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.

Jabba the Cat 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/

Elena ‘andcart
September 2, 2011 at 16:55

My posts are being placed incorrectly.

Elena ‘andcart
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.

JSmith 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.

robbo 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

Mudplugger 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.

Elena ‘andcart
September 2, 2011 at 07:55

Can I ask a stupid question? Why do these women get pregnant in the first
place?

Psychonaut99
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?

uk Fred 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.

Psychonaut99 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.

John B
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).

UK Fred
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.

JuliaM 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’.

John B September 1, 2011 at 20:51

Where does life begin and end, and who has the right to kill?

Thaddeus J.
Wilson September 2, 2011 at 13:35

Who has the right to decide these difficult questions on other people’s
behalf? And your second question is clearly emotive.

Trooper Thompson September 3, 2011 at 11:57

Life begins at conception, obviously.

You only have a right to kill in self-defence.

A woman owns her body and has a right to terminate a pregnancy, but
there is no right to kill the baby. It it can survive outside the womb it
should be allowed to.

This is the ‘evictionist’ argument – the sensible middle ground!

John B September 3, 2011 at 12:09

Emotive? Not intended. I guess it just is. If it is.

Steve Brown 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.

Psychonaut99
September 1, 2011 at 19:17

Look at that amazing thing over there.

*points over everyone’s shoulders*

*runs away*

Psychonaut99
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.

ivan 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.

berenike September 3, 2011 at 12:33

Hooray, someone else gets the simple point. And makes it more
straightforwardly than I did.

Ice Queen 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.

JSmith 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?

Gallovidian 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!

English
Pensioner 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.

Anna
Raccoon September 1, 2011 at
18:14

Ms Dorries is asking for yet another hurdle to be crossed in what should
be a free transaction.

berenike September 1, 2011 at 22:48

No she’s not.

Here’s Frank Field (it’s his amendment too, though you’d
never know it).

Here’s a wee quote:
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that
the advice and counselling services, which tax payers provide for women
when considering abortion, are provided independently from the body that
carries out the abortion.

Frank Field voted against an amendment to ban abortions after 18 weeks
in 1990. Read what he writes – I think you’ll notice that he’s not exactly
pushing a “limit abortions” line.

As it stands, women are sent on taxpayers’ money to be counselled by
people paid by organisations which make money from performing abortions.

(Dogmatic Hypocritical Lunatics such as the Good Counsel Network
receive no public money for counselling, or for supporting pregnant women
with material and other difficulties through their pregnancies and
afterwards.)

David C
September 1, 2011 at 23:50

If Berenike is correct, and my hurried research on the subject
suggests that he is, then the propaganda against Dorries is little short
of libellous. Can anyone provide evidence of ‘yet another hurdle’
mentioned by AR? If not, the post should be reconsidered.

berenike September 3, 2011 at 12:09

I’s a she!

I’m beginning to wonder about this whole abortion thing. I used to
think most people who were for legal abortion were so because they
cared for women in difficult situations. But here’s an amendment that
(as far I can see, and no-one has shown otherwise at least on this
blog) merely acts to prevent organisations that profit from abortion
from taking taxpayer’s money to counsel those women considering
abortion. You can see for yourselves the hysteria. What is provoking
it? Does it not strike any of you as odd, to say the least?

derfe 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 .

Thaddeus J.
Wilson September 2, 2011 at 13:32

But you’re missing the point. Everyone who offers counselling about
abortion without offering the service, counsels against it.

uk Fred September 3, 2011 at 10:27

But TJW, anyone offering counselling on unwanted pregnancy who provides
an abortion service has an inbuilt tendency to push abortion as the
solution to the unwanted pregnancy.

I will nail my colours to the mast right away. I believe that life
starts at conception. From this flows my view that abortion is no less
than murder of an unborn child.

I do not take on this illogical argument that it is a woman’s right to
choose what happens with her body all the time. Except for cases of rape,
the woman has chosen to have sex. she simply wants to choose to avoid the
consequences of her action, the pregnancy. Now have we seen this morality
elsewhere in the recent past, like in the criminal justice system,
innit.

Given that there is a shortage of infants available for adoption and
given that Britain has an aging population, perhaps it might be better for
society if more unwanted pregnancies were carried to term and the children
adopted, rather than ending in abortion.

gladiolys
September 3, 2011 at 15:29

Wow, what exactly do you think 9 months of unwanted pregnancy would
do to a woman? And you think that using these women as some sort of
milch cow would be ok because it would feed a need for adoption and
replace an ageing population? It seems more like human farming to
me.

