Rank Hypocrisy on Abortion

A real media frenzy has been stirred up as the result of a local election candidate, belonging to the United Kingdom Independence Party [UKIP], calling for an National Health Service review to look at compulsory abortion of unborn children with Down's Syndrome or Spina Bifida.

Mencap, the learning disability charity, said that it was disgusted and horrified at Geoffrey Clark's comments. Mark Goldring, chief executive of Mencap, said:

Much has been written about the Paralympics this summer changing attitudes towards disabled people for the better. Yet in the very same year, a council candidate has proposed forced eugenics against disabled people. It is abhorrent that Geoffrey Clark sees disabled people solely as a burden when people with a learning disability lead full lives and make valuable contributions to their communities and families. We question if he is fit for public office.

Why no outrage at those in society who every week, willingly and freely, abort the unborn child in the womb for no other reason than it has one of these same disabilities? It is rank hypocrisy to criticise one and not the other! Is it only the 'eugenics' that are 'disgusting and horrifying'? What about the basis principle of life and the killing of a child for no other reason that it will be born with a disability? All the pretended outrage at this case and the pretended interest in disability issues and disabled people by those who in other circumstances see absolutely nothing wrong with killing a disabled unborn child is pure humbug. 

The United Kingdom abortion law presently reads:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities or serious disability.

Changes were made to the Abortion Act 1967 through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The time limits were lowered from 28 to 24 weeks. Restrictions were removed for late abortions in cases of risk to life, fetal abnormality, or grave physical and mental injury to the woman.

Only 'point (a)' of the original mainland UK law on abortion is subject to the 24 week ruling. Doctors will readily acknowledge that the continuance of a pregnancy is always more dangerous to the physical welfare of a woman than having an abortion. This position allows for de-facto abortion on demand beyond 24 weeks.

Point (d) actually provides for abortion where there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities or serious disability.

This means that at any time right up until birth a mother may abort a disabled child. It is a minor point therefore that in one case this UKIP candidate calls for the aborting of the disabled to be compulsory and in the other circumstance the aborting of the disabled is still permissible right up to birth. The comments of Mark Goldring are equally as applicable to those who abort the disabled presently under the abortion act. Eugenics or not, aborting a child that could otherwise live, despite its disability, is an evil, evil crime.