Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised?

NorthernMonkey Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 03:17:10 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Very important debate coming up for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - should the abortion laws of the UK become more liberalised or more restrictive?




Now I'm firmly pro-choice when it comes to abortion rights as most Labour members are. In my view, there are four important aspects of the Bill which should go forward if we are to finally have civilised abortion laws:

1) Keep the time limit at 24 weeks. The Widdecombes of the world will be fighting to lower the limit down to 20 weeks or even lower, especially after the controversy from the Channel 4 Dispatches programme. But to me, this is more a social issue than a scientific one. 24 weeks is symbolically a fair time (as it represents the first two trimesters of pregnancy) for a pregnant woman to make a decision about whether she wishes to keep the potential child. The majority of doctors agree with keeping the limit at 24 weeks too.

2) Scrap the out-dated '2 signature rule'. This bureaucratic hurdle from the 1967 law means that women have to get permission from two doctors before they can have an abortion which exposes women to delays and consequently more costly and higher-risk procedures. Pro-choice MP's are campaigning to scrap this for the first three months of pregnancy so women can make their decision purely on the basis of informed consent, after a doctor has talked them through the risks and benefits of the procedure. But ideally, the '2 signature' rule should be scrapped for the whole 24 weeks.

3) Allow nurses and paramedics to carry out abortions rather than doctors alone. Also, allow operations to be performed at GPs' surgeries and family planning clinics to allow better and fairer access leading to safer procedures.

4) Extend the abortion laws to Northern Ireland. In the province, abortion is currently illegal which is pretty disgraceful in this day in age. Since abortion is a UK reserved matter (as all civil rights ought to be), it should be applied at a UK wide level. No doubt there'll be a lot of opposition from NI politicians, but as long as Northern Ireland is in the UK, it should abide by UK civil rights. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/northernirelandassembly/story/0,,2099675,00.html

There's a good chance of success on all four of these issues, so hopefully we'll see an end to the restrictive out-dated laws of 1967 and welcome in more civilised, liberalised abortion laws.


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? | 106 comments (106 topical)

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#1)

by Loz on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 04:04:45 PM GMT

The channel 4 programme completely changed my mind on this.

How on earth can it be right that babies are being aborted at a stage that some are being born and surviving.

At very least I believe the limit should be lowered to 20 weeks - possibly even lower.


Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#2)

by Radford Mann on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 05:02:36 PM GMT

I think that before being persuaded by emotive images, you might want to take a look at this considered reasoning in defence of abortion before making up your mind on this question.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#5)

by Loz on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 07:04:23 PM GMT

Its not emotive - my feeling before was, that what seperated me from die hard anti abortionists, was that I didn't see see the emotive side of it in that at an early stage, it really cannot be considered murder, and moving on from that the time it actually begins to feel pain is after the 24 week stage.


That has changed in light of newer studies.


I simply couldn't agree to murder - if there are babies being born and surviving in one example, and in another example being aborted - thats not emotive, its a common sense decision - you either support murder, or you don't, and dress it uphowever you like - it is just that.


Anybody that waits that long, is a disgrace and really never should be allowed children - of course, I can exclude from that the obvious special circumstances.


Ultimately we are an extremely liberal country on this issue - and I think there is no harm in having a serious debate about it, where the facts can come out especially in light of improving medical/scientific knowledge.


On a side note, with regard that channel 4 programme, I really wasn't expecting it to be so graphic, and at a couple of stages it was, which I don't think was at all necessarry.



[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#9)

by Kat on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:24:30 AM GMT

i saw the dispatches programme too.  I was really taken back by the women who were interviewed.  One was on the operating table just about to undergo an abortion and changed her mind.  the thing that gets me, is how can a woman get to that stage and be uncertain.  how many other women have been uncertain or changed their mind after the event.  It seems to me that women are clearly not getting enough information and this is something that should be looked at.

The other woman on the programme had an abortion at 16 weeks.  She saw the expelled fetus in the toilet and couldn't believe how developed it was. It was something she thought about often since.  She thought that no woman should have to undergo that experience.  I think she is right.

All this talk of two doctors and what women seem to want is more information and greater support.  Forget the ideological battles, we need to focus on helping and supporting women.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#11)

by Cat S on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:34:21 PM GMT

We cannot have the debate around time limits focused on foetal survival. If we focus on this then one day when they create and grow a human outside the womb of a woman (and therefore at all stages of pregnancy the foetus could be grown in a test tube) you would have to conclude that abortion is always wrong!

The debate should be about women's bodies and their choices. No woman should ever be forced into having an abortion and likewise no woman should ever be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#22)

by Loz on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:06:33 PM GMT

That simply isn't accurate.

The child is still developing - the fact is, babies are being born at the very same time they are being aborted.

That is an absolute outrage.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#25)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 11:01:28 PM GMT

Well they're not the same babies are they? It's absurd to say that even most of the babies aborted at 24 weeks (of which there are very few) would be alive if they happened to be born at that particular stage.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#37)

by Loz on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:33:28 PM GMT

They're not - but they are able to be born at that stage - thus they are as a good as any human.

That makes it murder - what else can it possibly be?

As it goes - the survival rate for that period is around the 50% mark. Thats pretty high.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#39)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:43:06 PM GMT

Murder? I mean come on, that's ridiculous.

We're talking about a woman making a terribly difficult decision which will affect her for the rest of her life and you're comparing it to murder?

A child is not a child (nor is it 'alive') until it is actually born. That is why we call the process 'giving birth' - that is the start of life. When we measure somebody's birthday, we don't start the year 0 when the child was first conceived, we start it from when the child is born because that is when life truly begins.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#47)

by Loz on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:55:28 PM GMT

We're not talking about when a child is conceived - we are talking about a period at which that child could survive - it is 'alive' enough to be bought into this world depending on whatever the circumstances may be.

That baby then has its life ended - it really cannot be considered anything but murder.

It is a life in there, and quite wrongly you are neglecting the significance of that.

True, few people have abortions at that stage, true in most cases there will be good reason - but for the small minority of cases where a prospective mother has simply got cold feet - it really is pretty disgraceful that the child - at a stage it could easily be born has its life terminated before it has even begun.

I would rather that child be born and taken away from the mother who doesn't want it than to never have it all.

Anybody that shows such reckless regard for human life, and is so selfish that they will having cared for that child right up until that stage then make the (yes tough) decision to end a life is really probably never fit to be a parent in the first place.

My position is still pro choice up until a certain stage, I have great sympathy with people that really are not ready to bring children into this world - but ultimately, once you reach a certain stage, the life of the child comes into play, and that time they can start feeling pain, at least 20 weeks, possibly even less.

You say what about the mother, I say what about the baby?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#49)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:14:07 AM GMT

That baby then has its life ended - it really cannot be considered anything but murder.

Well it can be considered anything but murder, and indeed is considered to not be murder.

The life hasn't ended because the life hasn't even begun.

The bottom line is that a fetus is not 'alive' - it is a potential life, but then it is a potential life since conception.

So if by 2050, theoretically speaking, medical science manages to be able to make a 6 week old fetus live and grow independently outside the mother, then you'd want to see abortion banned for anything from 6 weeks onwards would you?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#52)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:45:45 AM GMT

In which case clearly you are ok with killing a child right up until birth - as they are not in your definition 'alive'.

That's your moral choice - none the less a sick one.

As for your last arguement I've already discussed that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#58)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:54:22 PM GMT

You're the 'sick' one for wanting to take further rights away from women.

I've already said I support keeping the limit at 24 weeks and only agree with abortion up to birth for cases of rape or physical danger to the mother.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#65)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:47:31 PM GMT

A right to murder an innocent baby? Some right that is.

Once again - you made the stupid point about what medical science can do in the future and logically what flows from your own reasoning is that a baby isn't alive until it is born - so you would be happy to kill it at any time up until that point.

So what logic do you use in deciding a 24 week limit?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#67)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:12:05 PM GMT

Firstly, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And yes, a woman's right is a very important right and one the majority of Labour members should stick up for, not flip-flop on the basis of a TV show.

To me, there has to be a sensible cut off point for a woman to make a decision and the current law satisfies that at 24 weeks. I can't see the time limit being raised any more than it is anyway.

On a related point, you argue that you can't support abortion when a fetus can survive as you consider it 'murder'. So what logic do you use in choosing a 20 week limit? As the statistics near the bottom show, no fetus younger than 22 weeks is capable of surviving, so why not push for a 22 week limit? Where did your 20 week view come from? It seems you've just plucked that figure from thin air.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#70)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:33:52 PM GMT

"Firstly, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And yes, a woman's right is a very important right and one the majority of Labour members should stick up for, not flip-flop on the basis of a TV show."

I'm not talking about Labour members - there is plenty of those that would agree with me, but that is not important to me - it isn't the issue.

The pro abortionists clearly don't like to use the term'baby' maybe they do have some goodness in them - but ultimately, it has a heart, and it feels pain - to those babies born at that time, to their parents, they are as good as a baby, born or not.

"To me, there has to be a sensible cut off point for a woman to make a decision and the current law satisfies that at 24 weeks. I can't see the time limit being raised any more than it is anyway."

So why not 23 weeks?

You haven't answered the question - you have simply envoked the word of law to hid from the question.

"On a related point, you argue that you can't support abortion when a fetus can survive as you consider it 'murder'. So what logic do you use in choosing a 20 week limit? As the statistics near the bottom show, no fetus younger than 22 weeks is capable of surviving, so why not push for a 22 week limit? Where did your 20 week view come from? It seems you've just plucked that figure from thin air. "

There is great confusion within the medical community, on an international scale as to the period an unborn baby begins to feel pain - some very credible assessments have said it begins to flicker at just 20 weeks, some say even sooner than that.

I think we need to do further research into this, instead of MPs going into this with made up minds. It defeats the object here, and ensures rubber stamp politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#73)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:08:41 PM GMT

The pro abortionists clearly don't like to use the term'baby' maybe they do have some goodness in them - but ultimately, it has a heart, and it feels pain - to those babies born at that time, to their parents, they are as good as a baby, born or not.

Well the potential child quite literally does not have a heart initially as the heart has to develop over time. It doesn't have a heart at conception and for a good time from then on.

Whether a fetus can feel pain at an early stage is highly debatable and it's also disputed whether such 'pain' is actually in any way similar to the kind of pain we can feel.

And if parents feel their potential child is as good as a baby then good for them. But many pregnant women don't feel that way and don't love their potential child and don't want to have it. That's why it should be left up to the woman herself to make this difficult decision.

So why not 23 weeks?

Because the law today stands at 24 weeks and I'd be opposed to any further restrictions that would fly in the face my pro-choice views and it would give the anti-choice lobby encouragement to go even further.

There is great confusion within the medical community, on an international scale as to the period an unborn baby begins to feel pain - some very credible assessments have said it begins to flicker at just 20 weeks, some say even sooner than that.

And there are also some very credible assessments that say a fetus cannot feel pain until much later than that.

The bottom line is that the statistics show 22 weeks is the very earliest a fetus can survive independently, therefore it makes no sense that you support lowering the limit to 20 weeks. You're quite prepared to cut back womens' rights on the basis of hysteria and/or flimsy evidence.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#77)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:35:42 PM GMT

"Well the potential child quite literally does not have a heart initially as the heart has to develop over time. It doesn't have a heart at conception and for a good time from then on."

I believe it is actually as little as 18 days the process begins.

I also didn't state that it did at conception

"Whether a fetus can feel pain at an early stage is highly debatable and it's also disputed whether such 'pain' is actually in any way similar to the kind of pain we can feel."

An early stage yes, but after 20 weeks it certainly isn't conclusive either way. I would prefer to be cautious in such circumstances.

"And if parents feel their potential child is as good as a baby then good for them. But many pregnant women don't feel that way and don't love their potential child and don't want to have it. That's why it should be left up to the woman herself to make this difficult decision."

These people should have made their lives up a long while ago - not 20 weeks into the pregnancy. It simply isn't fair on the child at that stage.

"Because the law today stands at 24 weeks and I'd be opposed to any further restrictions that would fly in the face my pro-choice views and it would give the anti-choice lobby encouragement to go even further."

Oh so thats what its about - not the actual facts of the case, you just don't want to give any success to the pro life movement.

How exactly does it fly in the face of your pro choice views? What is it that ties you to that 24 week limit?

"And there are also some very credible assessments that say a fetus cannot feel pain until much later than that.

The bottom line is that the statistics show 22 weeks is the very earliest a fetus can survive independently, therefore it makes no sense that you support lowering the limit to 20 weeks. You're quite prepared to cut back womens' rights on the basis of hysteria and/or flimsy evidence."

How can it be flimsy when your own post acknowledges the debate on the very issue is legitimate?

As I've said, I say 20 weeks (perhaps even 17) not because of survival but because of the evidence to suggest an unborn child could feel pain at that period. The more human it becomes - the less we should be contemplating abortion as an option.

 







[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#78)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:44:42 PM GMT

Loz, this conversation isn't going anywhere. We're just going over the same questions and going round in circles.

I disagree with you strongly and vice versa, let's leave it at that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#3)

by SouthernMonkey on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:09:27 PM GMT

1) I would drop the limit. The two main issues here as highlighted by the Channel 4 Dispatches programme are neonatal survival and fetal sentience. The law is currently inconsistent as you can abort a baby at 23 weeks and 5 days and yet in the best neonatal units over 60% of babies born at 23 weeks and over 80% at 24 weeks survive. Also as the researcher Anand argued on the programme babies withdraw from painful stimuli and produce stress hormones well below 20 weeks and prem babies below 24 weeks will cry if you stick a needle in them. Anand has just this month published a major review on fetal sentience which disputes the RCOG position that babies cannot feel pain at 24 weeks. He thinks it is around 18 weeks or even earlier. Also Campbell's 4D ultrasounds have changed a lot of peoples' minds on the limit. And 65% of doctors think the 24 week limit should come down according to this week's Marie Stopes poll. 

2) I would keep the two signatures. The reason for having two was to protect doctors from prosecution. Abortion is still technically a crime under the Offences against the Person Act if doctors don't follow the Abortion Act guidelines. The two signatures recognise that abortion is a serious thing to do. We shouldn't trivialise it. It isn't like taking tonsils out after all.

3) I would keep abortion with doctors only. The push for nurses to get involved is largely for reasons of resource because increasing number of doctors think it has all gone too far. Most people agree that 200,000 abortions a year is too many. Let's find out why so many doctors are not wanting to be involved before landing it on the nurses.

4) Don't involve Northern Ireland. Let's rather recognise abortion as a devolved issue and let them make up their own minds. We don't want to force it on the people of NI if they don't want it. We need to respect different cultural values even if we don't agree with them. 


Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#4)

by swatantra on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:38:48 PM GMT

Drop the limit to 18 weeks; keep the two doctors rule; keep only doctors can perform abortions and extend it to NI. Then we can rid ourselves of the unsavoury reputation as the abortion capital of the world.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#13)

by Cat S on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:42:01 PM GMT

The UK is not the abortion capital of the world! It is far far far from it... there are many countries in the world with more liberal law on this issue.

Women in the UK do not have abortion on demand. Once a woman has decided to end her pregnancy she must persuade two doctors that her mental or physical health (or any existing children's) is going to be damaged. And in Northern Ireland there is no access to abortion at all.

There is no legal requirement for NHS trusts to provide abortions - therefore it is a postcode lottery where those who have the money can pay to go private! This is something that under a Labour government should have changed! It's one rule for the rich and another for the poor....


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#6)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 01:45:58 PM GMT

Jesus, it's becoming more and more like ConservativeHome here by the day.

Where are the diehard feminists when you need them? Thank God our MP's (and the LibDem MP's) have more sense.

For the record, we are by no means the most liberal country in the world when it comes to abortion. In Canada there are no restrictions whatsoever. Most of Western Europe effectively has abortion on request, which we don't.

Look at the map on this Wiki page and you'll see that there are a large number of countries more liberal on abortion than us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law


Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#7)

by SouthernMonkey on Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 07:39:45 PM GMT

Not sure where the diehard feminists are but I think that many of them also will not have the stomach for pushing for late abortion especially in the light of the latest evidence on neonatal survival and fetal pain.

It was interesting to hear Kate Guthrie say on the Dispatches programme that she, even as a gyanaecologist having done thousands of abortions, drew her own personal line at 20 weeks because above that 'it was too much like a baby'.

Another gynaecologist once told me that she stopped doing abortions after she put her finger into the cervix to do one and the baby kicked her. She said she froze and they had to call someone else to carry on. A mother can actually feel her baby kicking at 16-18 weeks and they start kicking some weeks earlier than that - although not hard enough to be felt.

Over 80% of UK women now think the upper limit should come down.

It's not quite correct to say that many other European countries have more liberal laws. It's true that some allow abortion on demand in the first trimester but the thing the wikipedia article doesn't say is that our upper limit of 24 weeks is one of the very highest in Europe. The European average is 13 weeks.

I don't think that being labour means being supportive of abortion on demand. We need to show that we are thinking and listening to people's concerns rather than just becoming entrenched. Or we need to have better arguments to say why the law should be liberalised or the upper limit kept the same.

We don't want to give the impression that we are not listening to the electorate, on abortion, on Europe or on anything for that matter.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#8)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:54:51 AM GMT

Well people don't join Labour to be socially conservative, that's what the Tories are for. We're supposed to stand up for women's rights.

There is no 'evidence' on fetal pain - it's simply the opinions of certain doctors who are anti-abortion to begin with.


Kate Guthrie certainly came across as someone who was anti-choice also it must be said and just because she wasn't comfortable with performing abortions after 20 weeks doesn't mean other medical staff aren't. The majority of gynaecologists voted to keep the 24 week limit as it is.

You point out that various EU countries have 13 week limits, but you could just as easily point to somewhere like Canada which has little to no restrictions on abortions already.

We've already lowered the term limit once in the early 1990's and another lowering of the limit is simply another victory for the Anne Widdecombes of this world - social conservatism and authoritarianism at the expense of womens' rights.

Human rights are not about popularity contests - regardless of public opinion here, MP's should do what is right and that is to support a woman's right to have an abortion at the current time limit. I believe they will do this and indeed liberalise the laws further. The majority of people in this country want to bring back hanging - do you think a Labour government should implement this then?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#10)

by Anne Q on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 12:06:49 PM GMT

did anyone see this article in the Times at the weekend? 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2689787.ece

It says that 50 babies were aborted with club feet in one area of England in a three-year period.  Thirty-seven babies with cleft lips or palates and 26 with extra or webbed fingers or toes were also aborted.  

How can it be right to abort for such minor disabilities?  This doesn't seem liberal at all, it seems inhumane.  It's like we've created an underclass.  There are human rights issues at stake here, not to mention discriminatory attitudes towards those with disabilities.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#18)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 06:46:25 PM GMT

Parents may feel that they don't want their potential children to grow up with disabilities which will deteriorate their quality of life. It's quite a normal feeling to have if you're in that situation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#21)

by Kat on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:48:26 PM GMT

but as the article points out these are minor corrective disabilities.  How can this be allowed. Why are abortions even offered in these circumstances? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#26)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 11:03:37 PM GMT

Because a woman must have a fundamental right to have an abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks. If a woman doesn't want a potential child then that must be her decision - it's her body.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#85)

by swatantra on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:34:11 AM GMT

Unfortunately that is the very crux of the problem with abortionists; when you talk of fundamental rights, you've forgotten the fundamental responsibilities. The situation changes in an instant when a woman or young girl gets pregnant. Its the responsibilities that kick in. And you have to accept the consequences of your behaviour. That point doesn't seem to have fgot through to society at large. So even if the total course of your life is changed because of your actions, so be it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#88)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 01:00:56 PM GMT

So people aren't allowed second chances then? Once you've made a mistake, your life is screwed. I wonder how many mothers would end up committing suicide if they were forced to follow your ideology. How very Labour - not.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#89)

by swatantra on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:19:52 PM GMT

Having an unplanned baby is not the end of the world; it just means that your life takes a different route. In fact it could be the making of some, by suddenly thrusting the responsibility of an infant onto you. Too many people are taking out their diaries these days slotting in when they 'can fit in a baby', during their hectic lifestyle. What a way to carry on! Better counselling is needed for pregnant mothers pointing out the options for keeping the baby. Abortion often leaves a mental scar in later life. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#92)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:17:55 PM GMT

A different route?! Dear, dear. Having a baby is not just like a change in jobs or moving to a new house. I tell you what would leave a mental scar on both mother and child and that's if mother if forced to have a child that she doesn't want nor love.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#100)

by Anne Q on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:43:28 PM GMT

I believe that disabled babies can be aborted right up to birth.  On the grounds of club foot, cleft palate and even downsyndrome that seems a bit too fundamental.  Surely a change in the law is needed here?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#14)

by SouthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:08 PM GMT

What is your source for your comments on fetal pain? Do you have one or is it just hearsay?

Anand, who is a major world authority on fetal pain, has just published a major review on this subject and takes a very different stance to that taken by the government and the RCOG. He was interviewed in the Dispatches programme last week.

He was the guy who did all the pioneering work on fetal anesthesia back in the 1980s at Oxford - now in Arkansas.

http://www.uams.edu/info/Updates/October01/anand.htm


The RCOG said last week that they hadn't even heard of him which seems quite incredible.

http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2184


Dawn Primarolo has already trailed her own evidence in the Independent and is likely to follow the RCOG.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3084306.ece

I hope she knows what she is talking about or it could prove very embarrassing for the government.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#19)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 06:50:50 PM GMT

There have been enormous amounts of criticism of Anand - just look up on google to find examples. His opinions on fetal pain are deeply disputed and the majority of the medical scientific community disagree with him.


Anand is quite clearly against abortion full stop and is bending the evidence to fit his own views. His religion presumably has something to do with it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#23)

by SouthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:28:29 PM GMT

So your authority for your claim that Anand should be ignored is google (that flawless treasure trove of knowledge), hearsay (lots of unnamed medical experts) and prejudice (he has a faith so can't be replied upon). Thank you for clarifying your position.

If you visit the online index of medical journals, PubMed, and type in 'anand fetal pain' his October 2007 review article will come up top of the list. May I respectfully suggest that you actually read it in order that you can contribute to the debate in an informed way.

If you enter anand kj you will bring up pages of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals - 18 this year.

Anand is regarded as the pioneer of anaesthesia for fetal surgery and his academic credentials are very impressive.

http://www.uams.edu/neuroscience_cellbiology/faculty/details.asp?id=61

http://www.uams.edu/pediatrics/faculty/Critical%20Care/Anand,%20Sunny.asp

Can I ask NorthernMonkey what your own credentials are? Could I enquire further where you think his arguments are flawed? Or perhaps could you point us to one article in a peer-reviewed journal that refutes his position?



[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#27)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 11:06:23 PM GMT

Oh sorry, your claim that Anand is right is what exactly? You've read some of his work and suddenly decided that he's right? Most of his peers reject his work and most doctors who perform abortions strongly disagree with him as you well know.


Might I enquire as to which party you actually belong to SM?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#28)

by SouthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:37:22 AM GMT

Yes I have read Anand's review this month and was very impressed by it. I think that you should keep an open mind and read it too rather than relying on the largely ill-informed prejudice of others. Or is your mind completely closed on this? 

Wrt what party I belong to, I thought that abortion was a conscience issue. Are you saying that all Labour Party members must be pro-choice? I didn't think it was a party policy. Surely thinking members will want to be open to and driven by evidence and argument.

I haven't heard any of either from you yet NM. If you want to take an opposing position then you have to have some arguments rather than just rhetoric. So let's hear them. On what basis do you think that fetuses at 18 weeks cannot feel other than you would like it to be so?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#31)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:16:30 PM GMT

I already stated my argument in the original post.

You've still yet to say which party you belong to.

I can't help noticing that a few names who regularly appear on ConHome are starting to crop up on various threads (the BBC one being an example). There's nothing wrong with them posting on here but they should at least state which angle they're coming from rather than pretending to be from Labour and causing mischief.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#46)

by SouthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:06:18 PM GMT

No NM you didn't give any arguments at all, you simply stated your opinion. There is a difference. Argument is an intellectual process. Stating one's opinion requires only primitive reflexes.

Re Party I am not a member of the Tory Party and I have never posted on ConHome.

I notice you are a pretty prolific poster here - one might say a compulsive poster - but I think you have a real cheek telling people what they should believe in order to be Labour or insisting that other Labour supporters share your world view.

It is a terrible shame that the Labour Party has been hijacked by the prochoice lobby. Which makes it all the more important for people who share Labour's traditional values to come here and put a contrary view on issues like abortion.



[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#50)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:19:14 AM GMT

Ha! Now you've given the game away. You say you're not a Tory but you've not said you're a Labour supporter.


You've put forward no argument at all - just brainwashed rhetoric from a medical scientist who has been discredited from most of his peers.


And hijacked by the pro-choice lobby? Come now, even you don't believe that. We are the pro-choice party along with the LibDems and it seems, on this forum at least, we've been hijacked by the anti-choice socially-conservative lobby.


It was a Labour government that legalised abortion under the Wilson government and you should remember that. We will always be a predominantly pro-choice party whether you like or not. You're entitled to your opinions, but firstly be honest about which party you're from and secondly don't pretend that the real life Labour party is as opposed to abortion as some on here seem.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#55)

by Kat on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:20:55 AM GMT

It's a bit sad NM that you think this is 'a game'.  I don't know if you seen the Dispatches programme?  You should try and get hold of a copy as there was a doctor on the programme who explained about his recent research on foetal pain. I don't think this is an issue that we can sweep aside so easily. If foetuses do feel pain, it is awful to think that they are being aborted up to 24 weeks. MP's have to vote on these issues it's not a straightforward - for or against debate - surely it's about compassion. New research should at least be given a fair hearing, to dismiss it in the way that you have makes you seem like some sort of fundamentalist and I'm sure that's not the case.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#59)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:57:07 PM GMT

Kat, people are entitled to their opinions. If I want to be pro-choice then that's entirely my right - a great deal many people are pro-choice. There is no consensus whatsoever on fetal pain and I am certainly sceptical about this.

And why are you quoting 'a game' in speech marks when I was referring to SouthernMonkey not being a Labour supporter? I wasn't talking about abortion at all.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#90)

by Kat on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:44:56 PM GMT

what! this strand of the discussion is about fetal pain and not your opinions, which of course you are entitled too.

Consensuses' take a long time to develop that doesn't really justify ignoring new research that questions the current consensus.  The doctor on dispatches explained how fetal pain was dismissed in the past because it was assumed the brain was underdeveloped.  he described that the brain of the developing fetus should be considered in a different way, this seems a logical approach and certainly worthy of further scientific investigation. 

I don't really see why you are so adamantly opposed to this view and research it doesn't really seem to make sense to discount scientific information in this way. Unless you have such a strong agenda that it contradicts.  You haven't actually explained why you are so opposed to even considering this research - ie if fetuses do feel pain (and i accept you don't believe that) what do you think that means?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#93)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:21:17 PM GMT

Again, we're covering old ground with this Kat.

Nobody's ignoring new research, but people (and most of the medical community) are questioning whether it's true or not. And many of the scientists who make claims about fetal pain are often people who don't agree with abortion at all.


I don't understand why you believe this 'reseach' just because a few researchers say it is true but most of the medical community think it's false. Perhaps you have the strong agenda?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#95)

by Kat on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:49:25 PM GMT

Yes, ground breaking research is often questioned. It's the open mind issue that gets me.  You appear very closed to the concept of fetuses feeling pain, i was just interested to know why that was the case. This isn't old ground, as i don't feel that you have explained this at all.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#96)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:07:03 PM GMT

I could just as easily argue that you appear very closed to the concept of fetuses not feeling pain.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#99)

by Kat on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:17:47 PM GMT

i don't think i have said anything that should make you draw that conclusion.  From what I have read hear and seen on Dispatches, I think that there is need for further investigation of the evidence.  To simply say prochoice = fetus feels no pain - is a pretty unsatisfactory position.  I wouldn't like to be an MP voting on that basis, I hope we can agree on that much.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#101)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 02:10:54 AM GMT

I certainly wouldn't say that because I'm pro-choice I automatically think fetuses feel no pain. I'm open minded, but I am personally sceptical about fetuses being able to feel pain in a similar way to what we can. And more importantly, I feel the majority of the medical scientific community don't feel comfortable with the argument that fetuses feel pain either.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#15)

by Cat S on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:57 PM GMT

If a woman does not want to continue a pregnancy she should have access to abortion, on the NHS, as soon as possible but as late as necessary.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#17)

by Anne Q on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 05:49:05 PM GMT

oh purleaseee 'If a woman does not want to continue a pregnancy she should have access to abortion, on the NHS, as soon as possible but as late as necessary.' - can't we get beyond sloganisations!  You seem to be advocating abortion on demand up to birth.  You cannot be serious.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#20)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 07:03:53 PM GMT

That's what happens in Canada. It's hardly that unusual.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#35)

by Anne Q on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:02:56 PM GMT

abortion on demand up to birth, for any reason.  You seem to be in favour, but the four campaign objectives you set out in your original article do not state this.  From what you have said on this site and here, it seems to me that this is in fact your ultimate objective.  Removal of the two doctor requirement and the other three objectives are simply a step in that direction.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#36)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:16:59 PM GMT

No, I support keeping the time limit at 24 weeks.

But I think you're reaction to the earlier comment of allowing abortion up to birth was over the top.

For example, we already allow abortion up to birth if the mother's life is at risk. I support this and would also support this in the case of rape. Do you think there's anything wrong with this?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#12)

by Just Labour on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:36:52 PM GMT

Society tut tuts at mums-to-be who smoke during their pregnancy (or engage in other activity harmful to the unborn child) and yet we seem happy to allow healthy and viable babies to be aborted.  I support a reduction to 20 (and possibly even 16) weeks. No change in the requirement for 2 signatures but I do agree that Northern Ireland is part of the UK and so what goes here should go there, too.


Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#16)

by CitizenAndreas on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 05:09:29 PM GMT

I think the laws are mostly ok as they stand, although I certainly agree with the idea of scrapping the 2 signature rule for the first three months and extending the laws to Northern Ireland.

I don't think we should be caving in to pressure to reduce the 24 week limit. The point is often made that abortions after the first 12 weeks are not particularly common. I don't see the point in giving the Pro-Lifers the kind of victory that will no doubt be used to gain political advantage in the future. 


Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#24)

by Parishpumpspin on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:49:04 PM GMT

I cannot be bothered to trial through the above comments, for me the 24 week limit is settled, the process is well-known, it requires no interference or political meddling. Lets spend our time and energies bringing down our still appauling teenage pregnancy rate.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#29)

by Prbo on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:07:24 AM GMT

"Jesus, it's becoming more and more like ConservativeHome here by the day. Where are the diehard feminists when you need them? Thank God our MP's (and the LibDem MP's) have more sense. "

Aren't Labour party members allowed to think for themselves?  I thought freedom of thought and belief were fundamental to Labour values?  I could always be wrong, of course...


Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#30)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:13:21 PM GMT

Taking away womens' rights was never a fundamental Labour value. It didn't used to be anyway.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#34)

by redfrog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:38:00 PM GMT

Northern Monkey - there is so much that I would like to say on this issue, but having read your comments I have decided not to, and simply focus on you and your comments.

I am an active member of the Labour Party.  I have held elected office for a number of years - I only add this because you seem to imply somewhere in your contributions that Party members should be pro choice and that 'womens' rights' should be paramount to 'Labour values'.

No where in your 'rational' do you attempt to articulate that there are, as a matter of scientific fact, two parties in an abortion - the women who has to wrestle with the difficult decision, and the unborn child.

I would be interested to know your thoughts on the following:

1.  When does what grows during pregnancy become a child?  If it is not until 'birth' do you suggest that abortion should be available beyond 24 weeks, and if so how and where should the limit be set?

2.  If you do accept that what grows during pregnancy is a child before birth then surely you must accept that the importance of preserving womens' rights must be balanced against the rights of the unborn (but able to live independently) child.  How do you do this?

I have read many of your comments on this site and I rather suspect that the protection of 'womens' rights' would come right at the top of your list if you were asked to articulate the things you believe the Labour Party should stand for??  I understand this, but you must understand that our Party is about the protection of all people's rights and in the real world it is necessary to balance those against each other.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#38)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:39:15 PM GMT

1. 'Birth' is the stage when the child is alive and physically independent. Up until that point, as far as I see it, it is a 'potential child' and should not be considered 'alive' in any true sense of the word.


However, I support keeping the time limit at 24 weeks for normal circumstances. The first two trimesters is an adaquate and symbolic point for a pregnant woman to make the decision. But in cases of rape or potential physical danger to the mother, I support allowing abortion right the way up until birth.

2. Well I don't accept that a fetus is a 'child' or accept that it is 'alive' in any true sense of the word until birth.


I certainly do believe that supporting womens' rights is absolutely fundamental to the Labour party, along with gay rights, minority rights etc. It should be part of who we are. I reject the idea that 24 weeks is too liberal - we've already seen the limit lowered once from 28 weeks, we should not support lowering it again.


The people who campaign to lower the time limit (most of whom in Parliament happen to be Conservatives) don't want to just stop at 20 weeks - they want to keep lowering the limit more and more until eventually abortion is banned completely. I for one do not think we should be supporting those Conservatives in their efforts to destroy the liberal values that were created 40 years ago by a Labour government and to stamp their authoritarianism on people's lives.

If I wanted to be socially conservative, I would have joined the Conservative party. But I'm not and I joined Labour because we are supposed to stand up for values such as women's rights. We already suck up to the Tories on goodness knows how many issues - we shouldn't continue this practice on this issue. There are principles worth fighting for and Labour should certainly fight for a woman's right to have an abortion.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#40)

by redfrog on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:22:55 PM GMT

Thank you for your reply.

I don't know who you are, whether you are known or active in our Party in the north, but irrespective of this I find your answer intellectually wanting - it is of course medically flawed as well - a child is something that grows from cells and whilst I could recount stats about the % of those on average that would survive at 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks etc, I think you get the point, just choose not to accept it.

The reason Parties have free votes on this is because issues like this transcend political views - a point you seem to not want to accept.

I anticipate that you have no medical experience so please let me assure you that a fetus at 16/20 weeks is capable of independent life, and were you ever to see one you would understand that they are just a smaller version of the little bundle of joys that usually arive after 9 months with all internal organs developed and in tact.

I hope, but doubt, that you will reconsider your views.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#43)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:45:07 PM GMT

Redfrog, you should hardly be surprised that I'm sticking to my views on this one!


You're making it sound as though there is some sort of consensus and I'm simply being stubborn by not accepting of reality. This is not true and in fact, from my perspective, I see it as the other way around. The majority of gynaecologists actually support keeping the limit at 24 weeks and any 'evidence' that supports bringing the limit down is deeply disputed. So that hardly confirms your argument is not 'intellectually wanting' either! Relating to this, I'd hardly say you've built up a watertight argument backed up with tonnes of medical statistics either for that matter!

Also, I'm quite bemused when you say "I could recount stats about the % of those on average that would survive at 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks etc". So what exactly are these figures for a 12 week fetus, or 16 weeks, or even 20 weeks. Because if you've managed to find a fetus than can survive after birth after only 12 weeks then that would be the biggest medical breakthrough in history! That sentence makes me a bit dubious as to whether you know what you're talking about here I have to say.


This issue may well be a free vote issue but typically the majority of Labour members have always been firmly pro-choice and indeed it is very unlikely that any further restrictions will be placed on abortion in the upcoming vote as the vast majority of Labour and LibDem MP's will support liberalising the laws if anything.


My experience in the real world tells me the majority of Labour members, activists and supporters are very much pro-choice, so the outcome of this debate on here is puzzling. Quite why there seem to be so many anti-choice people commenting is something I'm a little suspicious about I must say.



[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#42)

by lauren stevens on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:13:21 PM GMT

Northernmonkey I think it's only socially conservative if you are restricting abortion because you think women should be in the home or shouldn't have had one too many to drink last night. I'm sure this might be the position of some conservatives.

The vast majority of pro-choice people who have concerns over the time limit do so because there are no easy decisions to be made about when life begins. In other words they're concerned with *protecting* fetal rights not *restricting* other people's rights. I think it's a bit unfair to suggest anyone who merely questions the existing law is automatically attacking women's rights.

We've already had a reduction in the abortion time limit from 28 weeks to 24 weeks and I have not seen any restriction in women's rights occurring. I don't think another 4 week, or even something more than that, would make much difference either.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#44)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:49:34 PM GMT

Hi Lauren,

But when you're, as you put it, "protecting fetal rights" by lowering the time limit, you are quite literally "restricting" a woman's right to choose. If the limit is dropped to 20 weeks, then a woman pregnant for 22 weeks, literally no longer has the right to choose.


This flies in the face of being "pro-choice", so I find it difficult to reconcile how someone can be pro-choice and anti-choice at the same time. It makes no sense.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#80)

by lauren stevens on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:38:11 PM GMT

Monkey, if it would please you you can call me "pro-choice within boundaries". I would have thought everyone would be of that position anyway unless you're advocating allowing infanticide too!


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#82)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:25:48 PM GMT

Well Lauren I don't think being supportive of abortion includes supporting killing children once they're actually born, no!


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#41)

by lauren stevens on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:08:29 PM GMT

I have to agree with many of the comments in that post. Although I am pro-choice, I am somewhat alarmed by the arbitrariness (I hope that's spelt right!) of the current abortion legislation. I find it shocking that we can suddenly say that "oh actually, we got it wrong, life begins before 24 weeks after all". So we considered it human after 24 weeks but now we're questioning whether the limit might be earlier? Logically, surely that means we've essentially committed some sort of mass slaughter?

I also have huge concerns over the fact that the law apparently distinguishes between normal and handicapped fetuses - with handicapped babies being allowed to be aborted up-to-birth. Effectively this is saying handicapped babies are not fully human! Surely even the most extreme pro-choicer would agree this is utterly discriminatory?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#45)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:53:47 PM GMT

Lauren, parents might not want to bring up a handicapped child because they might not feel they can give it the love or support that it would require, but they could not face giving it up for adoption.

You're assuming that abortion is akin to murder, which anti-choice people typically do. Abortion cannot be murder as the fetus is not 'alive' to begin with.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#48)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:00:33 AM GMT

A child - unborn or not, that has a beating heart and a sense of pain is alive enough.

What's next - mary doesn't want to raise her handicapped child any more - doesn't want adoption - so what then? Lets 'put it down'.

One step away from nazism on the issue.

As for 'disabled' god, we've seen hundreds of cases where the medical science and predictions were flawed. Even in this thread we've seen how our scientific thinking is behind that of much of the world and the quite stunning lack of willingness in some quarters to look and re look at such a society defining issue.

We should never give up on life.

I didn't realise it was so that any child can be aborted up until birth (discounting the obvious) - if so, it is also extremely wrong.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#51)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:21:53 AM GMT

When you start talking about 'murder' and 'Nazism', I'm not particularly interested in debating about the points you've raised.

It's this kind of hysteria which blights America on the abortion argument today.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#53)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:47:00 AM GMT

And its your kind of ignorance/arrogance that leads to issues like this never being discussed in the first place.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#60)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:59:05 PM GMT

What the hell are you on about - I was the one who started this discussion in the first place.


It's shows your ignorance that your view did a u-turn on the basis of a single TV programme. That hardly demonstrates any rational thought does it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#63)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:42:04 PM GMT

You started the topic to push your own opinions and you have shot down any opposing views with absurd and backward thinking out downs.

As for my 'ignorance' - did you even watch the programme? It was extremely informative and allowed me to do the research from it that has allowed me to re think my position.

That's not ignorance - it is common sense having learned something and re evaluated your own thinking as a sensible and rational adult. You should try it some time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#68)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:20:02 PM GMT

I watched the programme in full and it was clearly written from an anti-abortion view point as has been pointed out in a Guardian article which asked whether it was biased or not.

You flip-flopped your position on the basis of one emotive TV programme, preferring to respond with hysteria rather than a rational, reasoned logic.

The only reason why you flip-flopped was because they showed all the blood and fetus parts, which admittedly to anyone who isn't a doctor, makes one uncomfortable. But that's as hypocritical as sending a meat-eater into a slaughter house. Once they'd seen the cows slughtered and sliced up, they'd be put off meat for life because they don't like seeing the blood and guts.

This is where emotion overrides rationality - a human flaw. So rather than base your opinions on how much blood and gore there is in some TV programme, why not think rationally and understand the reason why a Labour government legalised abortion in the first place.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#69)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:28:05 PM GMT

I didn't flip flop  - I was merely more well educated having watched the programme and in doing my own research.

And actually instead of being ignorant why don't you read what I said which was that I felt the gore etc was not necessarry.

I haven't used that once to represent my opinions on this matter - it is YOU now in your desperation that is bringing it up.

Are you a stalinist? Is this how you 'debate' - by lying and smearing others?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#71)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:54:04 PM GMT

Is this how YOU debate - by throwing insults?

You're the one who said you'd completely altered your opinion on the basis of one TV programme, so you can hardly be angry when you get criticised for that.

It's good to be open-minded and I'm open to suggestions, but to completely u-turn on an important issue like this on the basis of a highly emotive TV programme is bizarre.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#72)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:04:10 PM GMT

I didn't throw insults - I asked a valid question.

Are a stalinist? Because that appears to be your debating tactic. You made absurd suppositions about why I look at this issue differently now, and when factually shown to be wrong on those accusations you don't have the decency to apologize.

The programme was lengthy, informative and aired both sides of the arguement. (the fact the Guardian didn't think so is little surprise)

It bought to light information that I hadn't known about. It seems perfectly sensible that this would alter an opinion, which I have already stated was not paticuarly fine tuned at the time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#74)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:13:47 PM GMT

And how have you possibly demonstrated that you listen to the other sides of the story when you use terms like 'murder' and 'Nazism' to describe pro-choice views?

And that programme aired both sides of the argument in as much as Fox News is 'fair and balanced'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#76)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:27:05 PM GMT

Murder is what it is, ending the life of an unborn child in selfish cirumstances cannot be considered anything else.

I used nazism accursately, and stated it was one step away from nazim when discussing disabled children - and I stand by it, in the terms you put it, it was perfectly legitimate.

And as for your opinions about the fairness of the programme - it is just that, your opinion. I see no point in debating that, it made the case for both sides and had plenty of people in authority and pressure groups to make its point.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#79)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:45:37 PM GMT

Same as above.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#81)

by lauren stevens on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:43:44 PM GMT

Monkey, I think it is very harsh to say parents who might not give love to a handicapped (if we must use that term) child should be allowed to abort it. I am completely opposed to discrimination against the disabled and I don't think we should tolerate this attitude as a society. I think that form of discrimination is an unacceptable reason for allowing abortion. I don't see how it can be justified from a left-wing perspective.

I am pro-choice but I don't think us women should be able to choose without any restrictions/boundaries whatsoever. That is a laissez faire approach which, like purely free market economics, seems to think there are no knock on effects (such as discrimination against the disabled). Just as I am for a regulated market, I am for regulated abortion laws.

Perhaps murder is too strong a word, but the fetus is certainly alive... even a functioning plant is 'alive'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#83)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:35:04 PM GMT

Monkey, I think it is very harsh to say parents who might not give love to a handicapped (if we must use that term) child should be allowed to abort it. I am completely opposed to discrimination against the disabled and I don't think we should tolerate this attitude as a society.

It's a tough one. I've not been in that position so I wouldn't know how I'd feel in that situation. However, I can empathise with the motives of the parents who would choose to go through with an abortion in that situation as they may feel that they don't want to bring a child into the world who will suffer in pain and agony all his / her life. Many people believe it's quality of life, not quantity of life which counts.

I am pro-choice but I don't think us women should be able to choose without any restrictions/boundaries whatsoever. That is a laissez faire approach which, like purely free market economics, seems to think there are no knock on effects (such as discrimination against the disabled). Just as I am for a regulated market, I am for regulated abortion laws.

I'm not for a purely laissez faire approach either. I support the limit at 24 weeks and I'd even be prepared to drop part 3 of my original proposals to ensure only doctors carry out abortions if it made society more comfortable about abortion rights. And of course a woman should be given all the necessary information about the consequences of having an abortion so she can make an informed choice. And obviously, abortion should not be seen as a simple substitute for contraception. It's preferable not to get pregnant in the first place than have an abortion.

but the fetus is certainly alive... even a functioning plant is 'alive'

Well I don't hear anyone sticking up for plants' rights, do you!


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#86)

by swatantra on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:39:16 AM GMT

I wish someone would actually define what a fundamental right is. Lots of other things like a job, a home etc etc etc are creeping into the definition. There is only one fundamental right that I know of and that is to life, and you've denied it to the foetus, so society will have to speak up for it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#87)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 12:58:49 PM GMT

So you'd ban abortion altogether then?

And there is more than 1 fundamental right as well.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#91)

by swatantra on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:00:04 PM GMT

There is also the right to family life... and that presumably includes having children. As for a job, a home, to roam, privacy, to display religious symbols etc is I think taking fundamental rights a bit too far. You must remember that someones rights can also infringe on anothers liberties.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#94)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:24:35 PM GMT

People have a fundamental right to:

  • vote when they are adults
  • food
  • water
  • shelter
  • health care regardless of how wealthy they are
  • a decent education
  • life (once they are actually alive)
  • certain amount of privacy
etc, etc.


If people want to have a family then they can have one - that's their right, but if people don't want children then they don't have to have them - that's a right to.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#32)

by jkitleft on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:15:51 PM GMT

The laws should be extended to NI, but kept at 24 weeks. I'm personally pro-life, but I'm also pro-choice. A mistake in prohibiting something, is believeing that it will stop happening. Women who have abortions, will just turn to the backallies, possibly killing both the woman and the unborn child. I have been in favour of some measures in acts like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban act in USA, abolishing the method, but I wouldn't abolish abortion in the second or third trimester, as in the third trimester, medical reasons could be grounds for an abortion.


Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#33)

by jkitleft on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:16:44 PM GMT

also, let's remember, some 'diehard feminists' have been anti-abortion. Susan B. Anthony was vehmenently against it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#54)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:48:49 AM GMT

Back ally abortion is not a good excuse - we prohibit all sorts of things for all sorts of good reasons - the fact people will still act illegally shouldn't really deter us from doing what is right.

Nobody here is even talking about making abortion a crime.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#56)

by jkitleft on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:20:41 PM GMT

Why is tightening laws 'right'? My opinions about abortion laws cannot be emotional, as I explained I was personally pro-life, the fact is that if we want to lessen the problem, abortion needs to be in a controlled, safe environment. I don't think people who have not had an abortion should be in a position to judge those that have had one. What I would support however, is the Democrats for Life of America's Pregnant Women Support Act, which provides alternative methods of nreducing abortion. Legislating against abortion is not going to stop it happening, it will just make it harder to control. Introduce a bill like the Democrats for life have (although I'm slightly critical of that group, because many will be "pro-life", but then pro-death penalty), and I'll suport it. Try to make abortion laws more conservative and I'll not.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#57)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:29:38 PM GMT

"Why is tightening laws 'right'?"

For a number of reasons as I have already explained.

1. Chiefly, the medical science has changed and at very least the limit should be lowerd to 20 weeks.

"My opinions about abortion laws cannot be emotional"

No, and I wouldn't expect them to be - they do however have to take account of the facts.

"the fact is that if we want to lessen the problem, abortion needs to be in a controlled, safe environment. "

I agree and I would have it no other way - but currently speaking, it is just that.

"I don't think people who have not had an abortion should be in a position to judge those that have had one."

Depending on the circumstances - they absolutely can.

Personally speaking, at least one member of my family has had an abortion.

Further to that, a cousin of mine was told by her boyfriends mother to have an abortion - she didn't of course and thankfully we now have a beautiful little girl in the family.

"What I would support however, is the Democrats for Life of America's Pregnant Women Support Act, which provides alternative methods of nreducing abortion. Legislating against abortion is not going to stop it happening, it will just make it harder to control. Introduce a bill like the Democrats for life have (although I'm slightly critical of that group, because many will be "pro-life", but then pro-death penalty), and I'll suport it. Try to make abortion laws more conservative and I'll not."

See that is a mistake many left wingers make - this isn't a 'conservative/liberal' issue - it's an issue that divides two sides of society.

One believes in the value of life, and the other simply cannot make that claim when it supports killing babies on one ward, and on another a child of the same age is being aborted.

Do you honestly support that? As I've said, up until a point I am certainly pro choice - but there must be a decent and consensus supported cut off.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#97)

by jkitleft on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:23:34 PM GMT

I don't mean conservative politically. If the laws are 'Liberalised', it doesn't necessarily mean more Liberal politically. Of course I don't 'support' Abortion, I don't think many people 'support' it. It's a horrible decision, but I just think it's too simplistic to say that a topic that brings out many emotions in people, can be neutralised by implementing more restrictive laws 


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? (#61)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:21:36 PM GMT

Thankfully, the Health Minister Dawn Primarolo has stated today that the government will not push to lower the time limit. A wise decision and a principled stance.