencies that will not accept it, and they will have to be satisfied. Yes, it will be inconsistent. But exercising power means you can be inconsistent.

            Consider the homosexual who believes that homosexuality must eventually be identifiable by a marker in DNA. People in general may tolerate homosexuality in the abstract. A father however does not want his son coming home with a wife named Bruce. We have already legitimized the right of parents to designer children. So give Dad the opportunity and he will act. Under such conditions, a homosexual could easily fear that his community would suffer the same fate as Down’s Syndrome children – silently aborted out of existence. He needs parents to continue to accept children without regard to this hypothetical marker. Otherwise his own life is devalued.

            Their problem that they have is that they don’t know how to do it. The Law by intent simply doesn’t allow for effective controls. What they really want is to control the ethical framework that governs the decision to abort. But they can’t get inside people’s heads like that. This is a huge problem for the Pro-Abortionist. He is caught between the Egyptian army and the Red Sea. But there is no Moses to part the sea for him.

          • The Inspector General

            Look Carl, this is only a musing, but with organised buggery such a threat to society, maybe it is better the homosexual foetus, if that is ever possible to detect, is not allowed to see the light of day.

          • Now, now, Inspector. One does not seek a good outcome by using evil means. Catholic moral theology 101.

          • carl jacobs

            Inspector

            There isn’t any such thing as a male homosexual fetus.

          • Jack thinks you are correct in your analysis. The ‘solution’ may well be to issue guidance asking doctors to be mindful of ‘cultural factors’ influencing choice but leaving discretion with them. The woman’s right to choose will have to be protected or else the other criteria could come under closer scrutiny.

            As for the hypothetical homosexual gene, would the father be able to act against the unborn? Its the woman’s right, not the man’s. Jack has noticed women seem much more sympathetic towards homosexual males than men. Why is that?

          • Albert

            But they are arguing for gender specific abortions, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Albert

            Yes, they are. But I think they are defending a much smaller set of “politically correct” gender specific abortions. The fear is that a blanket prohibition will cover abortions that should be allowed under the concept of autonomy that forms the basis of abortion ethics. So, yes, I agree they are trying to defend autonomous choice. But I think they recognize that they have to do that by extracting abortion from the equation somehow.

            To the Pro-Abortion side, gender specific abortion is not the problem. I agree they don’t much care about any specific child when it is set against the immutable value of choice. They see the problem as cultural. They resent the fact that people would choose to use the tool of abortion in this way. Their solution would be to fix the culture, so to speak. And I agree to an extent. The problem is cultural. But my solution would be to abolish the tool and enforce the obligation of parenthood. Their solution is to stare blankly into the void because they don’t know what else to do.

          • Albert

            I think we are agreed. It’s a classic case of double-think.

  • DanJ0

    The issue of sex-selective abortion and the morality of abortion itself are disconnected things, to my mind. I don’t really see an inherent problem with creating legislation for social reasons to outlaw sex-selection.

    • “The issue of sex-selective abortion and the morality of abortion itself are disconnected things, to my mind.”

      They’re both about discarding human life because its devalued or not wanted. Highly connected, Jack would say.

    • carl jacobs

      DanJ0

      There isn’t any inherent problem – so long as every other objection to abortion isn’t met with “My body, my choice. If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one.” It can’t be a matter of “My social reasons trump autonomy but yours don’t.” If you want to fight this battle on grounds of social reasons, then you have to justify every abortion on ground of social reasons.

      • DanJ0

        Our law doesn’t support a “my body, my choice” position. It contains certain defences against a criminal charge under one of our other laws.

        • James60498 .

          That may be what the law says in theory. But that’s not how it works

          Some doctors are pre-signing forms for women they have never heard of and will never meet. The government knows this and refuses to prosecute.
          The mental health escape is allowed to cover everything. How can anyone prove that it would not be a greater danger to someone else’s mental health?
          How can you decide that it won’t be more injurious to her health to have a girl?
          If you want to change the law so that this deliberately weak wording is tightened up, then I will of course agree. But this is about telling some women that it’s not their choice whilst others can just use the weak legislation and get away with it.
          Of course, there is every chance that there are no abortions done “for this reason” now. Since it was discovered and reported that this was happening, anyone who wants to murder her unborn daughter simply has to refer to the stress that it will cause her to have another baby at this time.

