If you don't want a baby and want to have an abortion.....then DON'T have sex!!!

When I got on this website 20 minutes ago this article wasn't on the most viewed list. So whomever it is clicking on it to keep it up front has been busy for the last few minutes. Give it a rest!

Like a slave, is an unborn child not a brother?

By Charles Moore
27/10/2007

This week, I received an invitation to the opening of a new gallery in the Museum in Docklands, an offshoot of the Museum of London.

The gallery, which is in an old sugar warehouse, will be called "London, Sugar and Slavery". "Discover," says the invitation, "how the English sweet tooth, consumer boycotts and the Notting Hill Carnival are linked by one of the great crimes against humanity".

The opening of the gallery marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. The publicity material speaks of "obscene profits, horrific brutality" and how "the seeds of racism" were sown. It would be an understatement to say that the museum organisers regard slavery as a wholly evil thing.

On the same day as I opened my invitation, Dawn Primarolo, the health minister, was telling the Commons Science and Technology Committee that there was no justification for lowering the limit for abortion below the current 24 weeks.

In doing so, she was going against those who argue that medical advances now make it easier for children born before 24 weeks to survive.

As if timing it to undermine Miss Primarolo's position, Millie McDonagh, who was born in Manchester aged 22 weeks, celebrated her first birthday the following day, photographed with her mother in the newspapers.

I found myself wondering how abortion will be viewed by museum curators, teachers, historians and moralists 200 years from now.

As the slavery exhibition shows, something that one generation accepts readily enough is often seen as abhorrent by its descendants " so abhorrent, in fact, that people find it almost impossible to understand how it could have been countenanced in a supposedly civilised society.

How could people not see that Africans should not be bought and sold for the convenience of our trade or our domestic life? We reserve particular scorn for those who sought to justify slavery on moral grounds. We look at the moral blindness of the past, and tut-tut, rather complacently.

It is not hard to imagine how a future Museum of London exhibition about abortion could go. It could buy up a 20th-century hospital building as its space, and take visitors round, showing them how, in one ward, staff were trying to save the lives of premature babies while, in the next, they were killing them.

It could compare the procedure by which the corpse of a baby who had died after or during premature birth was presented by the hospital to the mother to assist with grieving, with the way a similar corpse, if aborted, was thrown away.

It could display the various instruments that were used to remove and kill the foetus, rather as the manacles and collars of slaves can be seen today.

It could make a telling show of the propaganda that was used to promote abortion " the language of choice, control of a woman over her own body " and compare it with less happy information about the infertility caused by abortion, or depression or about the link between breast cancer and having an abortion before the birth of the first child.

It could show how women, vulnerable and often alone, came under pressure from the medical authorities to have an abortion without being offered help with the alternative.

The museum could make a pretty devastating contrast between the huge growth of rights for the disabled, which began in the late-20th century, and the fact that the disability (or even mild deformity) of a child was always grounds for abortion.

Just as, today, we are invited to glare at the Georgian portraits of fat, bewigged English sugar planters or pro-slavery politicians, there could be a rogues' gallery of pro-abortionists.

Here Marie Stopes, the great advocate of abortion and pioneer of "sexual health", who was also in favour of sterilising "half-castes"; there Lord Steel of Aikenwood, the leader of the Liberal Party, whose 1967 Abortion Act produced more than seven million abortions in 40 years.

How about a picture of Dawn Primarolo, accompanied by her words this week, and juxtaposed with photographs of children born before 24 weeks, who grew up and led full lives?

In many ways, I accept, such a museum of the future would be extremely unfair. We anti-abortionists should not paint all those who disagree with us as callous.

Many of those who support abortion have a deep concern about the horrors of an unwanted child, not realising that the culture of abortion is one that promotes unwantedness.

Others worry about world population growth. For reasons too long to explain here, I think they are mistaken, but I would certainly not want to argue that this automatically makes them haters of the human race.

