"Pro-Choice" Socialism

Oliver Wendell Holmes smiles from beyond the grave.
A British judge ordered Friday that an abortion be performed on a mentally disabled woman who is 22 weeks pregnant, despite objections from the woman and her mother....

“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn't want it is an immense intrusion,” the justice said. “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society's views of termination."

The unnamed woman, a Roman Catholic, reportedly has developmental disabilities and the mental age of a 6- to 9-year-old.... The woman’s mother, a former midwife, opposes the abortion procedure and told the court that she could take care of the child with the support from the daughter, Sky News reported.

A social worker who works with the woman also said the pregnancy should not be terminated.

But the judge said the woman didn’t have the mental capacity to make her own decisions even it look like she wanted to continue the pregnancy.
She doesn't have the mental capacity to make her own decisions about religion? The Church allows confirmation at seven, which is in the 'six to nine' age range, and the British government doesn't see fit to tell children they can't make that call yet. If she can make that decision for herself, then her opposition to abortion follows.

The British government is long due to be overthrown as a tyranny. This is just part of what an earlier set of over-throwers called "a long train of abuses." Lately, the worst abuses are all at home.


Assistant Village Idiot said...

The judge is signalling that abortion is the default, and choosing to have a child can only be a positive decision by the woman. It's opt-in instead of opt-out.

One more small but clear step.

E Hines said...

There's also this, in addition to the valid points of OP:

Doctors at the trust [NHS trust, a section of the Great Britain's National Health Service] wished to abort her pregnancy and argued that, due to her diminished mental capacity, the abortion would be less traumatic for the woman than giving birth, especially if the baby would then be placed in foster care.

These are doctors who care not a penny for the trauma they want to inflict on the baby. But, then, these are doctors operating under a Government program of taxpayer-funded health-care-for-all; these are doctors from whom Government has arrogated all moral responsibility; these are doctors therefrom wholly lacking personal moral concerns.

And the judge went along with it. She chose to order the baby killed before it's born, lest it become an inconvenience to the health-care-for-all System.

She also chose to order the baby's execution because she did not believe the woman's mother, who already helps care for her daughter, would be able to offer care for a grandchild at the same time.

Because no parent ever, much less a woman, has ever been able to take care of two children at the same time, even if one has a "mood disorder"—whatever that is in the British NHS lowest-bidder medical system.

This is taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand or on Government order that would exist under the Progressive-Democratic Party's Government-run Medicare for All.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

The judge is signalling that abortion is the default, and choosing to have a child can only be a positive decision by the woman.

Ye say well. But it is a positive decision; just ask her. The point is that the state says she's not fit to choose for herself. Nor to follow her faith; nor to avoid a mortal sin.

Well, that's what Confession is for, as the pirate captain says in Roman Polanski's film. But exactly what is she to confess? That she was too weak to stop them, I suppose. Like Samson, after his hair was cut. May it likewise bring the whole building down around their ears.

Texan99 said...

Sickening. This is supposed to be caring for a women's reproductive health, My Body My Choice? This is a 22-week fetus, for Pete's sake, practically viable. It's no anonymous "conceptus."

douglas said...

If this were happening here, I could see little reason not to form a mob to go and defend that woman and her child.

Texan99 said...

"An appellate court in London on Monday pulled England’s justice system back from the brink of Chinese- and North Korean-style barbarism — but only at the 11th hour. The Court of Appeals held that doctors can’t forcibly perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with intellectual disabilities."

Grim said...

The best reason not to form a mob, Douglas, is that you ought to form an army.

Good news, Tex. I hope that their reasoning is strong, and becomes enshrined in the British law -- either this one, or the one that replaces it should people tire of the constant train of abuses. But at least this one thing, this one time, was not done.

Grim said...

LifeNews has an update on the earlier judge.

"A British judge who drew international outrage for trying to force a woman with disabilities to abort her unborn baby was a prominent abortion activist for more than a decade before being appointed to the bench."

Well, she was a lawyer for several abortion-oriented NGOs, and pursued their cases at law for them. I guess that's plausibly 'an activist,' since she could have done other things with her law degree. One of those cases argued that pro-life laws were a form of torture.