Subscribe to The Spectator
Home > Essays > All

Friday 10 February 2012

Latest issue

Buy the current issue

Jobs at Telegraph

Rod Liddle A century from now, we will be appalled that we allowed abortions at all

21 May 2008

Rod Liddle says the Commons vote securing the 24-week limit is no more than a craven politician’s fudge, designed to postpone the day when the law of the land finally catches up with the indisputable findings of science

We are where we are, however, only partly as a consequence of these scientific and philosophical matters. Political correctness — that scourge of our age, that terrible insistence that some things must remain unsayable even if they are patently true — is responsible for some of the pressure to leave things as they are. The vestigial tail of late-19th-cen-tury feminism still wagging itself into a frenzy, accompanied by the all-conquering bleat: a woman’s right to choose! But it is true, too, that we do not want our young women scurrying even further down those back alleys between Budgens and the halal chicken shop, to illegal abortionists armed with rather basic equipment. And it seems to be true that those states of the US with the most liberal abortion laws also have the lowest crime rates, which may be evidence that well-heeled East Coast liberals suffer less crime than nasty blue-collar inner cities, or that it is largely the criminal untermensch who take advantage of late abortion laws and would otherwise deliver horrible little proto-muggers into the world. One of the two, then. Or both.

But the current law, no matter how MPs voted, is a temporary fix — a fudge intended to placate fundamentalists of both persuasions pulling, with equal force, in opposite directions.

More articles from: Rod Liddle | this section

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Comments Post comment

John Thomas

May 22nd, 2008 6:08pm Report this comment

It's interesting that Rod, here, writes of future memorials and apologies for the abortion holocaust(say from the descendents of Brown and Primarola? - now there's a thought). I was thinking about such possibilities only yesterday. Of course, you could not put the names of victims on such a memorial, say like war memorials. So, I suggest listing the perpetrators ("Their Guilt Liveth for Evermore"). Perhaps in the boldest letters would be cut the name of the grand old Father of British Infanticide, M'lord Steele. Apparently, his lordship has said that he really did believe, back in 1968 (was it?) that abortion would only be for last resort, and he never, ever supposed that it would become simply a means of family planning; now it used to be said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but with Steele we have to substitute "extreme naivety".

Sean Dunne

May 22nd, 2008 8:06pm Report this comment

It’s questionable whether any humans will even be alive on this planet in a hundreds years time. With a population figure due to reach 9 billion in a mere 50 years time, many areas of the world will have compulsory abortion laws as an attempt just to stave off unavoidable starvation.

alison weston

May 23rd, 2008 10:21am Report this comment

For the life of me I can't understand unwanted pregnancies (except in case of rape) as there are all manner of devices, pills, to use and take to prevent getting pregnant. It's all become too easy, too callous. Perhaps we need to go back to love and marriage and work at them both.

Susan Grave

May 23rd, 2008 1:14pm Report this comment

A very serious indictment on supposed 'civilised' society that abortion is used as a method of contraception! We certainly live in a disgustingly disposable world!

Harry Osbourne

May 23rd, 2008 9:27pm Report this comment

When will the number of foetuses aborted (at the taxpayers expense),surpass the number of Jews killed by Hitler? Unlike the average Gernan then we do not have the excuse of a Totalitarian dictatorship determiming events over which we have no control.
It is even more distasteful that the missing four million have been replaced by a similar number of immigrants, encouraged, actively or otherwise, by our market forces dominated politicians.

Richard Manns

May 23rd, 2008 10:50pm Report this comment

You don't define a human by pain. Indeed, we tend to define them by the capacity of our cerebral cortex "acting human". But consider this; children born without a functional cortex may not be recognised as such for a few weeks, so if you continue that logic, until the child's cortex becomes active and relevant, the baby is still just a bundle of primitive sucking reflexes with no "human brain" input.

Secondly, the argument against abortion still has trouble defining when the fetus is a fetus; perhaps the contact by the sperm? Penetration of the egg? The calcium release to prevent further penetration? Fusion of the nuclei? When the father's DNA begins to play a role? Implantation?

I build a trap here; most of these are spontaneously aborted prior to term in any case.

But realistically, I invite you to travel back to the 19th century here (backstreet abortions), the 1930s in Spain (dead babies in the river Turia) and the idea of giving birth to your rapist's child. This is madness to propose a return.

I do not say that it ought not to be modified; but to throw the baby out with the bath-water is not smart.

