WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote


1:41 pm - June 24th 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Remember the attempt by Labour MP Frank Field and Tory MP Nadine Dorries to restrict access for women who desperately need abortion services?

As I pointed out earlier, the two have attached amendments to the Health and Social Care (NHS) Bill, which aim to exclude the most knowledgeable providers of information to women on abortions.

The amendments would have gone to a vote, but now Field and Dorries want to circumvent that too.

The Liverpool Daily Post today reveals that both are about to win the right to push these controversial changes without a vote in Parliament.

Now the Daily Post can reveal the Department of Health (DoH) is exploring how to make the switch without a showdown on the Commons floor – by changing existing regulations.

The proposed change has already triggered anger on the Labour benches, with health spokeswoman Diane Abbott describing it as an attempt to “turn the clock back for millions of women”.

This is outrageous.

This is a big change to current abortion services provision, and yet both these MPs want to foist them on women without even a vote by simply changing procedure. It’s bloody undemocratic too.

Frank Field told the Liverpool Daily Post:

This is a clear conflict of interest that would not be allowed anywhere else, because the clinic will not receive the large fee for carrying out the abortion if the woman decides not to go ahead with it.

My proposal is not closing down choice, but promoting choice – because women will receive independent advice about their options.

As BPAS (who have been targeted in this amendment) point out – around 20% of women they offer counselling to eventually chose not to have an abortion.

It’s like saying your doctor should not operate on you because they have an interest in doing so.

Furthermore, a Department of Health spokesperson says they are also considering a broader ban on counselling by abortion clinics. What, so religious nutjobs like Life are there to fill the space?

If you’re angry, come to the pro-choice demo on 9th July in Parliament (which will be a starting point for bigger activity).

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Chaise Guevara

” That’s like saying your doctor should not operate on you because they have an interest in doing so”

Do GPs refer operations to themselves for which they get paid commission? Because if so we have a problem, but if not then analogy doesn’t stand.

I think you should either justify your perjorative description of LIFE (that’s capital letters, by the way) as “religious nutjobs” or delete that phrase, if only for the sake of your own reputation.

I’m going to avoid the substantive issues in a cowardly fashion, but on this;

That’s like saying your doctor should not operate on you because they have an interest in doing so.

Isn’t that what the internal market and the purchaser/provider split do? Far fewer family doctors seem to provide even very minor surgical procedures any more – the GP role is overwhelmingly that of an adviser and gatekeeper.

There was a big, and conceptually related, fuss recently(ish) when the funding and structures for the education of 14-19 year olds was reorganised, and changes made to the provision of ‘information, advice, and guidance’.

A lot of fear from sixth form colleges and apprenticeship providers that allowing “careers advice” in the broadest sense to be provided to 14-16 year olds solely by schools would result in, er, more of them staying in schools, and fewer going to sixth form colleges or taking up apprenticeships.

Your conclusion may or may not be right, but I think the logic is faulty. If I want the best savings rate, I ask Martin Lewis, not my bank. If I want to know the best way to get from Leeds to Liverpool, I ask a journeyplanner, not Stagecoach.

This is a clear conflict of interest that would not be allowed anywhere else, because the clinic will not receive the large fee for carrying out the abortion if the woman decides not to go ahead with it.

Presumably, if we follow Mad Frankie’s line of ‘reasoning’ – a term I use in the loosest possible sense – then the next logical step will be to close down Harley Street as, of course, doctors working in private practice face the same ‘clear conflict of interest’ when consulting with patients on treatment options.

Is Mr Hundal aware that the last Director of Education for LIFE – an organisation, remember, of “religious nutjobs” – was an atheist?

@Red Maria

Life claim to be secular but they are undoubtedly dangerous regardless. LIFE offer financial incentives to woman dealing with “crisis pregnancies” which means that they are able to continue on to term. LIFE buys the foetus enough time to be brought into the world because as with all pro-lifers, this is the only thing that matters. The other 75 years of existence post birth is irrelevant. The standard of life is irrelevant. The fact they may be born into hardship, into families which cannot support them adequately – a point the woman who presents with the crisis pregnancy likely already considers a contributing factor to her decision to explore the possibility of abortion – that’s irrelevant.

They also offer a talk to primary school children on the “first year of life pre-birth”. Primary school children.

7. Caroline Farrow

LIFE are a non-denominational organisation, furthermore all their counsellors are BCAP accredited, unlike those at BPAS. This means that all counseling offered by LIFE is non-directive, it has to be, otherwise they would lose their accreditation.

93% of abortions performed by BPAS are NHS funded therefore there is a clear financial incentive.

This is not about restricting abortion services but ensuring that all women have access to impartial counselling, something which is not currently available.

Medical surgery and treatment always requires counselling and advice as to the benefits and disadvantages of treatment with potential side effects highlighted. As someone who has direct relevant experience of these clinics, I can verify that their automatic stance is that an enquiry is proof enough that the baby is not wanted and an abortion the desirable and only outcome. What kind of charitable clinic books in an appointment for an abortion on the say so of a third party no questions asked with no counselling?

Even pro-choice advocates must agree that any choice must be properly informed in order for it to be valid and consensual. Non directive counselling as directed by Field/Dorries is not designed to change minds but to validate decisions and avoid later trauma.

A restriction of services is not on the table, that is a disingenuous and misleading assertion.

Unity @ 4

Not only that of course, but every coesmetic surgeon too.

I get that Frank Field hates abortion, but given he also despises children getting benefits, shouldn’t he just shut the fuck up and go away?

Chaise:

The analogy stands perfectly well for all elective surgeries and other treatements carried out in private practice.

It also applies to referrals to private practice where there is more than one viable treatment option and the patient is reliant on the advice of the doctor in making a choice as to which option to go for.

Cancer treatments are a good example as, in some cases, patients have the option of surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or any combination of these, plus options for specific drug treatments/ytherapies.

10. Caroline Farrow

@delete

My daughter was fascinated by my pregnancies. Aged 5 she loved looking at my pregnancy books provided by the NHS detailing the fetal development. Children are naturally curious and she wanted to know how the baby was eating and drinking etc. Do you object to young children learning basic biology?

Could you substantiate your claim about financial incentives? This is not in a counselling situation and LIFE provide much needed help to empower women.

I find your argument about quality of life is far more dangerous than LIFE’s attitude of protecting the vulnerable, being eugenic in sentiment.

To be fair, there is a simple solution for BPAS etc if this bill gets passed. Simply turn the counselling and operational (is that the wrong word?) organisations into discrete enough units to satisfy the bill.

So now can we downgrade Field and Dorries to harmless nutters? I’d downgrade them to simply harmless if they had the brains to press for all government advice services to be provided by organisations with no stake in the outcome, but I have to agree this seems to be a bit too focussed on a single issue.

P.S. Sunny – you do realise you’d be more effective on this front if you treated your opponents (e.g. LIFE) with some respect. People might see you as being mature and sensible – as it is, you seem to have been exposed on a throwaway statement, which is not helpful to a pretty good post.

Red Maria:

I think you should fuck off with your incessant ‘justify that’ demands – if you think the characterisation is unfair then the comments box is there for you to make your argument and present your evidence.

LIFE may be notionally secular in terms of its constitution but its founders are Catholic and its absolutist position on abortion is derived directly from Catholic dogma…

… but then, as a Catholic apologist, you know that already.

I find this really scary. Who is this woman to push through her own personal ideology without even putting it to a vote? People like this should be as far away from politics as possible.

I certainly don’t care what you think Red Maria – so if my reputation goes down further in your eyes – that’s good.

From LIFE website:

“LIFE is opposed to abortion on principle in all circumstances.”

And goes on to detail how this includes rape, incest and maternal health.

To claim that these idiots are a smarter, fairer, safer option to be providing views of or supplying counselling than a purely health based group is absurd and dangerous.

And to try and claim anyone near the NHS is trying to profiteer from abortion better come with a whole lot of so far missing evidence.

@Caroline Farrow

I don’t object to the biological aspect of it. I object to the assertion that a zygote is a person – a person identifiable by a 5 year-old – from the moment of conception. I object to this idea being presented to school-age children as a matter of fact when it is clearly contentious.

17. Chaise Guevara

@ 9 Unity

“The analogy stands perfectly well for all elective surgeries and other treatements carried out in private practice.

It also applies to referrals to private practice where there is more than one viable treatment option and the patient is reliant on the advice of the doctor in making a choice as to which option to go for. ”

Yeah, that’s fair enough – I don’t use private so the analogy rang false to me. On the other hand, isn’t it a rather worrying state of affairs when the expert advising you on the best course of action is the same person who will profit should you take the more expensive option?

I don’t go to my lawyer for legal advice, or my bank for mortgage advice either. That’d be madness because they’ve a “vested interest”.

Says a lot about how Dorries and Field think really. I can only presume that they would encourage abortions if they were able to profit from them.

19. Chaise Guevara

@ Janvier

“I don’t go to my lawyer for legal advice, or my bank for mortgage advice either. That’d be madness because they’ve a “vested interest”.”

Your bank does have a vested interest. If the difference between mortgages could make a big difference to your cash flow, you would indeed be pretty lackadaisical to only talk to one bank about it.

“Says a lot about how Dorries and Field think really. I can only presume that they would encourage abortions if they were able to profit from them.”

Right – two people trying to make it harder to profiteer from abortions secretly want to profiteer from abortions /logicfail

Janvier,

I go to a solicitor for legal advice, and if it happened to be to go to court (it never has been – since the only advice I’ve needed was on buying a house) I would then instruct a lawyer. Not really the best analogy there.

This is getting silly – both Chaise and I oppose (from previous threads) any attempts to limit abortion, but there has to be better argument against Field and Dorries than this – especially since the actual legislation is quite easily circumvented (in itself a reason to get rid of it – it causes obstacles but nothing else, and does not do what it wants).

21. Mr S. Pill

I think everyone is missing the bigger point raised by the OP: how is it that Dorries & Field can get away with circumventing the democratic process by instigating this change? No matter your opinion on abortion that is a dangerous way to carry out policy IMO.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ S Pill

“I think everyone is missing the bigger point raised by the OP: how is it that Dorries & Field can get away with circumventing the democratic process by instigating this change?”

I agree that’s a much more important issue. I’m kind of holding fire ATM because I don’t know enough about the topic to know whether this is legitimate business as usual or a genuine attempt to play the system – I’m waiting for a couple of more knowledgable people to get on the thread and give us the background. The OP is certainly far too biased to take at face value.

S.Pill,

In answer to your question, the best information available is that from the Liverpool Daily Post article linked to above, which states

Now the Daily Post can reveal the Department of Health (DoH) is exploring how to make the switch without a showdown on the Commons floor – by changing existing regulations.

So in effect what they are doing (if they are doing it – the story apparently can reveal it, but doesn’t actually give any evidence) is simply changing something that is not controlled by parliament – some of the regulations made within a government department. This is always a risk with bureaucracies – that you can get more power through controlling the internal regulations than through controlling the external parliament. It’s one of my main reasons for opposing having power in government (as opposed to parliament) hands (power corrupts – it allows anti-abortion campaigners to make changes without having them go through parliament for example).

delete, I’ve never heard even someone who was born into hardship, into a family which cannot support them adequately, declare that they wish they had been aborted instead.

It may be that such people do exist, but even if the do I wonder why you feel qualified to speak on their behalf.

25. Mr S. Pill

@23

Hmm yeah, but the Post article doesn’t really say how it can be done (as you point out). Maybe abortion laws need a total overhaul to protect the right to choice from attacks like this.

26. Mr S. Pill

@24

You’ve never heard someone claim exasperatedly “I wish I’d never been born” ? A cosy world you live in! 😉

Also, you’re deliberately missing the point, I feel. Pro-choice folk aren’t talking about people, they’re talking about potential people.

Chaise, your talent for nitpicking while missing the point is a serious pain. It’s as bad as the trolls who try to divert debates away from the substantive issue.

Pro life bullshiter …..


This is not about restricting abortion services but ensuring that all women have access to impartial counselling, something which is not currently available.

Medical surgery and treatment always requires counselling and advice as to the benefits and disadvantages of treatment with potential side effects highlighted. As someone who has direct relevant experience of these clinics, I can verify that their automatic stance is that an enquiry is proof enough that the baby is not wanted and an abortion the desirable and only outcome. ”

But your word does not mean jack shit. You are a supporter of an anti abortion movement. The so called counselling they get is biased pro life clap trap.

Unity,

I’m appalled by your, almost bigoted – anti-Catholic rant earlier. I’m no Catholic apologist, nor religious, so I have no specific ax to grind, but that really was the wrong way to go about excusing an error in the OP.

Peter Benenson, a British lawyer and Labour Party man, founded JUSTICE, a human rights organisation, with a group of fellow lawyers in 1958. The next year he converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism. So appalled he was at the treatment of two Portuguese students, who were sent to prison for seven years simply for raising a toast to freedom in their autocratic country, he started an organisation called Amnesty International in the same year.

AI’s founder was Catholic and the ethic of the organisation might be based on Catholic Social Teaching – who knows? I can be as sure to assert this as truth, as you are that Catholic dogma informed Life.

Unlike Red Maria, I am pro-abortion (in that I think abortions should be a legal last resort – I agree it’s a woman’s right to choose, though I find it difficult to justify killing anything other than in self-defense), but this does not lead me directly down the path of anti-Catholicism, which seems to be the one you have chosen.

For this reason I think you should apologise to Catholics, and then to Red Maria for the mere fact that RM pointed out an error – and this, in the spirit of a participatory information culture, is no bad thing.

“For this reason I think you should apologise to Catholics”

Why should any one apologise to Catholics?

The Catholic Church is one of the most evil organisations in the world. Full of Kiddie fiddlers, anti woman weirdoes, and a ridiculous state that is not a state.

“The Catholic Church is one of the most evil organisations in the world. Full of Kiddie fiddlers, anti woman weirdoes, and a ridiculous state that is not a state.”

Gosh, who needs straw men when you’ve got a sally!

32. Mr S. Pill

@31

While Sally may use somewhat colourful language all of her claims in her post can be easily backed up. The Catholic Church does have a nasty history when it comes to covering up paedophile Priests, it is ridiculously anti-women particularly when it comes to sexual choice (they are, the last I heard, still anti-contraceptive pill for example), and the Vatican is a ludicrious state-within-a-state – which led to the disgusting sight of Robert Mugabe visiting Europe despite him being banned from the EU as a whole.

I’ve never read a good defense of the Catholic Church as an institution (as oppossed to certain individuals who would probably be virtuous even without believing in a genocidal sky-pixie).

sexual abuse cover-ups:

Ratzinger would’ve had to have been a fierce micro-manager to keep watch on what every priest was up to. The notion that under his watch the church hid abuses to save face runs contrary to work he himself did to tackle paedophilia within the church (see http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000774.shtml and http://www.zenit.org/article-28656?l=english ).

Contraception as anti-women:

I myself love condoms etc to bits, but I don’t think Catholics dislike contraception out of a dislike for women. You might have mentioned a whole raft of other examples where the Catholic Church is seemingly anti-women – and you’re free to file those examples here – but I don’t think the policy regarding contraception is primarily a gendered problem.

state within a state:

Say what you like about Vatican city – no really, say what you like – but it meets the criteria for a state, that being: The size of population or territory are irrelevant for the purposes of Statehood. What is important is that the entity possesses those criteria as well as the two other criteria for Statehood – which are: a government in effective control of the territory and independence (or what is called “capacity to enter into legal relations” in the words of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1935) [ http://www.ejiltalk.org/can-the-pope-be-arrested-in-connection-with-the-sexual-abuse-scandal/ ]

The Catholic institution:

“I’ve never read a good defense of the Catholic Church as an institution”. Where have you been looking? Though pointing this out is irrelevant, what Unity, and then the colourful sally, said was not directed towards the Catholic Church as an institution, it was directed at Catholics.

Any more questions?

“I’ve never read a good defense of the Catholic Church as an institution ”

Exactly.

The organisation is rotten to the core. Always has been.

The whole idea is based on nonsense. Get a bunch of men who must remain celibate, and then put them in charge of a load of kids. Nothing could possibly go wrong. Then lecture on anti contraceptives and then send all your nuts to the poor in the third world who have staving kids all around them. I mean what they really, really need is more starving kids right?

I reckon sally is in the employ of Gerry Adams to pose as a caricature UVF dickhead, therein making them look bad – she won’t admit this mind, that’s the first rule.

37. Chaise Guevara

@ Cherub

“Chaise, your talent for nitpicking while missing the point is a serious pain. It’s as bad as the trolls who try to divert debates away from the substantive issue.”

OK, guilty as charged on this one. But as I said before, I don’t trust the facts as presented in this article, and I’m hoping some people with a bit more knowledge about House of Commons procedure will come along and shed some light on the issue. You may have noticed that the rest of the thread has reverted to arguing about the rights and wrongs of abortion – which, while substantive, is something of an echo chamber.

Carl:

You appear to be struggling with the difference between Catholicism and trolling – its the latter for which Red Maria copped for a snarky response because this is far from being the first occasion that she’s tried the ‘justify that’ bullshit routine.

‘Catholic apologist’ strikes me as an entirely apt description of Red Maria from everything I’ve seen, and the description of LIFEs origins and its dogmatic position on abortion which, incidentally, does not reflect the full scope of Catholic opinion on the subject either now or historically, is factually correct..

Oh, and don’t bother with the ‘but some Catholics do good things’ argument – its a non-sequitur and, frankly, a pretty tired and massively overplayed argument which I’ve heard altogether too many times to be bothered with shooting it down.

Oh I hate all religions, before the trolls turn up.

For example…….this stinks

“JERUSALEM (RNS) Jews and Israelis, or passengers carrying any non-Islamic article of faith, will not be able to fly code-share flights from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia under Delta Air Line’s new partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines that is set to begin in 2012.

Although Delta announced in January that the Saudi airline would join its SkyTeam network next year, the implications of the deal only came to light recently, according to people who have scrutinized the details. Saudi Arabia, which is governed by strict Islamic law, requires citizens of almost every country to obtain a visa. People who wish to enter the country must have a sponsor; women, who must be dressed according to Saudi standards of modesty, must be met at the Saudi airport by a man who will act as a chaperone. Saudi Arabia bans anyone with an Israeli stamp in their passport from entering the country, even in transit. Many Jews believe the kingdom has also withheld visas from travelers with Jewish-sounding names.”

Fuck Delta, and Fuck Suadi

Unity,

If questioning an assertion is trolling then discouraging it is tyranny. I thought trolling was being purposefully antagonistic or off-topic, neither of which Red Maria can be justifiably accused of. If you think Red Maria is being antagonistic, perhaps this is because the OP didn’t expect anyone to reply to the term “religious nutjob”.

Further, you didn’t say dogmatic position on abortion before – what is the dogmatic position on abortion? Is there a specifically *dogmatic* opinion on abortion? – you said Catholic dogma. This is rather inflammatory. Look up “trolling” on wikipedia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) ] and you’ll find, by way of definition, the word “inflammatory”, and might I suggest “off-topic”.

With my example, you seem to have missed the point. The fact that I can point out an example of an organisation, founded by a Catholic, does not mean all Catholic founded organisations are ipso facto good, rather it served to show that in defining a place by the religious creed of its founders is surplus to requirement.

There is that challenge Christopher Hitchens raises, when met with the argument by believers, for example, that Christianity must be good because missionaries set up churches in the Congo etc. His challenge is to say: “Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever.” Well, this works both ways. Name one moral action performed by a nonbeliever that could not have been done by a believer. Being a director within the organisation LIFE is an action, possibly founded on their morality – that can be done by believer and non- alike, and so for this reason my suggestion to you holds: you should apologise to Catholics, and then to Red Maria.

By chance Christopher Hitchens is uncomfortable with abortion [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI ] but perhaps this is a little off-topic, and I’d hate to be called a troll.

You put that very kindly, Unity but the convention is that the person who makes a claim is the person who is bound to back it up.

The fact that LIFE’s founders are Catholic is neither here nor there; its position on abortion can just as much be said to be derived from the Hippocratic tradition as the Christian one.

As I’ve told you before, Unity, Catholicism is not your metier. Hence it comes as no suprise to me to see you carelessly repeat a myth – in a sentence in you unfortunately, use the phrase factually correct – about the Catholic Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life, which you seem to misunderstand as being a matter of opinion in the Church and suggest has been the subject of historical change.

You are wrong, that is you are factually inaccurate, on both counts. The Church’s teaching on the inviolability of human life has not changed once since the 1st Century and lest there be any doubt about the matter, its prohibition on abortion has also been infallibly proclaimed.

I’m sorry if you consider this trolling but it seems to me to be reasonable to ask people to explain their language and where necessary justify their claims especially given the phenomenal ignorance of Catholicism and worse historical inventions about the religion to be seen, of which your comments are a good example.

42. Mr S. Pill

@33

If there was no problem with paedophile priests then Ratzinger wouldn’t have had to do any “work he himself did to tackle paedophilia within the church”.

Banning contraception is anti-women – the reason why the Pill was invented (and decried by the usual suspects) was because it put women in charge of their own fertility – something that terrifies the Catholic Church. (As you mention, there are other sexist aspects to the church, so you admit that one anyway).

I’m not denying that the Vatican meets the criterea for a state. I’m saying it’s a ludicrous state on whatever merits it may have and has (as I said) led to at least one of the worst dictators our world currently has coming around for tea & cakes.

Again: I’ve never read a good defence of the Catholic Church as an institution. Your post has not changed that.

43. Mr S. Pill

@41

“its prohibition on abortion has also been infallibly proclaimed.”

Sorry, what?

@42

I hope we can both agree that a problem with paedophile priests does not have the Catholic Church to blame.

It might terrify the church – it might- but is that because the church dislikes women? To repeat, is the opposition to contraception by the Catholic Church informed primarily of an inherent anti-women stance?

“so you admit that one anyway” – as I said earlier, I have no specific ax to grind, and the wording of this comment seems to suggest I’m perhaps hiding something.

Providing the Holy See meets the proper criteria for a state, I can’t see what the problem is over the existence of any other nation-state – they’re just borders that are illegal to cross without papers and illegal to infiltrate with an army unless you tell teacher they started it first. If the only problem is allowing the visit of Mugabe – a fuck head, admittedly – then it’s doing pretty well, because in the name of statehood far worse has been carried out.

“Your post has not changed that.” Perhaps because my post, and I, could not give two shits whether you like the Catholic Church as an institution – you can see what my beef is, and you can see what it is I’m not specifically trying to stick up for. I’ll leave that job to the Pope.

Any more questions?

46. James Reade

Astonishing! You claim to be pro-choice, yet clearly by defending a system that only pays a clinic if it goes ahead with the abortion, you’re actually favouring distorted choice, provided it manipulates people into doing what you think they should do. That ain’t pro choice. Not in a million years.

And the level of anti-religious hatred on here is incredible. Mature debate usually gets by without calling people nutjobs or whatever other terms of abuse.

Now having said all that, trying to get something through without a vote isn’t good – but the motion provides more informed choices to be made than currently are being made. But clearly you guys don’t actually want that, do you?

47. Mr S. Pill

@46

If it’s such a pro-choice move then why is it being made by two MPs who have been very vocal about their opposition to abortion?

48. Chaise Guevara

@ 44

Hi Carl,

I agree that it’s unreasonable to blame the Church for paedophile priests, but surely you admit that it encourages behaviour based on a creed that says women are inferior to men? I certainly wouldn’t claim that the Church hates women, that’s the sort of thing people say about their enemies to make them look bad, but it does support a two-tier attidute towards the sexes.

@Chaise Guevara

Hi,

Red Maria will probably laugh at me for saying this, but after reading Tina Beattie’s book levelled against the laziness of the new atheist argument, there’s a wave of Catholic feminism, counter to the medieval sexist balderdash, that seeks justification from biblical scholars and is quite enough for me to accept it’s not all bad out there. However Beattie is probably a bit Vatican II – if you catch my drift – and so to your question do I accept there’s a bit of anti-woman stuff in the church … probably, but luckily it’s wrong to be anti-woman, we all know that, and anyone stuck in the past is, well, stuck in the past!

However just to note, whether the church is or is not anti-women is a separate point to how they feel about contraception – gender per se is not at play on that particularly issue.

That last comment should read:

…after reading Tina Beattie’s book levelled against the laziness of the new atheist argument, I’M CONVINCED there’s a wave of Catholic feminism…

@RM, Carl and other shills for the Catholic Church.

The Church’s teaching on the inviolability of human life has not changed once since the 1st Century and lest there be any doubt about the matter, its prohibition on abortion has also been infallibly proclaimed.

Presumably, that is why they always appealed for clemency before handing over to civil authorities for burning, those unfortunates their familiars had tortured into confessing “heresy”. Perhaps the above named would care to clarify if they submitted a double appeal before burning a pregnant woman.

Fuck off back to the dark ages with your foul vindictive church!

52. the a&e charge nurse

It seems some stillbirths are now being criminalised.

“Bei Bei Shuai, 34, has spent the past three months in a prison cell in Indianapolis charged with murdering her baby. On 23 December she tried to commit suicide by taking rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her.
Shuai was rushed to hospital and survived, but she was 33 weeks pregnant and her baby, to whom she gave birth a week after the suicide attempt and whom she called Angel, died after four days. In March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted foeticide and she has been in custody since without the offer of bail”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

I assume the law (or rather the use of certain laws by pro-life groups) is driven by a clash of rights – the rights of a viable foetus not to be harmed, and the rights of the mother to ingest whatever she wants?

Annoying that this discussion has been sidelined. But to clarify a few points:

1) I have nothing per se against orgs started by Catholics

2) I do have an issue with orgs run by religious nutjobs who get given govt right to impose their views on women.

3) I would say the same if such an org were being run by Muslim or Sikh nutjobs.

People like ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ and others who are screaming about my usage of ‘nutjobs’ – would have little hesitation in using that phrase if it were some Muslim group given govt money to impose their views on women.

But because its a Christian group – IT’S OK! Disgusting hypocrisy

What about this for a compromise? We let the women who want abortions to go and seek advice from whoever they want it from? Everybody wins that way.

If women want to hear anti abortionist views, they will no doubt turn up at LIFE or the religious nutjobs churches and listen to them, but those with other requirements will go to other organisations that put forward other views.

I have absolutely no objection to anti abortionists holding the views that they do. Nor do I have any objection to them sitting in offices and churches telling each other why they believe what they believe. I don’t even have a problem with them explaining to pregnant women who have no desire to have abortions, why they are correct.

But for fucks sake, let us not drag vulnerable young women into a hall to be moralised at from shrill ‘holier than thou’ personally approved by Right Wing scumbags Dorries or even Frank Field. Christ almighty! Frank Field wants ‘advise’ young working class women on the joys of motherhood? The same cunt that thinks that every teen pregnacy is the result of desire for a council house.

Most importantly of all, let us not give a single penny of public money to fund Right Wing groups. These bastards hate public spending anywhere, but cannot get their noses out of the trough.

55. Flaming Fairy

So organizations which provide and charge for abortions should be allowed to counsel women on pregnancy and termination, but organizations which oppose abortions and charge nothing shouldn’t because they have a vested interest? Muddled thinking there, it seems to me.

There’s something about the Christian right that is uniquely deeply unpleasant. Nadine Dorries personfies it. In my opinion, she is a hypocrite who lacks personal integrity, and Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads has done a pretty fine job of gathering evidence in support of that viewpoint. I am at an utter loss as to why the Tory parliamentary party tolerate her, or indeed, why her constituency party don’t vomit all over her at every opportunity. Perhaps there is an illusion that she draws votes from the Christian right, but I would imagine many Christians find her repellent.

Flaming Fairy @ 55

Where is the muddled thinking exactly? If a woman wants an abortion and she goes to an abortion clinic for advice then she will get that advice.

If she doesn’t want an abortion she does not go to that clinic.

Easy.

According to the nutjobs if she wants an abortion she is going to be FORCED to go to an anti abortion group to be screamed at by Tories?

WTF?

So, if I want a pork chop I go to the butchers, but the veggie lobbyist group want state funding and also want the Government to FORCE every meat eater in the Country to watch a video on how meat is produced BEFORE you are ‘allowed’ to buy a pork chop.

That is the top and bottom of it, isn’t it?

Case closed.

58. Flaming Fairy

Where is the muddled thinking exactly? If a woman wants an abortion and she goes to an abortion clinic for advice then she will get that advice.

If she doesn’t want an abortion she does not go to that clinic.

What if she’s undecided? What if she’s ambivalent about the whole thing, right up to and beyond the point where she enters the abortion clinic and has an appointment? I think the idea of independent advisers, with no vested interest at all is the best option so no abortion-sellers and no Christian pro-lifers.

Your comparison of seeking an abortion and buying a pork chop shows the depth of your thought about this.

Flaming Fairy @ 59

The point being that the current set up all about about chioce, Dorries and Field want to remove that chioce. They want the current system replaced with people opposed to one of the options. How can we replace a system that works with one opposed to the potions available?

60. Leslie Brown

When a similar requirement was introduced in a US state, the so called ‘independent’ counselling centres all declined to provide access to such counselling. The result, of course, was that no woman could get a legal, safe abortion.

I rather suspect that Dorries and Field know this.

61. Flaming Fairy

They want the current system replaced with people opposed to one of the options

Do they? Where does it say that? If the only permitted provider of counselling also provides abortions and gets paid for them, that’s a clear conflict of interest. It’s like having a body dysmorphia counselling service provided by a plastic surgery mill!

FF @ 60

These clowns want to exclude BPAS from the process, they hate chioce.

63. Chaise Guevara

@ 59 Jim

” They want the current system replaced with people opposed to one of the options.”

I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea from. And it’s pretty important, because if they do want to force women to be lectured by pro-lifers before getting an abortion this is a totally different issue. However, the text of the amendment, linked in the OP, suggests otherwise. It just calls for independent advice.

It’s very possible that Field and Dorries would like to make women listen to pro-lifers, but the law under discussion doesn’t mandate that.

64. Flaming Fairy

BPAS provide and get paid for abortions, that’s why Jim. Field is right that there’s a conflict of interest that wouldn’t be tolerated in other areas. That the odious fundamentalist Dorries has saddled up next to him shouldn’t blind people to this fact.

63, 64

You have to look at the sub text. These clowns are attempting to shoe horn anti abortionists into the mix. If they were attempting to set up Government funded in idealistically neutral services, then fine, but everyone knows that Dorries wants to pave the way for LIFE to be put at the heart of the counselling service, this amendment will do that. Sorry if you cannot see it.

66. Flaming Fairy

Ah, yes, the subtext. I’m sorry but that’s balls. The amendments ask for independent advice, end of. If you’re concerned about women’s choice, that seems eminently sensible to me. Maybe Dorries WOULD like to put LIFE at the centre of the counselling provision, but others seem happy to put people THEY agree with (abortion clinics) at the centre of provision so there’s not a great deal of difference in my eyes – I disagree with both!

Dorries and Field do seem to be following US anti-abortion groups tactics of eliminating elective abortion by degrees. With the aim to make abortion so hard to access that there would be no point in not taking that final step to outlawing it completely.
That particular lobby has grown very skilled at wielding the foot in the door technique.

Cylux @ 67

Are you suggesting that Dorries and Field are trying to get a foot in the door? Perhaps looking at the wider picture? Looking at the long game?

No, No, No!

Never, under any circumstances attempt to look at the ulterior motives of your political opponents. Never look at the likely or possible outcomes of what they propose. Never do anything except take what they say at absolute face value, because what they say is exactly what they intend to happen. When they say they wish to ‘increase employment’ for the disabled, that is exctly what they mean. When they say ‘allowed’ they never mean ‘forced’ and if anyone is ‘forced’ to undercut people, they will utterly recant their proposals.

No doubt that Dorries and Frank Field would be as shocked as we will be if BPAS are replaced by anti abortionists. Perish the thought that they are attempting to do anything other than replace this body with a politically neutral and publicly funded organisation.

You know, some people are always looking at the worst in nutters.

69. Flaming Fairy

Sarcasm Jim? How delightful! I’m sure there are other motives at play here, just as there are in any human activity. However, seeing as we don’t yet live in a theocracy, Dorries and Field would have to put in a lot more hard work to limit access to abortion unless sanctified by papal bull or whatever you imagine they want.

70. blackwillow1

Completely neutral advisors, no religious groups, no profit makers. No-brainer! As for the religious nutters, keep your faith on a personal level and keep it out of politics. Religion, of any creed, is anathema to democracy, it promotes one set of views based on a belief system, it does not promote free thought, free will or freedom in general. Personal faith is fine, organised religion is a buisiness like any other. If a woman has access to independent advice, there is a danger she may start realising that the church/mosque/temple does not have all the answers. Dorries and Field are pushing for groups such as LIFE to force their way in, undermining the neutralitry that must be paramount in any advisory body. Dorries is a fucking fruit loop, dictated to by her faith, Field is a has-been who ca’nt accept the fact that nobody takes him seriously anymore. Wish they’d both just fuck off!

Sunny,

1. I have never claimed that you have a problem with groups founded by Catholics.

2. I have, however, taken issue with your description of LIFE as “religious nutjobs”. First not everybody who works for LIFE is religious, secondly the organisation is not affiliated to any particular religious group. It may derive strong support from religious people but then again so did the Labour movement once upon a time, being strongly associated with the Non Conformist low Churches. The term nutjobs for those who happen to disagree with you on this particular issue is straightforwardly pejorative and in my view, beneath you. The notion that LIFE tries to impose its views on women is a lazy smear. LIFE offers non-directive counselling to those who request it, that is all.

3. The fact that you would describe Moslem and Sikh groups providing similar services in equally disobliging terms is, I feel, a poor justification for your caricature of LIFE and I would be just as critical of you if you described Moslem and Sikh Pro Lifers in such terms, so I reject your charge of hypocrisy.

The thing is, Sunny, that this issue is a divisive one over which good, ethically-principled people take very different positions. It advances us not one jot to demonise our respective opponents over this.

72. Chaise Guevara

@ 67 Cylux

“Dorries and Field do seem to be following US anti-abortion groups tactics of eliminating elective abortion by degrees. With the aim to make abortion so hard to access that there would be no point in not taking that final step to outlawing it completely.”

The thing is, though, there are things that could be a step down a path to major change, but are also a good idea in themselves. As far as I can tell, this law doesn’t call for propaganda to be introduced to the abortion procedure, and it doesn’t make it more difficult to get an abortion. If there isn’t some detail that I’m missing (and by that I mean a detail about the proposal, not contemplation of future proposals), then all it does is seek to remove a conflict of interest, which seems sensible enough.

Yes, I assume that Dorries is involved in this because she wants to reduce abortions, but as the abortions that would be cancelled due to this (if any) would be abortions that women were talked into having by someone who profits from the operation, I don’t see that as a bad thing. I don’t like the idea of someone being subjected to a hard sell over any medical procedure.

73. Chaise Guevara

@ 65 Jim

“Sorry if you cannot see it.”

You really need to get a grip on the concept that the fact people disagree with you doesn’t make them stupid. Along with the childish false accusations, it adds up to pretty pathetic behaviour.

For a response to the part of your post that wasn’t just a poor attempt at being patronising, see 72.

I actually agree that women should have a right to abortion, but whenever these arguments kick off, my sympathies are invariably with the anti-abortion side, due to the level of venom from the pros.

Is is too much to ask that pro-abortion people could admit that some of those who are on the other side are motivated by compassion for the unborn child? Also, can the pro-abortion people accept that life begins at conception? This seems self-evident.

@72 The problem I have is with separating the specific proposal from those making it, plus their attempts to circumvent democracy doesn’t exactly imply altogether honest motivations.
The US lobby, upon which Field and Dorries are basing their tactics, has had to become more clandestine in it’s proposals because any open attempts to restrict/ban abortion quickly get slapped down by the Roe V. Wade supreme court ruling, to this end they have learnt to always put forward achingly reasonable hurdles with reasons that many “decent” folk would not find objection with (in this instance to stop the unsubstantiated alleged “hard sell” of abortions by BPAS and others). Once they’ve successfully gotten their reasonable request enshrined, the goal posts shift in their favour (or overton window if you prefer), what once would have been unreasonable prior to their success now becomes reasonable and thus begins the next step of lobbying.

Course, then you get a few who reveal the whole animus far too quickly like Bobby Franklin. (Who also wants rape victims to be referred to as “accusers”) Plus lets not forget the fringe elements who blow up clinics and shoot doctors in church.

76. Chaise Guevara

@ 75 Cylux

“The US lobby, upon which Field and Dorries are basing their tactics, has had to become more clandestine in it’s proposals because any open attempts to restrict/ban abortion quickly get slapped down by the Roe V. Wade supreme court ruling, to this end they have learnt to always put forward achingly reasonable hurdles with reasons that many “decent” folk would not find objection with (in this instance to stop the unsubstantiated alleged “hard sell” of abortions by BPAS and others). Once they’ve successfully gotten their reasonable request enshrined, the goal posts shift in their favour (or overton window if you prefer), what once would have been unreasonable prior to their success now becomes reasonable and thus begins the next step of lobbying.”

I agree that we could do with evidence suggesting that abortion providers are unprofessional about providing advice – a few testimonies would probably do. Assuming said evidence could be provided, however, would you still object to what seems like a sensible policy (and an improvement for women’s right to choose if “choose” is allowed to mean anything) just because you’re worried it could be used as a starting point for a more controversial policy? Because that sounds like the How To Guide For Making Sure No Progress Ever Happens.

“Course, then you get a few who reveal the whole animus far too quickly like Bobby Franklin. (Who also wants rape victims to be referred to as “accusers”)”

Um, if (and only if) he’s referring to cases that haven’t reached a verdict, “accuser” would be the correct term. If the defendant claims that no rape took place, calling the accuser the “victim” would be a massive assumption. Sensitivity is all very well, but not to the extent that you condemn people before they’ve had a trial.

“Plus lets not forget the fringe elements who blow up clinics and shoot doctors in church.”

Meh, there are nutters who try to kill vivisectionists, doesn’t change my view of animal rights campaigners as a whole.

77. Chaise Guevara

@ 74 Trooper Thompson

“I actually agree that women should have a right to abortion, but whenever these arguments kick off, my sympathies are invariably with the anti-abortion side, due to the level of venom from the pros. ”

I tend to feel much the same, but I feel I should point out that a) that’s not a rational reason to back pro-lifers (it’s an ad hom, essentially), and b) there are plenty of very unpleasant pro-lifers out there who accuse choicers of being hell-bound monsters who get a sick pleasure out of murdering babies. This is a leftie blog, and hence you’re likely to get more pro-choice arseholes than pro-life arseholes. Try a Chistian US blog and the scenario reverses.

“Is is too much to ask that pro-abortion people could admit that some of those who are on the other side are motivated by compassion for the unborn child?”

No.

Not until you people change your position of stop caring for the unborn child as soon as it comes out of the womb. Infant mortality rates in the American south are poor, because of lack of affordable health care. Your so called care of the child disappears as soon as the kid is born.

And in any case, as I have said before , anti abortion is really about punishing woman who have sex outside of marriage. That is the real target. Those slutty woman who men are both repulsed by ,and obsessed by. (how many more TV evangelists will be caught with hookers?) Hence the reason that many US antiabortion groups will openly tell you that once they get abortion made illegal they want to stop contraception. Republicans are now defunding planned parenthood all across the US.

If I want an abortion I want to talk to my doctor, and who the fuck I choose to talk too. I don’t want to talk to a bunch of religious nut jobs who believe in the imaginary cloud man telling me want to think.

79. the a&e charge nurse

[78] “If I want an abortion I want to talk to my doctor” – but bear in mind “a significant minority of GPs may be actively working to delay or prevent women from accessing abortion services to which they are legally entitled”.
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm15.php

Those uncomfortable with abortion exist within the current system.

TT @ 74

Is is too much to ask that pro-abortion people could admit that some of those who are on the other side are motivated by compassion for the unborn child?

Find me the anti abortionist that will stand four square behind the disabled and the disadvantaged and you could well have a point. However, the most vocal anti abortionists are the same people whose sole motivation appears to find ways of driving poor people further into poverty. The same people who describe an unborn foetus as a gift from God are the same people who think Downs Syndrome people should be force to work for less than the minimum wage and that young girls only get pregnant for council housing and benefits.

If these people were ‘really’ concerned with the welfare of the ‘Bay Bees’ (as Littlejohn would describe such faux concern), then perhaps they will look at the social conditions that many of the young mothers faced with a dilemma of whether or not to have an abortion where faced with. Perhaps if these campaigners actually took the campaign to Downing Street to stop pregnancy and parent hood being treated as a form of cancer, then I might be persuaded that they had the child’s welfare at heart. Perhaps if they campaigned for better paternal/maternal pay and leave? Perhaps if they were seen as more pro children? Perhaps if they stopped portraying single mothers as leeches and started to suggest that these women are actually victims of a brutal society?

When these scumbags started treating the children actually born with a degree of humanity, then you may have a point.

However, the best they want is a captive audience to scream obscenities at and subject vulnerable young women to shrill moralising, so they are basically scum in my book.

Also, can the pro-abortion people accept that life begins at conception? This seems self-evident.

Self-evident to you and you are more than welcome to that belief and I concede that you may well be right. However, I cannot see for the life of me why you feel able to impose your honestly held belief on the rest of the population. Why can’t we simply agree to differ on that moral question?

@74

Also, can the pro-abortion people accept that life begins at conception? This seems self-evident.

The Violinist thought experiment attempts to address this point.

@ 80:

“Self-evident to you and you are more than welcome to that belief and I concede that you may well be right. However, I cannot see for the life of me why you feel able to impose your honestly held belief on the rest of the population. Why can’t we simply agree to differ on that moral question?”

If you came across a white supremacist organisation which considered black people to be lower than animals and were planning on killing a few that night, would you try and stop them, or would you just agree to disagree on the question of whether or not black people are actually people?

Dorries and Field are using the American tactics of putting up more and more barriers to abortion. Expect them to come up with this latest idea from Kansas.

“The murder of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita in 2009 changed the landscape for women in the state of Kansas and the medical personnel who provide services to them. The election of Sam Brownback as governor last November was greeted with cheers by the right wing, as it created the opportunity to take advantage of the new abortion rights landscape. Earlier this year, the legislature quickly turned those hopes into bills, and sent them on to Brownback’s desk, which he signed in mid-May.

They passed a new law to prohibit insurance companies from including coverage of abortions in their general policies (except those necessary to save the woman’s life), though supplemental policies can cover this. They also passed a law stiffening licensing requirements for facilities that provide abortions, including a ban on using telemedical systems in conjunction with prescribing RU-486, and directing the KS Department of Health and Environment to write new regulations regard exits, lighting, equipment, etc. — all in an effort to strangle anyone who wants to provide an abortion in the state of Kansas. The new regulations [pdf] were approved on Thursday, June 17th, just a few weeks after the law was signed.

The kicker? They take effect July 1, with no exceptions. These are temporary regulations, that must be opened up for a four month public comment period. But even temporary regulations must be approved by the State Rules and Regulations board, which has helpfully slated a meeting for next Wednesday to take up the matter. That’s June 29th, for those of you putting together your time lines at home.

The right wing cheered:

Some anti-abortion activists in Kansas had expressed optimism new KDHE mandates to be implemented July 1 would result in temporary or permanent closure of clinics in Kansas performing elective abortions.

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said failure of the three clinics would be a triumph.

“We have doubts that any of the abortion clinics can meet the safety requirements of the new law,” he said.

That’s their goal: to make Kansas the first state with no legal abortion facilities anywhere in the state. This death-by-regulation strategy has already claimed its first victim, leaving only two other providers in the state. From the KC Star:

[Clinic lawyer Chertyl] Pilate said the clinic hardly had a chance to comply with new temporary regulations because it received them from state regulators Monday.

“We were expected to comply in a nanosecond,” she said. “The timeline was absurdly unrealistic.”

The three Kansas abortion clinics have been racing to meet the licensing requirements spelled out in the new law, which was one of four new abortion restrictions passed by the Kansas Legislature this year.

“What we have isn’t a democratic government. We have a theocracy,” said Ronald Yeomans, a physician who practices at the Wyandotte County clinic.

“We have a theocracy with a bunch of extremist, right-wing Republicans who are trying to enact their religious views into law.”

XXX @ 82

If you came across a white supremacist organisation…

Not one person has mentioned a white supremacist group. Why fuck have you cast up this shite? There is no need to start up an analogy to attempt to make a point. We have the question and the moral framework we need to come to a conclusion. Trooper Thompson ‘thinks’ life beings at conception, fair enough, that is a perfectly reasonable belief. Others believe something different, equally valid. There is simply no point in throwing up all sorts of moral flares, the issue at hand is ‘at what point do you think life beings’ and is perfectly understandable in its own terms.

If you are talking about a pick up truck full of rednecks out to kill some black people that is pretty clear he course of action that we should take.

@77 Chaise, I dare say. Anyway, I’m off to wash the foaming spittle out of my hair.

@ 84:

“There is no need to start up an analogy to attempt to make a point.”

Yes there is, to highlight the utter ridiculousness of the “even if you think it’s murder, you shouldn’t try to impose your view on others” argument.

“If you are talking about a pick up truck full of rednecks out to kill some black people that is pretty clear he course of action that we should take.”

Let them do it, because you don’t want to force your beliefs on others. At least, that’s the course of action we’d take if we followed your line of reasoning.

87. Chaise Guevara

@ XXX

Seriously, don’t bother. It’s blindingly obvious why pro-lifers don’t see banning abortion as a simple attack on personal choice in the same way as banning drugs or homosexuality would be. It goes without saying that pro-lifers think that there’s a person involved in the issue besides the mother. But no, people are going to pretend with all their might that lifers don’t care about the z/e/f, despite the fact that this would destroy the whole reason that people are pro-life.

If someone is prepared to lie about reality to make their point, it’s really not worth giving them the time of day.

88. Chaise Guevara

@ 81 Cylux

“The Violinist thought experiment attempts to address this point”

As far as I understand it, the violinist experiment isn’t so much about where life begins as it is about the extent to which we should be expected to sacrifice liberty for the sake of another’s life.

It’s an interesting thought experiment in any case, and I’ll admit that the logic behind it is part of what makes me pro-choice. Incidentally, I think I know why many people apply different rules to the violinist scenario and abortion.

There was a series of experiments done awhile back involving situations where you are asked to sacrifice someone’s life to save someone else’s. It took the form of giving subjects scenarios like: “You see a train racing towards six people caught on the track, who it will kill if it hits them. However, you can pull a lever to make the train change course, whereupon it will miss those six people but kill one person caught on another track”. People were asked whether they should pull the lever or not.

It went through loads of permutations, and the reponses suggested that people think that it’s right to sacrifice one person already involved in the situation to save several people (e.g. the example above), but not to kill someone NOT involved in the situation to achieve the same end (e.g. throwing a fat man off the bridge to block the path of the train). So I reckon some people see the mother as already being in the situation, whereas the guy hooked up the violinist has been unfairly dragged into the situation against his will.

I’m not saying that there’s any logic behind this attitude, just that it seems to be a pretty basic part of instinctive human morality. Also, apologies if the above didn’t make sense – beer has been consumed.

XXX @ 86

Yes there is, to highlight the utter ridiculousness of the “even if you think it’s murder, you shouldn’t try to impose your view on others” argument.

Christ, you appear to be going round circles, no-one is advocating murder or anything like it.

Your total argument has fallen around your ears AGAIN because you cannot conceive of the idea that ‘murder’ is a clear-cut crime. People going out to kill other people is a crime under any reasonable set of circumstances. People looking to kill black people in the manner you describe is so fucking obvious a crime, no-one needs an analogy to illustrate the fact.

No-one needs a half arsed analogy like ‘if those men where snooker cues and the black people were goldfish, what would I do’, Christ, XXX, trust me on this, I can safely say that we can all see the right and wrongs of that. When we are attempting to determine the beginning of ‘life’ is seriously a bit more complicated than that. Perhaps it would be easier if it where a simple black or white issue. Perhaps it should be as easy as that, but it is not. Sorry, but a half-witted analogy is not cutting the mustard here. A pick up truck of rednecks killing a young black guy in Alabama is not the same as the most profound philosophical question we are ever likely to ask.

I can see there are times when we can use analogy to draw out moral dilemmas and there are questions that we can draw parallels across seemingly different subjects, but come on, when life begins? Surely to fuck we can all see that is going to be a bit more controversial?

I doubt very much that Trooper Thompson would claim to have the definitive answer on the subject of when life begins. Again, I am going out on a limb here, I doubt that he has just conducted the definitive scientific study and, subject to peer review, is about to unleash the most profound discovery ever made on this Earth. If TT wins the Nobel prize this year, I may end up with egg on my face, but my best guess is that his statement on the beginning of life is based on his ‘gut’.

Now, TT gut may be a perfectly good gut and no doubt his gut as pulled him through on many occasions, but it is not an especially informed gut, as far as I can see. Perhaps his gut will win a Nobel prize, eh? However, I feel that he is quite entitled to his opinion on the question of when a human life begins, based on his gut, because his gut instinct is as good as anyone else’s. That is all it is, a gut instinct. No more, no less than anyone else’s.

A pick up with rednecks going to kill black people, I am afraid, is not the same thing, no matter how much it is.

Chaise @ 88

It’s blindingly obvious why pro-lifers don’t see banning abortion as a simple attack on personal choice in the same way as banning drugs or homosexuality would be.

So, the anti abortionists where out marching against te war in Iraq where they? The anti abortionists are against the death penalty, are they? The anti abortionist consider soldiers that kill

a) Outright.
b) Innocent civilians.

To be murderers do they? Anti abortionists campaign for better conditions for single mothers do they? Anti abortionists caimpaign for better maternity leave do they? Anti Abortionist are ‘pro life’ in every way, do they?

Do they fuck, they campaign against abortion because they cannot stand the fact that some people, millions of people in fact have better sex lives.

91. Chaise Guevara

@ 89 Jim

You’re completely missing the point. XXX is not saying that abortion is equivalent to murder – he may or may not believe that it is, but that’s besides the point.

He raised the murder analogy to give an example of where anyone except the most lunatic liberatarian would consider it acceptable to restrict someone else’s personal liberty – when restricting their liberty prevents them from doing something terrible to another person. Murder is just an obvious example of that, it could just as easily be assault or rape.

The point is that, while you may not think the foetus is a person who needs to be taken into account, pro-lifers generally do. Therefore, by their own beliefs, they are NOT simply trying to impose their will on another – they are trying to impose their will on one person to save the life of another person, in much the same way as you would do by banning murder.

Nobody’s saying you should agree with pro-lifers on this score, BTW, only that you shouldn’t misrepresent their position.

I’m writing this because I genuinely believe you’ve seen the word “murder” used in an abortion debate and have assumed that the person who said it is claiming that abortion is murder. If you’re deliberately misreading XXX so you can straw-man him, then I give up, but it’s my impression that this isn’t the case.

92. Chaise Guevara

@ 90

Ad hominem, and probably an inaccurate one at that. I know that demonising people makes you feel good, it seems to be the main reason you exist, but try to stick to the actual argument here. The death penalty and war are different issues to abortion, but that’s not the point: the person on the other side of the argument could be a mass murderer who eats kittens for breakfast, but that in itself is not enough to prove that they’re wrong and you’re right as far as this argument goes.

93. Chaise Guevara

@ 90 again

For the record, at age 15 I was generally anti-war, strongly anti-death-penalty and strongly pro-life. So I know for a fact that a pro-lifer can be against war and execution, because I was that person a decade ago. You need to be able to defend your position on its own merits, not by attacking the character of the person you’re arguing with.

@88

As far as I understand it, the violinist experiment isn’t so much about where life begins as it is about the extent to which we should be expected to sacrifice liberty for the sake of another’s life.

Precisely. It basically accepts the premise of the pro-lifers that there is another life in the offing, replacing the awkwardness of z/e/f with a fully grown human being, and then proceeds from there.

95. Chaise Guevara

@ 94 Cylux

Yeah, and as analogies go I’d say it’s pretty superb. My only misgiving is that it tends to lead to people (not you, necessarily) to conclude “…and that shows that pro-lifers only dislike abortion because they hate women and/or are crazy fundamentalists!” It doesn’t: it just shows that the way our brains process morality is not all that rational.

A large part of me wonders whether someone who found themselves hooked up to the violinist SHOULD be duty-bound to stay hooked up for nine months, if only from the utilitarian standpoint that the negative of nine months’ slavery for them is outweighed by the positive of saving the violinist’s life. Still, I wouldn’t personally support a law forcing them to do it.

Why a violinist specifically, by the way? Does anyone know?

@95 Probably because no one, as far as I know, has particular problems with the violinist profession. I imagine results might vary significantly should say, you wake up connected to Richard Littlejohn, for example.

97. Chaise Guevara

@ 96 Cylux

Ah. Good point well made.

98. Richard W

82. XXX

” If you came across a white supremacist organisation which considered black people to be lower than animals and were planning on killing a few that night, would you try and stop them, or would you just agree to disagree on the question of whether or not black people are actually people.”

The analogy is not valid because not acting to stop them would be an omission. There is no ” rule of rescue. ” If there was a general rule of rescue then kidneys or blood could be taken from us against our will to save others. In a rule of rescue world there is no legitimate argument against the state forcing us against our will to submit our bodies for medical research if it will help save lives. Preventing an abortion is an act of commission. Entirely different concepts. Moreover, I would argue that a legislator voting to prevent women having an abortion is an act of commission. An act of commission breaches a woman’s self-ownership of her body and the concept of her property rights.

An unwanted pregnancy is a parasitical trespass of a woman’s uterus. To prevent her ejecting the unwanted trespasser is the same as the state saying she should she ought to be compulsory pregnant. No longer is the woman an independent person, she has been reduced to the status of a breeding sow. Even if protecting her property from an unwanted trespass results in murder makes no difference. She has the right to evict an invader from her property and if the ejection results in death so be it.

It is sheer hypocrisy and inconsistency for those who argue that property holders ought to be able to defend their property from a burglar, even if that means killing the invader. Yet, the same people would deny women the same right to eject an unwanted invader from her property.

Chaise Guevara @ 92, 93

You are all over the place again. Simply trying to too much into these posts.

First of all the analogy with his rednecks and abortion. You appear to miss the point. XXX is attempting to draw a comparison between mass murder and abortion and how we perceive it. He feels that abortion should stir up the same moral outrage in me as it does him. He feels that because I can see an obvious case like his rednecks in a pickup truck that I should accept that we should all see the same moral dilemma in abortion.

Secondly. If you read back, it was YOU that introduced the concept that people who were labelled ‘Pro Life’ were in some way pro the concept of ‘life’. I urge anyone reading this thread to look at comment number 87 for reference.

It was you that were attempting to portray these people as ‘fluffy people’ whose only concern was the right of life to exist. That is palpable bullshit. If these people were remotely ‘pro life’ they would be outside every army base in the Country protesting at the needless slaughter of innocent lives. XXX talks about his mythical rednecks going round killing black people and how I would react about that, which rather begs the question:

What about the ACTUAL soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan whose action where responsible for countless civilian deaths?

If he thinks abortion is murder (or homicide or whatever) then what about the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq? If operation rescue, LIFE etc wanted to prevent needless deaths, they would be outside army bases and calling the airmen and troops responsible ‘mass murderers’. They would be outside the UN campaigning for an end to starvation, but there not, are they? They campaign against abortion, not in favour of life.

100. Mr S. Pill

@72 CG

“as the abortions that would be cancelled due to this (if any) would be abortions that women were talked into having by someone who profits from the operation, I don’t see that as a bad thing.”

Hmmm. Is there a source for the number of women who are talked into having abortions by someone profiting from it? I don’t mean to be obtuse (well… 😉 ) but it does sound like someone Dorries would pluck from the air without reliable information.
Also, no-one talks about women being (potentially) talked into having babies that they don’t want to have (with all the consequences that entails) – and talked into it by people motivated by something more dubious than profit IMO.

@98 Richard W,

“An unwanted pregnancy is a parasitical trespass of a woman’s uterus. To prevent her ejecting the unwanted trespasser is the same as the state saying she should she ought to be compulsory pregnant… Even if protecting her property from an unwanted trespass results in murder makes no difference. She has the right to evict an invader from her property and if the ejection results in death so be it.

It is sheer hypocrisy and inconsistency for those who argue that property holders ought to be able to defend their property from a burglar, even if that means killing the invader. Yet, the same people would deny women the same right to eject an unwanted invader from her property.”

You’re very close to the ‘evictionist’ position of Walter Block.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

but you’re mixing up trespass with burglary. There is a fundamental difference. Also you say “Even if protecting her property from an unwanted trespass results in murder makes no difference”. Murder by definition is unlawful. You cannot murder in self-defence. It’s an oxymoron.

The point of Walter Block’s argument is that a woman has a right to evict the foetus, but not to kill the foetus. As medicine progresses, a foetus will become viable at an earlier and earlier stage.

102. Chaise Guevara

@ 99 Jim

“You are all over the place again. Simply trying to too much into these posts. ”

Oh, the irony…

“First of all the analogy with his rednecks and abortion. You appear to miss the point. XXX is attempting to draw a comparison between mass murder and abortion and how we perceive it. He feels that abortion should stir up the same moral outrage in me as it does him. He feels that because I can see an obvious case like his rednecks in a pickup truck that I should accept that we should all see the same moral dilemma in abortion. ”

Is he? Which post? Because from the last few posts between you guys, he seems to have introduced the analogy to demonstrate why pro-lifers feel that the mothers isn’t the only person in the equation. The fact that you cannot (or refuse to) understand the difference is neither XXX’s problem or mine.

“Secondly. If you read back, it was YOU that introduced the concept that people who were labelled ‘Pro Life’ were in some way pro the concept of ‘life’. I urge anyone reading this thread to look at comment number 87 for reference.”

LOL, just did, and sadly for you that’s not what I said. I said pro-lifers don’t want the z/e/f to be killed, which is pretty much true by definition. You’re the one who seems to the think that “against killing the unborn” should mean the same thing as “against all killing anywhere”. Stop blaming your lack of logic on me, it’s a bit sad.

“It was you that were attempting to portray these people as ‘fluffy people’ whose only concern was the right of life to exist. That is palpable bullshit.”

It is indeed, because I never said that. Again, you’re the one drawing the connection between anti-abortion and anti-killing. I never made that claim, so grow up a bit and stop putting words into my mouth,

…I’ve addressed the rest of your post already, but you obviously find it easier to hide behind rather obvious straw men and ad homs than actually engage with what the other person is saying.

Let me know if you want to talk about this like a grown-up instead of using your usual tactic of making up desperate lies so you can think you’ve won. I won’t hold my breath, given that you’re the dickhead who accused me of being anti-disabled purely because I disagreed with you.

103. Chaise Guevara

@ 100 S Pill

“Hmmm. Is there a source for the number of women who are talked into having abortions by someone profiting from it? I don’t mean to be obtuse (well… ) but it does sound like someone Dorries would pluck from the air without reliable information.”

Absolutely. It would be good to have evidence that there is any need for this policy. Dorries could well be assuming that her fears are reflected by reality.

“Also, no-one talks about women being (potentially) talked into having babies that they don’t want to have (with all the consequences that entails) – and talked into it by people motivated by something more dubious than profit IMO.”

Yeah they do, I’ve had loads of conversations about it, although normally in reference to America where they’re more likely to support making women listen to pro-life propaganda before having an abortion (I think at least one state requires that they watch an ultrasound of their child first, presumably in the hope that this will “shame” them into not having the operation).

Chaise @ 102

I said pro-lifers don’t want the z/e/f to be killed, which is pretty much true by definition. You’re the one who seems to the think that “against killing the unborn” should mean the same thing as “against all killing anywhere”. Stop blaming your lack of logic on me, it’s a bit sad.

But what other logical conclusion could we come to? If you want to use the term ‘pro life’ then I hardly think it unreasonable to examine the position of these groups on a whole lot of other issues. These Right Wing (and/or) Religious groups appear to be rather one-dimensional and are conspicuous by their absence on a lot of other ‘life’ matters.

I cannot see any rational distinction from a foetus dying at the hands of a fully qualified medical practitioner and say that from a bomb fired or dropped from a great distance away. In fact, I would say that comparing those deaths (three if you count the mother in the latter) are far less problematic in terms of an analogy than any number of people on railroads, rednecks in pick up vans, famous violinists on human life support machines, Jews in concentration camps etc, yet for some reason these ‘pro lifers’ never want to draw these blindingly obvious comparisons. Care to speculate why that is?

Here is my analysis. It turns out that these people never gave a fuck about the latter because they are not ‘pro life’ at all. It turns out that it is NOT the life of the foetus they care about, actually it is the morality of the mother, not the mother and father, but the mother. An Iraqi mother and her unborn child at the business end of a cruise missile attack are little more than collateral damage, if that. No one cares about standing outside the Pentagon mourning their deaths, because they died in pursuance of American foreign policy. No one dropping a bomb on innocent civilians is a murder in the Right’s eyes, LIFE or operation rescue never want to talk to the airman responsible for killing that child to ‘persuade’ them they are wrong to kill human babies.

XXX will NEVER condemn such people for murdering the unborn babies of Muslim women, simply because he does not give a fuck about them, because he I not sure if the got pregnant by having illicit sex. A woman who wants an abortion is EVIL, but a woman who dies screaming for her child is merely ‘unlucky’. He uses the term ‘pro life’ to dupe some shills (yes, Chaise, that means you) into accepting that they are really fluffy people really. The correct term is anti abortion, Chaise, sorry you cannot see it.

That is why XXX and the rest of them never want to talk about the tens of thousands of unborn and recently born children that die every day in desperate poverty, unless it is to condemn them for ‘over population of course’, instead we are left discussing a violinist or people tied onto a railroad.

Chaise, why do you think anti abortionist never talk about the needless slaughter of children in Iraq?

@Jim

Your analysis is straw man nonsense. The caricature you have of a pro-lifer is almost completely non-existent.

Many pro-lifers are pacifists, many are completely against the death penalty, plenty of them were opposed to the war in Iraq, plenty subscribe to a just war analysis. Most pro-lifers are appalled at the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Plenty of pro-lifers want greater restrictions on the sale of weapons, some want the sale of such armaments to end permanently. A number of pro-lifers care deeply about military use of children and the international trade in children for sexual slavery.

Some pro-lifers are unilateral nuclear disarmers, some are multilateralists.

Some pro-lifers are socialists, some social democrats, others liberals and still others conservatives. Some are even libertarian.

Many are atheists and humanists, many same-sex attracted.

‘It turns out that it is NOT the life of the foetus they care about, actually it is the morality of the mother, not the mother and father, but the mother.’

Total and complete rubbish!

@104 Jim

“Chaise, why do you think anti abortionist never talk about the needless slaughter of children in Iraq?”

Never? Do you really think that there is no overlap between being anti-abortion and being against the war in Iraq?

Or are you just sounding off? And furthermore, if I can find you an example to the contrary (i.e.someone who opposes abortion and the Iraq war) does this mean, having proved you wrong, you will revise your opinion?

@105

Your analysis is straw man nonsense. The caricature you have of a pro-lifer is almost completely non-existent.

Those abortion clinics must be blowing themselves up them, and those abortion doctors must be murdering themselves too.

@107
‘Those abortion clinics must be blowing themselves up them, and those abortion doctors must be murdering themselves too.’

Another straw man of course not a single recorded incident in the UK and always universally condemned by pro-life organisations in the relevant country.

I suppose all vegetarians are somehow complicit in the cases of animal rights activist violence.

Total red herring!

109. Richard W

@ 101. Trooper Thompson

You are right it was late at night and I should have said death not murder. As an academic WB probably feels he has to define his position more precisely. I just take the simple view that it is her body and no one including the state or religious nutjobs has the right to impose compulsory pregnancy on her. A pretty standard British or English concept to believe that we should be free from restraints and obligations including the obligation to be pregnant. l Can’t see how anyone but authoritarians could disagree without blatant hypocrisy.

Moreover, it is always a delight to point out conservative hypocrisy. An unwanted pregnancy is obviously both trespass and burglary as the latter can’t happen without the former. Many conservatives in this country are quick to say that a property-holder has the right to defend their property from an unwanted intruder including killing the intruder. Some say the invader leaves their rights at the threshold when they intrude unwanted on the property of someone else. Yet, they would deny a woman the right to eject an unwanted intruder from her property.

110. blackwillow1

Well said, Richard W! A concise statement, put in straightforward terms. That’s the difference between the pro-abortion lobby and the anti. We can put it in a nutshell, a simple explanation of our position. The anti lobby can only offer a religious or moral argument based on religious dogma, which is intertwined with their morality, they seem unable to seperate the rights of the woman in question from the position dictated to them by faith. That echoes my point about Dorries being a fruit loop, which is why religion should be a personal choice, not a political position. The pro-life argument forces the religious into a position where they have to choose; adhere to the tenets of their faith, or respect the rights of the individual. They remove logic from the argument, but what else can they do, believing in some mythical being who lives in the sky is hardly based on any logical thinking.

@109

“An unwanted pregnancy is obviously both trespass and burglary as the latter can’t happen without the former. ”

It is not obviously this. There are significant differences between burglary and pregnancy. A burglar has committed a willful act of aggression. This is not the case with a foetus. Neither is the conservative view you mention hypocrisy. It is based on a different view of the status of an unborn baby. A conservative anti-abortionist will certainly not see a foetus as ‘obviously’ the same as a burglar, but as an innocent child.

@108

always universally condemned by pro-life organisations in the relevant country.

Officially yes. Though don’t go searching through world net daily’s archives now, t’otherwise you’re likely to discover what the members actually think. (They’re okay with it, just so ya know)

@111 It is possible to innocently trespass you know.

@ 113:

Yeah, and if you knew that somebody on your property had wandered on by mistake, it would be wrong to kill them.

@114 Well if they refused to leave I fail to see why you could not then have them removed…

116. Richard W

111. Trooper Thompson

” It is not obviously this. There are significant differences between burglary and pregnancy. A burglar has committed a willful act of aggression. This is not the case with a foetus. ”

There are no de facto differences. One is on your property against your wishes and in an unwanted pregnancy the zygote is on your property against your wishes. The zygote has committed an act of aggression by invading a space where they are not wanted.

” Neither is the conservative view you mention hypocrisy. It is based on a different view of the status of an unborn baby. A conservative anti-abortionist will certainly not see a foetus as ‘obviously’ the same as a burglar, but as an innocent child. ”

Of course it is a hypocritical stance on property rights. They would rightly argue that the state forcing me to give blood is a violation of my property rights. Compulsory pregnancy for a woman is blatant hypocrisy.

114. XXX

” Yeah, and if you knew that somebody on your property had wandered on by mistake, it would be wrong to kill them. ”

Can the zygote in question wander onto to that particular woman’s property by mistake as opposed to the property of the woman of the woman next door? An intruder/trespasser/ burglar can.

@113 I quite agree, that’s the point I’m making, that burglary and trespass are very much not the same thing.

@116

“There are no de facto differences. One is on your property against your wishes and in an unwanted pregnancy the zygote is on your property against your wishes. The zygote has committed an act of aggression by invading a space where they are not wanted. ”

I find it almost impossible to believe you actually think this. Being on your property against your wishes is not the definition of burglary, but rather;

“The breaking and entering the house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not.”

A foetus does not break and enter. A foetus does not have intent to commit a felony. They have no intent at all, they are not capable of intent, criminal or otherwise.

It’s this kind of nonsense which makes your views seem so extreme, and probably why the pro-abortion people are losing the argument in America, according to the polls. If you moderate your views and try to be more rational, it may help.

119. blackwillow1

@118: they have no intent, they are not capable of intent, criminal or otherwise. EXACTLY! They are also not capable of conceptual thinking, decision making or having opinions, on abortion or any other subject. What gives you or anyone else the right to dictate to another human being that they should carry a child to full term? Are you going to take responsibility for the care of that child upto the age of eighteen? Would you be willing to meet the costs of raising that child? I suspect the answer is no on all counts, so unless or until you are prepared to say yes, you would take the responsibilities onto your own shoulders, I suggest you ram your opinions where the sun refuse to shine!

120. Chaise Guevara

@ 104 Jim

“But what other logical conclusion could we come to? If you want to use the term ‘pro life’ then I hardly think it unreasonable to examine the position of these groups on a whole lot of other issues. These Right Wing (and/or) Religious groups appear to be rather one-dimensional and are conspicuous by their absence on a lot of other ‘life’ matters. ”

Because the term isn’t the thing itself. You might as well say “people claim to be pro-choice, but they don’t support my right to make the choice to rob people!” It is understood that pro-life means “supports the right of the unborn to live” and pro-choice means “supports the right of pregnant women to choose abortion”. Pretending not to understand the terms is just a way of creating straw men.

“I cannot see any rational distinction from a foetus dying at the hands of a fully qualified medical practitioner and say that from a bomb fired or dropped from a great distance away. In fact, I would say that comparing those deaths (three if you count the mother in the latter) are far less problematic in terms of an analogy than any number of people on railroads, rednecks in pick up vans, famous violinists on human life support machines, Jews in concentration camps etc, yet for some reason these ‘pro lifers’ never want to draw these blindingly obvious comparisons. Care to speculate why that is?”

No. If you have a point to make then make it. I’m not going to guess your side of the argument.

“Here is my analysis….”

Your analysis (i.e. that paragraph of your posts) is just a big collection of mass generalisations, supported by your refusal to accept what “pro-life” means and peppered with your constant need to demonise everyone who disagrees with you. So it’s not analysis, it’s an illogical rant.

“XXX will NEVER condemn such people for murdering the unborn babies of Muslim women, simply because he does not give a fuck about them [etc etc]”

I’m not interested in your insults against XXX. On this thread, as with many others, he has acted like a reasonable human being and you have acted like a nasty piece of work. So I’m not about to judge XXX based on your claims.

“Chaise, why do you think anti abortionist never talk about the needless slaughter of children in Iraq?”

I don’t believe that the basis of this question is true. I think you made it up because you’re unable to defend your argument on its own merits and think that straw men and ad homs can stand in for rational debate. They can’t, so put up or shut up.

121. Chaise Guevara

@ 106 Trooper Thompson

“does this mean, having proved you wrong, you will revise your opinion?”

Dream on! Remember, people who disagree with Jim are TEH EVILZ, as proved by the fact that they disagree with Jim.

122. Richard W

Why would I care about American legal concepts about anything when I am in the UK?

Burglary in common law is an offence against possession and habitation and is defined by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968.

” A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal…”

In an unwanted pregnancy the zygote intends to steal nutrients from the host. What would you call it if someone moved into your property to use your energy and food supply against your wishes for nine months?

” It’s this kind of nonsense which makes your views seem so extreme, and probably why the pro-abortion people are losing the argument in America, according to the polls. ”

Otherwise known as argumentum ad populum. The tragedy of the U.S. descent to christian theocracy is no benchmark for anyone else.

@119,

there are actually organisations that encourage women to go through with the pregnancies and then take the child for adoption. I imagine a number of people on this thread would fight tooth and nail to prevent a pregnant woman being given advice from such an organisation.

@122

“In an unwanted pregnancy the zygote intends to steal nutrients from the host. ”

No. There is no intent.

“Otherwise known as argumentum ad populum.”

No, I’m merely stating the fact, that the pro-abortion people are losing the argument in the court of popular opinion, and suggesting that this may be because the position you are advancing is not very convincing, such as imparting to a foetus a criminal intent.

125. Mr S. Pill

Discussing abortion by using the analogy of a burgler is unhelpful IMO as it automatically sets up the foetus as autonomous person with various rights etc. Which is something that is much disputed, to say the very least – the burgler analogy is basically arguing on anti-choice, sorry, “pro-life”, grounds rather than any netural turf.

126. the a&e charge nurse

I assume women have good reason to abort but using language like invader, parasite, or in some cases tumour/clump of cells, to describe what in the majority of cases would otherwise have developed into a healthy baby, smacks of attempting to desensitise what is an unpalatable act.

Imagine saying to the mother with a knowing wink, post termination – you must be glad to be rid of the parasite (tumour/invader, etc).

@ 122:

“In an unwanted pregnancy the zygote intends to steal nutrients from the host. What would you call it if someone moved into your property to use your energy and food supply against your wishes for nine months?”

I’m extremely tempted to call troll on this. How could any sensible person actually believe such an argument?

Just to back up for a second to possibly the most ridiculous comment of the year:

‘I don’t go to my lawyer for legal advice’

Who on earth do you go to for legal advice then? Your hairdresser?!

129. Richard W

124. Trooper Thompson

“In an unwanted pregnancy the zygote intends to steal nutrients from the host. ”

” No. There is no intent. ”

Maybe you would like to describe the process in an unwanted pregnancy whereby the zygote can obtain nutrients without stealing them considering the host does not want them to be there?

The court of popular opinion is argumentum ad populum.

Anyway we are just going around in circles. Just a reminder what some of you libertarians used to believe before discovering bog-standard conservatism.

The Rothbardians:

“no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body” Murray Rothbard.

” The fetus is not a human being with rights until it is born (based on a number of rationales) and/or only the mother confers rights on the fetus; even if the fetus has rights, and abortion is murder, the rights of the mother to evict trespassers — for whatever reasons — through abortion are greater (based on a number of rationales); the government is the problem, not the solution, including in this issue; it’s my body and the government should keep its laws off it; people can decide this issue in their private, contractual communities; only voluntary means of convincing a woman to have a child are libertarian; the decision on whether it is murder is based on political power and adult women have more power; it is wrong to force a deformed baby or unwanted child to come into the world; ”
http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/

The Randite Objectivists:

” An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”
Ayn Rand

“A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called “pro-lifers” as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman’s womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman’s womb. ”
http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

@128

The remark was ironic.

@129

The process does not involve intent and certainly not criminal intent. That is why your burglary comparison falls down.

“The court of popular opinion is argumentum ad populum”

If, and it’s an important if, I was arguing that the court of popular opinion decides what’s right or wrong, then it is what you say, but merely to draw attention to public opinion, according to polling information, is not to say that public opinion is right.

“Anyway we are just going around in circles.”

Indeed.

“Just a reminder what some of you libertarians used to believe before discovering bog-standard conservatism…”

If you cast your mind back, I flagged up the position of (libertarian) Walter Block, i.e. evictionism, with a link. This is close to my own view. Most libertarians are indeed pro-abortion, but the ones that are anti-abortion are so because they take a different view on the right to life of an unborn child, not because they hate women or any other stupid strawman claim.

Idiot troll ……… “Another straw man of course not a single recorded incident in the UK and always universally condemned by pro-life organisations in the relevant country. ”

Too stupid to even debate with.

The right wing celebrate every doctors death. Pretend crocodile tears from the pretend pro lifers every time a doctor is killed by the terrorist wing of the republican party is not to be taken seriously.

133. Comrade Tebbit

“The right wing celebrate every doctors death. Pretend crocodile tears from the pretend pro lifers every time a doctor is killed by the terrorist wing of the republican party is not to be taken seriously.”

lol

Your bark is much worse than your bite, dear.

Stephen @ 105

Many anti abortionists are pro life in a number of other issues? Okay. How many? How many are simply anti abortion? The most vocal have nothing sensible to add to the debates regarding war crimes, starvation and restrict themselves to anti abortion issues. I do not see it as controversial to describe people who ONLY debate anti abortion measures, as ‘anti abortionists’ is it? I have absolutely no problem with people who consistently argue from what we would call a ‘pro life stance’ being called ‘pro life’, though.

Trooper Thompson @ 106

There are people who condemn both abortion and the Iraq war, the death penalty, but I said the most vocal only condemn abortion. If I can find some who condemn abortion, yet support the mass murder of Iraqi civilians, will you concede that I am right?

@ 123

there are actually organisations that encourage women to go through with the pregnancies and then take the child for adoption. I imagine a number of people on this thread would fight tooth and nail to prevent a pregnant woman being given advice from such an organisation.
I have no idea who though, TT.

A & E 126
No one outside of these debates uses that term to describe a live foetus. I doubt a doctor or nurse you would work with would do so. The term ‘parasite’ etc because of the ridiculous analogies regarding stream trains, rednecks etc mask a pretty obvious point.
I said earlier that making up analogies like this is silly because it misses the rather obvious point. A foetus in a womb is completely unique. How it got there, what it is doing there and how it will get out is completely unlike any situation we will ever encounter in real life. A womb is not a house, a car or a garden and it is not remotely like it either.

TT @ 131

but the ones that are anti-abortion are so because they take a different view on the right to life of an unborn child,
Have you any idea how they feel about the unborn child of an Iraqi/Iranian women being murdered, along with the mother, being killed via a bunker buster? Or an African child starving to death at a dried up river bed?

135. Richard W

@ 131. Trooper Thompson

We could go on endlessly arguing about definitions and get nowhere. It seems obvious to me after conception that the intent is to stay for nine months. You may believe that there is some other predetermined intent in the process of pregnancy. If the woman does not want the foetus to be there and she is forced to host the foetus that seems a flagrant breach of her right to self-determination in relation to her property. My views are quite simply that the state or no one else has the authority to compel someone to be pregnant. If we do not accept that then there are a whole host of other arguments on other subjects that could be made compelling us to do things with our body against our will to benefit others. Therefore, all other arguments are secondary to that first principle.

I do not recall saying anyone hated women? Although, I am sure there must be a term for laws that only apply to some sections of the community. Anyway, this subject is always an interesting discussion on here. I am a bit bored with it now, but it has been good debating with you.

Okay here are clearer senerios:

Imagine a woman who does not want the foetus in her womb to come to term, the reason for this is not relevant, but if it makes you happy imagine a rape victim or someone who simply got pissed and shagged her best friends husband. She goes to the clinic and gets it seen to.

Imagine a woman living near an Iranian nuclear facility. Her and her baby are killed when a bombing raid destroys the house she is living in.

Imagine an African woman whose baby dies in the womb simply because the only source of water she drinks is full of any number of hideous diseases.

Imagine a Vietnamese baby whose child dies in the womb because a murderer has sprayed Agent Orange on her food supply.

If you are only willing to condemn the top one I submit that you are not ‘pro life’ but ‘anti abortionists’. If you are unable to condemn the perpetrators of the other actions and actively campaign for action to be taken to repair or prevent such actions then you are hypocrite.

@ 134:

“Many anti abortionists are pro life in a number of other issues? Okay. How many?”

You’re the one who originally made the claim about being anti-abortion and pro-war. The onus is on you to come up with evidence for your claim, not on the rest of us to disprove it. If you can come up with some actual evidence (as opposed to just “You don’t see anti-abortionists complaining about X, Y and Z”), then I’ll accept that a lot of pro-lifers are inconsistent (not that this would disprove their views on abortion, mind). If not, I’m afraid I’ll have no choice but to conclude that your arguments are based on prejudice and stereotyping, and are therefore unworthy of further consideration.

@ 136:

“If you are only willing to condemn the top one I submit that you are not ‘pro life’ but ‘anti abortionists’.”

Big government involves regulating things, thereby restricting individual choice. Therefore, anybody who’s pro-choice but isn’t a libertarian isn’t really “pro-choice” at all, just pro-aborting foetuses.

I notice a lot of people saying LIFE aren’t religious nutjobs. I don’t know about all of them, but my experience of them has been that they are hysterical conspiracy theorists, and the religious element is barely disguised. For example the woman from LIFE who came to our PSE class about 5 years ago and suggested that pro-abortion people were all eugenicists, and essentially Nazis. They shouldn’t be in schools or be involved in state provided counselling, full stop.

Ha, and on reading more of the thread I realise that Caroline Farrow @ 10 has made the eugenic point already! You don’t do school outreach for LIFE in the South East do you Caroline?

XXX @ 137

What do you want me to do? You want me post pictures of operation rscue NOT protesting outside airbases that have helped to muder hundreds of thousands of people? You want me to link to stories of abortionists groups NOT protesting at the mass murder of children in poverty or famine?

@ 138

Eh? I think we all know that the term ‘pro choice’ is used in terms of the right of women to access legal abortion, so I am not sure the point you are attempting to make.

@ 141:

“What do you want me to do? You want me post pictures of operation rscue NOT protesting outside airbases that have helped to muder hundreds of thousands of people? You want me to link to stories of abortionists groups NOT protesting at the mass murder of children in poverty or famine?”

Some evidence that pro-lifers are also indifferent to deaths due to famine or avoidable collateral damage in wartime would be nice.

“Eh? I think we all know that the term ‘pro choice’ is used in terms of the right of women to access legal abortion, so I am not sure the point you are attempting to make.”

I think we all know that the term “pro-life” is used in terms of the right of foetuses not to be aborted, but you seem to be demanding that pro-lifers accept all sorts of other views as well. I was just demonstrating the silliness of that position.

XXX @ 142

Some evidence that pro-lifers are also indifferent to deaths due to famine or avoidable collateral damage in wartime would be nice.

http://www.operationrescue.org/about-us/who-we-are/

Nothing there about the thousands of deaths every day that we could prevent, is there? Nothing about the children that are murdered by American soldiers. Nothing about any other deaths of children. The only thing on their own blogg is regarding abortion. Yet you are willing to call them ‘pro life’? Anti Abortion is the only thing they claim, so is it unreasonable to describe them as merely ‘anti abortionists’? I don’t think so.

I think we all know that the term “pro-life” is used in terms of the right of foetuses not to be aborted, but you seem to be demanding that pro-lifers accept all sorts of other views as well.

You think it unreasonable that we expect people proclaiming to be ‘pro life’ to be seen to be condemning the murder of innocent children in other situations?

Why is it wrong to abort a child in an abortion clinic, bombing pregnant women appears okay?

“I think we all know that the term “pro-life” is used in terms of the right of foetuses not to be aborted, but you seem to be demanding that pro-lifers accept all sorts of other views as well.”

Shorter troll ….. “It is not fair when you point out that I am a hypocrite”

What have we learned today? That pro life does not mean pro life.

@ 143:

“Nothing there about the thousands of deaths every day that we could prevent, is there? Nothing about the children that are murdered by American soldiers. Nothing about any other deaths of children. The only thing on their own blogg is regarding abortion.”

Umm, yes, because it’s a pressure group set up specifically in order to oppose abortions. That doesn’t mean that the members don’t care about civilian deaths in war, just that this particular pressure group is about abortion.

I suppose you think that the anti-Iraq War protesters were hypocrites because they didn’t demonstrate against any other wars that happened to be going on at the time?

XXX @ 145

Umm, yes, because it’s a pressure group set up specifically in order to oppose abortions. That doesn’t mean that the members don’t care about civilian deaths in war, just that this particular pressure group is about abortion.

Finally! We get to the point. This is nothing to do with ‘life’ this is to do with abortion. By your own statements regarding the morality of allowing the death of an innocent child, you state we should oppose ‘every’ unborn child’s death. I would agree with you there, however, anti abortionists are not campaigning against ‘every’ childs death, they oppose every abortion. Now there is a huge difference between being ‘anti the death of unborn children in the womb and anti abortion.

How is it possible to condemn every abortion but never say a single word about the thousands of unborn children who die every day in war zones, refugee camps and in areas of starvation and drought?

Trooper Thomspon asked a way back, could we not admit that the anti abortionist movement had the life of the unborn at heart and here is the answer: no!

Because if they did, they would mourn and be seen to mourn every killing of a child, under any circumstances. They would condemn any action that led to the preventable death of any child. You cannot stand outside an abortion clinic and berate women going into abortion clinics unless you are going to stand outside the gates of an army base and do the same. You cannot stand by and allow thousands of other children die horrible deaths and ignore them just to campaign for one subset.

These Right Wing vermin have no fucking interest in the plight of millions of unborn babies simply because these babies die Right Wing deaths. Caused by greed and War. Troy Newman or what ever his name is couldn’t give a fuck if children die fom a lack of water, a missile attack or curable illnesses.

The only thing he cares about is unborn foetus being aborted by a mother. He fucking hate the fact that the mother have Rights to recitify their ‘immoral’ behaviour. The Iraqi mother is nothing to him, because she is not pregnant in a ‘bad’ way.

This is why i hate, no, not hyperbole, I do fucking hate these cunts. If these bastards were half a man between them they would be outside the IMF, the Pentagon et al demanding an end to suffering.

There is no reason why we cannot provide drinking water for the entire planet. We have been Geo engineering for argubly a thousand years or so, perhaps even more. Yet the anti abortionists NEVER seem to campaigning for that? Why not? what difference does it make to an unborn child if she dies due to drought or an abortion?

Tell me XXX what is the difference between dying during an abortion than a bombing raid?

@ 146:

You are (deliberately?) misunderstanding the point. Pressure groups generally have one or two fairly well-defined aims or causes; just because this particular pressure group’s cause is abortion, that doesn’t mean that its members don’t also care about other causes as well. People can reasonably say “A is wrong” without having to add “Oh, and by the way, B, C, D, E and F are wrong too”, and it’s sheer whataboutery to suggest otherwhise.

