Even worse than burning dead fetuses is the female abortionist supporting gender-driven abortions

Nazi crematoriumEvery conservative online publication today is talking about the British hospital that used aborted and miscarried babies as part of the fuel for its heating system.  I, and others, have commented that even the Nazis didn’t use their crematoria for heaters, although one cannot deny that the Nazis harvested everything they could from the bodies of those they murdered (gold teeth, hair, prosthetic limbs, etc.).  Many people came up with the Soylent Green analogy, which is apt.

What happened in England is a grotesque, reprehensible thing.  It’s also completely logical.  The premise of abortion is that the fetus is just a jumble of tissue, no different from removing a tumor or cyst. Things removed from people’s bodies in a hospital have to go somewhere, and cremation is the cleanest way to dispose of human tissue and other potentially contaminated remains.  And in a day and age of recycling and “green energy,” why not recycle that living matter into heat?  It all just make sense.

My point is that, if you’re going to make abortion legal, you must inevitably contemplate some way of disposing of the results of that abortion.  Being clean and energy-efficient is as good a way as any of ridding yourself of something you’ve already determined is valueless.  As I said, the story is grotesque but logical (even predictable).

black_babyThe news story that blew me away this morning, however, was the one reporting that the female head of the biggest abortion provider in England is entirely comfortable with sex-selective abortions (meaning abortions carried out solely because the fetus is female):

Ann Furedi, of BPAS, said the law does not prevent women from choosing a termination on the grounds of gender and she even compared it to abortion after rape.


However, Mrs Furedi – whose charity carries out more than a quarter of abortions in England and Wales, argued that if doctors believe going ahead with the pregnancy would damage the mental health of the mother, the abortion is within the law.
Writing for online magazine Spiked, she said: “A doctor agreeing to an abortion on grounds of rape would be breaking the law no more and no less than a doctor who agrees an abortion on grounds of sex selection,” she said.

“While it is true that the sex of the foetus is not a legal ground for abortion, nor is rape, or incest, or being 13 years old. Nor is being homeless, or abandoned, or just feeling there’s no way you can bring a child into the world… yet they are all reasons why a doctor may believe a women has met the legal grounds of abortion.”

She added: “The woman gives her reasons, the doctor decides on the grounds as set out in the law … there is no legal requirement to deny a woman an abortion if she has a sex preference, providing that the legal grounds are still met.

“The law is silent on the matter of gender selection, just as it is silent on rape.”

It’s probably worthwhile filling you in on a few facts about the killing of females both in and outside of the womb. In 2010, the Economist wrote about the toll gendercide was taking on the would-be women in the world:

In January 2010 the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) showed what can happen to a country when girl babies don’t count. Within ten years, the academy said, one in five young men would be unable to find a bride because of the dearth of young women—a figure unprecedented in a country at peace.

The number is based on the sexual discrepancy among people aged 19 and below. According to CASS, China in 2020 will have 30m-40m more men of this age than young women. For comparison, there are 23m boys below the age of 20 in Germany, France and Britain combined and around 40m American boys and young men. So within ten years, China faces the prospect of having the equivalent of the whole young male population of America, or almost twice that of Europe’s three largest countries, with little prospect of marriage, untethered to a home of their own and without the stake in society that marriage and children provide.


Parts of India have sex ratios as skewed as anything in its northern neighbour. Other East Asian countries—South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan—have peculiarly high numbers of male births. So, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, have former communist countries in the Caucasus and the western Balkans. Even subsets of America’s population are following suit, though not the population as a whole.


In China the sex ratio for the generation born between 1985 and 1989 was 108, already just outside the natural range. For the generation born in 2000-04, it was 124 (ie, 124 boys were born in those years for every 100 girls). According to CASS the ratio today is 123 boys per 100 girls. These rates are biologically impossible without human intervention.


Other countries have wildly skewed sex ratios without China’s draconian population controls (see chart 1). Taiwan’s sex ratio also rose from just above normal in 1980 to 110 in the early 1990s; it remains just below that level today. During the same period, South Korea’s sex ratio rose from just above normal to 117 in 1990—then the highest in the world—before falling back to more natural levels.

The Economist article, which is excellent, goes on to describe the consequences of these increasing gender imbalances, one of the more frightening of which is an excess number of young men without the civilizing influence of women.

The numbers lost to sex-selective abortions are staggering. Back in 2011, Ross Douhat examined data suggesting that at least 160 million girls were killed in the womb for no other reason than that their culture preferred boy babies.

There is nothing in the world more hostile to women than sex-selective abortions. Absolutely nothing. Life for women is hard all over, but only sex-selective abortion has wiped out 160 million of them. Yet Ann Furedi who, as head of England’s single largest abortion provider must surely call herself a feminist, says that this gendercide is A-OK.

Perhaps I’m erring in calling Furedi a feminist. It’s certainly a reasonable assumption that she is, because in every Western nation, abortion is presented to us as a civilized necessity for saving, elevating, aiding, and supporting women. It’s the way, as Obama said, that we make sure women aren’t “punished with a baby.” Those who oppose abortion, say the Democrats, are engaged in a “War on Women.”  The corollary, of course, is that those who support abortion must by extension support women.

Furedi, however, seems to have declared a war on babies and, more specifically on female babies.  That doesn’t sound feminist.  That sounds profoundly misogynistic.  And perhaps, within that framework, there’s nothing random about the fact that the same woman who cheerfully condones mass murder of women is married to the leader of the British Revolutionary Communist Party.

