Oh yes its always alarming when we mere ordinary people are presented with some facts. Please let me assure you you must do all in your power to stop me knowing things so that I can live in blissful ignorance under your benevolent rule.

I do mind you, Don’t Mind Me. Right this minute, I mind you very much.

Absolutely, facts must be released. The problem is that a rightwing press and the walking deranged in the political class (morning, Nadine) use facts to create a completely unjustified hysteria around abortion… you may remember Nads’ photo of a fetus waving to us through a hole its mother’s womb during surgery – Nads told us that that was evidence that a fetus could think and feel at 22 weeks’ gestation or whatever it was… I mean to say. Jesus wept. The facts are distorted by those who find distortion politically expedient.

The facts are that the number of late term abortions carried out is very small – around one or two percent of all terminations – and there’s usually a solid reason for the termination at that stage – a woman didn’t realise that she was pregnant, the baby has been found to have a disability, and so on. Late abortion is an important, but rarely utilised, service.

Unfortunately, the likes of the Telegraph use late abortion figures to stir up doubt about all aspects of abortion – by putting late abortion at the forefront of the abortion debate, the right wing is able to generate an hysteria around the notion of termination generally. You are absolutely right to say that figures must be released, but Dina is absolutely right to suggest that she’s concerned that pro life nutters will start distorting them and threaten the whole service. All of us who are committed pro choicers and regular defenders of abortion are concerned about that. Always.

“by putting late abortion at the forefront of the abortion debate, the right wing is able to generate an hysteria around the notion of termination generally. You are absolutely right to say that figures must be released, but Dina is absolutely right to suggest that she’s concerned that pro life nutters will start distorting them and threaten the whole service.”

Haven’t we just had this from the other side about trafficking? That we need the real hard numbers to be available so that we are in fact informed before making decisions?

“statistics to be misused to promote a harmful agenda”

so the state shouldn’t release information about the activities it funds to its citizens if these citizens don’t agree with present government policy?

pro-choicers shouldn’t stifle debate by preventing facts like this being known to the public, instead combat the arguments bolstered by these facts by arguments of their own.

imagine the situation were to be reversed – that we lived in a country where abortion were illegal, and a pro-choice group mounted a FOI request to find out how many women died of botched abortions each year. Surely you wouldn’t think it legitimate for the state to block this request on the grounds that it might be “misused to promote a harmful agenda”

Dina. you’re a journalism student and here you are arguing that information be withheld from the public. This is truly alarming.

If you think there is a problem with the public understanding of statistics and science why don’t you present an argument for journalists to have expertise in the areas they report on to enrich the public debate?

Perhaps because you are a politics graduate writing about medical matters?

I am currently highly concerned about this issue. The rise of the religious right mean it will have to watched over very closely as I fear they could erode the law bit by bit. Stopping late abortions will of course be the start.

One solution would be for the government NOT to collect the statistics. But so long as they have the data, I don’t see why they should have it, and the public not.

And the religious right is rising? Where?

Tim,

Think we’re on the same page – I am arguing for figures to be released and to be easily accessible, and I personally would never argue for anything else. I don’t believe in censorship. I am merely making the point that it gets boring watching the pro life lobby distort those figures. That observation was not supposed to imply that the figures shouldn’t be released. I say again that I don’t believe in censorship, or that censoring resolves problems. It is up to us in the pro choice lobby to pull pro lifers up on distortions, and to make the case for late abortion.

We have a particularly open religious government. Also the church is returning to run our schools in the form of the academy programme. They will teach that abortion is wrong. And nothing else.

Yes, well, the reinsertion of Jesus, Allah and Christ knows who else into public life and office here and around the world is another problem we have to deal with. Horrors.

Erm…I didn’t say I was anti-religion, I said I was worried about religion in politics and education.

I’m anti religion.

Very.

Well I suppose the minority of strongly religious people have certainly become rather more vocal. But I don’t see that as especially a right thing. We have these sorts appearing on all sides – culture warriors on the right, multiculturalists on the left. It is actually surprising how often “culture” is a contemporary stand in for “religious values”. They are certainly the sort of cultures that get given priority, rather than say, goth culture, punk culture or whatever. Of course, I think the main trigger for the problem is that the state, having taken a slight step back from economic planning, has taken to trying its hand at cultural planning.

Good points, Nick.

I think the other problem is that the strongly religious have taken to trying their hand at running the world (again) and the mainstream press is right in there, helping like the misguided twats they are. Like – who the fuck cares where the Pope is on any subject whatsoever (apart from condoms, child sodomy and women priests, of course, where he’s in outer friggn space)? Nonetheless, his journeys around the world and thoughts on this and that political point are reported faithfully. The entire mainstream press stopped and held its breath when the former Polish popey dropped dead and the planet’s press waited to find out who the next pope was going to be, for all the world as if someone gave a shit.

And so on. I could go on, and if this afternoon’s a slow one, I might.

“who the fuck cares where the Pope is on any subject ”

Well, there’s a billion or more at least nominally Catholic people who seem to take an interest…..

I don’t think figures should be held from the public; the openness does mean statistics can be manipulated, but without them we would be left with insinuations and innuendo which would be all the more difficult to counter.

“Well, there’s a billion or more at least nominally Catholic people who seem to take an interest…..”

Yeah, well, maybe, Timbles, but so what? There are millions of people who are into tiddlywinks, stargazing, yeti-spotting and toe-wrestling, but they don’t seem to feel the need to ram their world views down my throat. People are perfectly entitled to kneel before the tin god of their choice – the part I can’t stand is when they try to strong arm their way into politics and other people’s life choices. God botherers really are something else.

“the part I can’t stand is when they try to strong arm their way into politics and other people’s life choices.”

As long as we’re allowed to say that about everyone strong arming their way into politics to promote an ethical agenda. You know, like those who insist that equality, or egalitarianism is something that we must all pay attention to. To the point that people’s life choices must be changed at the point of the law in order to increase that equality?

Why are secular atheist codes of ethics like liberalism or socialism acceptable in politics, while religious monotheist codes of ethics are condemned as being rammed down people’s throats? What is the epistemological difference between one kind of belief, which asserts God as its source, and another, which similarly asserts inalienable rights of man?

Surely anyone and everyone in politics is there to promote an ethical agenda?

I don’t see that keeping figures unpublished wll help anyone. Far better to have data published, and a proper debate.

>Rather than abortions being carried out for ‘cleft palates’ a facial disability which can be corrected by surgery, we can point out the huge number of disabilities and birth defects associated with clefting, which may only be part of the story.

I think that nails it.

@jo
>Also the church is returning to run our schools in the form of the academy programme. They will teach that abortion is wrong. And nothing else.

Have you got a citation for any of that, Jo?

What is the epistemological difference between one kind of belief, which asserts God as its source, and another, which similarly asserts inalienable rights of man?

Argument predicated on beliefs about God are completely inaccessible to anyone with a different conception of God (or none at all). They are philosophically void – they basically boil down to “I believe God wants x“, and that position is completely immune to debate or reason.

Secular arguments, on the other hand, are accessible to all. You may disagree with them, but it is at least possible to debate them on their merits.

Asserting divine sanction for this or that position is the philosophical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “La la la, I can’t hear you”.

Jeez, Tim – now you’re telling me the Pope has an ethical agenda?

Fuck me, bro.

My two cents:

A belief system is not an ethical agenda – it is merely a belief system. To follow the Lord, or Allah, is a personal choice that has no basis in fact. You choose to believe or not to believe in an Almighty, same as you choose to believe or not believe in Santa.

Equalities agendas have their place in civilised life because their essences are factual – men and women are of equivalent intelligence, as are people of all races, and of different sexual orientation, etc. It is also a fact that we are born into those groups – we don’t choose our gender (or gender preferences), or race, etc. We are born. It follows that everyone should have equal opportunities for education, healthcare, employment and so on. One should not be discriminated against on the basis of the facts of one’s birth.

Following God, on the other hand, is a choice. You ain’t born with the Lord. You kind of pick him off a shelf. And that’s fine, except when you start to insist that others follow your lead. That goes for all belief systems.

HOWEVER – we do have to continually fight for equalities agendas on the political scene and are exposed to exactly the sort of scrutiny and pressure you propose we are exposed to. Not sure why you’d think that questioning equalities agendas and taking the piss out of people who propose them would be going somewhere new. Happy clappers are of course entitled to try and push themselves and their wacky views to the fore of political discourse in the same way – I was simply indicating above that I personally wish that they would fuck off, and that blouses like Gordon Brown wouldn’t tiptoe round abortion law hoping not to offend anyone who might a) believe in Jesus and b) vote Labour.

