By Theodore Shoebat
A British court affirmed that the judge who ordered a woman to have a forced abortion went against human rights, as we read in a report from CNA:
Courts in the United Kingdom have released the text of judicial decisions in the case of a disabled woman orginally ordered to undergo a forced late-term abortion.
The decisions, made available July 11, reveal that the woman was hours away from being made to undergo the procedure at the time the Court of Appeals heard her case.
On June 21, Justice Nathalie Lieven from the Court of Protection had ruled that a 24-year-old woman, identified in court as AB, undergo an abortion at 22 weeks pregnant. Neither AB, nor her mother, “CD”, wished for her to have an abortion. Both CD and AB are devout Catholics, and are members of the Nigerian Igbo community.
The Court of Protection hears cases related to people who do not possess the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Court of Appeal overturned Lieven’s decision just three days later, on June 24, finding that Lieven’s decision disregarded the assessment and wishes of AB’s mother and social worker, and went against her human rights.
“[Lieven]… was in error in failing to make any reference in her ultimate analysis to [the mother’s] views about AB’s best interests when, as the judge found, she knew AB better than anyone and had her best interests at heart,” reads the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
“[The mother and the social worker] each know AB better than the assessing psychiatrists could possibly do notwithstanding the lengthy, caring and careful assessments they had carried out. The judge had the expert evidence of the psychiatrists on the one hand and the views of those who know AB best on the other, but she did not weigh them up, the one against the other.”
But here is what makes this story very … suspicious:
Writing for the three judge panel, Lady Justice King concluded that Lieven “went beyond what the evidence could support” in concluding that the woman’s circumstances made a forced late-term abortion in her own best interests.
Is she then implying that a forced abortion may be justifiable? She then went on to write:
“It may be that, on any objective view, it would be regarded as being an unwise choice for AB to have her baby, a baby which she will never be able to look after herself and who will be taken away from her …
“However, inasmuch as she understands the situation, AB wants her baby. Those who know her best… believe it to be in AB’s best interests to proceed with the pregnancy”
But, what if those who knew her best believed she should have an abortion? Would the judge have been justified to order for enforced infanticide? This is what makes this story so disturbing. An enforced abortion was ordered. Christians had an outcry. The court is now saying that the order was not justified, not because infanticide is evil, but because the judge (and to use Lady King’s words) “went beyond what the evidence could support”. But what if the so called “evidence” supported (in the eyes of a Darwinist government) an order for an imposed abortion? What then?
Here is a possibility that I see: There could be a strategy at play here. An enforced abortion is ordered; Christians express outrage, the court then rescinds the order and says there was not enough “evidence”; people think justice has been upheld. But has it really? Sure, the abortion was not enforced, but under what reasoning? It was cancelled under a reasoning that says that there is not sufficient “evidence” to support enforced abortion. But, what if they present the evidence that would suffice under the current Darwinist system of state rule? What then?
This is what we need to be thinking about. We are not treading down a path of anti-Darwinism. The world is already Darwinist enough, but still we are in a relatively moderate Darwinism as opposed to what are great and great-great grandparents experienced in the first half of the 20th century. We are currently going through a revival of the Darwinism of that very dark epoch, so we must keep our eyes on the transitioning towards that resuming of full out Darwinism; only in the future, I am afraid, is going to be far far worse.