Think of your worst pro-life nightmare and it is happening somewhere.
Iceland was the first Western country to legalise ‘therapeutic’ abortion in 1935 but the floodgates were properly opened by the legalisation for abortion in the United Kingdom in 1967. Abortion has proved very popular with those who request it and those who perform it with a recent record of over 200,000 abortions performed in England and Wales alone in 2021.
Unfortunately, since abortion is 100% fatal for the babies who are aborted, we have no figures on its popularity with its victims. We will never know how many of them would have liked to feel the sun on their face or to fall in love and have children of their own. The nefarious WHO is now advocating that “babies should be killed up until the moment they emerge from the birth canal, without delay, whenever a pregnant woman requests it” and that member states should comply.
The Culture of Death
The twin issues of legalised abortion and legalised euthanasia, essentially two sides of the same coin, have proved to be the most slippery of slippery slopes and the thinnest edges of very short wedges. While abortion and euthanasia have, undoubtedly, been practised for centuries their legalisation was unthinkable until little over a century ago when abortion on demand was first legalised by Vladimir Lenin in 1920. The Netherlands was the first country to legalise euthanasia in 2001.
Those advocating either abortion or euthanasia (presumably their Venn diagrams overlap considerably) always shroud their arguments behind a veil of compassion. Abortion frees women from unplanned pregnancies which will change their lives, lower their career prospects, and frees an ‘unwanted’ child from being brought up in poverty. Euthanasia is sold as a merciful release from pain and distress.
Originally, the circumstances under which abortion could be performed were constrained by the age of the foetus and the circumstances under which it could be permitted. That was the first step on the slippery slope which has led all the way to abortion on demand, for example, in Canada. In the United Kingdom abortion on demand is variously described as the ‘contraceptive pill,’ ‘oral contraception,’ ‘morning after pill,’ or ‘emergency’ contraception. These are all abortifacients.
Over the decades since the introduction of abortion in the UK, the original limit of 28 weeks was reduced to 24 weeks on the basis of neonatal survival of babies. However, that the limits of neonatal survival can be as low as 21 weeks has not yet led to further restrictions. Nevertheless, the continuing debate over the sliding scale for aborting babies conveys the impression that we are a compassionate people and not animals. It sidesteps the argument about the point at which life begins. If you can ignore the fact that it begins at conception or relate it to biological markers or the ability of the baby to survive outside of the womb then you can use your intellect to kill your conscience.
While it is a certainty that those advocating abortion will largely be the same people who advocate euthanasia, it is hard to pinpoint the extent to which the tolerance of abortion has influenced advocacy for and ultimately tolerance of euthanasia. However, we are witnessing a convergence. Limited abortion quickly evolved into abortion on demand for social reasons and the pressure for abortion on demand up to term. The next logical step has always been infanticide, and it has arrived in the form of euthanasia for terminally ill children on request by parents in The Netherlands.
This may seem like a considerable extrapolation but how long before a ‘merciful release’ for a terminally ill child in pain is applied, as it has in Canada, to mental illness, then to social distress. This could ultimately lead to parents requesting and receiving euthanasia for a child who would otherwise be raised in poverty or because the child hinders career and income. Divorce cases may no longer focus on who receives custody of the children, but at what point they will be murdered.
Canada, firmly in the grip of the death cult, has pioneered the downgrading of infanticide which is no longer considered murder if the mother is mentally deranged. This is a very short step from permitting infanticide for social reasons and to preserve the mental health of the mother. How long before the short sentences currently imposed for infanticide are dropped? Canada already has no restrictions on abortion based on gestational age or the circumstances under which it can be demanded.
Abortion and euthanasia are almost taboo subjects in the mainstream media. If they are covered it is always in reference to a matter of degree, for example, gestational age in the case of abortion or the precise circumstances under which it is right to kill a terminally ill person. The absolute nature of the sanctity of life is rarely discussed.