We should be conscious of how genuinely difficult some of the situations of a pregnant woman can be. We should think more of help and less of condemnation.

Much better, as the late Cardinal Thomas Winning did, to give practical assistance to hard-pressed mothers who do not abort their children than to attack the clinics attended by those who do.

And although I cannot think of any good arguments for slavery, I think there is something priggish and unhistorical about the approach of the Museum in Docklands, which seems to be jumping into a pulpit rather than spreading information.

An anti-abortion museum in 200 years would be less educational than one that simply told the whole extraordinary story.

But the reason I throw this argument into the future is that, with the passage of time, abortion, especially late abortion, is slowly coming to be seen as a "solution" dating from an era that is passing. It will therefore be discredited.

Partly it is the effect of technology. My wife and I still have the video of the scan of our twins at about 18 weeks. You can see heads and limbs. That was in 1989. It bears the same relation to the technology today as do silent, black and white films to modern Hollywood hyper-realism.

Nowadays, it is even more visible and undeniable, as it was not to the first generation of people who had legal abortions, that what you are removing is human " human, though usually not in independent form, like you and I.

It is also visible that this human entity is alive, and therefore that, by removing it, you are taking life.

You may say that this physical image should not make a difference to the moral case, but in practice it does. The famous anti-slavery image was of a black man in chains, on his knees, saying, "Am I not a man and a brother?"

It was powerful because it used the physical to make a direct moral appeal: this person is essentially like you in body and soul, so why do you deny him the rights which you demand for yourself? To see a foetus in the womb is to experience the same appeal.

If you want to do people wrong, you must first undermine the idea that they are people. The Nazis called Jews rats. The Hutu in Rwanda called the Tutsis cockroaches. Pseudo-Darwinian views promoted ideas about racial purity or mental or physical health which allowed those who lacked these qualities to be seen as "inferior stock".

One of the good moral trends of our time has been to reject this way of looking at things. Instead, we insist, in the great debate about what it means to be human, that weakness is not a disqualification, but, by a famous Christian paradox, a strength.

Abortion runs against this trend, and so civilisation will eventually reject it, as once it rejected slavery.

http://www.telegraph...02.xml

Who is another to tell one what to do with their own body. Should this ignorant and assinine law go into effect women will ultimately seek other ways to end a pregnancy, whether it be with drugs, drinking, or possibly suicide. How can a man say he wants a child when the carrier doesn't and that be allowed to go against what the women wants for her well being.
CHOICE...its your choice to drink alcohol, eat what you want, and do as you please with your body. It is NOT THE CHOICE OF OTHERS. Nor should others have an opinion or audacity to say that a woman should HAVE to keep something she doesnt want.

IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE...how would you like to be forced to abort a baby? Its the same as making a woman keep a baby.

PRO CHOICE...MY BODY MY CHOICE...JUDGE ME NOT AS YOU HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT I DO...WHO ARE YOU DO PSH YOUR IDEAS ON OTHERS...WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO?...

Ultimately, there are always other states, or countries to go to for abortion. What the GOOD DOERS who are NOSEY going to push pro-life in other countries.

PRO CHOICE....MY CHOICE NOT YOURS...MY BODY NOT YOURS...YOU ARE NOT GOD...YOUR JUDGEMENTS MEAN NOTHING TO ME!

TRISHA MARKS

WOW, CMike how do you really feel?

