Abor­tion act of 1967 was only meant to help women with health is­sues

Hinckley Times - - NEWS -

I’M of­ten ex­tremely con­cerned when mem­bers of par­lia­ment, of ne­ces­sity or oth­er­wise, in­volve them­selves with is­sues that are not only of a po­lit­i­cal na­ture but rather more eth­i­cal or in­deed the­o­log­i­cal and in so do­ing show a to­tal dis­re­gard for re­li­gious rep­re­sen­ta­tion, sim­ply plough­ing on in a sort of mind set that is to­tally sec­u­lar.

Most surely it is a po­si­tion ex­em­pli­fied more re­cently by Labour MP Stella Creasy in be­ing in­stru­men­tal in the Bri­tish govern­ment al­low­ing women from North­ern Ire­land ac­cess to NHS funded abor­tions, in­clud­ing that of travel. I won­der just how many per­sons in this “so called” democ­racy are happy about their taxes be­ing spent in this way or in­deed for abor­tions more gen­er­ally.

Lest any­one should con­sider the mat­ter in light hearted vein, or in­deed a mat­ter of pop­u­lar­is­ing for the ac­qui­si­tion of votes, then surely they need re­mind­ing of how di­vi­sive an is­sue is that of pro­cured abor­tion in Amer­i­can pol­i­tics since its prac­tise has gone so far as to lead to, in ex­treme cases, the burn­ing of clin­ics and the shoot­ing of abor­tion­ist doc­tors.

When the abor­tion act was passed in 1967 there is no way it could ever be en­vis­aged that sev­eral thou­sand would even­tu­ally take place ev­ery year, for ini­tially it was thought that it would save women the dan­gers to health as­so­ci­ated with back street abor­tions. Now of course it’s of­fered to all and sundry on de­mand, de­spite sup­pos­edly strict leg­is­la­tion.

It has un­doubt­edly en­cour­aged ir­re­spon­si­ble sex; the argu- ment there­fore re­gard­ing the pro­tec­tion of the woman’s health hav­ing re­ceded into the back­ground.

And though a deeply per­sonal and fer­vently held re­li­gious point of view, I be­lieve the ar­gu­ment based on women’s rights di­min­ishes the dig­nity of the women.

Politi­cians who take mat­ters of this na­ture lightly in pur­suit of the pop­u­lar­ist vote are not gen­er­ally per­sons who lead a life gov­erned by prayer as has been de­picted in the lives of some who have had to make de­ci­sions re­gard­ing pro­found eth­i­cal is­sues though I must ad­mit I greatly ad­mire the stance of Ja­cob Rees-Mogg in this re­spect, so sadly rue­ing the fact that he’s not a Labour politi­cian. David Ab­bott Stoke Gold­ing

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.