Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics

Last week Conservative MP for Mid Beds Nadine Dorries wrote in her blog: "Being of neither the pro-abortion or pro-life lobby." This was in the context of Nadine arguing that the upper limit for abortions should be reduced from 24 to 20 weeks.

This statement is not strictly true Nadine is it?

When Nadine was running as Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Hazel Grove in 2001, under her maiden name (though at the time married) of Nadine Bargery, Nadine made very clear pro-abortion statements and expressed her support for abortions. This may have had something to do with her running against, and trying to ‘out’ the pro-life Labour candidate.

Since 2001 things have changed, including Nadine's name. So a new name, a new ideology, or rather a new opportunity to further her political career.

Her political advisers would have told her that there was an opportunity to exploit and reinvigorate the pro-life/pro-choice debate in the UK, and introduce into play proven American tactics. These tactics include subverting the majority into believing that medical evidence supports a reduction in the current 24 week limit, and incrementally restricting the access of women to an abortion; even if required in the event of a medical emergency. The very fact that Nadine ran with the hand of hope story in March is evidence of this subversive campaign.

Nadine, put your political career aside, put your personal ambitions aside, put yourself aside, and think of the damage you are doing as you play politics with peoples lives.

For the record I am pro choice (though this is not a party political issue). 90% of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, very few between 20 and 24 weeks, and those that do in most cases are for medical reasons.

David Reeves
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Mid Beds
www.davidreeves.org.uk


Display: Sort:

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#1)

Mad Nad never had a clue what she was doing.

She's like some strange cross-breed between Mary Whitehouse and Bridget Jones. Ditsy, but dangerous.

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#2)

Perhaps like many Nadine has been persuaded by technological changes that have emerged since the 2001 election and concluded that our 18 year old law has been outmoded. Since the 2001 election there have been significant technical advances and there is now a much higher level of public awareness about fetal development - new ultra sound techniques announced in 2004 have contributed to this, see article on BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3846525.stm


there has been a big shift in public opinion on the abortion time limit. Where Nadine has got it wrong however, is the degree of change needed. Most European countries have an upper limit of 12 weeks we should be moving a lot closer to this level. There is an opportunity for the Labour movement to show that it is both decisive and in touch with the public by supporting a much lower time limit than Dorries.

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#3)

So we should just keep lowering the limit more and more as time advances?

What happens when technology has advanced so much that a foetus can survive at 12 weeks - should we lower the limit to 12 weeks?

If so, what social effects do you think that will have?

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#4)

Actually the most recent Parliamentary Committee dismissed most of Mad Dorries' claims, saying they were inaccurate and based on propaganda rather than any scientific basis.

The majority still remain firmly behind a woman's right to choose. Thank goodness.

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#5)

But we do need a firm stance against the use of abortion as a kind of contraception: it must be a last resort. I am instinctively against abortion, as I feel it degrades human life. Certainly, it can ruin people's lives with feelings of guilt. I once read an article by a woman in the Guardian who said women should think no more of having an abortion than removing a tumour: I think that's utterly vile - this is a human life. I think the rules regarding abortion should be stringent - definitely no abortions on-demand, and yes to a cooling-off period. We on the left are all about the value of human life; sometimes we betray that in debates on abortion, which is regrettable.

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#6)

We on the left are about women's rights too- not those of unborn foetuses and balls of cells.

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#8)

And women's responsibilities too? And children's rights? The loss of life to the foetus is a greater denial of rights than any harm inflicted on the woman. But I don't think rights-based arguments work here: life is sacred in any form, that should be our starting point. A society with adequate social support for women, and adequate sex education and freely available contraception, should have no need for abortion. I never understand the basis of the 'a woma's right to choose' arguments - could you enlighten me?

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#7)

"this is a human life"

And that's where we disagree.

Re: Nadine Dorries: Playing Politics With Ethics (#9)

Why is that? Is that on some scientific basis (in which case it'll change with time) or do you believe that the foetus becomes human when it's born? I'd be interested to see what you define as the essence of being human too. Surely the fact is that any zygote, all else being constant, will become a human being - and therefore should be treated as such. Does the 2-minutes post-birth neonate have any greater faculties or human-ness than it did 2 minutes before? I suspect not. There is nothing particular about the moment the umbilical cord is cut that suddenly changes a foetus into a human being, surely? I can't see how anyone on the left can have so little regard for life.