Court Rules Medical Staff Can Restrain Woman & Perform Unwanted Abortion


A judge in England has given doctors permission to perform an abortion on a young woman with severe learning disabilities, according to Yahoo News.

As of now, the source of the pregnancy is unclear. An investigation is underway, and the current assumption is that she was either raped or impregnated by a man with similar disabilities, the report said.

DNA tests are being conducted to establish the identity of the father.

The decision was made by the euphemistically named Court of Protection in London, which specializes in cases involving people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, Yahoo reported.

The woman, who was not identified, is in her 20s but has the mental age of a young child.

US Military Will Not Admit the Truth About Missing F-35, But Every American Should Be Aware

Because of this, it is impossible for her to care for a baby, so doctors pushed the court to allow them to perform a surgical abortion, which would require the woman to be sedated and restrained.

She has lived in foster care for most of her life, and her current foster parents support the decision to abort her baby, believing it to be in her best interest.

Doctors contended that the pregnancy was affecting her mental health and causing her to act in a “somewhat more aggressive fashion.” They also cited the necessity for exams later in the pregnancy as a reason to kill her child.

When assessing the claims made by the doctors and the decision of the court, it’s clear that this case reeks of the eugenicist movement on which abortion was founded.

Should judges be able to order abortions in cases like this?

Killing the children of the “feeble-minded,” as they were called, was the hallmark of eugenics.

Combined with its obvious racist history, it turns the practice of abortion into genocide against people who have been determined to be not good enough to reproduce.

While propaganda and misinformation have turned abortion into a leftist sacrament disguised as a beacon of freedom, cases like this show up to remind us of how barbaric it truly is.

We Finally Know What Greta Thunberg's Climate Agenda Is All About: Teen Activist Goes Off the Rails at Book Launch

How so? Because the unborn child is completely innocent. The child did not choose these circumstances, yet he or she is the one who will be killed.

The fact that the woman is not capable of caring for the baby does not change the fact that he or she deserves to live. Life is the most basic of our human rights, yet for some reason, judges value the convenience of these doctors (and women in general) above it.

Circumstances surrounding the creation or existence of a living being are irrelevant in the discussion of whether that being deserves to live. The only case where that would be appropriate is if that being is threatening the life of another.

That means the only question is whether this woman’s life is in danger.

Since that doesn’t seem to apply here, the baby should live.

Instead, a government notorious for overstepping its boundaries has done so yet again, and the mad scientists of the National Health Service are champing at the bit for the chance to slaughter an innocent baby.

And it’s time for Western society to stop enabling it.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , ,
Cade graduated Lyon College with a BA in Political Science in 2019, and has since acted as an assignment editor with The Western Journal. He is a Christian first, conservative second.
Cade graduated Lyon College with a BA in Political Science in 2019, and has since acted as an assignment editor with The Western Journal. He is a Christian first, conservative second.
BA Political Science, Lyon College (2019)