De­struc­tion [. . .] at will

The Washington Times Weekly - - Culture, Etc. -

“When I was first in­volved in the birth-con­trol move­ment in the early 1970s, and con­tra­cep­tive mea­sures were in­tro­duced by the [Bri­tish] Na­tional Health Ser­vice, we were ap­palled by the approach to the is­sue be­hind the Iron Cur­tain.

“There, abor­tion on de­mand was the ap­proved method of con­tra­cep­tion. Al­though we were pre­pared to ac­cept that an oc­ca­sional abor­tion had fewer phys­i­cal or emo­tional con­se­quences for the mother than did a full-term preg­nancy, any abor­tion [. . .] car­ried with it the risk of in­fec­tion and sub­se­quent in­fer­til­ity.

“Our anx­i­ety was that re­peated abor­tions would re­sult in an un­ac­cept­able chance that the wo­man would be­come in­fer­tile as the re­sult of pelvic in­flam­ma­tory dis­ease. Prob­a­bly the greater worry was that re­peated abor­tions triv­i­al­ized the im­por­tance of preg­nancy by le­git­imiz­ing the de­struc­tion of fe­tuses at will. [. . .]

“Noth­ing I have seen in medicine for the past 30 years has altered my opin­ion.”

— Dr. Thomas Stuttaford, writ­ing on “The im­por­tance of preg­nancy is triv­i­al­ized by re­peated abor­tions,” Nov. 28 in the Times of Lon­don

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.