NRL News

Ann Furedi, the advance guard of abortion on demand and for “struggling” with infanticide

by | Feb 19, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

Over the years we written many stories about Ann Furedi, the CEO of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the leading abortion “provider” in England. Beyond the ghastliness of what Furedi routinely says, I’ve always considered her to be in the vanguard for the Abortion Trade. She routinely went where no one else would—until recently here in the United States.

Ms. Furedi has unabashedly said that abortion should be allowed up to birth, including because the baby’s a girl, and is gung-ho for letting any medical personnel perform abortion. To no one’s surprise, she loves New York’s Reproductive Health Act.

In addition to legalizing abortion throughout pregnancy, as NRL News Today readers know, the RHA repealed protections against illegal abortion, such as criminal acts of violence against a pregnant mother and her child, or self-proclaimed providers operating at will. It also eliminated the requirement in New York law for a second physician to be on hand to care for a child 20 weeks or older should he or she be born alive during the course of an abortion.

Thanks to Shawn Carney to alerting us to a recent debate in which Furedi took part. (You can see the entire debate here.) The question posed?” Have Abortion Rights Gone Too Far?”

As she does in these settings, Ms. Furedi concedes such realities as that life begins at conception but quickly dismisses that as unimportant. It’s when that life “begins to matter, morally.”

In light of the upcoming Senate debate on whether we will treat Born-Alive abortion survivors as we would any baby born premature, Furedi showed why she is a skillful debater. Late abortions are gruesome but we don’t need “horror stories.” Let’s not get emotional, Furedi instructs us in the tone that clearly signals she believes her critics are not only fanatics but imbeciles.

By commanding 2/3rds of the discussion and by running down every rabbit trail possible, she is able to evade a genuine answer. And, as always, Furedi gently needles pro-lifers every chance she gets.

Adopting the “best defense is a good offense” along her circuitous way, she tells the audience she is “proud” of aborting 70,000 babies. Proud? Furedi sees that as “70,000 babies that we put into in a position to do what they want to with their lives.”

Speaking of Abortion “limits,” isn’t it silly, she says, for abortion to be legal for 23 weeks and six days but not at the stroke of midnight. “You can’t say it’s right on one side of the midnight hour and wrong on the other.” (Abortion is legal on demand when the baby has ill-defined “deformities,” but we’ll skip that here.)

Really? Sure you can. Overwhelmingly the public in England and the United States is able to make distinctions, except the cutoff line is not anywhere near the end of the second trimester but much earlier.

Near the end of the debate, she is oh-so-gently pressed on the difference between a baby one minute before birth and one minute after. Furedi suggested there is none, from the baby’s perspective. (“It’s all a matter of geography.”)

But, she argued, “everything has changed for the woman,” beginning with “whole teams” that struggle to save the baby—all “without impacting the life of the woman.” Keep those last seven words in mind when we are asked to believe Furedi “struggles” with what to do with babies who survive abortions.

From all the stories we have written about her over the years, I find that extremely difficult to believe. You wonder what her position would be if she were asked what should take place if the woman and the abortionist want only to keep the now-born baby “comfortable?” After all, if that baby survives, surely she will “impact the life of the woman.”

Ann Furedi, the advance guard of abortion on demand and for “struggling” with infanticide.

For more of how Furedi thinks, we reviewed a review of her book, “The Moral Case for Abortion” here.

Categories: Abortion
Tags: abortion