We never learn from history. I actually agree with “Legal, safe, rare” abortion (mostly for life-saving medical reasons), but that’s not the situation we’ve ended up with, abortion on an industrial scale. The same thing is happening with euthanasia.
Going back to the ancient Greeks, euthanasia was allowed and doctors often killed patients instead of curing them, until Hippocrates introduced the Hippocratic Oath which states that doctors should “do no harm.” It’s hard to think of a better slogan for medical professionals than that. But we think we’re so clever now and know so much better than the ancients.
The Romans were shocked that Jews and Christians didn’t practice abortion and euthanasia or leave disabled newborns to die of exposure, but raised them with as much love as their healthy children. We seem to be returning to that kind of paganism.
Workhouses are interesting, as originally they were supposed to provide comfortable accommodation for the “deserving” poor, but in the end all poor people were stigmatised as lazy and made to dwell in terrible conditions, which also saved money for local government. Another bad precedent.
I have been suicidally depressed and despairing in the past and I’ve had psychiatrists and therapists give up on me. If I’d had recourse to easy-access suicide centres, goodness knows what I might have done. Aside from devastating my family, I would never have met my wife, gone to my sister’s wedding or seen my nephew. I would not have had the most profound religious experience of my life or grown into the person I am now. All of this means nothing to the “death with dignity” brigade.
By the way, eugenics WAS a mass movement until World War II, including on the left. People like H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger were interested in it – to support the good of mankind by eliminating the “inferior.” After Nazism, eugenics became a “contaminated brand” on the left, but it’s back again.
Many have commented that (looking back as you have) your life could have faced a very different trajectory if assisted dying had been on the table. I am glad for you and many that it was not the case. For me this represents a challenge for those of us 'in the know' to be more present in people's actual lives so that they are less likely to fall into that despair. So much of this will feed on the atomisation of self in society. We must nurture genuine communities again.
I think there probably wasn't a lot that could have been done for me at my worst times. Too much was determined by my being autistic, which I didn't find out until I was 37. It made it hard to fit into community even where it existed. But, yes, we do need to fight social atomisation with community.
Yes to all of this. Since this issue has come to light I have come to see how important the Judeo Christian tradition has been in tempering the most vile and base parts of the human experience in ways I hadn't contemplated before. I think much of society (non-religious and religious too) take for granted that ethics are a done deal, that ultimately people will do 'what is best' and not harm poor/vulnerable/children. This is why 'good faith' arguments in law are so notoriously bad. Because as the phrase slippery slope indicates (a term too often used these days and one can understand why) one tiny step in 'the wrong direction' (even for the 'right' (ie. #kindness) reasons can send us in a direction most don't want to go. if we normalise the tiny wrong then the next slightly bigger wrong doesn't feel so bad. History gives a very clear picture of when we have flaunted these kinds of things. That's what's happened with abortion to I think, to the point that the industrial scale of it, the callousness by which it's campaigned for and what is allowed to happen to the babies (and yes I see them as that) is horror film material. The thing that is most striking about the 'assisted dying' debate is that there are no slow steps. That is most worrying. I am hoping that is enough to get it thrown out - but given the way our legislators have governed us up to this point I think it's anyone's guess how it will go. Since I published this even more 'reasonable' amendments have been thrown out. It's like they are determined to get on the highway to hell.
(and I see you have seen Daniel's note on abortion being legal since 1930 when the Mother's life is at risk I am not talking about that, which is an entirely different conversation...)
"Planned Parenthood successfully argued that while it was true that the organisation was paid to harvest foetal body parts, it was not doing so for profit. " Well that's ok then (!). To HARVEST foetal body parts. I think the stem and research side of all this is connected. It's been pointed out that individuals seeking assisted dying can 'opt' to donate their organs. So a perfectly (physically)healthy depressed teenager can 'consent' to die and then 'donate' his/her organs. It's the Victorian Resurrectionists all over again. Poor people worth more in death than life. There was a similar expose of breast tissue from females undergoing mastectomy 'top surgeries' being sold for profit to I think? Then you have the 500,000 'snow babies' from IVF and people being *encouraged* to seek IVF. The research medical complex, the transhuman project, eugenics. All connected.
Precisely. At a time when they are touting 'transwomen pregnancies' and 'womb transplants' such material will be very valuable for research. it is grotesque.
