Ethics Radio

Abortion debate on BBC Radio Scotland

This morning I was asked by the BBC to discuss the devolution of abortion powers to Scotland.  You can hear the programme here – Kaye Adams show on Abortion – the abortion discussion is on for the first hour.

Given that I have not been feeling too well I thought it would not be the easiest of shows to do – not least because abortion is such an emotive subject.  However it turned out that it was not too difficult.  Mainly because of one simple reason – my opponents complained of using emotive language and yet themselves offered not one empirical reason or piece of logic for their position.   Indeed their own argument was based on an emotional position.   The whole pro-abortion case for them seems to boil down to the absolutist position that a woman has an absolute right to do whatever she wants with her own body.  That position is completely negated if one simply asks the question, how many bodies are involved?

My position was also helped by the extreme view taken by my opponent, Susan (a free lance health consultant), who in effect wanted abortion on demand up to birth!  The horrendous evil of that position is obvious to most thinking people.

It was also interesting to see how the group think of Secular Scotland immediately kicked in.  If you look over at their FB page you will note not one argument or reason given – just abuse (‘ego maniac, small spoiled attention seeking child’ etc, ) self congratulation (apparently they are able to answer every argument – they just don’t bother!) and fear. Its also interesting that despite the claim that ‘secularism’ is simply the separation of church and state, it appears as though there are a set of absolutist values which secularists hold.  Not one of the secularists would dare to disagree. Hence the group think and self affirmation through mocking anyone who is stupid enough to dare to disagree with their fundamentalist position.

On the programme itself it was incredible that sexism and anti-religious prejudice frequently surfaced.  Apparently because I am a man I am not entitled to an opinion about this (usually its another man who says this), and because I am ‘religious’ I should not speak.  Despite the fact that I pointed out that I had made no religious argument and was arguing basic biology, humanity and logic, this cut no ice.

If you listen to the whole programme you will see how irrational , emotive and bullying the pro-abortion lobby are.  The case against abortion is morally, logically and scientifically watertight.  The case for it is entirely emotive, political and ideological.   Off 12,467 abortions in 2012 only 179 were for handicap.  More than 95% were for category C – which is really just about convenience and economics.   And this is what people call ‘progressive’….!  God have mercy on us.


  1. More than 95% were for category C – which is really just about convenience and economics.

    What does the category C -signify?

    1. “Two doctors agree that continuing with the pregnancy would be more harmful to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family than if the pregnancy was aborted”

  2. Oh I can just imagine the emotional rhetoric. Which after a tough day, l am going to spare myself from listening to the programme.

    Well done David for keeping going in environments that I would probably get bored in.

  3. Hi DAvid – well done! Appreciate you standing up for what is right! May God give you all the strength and health you need.

  4. Thanks for speaking up on this. You might be interested that on another subject on SS website, the following comment was posted:
    Megan Michelle Grime Duncan Woodward, ‘all ideas are open to discussion, but name-calling and other personal attacks will not be permitted on this public page.’ There was no small print to say that this doesn’t apply to yourself or Christians in general.

Leave a Reply to plrees Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: