Listening to the “Today” programme on Radio 4 this morning, their main, after the 8am news, item was that old abortion law issue. There was a quite interesting scientific bloke, then the usual, inevitable interview subject.
Why DO producers get Catholic church representatives on to talk about abortion? You get the predictable middle-aged single bloke, saying all of the predictable things, representing a tiny fraction of the British community.
There may be a case from lowering the abortion law limit from 24 weeks to 23 or 22, if foetuses are indeed viable at that stage – but the only people who can really set out the case are the medical experts. And of course the people running with this are just anti-abortionists (i.e. pro-coathangerists) grabbing whatever angle on the story they think might help their case.
And if the limit is lowered, then almost all of the abortions that will be stopped will be those of grossly disabled foetuses that women will then have to carry for another three months or so, knowing what they carry. Not something I’d like to do.
While I’m venting my spleen, you do have to wonder what the jury was thinking about delivering a manslaughter rather than murder verdict in this case. It is obvious the judge didn’t agree:
The judge said the fact that she was having sexual relations with another man had been disclosed a couple of days before he killed her and was therefore not “a bolt from the blue”. He said the relationship was only nine months old. He added: “The remorse you have professed in court is more directed at your own plight rather than for the woman whose life you cut short for no good reason.”
Simple, if a woman you’re with tells you she’s sleeping with someone else, leave. You’re perfectly justified in doing that. Not in attacking and murdering her.
About