Dear Editor,
Member of Parliament Dr Dayton Campbell is reported to demand the repeal of laws that prohibit abortion. This follows the adoption of a similar resolution by the PNP women in 2013, and the earlier demand for legalised abortion by MP Lisa Hanna on the grounds that increased abortion would lead to decreased crime.
In the case of Hanna's assertion, not only is the inferred causative link completely fictional, but also the argument itself is morally flawed. Presumably the public is being asked to believe that if the unplanned and unwanted unborn children of poor women were aborted, there would be fewer criminals, and thus less crime. If this Machiavellian proposal is taken to its logical end, it is clear that the pre-emptive elimination of would-be criminals could be more efficacious if inner-city children or, better yet, unemployed ghetto youth were "removed" since the traits of criminality may be more clearly evident in them.
The change proposed by Campbell currently exists in Canada, and once again the logical implications of the underlying philosophy must be considered.
In April 2006, Katrina Effert strangled her newborn baby with her thong and threw the body in a neighbour's yard. In refusing to give the defendant a custodial sentence, Justice Joanne Veit opined that Canadians understand accept and sympathise with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support". One could easily add to this the onerous demands of child-rearing and the same justification works equally well for abortion and infanticide.
There are indeed benefits to be gained from unlimited access to abortion, but the public may be unclear as to the identity of the true beneficiaries. The unborn child does not benefit. The mother faces risks of physical and psychological harm. The society does not benefit, for the moral fabric of any society is disturbed when the powerful have the legal right to eliminate weak and dependent human beings.
So who really benefits? Irresponsible men who abandon women in crisis pregnancies are relieved from their paternal duties, and sexual predators can depend on abortion clinics to destroy the physical evidence of their crimes. Lastly, abortionists eagerly anticipate the increase in clientele that unlimited abortion access will bring and the resulting financial benefits. Some men will indeed be better off if abortion is legalised, but more women and unborn children will be victimised.
Alexander Smith
lexsmith269@gmail.com
Whom does abortion help?
-->
Member of Parliament Dr Dayton Campbell is reported to demand the repeal of laws that prohibit abortion. This follows the adoption of a similar resolution by the PNP women in 2013, and the earlier demand for legalised abortion by MP Lisa Hanna on the grounds that increased abortion would lead to decreased crime.
In the case of Hanna's assertion, not only is the inferred causative link completely fictional, but also the argument itself is morally flawed. Presumably the public is being asked to believe that if the unplanned and unwanted unborn children of poor women were aborted, there would be fewer criminals, and thus less crime. If this Machiavellian proposal is taken to its logical end, it is clear that the pre-emptive elimination of would-be criminals could be more efficacious if inner-city children or, better yet, unemployed ghetto youth were "removed" since the traits of criminality may be more clearly evident in them.
The change proposed by Campbell currently exists in Canada, and once again the logical implications of the underlying philosophy must be considered.
In April 2006, Katrina Effert strangled her newborn baby with her thong and threw the body in a neighbour's yard. In refusing to give the defendant a custodial sentence, Justice Joanne Veit opined that Canadians understand accept and sympathise with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support". One could easily add to this the onerous demands of child-rearing and the same justification works equally well for abortion and infanticide.
There are indeed benefits to be gained from unlimited access to abortion, but the public may be unclear as to the identity of the true beneficiaries. The unborn child does not benefit. The mother faces risks of physical and psychological harm. The society does not benefit, for the moral fabric of any society is disturbed when the powerful have the legal right to eliminate weak and dependent human beings.
So who really benefits? Irresponsible men who abandon women in crisis pregnancies are relieved from their paternal duties, and sexual predators can depend on abortion clinics to destroy the physical evidence of their crimes. Lastly, abortionists eagerly anticipate the increase in clientele that unlimited abortion access will bring and the resulting financial benefits. Some men will indeed be better off if abortion is legalised, but more women and unborn children will be victimised.
Alexander Smith
lexsmith269@gmail.com
Whom does abortion help?
-->