UK Fred
September 3, 2011 at 20:23

It is better for me if I do not pay any tax or National Insurance,
but it is better for the country if I do. Applying Gladiolys’
thinking, I should be able to not pay tax. I know, let’s abolish all
tax and increase the amount we raise through the National Lottery,
which is a purely voluntary tax, generally paid by those who can least
afford it. Just so you know, that comment about the National Lottery
was tongue in cheek.

Humans have the facility to decide whether they will have sex or
not, unlikew farm animals who have sex when they are in season or may
even be artificially brought into season to have more offspring than
they would have naturally. It is the situation where a person is given
an easy way out of dealing with the consequences of an action. But
please note that I do not think the males should be getting away free
with impregnating women. We should ensure that some equitable means is
determined to ensure that the father pays for the upkeep of the child,
and the maintenance of the mother at least until the child is of
secondary school age, unless he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that
he was hoodwinked into believing that the woman was totally unable to
get pregnant. It is not human farming. It is called taking
respnsibility for the consequences of your actions.

berenike September 3, 2011 at 15:43

what?

robbo 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

berenike 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.

berenike 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.

Anna
Raccoon September 1, 2011 at
16:50

Excellent comment Berenike.

Thaddeus J.
Wilson September 2, 2011 at 13:29

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.

Indeed, the preferred providers of counselling will now be people who
have strong beliefs against abortion.

Very few people who do not provide abortions offer any neutral
counselling, or counselling in favour of abortions.

berenike September 3, 2011 at 12:26

No. Nononono. From what I read on Frank Field’s blog (I am kicking
myself for not having written this stupid thesis earlier, then I could
take the time to research this and write it up properly), the bill will
mean that local councils will be (perhaps someone already is – NHS?
Councils? I don’t know) required to make counselling services available to
women who request them. Counsellors are, I believe, governed by a
professional body or bodies. You can’t just decide you are good at talking
with people in stressful situations and apply for a job as a counsellor.

Pro-life organisations offer helplines and whatnot to women considering
abortion on their own money – I’m not aware of *any* who have a government
contract for this sort of thing (perhaps LIFE, but their non-directive
counselling is considered unacceptable by most pro-lifers). This amendment
deals only, exclusively, with what bodies can be approved as providers of
“state” services.

I should say I think that while I am glad that someone has noticed this
clash of interests – why isn’t the Taxpayer’s Alliance saying “hang on,
something fishy here?”, and it would at least have, perhaps, given people
in fragile emotional states a little more breathing space, I can’t see
what’s so pro-life about it. Which means the mass hysteria is really
giving me to think.

uk Fred September 5, 2011 at 17:01

Even if your comment, TJW, was true, and I do not accept that it is,
why should such beliefs be given less weight than the beliefs of those who
believe that human life can be eliminated and flushed down a sluice?

This is a value judgement, and I have not seen anywhere a good reason
why one person’s values should be given greater weight than another’s.

It sounds very much like you are a tolerant liberal, who will allow
others to say what they want, so long as you agree with their
sentiments.

Stabledoor 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?

Thaddeus J.
Wilson September 2, 2011 at 13:26

It’s not exactly neutral counselling that is being advocated though.

Engineer 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.

Engineer 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.

James Rigby 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.

Anna
Raccoon September 1, 2011 at
15:32

I’m not interested in whether the limit is 22 weeks, 24 weeks, or 75
bleeding weeks – its a red herring.
My body, my choice what risks to take
with it.
I would never choose an abortion – far too rooted in disgust
around the taking of life.
What I object to is the medical lobby using
the parliamentary process to maintain control over who and when has a safe
abortion.
Speaking as someone whose life commenced before the Abortion
Act, I am only too painfully aware that women have always had abortions,
always will.
I’ve lost good friends that way – and lain in a hospital bed
myself, for other reasons, next to a young girl who screamed in agony
throughout the night until she finally died mid morning.
The abortion act
didn’t stop women dying in agony or screaming through the night.
It
didn’t ‘start’ abortions.
It merely gave a powerful lobby the right to
decide who could have a (reasonably) safe abortion, and who
couldn’t.
Mostly on the emotive basis of a young Irish – southern Irish –
girl who claimed, possibly truthfully, to have been raped, and who wasn’t
allowed to leave that ‘Neanderthal’ country for the nice safe abortion
friendly haven that Britain was supposed to become…….
Its not about when
life begins, its not about ‘safe’ limits.
Its about control. State
control. Decorated with a million emotive red herrings.

