ISSUES
: Abortion
Chapter 2: Abortion debate
37
the new cfDNA screening process,
which will enable an “informal
eugenics” in British society.
The
UNESCO
International
Bioethics Committee has also
issued a strong warning on the
ethical implications of approving
such a test. The committee’s report
states:
“A widespread use of NIPT, namely
as general screening in order to
detect abnormalities, followed by
an abortion, is perceived by some
people as an evidence of the will to
avoid permanent pain in a lifetime,
by others as a sign of a situation
of the exclusion society gives to
people affected by this illness,
meaning indirectly that certain lives
are worth living, and others less.”
The same report says that there
is no way to ensure that this
technique, which would also
provide information on the gender
of the child at an earlier stage in
pregnancy, would not be used for
“gender-abortion”.
“All lives valued”
People with Down’s syndrome
can lead happy and fulfilling lives,
and many are making unique
contributions to society. An
American woman with Down’s
syndrome runs a non-profit to
encourage full inclusion of people
with Down’s syndrome, and an
Australian teenager with Down’s is
pursuing a career as a model.
Andrea
Williams,
Christian
Concern’s Chief Executive, said: “It
is shocking that our health service
will be further facilitating abortion
on the basis of disability. Babies
with Down's syndrome are created
in God’s image and their lives are
infinitely valuable to him – and
ought to be treasured by us.”
17 January 2016
Ö
The above information is
reprinted with kind permission
from Christian Concern. Please
visit
.
com for further information.
© Christian Concern 2016
Abortion: why aren’t men
allowed to have a say?
The state assembly of Ohio has tabled a bill which would
give fathers a final say in abortion. Isn’t it time men were
given a voice in such important matters, asks Neil Lyndon.
W
hile
an
electoral
earthquake shakes the
very foundations of the
political establishment across
Europe, a faint tremor is being felt,
far way, under the tectonic plates of
an implacable order that has held
power across the developed world
for the last 50 years.
In the state assembly of Ohio a bill
has been tabled which would give
fathers a final say in abortion. Their
written consent would have to be
obtained before an abortion could be
effected. If a father refused consent,
the abortion would not be allowed.
So far as I know (and this subject
has been on my mind for over 25
years), this is the first time since the
development of abortion by vacuum
curettage in the 1960s – and David
Steele’s Abortion Act of 1967, which
made that simple, safe technology
available to all women under the
NHS – that any legislature has given
consideration to the possibility that a
man who has effected a pregnancy
ought to be accorded a voice in its
termination. Up until now, men’s
views and feelings on this issue have
been absolutely inadmissible; and
where any man has tried to raise his
voice he will have been denounced –
as I have been – as an enemy of “a
woman’s inalienable right to choose”.
According to one of its co-sponsors,
the Ohio bill is based on the principle
that “since fathers will have legal
responsibilities for child support,
they should have rights regarding the
birth or destruction of the foetus”.
Under the terms of the bill, if the
woman said she has no idea who
might be the father, she would be
required to provide a list of names of
men who might conceivably fit that
bill. Those men would then have to be
tested in order to establish the identity
of the father and that individual
would be required to give written
