Recycling Pro-abortion Arguments Demolished 50 years ago

Reincarnation of Arguments Demolished 
50 Years Ago 

Beautiful survivor

Pro-abortionists in 2018 are dredging up arguments which were used more than 50 years ago to support  the Abortion Act 1967.  Those arguments were immediately proved to be entirely worthless and were demolished but here they are back again.

Court of Protection Abortion Ruling

In early 2013 there were brief press reports (see here and here) of a case in the Court of Protection where the court was asked to decide whether a woman described as being "mentally disabled" should be aborted against her wishes.  Happily the court decided not to order an abortion.

In 1982 ALDU reported on a case where a similar request was made to the High Court in respect of a young woman who was not mentally disabled but was aged only 15 and not able therefore to give consent.  In that case an abortion was ordered and the judge also ordered that the young woman should be fitted with what was described as a "a suitable internal contraceptive device".  ALDU considered whether the judge was making an order that would lead to illegal abortion on the ground that at least one of the effects of such an internal device is to prevent the implantation of a fertilised embryo.

28 week time limit for abortion never existed

We must tell the truth but in order to do so in legal matters it is absolutely essential to read the words of the relevant Act of Parliament or the words of an important relevant court judgement.  All lawyers know this to be the case and it is surprising therefore to find lawyers who do not do this simple task.  It is more excusable when a politician falls into the same trap but only slightly more excusable.

When it comes to abortion law, however, this basic attribute is either forgotten, misunderstood or simply ignored.  Once again this is something about which ALDU wrote in its Newsletters.  There is not now and never has been a 28 week time limit before which an abortion might be carried out and after which abortion was prohibited.  

"Morning After" Pill - 1983

The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn

Black is not White

In 1983 ALDU considered the words of the then Attorney General (Sir Michael Havers QC) given in Parliament in his attempt to convince the House of Commons (and the world) that black really can be white, at least so far as abortion is concerned.  It is well known that the morning after pill works in one of three ways, namely preventing ovulation or inhibiting fertilisation after ovulation has taken place or by preventing implantation of the fertilised embryo in the mother's womb.   The Attorney General was of the opinion that the last of these three methods was not a criminal offence and consequently that no proceedings would be instituted.

Looking back, 30 years later, we are no more impressed than we were in 1983. What we saw in 1983 was the Attorney General bowing to the power of the pharmaceutical companies to give them a green light to promote their drugs, without fear of prosecution for criminal activity. 

Abortion: the statistical lie

The article below in the Spring of 1984 was commenting on the so called "statistical argument" for abortion which alleges that statistics show that abortion is always safer for the mother than continuing a pregnancy.  An abortion promoting charity still alleges on its website as a "fact" that abortion is "safer than pregnancy and childbirth".

Professor Glanville Williams QC was banging the same drum in the 1980s (and for many years before that) and ALDU decided to respond and expose the nonsensical arguments that Professor Williams was propounding.  Professor Glanville Williams, who died in 1997, was an extremely well known and eminent lawyer in his day.  He wrote many influential books, in particular books intended to teach people about the law.  This gave him the opportunity to expound his personal beliefs which was important to him for he was a prominent and active member of the Eugenics Society, President of the Abortion Law Reform Association and one of the principal authors of the Abortion Act.  The views which he expressed in his legal textbooks, on this subject, were not therefore disinterested.  He wanted abortion to be freely available and almost any old argument would do to reach that end.

Abortion - Arguing the Pro-life Case

In order to argue agains supporters of abortion, it is first necessary to understand what they believe and how their ideas influence their actions.  There is no point in us pro-lifers constructing arguments to counter what we believe that pro-abortionists think or even what we believe that they should think.  We have to meet pro-abortionists where they are, not where we think they should be.

Support pro-life pregnancy advice clinics.

There has been a recent smear campaign carried out against so called pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centres (CPC) in the UK.  Undercover journalists from the Daily Telegraph visited 33 CPCs, sometimes visiting the same CPC as often as 4 times.  At each visit the journalists claimed to be pregnant and to be seeking help, neither of which claims were true.  In their Report they claim that pro-life counsellors gave incorrect and incomplete information - the pot calling the kettle black perhaps. 

Reminder to abortionists. Obey the law!

Over 32 years ago, the then Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Professor Gareth Crompton, wrote to doctors in Wales reminding them not to carry out illegal abortions - just in case they might forget.  We wrote about this remarkable instruction sent to people who might be expected to understand that they are supposed to act legally in Spring 1982 in our Newsletter number 13.

Sound familiar?