The politics of abortion
There can be no more emotive topic, nor one that more clearly underscores the villainy of government versus the sensitivity of anarchism than the difficult matter of abortion.
Nadine Dorries, bless her cotton socks, has decided from her vantage point on the massive moral high ground she enjoys (living off the proceeds of extortion, generous expense claims, running off with another woman’s husband, etc.) to agitate for severe restrictions on other women’s rights to abortion.
Now abortion is a very difficult issue. People have incredibly strong views on when life begins and what could possibly constitute the murder of an unborn child. Other people have different views, some feel that abortion is simply another form of contraception and have no particular issues with repeatedly undergoing abortions. My view is somewhere in the middle, but crucially, I believe that every person has the right to make their own mind up.
I cannot imagine how a woman or a couple must feel, having to make the decision to have an abortion. But the truth of the matter is that it is something where you can advise, offer opinions or discuss, but the ultimate decision rests with the woman. It is her body.
Having any kind of law decreeing when, how and under what circumstances a woman can undergo abortion will often mean that difficult and unpleasant situations can be even more so. Especially when those laws are drafted by dogmatic, hypocritical lunatics.
In an anarchist society, the decision would rest completely with the woman, because it is her body. The individual beliefs of the woman, one way or the other, would have the ultimate deciding power. Small-minded dogmatists would quite rightly be marginalised, which is, in my opinion, the way life should be lived.
- September 2, 2011 at 23:34
-
The Daily Mash has a good take on the mad Nads abortion situation
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/government-decides-more-unhappy-people-will-help-201108304247/
-
September 2, 2011 at 16:55
-
My posts are being placed incorrectly.
-
September 2, 2011 at 16:53
-
I am appalled. If these women don’t care enough to prevent pregnancy in the
first place, then I would suggest that they have other issues that need
addressing far more importantly.
It has not been necessary to get pregnant
by accident since 19 bloody 65, and don’t I ever know about that.
50 years
on there is still an issue. And babies are still being killed.
Yer, right, I am anti abortion for me. The rest of the world can go do what
it wants. Not my choice to decide what they will do. But the whole thing is
seriously damaging for the female body. It creates a breed of women who never
quite get over it. A breed of women who have a choice not to get pregnant in
the first place.
- September 2, 2011 at 18:16
-
While these may or may not be reasons to have an abortion, contraception
can fail, people get raped, and people can be stupid, mentally ill or poor
and not be able to raise their child as well as they would like.
- September 4, 2011 at 06:28
-
My late wife got pregnant, after unprotected sex once, even though she
had half an ovary and one fallopian tube, the ensuing male offspring is now
23 years of age, six feet one and a joy to behold, So personally if the
woman,s fertile , i think nature will find a way
- September 2, 2011 at 18:16
- September 2, 2011 at 16:52
-
Almost 20 years ago, I accidentally impregnated a lady with whom I was
having a relationship – I say ‘accidentally’ because a viral condition had
inhibited her contraceptive pills, unknown to either of us at the time.
I had always been an unconditional supporter of abortion but, faced with
the real emotions of the issue, I found it far harder than I had ever
imagined. We genuinely agonised about the decision, weighing all the
implications (both being married to others at the time, but childless) and
envisaging the future circumstances of the child. I eventually concluded that
I would accommodate whatever decision she reached, it being her body. As a
result, a termination was undertaken, but with considerable regret and
discomfort on both sides.
At about the same time, a neighbour was expecting a baby – whenever I have
seen this child thereafter, I find myself imagining what our own child would
have been like at a parallel age, each time revisiting the decision process
and wondering if we got it right.
I still defend the right of any woman to make that decision about her own
body, whether with formalised counselling or not, but please do not
underestimate the difference between taking that position in principle and
making that decision in practice – the latter is nowhere near as easy for
either party.
-
September 2, 2011 at 07:55
-
Can I ask a stupid question? Why do these women get pregnant in the first
place?
-
September 2, 2011 at 13:00
-
To answer those questions in turn:
1. Apparently so
2. Mostly by accident. Is there a “why” to
accidents?
- September 3, 2011 at 10:42
-
P-Naut99, you are bing disingenuous.
Women get pregnant, in all but one case recorded in history, by having
a spermatazoum fertilise an egg in their fallopian tubes. Usually this is
as a result of sex, although there are other ways of introducing the
sperm.
In every case where someone has sex, there is a probablility of
becoming pregnant. Given the large numbers of people who have sex every
day, the laws of probability kick in and some become pregnant.
Perhaps the question Thaddeus J Wilson should be asking above is “Who
has the right to demand that they be shielded from the consequences of
their actions?” We would (mostly) demand that a drunken driver who killed
a line of people queuing at a bus stop suffer consequences for his/her
actions. Why is sex different? Now please be aware that I am not
considering such cases as rape in this argument. Pregnancy as a result of
rape is to me akin to diablement caused by the drunken driver I posited
above.
- September 3, 2011 at 11:20
-
I’m not being disingenuous. Very few unwanted pregnancies occur on
purpose. “I want to get pregnant so I can abort it.” Seriously, who does
that?
It might be through recklessness, or foolishness, or ignorance or any
number of other reasons. It might even be through pressure from the
other person who’s involvement is necessary for a pregnancy to
occur.
Now, you are correct that all pregnancies throughout history have
been as a result of sex. Even the exception you mention was
fictional.
But people are shielded from the consequences of their actions every
day. An injured rugby player isn’t left to fix his own broken leg
because he knew the risks of playing rugby. Similarly, as a rule,
pedestrians who get hit crossing the road aren’t left to bleed out on
the pavement because everyone knows it would have been safer to use the
subway.
So, loads of people get shielded from the consequences of their
actions. All the time. Every day. I’m not sure why women who get
pregnant are considered to be the exception.
-
September 3, 2011 at 12:30
-
Yes. Compassion needs to temper all one’s thinking.
The pain of
the human condition won’t go away.
I think the problem with regard to pregnancy and abortion is that
the political agenda people (Frankfurt School, Fabianista types) got
in on the act to further a specific social control agenda and this has
distorted the whole issue away from being primarily about compassion,
either way (for the new life or mother).
-
September 3, 2011 at 20:08
-
But the drinker whose liver is knackered due to excessive alcohol
consumption gets refused a transplant and I see that as a more
comparable situation to someone who gets pregnant because they have
consensual sex and for whatever reason they do not have effective
contraception including the morning after pill. The only comparison
that ties in directly with your examples is pregnancy as a result of
rape.
Sorry, you do not agree that there has been artificial insemination
by donor? Can you prove, beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus’
conception was not immaculate? It may not have been repeated, but that
is not the same.
Perhaps one of the reasons our society is in the state it is in is
that too many people expect the state to pay to shield them from the
consequences of their choices.
- September 4, 2011 at 06:20
-
“So, loads of people get shielded from the consequences of their
actions. All the time. Every day. I’m not sure why women who get
pregnant are considered to be the exception.”
Because it’s not just the woman’s life to consider, is it? Unlike
most other instances of ‘shielding from consequences’.
-
- September 3, 2011 at 11:20
- September 3, 2011 at 10:42
-
- September 1, 2011 at 20:51
-
Where does life begin and end, and who has the right to kill?
- September 2, 2011 at 13:35
- September 2, 2011 at 13:35
- September 1, 2011 at 19:24
-
AR,
Disclaimer – I’m a male.
I agree with you entirely. Abortion has
always been with the human race. I grew up in Central Africa where the old
women all knew which roots and stuff to boil up to make a concoction which
would induce a miscarriage.
Now that modern medical methods can remove a
foetus from a woman’s body with relative safety, it is up to the pregnant
woman, and her alone, to decide whether or not to avail herself of the
abortion. Abortion should be a medical procedure available to a woman on
demand. There should be no moralising, preaching, counselling or any other
interference with the woman’s personal decision.
-
September 1, 2011 at 19:17
-
Look at that amazing thing over there.
*points over everyone’s shoulders*
*runs away*
-
September 1, 2011 at 19:13
-
Abortion is, as everyone has quite rightly said, a difficult issue. Anyone
who says it isn’t sort of disqualifies themselves from meaningful
participation in the debate, if you ask me.
Nadine Dorries’ proposal might SEEM reasonable, but there are warning
flags. The first and most obvious of those is that it’s an idea supported by
Nadine Dorries. The second is the limitation on who should give the
counselling. The abortion providers are excluded, because, according to Ms
Dorries, they have a financial conflict of interest. They can’t be trusted to
give counselling because they’ll encourage women to have abortions so that
they might profit thereby. Then they’ll laugh like mad scientists in an old
Republic serial, presumably.
So, therefore, who should provide the “counselling” and what form should
that counselling take? “Counselling” is a beautifully vague word which can
mean anything from moral support, through factual advice and therapeutic
intervention, to moralistic hectoring. I am unconvinced as to which type of
counselling is being envisaged here. Dorries’ misleading press release
claiming support from the BACP has not reassured me.
But I suppose the further point is why should counselling be required
anyway. People make all kinds of serious decisions everyday without a half-wit
MP saying they need counselling first. They get married, buy houses, get
divorced, have children, submit bogus expenses claims… Dorries doesn’t reckon
they should get counselling before those. But they need it for this. For
something which she disapproves of. Funny that.