Stabledoor
September 1, 2011 at 16:37

I totally respect your views on the morality of abortion – it should be
up to the individual woman to decide, but I think it would be reasonable
to conclude that the abortion act massively reduced the number of women
dying as the result of botched back street procedures and made it
relatively straightforward for those that wanted an abortion to get one
safely. I don’t understand what all these red herrings are?

Anna
Raccoon September 1, 2011 at
16:46

Yes, but if it reduced the risk – why only for some women, in some
categories, ‘if’ they spoke the right words to their all powerful
doctors?
If the object of the act was to reduce the risk of botched
abortions – then you didn’t need all the gatekeeper power handed to
Doctors. You simply permit abortion. full stop.
You don’t really
think that back street and DIY abortions don’t still go on do
you?
What do you think the women refused by the medical lobby do?
Some just have a baby in resignation, but not all.

Stabledoor September 1, 2011 at 17:06

I’m not really getting your sub text here – it is relatively easy
in the UK to get an early stage (under 16 weeks) TOP. After that it
becomes more risky for the mother and late abortions are more
restricted so there is an important medical decision here. The TOP
will be done by a doctor, but there are no shortage of these in the UK
as far as I am aware. I think Doctors should be involved inthe process
and I don’t understand your reference to “the medical lobby”

I’m sure that DIY and backstreet abortions do still go on, but far
fewer than before the Abortion Act thankfully. I would prefer to see
resources go on helping women avoid the complications of backstreet
abortions by making access easier

Anna Raccoon September 1, 2011 at 17:17

It has always been relatively easy to get an abortion in the UK
in the early stages. A bottle of Gin and a scalding hot bath used to
be the first line of attack. Then came the knitting needles, and in
the right hand they were highly successful for thousands of women
for thousands of years. They didn’t all die you know, some
Abortionists were highly successful and highly prized.

“After that it becomes more risky for the mother”

Precisely – and at that point at which it becomes more risky,
what does the medical profession do?

Hmmn, sorry, maybe, oh you’re over the limit……can’t help you.

And this is making abortion safer?

What do you think those women do when it ‘becomes more risky’?

Where do you think the sad little bundles found in skips come
from? Where do you think the abandoned babies come from – someone
just ‘forgot’ where they left it?

A trained chimpanzee can produce a safe abortion at 16 weeks, Its
not rocket science.

Stabledoor September 1, 2011 at 17:44

You’re angry about someting and I’m still not clear what it is.
Do you not think doctors should be involved in abortions? Once the
foetus gets beyond a certain size it becomes harder and riskier to
remove it, but the risks of backstreet abortion rise exponentially
with later stage abortions – medical involvement becomes essential
and you can find doctors willing to do later abortions

Stabledoor September 1, 2011 at 17:46

Sorry – this is in response to Anna at 17.17

Anna Raccoon September 1, 2011 at 18:13

Stabledoor,
I am angry at the hypocrisy.
If you listen
to all the debaters, it is always about whether or not there
‘should’ be abortion – as though in some way it only exists
courtesy of the medical profession and the law.
Then you have
the right to life – arguing about when life begins and when or
if you can legally snuff it out.
My point is simple – there
has always been, for thousands of years, abortions – without all
this debate.
If the law was simply intended to make all
abortion less risky by being carried out by Doctors in
hospitals, then the solution was simple – any woman who wanted
an abortion walked up to the nearest Doctor and asked for – and
got – one.
Instead we got all this nonsense and emotive
argument as to when she could have one – and that is control,
not abolishing risk!
Women don’t’ get an abortion in hospital
now because they want one – they get one because the doctor says
they can have one. They didn’t get all that from the
abortionists – it was their risk, hand over your £100 and lets
get on with it. No moralising.
And I say that as someone who
would not dream of having an abortion, legal or not.

Ex-Pat
Alfie September 1, 2011 at
19:28

That is the way to go. Remove recourse to the public purse
and let abortion become a purely commercial enterprise.

Angry Exile September 2, 2011 at 09:56

Might be fewer of ‘em if it was a free market and
abortions cost money.

Psychonaut99
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.

JSmith 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.)

JuliaM September
4, 2011 at 06:23

What the world certainly doesn’t need is yet more people reared to believe
life is disposable.