There are people of both genders around the world who oppose the provision of clinical abortion services to women for a wide variety reasons, be they religious, ethical or scientific. Most of these individuals are neither extreme nor intolerant in their general opinions or day-to-day lives. They simply hold a negative view on this one, admittedly controversial, medical procedure. However there is a significant section of the organised prohibition movement – perhaps a majority – who are far from tolerant, who are in fact so dedicated to the anti-choice cause that their commitment shades into fanaticism. In such circumstance anything, no matter how morally dubious, is permissible. Lies are presented as truths, falsehoods are labelled as facts, and the most personal of tragedies becomes grist for an ever-turning wheel of misogynistic propaganda. Given that it is women who seek control over their reproductive choices then it is women who must be classed as a potential danger to the unborn until proved otherwise.
What other group in Western society, but a misanthropic “pro-life” cult, could blame a young girl’s suicide not on the “grooming”, abuse and statutory rape she was subjected to by an older male youth but on the abortion that the rape made necessary? Such is the case presented in this purposefully deceitful report from the so-called Life News:
“15-Year-Old Girl Kills Herself Two Years After Getting an Abortion
Two years after Ashli Blake jumped off a monument and killed herself, a British trial is revealing new details about the young teen’s tragic death.
…Blake began dating 17-year-old Marcus Webb when she was just 13 years old. After becoming pregnant by him, Blake decided that she wanted to keep her baby, but her mother pressured her into having an abortion. Her boyfriend later made fun of her, even sending her a mock Mother’s Day card after the abortion, according to the investigation.
Haunted by the experience, two years later, the 15-year-old girl committed suicide in September 2014.
These details were revealed during a trial accusing Webb of sexually abusing his girlfriend. This week, Webb was sentenced to four years in jail for sexually abusing Blake, according to the report.
LifeNews had reported a number of tragic suicide deaths among women who had abortions. In 2015, a British Indiana actress named Jiah Khan hung herself and left a suicide note lamenting her abortion and abuses at the hands of her partner.”
Only the most reprehensible of mindsets could see culpability in the actions of the abused rather than the abuser, yet that seems to be the view of those labouring away in the mercenary Life News. Under a pretence of concern, they make an adolescent girl the author of her own misfortune because she agreed to an abortion following sexual exploitation at the age of thirteen by a teenager several years her senior. The termination, not the trauma of a child manipulated and bullied, becomes the proximate cause of death two years later. To add insult to injury they make the deceased girl’s mother a contributer to the loss of her own daughter.
The spirit of Christianity and its basic tenets may speak of love and respect but such virtues are most certainly not to be found among the human malignancies which staff the Life News organisation.
appalling story, which is typical of so much scare-mongering in similar tales of twisted facts –
There are only two points I want to make here
1) Neither church nor state has a role to play in regulating women’s bodies.
2)No matter what the law of the land is, a woman will never have an abortion if she is convinced her religious/moral beliefs forbid it.Why should people who do not share those beliefs be forced to live by those principles?
Agreed. Human beings have been seeking abortions in all sorts of ways for the centuries. The ancient Egyptians recounted their own home-grown, frankly terrifying methods. It is madness to fight against our own nature in this case.
