Pro-abortionists need to accept a pre-birth child should have the same rights as a newborn baby
letter of the day: morality debate
Fionola Meredith (Comment, November 25) has written strongly against the practice of putting a child into childcare when there is no economic necessity. She has, of course, the welfare of the child in mind. However, her solicitude is confined to those who have made it safely out of the womb.
She holds that abortion on demand (which is the practice in England) is not only acceptable, but even virtuous; that such practice is securely on the moral high ground. She uses terms such as "compassionate" and "humane" to support her pro-abortion propaganda.
So, according to this morality, what is contained in the womb is a thing that can be put down like an unwanted pet, but once outside becomes a human being protected under the law from being murdered. Wonderful what a few centimetres of flesh does. It means that a child can be slain without mercy.
There is a secularist ideology behind this thinking. Even though pro-abortionists cannot deny that there is a child in development from conception onwards, this fact is overridden by their false doctrine that personal autonomy trumps every other consideration: my body, my life, my right to choose.
Of course, the destruction of a person must be dressed up in vague language, which softens the cruel reality. To quote Ms Meredith, the aborted is "the sad remains of a pregnancy". The person becomes a pregnancy - a mere thing - no identity, therefore no sin.
There is not a square inch of room on the moral high ground for this thinking. The pre-birth child is as much your neighbour as the newborn.
Much is made of the many who travel to England for abortion. There can only be a small proportion of them going for the reasons currently under debate here, namely fatal foetal abnormality, rape, or incest. A country which has been responsible for the destruction of eight million children since 1967 is not enlightened. It is in darkness.