The ignorance of conservative pro-life christians is disgusting and ignorant they say that pro-choice supporters use rape and molestation as some excuse to justify abortion and although in some cases this may be true, overall it isn't, abortion is a very complicated thing that women has to struggle to decide to do. They aren't doing this because they are some cynical baby killers it goes beyond that you should read some of the things online about poverty and pregnancies where a mother can't have a abortion because you bastards decided to take away government money to help them. In many cases the child would grow up in slums amongst poverty and horrid lives or a family that can't provide or take care of the child or drug addicts or drunks. Do you fools believe that this a good thing for a small child, I certainly don't think so and you conservatives act like your doing some great justice to your god by saving a life that may grow up in a living hell and don't you dare give me that ******** about adoption because over 80% of children over the age of two will never be adopted these children will grow up alone and you tell me this is some kind of "better treatment" that this is somehow more ethical to do to a child then abortion please save your breath its reeks of lies and contradictions. You pro-life bastards have as much of a open mind as a jackass and you'll never change your views because of your pride and your fear of a god that won't even respond to you worthless prayers. In the end it's the mothers decision and that is how it should stay.

ha ha ha!!!!! Well 5ofus,when you write a comment, it renews it some, so you helped to do that. Plus this is a very emotional topic for a lot of people. Almost everyone has something to say about it. That is why its most viewed and most commented on. And if I am not mistaken, that is what this forum is for. Perhaps, you shouldn't click on it, and read it, then you would not have to deal with it. Just a suggestion.

How is this still a "most viewed" after 2 months? Is someone from Planned Parenthood clicking on it all day long to keep it up front?

News flash when you go to divorce cout the child support is made part of the order as well as the visitation schedule. It was ordered and so therefore the child support bureau, now called family services or something, has it on their books. Since at one time it was well over 30K, they take it on their own to clear it off the books. They also contacted me once when they took 5K out of his bank account. I had no clue, he actually told me first. Apparently each piece of correspondance they receive from child support says, they may garnish wages, take money from your bank accounts and also put a claim in for your IRS return, they told me this is considered "notice" for them.
So besides our initial filing of the divorce, no I never took action to take him to court, every once in awhile the child support people send me a form for updated info and I fill in the blanks and mail it to them.
I am aware that support and visitation are two seperate things, I've never been about the control either. By not making a big deal out of it I feel he had no control of me and no control of my financial destiny.
I do not look down upon women who need to receive this support, I agree l00% they are entitled to receive it for the benefit of the kids, what I was saying it that if your ex or the childs father isn't Mr. Wonderful then don't let him to continue to hold you a financial hostage. It's tough out there but every month I've had friends who do the up and down and the huge let down because their ex decided to take a trip, buy something new and skip child support here or there, I think it makes a women stronger and less dependent on her ex and sets a good example is she can get to the point of survival for her and her children without it so that she doesn't have the stress each month. I know this isn't always possible. But I've heard women complain in front of their children (am not implying that you do or did) oh he didn't pay me child support they are gonna turn my phone off, I can't buy groceries etc, and I just think that whole issues needs to be seperate from the children. The whole issue gets ugly, do we ever really divorce the same person we married? not and its always unfortunate because in many ways the kids do suffer.
Sorry if it appeared I was up on my high horse, re reading that I did appear to be up there a tad bit. I'm all about empowering women so they can be the best they can be, C'mon really in alot of cases it's the moms that hold it all together at the end of the day, the moms who make some huge sacrafices for the betterment of their children and the moms who in divorced situations carry the brunt of the parenting and expenses.

Well most mothers do not count on the check if its inconsistant. I for one know that the money is for my children and is owed to them.
I know the courts very well, what I dont understand is how is anything owed to you if you have never taken him to court? Also the IRS isnt going to send anything to someone else unless it is court ordered also, unless you had a support order how would you get his returns? Sorry just doesnt make sense.
I NEVER have held visitations against my childrens father if he didnt pay me something. In the courts visitations and support are held as two seperate issues.
Sometimes as mothers we tend to try to bare the whole entire burden on ourselves, it gives us full control and some cant take giving any up. I do not knock you doing it on your own, that is your choice but you seem to degrade or look down on women who demand that the men that helped bring these children into the world step up to the plate. Mothers opening a check and doing a happy dance, I might of got excited but only because Wow, now I can pay a bill, or go grocery shopping, or take the kids and buy them some things that I've been putting off. If thats the happy dance then I guess I was cutting a rug!