Wednesday, 24 April 2013

The tyranny of silence.

Like most British people I have an antipathy towards Americans.  I readily go with the stereotypes; loud, crass, greedy etc.  Nevertheless the abortion debate has started to encourage me to look again at my cousins across the pond. There has been a resilience within their anti-abortion movement which has meant that the acceptance of the practice has not become, as was prophecised by its supporters, inevitable. One poll suggests 56% of all Americans (and, significantly, 58% of the 18-29 category) that abortion is morally wrong.

In contrast the UK it is suggested by the YouGov poll that only 6% of people wanted to ban abortion altogether. Even when it comes to what restrictions there should be on abortion and what rules should govern its availability i.e. the 24-week limit that applies to most abortions - we are depressingly pro.  Looking again at the YouGov poll for 2012 found 39% supported the status quo or a longer limit, 37% supported a lower limit. Only 37% support a lower limit! Just to be sure we're on the same page here is a 24 week old which survived birth...

Why am I so opposed to abortion? One of the reasons is because of what I have witnessed during my time teaching in our secondary schools.

As a society we do not want any limits to our sexual freedom and as a result we cannot place any on young peoples. Worse, in what appears to be vain-glory, the adult population are encouraging the sexual appetites of the young.  For generations now the people who are meant to protect them have one by one removed any barriers to sexual control and as a result left them to fend for themselves.

What makes me even more angry about this is that those in positions of power have the money and influence to protect their young. As always the weakest and poorest bear the brunt of the 'revolution'.

Despite fostering sexual licence, society does not want to pay for it and as a result contraception, the morning after pill and abortificants are promoted to our young as solutions to the problems that inevitably result with this new morality. I often here people say that there is no morality, but I disagree.There is a morality being advocated very clearly.

For example did you know that under the age of 16 girls can obtain an abortion without parental consent and that this is often arranged through the school system? Abortion and the right to choose are seen as so inherently good that parental rights can be removed by the state. this means that when a child, and those under the age of sixteen are still children, are going through a traumatic emotional event there parents may not even know about it.

Some may argue that such laws are designed to protect the rights of the young who should have the ability to decide what they do in such a situation without interference from parents.  In my experience the stereotype of the parent limiting this is religious, Christian and a bit fundamentalist.

However, I have witnessed how these issues are introduced to the young. Despite the claim that these young people should be free to choose, there is no genuine choice at all. The information given to them is deliberatley limited. I have actually sat in a classroom where the school nurse repeatedly said the morning after pill caused the lining of the womb to be ejected prior to the egg being able to be implanted.  When I asked her to clarify that when she was referring to the egg she was speaking about a fertilised egg she became extremely uncomfortable prior to her acknowledgment of this.  When I asked her if she informed people of this prior to giving them the pill she replied; "people who want the morning after pill don't want to know that".  A pretty big decision to make on someone else's behalf, what they want to know.

The same person was appalled at the repeated requests for the morning after pill made by the same young pupils and was, naturally concerned about, the impact this may have on them. She didn't seem to see the connection with the way this was presented to them and there lack of concern of its outcomes.

This is done under the guise of sexual education empowering pupils with knowledge in order that they can make informed decisions and therefore reduce teenage pregnancies.  However, not only is the outcome never as predicted (teenage pregnancies continue to remain high) but it is clear that information is carefully selected to ensure the right outcome i.e. if an 'unforseen' pregnancy occurs then an abortion/morning after pill follows to ensure the state doesn't have to foot the bill.

Abortion is advocated so strongly and in such a biased format for two reasons I believe;

  1. because of the automatic veneer of 'compassion' and intelligence the promoter can garner, 
  2. it ensures that people do not have to monetarily pay for the inevitable outcomes of sex without genuine commitment. 
The recent failure to mention the Gosnell case did not surprise me at all. To question abortion would mean we would either have to pay for these inevitable outcomes as a society (in other words children) or we would have to start admitting that the sexual revolution was actually more damaging than we would care to admit.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I welcome your posts whether you agree with me or not. Can I ask that people are respectful to each other; no-one has the right not to be offended, but I think that we can talk to each other without swearing or using personal insults.
If you want to use the whole "sky fairy" thing when you're talking to people with faith that too is your perogitive. Just know that for me and many others when you do you've lost the argument.