Sunday, 25 March 2012

'Women's Rights': For Some, But Not For Others...

I talked with a woman who attends the Soup Run last night. Somehow we came to discuss social services, abortion and pregnancy.

She related to me that recently she had thought that she was pregnant. She lives in one of the many homeless hostels in Brighton.

Before taking a pregnancy test at the doctor's surgery, a test which came back negative, her GP laid out her 'options'. Abortion was suggested to her, not something she enquired about, were the test to be positive.

Having replied to the doctor that if the test were positive that she would want to keep the baby, the doctor warned her that, because she is 'drink dependent', that social services would soon step in to remove the new baby and take him or her into care. This is all before the test result was even in. So, before she has even been informed whether she is pregnant or not, her GP was basically encouraging her to abort the child, on the grounds that the child will be 'drink dependent' from birth, but by the same token, advised that were she to give birth that the child would be removed and taken into care (to be put up for sale, sorry, adoption, we can presume) on the grounds that the child would be 'drink dependent' from birth. Does that make any sense?

Not really, but then the eugenic mindset of so many working in the field of healthcare does not make much sense. Why would it? Eugenics is not science but a pseudo-science. The logic of the medical profession is rarely challenged nowadays, but it should be. For a start, the women's liberation movement proclaimed to be a new era of 'women's rights' and 'equality of treatment'. It also promised 'reproductive freedom' for women. Yet, this 'reproductive freedom' should really be re-examined and, if necessary, re-named, since 'reproductive freedom' seems either to indicate the freedom to access abortion - a negative freedom - to 'terminate' pregnancy, or, on the other hand, if truly this term reflects some kind of reality, then it is a 'reproductive freedom' granted to some and not to others. We can safely assume that if this woman was not poor or 'drink dependent', then the counselling given by her GP would be different. That's what status in society grants you - respectful dialogue with those in authority or a position of power. This is a woman and yet, I have to ask, where are her 'reproductive freedoms' and more than that where are her 'woman's rights'. The answer is that they don't exist for her, or rather that, more generally, that they exist for some but not for others.

Secondly, I'm not wholly convinced by the idea that because a woman is drink-dependent that the baby will emerge at birth asking for a can of Skol Super. There may be a period in which a new born baby suffers some form of withdrawal symptoms, but I doubt that there is conclusive scientific evidence that says that every baby born to a mother with drink problems will be an alcoholic. Secondly, we can assume that the advice to abort is because the baby's life will end up just like that of his mothers and that the inference is that this is a life 'not worth living'. Oh, and I forget that she also told me that because she is drink dependent that the baby might have 'birth defects'. What evidence is there for that and why abort because the baby is imperfect? Thirdly, the argument from the GP falls down from his own suggestion that the baby will be removed from her because not only is she alcohol dependent, but this will be passed down to the baby. So, an alcohol dependent baby suddenly loses the genetic alcohol dependency because it is being raised by a middle class couple in Kettering, instead of parents or a mother who drinks in Brighton?

Already, a pattern emerges in which truth is sacrificed for an ideal, or an ideology which says that some women have rights, but others do not. Some women have 'reproductive freedoms', whereas others have the freedom to abort and have their children removed from them at birth by social services. They are even, as was the case for this woman, told by their doctors, who, let's remember, work for the State's National Health Service, that if they are pregnant, it is either a suggestion to abort or the warning that social services will step in and take your baby away. Can you imagine how degrading, insulting and downright terrible that must feel?

This is the cruel injustice and judgment that the poor face in Brighton and in every town in the United Kingdom and it is not only levelled at those who drink or are drug dependent. The eugenic movement that led to the Holocaust and the destruction of countless human lives in Nazi Germany never went away and sheepishly abandoned their causes. They just moved into new areas in which their evil ideology could be made acceptable and palatable. They went into social services divisions, psychiatry, medicine, genetics, the abortion industry and anywhere that they could make an impact on society in accordance with their pseudo-scientific view of humanity.

Ann Furedi, head of BPAS is another example. Prior to her time as head of the BPAS, Ann led the Birth Control Trust, the 'charitable arm' of the Galton Institute (formerly known as the British Eugenics Society). The stated aim of the Birth Control Trust remains to 'spread supports practical initiatives in birth control, especially programmes to increase access to women's health care services in developing countries.' Consistently, Ann Furedi proclaims abortion as a women's rights issue. But what, Ann, if a woman has fallen on hard times, is pregnant and does not want her child to be aborted and does not want to give the child up for adoption. Where are her rights, as a woman, then? We are not naive, however. We know that these are not the kinds of 'women's rights' issues that concern one like Ann Furedi.


pAUL said...

To be fair, the Catholic church has a long history of forcing women to give up their children for sale, sorry adoption. See the scandals in Spain, Chile, Holland, Germany, Ireland, the Philippines etc etc. You should ask Benedict if it's one rule for drunken mothers and another for single mothers, because he seems to be quite happy with stealing a single mother's baby from her and sending it to a Catholic 'charity' (shop)

Lynda said...

You brilliantly elucidate the irrational and evil mindset behind the planned control, manipulation and debasement of human procreation.

Left-footer said...

Maybe Furedi is more concerned with women's power than with their rights. The ultimate power is, after all, the power to kill someone else.

Yet again, a fine post. Thank you and God bless!

blondpidge said...

Great post - the only criticism I would offer, is that fetal alcohol syndrome is an accepted consequence of consuming too much alcohol in pregnancy.

There is also a spectrum of disorders relating to drinking too much in pregnancy, therefore even if the child does not appear to be addicted to alcohol, they may still suffer from long-lasting developmental effects.

Drinking to excess in pregnancy can prove extraordinarily harmful, arguably more so than smoking.

Any concerned doctor, instead of forcing abortion upon a woman in this situation, should instead be looking at getting her in a detoxification programme and as much support as possible, in order that she may be able to keep her baby. I agree that the attitude stinks, but think it's best not to deny the harm that can be done to the unborn child by excessive drinking.

The Bones said...


As far as I am aware, the Church has a long history of running orphanages and of providing adoption services. I do not believe that nuns went around from place to place acting in the manner of social services, removing children from mothers without their consent. If they did, then that is wicked. I doubt very much, however, whether that was a common trait of the Church. It has never been the Church's 'policy'. Unlike the SS.

Good Counsel said...

We have seen numerous expectant mums being treated this way in early pregnancy, and have frequently heard women say things like"I have to abort, I can imagine them (SS) waiting at the end of the bed to take the baby when it's born."
It's not always for drink and drug use either. More commonly we see women accused of emotional abuse or emotional neglect, which are very vague and harder to define. I have even been to sit in on some case conferences where such tags are discussed and I think it's outrageous. A quarter of the money spent on the case conference/expert opinions and worst of all the secret family court system, would provide for proper supportive placements with families or couples willing to help support the parent of the child. Many of the Mothers under this pressure have emotional problems or learning disabilities (by no means all of them) and many have been under the SS during their own youth for a time. The whole system is so biased against these mums. Can they harm their children? Maybe without good support, though in most cases that i have seen there is no intent to harm.But with proper supportive environments they can be the good Mothers they want to be. Foster care and care homes on the other hand statistically speaking have a massive chance of causing permanent damage of the most severe nature and perpetuating the cycle of families in care.
Women who already have children in care who continue pregnancies with the certainty of SS involvement live a kind of martyrdom.

What is the Catholic Response to Tyranny?

Before liberals screech that Benedict XVI was a tyrant for proclaiming the Faith Catholic and telling theologians that debate should not be ...