Saturday, January 13, 2007

Same old pro-abortionists, same old prejudices

What is the qualitative difference between this:

"Personally, I’d welcome young women having more abortions, instead of opting for motherhood at an age when they can’t possibly know enough about men, aren’t financially independent, etc, etc."

And this:

" ... a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up. They are born to mothers who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5. Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness which are more important than riches. They are producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters. Yet these mothers, the under-twenties in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births. A high proportion of these births are a tragedy for the mother, the child and for us."

Answer: one of them is an RMT activist.

What is the qualitative difference between this:

"Yet proposals to extend birth-control facilities to these classes of people, particularly the young unmarried girls, the potential young unmarried mothers, evokes entirely understandable moral opposition. Is it not condoning immorality? I suppose it is. But which is the lesser evil, until we are able to remoralise whole groups and classes of people, undoing the harm done when already weak restraints on strong instincts are further weakened by permissiveness in television, in films, on bookstalls?"

and this:

"... but then, I’m just an old-fashioned 60s feminist.But I’d also welcome more emphasis on sex education, free contraception, anything that would allow young people to explore their sexuality without young women getting pregnant."

Answer: One of them is the late Keith Joseph.

Give or take some pc fluff, I can't tell them apart.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Welcome back it's been too long.

1/14/2007 3:39 AM  
Anonymous a very public sociologist said...

Maria, as much as I dissent from your views it's good to see you back on your blog :)

1/14/2007 3:18 PM  
Blogger neprimerimye said...

Good to see you back blogging Maria even if you are wrong on this issue.

1/15/2007 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Charles said...

Good to see you back you bad girl you.

1/15/2007 4:49 PM  
Blogger voltaires_priest said...

"Safe, legal and rare"... seems that Bill Clinton's more progressive than you on this issue. Says a lot.

1/20/2007 6:14 PM  
Blogger Liz said...

VP - you really are blinkered. All of you commenting seem to have missed the whole point of Maria's post - namely that the same mentality which drove the eugenicists still lingers in the pro choice movement. Why is it anaetham for you to raise these issues? Do you agree with the sentiments in the comments Maria posted? I should hope not.

3/11/2007 11:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home