Thanks for this article, Kate. Will we see a broad political movement in the UK which resists the pro-death lobby on all fronts? In the USA, the group Feminists Choosing Life of New York is advocating for a 'consistent life ethic', but it's so far removed from mainstream politics and media it might as well be invisible. Why is it being left to a handful of us to resist this cultural revolution?
There is a concerted campaign to smear or silence anyone who brings even nuance to the conversation. That said I think awareness is growing. I do wonder if all these big institutions (NHS etc) are destined to fall allowing citizens to regain their footing again as per normal cycles of life? It will take time for sure. But it appears the behemoth institutions have become so bloated to appear untouchable. I do wonder. It’s heartening to hear of resistance and new systems growing. Ultimately I think humans are resourceful and will find a way. Hopefully with not too many casualties
The difficulty with criticising the NHS is that it's a sacred cow. The cold logic is that British people cost the NHS the most in the last six months of their lives. Therefore we can 'save the NHS' by carrying out mass executions before that stage of life. A classic case of defending the institution instead of the people that the institution was founded for.
Where are the 'progressive' lawyers who fought against the death penalty? They now endorse the prospect of death panels for non-criminals who are merely disabled or old, on the basis of socially engineered consent. And the outsourcing of killing follows the abortion clinic model: NHS money, but no NHS oversight.
If NHS is a sacred cow - abortion is the sacred grandmother of the sacred cow. I find it extraordinary that the self same individuals who criticise the cult like myopia of the trans cult have many of the same flaws in that argument. At least when I was in school there appeared some logic to it, now even that has been thrown out the window. I am going to write about it eventually. It seems the more we direct energy 'out there' and abdicate our power 'right here' we make a right old guddle.
The contradiction at the heart of gender-critical feminism is that the UK's gender clinics are using the mental distress precedent from the Abortion Act 1967 to justify medical procedures that would otherwise be illegal. I have a series of articles on that which I will post when I am ready to lose 95% of my readers and never be published again.
I am very anti gender ideology although I don’t give myself the feminist label. I’ve never heard that argument before despite fighting the ideology for some years. Can you explain what you mean?
Certainly, thanks for asking. The UK government publishes detailed statistics on abortions carried out. Very few abortions are for medical reasons, such as saving the life of the pregnant woman, a type of abortion which has been explicitly permitted in Britain since the 1920s.
The innovation in the 1967 Act was to introduce a mental distress clause, which is of course subjective and has no formal diagnostic test. In effect, it is 'pregnancy dysphoria'. Last time I checked, the number of abortions carried out in England and Wales under the mental health clause was above 95%. Since the Covid-19 pandemic I believe the requirement for an assessment by two doctors was scrapped.
No-one actually believes these women are mad. It is de facto 'on demand' with a pseudo-psychiatric justification. And much of the provision is NHS funded but privately delivered. That's what I mean by abortion liberalisation providing the model for the gender clinics, which use private hospitals for genital surgeries.
My personal view is that abortion is used as a backstop to guarantee men's risk-free access to women's bodies. I believe this is relevant to the grooming gangs phenomenon which took sexual liberation to its ultimate conclusion, and why progressive social workers did not intervene.
Her sister Jo Cox was killed in an untimely way; does that have any bearing, apart from the fact that it enabled her to get into parliament and bring all her unhinged ideas with her?
This is very frightening stuff and it could happen to anybody.
The worst is that the committee is so biased - why is that necessary, can't they brook disagreement and rational argument? I'm surprised at the Lords not bringing their full weight to bear on this.
There's more going on with Leadbetter than we know, unless the power has simply gone to her head.
She'd better watch out that nothing serious happens to her, or she'll be a victim of her own success.
I think it allowed her to get into parliament on a sympathy vote? Beyond that she appears to be not very bright and 'captured'. Who/what has captured her, hard to know. There are huge profit motives in all this. And I think the eugenics movement never really lost its steam, just went underground. It's possible she was signed up for the philosophy behind it long before? And I agree it would be tremendous karma if after putting in the most notorious legislation which allowed vulnerable to be killed by the state she found herself in that position. I suspect she has not thought about that or doesn't care?
It's all more 'liberalism' packaged to look like compassion, the iron fist in the velvet glove.
I can see the usual 'follow the money' reasons but it is s terrible legacy for anyone involved in pushing it, and Canada under Trudeau has provided the most dreadful example.
I have disabled friends in their 60s that I fear for, but those without advocacy will be effectively murdered.