Etc

“Equalities agendas have their place in civilised life because their essences are factual – men and women are of equivalent intelligence, as are people of all races, and of different sexual orientation, etc. It is also a fact that we are born into those groups – we don’t choose our gender (or gender preferences), or race, etc. We are born. It follows that everyone should have equal opportunities for education, healthcare, employment and so on. One should not be discriminated against on the basis of the facts of one’s birth.”

How does it follow? You have stated some positive facts(ish), but how to do they bare on normative values. Also, isn’t there a more fundamental inequality that this agenda misses, that of coercon. I mean, that the state gives some people the power to coerce others to do their bidding, and not the reciprocal power to everyone else. There does not seem to be a greater example of an inequality to me than that.

Gimpy:

It might help matters if I put some numbers to the problem.

The last published set of national abortion statistics showed, IIRC, 147 abortions conducted after 24 weeks on grounds of serious disability of which 12 we listed under ‘other’ and not allocated an ICD code.

For non-geeks, the ICD code tells to the type of disability/condition that the foetus was subject to

Now, on principle, it would be better that these cases were properly coded and the information released at a national level, and if that is all that was being aimed for here it would not prove problematic – in fact, up until 2003, all such cases were fully coded.

The problem arises because once an anti-abortion group gets this full data set, the very next thing they are likely to do – and almost certainly will do – is start firing off FOIA’s to every NHS hospital in England and Wales asking for the same breakdown for any post-24 week abortions carried out at the hospital in an effort to trace each of the newly coded cases to a specific hospital.

That’s what happened in 2003 and, IIRC, it actually went further and the family itself was identified.

The optimum solution would be one in which the data is fully coded in the national stats – which is all that’s needed to inform the public debate – but exempt from disclosure at regional, local and individual hospital level, an arrangement that could probably only be put fully into place and locked in via the High Court.

‘There’s clearly a tension here between the public’s right to access information and the potential for statistics to be misused to promote a harmful agenda. ‘

That is authoritarian rubbish. The public’s right to access information is a legitimate right which should only be abrogated if there’s a clear threat to the rights of other people (eg giving the whereabouts of someone who has testified against a gang member; naming a child who has been the subject of abuse). Some people may then dishonestly cite data to back up their arguments, but that is not an argument for refusing to release the figures. If people use data in ways which you dislike, tough: get out there and say how they have distorted the information and why you think their arguments are wrong.

Unity’s right: the real tension here is between the public’s right to freedom of information and the right of individual doctors (or abortion clients) not to be identified, and possibly harassed, as a result of releasing the data. And as he’s pointed out, there’s a solution to this.

I think the argument here and the case that the author is making is not about suppression of information but responsible use of these facts. Pressure groups will always try to “prove” their case by quoting statistics in a de-contextualised way.

As the author suggests (and hasn’t been addressed in comments to date) there is a need to deconstruct the claims made by these pressure groups to try to move towards a more rational debate

Hear Hear. But please. It’s “foetus”. Foetus foetus foetus. We are not America yet.

2. “Pro life nutters”. Err, um: “nutters” well.

So let me be clear because I am not sure I understand.

Your position is that anyone who believes that abortion is morally wrong or perhaps even debatable, is mentally derranged?

Because it appears to me that abortion is clearly something that is a deeply moral issue, and that alternative views of varying degrees of restriction on abortion are held by sane people across the spectrum of the abortion debate, and these views are rational.

I find it impossible to imagine that anyone, including yourself can not agree with the assertion that the mother-unborn child relationship, and where the line is drawn is at the very least contestable.

Parliament has determined the current compromise, but obviously such a compromise must be subject to constant review in the light to changes in technology and society.

One way the review happens in a rational way, is for all the data to be published reguarly and not to allow anyone to hide behind conspiratorial notions that naturally fill the space which otherwise non-publication would leave.

On course you might of the view that abortion should be allowed right up to and post term. (I have heard it seriously argued) and therefore you might be in my eyes a “nutter”.

I would be interested in your view of abortion just so I can judge where on the nutty scale you sit, and therefore form an informed judgement of why you think being pro life is comensurate with being insane.

“It’s “foetus”.”

Well, no, “it was foetus”, the whole point of abortion being turning a foetus into a not-foetus, surely?

What scares me is that we have right-wing newspapers bending the truth if it doesn’t fit some undefined “correct” agenda.

Scary world you righties are trying to build…

Always very funny to watch the Right wing so called freedom lovers and fake libertarians deny a woman the right to control her own body.

Next time the Daily torygraph is spouting about govt regulations, we can remind them that they want the govt to control womans bodies, because they just hate the idea of woman having sex for fun.

26. Unity
I disagree with you that data be locked at a regional and local level. It may be possible to have clusters of late term abortions in particular locales and the reasons for this may need to be investigated. This would be difficult with inaccessible data.
On the subject of identifying individuals, I’d hope the data would be anonymised and it is a criminal offense to harass someone so again I’d hope the law would act as sufficient deterrent to prevent this.

[deleted]

38 Pro coat hanger ” I’m quite keen on women having sex for fun, but need I remind you that women in the UK, unlike men, have access to free contraception?

And I don’t need to remind you that both the Catholic church and the American anti abortion movement are anti contraception.(Both are well promoted by the Torygrapgh,) In fact, the American anti abortion movement have made it clear that once they get abortion banned they will start trying to get Contraception banned.

They pretend that it is all about morality, and pleasing their pretend cloud man in the sky, but actually it is about men who just hate woman having power over their own bodies. As has been said before if men could get pregnant abortion would be legal all over the world in a heartbeat,

[deleted]

“And the connection to a discuss ion about late term abortion in the UK is…?”

The torygraph is very much pro right wing American Republican, which is anti abortion, and has been pushing their agenda on the UK for years. The head of the Catholic church in the UK says he wants a more American style politics in this country regarding abortion. ( I guess that means he would also like to see doctors shot who carry out abortions.)

The point is the anti abortion movement is the same the world over, Late term 24 weeks, 20 weeks it is all the same to them. They want all abortion banned. If they can’t do it in one go then they will happily try salami style slice by slice.

[deleted]

Gimpy:

The clustering issue is an important one and certainly warrants the release of data to individual hospital level into the research community and to clinical governance, I’m just not sure its a strong enough argument for a full public release given the known risks.

The data will certainly be anonymised but the anti-lobby is highly motivated to get hold of this data in the belief that’ll find something they can build a ‘foetus in a bucket’ story out of and to be honest, having spent a lot of time on this issue, I wouldn’t like to bank on the law being a sufficient deterrent.

Unity 42.

Yes, I agree some elements of the anti-lobby can be particularly motivated but that, imho, is not sufficient to argue against statistical openness. Certainly an issue to consider deeply though.

“‘foetus in a bucket’ story ”

Err, that’s actually the point of making the data public, isn’t it?

(I should reveal here, for those that don’t know, that I personally am vehemently anti-abortion, whenever, for whatever reasons. But having revealed that, back to the main point.)

We are told that late abortions are only ever made because of the incredibly difficult decisions concerning disability. The law is, for better or worse, that up to 24 weeks this is not a person, the foetus, something less than human which does not have the law’s protection to the right to life. After 24 weeks it is, except…..

We also are told that there is some (very small) number of late abortions.

Allow me to make an analogy: with capital punishment. Yes, harsh and so on. But this country for at least a couple of centuries has not had capital punishment at the level of 167 executions a year. But it does have a late abortion level of 167 a year. We all would be, left and right, religious and not, be screaming blue bloody murder if there were 167 executions a year if someone told us that, well, no, we’re not allowed to know the details of why this happened.

The law, as it stands, says that a foetus past 24 weeks is a human being worthy of the same protections as the rest of us in its and our right to life. We can argue about whether that is so till the cows come home….but if that is indeed the law then we really do want to know whether that right has been denied in just the same manner as we want to know whether, under a system of capital punishment, a human being has been executed unfairly (or in error, however you wish to put it).

The very point of releasing the figures is, to my mind, exactly the same as would be that everyone gets a fail trial. The law says that late abortions can only be done on those who are less than fully human for reasons of disability.

So, were they?

“They pretend that it is all about morality, and pleasing their pretend cloud man in the sky, but actually it is about men who just hate woman having power over their own bodies. As has been said before if men could get pregnant abortion would be legal all over the world in a heartbeat,”

As arguments go, that’s really sophisticated…good luck with your GCSE’s by the way.

But it’s true troll.

And it oviously touched a nerve. No doubt you see yourself as the kind of twat I describe.

Late term abortions ruling could be alarming http://alturl.com/wzh6 #prochoice #TrustWomen