Posted by: Jose | June 7, 2007

Abortion: that dreadful enemy of the so-called Right

Why does the Right so much opposes the many attempts that have been made to enact legislation on the abortions? It is incredible how the political parties that win elections use this prerogative to avoid that the part of the population that has not voted for them be considered as such: a part of the whole that the parties are obliged to take into account when laws are to be passed. On the contrary what they do is create new sources of division among the citizens. And those citizens that support them carry on with their system of avoiding the national laws and taking their daughters abroad whenever they have to face their conscience.

My experience has taught me that both the Right or the Left prefer in many cases to make use of the abortion to solve these problems, irrespective of whether the Law in their own countries permits it or not. So we are considering here a case of moral hypocrisy.

But no, as usual the so-called Right - which in my opinion should be called Ultra-Capitalism - ignore the interests of those electors one of whose main problems of always has been abortion, apart from the proved fact that many of the offspring of those Rightists have used their money and power to move abroad to have the dreadful - for them - abortion operation which they cannot get in their country of origin because of their progenitors’ fake fanaticism. Because this is nothing but an idea that originated in Religions which have always been the staunchest allies of the so-called Right or Ultra-Capitalism as you like.

Abortion is a problem of conscience, not a legal problem by all means. I wouldn’t like to be in the shoes of a woman whose dilemma is to abort or not to abort because once a new being is begot in her womb to decide whether to dispose of it or not is not an easy question.

And it must be women in all cases who should decide how to proceed. Nobody knows better than they in these cases.

Nobody.

Posted in Justice

« Exhaustion
The American(?) Film industry »

Responses

I have always been a staunch supporter of freedom to choose, both over abortion and other personal ‘moral’ issues. But I don’t think that abortion should have to be a choice for those who are properly educated and responsible in their use of contraception, except in cases of rape or other involuntary conception.

What sickens and infuriates me in this discussion it is that it is the very people who condemn contraception on religious grounds who are also opposed to abortion. One of the most repulsive pronouncements by the late “saintly” pope John-Paul II was his exhortation to raped Bosnian women to ‘accept the enemy into their wombs’ rather than to have abortions. Presumably he regarded this as a Christ-like gesture, but to me it reeked of sickening papal humbug.

By: anticant on June 8, 2007
at 6:42 am

I totally agree with you, Anticant. No condoms, no contraception, no abortion means more proselytes for the Catholic Church, more poverty ergo more people in need of, as you say, “saintly” advice.

And those who support this religious policy, the lay ones, are the first who send their daughters abroad not to have to bear the burden of an undesired grandkid.

By: Jose on June 8, 2007
at 7:12 am

Welcome back to the arena, Anticant. I hope you’ve enjoyed your short holiday.

By: Jose on June 8, 2007
at 7:13 am

Thanks, Jose - it was a very enjoyable trip, apart from mixed weather. A most friendly home-from-home family-run hotel on the lakeside, and a chance to relax in a peaceful atmosphere.

Regarding abortion, I have always considered it unacceptable - indeed, immoral - to use it as a ‘last resort contraception’. The trouble is, so few of the [often very young] women and men who find themselves with an unwanted birth in prospect have any proper moral education or developed conscience. Also, it is a primal instinct of the young to conceive or father a child, in order to assert one’s own significance and capability. The child is unwanted, but the conception is not. A sad state of affairs, but I fear one that is inevitable until a much more sophisticated social conscience develops.

By: anticant on June 8, 2007
at 8:11 am

I think that in the end it should be a woman’s individual decision - too many men are in power, thinking that they can legislate over women’s feelings and emotions, and their bodies! This is fundamentally wrong. Political parties have no right to legislate one way or another. personally I would find it extremely hard to decide one way, but I don’t think that middle class self rightenousess (whether left or right) should provide the ultimate sanction or otherwise! No 15-year old or even 25 or 30 year old should have to plead her case. I agree with Jose that much of this is based on religious dogma, and not enought space is given to serious considerations about individual and moral well being.

