More on Sex Selection Abortion

 

Furor over failure to prosecute sex-selection abortion in Great Britain continues, pro-abortionists justify and applaud non-action

 

By Dave Andrusko

British Health secretary Jeremy Hunt has written to attorney general Dominic Grieve asking for ‘urgent clarification’ after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided it was not in the public interest to pursue the case against abortionists who agreed to abort a child because the mother said she did not want a girl.

For what it’s worth, I’ve always thought that near the top of the Abortion Establishment’s most serious weaknesses is support for sex-selection abortion. I needn’t belabor the obvious: a pro-abortion Establishment dominated by women who don’t have the time of day for their unborn sisters who are killed precisely because they are female. And the death toll is massive, and is growing daily.
NRL News Today reported last week on the latest dust-up which—from the pro-abortion point of view—threatens to spin out of control. (See “At least some abortion advocates in Great Britain realize that ‘Pro-choice feminists should be more appalled than anyone by the sex-selection abortion story’”)

Very briefly the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph did undercover work and demonstrated beyond dispute that there are abortionists in England who will abort a child because the mother says she does not want a girl.

After a 19-month investigation, incredibly, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) chose not to prosecute abortionists who were willing to abort female babies, not because there wasn’t sufficient evidence, but because prosecution would not be in the “public interest.”
This provoked an outcry that transcended the customary pro-and anti-life divide.
But that, of course, only means abortion advocates need to justify sex-selection abortion without actually coming out saying so in plain English. Enter Sarah Ditum, who writes for the New Statesman.

Of course, “Sex selective abortion is abhorrent,” but let’s not go overboard she writes at www.newstatesman.com/society/2013/09/campaign-against-sex-selective-abortion-cynical-effort-take-choice-away-pregnant-wom.
There’s no evidence “of widespread sex-selective abortion in the UK” and besides, the women who were seen by abortionists Prabha Sivaraman and Palaniappan Rajmohan were not pregnant. Thus, by definition, the hue and cry that has risen is, according to Ditum, “a cynical and determined effort to take choice away from pregnant women.”
But does that make sense even in the Alice in Wonderland world of pro-abortionists? What is known is the result of the investigative work of a single newspaper. Would Ditum be in support of a determined effort to find out which abortionists would—or would not—perform sex-selection abortions? Of course not.
And what in the world does the fact that the women who went to Sivaraman and Rajmohan were not pregnant have to do with anything? Given that sex-selection abortions are illegal in Great Britain, the question on the table is the law being violated? Yes, if we take the willingness of these abortionist to do such abortions as prima facie evidence.
But, as is always the case, pro-abortion “abhorrence” of sex-selection abortion is never enough to do anything about it. Ditum’s bizarre logic goes like this:

(a) “Femicide is a product of cultures that treat women as property and deny them their full human rights”; (b) “And critically, one of those human rights is the right of women to control their own fertility”; (c) “The fact that a woman’s reason for wanting or not wanting a baby might be founded on sexism is not a matter for the consulting room”; and therefore (d) “Doctors are guardians of our wellbeing, not policemen of our morals, and if we accede to the Telegraph’s campaign, we accede to the principle that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body.”

What? Offing babies because they are females is a product of regimes that do not recognize a woman’s “full human rights.” And since killing unborn babies is a function of a “right of women to control their own fertility,” it’s neither here nor there WHY a woman aborts, including because she wants a boy, not a girl. Why? Because to worry about this means we “accede to the principle that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body.”

This logic is circular. Besides it ignores that these abortions are performed almost entirely on women who come from cultures where women are not valued, certainly not equally to men. To pretend that these abortions are freely exercised “choices” is to ignore everything all of us know, including Ditum.
Laura Perrins, a former barrister and teaching fellow in criminal law at University College London, told The Telegraph’s John Bingham, “We should be under no illusions that this decision is [not] a grave breach of the rule of law. It is not for the CPS to pick and choose which laws they wish to enforce and the use of prosecutorial discretion with the public interest test and consequent intellectual acrobatics they attempted to form are desperate attempts to act within their powers.”
Perrins echoed a common conclusion, only more eloquently:

“The CPS has usurped not only Parliament, that has laid down the law in the 1967 [Abortion] Act, but the role of the jury also.”

Source: NRLC News