          • Exactly.

            Translation:
            That’s “Thimblerig” for those British readers unfamiliar with the Americanism “Shell game”.

          • DanJ0

            I’ve already recognised that the law is not working as intended, and supported in principle changes to the law.

            Abortion ethics in the UK appear to be based on a gradualist view of the moral worth of the foetus. Personally, I support the option of abortion up to what is usually called late-term, and prefer it to be done as earlier as possible for moral reasons.

            Here’s a chart showing the profile of abortions in the UK by weeks of pregnancy:

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/UK_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg/450px-UK_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg.png

            I’m not seeing that there’s an inherent problem in law allowing for abortions to the left there because women don’t want to continue with an unwanted pregnancy in general, and limiting reasons for not continuing with a specific foetus to significant abnormalities and the like for reasons which are pretty well understood and accepted. I don’t see that this approach suddenly opens the door to abortion choices based on (say) eugenics or ethnicity issues.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Funny, the pro abortion lobby seems quite happy with some emotive terms, like “right to choose” and “my body”.

            That they get all coy about ‘baby’ for the child in the womb is simply hypocrisy.

          • DanJ0

            You think they’re emotive terms? How strange.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            You think they aren’t, how very strange.

          • DanJ0

            Martin, your mind is so odd that you’re practically a different species so I don’t suppose there’s much point to this but, hey, what the heck. I’ll skip over the emotive impact of “baby killer” because even you ought to agree there. The “unborn child” thing for a first trimester foetus is an equivocation to try to impose the image of a vulnerable fully-formed child with a mind, and perhaps knitted little booties, onto a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus i.e. a proto-human without a cerebral cortex (and therefore a mind) or an attached nervous system. Hence, procuring an abortion is akin to murder and, well, we all think that’s morally repugnant, right? Compare and contrast all that with the phrase “my body” in the context of what happens to one’s own body, or with the phrase “right to choose” which is a philosophical and/or legal statement about freedom and duties. Emotive language? Really? You’re on a completely different page, matey.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Of course I’m on a different page, I’m a Christian and can see it from God’s point of view, you are one who is dead in their sins and has lost a great deal of moral understanding. You look at a baby from a purely mechanistic pov, I see a body and soul created in the image of God. The brain isn’t the sole repository of the mind since it is clear that we can still think after death. Luke 16:19-31

        • carl jacobs

          It’s a shell game. If abortion for reason A is illegal, then the abortion must simply be reclassified under reason B. The allowable conditions are so loose there is no way to prevent this from happening. That’s why outlawing gender selective abortion is largely a PR exercise. There isn’t any way to prevent people from legally avoiding the prohibition. The only person who can state the reason for the abortion is the woman herself. She can claim anything she wishes. No one can gainsay her. So long as her claim conforms to the law, she is golden.

          So, yes, your law does support a de facto position of “My body, my choice.” And, in any case, that is virtually the only argument raised against me. Pro-Abortionists do not directly defend ripping unborn children apart with a suction device as a good thing. They hide the reality of what happens. Instead they defend the woman’s autonomous choice. As in “You can’t make me be a parent.” And that is what outlawing gender selective abortion would entail (in theory.) You would require a woman to assume the obligation of parenthood because you reject her stated reason for abortion. You would have to reject all subsequent alternative reasons she might give for the abortion and compel her to bring the baby to term. You would, in a phrase, have to violate her body and her choice – her autonomy.

          To prevent that violation is precisely why the abortion laws exist in the first place.

          • DanJ0

            You may note that I’ve already made a comment supporting a change in abortion law, recognising that it’s not acting as it was originally intended. That said, it seems to me that you’ve now shifted from your comment above, presumably recognising now that abortion politics in the UK is different, although I see you’re still trying to tie your comments together with the “my body, my choice” thing. Hey ho.

          • carl jacobs

            DanJ0

            You may note that I’ve already made a comment supporting a change in abortion law…

            For which you get zero credit for reasons I have already expressed.

            … recognising that it’s not acting as it was originally intended.

            Maybe you could describe how it could operate as intended given the reality of abortion law in the UK. Whether now or in some hypothetical future.

            it seems to me that you’ve now shifted from your comment above…

            I haven’t shifted anything. These cheap ass debating tricks you constantly pull do you no credit.

