Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Why rights must start in the womb



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 October 2007
THE Abortion Act (1967) effectively set out that babies in the womb could be disposed of like commodities, regarded as "non-persons" and denied their human rights for even the most trivial of reasons.
Abortion is now offered as some sort of humanitarian solution to practical problems, and on that basis has been deemed morally justifiable and more and more acceptable. References to women's rights aim to convince people it's some sort of entitlement.

The freedom to make personal choices is a right but when pregnant there's another human being in existence and the "choice" of abortion takes away that baby's right to life.

Early feminists opposed abortion on these very grounds, saying as they were fighting against being treated as "commodities" why would they want to impose such treatment on others, let alone children.

As calls are being made for the current legislation to be liberalised further it is not just those in the womb who are at risk any more, as we saw last November when one British medical body suggested "mercy killings" for severely disabled infants.

Sadly this call was not the first and such suggestions are becoming more prevalent as our society comes increasingly to accept quality of life judgements that decide whose life is worth living and whose is not.

No longer are we discussing whether abortion is right or wrong in the UK, now we focus on time limits and, chillingly, at what stage the unborn baby can feel the pain of being aborted.

These attitudes are a direct result of the passing of the Abortion Act, because what that enshrined in law was a justification for economics or practicality to be used as a reason to destroy human life - moreover, human life at its most vulnerable stage.

We now talk of "'viability" of life in cases of suspected disability and of the right to end the life of someone who is not "wanted" instead of having laws that protect and promote respect for the rights of all people, no matter what their stage of development or state of mental or physical health, or the circumstances of their conception.

We are expected to accept this legislation so women can choose to end the life of their own child - even though it can impact on them in the most negative ways - instead of legislation that addresses the problems women face that force them to choose abortion as a life solution. It is sold to women as some sort of cosmetic procedure by pretending the unborn child is not fully alive, as though there are stages of being human, and many endure their regret and grief in silence afterwards thinking they are the only ones.

In Lothian there were 2543 abortions last year. Dr Anna Glasier of NHS Lothian is reported to have said that most of the abortions in the region "could have been prevented" by things like better sexual health and relationships education.

Our failure to educate has already cost thousands of lives in Lothian alone and will have caused irreparable damage to many of the women involved.

Pro-abortion advocates would suggest these figures are preferable to those from the days of back street abortions, but the World Health Organisation Statistics for the 1960s showed there were three, ten and seven abortion-related deaths in Scotland in 1960, 1962 and 1965 respectively, and deaths from abortions have continued to take place in the past 40 years.

By accepting abortion, we allow our society to continue masking the social problems that lead to them like poverty or lack of support for mothers in education. Because it's an option, it enables employers not to have to make concessions to women and allows discrimination against mothers.

After 40 years women are still in the same predicament: they still earn less than men and rarely reach the top spots; they still do the bulk of the care-giving and housework in the home; and added to all this they are given no support for a crisis or unplanned pregnancy other than the "choice" of aborting their child.

After 40 years women deserve better than abortion.

• Donna Nicholson is spokeswoman for 'pro-life' lobby group SPUC Scotland. The post-abortion counselling service, British Victims of Abortion, can be contacted on 0845-603 8501.

The full article contains 722 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 October 2007 8:39 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Abortion
 
1

Dibs,

30/10/2007 12:26:07

Have I missed an article somewhere? Was the opposition to her views asked to comment? Or is this paper just getting worse all the time?

Informed debate would be nice Evening News?

2

FrankyB,

Ullapool 30/10/2007 12:42:48

The world needs to keep up here. Progress in science is increasing lifespans. At the moment we cannot increase quality as well but we are trying to (cosmetic changes are routine these days but we still need to improve physical and mental health). If we are to succeed the abortion and euthanasia question needs answered before we get there. The world is finite and so is its resources. Birth control and euthanasia need debated now. We cannot allow mystical views on life (ie religion) to decide these questions. Ethics and morality belong in the whole human arena and are not, and never have been, the sole domain of religion (as all the religious bibles clearly demonstrate with multiple crimes committed in the name of religion by God's appointed (always a male 'prophet') to humans of all persuasions, young or old, male or female). We need to get our ethics and morals right first and this will involve deciding 'what it is to be human' and 'what rights flow from this'. I have no doubt that this very debate will spread to other animals as they certainly have rights too.

3

Jane,

30/10/2007 13:15:28

Where is the balance in this article?

Does she really think that employers factor in abortion when developing their maternity policies?

What does she think would have happened to the 2543 unnwanted extra babies in Lothian? Would they have been lovingly raised in happy families?