The state might as well bring back the death penalty too, but would no doubt reject thst as too harsh for all those poor foreign criminals who didn't know what they were doing. The reasoning is lunatic, but sums up the unrelentingly perverse world we're living in.
I agree the propaganda around this (as with most of these issues disguised as a benefit to humans and humanity) is insidious - poisonous by stealth. When I was working for the inclusive dance company - many of the members were on their own, as senior adults with disabilities their parents who nurtured, protected and cared for them long passed on. Already their needs are not met fully. The state does not have the capacity to replace what a (well functioning enough) family can. Even with the best carers they are on rotation and at the end of the day their first loyalty is to their own families. And they are expensive for the state. Some callous bureaucratic system so easily could (at the first hint of health issues) deem their lives better off ended. The individuals whilst nominally adults do not have mental capacity to understand the real meaning of what they might be consenting to. The thought of it horrifies me.
Ah, but if criminals don't consent to be killed by the government, they are untouchable. That's because consent is all that matters in a sadomasochistic system. We'll even pay for their lawyers with 'legal aid', a welfare scheme for progressives with law degrees.
The irony is that keeping a mass murderer in a high security prison for life costs far more than a few months of palliative care for a blameless elderly person, but there are far more of the latter. So as our government really wants to save money, it's going for the low-hanging fruit of mass execution of the innocent, with the engineered consent of coercive control.
Someone pointed out that with the falling birth rate there are not enough ‘resources’ to care for our elderly population and this could be seen as a (cold inhumane) pragmatic move by our governments. It is interesting to consider that those who preached ‘children are bad for climate’ might find themselves in an early grave because of this fact. And the prison situation well that’s a whole other topic for another day! The costs therein are ?!?!?
Especially because of sympathy for Jo Cox's family, it's difficult to push back hard against this female MP without being accused of 'bullying'. Leadbetter might have been a strategic choice.
We never learn from history. I actually agree with “Legal, safe, rare” abortion (mostly for life-saving medical reasons), but that’s not the situation we’ve ended up with, abortion on an industrial scale. The same thing is happening with euthanasia.
Going back to the ancient Greeks, euthanasia was allowed and doctors often killed patients instead of curing them, until Hippocrates introduced the Hippocratic Oath which states that doctors should “do no harm.” It’s hard to think of a better slogan for medical professionals than that. But we think we’re so clever now and know so much better than the ancients.
The Romans were shocked that Jews and Christians didn’t practice abortion and euthanasia or leave disabled newborns to die of exposure, but raised them with as much love as their healthy children. We seem to be returning to that kind of paganism.
Workhouses are interesting, as originally they were supposed to provide comfortable accommodation for the “deserving” poor, but in the end all poor people were stigmatised as lazy and made to dwell in terrible conditions, which also saved money for local government. Another bad precedent.
I have been suicidally depressed and despairing in the past and I’ve had psychiatrists and therapists give up on me. If I’d had recourse to easy-access suicide centres, goodness knows what I might have done. Aside from devastating my family, I would never have met my wife, gone to my sister’s wedding or seen my nephew. I would not have had the most profound religious experience of my life or grown into the person I am now. All of this means nothing to the “death with dignity” brigade.
By the way, eugenics WAS a mass movement until World War II, including on the left. People like H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger were interested in it – to support the good of mankind by eliminating the “inferior.” After Nazism, eugenics became a “contaminated brand” on the left, but it’s back again.
Many have commented that (looking back as you have) your life could have faced a very different trajectory if assisted dying had been on the table. I am glad for you and many that it was not the case. For me this represents a challenge for those of us 'in the know' to be more present in people's actual lives so that they are less likely to fall into that despair. So much of this will feed on the atomisation of self in society. We must nurture genuine communities again.
I think there probably wasn't a lot that could have been done for me at my worst times. Too much was determined by my being autistic, which I didn't find out until I was 37. It made it hard to fit into community even where it existed. But, yes, we do need to fight social atomisation with community.