            … presumably recognising now that abortion politics in the UK is different

            Different how? Is there some reason you aren’t saying this to the Brits on this thread who have said the same thing as me? Or do you think the US has de jure abortion on demand?

            Theoretical limits that don’t actually limit behavior are nothing but the tribute vice pays to virtue. You put into the Law what is necessary to pass the Law. And then you incorporate exceptions that eviscerate the limits. You end up with de facto abortion on demand. And then activists defend the current law from change by asserting the necessity of autonomous choice.

            The only think that makes gender selective abortion different is that certain powerful protected groups feel threatened by it. You represent one of those groups and that is why you are a natural ally for changing the Law. But in every other argument we have had on this subject, you have asserted the necessity of a woman being able to exercise her right to avoid the responsibility of parenthood.

            I see you’re still trying to tie your comments together with the “my body, my choice” thing

            Yes, because that is the universal argument advanced in its favor. By you, among others.

          • DanJ0

            “I haven’t shifted anything. These cheap ass debating tricks you constantly pull do you no credit.”

            You tried it on and you were rumbled. You should have just said you didn’t understand the details of our law instead, and acknowledged that the “my body, my choice” argument didn’t apply here. You’d have kept your integrity and there would have been no need to come out fighting like this. On your bike, I’m done with you.

          • You need to brush up on Women’s Liberation. What part of the slogan “A woman’s right to choose” do you not understand ?

            From the BBC website:

            “Many people regard the right to control one’s own body as a key moral right. If women are not allowed to abort an unwanted foetus they are deprived of this right.”

            ” … if a woman is not allowed to have an abortion she is not only forced to continue the pregnancy to birth but also expected by society to support and look after the resulting child for many years to come (unless she can get someone else to do so).

            ” … only if women have the right to choose whether or not to have children can they achieve equality with men: men don’t get pregnant, and so aren’t restricted in the same way.

            ” … women’s freedom and life choices are limited by bearing children, and the stereotypes, social customs, and oppressive duties that went with it.”

            Read the article’s summary of the abortionist case. Its chilling.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtml

          • DanJ0

            I note that you’re presenting a sub-group’s arguments as though that is somehow an adequate response to what I’ve said so far. The law in the UK clearly doesn’t support a ‘my body, my choice’ justification, whether or not women in general are subverting it. I haven’t seen an opinion survey about abortion published for a while but in the past they have shown overwhelming majority support for the option of abortion (contrary to what one might infer from one of your other comments), and they have shown people in favour of limitations, consistently women more than men as far as lowering the number of weeks limit. If ‘my body, my choice’ was the underlying justification for abortion then this would not be so, and women would also expect and demand the option of abortion right up to term. Undoubtedly the fact that a woman’s body is involved feeds into the argument, and I could make some interesting points in this area if the tone here was better, but Jacobs, as ever, wants to make it a black and white thing and is pissed that I won’t just dance to his tune. Oh well, it’s not as though we haven’t been here before is it?

          • This sub-group is the one driving the agenda and these justifications for abortion are evidentially in play within the abortion industry amongst the providers and doctors. Do keep up with the way the law is being interpreted and applied.

            As for public opinion, well one expects this when laws are made leaving room for discretion and an elite pushes it own agenda. Its how our liberal-democracy works. You really believe the law follows what people consider moral?

            And the reason for the “tone”? Examine your own conduct.

          • DanJ0

            “Do keep up with the way the law is being interpreted and applied.”

            I’m well aware of it. However, the comment that Jacobs tried to springboard his latest schtick from was about the contents and justification of the current law. Again, it most certainly isn’t a support for a “my body, my choice” position. I know you have years of form for slipping and sliding all over the place in an argument so I shouldn’t really be surprised but do at least try to keep up with this one. You’d do well to think on the specific point I made about the opinions of women in general regarding abortion law rather spouting off about radical feminists to try to defend your mate. It blows your comment out of the water but that fact doesn’t seem to throw you off your stride. That’s one reason why I can’t be bothered engaging in discussions with you, it’s like engaging with that typical drunk pub-philosopher at the end of the bar most of the time.