4

,

30/10/2007 13:18:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1099017, Article id was mapped to record!
5

Southern Cross,

30/10/2007 13:20:04

"After 40 years women deserve better than abortion."

What they don't deserve are patronising lectures by Ms Nicholson.

They should be able to make their own decisions about unplanned pregnancies without a barrage of dubious emotional rhetoric.

6

,

30/10/2007 13:20:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1099032, Article id was mapped to record!
7

IainT,

30/10/2007 13:22:29

Why on earth is this political editorial rant being listed as a "story"? Are this pressure group paying for this as an advert, or is the EEN now an anti-choice propaganda mouthpiece?

8

alex patersons English teacher,

30/10/2007 13:23:58

7.
Your right about the police and the house mate,all to much big brother for me.

9

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 30/10/2007 13:33:29

Sooner or later we'll have the technology to end the abortion argument. All that's needed is improvement in incubators so that a child can be brought to term through machinery.

Then, if a woman decides she doesn't want the baby taking up womb space, the baby can be removed and raised in an incubator until it's ready to do without. Then hopefully it gets raised like any other baby.

Who'll pay though? Well, society has already answered that one in charging males to raise babies they've created when they don't want to be fathers. Nothing really needs to change except that in future it will be the ex-mothers who'll be charged.

Then the pro-abortion lobby gets the abortions it wants and the anti-abortion lobby sees that the babies won't die. Everyone's happy and we can forget about the argument.

10

Boy Wonder,

30/10/2007 13:37:44

I hope the balance will be maintained by a pro-termination spokesperson. Otherwise ... is Hootsmon Publications pinning their colours with SPUC??

11

Em,

30/10/2007 14:42:39

Lots of ranting commenters on here I see.

The fact that the scotsman has decided to publish an article that highlights the pro life stance as opposed to the same old barrage of pro abortion arguments clearly riles some people.

The article draws to attention the fact that abortion is not the solution it is claimed to be and in many cases abortion is just trading one problem for another as the burden that comes with having an abortion can be heavy.

I am glad the the article gave mention to the fact that deaths from back street abortions have been over-inflated to make it look as though the legalisation of the 60's somehow caused a massive decline in deaths due to abortion.

In reality you need to go back to the pre penicillin era to find a large number of deaths due to abortion, after the advent of penicillin the number of deaths sharply decreased and then steadily declined, The precipitous drop in maternal deaths in the 1950s and ‘60s occurred while abortions were still illegal.

Currently abortion deaths are grossly under-reported, instead of listing abortion as the cause of death on the death certificate many doctors will list a complication that has arisen within the abortion procedure such as hemmoraging as the cause of death when really it comes down to abortion.
This is done as it makes abortions appear safer than they really are, as well as creating the impression that the legalisation of abortion caused the number of deaths due to abortion to decline.

12

CS,

Edinburgh 30/10/2007 15:37:01

Unless I slept through a revolution, this country is still a democracy and pro-lifers are as entitled to their opinions as anyone else and are allowed to voice them. Because we are a democracy however the majority rules and at the moment on the subject of abortion the majority would seem to favour the right to abortion but question the 24 week rule. As to friend of Fernando poo's comment 'Who'll pay though? Well, society has already answered that one in charging males to raise babies they've created when they don't want to be fathers.' Comment such as that is reason enough why abortion is still legal, imagine the famillial pride of being the parent who has brought such an enlightened human being to adulthood.

13

Ruth Wilson,

Aberdeen 30/10/2007 16:33:27

As a young 25 year old woman I am grateful that women are now being properly educated about abortion. For too long, women have been having abortions without being told about the possible side effects to their mental and physical well being not to mention the early development of their baby. This does not sound like an informed decision to me.

Thank you for this very brave and much needed opinion piece and yes, women do deserve better then abortion.

14

thomas,

midlothian 30/10/2007 16:51:31

apparently the issue is that women do not have the right to chose. this is clearly demonstrated by the dead lawyer mr. corbett, who has written in his will, that if his widow takes up with another person she is disqualified from his half of the estate. mr. corbett has no rights now he is dead. his wife has kept her part of the bargain ;till death do us part.
what more did this stupid man want? the vows should read ; until your death do us part, if this fool from the grave, has any credibility

15

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 30/10/2007 17:15:30

#13 : Thanks for the snide comments CS. Since you've clearly had trouble following what I said, I'll take you through it slowly:

1. There exist men in our society who make someone pregnant and refuse to be fathers. I find it hard to conceive of you denying this, but do enlighten me if I'm wrong.

2. Society in its infinite wisdom has decided that they should pay for raising such children if they are brought to term. This seems fair to me but what do I know. We'd all probably concede that the folks entrusted to collect these payments could find their heads with both hands and a GPS tranceiver, but the principle is eastablished.

So far so yadda yadda. Now this is the tricky bit where I extrapolate into the future...

[ Wavy lines indicating furture being constructed...]

3. The medical geeks invent this souped-up incubator. So now when a woman goes in to evict a kid from her womb, she's granted it as of right. What's changed is that the kid gets to move as comfortably as possible into the new incubator, I assume by C-section or similar. I.E an abortion doesn't necessitate, nor does it include the right to, kill the kid.

4. The kid is brought to term in the incubator.

5. Afterwards, and this is why the comment you took the hump about is important, society asks "Who pays to raise the kid?"

Given that society already established that absent fathers have to pay, it simply draws the logical conclusion that absent mothers have to pay too, and a future version of the CSA sets about collecting the federation credits or whatever, probably badly.

Now which part of that was so hard for your little head that you felt moved to insult me and my parents? It all seems prefectly sensible when it's laid out so that even a simpleton can follow it.

16

MacKenzie,

30/10/2007 17:35:19

Was this run as an advert for a pro life group?

Proper sex education in schools would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, but it seems to me that the same people who are anti abortion are also anti sex education and anti contraception.

17

Allan(handofgod137),

30/10/2007 17:38:14

"The freedom to make personal choices is a right"

So I take it she'll be defending my right to insist that parents assume full financial responsibilty for their offspring, and start agitating for my tax bill to be reduced.

18

Ocean11,

30/10/2007 20:12:01

Good, about time the case for pro-life was given some unfettered access to the media instead of being side-lined. This is democracy.

19

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh (Spokesman-for-the-Babies-Union) 30/10/2007 21:10:52

#21. Hi contented mummy, I agree, reduce time limits,
Babies are perfectaly formed at about 12weeks, then its grow, grow, grow! mothers start feeling BaBa move at about 18weeks 'kick-kick' 'punch-punch'
Difficult debate, one you would have to ask the Baby!

20

Virginian,

USA 31/10/2007 02:04:49

How shockingly refreshing to see "The Scotsman" print this wonderful pro-life article by Donna Nicholson. This has to be the first such news article I have ever seen. I salute you! (What a beautiful baby picture.)

The venomous comments from the "opposition" side are boringly expected and fall flat, to say the least.

How many of these pro-abortion individuals think that their own mother should have exercised her supposed "right" to end their life while still helpless in the womb?

Are their lives so awful that they wish they had never been born...that their lives had been ended by dismemberment for the convenience of their mother?

How many women who have abortions are those who have been "educated" to think that they also have the "right" to promiscuous sex rather than confining themself to sex after marriage to a responsible husband who is delighted to provide for his child and wife?

Sex after marriage! Sex with only your spouse!! Sex with only your spouse as long as you both shall live!!! What a revolutionary idea to many benighted individuals.

The Abortion Industry is another horrible example of mankind attempting to play God...with the predictable tragic results to our families, social fabric and national life. When will the blame for most of society's ills be placed at the feet of the "Women's Rights Women" and their fellow travelers where they belong?

21

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 31/10/2007 11:08:08

Virginian. Thanks for your contribution. To be honest though, the last thing we need is for the abortion debate to be imported to Scotland on US terms.

We're not nearly as superstitious in Scotland as in the US. More people here practice golf than practice christianity. This means that by and large, debates can be conducted without reference to superstition or what it says in some book based on the ramblings of halfwitted shepherds a couple of thousand years ago.

I also know much of US politics and that it has been utterly poisoned by the abortion debate. You can't pick a Supreme Court judge without agonising on what they think on Roe vs Wade. Any political candidate can exxpect to be quizzed on their view on abortion. Worse, they're expected to be either fully against, from conception, or fully in favour of abortions during tea-breaks.

In Scotland most people hold some middle position where abortion should be available as a necessary evil, but that it's a horrible thing and we would preferably not encourage it as a last-ditch contraceptive for people too stupid to get it right on the night.

It would be nice if we could keep our more nuanced positions and not be reduced to the For and Aagainst political and religious warfare that so characterises the issue in the US.

