18 September 2007

Michael Buerk is a Berk.

Remember this is the guy who claimed that we are living in a femocracy.

Just heard the chauvinist pig on Radio 4 claiming...
that pro-choice and pro-life groups on abortion are not labelled correctly because everyone is 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' and that it should be pro and anti-abortion.

While I agree that the 'pro-life' tag is idiotic, 'pro-choice' is correct because nobody is pro-abortion - they are pro-choice on abortion - so their label is exactly correct. This guy is not even fit to read out the news.


  1. I'd call both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" fair descriptions.

    The group that is traditionally labelled "pro-choice" runs the gamut from people who are strongly against abortion, but argue from a utilitarian viewpoint that legal abortions are better than women killing themselves in back streets with knitting needles through to people who view abortion as a kind of post-coital contraception.

    The former could by no stretch of the imagination be described as "pro-abortion", but the latter certainly could.

    Those opposed to legal abortions would like to paint their opponents with "pro-abortion" or "pro-death" labels, but those descriptions do an injustice to those near the first end of my spectrum above.

    Similarly, those who camapaign in support of legal abortions tend to want to paint their opponents as "anti-choice", to try and tar them with the authoritarian brush of the oppressive patriarchy. That's not really fair, either.

    Whilst some of the pro-life crowd may well be oppressive authoritarian patriarchs, most of the members of that group are exactly what it says on the tin - pro-life. They oppose abortion not because of a desire to punish loose women, but because of a belief in the sanctity of life.

    If you start with the assumption that a foetus is a person, then abortion is murder. End of story, no debate possible, no "rape or incest exceptions", no nothing.

    If you start with the assumption that a foetus isn't a person, but is a form of human life which is destined to become a person, you can come to almost any conclusion - from the "no abortions at all" extreme, through the "limited abortions" regime where abortion is permitted only where the mother's health is at risk (which is technically what we have in the UK, although the "health risk" is interpreted sufficiently liberally by doctors that we very nearly have abortion on demand) to on-demand abortions. Where you fall on the spectrum depends on how you weight the mother's happiness and lifestyle against the life of the foetus, and what your opinion on the "mercy killing" of a foetus that would "have a fairly crappy life anyway" is. This, unsurprisingly, is a rather fuzzy calculation, and there's no way to argue sensibly about it beyond "what I feel comfortable with".

    If you start with the assumption that a foetus is a mere clump of cells, you are automatically led to abortion on demand - end of argument.

    The problem with the abortion arguments is that most vocal campaigners fall into (or nearly into) one of the extreme categories, whereas most people are somewhere in the fuzzy middle, and find both extremes uncomfortable.
    As a result, when pro-choice campaigners talk about being compelled to go through a pregnancy (which is no easy thing) against your will - having your body enslaved by that patriarchy - the middle sways towards abortion. When the pro-life campaign shows graphic photographs of abortions, and 3d ultrasounds of ickle widdle babies sucking their thumbs, the middle sways away from abortion.

  2. Neil, I sort of agree with you actually. And if that makes me "anti-life", then so be it.

  3. ... or indeed 'pro-death'...

  4. I think what has happened to Mr Buerk is that he's been subjected to so much pro-abortion psychopathy, actually met the death cultists behind it, people like Ellie Lee and her eugenicist friends, that he's seen through the lies and has snapped. It's not hard to see through the pro-abortion lies, you just have to try.

    Usually, when you have to use a euphemism for something (in this case "choice" rather than "abortion"), you know you're hiding something.

    On an aside: I've been thinking about voting for Gordon Brown because he seems such a basically conservative and humanitarian guy. But this wouldn't be the first "Labour" blog I've encountered which makes me realise that the party faithful are basically the same old thugs they ever were.