By Dave Andrusko
If the name Ann Furedi rings a bell, it will probably sound like a clank. Or, perhaps more like a death rattle.
Furedi, as NRL News Today readers may recall, is the head honcho of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, who rakes in a little over $205,000 annually. In 2014, BPAS was responsible for more than one in three abortions in England and Wales–66,000 to be more precise.
She is a radical’s radical on abortion, which we have written about numerous times. No matter how far you push her reasoning, she will never, ever blink.
Most recently it was revealed that the leadership of the Royal College of Midwives is in cahoots with BPAS “pushing for the removal of all criminal sanctions regarding abortion across the UK (including Northern Ireland),” according to Philippa Taylor. “ If these aims were ever implemented, it would mean abortion would be freely available up to birth, for any reason.”
Next month Furedi will have a new book out (“The Moral Case for Abortion”), which is dutifully getting its round of pre-publicity. A post in the Daily Mail which employs multiple headlines tells us that
Abortion is just another form of birth control, pregnancy clinic boss said
She also argued abortion should be as freely available as contraception
Said there is no moral difference between having an abortion and marriage
Of course, this serves two purposes: generates publicity and honestly tells you just how far she is willing to go.
Let’s address just two assertions Furedi makes in one provocative paragraph taken from her forthcoming “The Moral Case for Abortion”:
‘The clinical risks of early abortion are not significantly higher than those of contraception, so why should it matter morally or legally if a woman chooses to practise birth control through this method instead of another? Abortion may be an act of killing – but it kills a being that has no sense of life or death, and no awareness of itself as distinct from others. Women make moral choices all the time. An abortion may be a difficult choice that a woman would rather not make.’
Ignore the “clinical risks” argument, that is just a distraction. To Furedi preventing life from coming into existence and extinguishing the life of a child once his or her life’s journey has began is six of one, half dozen of the other. Abortion is, in every sense of the glib pro-abortion phraseology, “retroactive birth control.”
But even if abortion were somehow different–if it were “an act of killing”–so what? “[I]t kills a being that has no sense of life or death, and no awareness of itself as distinct from others.”
Thus it comes as no surprise that Furedi is soft–very soft on late-late term abortions and very vague about whether she opposes infanticide. (After all a newborn, neonate, or infant “has no sense of life or death, and no awareness of itself as distinct from others.”)
A few years ago she debated a soft-core pro-abortionist who was desperately attempting to convince her that there is a point after which you don’t abort. Why? Because, he argued, “the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development.”
Which prompted Furedi’s memorable response. She not only rejected that argument, she extended the principle of her position to its logical end point:
“There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”
Every once in a while it is helpful, in a perverse sort of way, to have pro-abortionists simply stop pretending. All abortions at any stage (and perhaps even after birth) for any reason or no reason are morally beyond rebuke.