Mr Grumpy

May 23rd, 2008 10:58pm Report this comment

It gets worse: the 2006 tally of 193,737 abortions is actually just for England and Wales. There were another 13,081 in Scotland.

David Medlock

May 24th, 2008 10:06am Report this comment

When a fetus is aborted, a living organism dies. Is it a human organism? What else could it possibly be?

D Short

May 24th, 2008 4:21pm Report this comment

I heard a nurse on R4 the other day describing how she had to take an aborted foetus away for removal, and saw the baby gasping for breath under the amniotic fluid.

It's an image I think I shall take to the grave.

john

May 26th, 2008 3:37pm Report this comment

What intrigues me about the 'pro-choice' case is the weight given to the question of the time before or after which a foetus is able to survive independently. But of course if you do remove it before that time it will indeed not survive. That so circular a form of argument is trotted out to justify this extreme act does confirm that however fatuous one's case, the more it is parroted, the more credence it gains.

There can be grounds for abortion, but claptrap for pleasing the femino-liberal left is not one of them.

Steve Stip

May 27th, 2008 12:28am Report this comment

How blase some people are about pain! How can anyone with any imagination or any knowledge of the Golden Rule countenance the painful killing of even an animal much less a human? Some people make me feel very good about myself and that ain't saying much.

Catherine Hanley

May 28th, 2008 4:10pm Report this comment

My uterus is nobody's business but my own, Mr Liddle. My personal issues aside with the concept of abortion, illegalising the right of women to do what they want with their own body, also legalises my ability to say I want your heart for my sick relative in need of a transplant. Pregnancy can kill and it could well kill me if I ever chose to become pregnant because of health reasons.The question is bodily integrity and choices made because of that. Not the actions of the hypothetical woman dragging a man off behind Budgens. Finally, its amazing how the loudest voices against abortion are those with penises.

Catherine Hanley

May 28th, 2008 4:10pm Report this comment

My uterus is nobody's business but my own, Mr Liddle. My personal issues aside with the concept of abortion, illegalising the right of women to do what they want with their own body, also legalises my ability to say I want your heart for my sick relative in need of a transplant. Pregnancy can kill and it could well kill me if I ever chose to become pregnant because of health reasons.The question is bodily integrity and choices made because of that. Not the actions of the hypothetical woman dragging a man off behind Budgens. Finally, its amazing how the loudest voices against abortion are those with penises.

john

May 28th, 2008 7:26pm Report this comment

Catherine states irrefutable particular grounds for abortion. Particular. She also generalises this so far as apparently to present abortion as an absolute good, in so far as it embodies free choice. It is as well that as moral social decisions need the best thoughts of all responsible members of society, we all get a say. That is because we are duty bound to support each other in the consideration of grave matters, not because of the narrow factionalism she perhaps assumes.

Joanna

June 7th, 2008 5:53am Report this comment

If we think more about why an abortion is needed, we can conclude that it's necessary for most of the cases!

Helena Wojtczak

August 2nd, 2008 11:31am Report this comment

Two thoughts:

Rather a quarter of a million abortions a year than a quarter of a million unwanted children, surely?

It isn't feminists that are thoughtlessly discharging their seed inside fertile women.

Helen Smith

September 28th, 2008 4:57am Report this comment

Catherine, firstly, if its YOUR body, why didn't you have the INDIVIDUAL responsibility to USE contraception in the first place? Not really a choice there. Furthermore, Liddle says a child feels pain at 8 weeks, hence, IMPLYING that it doesn't take 2 MONTHS (when the child feels pain and RESPOND to external stimuli) to have an abortion, even if you are irresponsible and an insult to any women who CAN take care of themselves indepedently. An dif you were responisble and still got pregnant (e.g. condom burst)or raped 2 months (40-50 days) is still a reasonable time to have an abortion. The model has its own fludity.

Secondly, there is NO disagreement that if the mother's life is in danger an abortion is permitted. The Catholic Church ALLOWS for abortion in such contexts!

Emma

February 5th, 2009 3:12pm Report this comment

And what about the thousands of women who are failed by their contraception each year? There are cases of women conceiving while on the pill or using condoms- neither are 100% effective.

Post comment

Back to top

Cartoons

sponsored links

Spectator recommends

Spectator classifieds

THE PRESENT FINDER

1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk

OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS

Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844

RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings

62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk