Nine Abortions? So What?

Following the triumphant pro-life, pro-women’s health legislation in Texas, a report in London’s Daily Telegraph informs us that 37% of abortions in the UK were performed for women who had already had at least one abortion.

More than 4,500 women had had at least four abortions, 1,334 were on at least their fifth and 33 women had nine or more terminations. The Department of Health figures show the total number of abortions fell slightly last year, by 2.5 per cent, with a total of 185,122 carried out. Of those, more than 66,000 were repeat abortions, compared with 54,603 a decade earlier. The figures also disclose a sharp rise in the number of pregnancies aborted because of disability, with a 17 per cent rise in such cases in a year, to 2,308 last year.

The paper reports the news with a sense of bewildered dismay–not because they think abortion is wrong, but because it all seems to be rather an error in taste, and while this is the unwritten mood or subtext of the article, it is, in many ways the most important part of the article.

Nowhere does the author express outrage or disapproval at the shocking statistics. The lack of moral judgement on the issue may be an attempt at objective reporting, but I suspect it really reflects the general attitude among the chattering classes which might be expressed as, “To have an termination is sometimes necessary, but it is all rather unpleasant isn’t it? Not something one likes to talk about. Let’s change the subject shall we? Did you see the final at Wimbledon? Wasn’t it simply divine?”

The fact that no outrage was expressed and that the issue is treated as a distasteful subject indicates that morality itself, in Britain, and among the well heeled classes everywhere, has become more a matter of taste than objective moral teaching. No one suggests that abortion is actually wrong. What they object to is the poor taste in discussing the matter.

When morality becomes simply a matter of taste then it is also simply a matter of preference–”You say po-TA-to, I say po-TAH-to” If abortion is not wrong, then why not have nine or ten or a dozen? Why not use abortioin as a contraceptive? If abortion is not wrong, why not use it to weed out the disabled and mentally unfit?

The pro-aborts began making legal what all people considered to be a crime. They legalized the illicit as utilitarian gesture–realizing that abortions happen and trying to stop butcher shop back street abortions. But when the illicit is legalized it becomes licit, and what is legal and licit cannot be thought of as morally wrong. Consequently any idea that a new generation should be taught that abortion is wrong went out the window. If something is legal it can’t be wrong. Furthermore, if something is legal is must not only be okay, it must be good.

The problem with out society is that too many people are not willing to think issues through to their logical conclusion. If abortion is perfectly okay and is merely a woman’s choice, and if terminating the lives of the disabled before they are born (and in the UK they abort children for no more than a hare lip) then there is no logical reason why newly born disabled children should not be terminated, and if they may be terminated why not anyone who is in a coma, or for that matter anyone whose life we decide is “not worth living”?

How can we say “no” to euthanasia and selected terminations if we say “yes” to abortion? Let us move away from whether this is an issue for women and not men. The simple moral decision in abortion is that an adult person has the power to terminate the life of a dependent and vulnerable person. Once we see abortion in those terms we must either reject it completely, or allow any person who has the power to terminate the life of any other dependent and vulnerable person if they so choose and if they have the power to do so.

This is why the legalization of abortion will lead to death camps. If those who have sufficient power also have the choice to eliminate others who they deem to be unfit to live, then why not weed out the mentally unfit, the criminally insane and the physically disabled? Why not weed out the elderly infirm and the insane?

Excuse my little foray into paranoia, but if all the above is possible, once religious mania is put in the books as a certifiable mental illness, why not remove those insane religious fanatics?

 

  • Michael O’Keefe

    Indeed, why not? I think your logic is spot on, Reverend Sir! Thanks for making the stand. If we do get rounded up, I hope we’re in the same death camp together. That way we can sing hymns loudly while the government is exterminating us.

  • James

    Nine abortions is a strong indication of some sort of mental health problem. No matter what you think of the morality of abortion, it’s not healthy to have that many surgeries.

    Obviously, the UK’s NHS is a very different health system than what we have in the USA, but what I see is that women who need mental health screenings are slipping through the cracks.

    Where are the women’s health advocates?

    • Nordog6561

      “Where are the women’s health advocates?”
      Too bad the UK doesn’t have guaranteed health care like we are getting here.
      Oh, wait…
      My bad.

    • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

      Hi James. I think you need to be careful about a culture which objectivises people through its totalitarian lens, as exemplified in the need to categorise people with mental health issues and ‘syndromes’ (defined by the machinery of your elites). Our different cultures are merely denying real evil through our respective self-deception.

      • James

        I’m sorry, but the attitude of “mental illness is a spiritual illness” has made it more difficult for people who do need psychological/psychiatric care to seek help by stigmatizing the problem.

    • AnneG

      James, I’m a nurse and years ago I worked in the operating room where I did abortions. I saw patients having 3, 4 or even 5 abortions because they did not think oral contraceptives were “natural”. I’m not kidding.
      And we do not have a system in this country. It is very disorganized and full of activists lobbying for rights.

      • James

        Once again, it’s not healthy to have that many surgeries. Where are the women’s health advocates?

        Second, this goes to show another reason why contraception isn’t the solution—people don’t like using contraception for various reasons. Which is why when society sees contraception and sterilization as a matter of public health and the public good, eventually it becomes coerced.

  • Gail Finke

    It’s also a matter of self-control, I think. Many upper-class people, using themselves as examples, would like to be given one chance to “fix a mistake” — two, tops. They think of abortion as an unpleasant but necessary last resort for something they never intend to happen (unplanned pregnancy) and are pretty sure they can prevent, something that should be kept quiet and never referred to. When they are forced to confront the sheer number of abortions taking place and the fact that abortion is not used as this kind of last resort, they get angry at people for not controlling themselves sexually rather than at abortion, because to get mad about abortion would mean that they would lose it as an option.

    • Christian LeBlanc

      I’ll tolerate your sexual sins if you tolerate mine.

  • Christian LeBlanc

    If abortion is legal for any reason, it will eventually become legal for every reason; or no reason at all. But that begs a question: can a culture which normalizes contraception prohibit abortion?

  • boinkie

    yes, repeat abortions are common, which is why the ‘statistic” that one third of women have had abortions is bogus: They are caculating that one abortion means one woman. a similar statistical switch is used to promote the high rate of divorce, although nowadays these statistics are even more biased since they ignore living together separations which are very common, and only include those who are pious enough to actually marry…

  • Jonathan

    Father, very well said. As a convert, I love the consistency of the Catholic position on life: all life (the unborn, the disabled, the old, the poor, the unwanted) are worthy of protection. If you want more proof of how warped THIS country is getting, check out the NYT piece about the NYC schools giving children Plan B One Step pills after a nurse consults a doctor by phone. Parents are contacted only IF they opt out of the program. Girls got around that by simply not giving their parents the opt-out form. Like the article cited by Father Longenecker, there was a tone that some things aren’t talked about, this time between some parents and their children.

  • Anne

    Nine abortions is not only a mental health issue but sexuality injury (abuse) issue. the abtive woman is not aborting children but self mutilating in the area where she was wounded. Today one or two abortions are the norm but four and upwards there is other serious pain calling out to be heard and dealt with.

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens if your culture is led by ‘terribly nice’ Humphrey Blytheringtons. In fact the political equivalent is a Sir Humphrey Appleton, a character in the British satirical sitcom, Yes, Minister, and sometimes wonder whether Yes, Minister had an influence on old Humph’s persona…

  • Guest

    The statistics are just as bad in the U.S. In fact, while the government continues to report the number of abortions is down, what they don’t say is that reporting is no longer mandatory. California, which accounts for nearly half of the abortions in the U.S., stopped reporting a few years ago. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the math. With Texas and NC now proposing legislation that could make a difference (requiring doctors be present, requiring abortions take place in licensed medical facilities, etc.), we need to pray without ceasing that this atrocity will be put to rest in the U.S.

  • SteveD

    The weeding out is already well underway. A charity for the disabled has complained loudly in the past week about the highly disproportionate number of deaths among the disabled being treated in UK hospitals. The starvation of the old and confused is becoming commonplace.

    • geoffreysmith1

      The NHS in the UK is on the point of collapse. It was reported in a daily paper today (July 15) that thousands of elderly citizens are going blind because of advanced cataracts. They are being told that their eyesight is ‘still good’ when they cannot see well enough to drive or read a book.
      I get the feeling that the system would like to euthanize these old folks, but they are forbidden by law from doing so, so they hope that blindness will do the dirty work for them by increasing the chances of the elderly suffering a fatal accident at home.

      • NoHopeForUS

        Utilitarianism at its finest. Given that Obamacare is modeled after the NHS and the finances will (eventually) be the same as Canada’s, mandatory termination of the unfit, elderly, and enemies of the state will be the law of the land here in the People’s Republic of North America (aka USA). Count on it.

  • Charles Mac Kay

    I understand there is in fact a limit to what a woman can take in the amount of abortions. The practise affects them mentally as well as physically.
    I could not believe what I was reading. Nobody seemed to bring up the point it was nine lives, nine human beings, nine children who were being murdered. The NHS has blood on its hands and explains why the whole system is sinking under corruption.May the mercy of Our Lady of Guadaloupe protect all children inside the womb. God have mercy on the perpertrators of this horrible practise

  • Gee

    “If abortion is perfectly okay and is merely a woman’s choice, and if
    terminating the lives of the disabled before they are born… then there is no
    logical reason why newly born disabled children should not be terminated…”

    No. There is a logical reason why newly-born disabled children should not be terminated: it’s because they are born! 100% of professional doctors, biologists, ethicists, and lawyers will tell you that once you’re born, you’re a human and entitled to all the rights that come with that. But before then, there is no such consensus on when life begins, which is why we have this debate.

    Please cut it out with the slippery slope death camp fear-mongering.

    • geoffreysmith1

      “No. There is a logical reason why newly-born disabled children should not be terminated: it’s because they are born!”

      Fr Longenecker was simply pointing out that logic is on the side of the Christians in this matter. Birth is merely an interlude in the life of the person, a process that begins with conception and continues until death. Birth, as such, confers no rights on the individual that were not there before birth.
      The opinion of the “professional doctors, biologists, ethicists and lawyers” remains just that: an opinion. If there is no consensus on when life begins, that is probably because the dissenting opponents of the pro-life cause have personal reasons for their refusal to agree, such as having had a number of abortions themselves and not wanting to admit that they are responsible for the murder of children.

    • geoffreysmith1

      “No. There is a logical reason why newly-born disabled children should not be terminated: it’s because they are born!”

      Fr Longenecker was simply pointing out that logic is on the side of the Christians in this matter. Birth is merely an interlude in the life of the person, a process that begins with conception and continues until death. Birth, as such, confers no rights on the individual that were not there before birth.

      The opinion of the “professional doctors, biologists, ethicists and lawyers” remains just that: an opinion. If there is no consensus on when life begins, that is probably because the dissenting opponents of the pro-life cause have personal reasons for their refusal to agree, such as having had a number of abortions themselves and not wanting to admit that they are responsible for the murder of children.

    • geoffreysmith1

      “No. There is a logical reason why newly-born disabled children should not be terminated: it’s because they are born!”

      Fr Longenecker was simply pointing out that logic is on the side of the Christians in this matter. Birth is merely an interlude in the life of the person, a process that begins with conception and continues until death. Birth, as such, confers no rights on the individual that were not there before birth.

      The opinion of the “professional doctors, biologists, ethicists and lawyers” remains just that: an opinion. If there is no consensus on when life begins, that is probably because the opponents of the pro-life cause have personal reasons for their refusal to agree, such as having had a number of abortions themselves and not wanting to admit that they are responsible for the death of children.

    • geoffreysmith1

      “No. There is a logical reason why newly-born disabled children should not be terminated: it’s because they are born!”

      Fr Longenecker was simply pointing out that logic is on the side of the Christians in this matter. Birth is merely an interlude in the life of the person, a process that begins with conception and continues until death. Birth, as such, confers no rights on the individual that were not there before birth.

