So why do you single out Galloway?

Was there any discussion on the LRC national committee about mandating the LRC MPs.

Yet we were told it was “shameful” by Tami Peterson , who is actualy on the LRC national committee, that we were not mandating galloway.

Did the LRC steering committee discuss it? Why is it shameful for Respect, but not even worthy of comment about the LRC MPs?

oops, meant to be “if we are always just defending we will see those rights pushed back”

I understand what you mean by the status quo but we have to remember the anti abortionists will not give up and go away. any chance they will take it to undermine the rights we have. They may have been won, but they are always at risk.

We can be pretty sure the anti abortionists will have been putting pressure on MPs. Some of them may see agreeing to a time limit as a compromise. Of course the anti abortionists will see that as encouragement to go further. My concern is the left havent been fully behind this campaign and actively making comtact with MPs on this and countering the emotive and scientifically doubtful crap of Nadine Dorries.

And as for the status quo and a right won I would argue what we have is not good enough. We need to campaign for one doctors signature . Im not sure of the figures but im pretty sure lots of women go private for abortions as its quicker and easier . I have to say if i was ever in that position I probably would as contrary to other myths most women want to do it early and don’t wake up at 20 odd weeks and suddenly decide to abort.

If we are always just defending we will see those rights defending, we will always be on the backfoot. And it doesnt help if we have as leaders men who won’t vote to defend and push for the rights of women to control their own bodies.

My point was only that you don’t constantly hear left-wingers talking about abortion rights because, in the eyes of most of the public at least, these are something that we already have. Frankly I’ll fall off my chair if that changes tomorrow, although I accept that it always pays to be vigilant.

I definitely agree with the idea that liberals can never accept definitive answers, so I think if anyone on the left is ignoring these questions it must be those on the illiberal left who can’t deal with the complexities of real life.

Apologies. It is all to easy to pick out the thing you disagree with and comment on that. I should have made it clear that apart from the caveat I had, and have, in 3, I agree completely with the rest of your post.

I think that the current consensus is right. Nadine Dorries thinks otherwise. The problem that we have is that Nadine Dorries is an MP and can put up motions that will effect us all. Which is her right as an MP. It is also our right to say that she is misusing her position and bringing parliamentary democracy into disrepute. At least, that’s how I see it.

Incidentally, her ‘arguement’, if you can call it that, is an appeal to emotion, rather than reason. Whilst I have my own views on the subject, it is worth recognising that as well as being anti abortion, the fragrant Ms Dorries is also agin contraception. Ms Dorries is attempting to take on a ‘moral majority’ hat, the likes of which has not been seen since Mary Whitehouse popped her clogs.

There’s been a lot said about the vote tomorrow on the Embryology Bill because it’s a specific, and one where there’s at least some notional risk of a setback to abortion rights. Otherwise, rightly or wrongly, I suppose people see the right to abortion as a battle already won.

Also: opinions don’t divide down straight left-right lines on this.

I take your point, but it is completely grotesque for a potential parent to deliberately select for a disability whether state funded or not. As someone else said, if my parents had done that to me, I’d have sued them and everyone else in the firing line.

I think that is what it comes down to for me. If a family (or even a community) are prepared to support a hearing impaired child without state intervention (in other words take on the costs of their choice), then I think the parents have a right to select, even for disabilities. But in the context of the welfare state, perhaps it is a choice too far.

Where I would draw a line in the sand is in deliberately choosing for disability, however narrowly defined. Which, it seems to me at least, that you are hinting at here:

People with disability are often angry that it’s a ground for abortion. Are we trying to create perfection? On the flip side some with a disability, such as the hearing impaired, argue for the right to have a child with the same disability as them.

If it is an outcome of chance, then fair enough. But deliberately engineering it in? I think not.

That is a designer choice too far, I think, and would take dependency culture to a whole new level.

Its not representative of the left as a whole who tend to be more preoccupied with other issues, as I mention in the post.

Not if this site is anything to go by! How high does the proportion of posts that are about abortion as opposed to any of the huge variety of other issues thy could be about have to get?