Very tragic, and there are too many such stories. Just as this story shows, what leads up to it and what follows it is a hell no reasonable person would wish anyone to be in, especially a 15 year old girl. This is a complex problem that does not have a simple solution. The abortion was apparently available here, just not anything else. This is why this sort of horror is quite common, even where abortions are provided on demand. The disastrous circumstances before and after were the problem here, as they are in most cases. Societal, political, moral pressures, and outright abuse, both emotional and sexual without any hope for relief were key elements in this case. Overbearing righteousness and blame instead of protection from torment, support, and desperately needed unconditional love and care for an already victimised child lead to this tragedy, and continue to lead to so many others. Simply providing a service is not the solution on its own. A real working support system must be available, so that any choice in such matters is intelligently made and proper aftercare is available, no matter what the choice has been. When viewed solely applied to the matter on hand without any further exploration, your points appear valid, but when viewed with some depth, they are quite problematic. A church, of course, really has no business regulating anything that is of earthly concern. The state in terms of having to be a good steward of funds, has some say in the health its constituents. Abusive and extreme behaviours may place burden on fellow citizens in cost, as some unnecessarily recklessly self-induced injuries are quite costly and often have to be carried by the tax-payers. This does not necessarily apply to abortion, but it does to many other items. In a civilised country, people are always forced to live by principles whose underlying beliefs they do not necessarily share. Animal abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse, right and title to property, killing and murder, equal rights for people of all races, religions, ethnicities, sexual orientation, and free speech, are all items of contention for people of different backgrounds and beliefs, and the state must force them into one comprehensible “compromise” to allow for everyone to get along. For it to work, people not just should, but must be forced to abide by the laws of the land. That does not mean that if the morals and convictions for a particular process change, that the laws cannot change, but the process to accomplish this must be diligently observed and not be circumvented by self-righteousness or simple greed. The process is there for a reason, if abuse of the system prevails, either side of a conflict of interest can leverage that abuse to their favour and to the disadvantage of everyone else.
A terrible story but one, in other circumstances, made better by the availability of abortion. A thirteen year old child giving birth surely can be in no one’s interest? Yes, sensitivities exist, and there is always those who will exploit any situation, but the need surely outweighs such concerns? In any case, problems of that nature, abuse of abortion provisions for financial or other gain, can be overcome. I do not favour private abortion clinics, at all. I believe the procedure should come through the services of the state, though I would say that of all medical procedures. However in the case of abortions it should only be through the health services.
There is no doubt that children having children are hopeless situations with either decision having severe consequences. As stated before, the availability of the option under the prevailing social circumstances is, however unfortunate, necessary. I am only of the opinion that the service alone, like in many places it is available, is not enough. A substantial amount of care, is needed, especially for children. The overall destructiveness of the event and process should also not be forgotten from a systemic viewpoint in the interest of reducing the number by employing educational and contraceptive resources to limit the necessity. It should certainly not be used to leverage any moral insanity to oppress those in that most desperate of situations or compel them to make a decision contrary to their interests (by either pro-choice or pro-life zealots). The main problem with the government running such institutions is the perceived lack of privacy (coupled with fear of the prevailing social stigma) by the patients, especially when reliant on other public services. Additionally, we all know that if you really want to cock up something, you put the government in charge of it. Perhaps the services should be limited to non-religious, non-politically oriented, non-profit organisations, that also provide for family planning, life counseling, and reproductive health,.
Jeez, what a disgraceful article. Anti-choicers really are one trick ponies.
In this case very much so. I can argue with anti-choice/pro-life people on ethical/medical grounds. Religious ones are harder to discuss because there is no common ground. Faith trumps all. Which is what makes some of their campaigns and views so objectionable.
“Animal abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse, right and title to property, killing and murder, equal rights for people of all races, religions, ethnicities, sexual orientation, and free speech, are all items of contention for people of different backgrounds and beliefs”,
and the state must force them into one comprehensible “compromise” to allow for everyone to get along.
I think “compromise” is where the mistake is made. Parliaments should fashion laws that will permit exercise of human rights by people who demand such rights . The naysayers are not forced to exercise such rights e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, but they are forced to restrain from abusal of such rights that are recognized as existing in law – wife-beating, animal torture and so forth
Whenever a killing or other forced physical contest is involved, be it of humans (death penalty, self-defense, self-preservation incl. to wit. abortion) or animals (slaughter, ritualistic, religious), it is always a compromise, as the participation by those killed, hurt, or otherwise impacted is rarely voluntary (naysayer or not), nor are these processes humane by their very definition. The impact of those who favour a particular practise on those who abhor it, and vice versa is greatly dependent on the prevailing moral standard of the time. There are simply many aspects of socially structured communities, where a full consensus on the ideals governing particular contests can never be reached. You and I may believe free speech, free expression is a human right and demand of parliament to guarantee it, another may believe it is their human right to hold those the deem to be of a lower class of human as their property (or even rid the world of them) and demand of parliament to guarantee it. What constitutes human rights (and even what constitutes the definition of human itself) is a matter of individually or socially held beliefs, or both, and very much subject to the sands of time.