Yes to all of this. Since this issue has come to light I have come to see how important the Judeo Christian tradition has been in tempering the most vile and base parts of the human experience in ways I hadn't contemplated before. I think much of society (non-religious and religious too) take for granted that ethics are a done deal, that ultimately people will do 'what is best' and not harm poor/vulnerable/children. This is why 'good faith' arguments in law are so notoriously bad. Because as the phrase slippery slope indicates (a term too often used these days and one can understand why) one tiny step in 'the wrong direction' (even for the 'right' (ie. #kindness) reasons can send us in a direction most don't want to go. if we normalise the tiny wrong then the next slightly bigger wrong doesn't feel so bad. History gives a very clear picture of when we have flaunted these kinds of things. That's what's happened with abortion to I think, to the point that the industrial scale of it, the callousness by which it's campaigned for and what is allowed to happen to the babies (and yes I see them as that) is horror film material. The thing that is most striking about the 'assisted dying' debate is that there are no slow steps. That is most worrying. I am hoping that is enough to get it thrown out - but given the way our legislators have governed us up to this point I think it's anyone's guess how it will go. Since I published this even more 'reasonable' amendments have been thrown out. It's like they are determined to get on the highway to hell.
(and I see you have seen Daniel's note on abortion being legal since 1930 when the Mother's life is at risk I am not talking about that, which is an entirely different conversation...)
I fully agree. Please see my essay on Planned Parenthood and eugenics here: https://genspect.substack.com/p/planned-parenthood-junk-science-and
"Planned Parenthood successfully argued that while it was true that the organisation was paid to harvest foetal body parts, it was not doing so for profit. " Well that's ok then (!). To HARVEST foetal body parts. I think the stem and research side of all this is connected. It's been pointed out that individuals seeking assisted dying can 'opt' to donate their organs. So a perfectly (physically)healthy depressed teenager can 'consent' to die and then 'donate' his/her organs. It's the Victorian Resurrectionists all over again. Poor people worth more in death than life. There was a similar expose of breast tissue from females undergoing mastectomy 'top surgeries' being sold for profit to I think? Then you have the 500,000 'snow babies' from IVF and people being *encouraged* to seek IVF. The research medical complex, the transhuman project, eugenics. All connected.
Elective hysterectomy for young transmasculine women could also be providing transplant material.
Precisely. At a time when they are touting 'transwomen pregnancies' and 'womb transplants' such material will be very valuable for research. it is grotesque.
Thanks for this article, Kate. Will we see a broad political movement in the UK which resists the pro-death lobby on all fronts? In the USA, the group Feminists Choosing Life of New York is advocating for a 'consistent life ethic', but it's so far removed from mainstream politics and media it might as well be invisible. Why is it being left to a handful of us to resist this cultural revolution?
There is a concerted campaign to smear or silence anyone who brings even nuance to the conversation. That said I think awareness is growing. I do wonder if all these big institutions (NHS etc) are destined to fall allowing citizens to regain their footing again as per normal cycles of life? It will take time for sure. But it appears the behemoth institutions have become so bloated to appear untouchable. I do wonder. It’s heartening to hear of resistance and new systems growing. Ultimately I think humans are resourceful and will find a way. Hopefully with not too many casualties
The difficulty with criticising the NHS is that it's a sacred cow. The cold logic is that British people cost the NHS the most in the last six months of their lives. Therefore we can 'save the NHS' by carrying out mass executions before that stage of life. A classic case of defending the institution instead of the people that the institution was founded for.
Where are the 'progressive' lawyers who fought against the death penalty? They now endorse the prospect of death panels for non-criminals who are merely disabled or old, on the basis of socially engineered consent. And the outsourcing of killing follows the abortion clinic model: NHS money, but no NHS oversight.
If NHS is a sacred cow - abortion is the sacred grandmother of the sacred cow. I find it extraordinary that the self same individuals who criticise the cult like myopia of the trans cult have many of the same flaws in that argument. At least when I was in school there appeared some logic to it, now even that has been thrown out the window. I am going to write about it eventually. It seems the more we direct energy 'out there' and abdicate our power 'right here' we make a right old guddle.
The contradiction at the heart of gender-critical feminism is that the UK's gender clinics are using the mental distress precedent from the Abortion Act 1967 to justify medical procedures that would otherwise be illegal. I have a series of articles on that which I will post when I am ready to lose 95% of my readers and never be published again.
That is interesting. And on being cancelled for such an article - how deeply ironic eh?
I am very anti gender ideology although I don’t give myself the feminist label. I’ve never heard that argument before despite fighting the ideology for some years. Can you explain what you mean?
Are you asking me or Daniel?
Certainly, thanks for asking. The UK government publishes detailed statistics on abortions carried out. Very few abortions are for medical reasons, such as saving the life of the pregnant woman, a type of abortion which has been explicitly permitted in Britain since the 1920s.
