HERE ARE THE BEST INSIGHTS FROM ANN FUREDI'S BOOK THE MORAL CASE FOR ABORTION
BPAS
Ann Furedi runs the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which provides
abortions to nearly 65,000 women a year in England & Wales. Most of these are
provided free to women and paid for by NHS. Women travelling from Ireland need
to self-fund, but BPAS has a policy of never turning any woman away that it can
safely and legally treat. BPAS was established as a charity in 1968 to provide
both clinic services and public education. Today, it is known internationally
for promoting women’s reproductive choice (www.wetrustwomen.org.uk) and the
decriminalisation of abortion.
From BPAS website.
Ann's Book, The Moral Case for Abortion
This thought-provoking book sets out the ethical arguments for a woman’s right
to choose. Drawing on the traditions of sociological thinking and moral
philosophy, it maintains that there is a strong moral case for recognizing
autonomy in personal decision-making about reproductive intentions. More than
this, it argues that to prevent a woman from making her own choice to continue
or end her pregnancy is to undermine the essence of her humanity. The author, a
provider of abortion services in the UK, asserts that true respect for human
life and true regard for individual conscience demand that we respect a woman’s
right to decide, and that support for a woman’s right to a termination has moral
foundations and ethical integrity. This fresh perspective on abortion will
interest both pro- and anti-choice individuals and organizations, along with
academics in the fields of gender studies, philosophy, ethics and religion.
From Amazon
INFORMATION FROM THE BOOK
To say that if you think abortion is immoral or murder then don’t have one and
don’t let others not have the choice turns the whole subject into a claim about
preferences. My comment is that even if abortion is not murder, it might be and
you cannot turn something as important as that into a preference claim!
To be pro-life or pro-choice involves judging. To judge itself is a choice.
It is not true that a pregnancy necessarily develops into an embryo. It can
develop into a hydatidiform mole that engenders a significant risk of cancer.
A being has moral status when what it has or its interests matter for its own
sake. A person is wronged is wronged for her or his own sake. Thus it is MY
personal loss if my fancy watch or my Church or my religion or my nose are
attacked or desecrated. It is an attack on me though none of these things are
me. An unborn cannot have moral status for it is not wronged if anybody say gets
its inheritance. I would add that some would say that an unborn at 10 weeks
cannot be wronged the same way as a 24 week can be. A 24 week cannot be as a 30
week would be. It is a progression. If a child in the womb can be wronged then
that may still not amount to much so we can treat it as having no moral status.
A lot of arguments against JJT are against the analogy she used but the
principle stills stands out: you cannot be a life support system to another
being against your will. You have the right to have the child removed though it
will die.
It is the case that if a woman dies you cannot even take her organs then to save
her baby.
A right to life and a right to exist are not exactly the same thing. Too many
confuse the two. The woman has a life and the unborn has an existence. The life
comes first.
It is wrong to kill somebody just because it makes your life easier. It is said
that there is no difference whether it is one day we are talking about or nine
months. But there is a difference between taking the life of an unborn baby
while doubting if it has much of a right to life and in taking the life of a one
year old who clearly has such a right. The doubt means the intention is not
about hurting somebody.
The book says that removing an unborn which will end its life is not morally
different from injecting it to kill it in the womb. There is a dead body there
when it is all over. Critics say that nobody is causing the death but it
happens. They would see the injecting as murder. They
would say that removing the baby hoping there will be a chance it
will survive and having reason to believe it might is not the same
thing.
I would add that some would see removing the baby as reflected in
the right to deny life support even if you know 100% the person will
die. Even shooting them now would be less certain to kill
them. We all argue that a right to life means nothing unless
you put this limitation on it. Furedi of course says that a
right to life does not say life must be absolutely protected.
This argument is clear that forcing you to give life support even if
it will do you not much harm is wrong. It is clear that
quality of life not just life matters and you can sacrifice the
other for your quality of life even if their's is better. This
is pure Darwinism.
A woman having the right to end a pregnancy does not automatically mean anybody
has a right or duty to help her.
MY COMMENT: Apply Darwinism to how pregnancy is full of errors and "design"
flaws that harm the mother. The hips are not wide enough and a woman needs too
much assistance. The vast majority of history's mothers were killed by pregnancy
and childbirth. Motherhood will do permanent damage and can be called a
necessary illness. With poor design the maker is either not perfectly powerful,
not perfectly knowing or not perfectly good or any combination of these.
Pregnancy is a health danger not an illness as such which is why abortion rights
must be granted. It is still very much linked to illness which is why saying it
is not an illness doesn't carry much moral relevance.
No human being is born on time. When we are born we are helpless for unlike
other animals we have a lot more brain development to go through until we can
look after ourselves. All human births are premature! This thought scares
religion for it may argue that a newborn is much the same as an unborn.
The point about the organs shows that society lies about how much it values the
unborn child. Here we have a case where it is a DEAD WOMAN'S BODY and we are not
allowed to use it to save her baby. Imagine what that says about a living body!
The point that nobody and no health system is bound to help a woman use her
right to end her pregnancy shows that abortion rights are fragile in a sense.
There is a difference between removing a baby from the womb and it dying and in
attacking it.
In a burning building, do you save the fridge with several fairly advanced
embryos in it or the newborn baby? You will make a choice and say, "I did the
right thing though I feel bad about the babies/baby." Your choice was still a
weapon against the loser. You won't feel that so you are not the righteous
person you claim to be. You are smug. A weapon is a weapon if you use it against
your will or not. It should not matter for it is about what you did with
the weapon not if you intended to hurt or not. Don't use the situation to
feel good just because you had a good intention.
Something tells us that abortion should be immoral. That suggests a spiritual
dimension. But it cannot be so that shows that God is a useless concept. It
cannot handle the big issues of abortion or suicide which are health issues
rather than moral ones. A useless God is just an idol.
The woman is on her own. God is not looking after her. He is not going to make
it right if she carries her pregnancy to term and it kills her.
Abortion is a necessity for we are stuck with nature and nature is dangerous and
brutal.