      The opinion of the “professional doctors, biologists, ethicists and lawyers” remains just that: an opinion. If there is no consensus on when life begins, that is probably because the dissenting opponents of the pro-life cause have personal reasons for their refusal to agree, such as having had a number of abortions themselves and not wanting to admit that they are responsible for the murder of children.

    • NoHopeForUS

      “…once you’re born, you’re a human and entitled to all the rights that come with that.” Wrong Answer. Just because your attachment to the gestational carrier who grew you has been severed does NOT mean you’re a human with political rights. You may have the DNA of homo sapiens, but political rights are granted by the politicians. If they decide you *don’t* get rights until conditions they set are met, too bad. You’re dead.

    • newguy40

      You are wrong. There is a consensus on when life begins. It’s at conception. Moral and natural law, in this matter, are settled. Science agrees.
      I guess that you can fool yourself if you want. But, I’d like to see a few counter arguements from YOUR respected doctors, biologists (see below). Not interested in any so called ethicist and even less so in a lawyers opinion (which can be had for a sheckel or less).

      “Human development begins after the union of male and female
      gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization
      (conception).” (Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)

      “The development of a human being begins with fertilization…” (Langman,
      Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3)

      “The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life
      history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” (Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s
      Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3)

      Apparently the concept that life begins at conception is a fact so basic to the
      study of embryology that it is presented almost on the first page of these
      textbooks

      “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a
      critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically
      distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes
      present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the
      diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now
      exists as a genetic unity.” (Human Embryology and
      Teratology, 1996, p 8)

      This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell
      that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” (Essentials
      of Human Embryology. Toronto:
      B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)

    • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

      What do these clumps of cells look like to you, Gee?

      http://www.caseforlife.com/

  • David M Paggi

    Father:

    Very perceptive piece. The slippery slope that you refer to is both real and insidious. We can observe at least 3 trends that underlie the cultural phenomena you refer to above:

    1) Relativism: Not only does relativism deny that there are moral absolutes, it eliminates them as categories of discussion altogether. So people are led to believe that a moral crisis is of no greater importance than whether one’s favored player advances at Wimbledon.

    2) Political Correctness: So wedded is this to relativism is that they are fellow travelers and reinforce each other. Ironically, because we need moral absolutes we get them anyway, just from a different source. PC is a way of enforcing a code of conduct no less rigid, but informed by entirely different criteria than the Ten Commandments. While relativism prevents discussion of traditional values, PC makes substitutions of what will be considered acceptable or hip.

    3) Both of the above require muddied thinking and herd mentality, which is sustained by the debasement of language, as George Orwell so presciently described. For example, the faculty photo on the web page for the OB-Gyn department of a nearby medical school is captioned with the areas of particular interest of each member. One of these was “Uterine Evacuation”, which sounds so much more “clinical” than abortion.

    There was a time in living memory when the press respected its readers enough to distinguish factual reporting from editorial comment. As current practice has abandoned objectivity for advocacy, readers have been conditioned to have their opinions shaped for them rather than doing the work of reaching their own conclusions. They realize neither the contempt in which they are held nor the degree to which they are influenced.

    Poll numbers show that atheism and agnosticism are tremendously more prevalent among media people than the general population. Since the human person is designed to have a moral code and higher purpose, and nature abhors a vacuum, politics has become the religion for entirely too many in the field. They are all the more susceptible since they lack the grounding necessary to resist the heady ego trip that comes from power and celebrity.

    There must be some number of journalists who are unaware of their degree of bias simply because they accept as a given the value system that dominates their field. However, there are some who having sold out to this ideology, work with skill patience and determination to advance the spread this religion. These are the evangelists of the culture of death, with tremendous resources of money, talent, and platform at their disposal.

    We ignore them at our peril.

  • niknac

    As a single career woman who hopes one day to have children, I like to keep my reproductive system toned like the rest of my body. I try to get pregnant at least once a year but always try for twice, I think that’s better. I usually wait until just after the first trimester to abort. I always feel and think I look so much better after. My skin looks younger, I have more energy. My menses are more regular and with less cramping. My doctor says everything is tip top and ready to go.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X