          • You really, really, don’t like being made to look a numpty, do you? Having been roundly defeated in the discussion, you get abusive. The point is that abortion law is being openly flouted and that the social elite are peddling the feminist ‘right to choose’ line, as evidenced by abuses in practice that have been exposed of late and also by the NHS website.

            “The Act also makes it clear that two registered medical practitioners must both agree about the above points. In practice, this gives doctors a great degree of flexibility in referring women for abortions and supporting their request to proceed.”

            and:

            “If you don’t feel comfortable talking to your GP, you may prefer to contact an organisation such as: (and lists the abortion clinics making money out of the industry).”

            Jack is done with you now. Run along and bother someone else. As Carl said, “Catch you on the flip side. No. The other one.”

          • DanJ0

            Nice try. Check out those opinion surveys Dodo. 😉

          • Nice try. Check out those abortion statistics, Danjo.

            In 2011, 98% of 200,000 abortions were undertaken under ground C (risk to mental health) and 36% of women undergoing abortions had one or more previous abortion.

          • carl jacobs

            DanJ0

            I’m pretty much WYSIWYG. if I make an argument it’s because I believe I am right. When I think it has been prooved wrong, I will no longer make it. You don’t get to define my motives or intentions. You don’t get to sit on some imperious chair and presume to make objective judgments about me. I have been watching you pull that stuff in arguments for years. I just finally decided to call you on it.

            On your bike

            I haven’t ridden a bike since I was a child and I am not going to change now. Go ride your own f__king bike.

            I’m done with you

            You know what? You’re right. I can live with that. You are done with me. Catch you on the flip side.

            No. The other flip side.

          • Lol ….

            Get’s to you after a while, doesn’t he?

            Almost a perfect post too apart from ” prooved”.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            What ‘prooved?’ I don’t see any ‘prooved’ in that post. Perhaps you should look again.

          • Maybe Jack’s laptop is playing up …. Ah, it is Jack’s computer after all.

            Big game tomorrow …. excited.

          • SidneyDeane

            You talk f__king rubbish Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Have a pleasant day, SidneyDeane

          • James60498 .

            “Largely a PR exercise”.

            Quite right Carl. You would never guess we have an election coming up would you?

            Everyone who votes for this will be able to say, when asked by one of those annoying Christians, “yes of course I voted against abortion”. Whilst of course anyone who wants free abortions will be told “this is just a tidying up exercise that will have no effect. Of course I support abortion”.

            A bill, under criminal law enforceable by prison to force the two doctors who sign the form to actually meet the woman might just possibly be useful. So that’s why this meaningless bill has been put forward.

      • De jure – abortion within very vaguely defined medical criteria.
        De facto – abortion on demand.

  • DanJ0

    Article: “It is therefore time to revisit its provisions, clarify its intentions, strengthen its exemptions and confirm its protections.”

    Yes, definitely.

  • This is the catch all clause in the Abortion Act:

    “continuing with the pregnancy would involve a greater risk of injury to the woman’s physical or mental health than ending the pregnancy.

    And then there’s this one:

    “continuing with the pregnancy would involve a greater risk to the physical or mental health of any of the woman’s existing children.”

    How can it be amended if a woman claims a girl – or a son, for that matter – would cause her a health risk because, well, its not what she wants, or what her *partner* wants or her existing child(ren), who sooo want a little brother or sister this time? Everyone will be “sooo unhappy”.

    • Martin

      HJ

      “According to a major review carried out by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges in 2011, there is no evidence that the risk to mental health of continuing a pregnancy is ever greater than the risk of having an abortion.”

      And since 95% of abortions are carried out on that basis the vast majority of abortions are illegal.

      • In fact, there is evidence that abortion poses a risk to future mental health.

        • Albert

          What’s really needed here is for a woman who has had an abortion to put a test case – that the abortion did her harm, or did not protect her, and was therefore illegal.

        • Martin

          HJ

          I believe there is also evidence of physical harm from an incomplete pregnancy.

  • ” … it is an inadequate statutory instrument of protection for those women who suffer under the cultural patriarchal yoke of male-primacy and son-preference.”
    And what about we men ? We’re suffering under the cultural onslaught of matriarchal, feminist-primacy with attempts to feminise us.