Planet over people
Juxtapose the above with the focus on the life of the planet as expressed in concern about climate change and the advocacy of zero carbon emissions. Animal rights are copiously covered, and veganism is seriously considered as a lifestyle option both to save the planet and to avoid killing animals.
Countries where abortion is banned, such as El Salvador, are vilified and almost the only thing that the liberal elite recall about the terrible regime of Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania was the fact that he prohibited abortion. The Roman Catholic Church has not budged on its pro-life stand but there exist paradoxical groups of Catholics such as Catholics for Choice who advocate ‘reproductive rights’ for women, which include abortion.
The threat of a ‘climate apocalypse’ is leading to fear among couples about having children and remaining childless. The message about reducing the number of children we have is reinforced regularly, especially by the BBC who give a remarkable amount of airtime to arch-Malthusian Sir David Attenborough. The late Duke of Edinburgh, supposedly above politics, was given free rein to voice his execrable views on population control. He even hoped to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to play his part in reducing the population of the world. Those amongst us who consider having children a duty of marriage now have a label, we are ‘pronatalists’, which simply seems like an alternative word for normal.
You do not have to be a pro-life advocate to see that we are facing social and economic disaster in our attitude to life, its sanctity, and its necessity, if we do not turn away from the present course. The classic ‘population pyramid’ whereby the size of a population is represented by age is named as such because it used to look like a pyramid with the base representing younger age groups which were traditionally more numerous than older people. Thereby, there were more people who were economically active and creating the wealth needed to care for the older, retired population. The shape of the population pyramid is changing, partly due to increased life spans but also because of declining birth rates. Presently the ‘pyramid’ is rectangular in the United Kingdom, but it has long been predicted to invert, as it already has in China, as the twin phenomena of increased lifespan and declining birth rate continue.
We are unlikely to convince those who support abortion and population control that they must change for moral reasons. More effort should be made to convey the message about the dark future we face if we continue as we are. After all, it is those of us who are (or have done) conceiving, keeping, and rearing children who are genuinely saving the planet.
Infanticide: The Next Logical step?
Think of your worst pro-life nightmare and it is happening somewhere.
Iceland was the first Western country to legalise ‘therapeutic’ abortion in 1935 but the floodgates were properly opened by the legalisation for abortion in the United Kingdom in 1967. Abortion has proved very popular with those who request it and those who perform it with a recent record of over 200,000 abortions performed in England and Wales alone in 2021.
Unfortunately, since abortion is 100% fatal for the babies who are aborted, we have no figures on its popularity with its victims. We will never know how many of them would have liked to feel the sun on their face or to fall in love and have children of their own. The nefarious WHO is now advocating that “babies should be killed up until the moment they emerge from the birth canal, without delay, whenever a pregnant woman requests it” and that member states should comply.
The Culture of Death
The twin issues of legalised abortion and legalised euthanasia, essentially two sides of the same coin, have proved to be the most slippery of slippery slopes and the thinnest edges of very short wedges. While abortion and euthanasia have, undoubtedly, been practised for centuries their legalisation was unthinkable until little over a century ago when abortion on demand was first legalised by Vladimir Lenin in 1920. The Netherlands was the first country to legalise euthanasia in 2001.
Those advocating either abortion or euthanasia (presumably their Venn diagrams overlap considerably) always shroud their arguments behind a veil of compassion. Abortion frees women from unplanned pregnancies which will change their lives, lower their career prospects, and frees an ‘unwanted’ child from being brought up in poverty. Euthanasia is sold as a merciful release from pain and distress.
Originally, the circumstances under which abortion could be performed were constrained by the age of the foetus and the circumstances under which it could be permitted. That was the first step on the slippery slope which has led all the way to abortion on demand, for example, in Canada. In the United Kingdom abortion on demand is variously described as the ‘contraceptive pill,’ ‘oral contraception,’ ‘morning after pill,’ or ‘emergency’ contraception. These are all abortifacients.