- September 1, 2011 at 21:55
-
You missed most of the point Nadine Dorries is only ONE of the sponsors
of the bill Frank Field is the other.
Other than that, any ‘counselling’ required should be independent and NOT
given by those with any financial stake in the proceedings. Who those
councillors are is a different topic altogether.
- September 1, 2011 at 21:55
- September 1, 2011 at 18:57
-
You want to do something I disagree with? OK, well you can do it, but jump
through some hoops first. “Independent” advice. Yup, that will be £money money
money. Oh, can’t afford that well on the waiting list for NHS funded services
you go. But that will take you over 24 weeks. Sorry. Next.
Want to smoke tobacco, well you can, but you need some counselling first …
and a licence … and a Dr to say it is OK ….
Want to drink alcohol, well off to the therapist you go …. etc etc.
I don’t want children, never have. Never had an abortion either but I can
see the way the wind is blowing so got sterilised at age 39. My body, my
choice. 1 week, 24 weeks or 41 weeks.
- September 2, 2011 at 18:10
-
But it’s not just your body. Say you were 24 weeks pregnant and wanted to
abort. You turn up at the hospital, the doctors lie to you and instead of
killing the baby, they take it out and put it in an incubator. Now that the
baby isn’t inside your body any more, does that give you the right to kill
it? If not, then why do you still have the right to kill it if it spends
another 10 weeks inside you?
Let’s put this another way. On the way to your abortion, you are hit by a
bus and become unconscious. You are taken to hospital where you are cut open
and the baby is taken out. Both you and the baby survive. You were intending
not to have the baby, but now you are a mother through no fault of your own
(unless you were driving dangerously). Do you still have the right to kill
the baby?
- September 2, 2011 at 18:10
- September 1, 2011 at 18:29
-
My wife’s sister was a nurse in the Army, she told us of an abortion she
participated in where the “foetus” took about an hour to die.
“free transaction” you say!
- September 1, 2011 at
18:02
-
I simply can’t understand what all the fuss is about. All Ms Dorries is
asking that prior to agreeing to have an abortion, women should have access to
genuinely independent advice. There are alternatives such as adoption or even
bringing up a child single handed , There are difficulties with doing that,
but there can also be difficulties following an abortion such as inability to
conceive at a later date, and also an increased risk of mental health
problems.
I have no strong views on abortion, although I would prefer the
use of contraception in the first place. My views are, however, coloured by
knowing a lady of my age who almost bursts into tears each time she sees us
with our 2year old grandson. She had an abortion in her thirties, never
managed to have another child, and realises that she could probably have
brought up the child by herself, and if she had, she too might be a
grandparent.
- September 1, 2011 at 17:24
-
Forgive me if my maleness is present , but surely the matter of choice
about what a woman does with her own body , cannot be solved without there
being women to have the choice . we all came from the womb of a mother , and
it seems reasonable to suggest that as a group of people , all women have come
from wombs of females .
Ergo in order to have the choice in the first place
, someone else must of chosen to keep you , rather than abort you . the female
who begot you , must also had some conscious activity to do so , death to the
mother means that the baby cannot be expelled from the womb into life , but
must be cut open , if it is still living . To argue against abortion in cases
of medical crisis is to eliminate for those concerned the choice of their
personal life or personal death , However much the baby concerned will be
devoid of liberty in that aspect . As this pertains to the change in the law ,
Abortion advice is too be given by those who do not have a interest in
Providing abortion , which is as sensible as limiting the teaching of religion
by Religious Cults and sects . i.e very .
- September 2, 2011 at 13:32
- September 2, 2011 at 13:32
- September 1, 2011 at 17:20
-
I,m neither for nor against abortion,but Ialways say to the pro
abortionists I bet your glad your mother wasnt in favour [ when i was a young
man many years ago ,i impregnated a young lady who wanted to commit suicide
rather than have an abortion or a baby, it was a very traumatic few weeks till
she had an abortion
- September
1, 2011 at 16:47
-
“to agitate for severe restrictions on other women’s rights to
abortion.”
Disclaimer: I am a papist.
I think this post is pure unmitigated bollocks. I could be wrong. But tell
me. Is the proposed amendment – sponsored not only by Dorris, as one would
think from the press coverage, but also by Frank Field – not simply
this:
(1A)
In this section, information, advice and counselling
is independent where
it is provided by either—
(i)
a private body
that does not itself provide for the termination of pregnancies;
or
(ii)
a statutory body.”.’.
This is not “any kind of law decreeing when, how and under what
circumstances a woman can undergo abortion “. Is it? I ask because what you’ve
written seems to be so contrary to what seems to me to be the case, that I
worry I have missed something.
There is no compulsory pre-abortion counselling requirement (which would in
any case rule out most Catholic counselling bodies, as providing evidence such
counselling is considered to facilitate abortion).
What it would rule out is the highly dubious practice of counselling being
provided by bodies who make money from carrying out abortions, or who have an
interest in pushing them. I wouldn’t want a friend considering suicide to go
to Dignitas for counselling. It would be cheeky of Dignitas to offer
counselling for the suicidal, unless one meant the already decided.
Women aren’t stupid (I am one, so I may be biased) – they won’t go to the
Helpers of God’s Precious Infants if they don’t want Religious Pro-Life
Fanatics, or Dogmatic Hypocritical Lunatics, to counsel them.
Again – all the law would mean is that women considering an abortion who
ask for counselling would receive counselling not from people who may have, it
is reasonable to suppose (and I gather this is all that bias means in law), an
interest in her having the abortion.
- September 1, 2011 at 16:49
-
I am of course an ass who doesn’t close html tags. Sorry. And I should
have gone and read the whole of the proposed bill, but when considering
sending in a guest post on this subject I concluded I didn’t have time to do
the necessary reading. Anyone who knows better please correct me.
- September 1, 2011 at
16:50
- September 2, 2011 at 13:29
- September 1, 2011 at 16:49
- September 1, 2011 at 16:41
-
Mad Nad’s position as explained by Engineer above does on the face of it
sound quite reasonable. The worry seems to be that this is just the start of a
long war of attrition to ban abortion on demand altogether. The state really
shouldn’t get involved other than to set a gestation limit (24 weeks is
probably still about right). Neutral counselling can’t do any harm if that’s
what a woman chooses – can it?
- September 2, 2011 at 13:26
- September 2, 2011 at 13:26
- September 1, 2011 at 15:47
-
This is not a topic on which I feel at all qualified to give opinion, so I
won’t. However, I did hear a brief item on a BBC news programme in which a
journalist who had undergone abortions in the past spoke of her experiences,
and in which Nadine Dorries explained her position. It seems that Ms Dorries
wants women to have counselling (but only if they wish to) before they make
their decision. She emphasised that she was not dictating to anyone. The
jounalist’s account of her experiences seemed to bear out the sense of Ms
Dorries’ proposals.
Abortion is a very emotive subject, and it does seem to be one that
attracts a great deal of subjective – or outright distorted – reporting. That
certainly doesn’t help the relatively uninformed, such as myself, to form a
balanced judgement.
- September 1, 2011 at 16:16
-
PS – On re-reading, it might seem that I’m aiming that last paragraph at
Mr Wilson. I’m not – and if I gave that impression to him I apologise
unreservedly, because he expressed his thoughts in a considered and
temperate manner. The point was meant in the wider context of the
debate.
- September 1, 2011 at 16:16
- September 1, 2011 at 15:17
-
This is an area where my normally full-on libertarian views are tempered
somewhat. Whilst I support the right to choose, something makes me think there
needs to be a time limit. I understand this to be currently 24 weeks (except
in very special circumstances). The rationale seems to be that at 24 weeks the
foetus is probably viable. Intuitively, this makes sense. Some on the
libertarian edge may argue that until the foetus is born, it is not a person
and therefore does not warrant protection. But the logical conclusion is that
abortion should then be an available option until the waters break – this
doesn’t seem right.
I recognise, however, that my opinions on this matter are necessarily
incomplete. Being among the half of the population who can never bear
children, I feel that any views I hold can not be based on a full
understanding of the emotions involved. Having said that, my partner is 24
weeks pregnant today (exactly apparently), and so I do have some skin in the
game – but nowhere near as much as my partner.
But back to Ms Dorries; Yes, she is an interfering busybody who’s agenda is
clearly to limit the choices of women, or to steer them into a “keep it”
decision.
-
September 2, 2011 at 13:02
-
Yes. Because what the world definitely needs is more unwanted children born
to poor people and/or more backstreet abortions.
- September 2, 2011 at 18:21
-
True for any healthcare intervention. I know smokers pay more in tobacco
tax than they cost, but many people who smoke aren’t the brightest of the
bunch, and if they had to pay for their own lung cancer treatment then it
might reduce the number of smokers. (Yes, I know most people on here who smoke
will have considered the risks and decided it is still worth it, or think the
risks are overrated, but the truth remains that most smokers know it is bad
for them but can’t / don’t want to stop.)
- September
4, 2011 at 06:23
-
What the world certainly doesn’t need is yet more people reared to believe
life is disposable.
{ 61 comments }