THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE LIFE
by JAMES HALL
THE SUBJECT OF ABORTION has traditionally been a very controversial one within Nationalist circles, and debates on the subject have in the past generated more heat than light. But with well over two million unborn babies aborted since the passing of David Steel's Abortion Act in 1967 the subject is too important to be ignored.
ABORTION has been in the headlines recently for David Alton, a bachelor Roman Catholic MP, was trying to cut the length of time during which these operations could be performed.
It was also revealed that Asian women have been disposing of their pre-born female children for social, rather than medical, reasons (contrary to the existing law, let alone any proposed new one). Parliament has been told that they will have to take note of this fact in any revision of the abortion laws, otherwise more than a few Asian doctors will find themselves being prosecuted for procuring abortions – something the 'liberal' establishment strongly objects to.
Those Asian women received a great deal of support from feminist camps that demand abortion as a right and who are outraged at the mere thought of men having a say on the subject. It has to be said, though, that we men do have a right, and one that we should exercise strongly. This right being not merely valuable but actually priceless, since the question of abortion pivots around our whole view of society and each other, men included. After all, how can it be a woman's singular right to choose when it took one of each sex to conceive? As much to the point is the fact that whilst suicide may well be the individual's prerogative no such label can be applied to an action that not merely involves at least a second party in the act, but further involves a third party as victim.
Apart from unborn female Asians a great many inter-racial conceptions also get terminated, the 40% half-caste population of Dr Barnardos bearing testimony to those that don't. Adoption agencies always report that little blonde children go first and the mixed race offspring last (whilst Black children warrant special adverts in the Guardian asking for Black parents, in order that they retain their racial identity.) Abortion provides a safety valve without which the multi-racial society would eventually collapse under the onslaught of its own unloved product.
In a healthy society as technologically advanced as ours in matters of contraception, health matters and sexual education there should be no need for abortion. Even unwanted, accidental pregnancies could be allowed to run full term in the certain knowledge that its outcome will be wanted and loved by someone, and not an embarassing outcast in a society that is not as liberal as some would wish and others pretend. Overall abortion is quite a factor in the quest for a 'liberal', multiracial society.
Apart from its actual principle there are at least two other areas connected with the whole issue of abortion; one is what abortion could lead to in any society and the other is what it has already led us to in this society.
Even before legislation there were committed criminal abortions, sometimes with tragic results (no-one I think would dispute this) and this fact is used as an argument for its legalisation. There is, however, a world of difference between a country where murder is committed and one where it is not even considered a crime. It is argued by the pro-abortion lobby that the foetus (that third party) is not actually human, not an individual, at all, though, just a mass of tissue. This opens the door to all those familiar 'viability' arguments, and was the trap that the Alton Bill fell into – it argued not on the principle of life itself but at what stage one was entitled to the protection of that definition.
Individuality is, of course, conferred at the very moment of conception, neither before, not after, as any basic biology book will readily corroborate. As for viability anyone who is a parent will confirm that toddlers (never mind babes-in-arms) are not 'viable entities' either, nor indeed are geriatric grandparents or even some handicapped individuals. In fact I would be prepared to argue that since none of us is totally self-sufficient none of us is truly viable individually. As a single organism it is perhaps a nonsense to talk of viability; humans not being asexual amoebae, it most certainly is in terms of us as a specie.
The whole argument, of course, hinges around whether it ought to be possible to dehumanize people in this way. The fact is that at nine weeks old the pre-bom individual's organs are all there and working, the liver, kidneys, stomach and brain. It can swallow, digest, urinate and breathe and its heart has been beating since its 24th day. So make no mistake this is not just cellular material, but a human – not a theoretical one, but an actual one. What tends to cloud the issue is the lack of a distinction in some peoples' minds between a human's legal rights by virtue of their existence alone, which ought to be the same for everyone, and the level of their competence, which clearly cannot. This is the substance of the first point.
97% of all the humans that have had their existence terminated in this country, whilst in the womb of their mother, in the last twenty years, were perfectly healthy unlike those in hospitals, hospices, mental institutions, old peoples homes, those receiving visits from home helps or the district nurse and perhaps even the suicidal thousands that turn to the Samaritans every year. Those unborn humans were also innocent of any crime, unlike prison inmates, and do not willingly take drugs, go mugging, dodge fares or drop litter. So at what point should one cease to be recognisably human in society and become outlaw as a result? If it's okay to dispose of someone because we can't see their face what about the faces we don't want to see?
I have very little time for the argument that handicapped babies are fair game for the abortionist either. If what homosexuals say is true and they are born with their predilictions, then would they be happy with the notion that, according to the wishes of the majority, they too were once disposable? What about the Blacks with sickle cell anaemia, or the Asians that develop rickets because of their inherent genetic unsuitability to our overcast skies? How many road accident victims, upon being told that they would never walk again, fancy the idea of being put down at the roadside like a horse with a broken leg? Every individual has the right to choose life, no matter how limited it may seem to the tyranical mob.
WORLD CLASS GENIUS
Stephen Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University and astro-physicist of undoubted world-class genius, is the victim of a disorder that has left him trapped in a wheelchair and barely able to utter an intelligible word. If we are to descend to the level of a herd existence and measure peoples' suitability for life on the basis of their usefulness to the rest of us then how many genetically competent boors would have to be exterminated before it was Stephen Hawking's turn?
Notice that I said the right to choose life and not the right to life itself. I am no bleeding-heart liberal that shrinks from the thought of death, or indeed the right of society to impose it upon those that choose to live within society but not act within its tolerated boundaries of behaviour. All murderers should hang, for, although life itself is not sacred, the duty of society to protect the option for it must be, even, paradoxically, to the, point of wartime sacrifice (one of the few legitimate reasons for war in my view). The consequences of society's failure to honour this duty are horrific, and this is the substance of the second point; what abortion has led us to so far.
The Flag has already reported that bits of dead children are being embedded in plastic and sold as jewellery. As sick as this seems, however, we can dismiss this as a typical 'bad taste' marketing exercise, wholly dependant upon abortion in the first place. Psychologically speaking these trinkets only sell for their shock value, actually underlining the general unease that exists about abortion.
There are many ways in which money is made from the abortion racket, and there are three aspects to the damage that abortion causes to society. Firstly it kills a human. Secondly, it brutalises society, and thirdly, almost ironically, it usually injures the prospective mother herself. Apart from any physical damage that might be done there is also the risk of psychological damage (which can be both severe and long lasting) because, as with the race question, the best efforts of the liberal establishment, big business and an apathetic Church have done little to numb our basic instincts and most women do suffer from a large degree of post-operative guilt. Bearing in mind the vested interests ranged against her, who could blame the woman for taking the 'easy' way out?
It it not women that need changing, dare I say, though, nor even just the law, but, our multi-racial, dehumanized, profit-mad society itself, boasting, as it does, that the deaths of its most innocent members represent a liberal advance when, in fact, they are one of its most diabolical safety valves and contemptous expressions of its selfishness.