Over the decades since the introduction of abortion in the UK, the original limit of 28 weeks was reduced to 24 weeks on the basis of neonatal survival of babies. However, that the limits of neonatal survival can be as low as 21 weeks has not yet led to further restrictions. Nevertheless, the continuing debate over the sliding scale for aborting babies conveys the impression that we are a compassionate people and not animals. It sidesteps the argument about the point at which life begins. If you can ignore the fact that it begins at conception or relate it to biological markers or the ability of the baby to survive outside of the womb then you can use your intellect to kill your conscience.
While it is a certainty that those advocating abortion will largely be the same people who advocate euthanasia, it is hard to pinpoint the extent to which the tolerance of abortion has influenced advocacy for and ultimately tolerance of euthanasia. However, we are witnessing a convergence. Limited abortion quickly evolved into abortion on demand for social reasons and the pressure for abortion on demand up to term. The next logical step has always been infanticide, and it has arrived in the form of euthanasia for terminally ill children on request by parents in The Netherlands.
This may seem like a considerable extrapolation but how long before a ‘merciful release’ for a terminally ill child in pain is applied, as it has in Canada, to mental illness, then to social distress. This could ultimately lead to parents requesting and receiving euthanasia for a child who would otherwise be raised in poverty or because the child hinders career and income. Divorce cases may no longer focus on who receives custody of the children, but at what point they will be murdered.
Canada, firmly in the grip of the death cult, has pioneered the downgrading of infanticide which is no longer considered murder if the mother is mentally deranged. This is a very short step from permitting infanticide for social reasons and to preserve the mental health of the mother. How long before the short sentences currently imposed for infanticide are dropped? Canada already has no restrictions on abortion based on gestational age or the circumstances under which it can be demanded.
Abortion and euthanasia are almost taboo subjects in the mainstream media. If they are covered it is always in reference to a matter of degree, for example, gestational age in the case of abortion or the precise circumstances under which it is right to kill a terminally ill person. The absolute nature of the sanctity of life is rarely discussed.
Planet over people
Juxtapose the above with the focus on the life of the planet as expressed in concern about climate change and the advocacy of zero carbon emissions. Animal rights are copiously covered, and veganism is seriously considered as a lifestyle option both to save the planet and to avoid killing animals.
Countries where abortion is banned, such as El Salvador, are vilified and almost the only thing that the liberal elite recall about the terrible regime of Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania was the fact that he prohibited abortion. The Roman Catholic Church has not budged on its pro-life stand but there exist paradoxical groups of Catholics such as Catholics for Choice who advocate ‘reproductive rights’ for women, which include abortion.
The threat of a ‘climate apocalypse’ is leading to fear among couples about having children and remaining childless. The message about reducing the number of children we have is reinforced regularly, especially by the BBC who give a remarkable amount of airtime to arch-Malthusian Sir David Attenborough. The late Duke of Edinburgh, supposedly above politics, was given free rein to voice his execrable views on population control. He even hoped to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to play his part in reducing the population of the world. Those amongst us who consider having children a duty of marriage now have a label, we are ‘pronatalists’, which simply seems like an alternative word for normal.
You do not have to be a pro-life advocate to see that we are facing social and economic disaster in our attitude to life, its sanctity, and its necessity, if we do not turn away from the present course. The classic ‘population pyramid’ whereby the size of a population is represented by age is named as such because it used to look like a pyramid with the base representing younger age groups which were traditionally more numerous than older people. Thereby, there were more people who were economically active and creating the wealth needed to care for the older, retired population. The shape of the population pyramid is changing, partly due to increased life spans but also because of declining birth rates. Presently the ‘pyramid’ is rectangular in the United Kingdom, but it has long been predicted to invert, as it already has in China, as the twin phenomena of increased lifespan and declining birth rate continue.
We are unlikely to convince those who support abortion and population control that they must change for moral reasons. More effort should be made to convey the message about the dark future we face if we continue as we are. After all, it is those of us who are (or have done) conceiving, keeping, and rearing children who are genuinely saving the planet.
READ NEXT
Guarantee of Unhappiness
Are Net Zero’s Days Numbered?
Erdogan’s Hour of Triumph