I’ve often said that one of the things that drove me from being staunchly pro-abortion to being primarily pro-Life (although leaving a door open to abortion in certain cases) is the extremism we see in the abortion culture. No matter how much the abortion spokespeople and the Democrat party (but I repeat myself) wrap themselves in the mantle of women’s rights to justify abortion, their every pronouncement makes it plain that their focus isn’t on letting women live, it’s on letting babies die.

Furedi — who heads England’s biggest abortion “charity” — has just become the poster child for the Left’s Big Lie.  By support gender-selective abortion she reveals that the “pro-abortion = pro-women” mantra is hollow.  She doesn’t care about women. She cares about killing babies. Otherwise she could not condone the continuation of a practice that has already accounted for something far in excess of 160 million female lives.

The burned babies heating hospital buildings is disgusting, but it’s just the final manifestation of a cult that has nothing to do with women and everything to do with genocide and gendercide.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JohnC

    Ann Furedi to all the women yet to be born:
    “F— you.”

  • Libby

    Ann Furedi’s comment is ugly, but it also makes perfect sense in the Pro-Choice worldview: once you’ve decided it’s OK to abort – because it’s just a clump of cells, right? –  then what’s the point in quibbling over the reason to do so? You’d do it for rape, she’d do it to not interrupt her career, I’d do it because I want a boy. To-may-to, to-mah-to, we still all agree it’s my body, my choice.
    Noticed that what triggered Furedi’s comment was that UK authorities had chosen not to prosecute two doctors found to be performing abortions based on the sex of the baby. So as with Holder, a decision to not enforce the law has resulted in a passive change in the law.

  • Charles Martel

    I remember when Andrea Dworkin would rail against nature itself, despising the fact men had to penetrate women if the race was to continue. Dworkin was one sick chick, but she gave me an insight: Radical feminists despise femininity itself, For all their prancing around praising their vajayjays and extolling the vulva, they are alienated from their sexual organs. So pregnancy, a common result of mashing he/she parts together, is also viewed with a sense of alienation—and betrayal.
    Furedi truly believes, and says so publicly, that even a female clump of tissue is still a clump of tissue. But what she won’t express is the secret thought that scares the crap out of every radical feminist: What if my could-have-been daughter had turned out to be better looking than I and less spiteful?
    Kill it!

  • Caped Crusader

    Anyone care to comment on the chance that there is an occult sinister plan working to promote the widespread acceptance of homosexuality for this very reason; that there will not be enough women for the normal interaction of male and female. This has many sinister implications if one cares to think about it. For starters, how about a one or two hundred million army of men only, with no family connections or persons to care about their well being. A country bent on conquest could field an army such as the world had never seen before.

    • Libby

      Also reminds me of the feminist horror novel “A Handmaiden’s Tale.” While the book’s dystopian future was triggered by infertility, a reduced female population will have the same result: fewer fertile women, making them a much more desirable commodity for use as baby-making chattel. Way to go, feminists, helping to make your own worst nightmare a possibility.!

      • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

        My daughter’s friend is reading The Handmaid’s Tale in her English class.  She’s an uber-liberal girl, from an uber-liberal Jewish family, so the book fits in nicely with her world outlook.  But here’s the good thing:  because the book is being taught in an English class, she’s bored with it and resents having to read it.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    It’s not nearly the final manifestation.
    Also farmers cull herds for the weak and breed for the better traits.
    The Left’s eugenics program is merely doing the same thing, when they rule over women. You can’t call yourself someone that owns livestock, if you don’t breed them and control the herd via culling. Somebody has to make that decision. It ain’t going to be the livestock, that’s for sure.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    I remember people telling me, when I was still arguing about politics in 2001-3, that the Democrat party is mainstream and they know how to rule because the Leftists are just extremists and don’t get a say in Ruling.
    Kind of funny thinking about it now. The tools will spout what they were told to spout off. A debate requires two people, not just me talking to myself and a Turing emulator.

  • jj

    Apparently the brave new world will be a gay one, even as China vies to become the first gay super-power since Sparta.

  • Charles Martel

    I remember when Bookworm Room was being pestered a few years ago by a name-dropping Harvard snot who epitomized the unholy spawn of arrogance meets credential. He fancied himself a China expert, and was always telling us how the Chinese were the next superpower because they had mastered the technique of growing an economy without such bourgeois trappings as democracy or ethics situated somewhat above the pack-of-dogs level.
    When one of us pointed out that the death of millions of unwanted girl babies via abortion had created a down-the-road threat to China and the world’s stability, he poo-poohed the notion as only a self-appointed expert can. After all, he was in a room of rowdy, unruly troglodytes who could not always be expected to listen closely to Teacher.
    While I doubt that the Chinese are deliberately creating a race of warrior gays, they certainly are inviting the kind of explosive unrest that the rest of us will have to deal with. I see nuclear war on the horizon. I think it is inevitable, especially given Obama the Gelding’s desire to spread nukes around among deserving races and religions. My best hope is that it will be regional rather than global in scope, and that the destruction will be so horrendous that even rabid Chinese, Russian, or Muslim leaders will stop it quickly.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      The Chinese policies are based upon class. For example, the upper echelon party bureaucrats can have 13 children if they wanted to. It just needs a fee. A fee the poor getting evicted from their housing to make way for China’s new economy, can’t pay. They aren’t allowed to pay it.

  • Matt_SE

    Per my post a couple of threads above this:
    Ann Furedi doesn’t care about the people she’s supposed to serve. Ann Furedi cares about Ann Furedi, and if the demographics of the country go to hell, that’s not Ann Furedi’s problem. She will be dead by then and likely won’t care (unless she’s burning in hell).
    Liberals want license. That means not only carte blanche for their actions, but a positive affirmation that their actions are “good.” What they abhor is any notion of responsibility.