Superb article in the Daily Mail asks why Britain has skyhigh abortions and unprecedented levels of IVF
At last! An article that points outthe absurdity of skyhigh abortion rates and high IVF failure rates. Why can't the government join the dots? Instead of incoherent proabortion and proIVF policies, the Government should urgently address why women have abortions. If women are forced by circumstances to have abortions then that is totally unacceptable, and if it is a lifestyle choice, they why can't these babies be given for adoption?
At the same time, there should be a much greater preventative measures to treat infertility. Contrary to what Professor Ledger says, there is plenty of evidence that abortion increases the likelihood of infertility. Why aren't women told? Why are the facts withheld from them? And what kind of policy takes eggs from younger women, subjecting them to unpleasant and dangerous egg harvesting programmes, to give them to older women?
At last! An article that points outthe absurdity of skyhigh abortion rates and high IVF failure rates. Why can't the government join the dots? Instead of incoherent proabortion and proIVF policies, the Government should urgently address why women have abortions. If women are forced by circumstances to have abortions then that is totally unacceptable, and if it is a lifestyle choice, they why can't these babies be given for adoption?
At the same time, there should be a much greater preventative measures to treat infertility. Contrary to what Professor Ledger says, there is plenty of evidence that abortion increases the likelihood of infertility. Why aren't women told? Why are the facts withheld from them? And what kind of policy takes eggs from younger women, subjecting them to unpleasant and dangerous egg harvesting programmes, to give them to older women?
posted by Fiona at 5:41 AM
7 Comments:
"if it is a lifestyle choice, they why can't these babies be given for adoption?"
This seems a rather unrealistic view. It implies that an abortion for a lifestyle choice is only dependant on a woman not wanting a baby but does not consider that the pregnancy itself may be as much an inconvenience.
Thanks for your comments.
However inconvenient pregnancy may be it will end after 9 months. Women can be helped to make it easier. No woman need lose her life from a pregnancy.
Abortion does not end after 9 months. It isn't about inconvenience. What word honestly sums up what the child loses in abortion?
I don't think that it is fair to say that 9 months pregnancy is in anyway equivalent to the destruction of a human life (70 years of life).
good point Fiona about the IVF vs abortion and about adoption
i'd be intersted in the stuff you were talking about abortion and infertility-what were you talking about?
"However inconvenient pregnancy may be it will end after 9 months."
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this either. For a woman not wanting a pregnancy it is possible that she may not want,for one example, the effect it has on her body which will last for more than nine months.
Interesting letter yesterday in the Sunday Times, Ireland edition regarding abortion law.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2300489,00.html
Canada has not restricted abortion through law since 1988, and has one third lower abortion rates than the US.
So if no restrictions on abortion lead to lower abortion rates, there is no case for lowering the time limit, and a case for scrapping restrictions altogether. Whilst I don't expect the religious to agree, for obvious reasons, surely the practical amongst them who want to see a reduction in abortion rates should advocate following the Canadian example.
Lucy - you don't have to be religious to oppose abortion! The low rate in Canada could be due to other variables, not necessarily the liberal law. So I do not favour a liberalisation in the abortion law here. I do, however, support greater support socially for mothers, and other social measures to reduce abortion.
Anon - pregnancy may have some effect on the body - ie. stretch marks. But the effects do not kill the mother. Abortion, if done succesfully, kills the unborn child 100& of the time. Many things affect our bodies, not just pregnancy. That gives me no right to kill another human being.
lucy74 said:
"Canada has not restricted abortion through law since 1988, and has one third lower abortion rates than the US.
So if no restrictions on abortion lead to lower abortion rates, there is no case for lowering the time limit..."
True, Canada does not have any legal restrictions on abortion.
I would like to point out that Canada's population is 10% that of the US - 30 million in Canada vs. 300 million in the U.S.
No restrictions on abortion do not necessarily lead to lower abortion rates.
lucy74, Your logic to arrive at your conclusion is flawed.
A Canadian
Post a Comment
<< Home