I have just signed up, because I received a Google alert about a report on this site about the Abort 67 presence outside Blackfriars Medical Practice's new abortion clinic.
What I wanted to say was that I couldn't help but noticing that the report
Protesters target Blackfriars Medical Practice’s abortion clinic
by "London SE1 website team"
quoted a single sentence of Ruth Rawlins, and then disgorged upon the reader a veritable avalanche of unchallenged quotes emanating from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service that took up about 80% to 90% of the article's entire length!
Was the ONLY thing that Ruth Rawlins said the single sentence of hers quoted? "A GP surgery is a place to cure people not to kill them, therefore having an abortion clinic on site is a huge contradiction."
If Ms Rawlins was tongue-tied, couldn't at least Abort 67's head office have been contacted, and invited to contribute a quote or two of its own to the reportage?
Or is only one opinion about abortion considered reasonable nowadays, as far as the London SE1 Website Team is concerned, the opinion of those who earn their salaries providing abortion services?
Abortion is an immensely serious topic. Does the website team really believe that there is nothing interesting or important left to discuss, for all time?
A new generation of readers and voters has sprung up, born since the crazy days of 1967, a year in which I was too young to vote myself so I played no part in procuring the Abortion Act 1967. The members of the younger generation owe their very lives to the choices of their mothers not to kill them with impunity whilst they were still very young. Must we impose upon them, as an irreversible fait accompli
, the results of the coup
of a certain faction within a generation of politicians and those who elected politicians in those days, who are by now mostly dead themselves, by which abortion became not just legalised, but normalised? Are they to be discouraged from scrutinising the new status quo that their dead ancestors bequeathed them, and making their own
informed decisions as to whether they want to have human blood on their own
hands and, if they don't want blood on their hands, voting for MPs who will repeal the Abortion Act 1967?
From the point of view of the late human (an embryo or a foetus) who is deliberately killed during an abortion, in what amounts to lethal age discrimination, his early death from abortion is a failure to accord him equality with the older humans who took the decision to kill him and carried it out.
I consider it entirely possible that a future generation will have a more sophisticated grasp of the ever-evolving equality ethos that has come to fore during their lifetimes. This would create a generation gap to rival that of the sixties, between them and the mostly dead generation who elected the Parliament that in 1967 paved the way for eight million - EIGHT MILLION
- humans to be killed in the UK alone, in what ought to be the safest place in the world for anybody, our own mothers' wombs.
The only way we are going to find out whether today's youth are less blood-thirsty and more conscientious than the hippies and feminists who got their way in 1967, is to allow calm and informed discussion of abortion. It seems to me that this is not something that the London SE1 Website Team wants. Otherwise, it would surely have written a less obviously biased report of the Abort 67 action at Blackfriars Medical Centre.
Calm, informed discussion of what abortion is and does, is the cornerstone of Abort 67's campaign. Abort 67 uses emotive pictures, that show the reality of abortion, because they have to counter all the propaganda of the abortion industry that misrepresents the reality. But their arguments are all calm and rational. BPAS doesn't have any arguments. They really entirely upon emotional appeals that are based upon misinformation, in my experience, in order to protect their vested interests.
It was shoddy reporting to publish the piece that was published, which seems calculated to stifle reasoned debate.