A‘career girl’ trend may sound all fun and hip. And a ‘lifestyle’ trend may be something interesting for demographers to study. In the United Kingdom however, they’re terms to describe the rise of abortions for women ages 25-29.
The Daily Mail mentions in their piece on the “[r]ise of the ‘career girl’ abortion…” that in ten years, the amount of women in that age category undergoing abortions has increased by 20 percent.
And, they reveal that last year one per cent of procedures were carried out because the child was likely to be born with a disability, while 37 per cent of the women had previously had at least one abortion.
Where do we get such a term like ‘career girl’? It sounds more like a social media website for female young professionals than a term to discuss the reason provided for an abortion. The Daily Mail includes a statement from the largest abortion provider in the UK:
Commenting on the figures, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) suggested the increase in the 25-29 age bracket may ‘reflect the ongoing trend towards women postponing motherhood until they feel in the position to become a parent’.
To some degree, we are seeing this in the United States. The rates of women waiting until after 35 to have their first child have increased, and for such reasons. The Daily Mail also points out that the average age when women become mothers in the UK, 28, is “the highest in the developed world.”
But when such a ‘trend’ includes aborting an innocent human person, we are now talking about violating the basic human rights of society’s most defenseless. This is not because a woman was the victim of rape or incest or because “the child was likely to be born with a disability.” It’s not even because they lack the support of a partner. Most of these women were married or in a stable, long-term relationship, according to John Bingham in The Telegraph. It is because women, who have the power to create life, decided that they were going to put themselves above others.
It is not the worst thing in the world to put one’s self above others, in some cases. But to put one’s professional lifestyle above an innocent human life, one’s own flesh and blood, highlights abortion as the truly selfish act which it is.
And, unfortunately, women who have abortions in their early years, who are “postponing motherhood until they feel in the position to become a parent” may not just be acting selfish, but may destroy their future chances of giving birth to a child when they do “feel” ready. Never mind that once a woman conceives a child she is already a mother.
bpas is mentioned further in The Daily Mail:
British Pregnancy Advisory Service Chief Executive, Ann Furedi, said: ‘There is no right or wrong number of abortions, simply that any woman who needs an abortion is able to obtain one.
When referring to abortion, it is hardly something to be regarded using the terms “simply that…” This is not even because it ends the life of a human being, but because of the complexity of the choice for the woman.
The Daily Mail mentions butglosses over that many women are having more than one abortion. John Bingham goes into further detail with his piece for The Telegraph, another media outlet from the United Kingdom, “‘Lifestyle’ abortions warning as serial termination numbers surge.”
He refers to the “serial terminations” as women using abortion procedures as a form of contraception, “…as official figures showed a surge in the number of women having nine or more terminations.”
Apparently from her statement, Ann Furedi, wouldn’t really find this figure to be a problem. She also likely is ignorant, purposefully or otherwise, as abortion providers usually are, of the possibility that women who have abortions, particularly multiple ones, are at greater risk for physical problems, including infertility. And again, this stands as a tragedy on its own even if we do not take into account the one who is always the victim of an abortion, the unborn child.
Certainly there is much to mull over for women considering an abortion, such as the physical risks which may make it difficult or impossible for them to become pregnant, including and especially if they are part of the ‘career girl’ trend.
If possible, there is something even more alarming about the woeful ignorance of Furedi and her organization, as Bingham points:
MPs and campaign groups claim that restrictions under the 1967 Abortion Act are now being widely ignored – allowing the procedure to be used as a “lifestyle choice” and a form of contraception rather than a last resort.
It comes amid controversy over decisions by police and prosecutors not to charge doctors who pre-signed abortion forms without even seeing the women concerned.
But Ann Furedi, chief executive of the UK’s biggest abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said terminations should be viewed as a “standard” part of women’s healthcare.
She accused those who argue that the law is being flouted of “politicising” abortion.
The abortion industry and its advocates may wish to settle the issue of abortion, by referring to it as a “‘standard’ part of women’s healthcare.” And they may not surprisingly but still erroneously accuse their opponents of being the ones who are “politicising” abortion. Nevertheless, these unborn children who literally pay with their lives for coming along at an inconvenient time, and the mothers who may have to answer for their abortions in the name of the ‘career girl’ trend or ‘lifestyle’ choice need someone to stand up for them.