What we can learn from UK´s abortion fanaticism


In a surprising –maybe even shocking– turn of events earlier this year, British Parliament voted down an amendment to current abortion law that would have clarified that gendercide abortions are unequivocally illegal.  Initial votes indicated almost unanimous approval of the measure.  The abortion campaigning that ensued was so effective that votes flip-flopped from 181-1 in favor in the House last November, to a later vote, in February, of 291-201 against.  The radical transformation in opinion is worth considering.  As one astute observer noted, the outcome is proof of the Left’s “fanaticism” over abortion.

While Pro-Life advocates are often presented as the fanatics in the abortion debate, facts speak to a far different reality.  Consider the four main reasons why British leaders radically shifted from defending females from death on the grounds of their sex to supporting gendercide abortions by a large margin.

Tim Stanley outlined the reasons for the U.K.’s The Telegraph, pointing to the absurdity behind each carefully-crafted piece of abortion sophistry that went into sabotaging the gender protection.

First, Stanley notes, abortion zealots in Parliament argued that the amendment’s use of the term “unborn child” introduced “new language” that would threaten the unrestricted abortion access to which Brits are now subjected.  But Stanley notes that the nearly fifty-year-old Abortion Act referred to the fetus as a “child.”  (Abortion activists are playing the same semantic game in our own Texas legislature with HB 708).

We might add that the nit-picking over nomenclature here carries an overarching absurdity that goes beyond British precedent.  The term “fetus” comes directly from Latin, and is translated as “young” or “offspring.”  Using the medical term “fetus” may allow abortion activists to feel emotionally removed from the preborn, but that is only thanks to modern-day ignorance of Latin.

Secondly, abortion-advocating MPs essentially argued that women would lose their “right” to abort female babies with genetic abnormalities because they were female.  Setting aside the utter tragedy of aborting a baby because he or she is not “perfect,” the amendment in no way affected the existing law allowing mothers to end the lives of children with abnormalities.  Keep in mind, the amendment seeks to clarify existing abortion law to prevent “creative” interpretations of the law, not in any way to change the law.

Perhaps the most contradictory of all was the third charge leveled against the amendment by self-proclaimed “feminist” MPs: that gendercide abortions must remain legal so that women who are battered by chauvinistic men for carrying daughters will be safe.  “It would make far more sense for society to oppose sex selective abortion and the chauvinism that makes it happen,” said Stanley, “rather than lamely accepting that some men will always hate women.”

Finally, there is the ridiculous argument that clarifying the illegality of sex-selection would marginalize certain communities.  These “communities,” undoubtedly, are those traditionally known for a cultural male preference – namely Indian.  But minority leaders (the important voices who were conveniently excluded from consideration) have unequivocally condemned the practice of sex-selection abortion.  A Hindu leader said, “We are all united in the belief that sex-selective abortion must end.  We were campaigning for this long before [the amendment’s backers]or anyone else became interested.”  And a Muslim leader stated, “Islamic teaching is very clear on this – it is not allowed, period.  I am extremely worried about [sex-selection abortion] being abused.”

Countries with a pronounced male preference have seen the devastating effects of gendercide on their communities.  In China, for example, where millions of females have vanished in the sweeping misogyny of gendercide abortion, a marriage crisis persists.  Women are so outnumbered by men that wives are being trafficked into China – to replace wives who were aborted years ago.  India faces the same dilemma.

What is unmistakably clear in the wake of Britain’s devastatingly anti-woman vote is that the agenda of abortion advocates has overpowered every sound argument for putting an end to gendercide in the U.K.  Ignorance persists with the rejection of human life in the term “unborn child.”  Prejudice persists with the deplorable defense of aborting children with genetic abnormalities.  Chauvinism and abuse persist with the MP’s refusal to protect women – both mothers and their preborn daughters – from men who do not value the equal dignity of their Lives.  And sexism persists with the dishonest use of minority groups to support an anti-woman agenda that has nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with protecting abortion.


Comments are closed.