By: seachanges on June 8, 2007
at 8:31 pm

Of course I agree with seachanges that it should be the woman’s individual decision. But it is also the woman’s individual decision to become pregnant in the first place, and she ought not to do so - unless forced against her will - if she does not wish to have a child. It is for BOTH parties to take responsibility over this. I repeat: abortion is not a morally acceptable alternative to inadequate contraception.

By: anticant on June 9, 2007
at 1:29 am

Jose, isn’t it remarkable how the Right, especially the Christian Right, insist that all women should be made to have their babies under all circumstances. But then, they stigmatise and label many of these women for being single-parents….for sponging off the state. They are very protective of unborn babies no matter what the social or medical circumstances are, yet when those babies are born they refuse to support and care for their welfare and well-being. Sheesh, in the States, they’ve only recently made children exempt from the death penalty, something which was greatly opposed by many right-wing fundamentalists. Those same fundamentalists insist that abstinence is the only answer and this of course is quite ludicrous and totally never-going-to-work. In fact, abstinence-only programmes, which the silly George Bush supports, are likely to result in large increases in pregnancy and STD’s.

Abortion is a very emotive and sensitive issue and there are no easy answers. I’m certainly uncomfortable with ‘lifestyle’ abortions although I can’t believe there are many women who take the decision to have an abortion lightly. I do also have misgivings about the upper age-limit for legal abortions. In the UK it’s 24 weeks. That is over half way through the pregnancy. 24 weeks is the BMA’s position and I could only accept that such late abortions are necessary in exceptional circumstances such as a continued pregnancy carrying a greater risk to the woman’s mental or physical health than a termination of pregnancy.

The thing about making abortions illegal, something which the Right desperately want to see happen, is that like most other banned activities, it tends to be counter-productive. Desperate women will attempt self-induced miscarriage by dangerous means such as throwing themselves down the stairs. Or they will seek unsafe illegal abortions. All of which carry great risks. It already happens in countries where abortion is illegal. Backstreet abortions result in much more distress - criminalisation, ill-health and death.

The need to promote education, preparation and easily accessible/widely available contraception is paramount. And Anticant is so right, the Roman Catholic church and the Christian Right have a heck of a lot to answer for on the issue of contraception.

By: earthpal on June 9, 2007
at 5:23 am

Of course we are speaking here of the abortion in normal circumstances. There exist circumstances where contraception is not available and although the “day after” contraceptives could be got these have not been proved to be really effective. And there exist individual cases where the contraceptives do not work or are not advisable. And there exist the cases of poor countries, as happens with Africa, where the little money they can dispose of is imperatively spent in other most necessary - for them - things.

And of course education should be top of the list of priorities.

By: Jose on June 9, 2007
at 10:04 am

As to the responsibility for the abortion I agree should be shared, whenever possible, between the two parties, the woman having the last and ultimate word about it.

By: Jose on June 9, 2007
at 10:06 am

Absolutely Jose. There are many complicated factors in this issue.

And it’s in the countries where abortion is illegal or unavailable that there is much death from unsafe abortions. These abortions are very primitive and the women are at great risk of grave complications such as infection, blood-poisoning, haemaorrhage, internal injuries and much more.

Making abortion illegal or unavailable to the poor is uncompassionate and counterproductive.

By: earthpal on June 10, 2007
at 9:17 am

Jose, can I ask you to have a look at my latest story of small town coruption and give a comment?.
All are welcome - just say what country you come from and whether this crap is the same there, too.
Thanx

By: Merkin on June 11, 2007
at 9:27 pm

Jose, did you really think that multi-cultural stuff is dead?
I think not.
Certainly not from our friend.
Check it out on the merkin site.

By: Merkin on June 19, 2007
at 11:04 pm

Sounds all good until you ask “what about the baby?”

re: “…once a new being is begot in her womb to decide whether to dispose of it or not is not an easy question.”

Ever ask ‘why?’ this isn’t an easy question? Maybe it’s such a difficult question because she is “deciding” to kill a person-! If it’s not a person then it’s not really such a difficult question.

By: David Sutherland on May 9, 2008
at 3:08 am

Here again, D Sutherland, it may be up to Science to decide on this issue.

By: Jose on May 11, 2008
at 8:10 am

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories