The above Act under which procuring an abortion is a crime which can carry a life sentence for the procurer remains in force in England, Scotland and Wales. By remaining in force I mean the Act still has the force of law.
It is widely believed that the law approves and supports abortion on demand but it does not. I have my own ideas about how the misunderstanding has arisen.
In 1967 an Act whose printed text covers about one half page of A4 decriminalises abortion in some, limited circumstances. Neither the sponsors of the “Abortion Bill” nor the MPs supporting it advocated Abortion on Demand when it was being debated. Neither the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, nor the Conservative Leader, Ted Heath, contributed to the debate nor cast a vote for or against the Bill.
Last week the newspapers reported that the British Medical Association had voted for the repeal of the section of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 dealing with abortion, and for the legalisation of Abortion on Demand. Such Repeal would, of course, sweep away the 1967 Act which Pro-Abortionists (euphemistically self described as Pro-Choice advocates) tend to regard as as venerable as Magna Carta. A Doctor friend of mine, a young woman and a Member of the BMA,informs me that great numbers of BMA members were not circularised about the motion which has been deemed to have been passed by the BMA.
Why do you say of Pro Abortion that Pro Choice is an euphemism?
Meanwhile in the Irish News newspaper this morn you would have been made aware of ‘10,000’ anti Tory govt protesters took to the streets of London at the weekend. You’d also have learnt that ‘thousands of people’ marched in Belfast demanding same sex marriage thingy majingy. However you wouldn’t have been made aware that tens of thousands of folk took to the streets of Dublin demanding to keep the 8th amendment. Are the media controlling the narrative of what is acceptable and what isn’t? It sure looks like it.
WT f you did not know this ‘8th Amendment’ march took place you would have to ne deaf and blind. Widely reported.
“Widely reported” you say? I doubt that. I would say it was reported via social media. Could you explain why a widely read paper such as the Irish News chose not to give it any coverage in today’s issue? And yet gave coverage to lesser attended events on the very same day?
One doesn’t need to be deaf nor blind to the fact that those who may oppose the media narrative(pro abortion) struggle to get their voices/opinions heard a lot of the time…….they most certainly have to work harder to get a balanced coverage from the Irish news that’s for sure.
80,000 people marched in Dublin on Saturday to defend the 8th Amendment and future generations of Irish children. Very poorly reported by the mainstream media, no surprises there.
I am aware of this protest. It is an entirely reasonable action.
It doesn’t justify the contents of this blog post. A call for action based on mendacity is not a true response.