  • There’s a summary of the arguments of the women’s right to choose position on the BBC website. It makes for a chilling read.

    “Many people regard the right to control one’s own body as a key moral right. If women are not allowed to abort an unwanted foetus they are deprived of this right.”

    ” … if a woman is not allowed to have an abortion she is not only forced to continue the pregnancy to birth but also expected by society to support and look after the resulting child for many years to come (unless she can get someone else to do so).

    ” … only if women have the right to choose whether or not to have children can they achieve equality with men: men don’t get pregnant, and so aren’t restricted in the same way.

    ” … women’s freedom and life choices are limited by bearing children, and the stereotypes, social customs, and oppressive duties that went with it.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtml

    • Martin

      HJ

      If they don’t want to be pregnant they could always refrain from sex.

      • Agreed …. or at least use the Billing’s Method. However, this would mean a period of voluntary restraint and, as we know, unlimited sex, whenever and with whomever, in whatever way imaginable, is a human right too.

    • Albert

      Aside from the bizarre idea that being able to make babies somehow makes women less equal to men, this seems exactly the position. In the end, everything (even a particular woman’s right to choose and gender equality) must be sacrificed on the general altar of the woman’s right to choose.

      • And notice too that these are all social arguments; not one is health based.

        • Albert

          It’s what always happens. A liberal gives one reason for something, because he knows it is more convincing than the real reason he wants it.

          • It’s what happens in pluralist-liberal-democracies, Albert. An ambiguous consensus is established, leaving plenty of wiggle room for future developments which are then left in the hands of elite groups. Its one reason why the Church has to be so vigilant.

  • Albert

    I’ve just had a skim read through this thread. One of the really interesting things is how few pro-abortionists are commenting. Abortion usually brings a whole range of pro so-called choice people out of the woodwork. But on this topic, they seem to be strangely absent – with a couple of exceptions.

    I wonder why that is.

    • The Inspector General

      No surprise there. Not when people find that their pro- abortion stance has become morally repugnant even to themselves…

  • SidneyDeane

    Cranmer
    Why should sex-selective abortion be illegal?

    • carl jacobs

      How refreshing. A consistent atheist in whom there is no guile.

      Perhaps you could ask the Chinese that question, Mr Deane. When you 100,000,000 men in your country who have no prospect of ever getting a woman, you have what is called ‘a Social problem.’ Bad stuff starts happening. Like rape. Like women getting kidnapped and shipped off to Western China to be sold as wives. Like sexual slavery and enforced prostitution. Like the prospect of a war of conquest because the Chinese have 100,000,000 men to give. The Chinese are going to find women for those men one way or another. They have no choice.

      But of course the implicit answer to your question is absolutely consistent. Given that the justification for abortion is rooted in the desire to avoid parental obligation, then the attributes of the child are incidental to the decision. I give you credit for being so forthright. I am not sure however that your atheist allies will be so delighted.

      • SidneyDeane

        Wow. You’re more of a glass half empty kind of guy aren’t you Carl?
        I didnt mean to infer that I thought it shouldn’t be. I’ve never thought about it. But I did want to know what the argument for it being illegal was. You might think that a massive article devoted to the subject may offer a reason. But alas not.
        Anyway I see now that the reason is to avoid slavery and war.
        Seems like a no brainer, where do I sign again?

        • carl jacobs

          Sidney Deane

          You really don’t know what this thread is about? You don’t understand that certain Asian and Muslim cultures have a marked preference for sons and are using abortion to instantiate that preference? You don’t comprehend that widespread usage of abortion in this manner will seriously distort (in fact, already has distorted) the gender balance? You cannot foresee the social implications of making girls into a tragedy of the Commons in terms of:

          1. A large group of sexually frustrated young men.
          2. The commodification of women.

          I didn’t make that stuff up, you know. Prenatal testing for gender is illegal in India. Guess why? Girls just disappear in China. Guess why? There are places in China where there are two boys for every girl. What do you think those boys are going to do? Take a lot of cold showers? Discover the joys of sodomy? You don’t want that practice in your own back yard. You don’t want isolated communities down the street looking for women outside the community because they don’t have enough women to go around within the community. The potential for female trafficking into China is already great enough. You don’t need to add to it in other places.

