Choose who to Kill
News this week that the British Medical Association has advised the Crown Prosecution Service that there may be grounds for aborting a child on a sex selection basis.
On Monday, Mr Starmer published a justification for the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision not to prosecute two doctors who agreed to arrange illegal abortions based on the sex of an unborn baby.
As part of his analysis, Mr Starmer used advice from the British Medical Association (BMA), which states that there might be circumstances “in which termination of pregnancy on grounds of foetal sex would be lawfulâ€.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, has asked Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, for clarification on the issue.
Let’s understand just how pernicious this is by imagining a different scenario. Suppose a lady in early pregnancy approaches her GP.
Lady : I’d like you to tell me the race of my baby.
GP : I’m sorry? Why do you want to know that?
L : Well, I slept with quite a few blokes around the time I conceived, and I’m happy to have this baby as long as it’s not black. I couldn’t cope with that.
Now, would anyone like to tell me why an abortion on the basis of sex is OK but not on the basis of race? No, didn’t think so…..
Let’s see what action the Health Secretary takes next.
Logical consistency is not a criterion for compassion.
This already happens, Peter. At least, it did in the past. Women tell stories of having abortions in the 70s/80s because they’d had an affair with a black man and were certain the child wouldn’t be adopted and would have a miserable life. They decided abortion was the better option. Hopefully in our multicultural society that doesn’t happen so much anymore. The fact is, if a woman can’t care for a child herself she thinks to herself ‘what are the chances for this child?’ and the answer to that question could well be related to race or sex.
In UK civil cases, it has been stated: ‘To amount in law to “nervous shock”, the psychiatric damage suffered by the claimant must extend beyond grief or emotional distress to a recognised mental illness’.
Strange that when civil wrongs are involved, rather than foetal rights, the bar of proving substantial mental injury is so much higher. Then again, those cases might just result in something really important to a ‘free’ society, like monetary damages!
Of course, the unintended beneficiaries of the CPS explanation are those cultures and religions that actively promote gender-selective abortions. Presumably, the price of freedom involves ignoring the plight of young women and their progeny that don’t meet the harsh expectations of oppressive religious ideals. The pro-choice notion that such women could have a ‘choice’ is a facile one.
Our society doesn’t flinch from punishing the woman who aborted her child after 24 weeks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9548293/Mother-who-aborted-baby-in-final-week-of-pregnancy-jailed-for-eight-years.html), so why should gender-selective abortion escape prosecution?
Hard cases make bad law. This is a recipe for state-sanctioned eugenics. Shame on us!
I heard a report on this on Radio 4. The gist of it was ‘we can’t start double-guessing doctors’ reasons for certifying abortions because that would open an enormous can of worms.’ Which it would, because the vast majority of GB abortions are against the spirit, if not the letter, of the legislation. I’m sure the Home Office agree with your points, Andrew, but they dare not open that can.
It also seems that there is a campaign underwaythis week to shift public opinion in NI, based on 2’abnormal’ babies. These are tragic and hard cases for those families, but it was disappointing to hear Edwin Poots promising change instead of insisting that hard cases make bad law.