Right to life for unborn babies + right to voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill.

by Kevan Stafford

The government promotes the confused message that it is acceptable for unborn babies to be killed in the womb at their mother’s request, while simultaneously forbidden for a terminally ill adult, in constant pain or distress, to obtain medical help to voluntarily end their own suffering.

 Doctors should be permitted to relieve suffering and not be required to extend a life of pain and distress at any cost to the sufferer. The police cope with this anomaly by turning a blind eye where terminal illness is confirmed, but relatives can still get threatened with prosecution for simply accompanying a terminally ill person to a euthanasia clinic. Doctors are allowed to administer lethal doses of morphine, not necessarily with permission of the patient, so long they can claim that the primary intention was to relieve pain.


Women’s rights campaigners secured the right to terminate the life of unwanted foetuses, up to 24 weeks gestation where there is possible risk to the mother’s health, and up to birth where there is risk to the mother’s life or the baby could be born with severe disability. However, it is unethical to use termination as a substitute for contraception, and it was distressing recently to hear campaigners in the Republic of Ireland whooping with delight at winning a vote to make the right to abortion easier. Termination of a foetus resulting from rape is understandable, but less so if it is a result of carelessness. Britain has a falling indigenous population which is obscenely used to justify importing millions of incompatible foreigners as ‘essential workers’ to make up the ‘shortfall’. But countries do not need to have large populations to be wealthy, e.g. Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, they just need to be well run. If more British babies are required to keep population numbers stable, then we could reward mothers with financial incentives, tax breaks and status. As for free child care, the unemployed could be required to work for the state in places like nurseries in return for their benefits. And we could effectively tax foreign-owned companies like Amazon and Starbucks to make money available for services such as nurseries. Starbucks had a turnover of £400 million in Britain last year but managed to avoid corporation tax completely by switching profits to affiliates overseas.

The terminally ill should not have to travel abroad for assisted dying (also known as ‘accompanied suicide’), at a cost of around £10,000. The sooner the better that we get the opportunity to vote in regular binding referendums on contentious issues like assisted dying, as they have in civilised Switzerland (where Dignitas is based).


3 thoughts on “Right to life for unborn babies + right to voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill.

  1. It’s the social housing giveaway and financial incentives that has attracted so many people from the third world here. If only Britain had set about encouraging the proliferation our own population, instead of importing so many third worlders, think of the billions of pounds that would have been saved, as well as ensuring our nation’s future and security.

    Good points regarding euthanasia. There are many things that can be justified by a sanctity of life ethic, but prolonging the life of those who wish for an end to their own suffering is not one of them.

    1. There is a problem with legalising euthanasia and that is old people can be pressurised by their relatives who consider them a ‘burden’ to care for to end their lives prematurely. The law needs to protect these people.

  2. Abortion law though needs to be toughened-up in this country. I think that, generally-speaking, abortion needs to be frowned-upon by society as I consider it abhorrent and morally wrong in the main. It’s something that shouldn’t be banned entirely as there are a few medical circumstances ie if the life of the mother is a risk due to the pregnancy continuing where it is an appropriate course of action but it should NEVER be used as an ever so convenient post-conception contraceptive. There is a need to avoid a slippery slope to abortion on demand. Women who go on about it being a ‘woman’s choice’ should be reminded it is a also their choice (except rapes) to have sex and produce a child. Women should be proud of the fact that they have the unique gift by reason of their gender of being able to bring children into this world so shouldn’t be all that down at the prospect of a moral government restricting their ‘control’ over their bodies by restricting abortion rights.

Leave a Reply