Also, you’ve spent a lot of time in this thread criticising religious involvement in abortion procedures. But you haven’t once criticised religious involvement in other spheres of life, e.g., the Bishops in the House of Lords. So I could easily apply your logic [sic] to prove that you’re just being hypocritical, that you don’t really object to religious influence in people’s lives, that that’s just a smokescreen for your attempts to get more foetuses aborted, etc., etc.

149. Just Visiting

with analogies like this:

> An unwanted pregnancy is obviously both trespass and burglary

I can imagine my female friends reading LC and concluding the nutjubs are the ones posting here – not the politicians.

150. Just Visiting

Jim

> I do fucking hate these cunts

Seriously, it would help you more to talk to someone offline about why you feel such hatred – it seems clear that your hatred is not the result of a reasonable analysis of pro-lifers…. the hatred is the pre-cursor emotion that drives your arguing here. Such is the strength of that emotion that you have not taken on board anything said whether by pro-life or pro-choice folk.

An internet forum is just not a place where such strong emotions as yours can be effectively aired.

151. Chaise Guevara

@ 141 Jim

“Eh? I think we all know that the term ‘pro choice’ is used in terms of the right of women to access legal abortion, so I am not sure the point you are attempting to make.”

Hahahahaha!

You go around pretending that “pro-life” is or should mean “pro all life”, but get confused when someone mocks that by acting as if “pro-choice” is or should mean “pro all choice”?

Fucking hilarious! It’s like watching a troll chase its own tail.

152. Chaise Guevara

@ 150

“An internet forum is just not a place where such strong emotions as yours can be effectively aired.”

In this case, may I suggest a padded cell?

The ‘pro lifers’ appear to be unaware of the reality of ‘back street’ abortions prior to pro choice legislation, or perhaps the rate of infanticide in bygone era’s, or perhaps just the high rate of infant mortality due to poverty. When the local bus station was pulled down to make way for a shopping centre, the foundations of the previous back to back slums contained numerous skeletons of new born babies. That is reality. There was damn good reasons why abortion became legal and contraception became widely avaliable and encouraged. I suppose this will go in one ear and out the other for some people on this discussion.

@153 In XXX’s case it has done so several times in various other threads, it is apparently a price they are willing to pay to reduce the number of abortions.

155. hubert lane

I think abortion should be legal and oppose LIFE type aspirations to make it illegal.

I’m also reminded of someone saying that their attitude to abortion tended to be the opposite of the last person to speak. What a graceless article – complete with boorish sneer ‘religious nutjobs’ complete with a barrage of graceless abuse from the ‘pro choice’ commenters.

Can’t some of them raise their level of argument above ‘fuck off’?

Jus askin

XXX @ 147

Anti abortionist have a specific agenda alright, but they try to hide under the cloak of being ‘pro life’. However, few ‘anti abortionists could be described as pro life by any reasonable measure.

@ 148

Also, you’ve spent a lot of time in this thread criticising religious involvement in abortion procedures.

Have I? Where? If religous people have anything useful to add to any debate then I will happily take them on their merits. When it comes to the House of Lords I have often said that Bishops should play no part in Law making processes.

Just visiting @ 150

I know exactly why I hate these cunts and have explained it on several occasions.

Chaise @ 151

You go around pretending that “pro-life” is or should mean “pro all life”, but get confused when someone mocks that by acting as if “pro-choice” is or should mean “pro all choice”?

Aw for fucks sake man screw your fucking head on! If someone uses the term ‘pro life’ what can that mean? They are trying to spin the term ‘pro life’ to deflect away from the fact that they are merely ‘anti abortion’.

They are deliberately attempting to imply that they put ‘life’ in some kind of special status. Obviously that is crap because some of the most vocal anti abortionists are pretty much happy to see millions killed in other circumstances.

Pro choice is a completely other matter. ‘Pro choice’ is a term that we can really restrict to the abortion debate to mean that we support the ‘mothers right to choose whether or not to have an abortion’. It is merely a contraction of a larger statement.

Most people can distinguish between the two. Sorry if find that confusing.

Chaise and XXX,

I see that neither of you are able to explain why a child dying during an abortion is worse than a child dying in a bombing raid.

Have either of you came up with something yet?

157. Chaise Guevara

@ 156 Jim

“Aw for fucks sake man screw your fucking head on!”

Wipe the drool off your chin and calm down. Good troll.

“If someone uses the term ‘pro life’ what can that mean?”

Means they’re against abortions. Buy a dictionary.

They are trying to spin the term ‘pro life’ to deflect away from the fact that they are merely ‘anti abortion’.

They are deliberately attempting to imply that they put ‘life’ in some kind of special status. Obviously that is crap because some of the most vocal anti abortionists are pretty much happy to see millions killed in other circumstances.”

It’s a euphemistic term, sure, just like “pro-choice”. That doesn’t make it any more pathetic to deliberately misinterpret it then insists that everyone use it in the new way you just invented.

“Pro choice is a completely other matter. ‘Pro choice’ is a term that we can really restrict to the abortion debate to mean that we support the ‘mothers right to choose whether or not to have an abortion’. It is merely a contraction of a larger statement.”

Just like “pro-life” is a contraction of “pro-the-life-of-the-unborn”. And as pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-all-choice, I don’t see why you think pro-life should mean pro-all-life. Wait, yes I do: double standards.

“Most people can distinguish between the two. Sorry if find that confusing.”

LOL, you’re the one who thinks pro-life has something to do with being anti-war! Your habit of projecting your problems onto me would be sweet if it wasn’t so annoying.

“I see that neither of you are able to explain why a child dying during an abortion is worse than a child dying in a bombing raid.

Have either of you came up with something yet?”

Why would I want to explain a position I don’t agree with, you weirdo?

@ 156:

“Anti abortionist have a specific agenda alright”

Yes, that of stopping abortions. I’m not sure why you’re trying to imply that there’s something sinister and ulterior about all this, given that they’re usually quite open about their aims.

“Have I? Where?”

I’m sorry, I think I was getting you confused with Sunny “religious nutjobs” Hundal. It’s not of huge importance, though, it’s still pretty easy to make a similar argument about you. You say that getting LIFE involved in abortions is wrong, because it will restrict women’s right to choose; but sex slavery also restricts women’s right to choose. You haven’t criticised sex slavery on this thread; therefore you don’t care about women’s right to choose, this “pro-choice” act is just a smokescreen, and you’re really interested in aborting foetuses. Oh, and because it’s impossible to get the right answer for the wrong reasons, that means that the “pro-choice” position on abortion is also wrong.

“They are deliberately attempting to imply that they put ‘life’ in some kind of special status. Obviously that is crap because some of the most vocal anti abortionists are pretty much happy to see millions killed in other circumstances.”

Evidence? (And no, the fact that they don’t suffix everything they say with “Oh, and by the way, these things are also wrong” doesn’t count.)

“I see that neither of you are able to explain why a child dying during an abortion is worse than a child dying in a bombing raid.”

Probably because no argument which either of us has made on this thread requires that as a premise.

Chaise @ 157 XXX @ 158

Means they’re against abortions. Buy a dictionary.
Yes, that of stopping abortions.

So why not simply use the term ‘anti abortion’? After all, that is what they are, isn’t it? So why hide behind terms like ‘pro life’?

I’m not sure why you’re trying to imply that there’s something sinister and ulterior about all this, given that they’re usually quite open about their aims.

But they insist in hiding behind terms like ‘Pro Life’, when they clearly mean nothing of the sort. They are anti abortionists a legitimate position to take, but not the same as ‘pro life’ which implies far more.

LOL, you’re the one who thinks pro-life has something to do with being anti-war!

Well, if you want to you the term ‘pro life’ is it beyond belief that you would be expected to against wanton killing of people under any circumstances, is it?

Why would I want to explain a position I don’t agree with, you weirdo?
Probably because no argument which either of us has made on this thread requires that as a premise.

Yeah, in other words, you don’t have a decent answer, which is what I thought anyway.

You haven’t criticised sex slavery on this thread; therefore you don’t care about women’s right to choose

When did that come up? I bet I could find thousands of people who would campaign for the right of abortion and campaign against sex slavery and sex trafficking.

this “pro-choice” act is just a smokescreen, and you’re really interested in aborting foetuses.

I am rarely in favour of abortion. I think that many abortions could be prevented, if we had better education and perhaps a more humane attidude to parenthood, adoption, fostering and the like.

What I do agree with is that if a woman makes that choice, then I cannot see why anyone would stand in her way and she should have access to a prompt legal and safe abortion. I believe that women should be allowed to choose an abortion, even if I personally find that choice horrendous, because it is the woman that is forced to live with the consequences of that action, not society.

I will never condemn a woman who finds herself in that position, though and if you want a simplistic and binary statement then, yes, I am in favour of abortion. Of course, I am not in favour of compulsory abortion or in favour of women being forced into an abortion, but I am in favour of women having the right to make that difficult choice by their own volition.

@159

But they insist in hiding behind terms like ‘Pro Life’, when they clearly mean nothing of the sort. They are anti abortionists a legitimate position to take, but not the same as ‘pro life’ which implies far more.

Well, yes. That’s why “pro-family” is in practice code for being anti-gay and “pro-marriage” is code for being anti-gay marriage. The religious right knows full well to cloak hatred in fluffy language.

@ 159:

“So why not simply use the term ‘anti abortion’? After all, that is what they are, isn’t it? So why hide behind terms like ‘pro life’?”

Probably for the same reasons that pro-abortionists prefer the term “pro-choice”.

“They are anti abortionists a legitimate position to take, but not the same as ‘pro life’ which implies far more.”

Only to you, Jim. The rest of us know the meaning of common English terms, and understand that “pro-life” means “pro-the-life-of-the-foetus” and not “pro-all-life-anywhere-and-everywhere”. Just as “pro-choice” means “pro-the-woman’s right-to-choose-an-abortion” and not “pro-all-choice-anywhere-and-everywhere”.

“Well, if you want to you the term ‘pro life’ is it beyond belief that you would be expected to against wanton killing of people under any circumstances, is it?”

Where do you get the idea that lots of pro-life people aren’t against wanton killing?

“Yeah, in other words, you don’t have a decent answer, which is what I thought anyway.”

We don’t need to have a decent answer, because the whole issue is a straw man.

“When did that come up?”

You criticised pro-lifers for not mentioning war on the website of a pro-life pressure groups; what’s the difference between your criticism and mine?

“I bet I could find thousands of people who would campaign for the right of abortion and campaign against sex slavery and sex trafficking.”

I bet I could find people who would campaign against abortion and against civilian casualties in war.

162. Chaise Guevara

@ 159 Jim

“So why not simply use the term ‘anti abortion’? After all, that is what they are, isn’t it? So why hide behind terms like ‘pro life’?”

Um, I just told you it was euphemistic. People, shockingly enough, like to use positive-sounding names to describe themselves. And before you pounce on that, I’m not saying “anti-abortion” is a negative name, but “pro-life” has an actively positive sound to it.

I didn’t invent the term “pro-life”. I just don’t object to people using it, seeing as everyone (except you, apparently) knows what it means.

“Well, if you want to you the term ‘pro life’ is it beyond belief that you would be expected to against wanton killing of people under any circumstances, is it?”

People other than yourself might not think of the death penalty as “wanton”. I do, and I’m guessing you do, but that doesn’t make them a hypocrite for calling themselves pro-life. Again, you use the term “pro-choice” but I don’t presume that means you support the choice to steal, rape or kill – and nor do I think you a hypocrite for not supporting those choices.

“Yeah, in other words, you don’t have a decent answer, which is what I thought anyway.”

OK, Jim, please defend the position that 2+2=5. And if you can’t, I win the entire argument!

Alternatively, try to stop being a massive bellend for half a minute and admit that I’m not actually obliged to defend positions that I disagree with.

Seriously, you must be the stupidest person on LC.

XXX @ 161

We don’t need to have a decent answer, because the whole issue is a straw man.

Eh? How is it a straw man? If operation rescue believe it is wrong to kill an unborn child, why are they not actively campaigning to have the army disbanded?

I bet I could find people who would campaign against abortion and against civilian casualties in war.

Sure thing, but the point is the most vocal anti abortionists on the Right actively support the War in Iraq.

A bit strange, given the call themselves ‘pro life’, don’t you think.

So, XXX why is it worse to be killed in an abortinist’s clinic than a bombing raid?

164. Chaise Guevara

“Eh? How is it a straw man? If operation rescue believe it is wrong to kill an unborn child, why are they not actively campaigning to have the army disbanded?”

“So, XXX why is it worse to be killed in an abortinist’s clinic than a bombing raid?”

Why, pray, do you keep asking questions when they’ve already been answered?

And why does 2+2=5? Tell me!

Chaise @ 162

People, shockingly enough, like to use positive-sounding names to describe themselves.

Most people I know would happily call themselves ‘anti racist’, ‘anti fascist’ even anti capitalist or anti other things without the need to put a positive spin on it. Sure with a little bit of invention you could make hem positive sounding, but we are not ashamed to admit what we are standing against.

that doesn’t make them a hypocrite for calling themselves pro-life.

No? Well it sure does in my book. How anyone can call themselves ‘pro life’ while believing in the death penalty is beyond me.

OK, Jim, please defend the position that 2+2=5. And if you can’t, I win the entire argument!

If ever I am on thread for thirty posts defending the 2+2=5 camp, you may have a point. I have not, so your point is moot.
Seriously, you must be the stupidest person on LC.

Perhaps I am, but then again, I haven’t spent the last three days defending anti abortionist views and when put on the spot was forced to admit that neither of you could defend the position and beat a hasty retreat.

Chaise @ 164

If you have an answr, let us hear it? Right now, you appear to be an empty jersey!

So come on Chaise, you are defending this guy, so come on, stop ducking and get answering. Why is it worse to be killed in an abortion than a bombing bombing raid?

167. Chaise Guevara

@ 165

“Most people I know would happily call themselves ‘anti racist’, ‘anti fascist’ even anti capitalist or anti other things without the need to put a positive spin on it. Sure with a little bit of invention you could make hem positive sounding, but we are not ashamed to admit what we are standing against.”

Nor are pro-lifers. Seriously, show me a pro-lifer who denies being against abortion.

“No? Well it sure does in my book. How anyone can call themselves ‘pro life’ while believing in the death penalty is beyond me.”

How anyone can call themselves “pro-choice” while not campaigning for the choice to kill old ladies is beyond me… Well, actually it isn’t, but that’s because I don’t demand that everyone obey my random linguistic preferences.

“If ever I am on thread for thirty posts defending the 2+2=5 camp, you may have a point. I have not, so your point is moot.”