          That’s the practical argument. I could also make the argument from transcendent value if you like. That’s a more fundamental argument that covers all abortions. But I didn’t think you would want to hear it.

          carl

          • Albert

            You may be interested to know, Carl, that in some parts of the UK (i.e. places with a high immigrant community) they refuse to tell parents the sex of the unborn child, because of the risk of abortion if the child is a girl.

          • CliveM

            Hi Albert

            When my son was born we were told it was hospital policy not to identify the sex of the child prior to birth.

            Strangely it was in a part of the country with almost no immigrant community. Provided you didn’t count the English as immigrants!!

          • Albert

            Perhaps the authority you are under, includes places with an immigrant community (if it is a large authority), and since equality must be applied in all fairness, those communities who would not abort for reasons of sex lose the chance to find that out. Is that likely?

          • CliveM

            To be honest in the Scottish Borders it is hard to think of a significant community anywhere. We actually didn’t want to know anyway, so we where fine with it.

            It could be that they just didn’t want the hassle with even the small number of immigrants the Borders have.

          • Interesting. It may have been a few years ago, of course. Jack’s daughter, just across from the Borders, was asked during her scans if she wanted to know the sex of her child. Jack is happy she didn’t, as it strikes him as being akin opening presents before Christmas morning. Always best to be surprised by gifts, Jack says.

          • CliveM

            We were surprised. Maybe it was also to do with the proximity to Edinburgh, which does have a significant immigrant community.

          • DanJ0

            There’s a fair risk prior to 20 weeks that the visible information from a scan is incorrect and so some hospitals won’t divulge it. I expect some parents get a little arsey being told it’s one sex at one point then being told it’s the other later.

          • CliveM

            I do have a memory of reading that some parents tried to sue a hospital because they identified the child’s sex incorrectly and bought the wrong colour kit!!

          • carl jacobs

            Albert

            That doesn’t surprise me, but there will always be obliging clinics. So long as the practice is rooted in the culture, people will find a way. And there will always be others who provide the service for a fee.

            carl

          • Albert

            Sadly, that’s true.

          • SidneyDeane

            Nice post, thanks. Sounds like an important issue in fairness.

          • DanJ0

            Yet in Islam abortion is either completely haram, or haram after quickening, depending on the juristic tradition.

          • SidneyDeane

            Really? Impressive knowledge. What’s your day job, if you don’t mind me asking?

          • DanJ0

            Engineer during the week, and super-hero at the weekends.

          • Noooooooo …. Jack …. don’t …. don’t mention …….. no, don’t.

          • DanJ0

            I see the obsessive-compulsive pest can’t let go even for a day, despite the recent rhetoric. Thank goodness this is an anonymous forum otherwise he’d probably be in the bushes outside my home at night. Christ on a bike.

          • You really, really need to get a sense of humour. All super-hero’s have one, don’y ya know.

          • Impressive? Its wrong.

          • That’s not inaccurate ……..

          • Albert

            Sidney,

            I think you have edited this since I voted it up. I don’t subscribe to the second paragraph – assuming particularly that you mean it might be in a girl’s interests to be aborted.

        • Albert

          It’s wrong because it is sexist.

  • 200,000 abortions occur annually in Britain, with 98% being carried out on mental health grounds.

    • CliveM

      Have to admit I find that quite shocking. Where did you get the figures from? I would not have guessed that level.

      • It is shocking and an absolute scandal.
        ahttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213386/Commentary1.pdf

        “In 2011, the vast majority (98%; 185,973) of abortions were undertaken under ground C and a further 1% (1,455) under ground D. A similar proportion were carried out under ground E (1%; 2,307). Grounds A and B together accounted for about a tenth of one per cent of abortions (195). The proportion of ground C abortions has risen steadily, with a corresponding reduction in ground D cases (See Table 3a.ii). The vast majority (99.96%) of ground C only terminations were reported as being performed because of a risk to the woman’s mental health.”

        And consider this:

        “In 2011, 36% of women undergoing abortions had one or more previous abortions. The proportion has risen from 31% since 2001 (See Table 3a.ix and Table 4b). 26% of abortions to women aged under 25 were repeat abortions (See Table 11). Repeat unintended pregnancy and subsequent abortion is a complex issue associated with increased age as it allows longer for exposure to pregnancy risks (See Table B).”

