data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/496f7/496f7d22e298c782c3ae0843276f444c9f88a0da" alt=""
However, the moral confusion and double standards around abortion have
been starkly highlighted by this case. For a start the controversy has not been generated because
people are concerned about on-demand abortions being carried out on an
industrial scale in the UK (that is just
accepted), rather what has upset people is the thought that sexism could be
a factor (the phrase, ‘Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel’, does come
to mind!).
Now, of course, to say abortion on the basis of gender discrimination
is unacceptable cuts both ways – that is, it should protect both sexes. But we
also know that the big driver for such gender based abortions is that in
certain cultures, for economic and cultural reasons, boys are more valued than girls. So let’s not be naive in
recognising that globally this is largely an issue about girls and hence why it is so
politically sensitive.
David Cameron at PMQs (11/9/13) stated that abortion on the basis of gender
was unacceptable. The question that assertion begs, and which no-one in public
life seems to want to ask, is why? After all if it is unacceptable to abort a
human life on the basis of gender discrimination - why is discrimination in the
womb acceptable for the disabled, the poor, the inconvenient, and the unwanted.
The whole basis of abortion is that foetuses are not really fully functioning human lives and thus can be disposable. But if so, what exactly is the relevance of gender?
It leaves us with the bizarre, indeed grotesque, situation where it seems the
only defence to life in the womb (that our society actually cares about) would
be because you’re not a boy. Sorry boys but the reality is that any protection you
will get because of your gender will largely come because of a concern for
girls.
No comments:
Post a Comment