The innovation in the 1967 Act was to introduce a mental distress clause, which is of course subjective and has no formal diagnostic test. In effect, it is 'pregnancy dysphoria'. Last time I checked, the number of abortions carried out in England and Wales under the mental health clause was above 95%. Since the Covid-19 pandemic I believe the requirement for an assessment by two doctors was scrapped.
No-one actually believes these women are mad. It is de facto 'on demand' with a pseudo-psychiatric justification. And much of the provision is NHS funded but privately delivered. That's what I mean by abortion liberalisation providing the model for the gender clinics, which use private hospitals for genital surgeries.
My personal view is that abortion is used as a backstop to guarantee men's risk-free access to women's bodies. I believe this is relevant to the grooming gangs phenomenon which took sexual liberation to its ultimate conclusion, and why progressive social workers did not intervene.
Great piece, Kate.
Have cross posted.
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/undiscovered-country
Very glad to see that opposition in the Commons is growing!
Dusty
What is Kim Leadbetter's motivation?
Her sister Jo Cox was killed in an untimely way; does that have any bearing, apart from the fact that it enabled her to get into parliament and bring all her unhinged ideas with her?
This is very frightening stuff and it could happen to anybody.
The worst is that the committee is so biased - why is that necessary, can't they brook disagreement and rational argument? I'm surprised at the Lords not bringing their full weight to bear on this.
There's more going on with Leadbetter than we know, unless the power has simply gone to her head.
She'd better watch out that nothing serious happens to her, or she'll be a victim of her own success.
Karma indeed.
I think it allowed her to get into parliament on a sympathy vote? Beyond that she appears to be not very bright and 'captured'. Who/what has captured her, hard to know. There are huge profit motives in all this. And I think the eugenics movement never really lost its steam, just went underground. It's possible she was signed up for the philosophy behind it long before? And I agree it would be tremendous karma if after putting in the most notorious legislation which allowed vulnerable to be killed by the state she found herself in that position. I suspect she has not thought about that or doesn't care?
It's all more 'liberalism' packaged to look like compassion, the iron fist in the velvet glove.
I can see the usual 'follow the money' reasons but it is s terrible legacy for anyone involved in pushing it, and Canada under Trudeau has provided the most dreadful example.
I have disabled friends in their 60s that I fear for, but those without advocacy will be effectively murdered.
The state might as well bring back the death penalty too, but would no doubt reject thst as too harsh for all those poor foreign criminals who didn't know what they were doing. The reasoning is lunatic, but sums up the unrelentingly perverse world we're living in.
I agree the propaganda around this (as with most of these issues disguised as a benefit to humans and humanity) is insidious - poisonous by stealth. When I was working for the inclusive dance company - many of the members were on their own, as senior adults with disabilities their parents who nurtured, protected and cared for them long passed on. Already their needs are not met fully. The state does not have the capacity to replace what a (well functioning enough) family can. Even with the best carers they are on rotation and at the end of the day their first loyalty is to their own families. And they are expensive for the state. Some callous bureaucratic system so easily could (at the first hint of health issues) deem their lives better off ended. The individuals whilst nominally adults do not have mental capacity to understand the real meaning of what they might be consenting to. The thought of it horrifies me.
Ah, but if criminals don't consent to be killed by the government, they are untouchable. That's because consent is all that matters in a sadomasochistic system. We'll even pay for their lawyers with 'legal aid', a welfare scheme for progressives with law degrees.
The irony is that keeping a mass murderer in a high security prison for life costs far more than a few months of palliative care for a blameless elderly person, but there are far more of the latter. So as our government really wants to save money, it's going for the low-hanging fruit of mass execution of the innocent, with the engineered consent of coercive control.
Someone pointed out that with the falling birth rate there are not enough ‘resources’ to care for our elderly population and this could be seen as a (cold inhumane) pragmatic move by our governments. It is interesting to consider that those who preached ‘children are bad for climate’ might find themselves in an early grave because of this fact. And the prison situation well that’s a whole other topic for another day! The costs therein are ?!?!?
Especially because of sympathy for Jo Cox's family, it's difficult to push back hard against this female MP without being accused of 'bullying'. Leadbetter might have been a strategic choice.
The killing of Jo Cox was a tragedy. I don't see how the government killing lots more people is a tribute to her.
It makes no sense.
Thank you for sharing it on Jim.