        • Meant to add that however some might want to dress this up, the figures indicate abortion is being used overwhelmingly as a method of birth control – not to mitigate genuine physical and mental health risks or, indeed, for abhorrent eugenic reasons.

          The risk of mental harm must surely come from being obliged to see through to term an unplanned and unwanted child. And this, in the minds of those in the abortion industry, (60% undertaken by private contract) surely violates a woman’s right to mastery of her own body. And, note, over a third of women return for one or more abortions.

        • uppitynorth

          Not strictly to do with abortion but could widen the debate; a Local Authority in the North West is seeking a ruling from the high court to declare an unborn child a person. The authority concerned want to seek damages from a women for the health damage she caused her unborn child from alcohol abuse. Maybe some one else has more information on this, but it is my hope that it will reawaken the abortion issue

          • Yes, Jack is aware of this case. Ruling was due yesterday (5th November). Do you know what it was?

          • uppitynorth

            If a ruling has been agreed perhaps they’re building themselves a bunker from which to announce it;I can’t find any mention of it.

    • The motion passed (180 – 1). What will happen when a mother asks for an abortion on the grounds that having a daughter (or son…) will negatively affect her mental health? Which is legally superior – the child’s sex or the woman’s mind? If it is the child’s sex, the woman need only give another reason.

      Just out of interest, Jack: suppose the Abortion Act were amended to cap the number of abortions per year, and suppose the cap was ‘zero per year’. Would you still be against the Act? If so, why?

      • Jack is against abortion and so is against the Abortion Act in principle.

        In the real world, and as a “lesser evil”, he would support a cap at zero …. or at anything below the 200,000 and rising number of abortions a year, if there was no realistic prospect of having the Act repealed. On the same grounds, he would support reducing the upper age limit for abortions. However, a cap can always be raised as can age limits.

  • Graham Goldsmith

    Abortion is nearly always harmful to some degree. physically, emotionally, psychologically and physically. Pregnancy for some can also be harmful but is often so because of our attitudes and motivation around sex and self autonomy. There is peer group pressure. Boys may want to prove manhood and girls might think they will be loved by allowing boys to have sex with them. How often is the desire to be accepted the reason. Insecurity, low confidence and self esteem. Sex is to be enjoyed and experimented with, like a pleasure leisure activity where being satisfied is utmost with no real need for relational commitment. Fuelled by pornography and an advertising industry that breeds dissatisfaction with our own body image. Somebody finding you sexy or attractive may temporarily relieve you of those negative feelings, a good enough reason for sex surely. Particularly if you are drunk and the inhibitions are lowered. We want many things like having a car so we can go where we want when we want. Choice and rights without virtue and character though give us shallow ideas and experiences around relationships and sex. Is it good to follow every hormonal urge and what trouble will beckon after the brief sensual pleasure. Not just for a pregnant 16 year old unemployed girl without a qualification or a partner and whose parents have kicked her out because of it but because it also has a negative effect on society in general. Add STD s anxiety guilt depression infertility low prospects. and a vulnerability to be treated the same again by another man in the very near future. Talking yesterday to an 18 year old who has taken a vow of celibacy not because he lacks the normal hormonal urges nor because he is gay but because he understands already the problems that casual sex can bring and because he wants sex in time to be part of a covenant love. However hard he finds it he recognises its not as distressing as having a pregnant girlfriend. He reminded me that one of the fruit of the spirit is self control. In our culture it is a tall ask not least because he is subject to peer group ridicule and also research suggests that he is only delaying the inevitable by about 18 months – 2 years. But his attitude was refreshing and healthy in that he seemed genuinely interested in the person rather than the object. Our choice culture in general is counter to that and there is no escape from the resulting abject misery for many, of which abortion is only one manifestation. We can barely speak of this biblical wisdom or use this kind of language because the words we have traditionally used to describe these things are now culturally redundant.

  • DanJ0

    I spotted this today:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11217504/Doctor-to-appear-in-court-in-UKs-first-gender-abortion-prosecution.html

    “Some abortion providers claim the law is “silent” on the question of gender but the prosecution is based on the argument that precisely because it is not a ground under the Act it is therefore illegal.”

    Well, quite.