Abortion Rights and Ideological Imposition

From Tuesday next week, it will be possible for a woman in Northern Ireland to seek an abortion there. Until now, a woman in Northern Ireland seeking to “terminate her pregnancy” had to leave the province and go elsewhere.

With significant Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian communities in the Province, this is a revolutionary move, especially as the issue is a devolved matter which the UK parliament at Westminster has chosen to legislate for, regardless of the traditional views in the Province.

Conversely in the State of Alabama in the United States, abortion has now become almost totally illegal since new legislation in May this year.

Abortion is a subject which engenders much emotion. On one side, it is seen as killing a life in the womb, and therefore unthinkable; indeed it is considered contrary to God’s law. Human life is deemed sacrosanct from the moment of conception, normally 9 months before birth.

On the other side, abortion is deemed “a woman’s right to choose”, and the life in the womb is a “foetus” over which the mother has total control and total rights.

Then there is the reality of the situation where a woman finds herself pregnant contrary to her expectations or intentions, and is so distressed that she will resort to any means to end the pregnancy. And she does so, regardless of any moral or legal constraints.

This last is the historical reality. Whatever the state of the law or the prevailing moral code, women distressed by being pregnant will resort to terminating the pregnancy by any means they can find. 

Given that reality, they want access to proper medical assistance to avoid the likely complications and threat to their health [even life] involved in abortions carried out without proper trained medical care – either by doing it themselves or resorting to untrained or badly trained abortionists.

There are different perspectives here.

Personally, I firmly believe that abortion is morally wrong, and that the consequences can only be negative, not positive.

But my view is my view, and that is never going to change the reality of women seeking abortion. 

Nor will it change the situation if my view is enshrined in law. Yes, there may be fewer abortions, but it will not stop abortion.

It is an unrealistic view, and does not meet the situation. 

What is more, as someone who believes fundamentally that each person must take responsibility for their lives, according to their own personality and their own interests, I don’t believe it is in anyone’s interests to have the State impose a view.

That does not mean I believe in abortion – I don’t. It is wrong. Period. But I cannot determine for another person what their life should be; nor can I sit in judgement on them for the decision they take.

Of all issues, a woman’s pregnancy must be her responsibility, and one in which she must seek or not seek advice etc with whom she chooses – be that the father, or a doctor, or whoever. 

But this is a private matter over which the State should form no view, but act impartially and ensure that ALL THE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION are available. 

The ending of a pregnancy is an extremely serious matter; and it is one which concerns the person(s) involved, and those they choose to involve.

It is a tragedy that a human being sees no other way out of their predicament but to end the growing life within them. It is tragic, and anyone who takes any other view demonstrates an incredible depth of callous disregard for the realities of what is actually  involved. 

Which is why I find talk of “Rights” deeply disturbing. Talk of “Rights”  removes this situation from the human reality and tragedy involved to the realm of political doctrine.

Worse, it instrumentalises human suffering and pain to make a doctrinaire and ideological issue out of something which should never, ever enter into such realms. It is yet another example of the Materialist Marxist thinking by which the State must be used to consciously fashion Society according to an Ideological, Utopian end.

This talk of “Rights” is typical of the politically correct agenda. It betrays a warped and selective take on the entire truth of any situation and the reality of the human condition.

A woman has to bear the responsibility of carrying a child in the womb. She has no choice about having that function and the responsibility which goes with it. The man does not, nor can he. It is a fact of life, of how we are made.  And no amount of reframing our thinking according to a political ideology can remove the basic constraints of what we are, and how this life works.

We enter into very dangerous territory if we attempt to ignore the realities of what we are as human beings, and the intrinsic “inequalities” that exist. 

If we enter into the realm of  “rights,” we must talk of the “rights” of the father, and the “rights” of the child in the womb. Because that is what the foetus is: a human child in development in the womb. That fact does not alter because people with an ideological agenda want to alter our perception of reality according to their Utopian, Materialist Agenda.

They base their view on perception. DANGEROUS TERRITORY. 

It is a blob of jelly, a mere foetus, all the while it is not wanted.

The moment the child is wanted, it is a baby.

This is trying to determine life according to perception, not according to reality. Either the child is a human child in development in the womb, or it is not. The child’s identity and existence are not predicated on perception, but on objective FACT. 

So those who insist on “Rights” according to their Materialist, Man-is-his-own-god agenda, should stop and face the facts about their Worldview, and just where it could take us all.

History demonstrates tragic consequences when Ideological Prescription over-rides ordinary human perception, ethics and instincts. 

Ray Catlin