[Sorry for the long delay.  Work's been busy lately]

According to The Telegraph, the Dutch “Women on Waves” abortion boat recently docked in Valencia, Spain, where, like modern enlightened missionaries to the backward, superstitious savages, the Dutch “charity” brought abortions to women who otherwise would not receive them under stricter Spanish abortion law.

The boat, run by the Dutch charity Women on Waves, docked in the southeastern port of Valencia on Thursday night, where it will shuttle women seeking abortions 12 miles out to sea in order to escape Spanish jurisdiction and perform the procedure.

The four-day mission is supported by more than 30 Spanish organisations, which hope it will serve to highlight the need for a reform of Spain’s abortion laws.

On Friday morning three women seeking terminations – all less than seven weeks pregnant – boarded the yacht “Menina” and were taken out into international waters before being given an abortion pill.

The article, in my opinion, reinforces three things I have observed about abortion in general, and about the pro-abortion movement in particular.  First, pro-choicers like to point out the fact that the international trend has, and continues to be, toward a more liberal abortion policy.  As poorer and less developed countries progress and modernize, they are more likely to end up legalizing abortion, not the reverse.  Therefore, they contend, a liberal abortion policy is indicative of progress and modernization.

Well, they are correct in that countries’ abortion laws almost inevitably become more liberal over time, and almost never more restrictive.  What they fail to mention, however, is the role already-”developed” countries play in aggressively pushing such a pro-abortion agenda on these developing countries, as well as other more developed countries.

A few examples come to mind: See, e.g., the following articles:

The “Women on Waves” project epitomizes this push.  It is not enough for the Dutch to have the liberal abortion policy it has.  No, they must insert themselves into Spanish policy in order to “highlight the need for a reform of Spain’s abortion laws.”  This, in my mind, cuts, at least in part, against the argument that liberalizing abortion is synonymous with progress.  If less developed countries are required to change their abortion law as a condition of accepting aid, or if more developed countries are subject to similar pressure through campaigns such as this, then the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc seems pertinent.

Second, the article reinforces the observation that, often, the aim of abortion proponents is not simply to remove governmental abortion restrictions, but to cause the government to actively promote abortion.  Observe the statements of this Spanish gynecologist, quoted in the article:

“Women who want an abortion should be given one without them having to pay for it or seek medical permission,” said Spanish gynaecologist Josep Lluis Carbonell. “We are fighting for a woman’s right to choose and for the same respect to be given to her in Spain as it is already across Europe.”

For many pro-choicers, it is simply not enough that women be given almost carte blanche to abort; moral objectors must also be forced to pay for the murders they find so reprehensible through tax-subsidized abortion.  That should be a cause of grave concern should Barack Obama be elected President.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there would be no change in abortion law under an Obama presidency vs. a McCain presidency (e.g., that Roe would not be overturned even by McCain appointees to the Supreme Court), there would still be one major difference between the administrations of the two men.  Under Obama, it is far more likely that federal dollars would be used to subsidize abortion, which would mean our forced subsidization of an act we find abhorrent and murderous.

Finally, despite Spain’s relatively strict exceptions for legal abortion -

Legal terminations are only allowed until the 12th week of pregnancy in cases of rape or until the 22nd week in cases of severe foetal malformation.  But there is no time limit on abortions if there is a risk to the mother’s physical or mental health.

- the “mental health” exception turns out to be, once again, the exception that swallows the rule:

Over the last decade the number of abortions performed in Spain has doubled to 100,000 a year.The vast majority of those are carried out in private clinics after determining an alleged risk to the mother’s mental health, something that opponents say is a blatant abuse of the law.

I recall Obama’s statement defending the mental health exception in which he stated that it is a caricurature to assume that women would get an abortion simply because they had a “bad hair day.”  Obama is, of course, correct.  Women don’t procure abortions simply because they feel blue; many women procure abortions because they simply don’t want that inconvenient life, and purporting “feeling blue” is the legal loophole that allows it.