If I am ever on a thread for even ONE post defending the people who say that abortion is worse than child deaths, you may have a point. I have not, so obviously you don’t actually understand my point.

“Perhaps I am, but then again, I haven’t spent the last three days defending anti abortionist views and when put on the spot was forced to admit that neither of you could defend the position and beat a hasty retreat.”

What a coincidence, me neither!

Incidentally, while we’re on the subject of these false accusations you like to throw around like a ten-year-old having a tantrum, have you got around to finding evidence of me being anti-disabled yet?

168. Chaise Guevara

@ 166 Jim

“If you have an answr, let us hear it? Right now, you appear to be an empty jersey!”

Right now, you appear to be a pathetic little troll. I don’t have to defend statements I disagree with. I don’t have to defend statements I disagree with. I don’t have to defend statements I disagree with. Is this getting through your inpenetrable troll-skull yet? I. Don’t. Have. To. Defend. Statements. I Disagree. With. Still incapable of understanding that sentence?

“So come on Chaise, you are defending this guy, so come on, stop ducking and get answering. Why is it worse to be killed in an abortion than a bombing bombing raid?”

1) Defending a person doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they believe.

2) XXX doesn’t appear to believe that abortion is worse than war anyway.

3) You are a troll.

Chaise @ 167

Nor are pro-lifers. Seriously, show me a pro-lifer who denies being against abortion.

They still use the term ‘pro life’ thoug o cover their tracks. Again, Why do that? Why not simply use the term ‘pro life’?

If I am ever on a thread for even ONE post defending the people who say that abortion is worse than child deaths, you may have a point. I have not, so obviously you don’t actually understand my point.

You are on the side of people who have totally ignored the deaths of unborn children though, while portraying themselves as pro life.

have you got around to finding evidence of me being anti-disabled yet?,/b>

You are always on the side of the Right, which amounts to the same thing.

170. Chaise Guevara

@ Jim

“They still use the term ‘pro life’ thoug o cover their tracks. Again, Why do that? Why not simply use the term ‘pro life’?”

Because it’s more reflective of the reason they are anti-abortion, I presume. Pro-lifers see themselves as fighting to save lives.

“You are on the side of people who have totally ignored the deaths of unborn children though, while portraying themselves as pro life.”

I am on the side of XXX because he is doing his best to discuss a difficult issue with you reasonably and politely, while you are throwing around straw men like nobody’s business, screaming “cunts!” every time someone disagrees with you, and generally acting like a petulant brat. I don’t need to agree with XXX’s stance on abortion to know who the bad guy is in this conversation, or that people like you need to be called out.

“You are always on the side of the Right, which amounts to the same thing.”

Only in your bizarre little world. In any case, I am rarely on the side of the right. I have been known to agree with rightwingers (I would not be surprised to learn that both me and David Cameron share a fondness for pizza, for example), but that’s not the same thing, not if you actually bother to give it a moment’s thought.

In any case, can I take it from your non-sequitur above that you have no evidence that I’m anti-disablist? Because that would be a tacit admission that you’re a lying little shit, you see

The latest anti abortion clap trap from the US. No doubt Frank Field will be pushing for this soon….

“the GOP-led state House passed Ohio’s “heartbeat bill,” giving Ohio “the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation.” The bill outlaws abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as “six to seven weeks into pregnancy.” There is no exception in the bill for rape, incest, or mental health of a woman. This radical viability standard is unconstitutional, flouting the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that forbids states from banning abortions until the fetus is viable, which is generally around 22 to 24 weeks.”

Because it’s more reflective of the reason they are anti-abortion, I presume. Pro-lifers see themselves as fighting to save lives.

I think a more honest approach would be to suggest that they want to be seen as saving lives.

They are still, no matter how you look at it, anti abortionists and are not exactly honest about it. This is why I find the term ‘pro life’ so objectional. There are wide spectrum of people who deal in attempting to save life, yet the anti abortionists never seem to overly concerned with these campaigns. Their prioties lie in anti abortion, and should be called as such.

I understand why they want to soften their image, but it doesn’t fool me. They are cunts because they act exactly like cunts.

173. Chaise Guevara

@ 172 Jim

No evidence, then? Ok.

“I think a more honest approach would be to suggest that they want to be seen as saving lives. ”

Honestly, I’d say both. “Pro-life” is a preferred term both because it reflects how they feel about the principle and how they want other people to feel about the principle.

“They are still, no matter how you look at it, anti abortionists and are not exactly honest about it.”

Again, it’s not dishonest, because everyone understands what the terms mean. In common parlance, “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” are synonymous and are understood as such. It’s just that people on different sides prefer different terms. I won’t deny that “anti-abortion” is more linguistically exact, I just don’t think “pro-life” is a problem, because it doesn’t confuse anyone.

“This is why I find the term ‘pro life’ so objectional. There are wide spectrum of people who deal in attempting to save life, yet the anti abortionists never seem to overly concerned with these campaigns. Their prioties lie in anti abortion, and should be called as such.”

Anti-abortionists coined the term before, say, human rights activists did. That’s just how history went. It’s not a big deal and there’s no reason to read deep meaning into it.

You don’t know what priorities individuals have. There must be pro-lifers who hate the fact that their stance means forcing women to maintain pregancy but see it as an unnecessary evil. There must be pro-lifers who feel much more strongly about other issues you would agree with – democracy or peace, for example.

“I understand why they want to soften their image, but it doesn’t fool me. They are cunts because they act exactly like cunts.”

That would be using the word you’re defining in the definition. I personally wouldn’t apply the word “cunt” to someone because they prioritised the perceived right to life of a z/e/f over bodily autonomy. I also have to say that you seem to go out of your way not to understand your opponents – if your attitude is that they’re motivated by cuntishness, you’re never going to actually get a handle on what they think. That’s a bad idea purely for tactical reasons.

I’m quite surprised that the Mods haven’t deleted any of Jim’s comments. All that “pro-lifers are cunts” business would come under any reasonable definition of “abusive”.

As for the rest of your posts, Jim: either you’re a troll, or your too stupid and closed-minded to listen to what other people say. Either way, it’s not worth anybody’s while to waste time or energy on you, and I for one will ignore anything you say from this time forward.

@162

Seriously, you must be the stupidest person on LC.

Naa, that’d be So Much For Subtlety.

I am afraid that I am just weary of Right Wing rhetoric being dressed up in apparently ‘reasonable language’ in order to disguise deeply unpleasant people with deeply unpleasant views that’s all, nothing sinister in that is there?

As Cylux points out the Right have been doing this and getting away with it for years. Terms like ‘pro marriage’, ‘pro life’, ‘pro business’, etc have been bandied about by the Right without a single point of irony, given the endless diatribes against ‘Political Correctness’ we have seen.

As for having a closed mind, well I haven’t seen a single line of contrition from you at all. No-where in this thread have you even allowed for the possibility that your views could be wrong or based on entirely false assumptions or just plain prejudices. You have been given ample opportunity to clarify your position on such matters and the ‘best’ you can come up with is further deflection. As with every anti abortionist I have ever encountered when you get down to it and examine their views, they come up short because once you strip away the misogyny and the moralising you find little left to debate. Once confronted with the real World the moral high ground is not as simple to defend, as an unrelenting hatred of women would first appear. Once you examine the Right’s other, equally strident prejudices, the sanctity of all human life quietly goes out the window. Nothing screams hypocrisy louder than an anti abortionist with a War they feel needs fighting.

I will Tell you something right now XXX, you say that you are ‘pro life’ well here we go, I will be watching your posts with a bit more interest and lets see how ‘pro life’ you really are.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  2. Bod

    WTF indeed! >> RT @libcon: WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  3. paulstpancras

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  4. Paul Crowley

    Dorries anti-abortion amendment to pass without a vote? Eek! http://t.co/JdaML9j

  5. textuallimits

    Remember what I wrote a few weeks ago about undemocratic attacks on abortion rights? Looks like it's happening now: http://t.co/YQ8xPzu

  6. Zoe O'Connell

    Eep, indeed 🙁 >> MT @ciphergoth: Dorries anti-abortion amendment to pass without a vote? Eek! http://bit.ly/lCBSNk

  7. Liz Heckenberg

    Please Retweet widely! RT @ciphergoth: Dorries anti-abortion amendment to pass without a vote? Eek! http://tinyurl.com/6hm92nz

  8. sunny hundal

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  9. Thomas Kohut

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  10. anna banana

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  11. Peter Thomas

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  12. David

    #dorries is a #nutjob but she's a dangerous #nutjob. http://t.co/iusin6E #toryscum #labourscum. Field is just a c-bomb.

  13. Percolate Magazine

    RT @sunny_hundal: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://t.co/npysqnt

  14. Franki

    #dorries is a #nutjob but she's a dangerous #nutjob. http://t.co/iusin6E #toryscum #labourscum. Field is just a c-bomb.

  15. Corwin

    don't need consensus, am right # RT @libcon: WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed w/o vote http://bit.ly/krojj2 via @davorg

  16. Alex

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  17. sunny hundal

    Department of Health also considering a broader ban on counselling by abortion clinics. WTF? http://bit.ly/krojj2 (cc @jester)

  18. Diana Fire

    Please RT @sunny_hundal MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by #Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  19. Trish D

    Department of Health also considering a broader ban on counselling by abortion clinics. WTF? http://bit.ly/krojj2 (cc @jester)

  20. Katy Bairstow

    Eep, indeed 🙁 >> MT @ciphergoth: Dorries anti-abortion amendment to pass without a vote? Eek! http://bit.ly/lCBSNk

  21. Mili

    Bad enough that Parliament should have a say over my uterus, but now #Dorries & DH are looking to circumvent Commons: http://t.co/9wCpEMR

  22. Shockwave

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  23. Katy Bairstow

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  24. Liam McKee

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  25. Andy S

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  26. John O'Dwyer

    RT @libcon WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2 Ableist words http://alturl.com/jyfmv

  27. Broken OfBritain

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://fb.me/ACIMrPvF

  28. Joseph Bush

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  29. Sarah Brown

    Eep, indeed 🙁 >> MT @ciphergoth: Dorries anti-abortion amendment to pass without a vote? Eek! http://bit.ly/lCBSNk

  30. Max Morris

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  31. lydia harris

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  32. milli tant

    “@RichardJMurphy: Outrageous: MPs may be denied vote on amendments by Dorries & Field to restrict abortion access http://t.co/IYPFPht”<WTF

  33. Sharon

    SCary – WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/3dAfGEI via @libcon

  34. Kirst

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  35. SiobhanC1

    Department of Health also considering a broader ban on counselling by abortion clinics. WTF? http://bit.ly/krojj2 (cc @jester)

  36. Tom Ashworth

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://fb.me/ACIMrPvF

  37. Red Maria

    @niall_gooch Put that to him on Lib Con http://bit.ly/krojj2

  38. Woodo

    Bad enough that Parliament should have a say over my uterus, but now #Dorries & DH are looking to circumvent Commons: http://t.co/9wCpEMR

  39. AJ McKenna

    RT @libcon WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2 Ableist words http://alturl.com/jyfmv

  40. DanielPoxton

    Department of Health also considering a broader ban on counselling by abortion clinics. WTF? http://bit.ly/krojj2 (cc @jester)

  41. Andy S

    Department of Health also considering a broader ban on counselling by abortion clinics. WTF? http://bit.ly/krojj2 (cc @jester)

  42. Pierre Le Polar Bear

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  43. Amanda Kendal

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  44. Mustafa Ozbilgin

    “@libcon: WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://t.co/JqQuulf” WTF X2!

  45. BobFarrell

    Absolutely outrageous. We must fight this: http://j.mp/it4ixB #dorries #abortion

  46. Jill Hayward

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  47. Anna Bird

    RT @libcon WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2 Ableist words http://alturl.com/jyfmv

  48. Amangham

    Absolutely outrageous. We must fight this: http://j.mp/it4ixB #dorries #abortion

  49. Mike Flint

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  50. Mary-Ann Stephenson

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  51. Bob

    Absolutely outrageous. We must fight this: http://j.mp/it4ixB #dorries #abortion

  52. Sarah C

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  53. SteveCooke

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  54. David Dubost

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  55. Ceara Rea

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  56. Tony Fyler

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  57. Dooderino

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  58. Steve Wins

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  59. Marverde

    @codepinkalert #Tories invite Magdalena Sisters to the UK See http://t.co/kWj55sT Pls RT!

  60. CAROLE JONES

    RT @libcon: WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  61. Martin Searle

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  62. Martin Searle

    Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote?: http://t.co/WOGR3CE >> And taking BPAS out of the process? Outrageous! @clare_bpas

  63. ross cowie

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  64. Richard Drew

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  65. Kirsten Williamson

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  66. Lizzie Charlton

    Anger >:| >> WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote http://t.co/3Bn6mf7

  67. Pucci Dellanno

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  68. Charlie Holden

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/GMR42tW via @libcon

  69. Martin Campbell

    There is clearly no limit to how low the anti-abortion lobby will stoop to deprive women of a free choice. http://bit.ly/lzBKZh

  70. Finn Cullen

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  71. Prym face

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  72. The Curator

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  73. Ma

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  74. Jackie Fitzmaurice

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/txVSkdW via @libcon

  75. Tamsin

    Field & #Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | @libcon http://t.co/806Esa9 #prochoice #feminism

  76. skeptic medic

    Wtf Wtf Wtf RT @libcon WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2 #wtf

  77. james blessing

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  78. James Graham

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  79. Luna

    WTF? War on Women now in the UK: RT @skepticmedic @libcon Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://t.co/sWwf9pW

  80. Anna Hedge

    Field, Dorries & changes to abortion counselling provision:let them defend their proposals on the floor of the House.: http://t.co/iF0shYG

  81. Kausik Datta

    +1 RT @skepticmedic: Wtf Wtf Wtf RT @libcon WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2 #wtf

  82. milli tant

    Field, Dorries & changes to abortion counselling provision:let them defend their proposals on the floor of the House.: http://t.co/iF0shYG

  83. QOFE

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  84. AnonLegionGR

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  85. Rhizomatic1

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  86. Andy Bean

    FFS! Just cross the fucking floor, Field, you shitehawk >> WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote http://t.co/dhThvX6

  87. E B-H

    WTF? Field & Dorries want abortion amendments passed without vote http://bit.ly/krojj2

  88. sunny hundal

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  89. