Yesterday, (12th March 2017) Labour MP Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) asked the House of Commons for permission to introduce a Private Members’ Bill to the House of Commons.

The 1st reading before the House of Commons was on the 13th March 2017

The 2nd reading is scheduled for the delayed, (due to Westminster Terror attack), until the 12th May 2017.

The bill full text is not yet published, I will update this later.

Picture of Diana Johnson
Diana Johnson

Diana said that the bill was to “regulate the termination of pregnancies by medical practitioners and to repeal certain criminal offences relating to such terminations; and for connected purposes.”

In England and Wales, under the Abortion Act 1967, introduced by David Steel, women have a legal route to an abortion. But Diana and those who support this bill wish to not only allow aborting under controlled circumstances, i.e. for medical reasons and upon the approval of two doctors etc. but they now wish to decriminalise the killing of a baby pre-birth.

You may have thought that it was now legal to abort a baby, to kill a pre-born child, but in fact, children in the womb are still protected as human beings under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 and other legislation. There is a legal route to abortion, but apart from the provision of David Steel’s act, killing a pre-born child is still against the law.

As one might expect there is a deal of liberal propaganda in the press about this bill. Diana is being painted a hero of women’s rights attacking out of date legislation. Especially the use of the term, ‘Victorian.’ We do not want any of that prim and proper, backwards looking Victorian legislation on out statute books do we.

Diana brought several life stories of women who for one reason or another wished to be able to kill their babies outside of the Abortion Act 1967, but who for one reason or another did not feel safe to do so because it was illegal.

Some of these cases sound deserving if killing you baby could ever be…

“I live in rural England and have no friends and the relatives I have I am not close to. I was hoping to have a termination in the comfort of my own home without judgmental eyes and without worrying about my husband knowing. I fear what would happen if he did. I have 3 children and my 3rd is 11 months old. I considered an abortion when he was conceived and had a terrible pregnancy and am still suffering from post natal depression. I will try to seek help, anonymously if possible. I’m in great need of help.”

Other cases seemed bazaar. Abortion it seems has become such a meaningless act that some inconvenience, like taking a day off work, is just too much.

“I have visited my GP last week and he referred me to my local NHS service. They can only offer me a medical abortion with three visits to the hospital on separate days. On the second visit, I am expected to stay there all day. I work full time and have two young sons so getting all that time off and childcare is going to be very difficult, probably impossible.”

I had a dental crown last year and that took more than three visits.

Diana quoted Dr Rebecca Gomperts, the director of Women on Web said about English women seeking help online, who said,

“Yes, we get them all the time. We had an Islamic girl forbidden from leaving the house without a chaperone. How is she going to get to an abortion clinic? She can’t. For her, her only option might be that she could get the medicine sent to her by post.”

It seems to me that there is a much bigger problem in that girl’s life than the need for an abortion. This girl is all but illegal detained in her home. Get the police and social services into that home and have those who are holding her captive prosecuted. Or is it that as Muslims they can just do as they like and the law can not touch them.

Come on Diana, deal with the real problem here, do not just kill the innocent child.

Diana used the illustration that, the United States has not criminalised women for having an abortion since the Supreme Court judgment in 1973. However, there is considerable anecdotal evidence that this has meant that some cults are now aborting pre-birth children as a sacrifice because it is safe, there can be no prosecution for such an act. But we can not go too deep into that aspect here. Changes in laws like this always have unintended and far-reaching consiquesnses.

Diana tries to paint a picture that this bill with not lead to an abortion free for all, however, we all know how the “very few abortion” that the Abortion Act 1967 was supposed to give rise to has now become a massive flood.

She said that the bill would not, “lead to a free-for-all with unlicensed practitioners providing abortions; as now, there will be strict regulation and licensing of health professionals. For example, both of the pills most commonly used in medical abortions are prescription only. That means they are covered under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which make it illegal to supply such drugs without a prescription.

However, these pills are already being posted into the country, ordered on the internet by mail order. If there is no penalty for ordering or using such pills this will undoubtedly increase. Even if it is illegal to order them, it will be a much lower penalty than for killing a baby.

Diana also says that “On the issue of non-consensual abortions, such as when a man assaults a pregnant woman, these would continue to be criminalised under other laws such as grievous bodily harm.” Though it is unclear that this means. If the baby no longer has any value as a human under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. who’s body, is the ‘grievous bodily harm’ being done to? If it is the woman, I assume that these pills do not cause a great deal of harm to the woman. This may end up being a hard to prosecute offence or a minor one at the best.

Coming towards the end of her speech, Diana says that, “I hope that hon. Members will, like me, conclude that the criminalisation of abortion suits nobody.” The baby might think that it serves them!

She closes with another bizarre statement that, this bill will bring a, “a profound shift in the relationship between the state and its female citizens.” and that part of this is that “for the first time women will be recognised as the authors of our own lives. With that comes our full citizenship.”

As a man, I have never felt the fact that I do not have the right to kill children deprives me of my citizenship.

Nor under any circumstances are any of us the “author of our own lives.” Diana is just using emotional rhetoric to back up the right to kill.

6 COMMENTS

  1. Auschwitz was once a small place, then the Nazis enlarged it too enable more killings to take place. In essence that is what this bill does – it makes killings more numerous and much easier to carry out.

    • How is this in any way a valid comparison? You are comparing a womans right to make choices about her body to genocide. Please explain how killing something that is not capable of life is the same to systematically killing an ethnic group

      • Hi Jemand,

        I am not sure you are quite reading Bob correctly. He is not comparing the killing of something that is not capable of life with systematically killing an ethnic group. But he is saying that once you allow a little killing, it will lead to more.

        I think I would have to disagree that it is fine to kill anyone who is, “not capable of life.” On several grounds.

        1st. The baby is most definitely capable of life. If it were not, then all the mother would have to do is wait for it to die all by itself. There would be no need to kill it.

        Secondly. I do not wish to live in a society were “not capable of life,” is a just fine excuse to terminate your life. The old, sick and mentally ill are often not capable of life. Not independent self-sustaining life. Nor for that matter is a new born or even a two-year-old. Is it fine to kill them too?

        I know many people are now pushing for the right to terminate, (kill), a baby even after birth, but I for one, do not believe it is right for it to be legal to kill anyone who is, “not capable of life.”

  2. As a man you should not be commenting on a womans right to control a group of cells that outside of the body are not capable of having life. Also blatant sexism, poor reporting on a sensitive issue that you don’t fully understand and Islamaphobia aren’t going to make your arguments any more valid.

    You should leave making criticisms of certain contentious issues to people that understand them instead of creating a vicious echo chamber like this website. Womens rights are womens rights- they have nothing to do with you. No one is killing babies, fetuses before 24 weeks when most abortions occur and will occur and will not be further legislated on since the proposed bill only allows abortions at up to 24 weeks- you wouldn’t be able to just abortion a fetus a week before it is to be born.

    Using emotive language like that which is scientifically incorrect is also not something that should be done in good journalism- these fetuses are not capable of life outside the womb when they are aborted. And a woman would know when having a child is best for them, if abortions were criminalized then we would have a massive social problem dealing with children that are not wanted (will you and all the other anti abortionists adopt all these children), will you pour money into the NHS so you can deal with the consequences of post natal depression, or the harm that comes to the woman from continuing an unwanted pregnancy, will you help with the medical treatments when women get denied abortion for a septic miscarriage and end up killing the mother as well while trying to protect the rights of a fetus which will never actually be capable of life.
    You yourself are using emotional rhetoric to try and get your points across so criticizing this is just hypocritical.

    I don’t think that comparing a dental crown to having an abortion is at all valid. Having a crown is unlikely to cause you to expel a fetus unless there are some procedures that I am not aware of. It would also not make you take a full day off work. As a man you can not understand a womans body, you have never experienced a period even and probably don’t understand them. I also doubt that you are the soul carer of children and you probably got time off work to deal with this issue so your argument is completely invalid if not laughable. You also probably have a lot more job security than a woman with children because of the way employers tend to treat women.

    Another point that I would like to make is the suggestion of proof reading before you post an article on line- there are a few typos- no doubt because you, yourself could not bring yourself to read this properly researched and quite frankly delusional piece of verbal diarrhea again.

    I doubt that your moderators will want to post this. Because its an opinion against what you want to have in your echo chamber but if you do then you have at least one redeeming quality of which this article has none.

    • First, can I say thank you for keeping your language clean?

      Let me try to answer a few of your points.

      “As a man you should not be commenting on a womans right to control a group of cells that outside of the body are not capable of having life.”

      I did not know that the life and death of another human being was a woman’s right to choose.

      I am a strong believer in woman’s rights. They should have the right to choose not to have sex. The right to refrain from becoming pregnant. But not the right to kill another human.

      “poor reporting on a sensitive issue that you don’t fully understand.”

      The fact that I am not a woman does not mean that I am not entitled to an opinion on life beginning at conception. Life is not something that only women know about.

      Surely we are all about equal rights, so why is the life of a baby not equally valuable and the opinion of a man too.

      “Islamaphobia.”

      Sorry, where was I Islamaphobic?

      “You should leave making criticisms of certain contentious issues to people that understand them instead of creating a vicious echo chamber like this website.”

      You argument here does not make sense. You believe that a woman has the right to… in my opinion kill her baby… you may call it something else… But I have no right to even express an opinion?

      Is that not very liberal of you?

      “Womens rights are womens rights- they have nothing to do with you.”

      Half the babies aborted are men… well if you do not count the many women who are aborted just because they are women. But I would have thought you would have though killing girls because they are girls was somewhat anti women’s rights.

      “No one is killing babies, fetuses before 24 weeks when most abortions occur and will occur and will not be further legislated on since the proposed bill only allows abortions at up to 24 weeks- you wouldn’t be able to just abortion a fetus a week before it is to be born.”

      More than 200 babies were aborted after the 24-week limit in 2015, according to official figures for residents of England and Wales.

      Prof Wendy Savage, who sits on a leading ethics panel, believes that abortion should be allowed at any point, and simply be seen as another medical operation.

      People are calling for abortion up to birth!

      “these fetuses are not capable of life outside the womb.”

      Nor are many old people.

      “I don’t think that comparing a dental crown to having an abortion is at all valid.”

      No, but I did not complain about having to go to the dentist three times. One of the women was complaining that it was just to heard to have an abortion. Should it be less effort that a dental crown?

      “Another point that I would like to make is the suggestion of proof reading before you post an article on line- there are a few typos- no doubt because you, yourself could not bring yourself to read this properly researched and quite frankly delusional piece of verbal diarrhea again.”

      I left school unable to read and write due to dyslexia; it does not make me stupid.

      You may also like to think about a proofreading or two. “a womans right to control…” should be “a woman’s right to control…”

      “I doubt that your moderators will want to post this. Because its an opinion against what you want to have in your echo chamber but if you do then you have at least one redeeming quality of which this article has none.”

      You think I have a moderator? I am not frightened of opinions against mine, but I will not always post liberal views. I do not pay for this site so liberals can use it as their own place to write. And because the mainstream media is plenty full of liberal opinions.

      Nice talking.

      God bless.

  3. Thank you, Andrew for injecting truth and common-sense into this matter. The unsaved have been so blinded by Satan that they cannot see just what hypocrites they are.

Comments are closed.