22

Country Lass,

31/10/2007 19:10:06

A FOETUS, by definition, is an unborn child. It is the possibility of a child and nothing more. I really do not understand why some people think that it is a child. It does not receive child benefit for a start! As such it does not have any rights and does not until it is born. Yes, it may look like a human, and act like one (kicking, sucking thumb etc etc in the womb) but it isn't - yet. To go backwards and make abortion illegal is the worst suggestion ever and will make life very miserable for everyone. (Gin and hot bath anyone? or coat hanger?) B4 anyone starts to send me hate mail, I am 28 weeks pregnant with my 2nd child. In a perfect society we would all be healthy, well educated with satisfying jobs with no poverty or crime. If such a society existed we would not need to make the choice to have an abortion (as all pregnancies would be wanted) Unfortunately we do not live in the perfect society - but we live where there is a choice and I very strongly believe that we should all have that choice. Donna Nicholson's article would have people believe that there is no advice to pregnant women - in my experience there is lots and abortion is not offered as the only solution to woman (and girls) who have an unplanned pregnancy.

23

Stephen T.,

Alberta Canada 31/10/2007 21:59:02

Pro-choice?? That's a lie !! Babies don't choose to die.

24

Virginian,

USA 31/10/2007 22:12:07

#25. AJ lass.
QUOTE: "A FOETUS, by definition, is an unborn child...I really do not understand why some people think that it is a child."

RESPONSE: AJ lass, by your definition a fetus is an "unborn child"...not an unborn puppy or unborn chicken.

What part of your own definition do you not understand?

If a child is not being killed during an abortion, then what is losing its life?

Every fetus is a potential baby, every baby is a potential child, every child is a potential adult, and all are human beings with an eternal soul.

Why not face reality and admit to yourself that an abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.

You said, "To go backwards and make abortion illegal is the worst suggestion ever and will make life very miserable for everyone."

Abortion does not make life "miserable" for the baby because the baby is never given the "choice" to be born and to have a life beyond the agony of being ripped from its mother's womb.

Any way you try to twist the words around, an abortion is by definition the killing of a human being.

25

Artemis,

Embra 31/10/2007 23:22:45

#26 - you're right, babies don't choose to die. You fail to point out that they don't choose to be conceived, they don't choose to live, they don't choose to be born. So what's your point?

Banning legal, safe abortions has never stopped women having abortions. It just means that rich women go abroad for legal, safe abortions and poor women have illegal, unsafe abortions.

It would be great if all pregnancies were planned and every child was a wanted child, but that's not likely to ever happen. For some women, abortion is their best option. I think most people would agree that if an abortion is going to be done, it should be done as soon as possible, but there are conditions which cannot be detected until 20 or 24 weeks (I think) so until tests are improved, later abortions will always be requested.

26

Virginian,

USA 01/11/2007 00:11:07

#24. A Friend of Fernando Poo, Newington.
QUOTE: " We're not nearly as superstitious in Scotland as in the US. More people here practice golf than practice christianity (sic)."

RESPONSE: Really! What is the source of these interesting statistics? Do you happen to know how many Christian people in Scotland practice golf as opposed to the number of Scotland's outright atheist golfers?

There are quite a few Presbyterians that enjoy golf, both in the US and in Scotland. Practicing golf and being Christian are not mutually exclusive, but advocating abortion is excluded for Christians.

Your comments are beside the point. The article deals with the fact that an unborn child has the same right to life that you and I do.

You have the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion to state atheistic and anti-Christian rhetoric, but you resent having to extend those same freedoms to those with an opposing view.

You miss the irony that it was the Scottish Presbyterians in Scotland and the US who fought and won both Freedoms for themselves and for you...whether you appreciate them or not.

Why do you think you are the one to set the terms of this debate? Is it not more "balanced" to hear the opposing view?

Why don't you use true logic and real statistics to win your argument if you are truly right?

How can you possibly say that Scotland or the US is better off since Roe v. Wade was passed in the US? You are ignoring the fact that the miniscule number of women who aborted pregnancies before abortion was legalized has now exploded into a virtual holocaust of abortions that is in the millions and threatens the very survival of our cultures.

Christians will never cease to speak out against abortion because it is wrong. Because you don't like to be bothered hearing this opinion does not mean it will go away. Just get used to the idea.

27

Virginian,

USA 01/11/2007 00:48:16

#28. Artemis, Embra.

QUOTE: "Banning legal safe abortions has never stopped abortions."

RESPONSE: The phrase "legal safe abortions" is an oxymoron.

Abortion is not safe for the baby because he or she is now dead.

28

Stephen T.,

01/11/2007 02:52:25

#28. Artemis. It is true that babies don't choose to live, but that does not give anyone the justification to murder them. You yourself did not choose to be conceived, but I hope that you are happy that your own mother did not take your life. Your life is no more precious than an innocent child; a helpless baby in the womb deserves protection - especially from the mother who carries the child. It is unnatural for a mother - under any conditions - to kill her own child. Let us come back to our senses, let us restore compassion, true love and a sense of humanity.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.