Friday, 30 May 2008

Peter Hitchens on Abortion

Right. I read P.Hitchens editorial on abortion and 'hybrid' embrios this weekend and have been stewing over it ever since.

As a 25 year old woman and a feminist, I took a great deal of offense at his report. Mostly because he has insinuated that any 'pro-choice' person is actually 'pro-death' , and that any 'pro-choice' woman is simply so because she wants to have as much un-protected sex as she can.

Well, I am a pro-choice woman. Contrary to his implied beliefs, however, I value the loving relationship over the one-night-stand. I also believe in contraception over abortion.

Condoms and Femidoms if you're not on the the pill and if you have a crap memory, like myself, the contraceptive implant (this is the route I have gone down - it's perfectly safe and you barely even know it is there.)

Though I am pro-choice, I believe that every possible route to PREVENT a pregnancy should be in place before sex is even contemplated, and if you do inadvertantly find yourself pregnant, every route other than an abortion should first be explored.

I abhor those women who have had multiple abortions, simply because a baby in thier life is not yet something they want. These 'life-style choice' abortionists should get their bloody heads around using contraception - it really isn't very hard. And any woman who gives the old excuse 'oh, my boyfriend doesn't like condoms' should BLOODY WELL use something else - there are a wide range of choices open for them.

There are many different types of pill you can take. The contraceptive implant is very easy, very effective and has the added bonus of you not having to remember to take a pill every day. There are various types of coil that can be inserted into the womb. And there are even injections available.

So any woman hiding behind the 'boyfriend hates condoms' excuse is a complete idiot and should be told so.

As well as being a firm believer in contraception, I actually think the abortion limit should be lowered - especially considering the fact that medical advances mean any baby born very early these days can, and often does, survive.

I never want to see abortions made illegal again, hoever much I dislike the practice in general, because doing so would ruin many more lives than just those women who fail to properly prevent a pregnancy. Hitchens could not concieve of a viable situation in which an abortion is preferable to adoption or keeping the baby.

I can think of many.

Besides the various medical reasons, there are the rape victims, the pedophile victims, the women who simply cannot afford to carry a pregnancy to term, with all the finacial strains just the pregnancy causes and what about the girls who are too terribly young to be having sex in the first place - why should they be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, when they are still children themselves?

So - while I dislike abortions in general, I support there being a choice available for women to do it if they wish too. But I do think there should be stricter regulations on it (women who have multiple abortions for social reasons, for example, should be punished or made, by law, to take the implant or coil) and a lower cut-off point, of perhaps 18 weeks.

I also, controverstially, believe that a law should be introduced, stating that all teenagers, from the age of say, 13, should be fitted with a contraceptive - both boys and girls. And that this contraceptive should only be removed when they are 18 and considered adult enough to be able to care and provide for a child. But I accept that this is never going tp happen.

I absolutely hate being thought of as someone who supports abortions simply because I want as much contraception-free sex as possible. That is the thought that pisses me off the most about the linked article.

Here are some of my thoughts on the article.

Let's have no more of this footling about over abortion. The issue isn’t how old a baby has to be before you cannot kill it. It is whether you think it’s right to do away with another human to suit your convenience.

On the face of it, I agree with this comment - these days abortions have become so accepted that they are treated as another form of contraception, instead of the last resort that they used to be.

But I do not like his choice of wording, lets face it, until it is born, it is not a 'baby' - it has various names at the different stages of gestation, and you should try to use them when discussing those particular stages. His hoice of the word 'baby' is simply an attempt at emotionalising the whole report, for while there are plenty of late gestation abortions, there are also plenty of earlier gestion abortions, when the 'baby' is barely even recognisable as such.

The abortionists are not interested in compromise. Why should they be? They have always known what they were doing. They must know by now that the more abortions you allow, the more you have. They have – for the moment – won the argument that you can kill if it’s convenient. And our whole society has adopted the same self-serving view, often without realising it.

This is the very opinion that I despise - just because I support abortion, does not mean I like the idea of having abortions simply for convenience, and I would presume to assume that most pro-choice supporters feel the same way.

I would also presume to assume that very few members of British society enjoys a 'self serving view' in which they think (however unconsciously) that it's ok to 'kill if it's convenient.'

This writer holds a very dim view of his fellow citizens.


Godless Sunday said...

Peter Hitchens is a wanker. Honestly. I cannot believe those two are brothers!

Hannah King said...

They're brothers??? Man - you couldn't tell from their writing. Seriously.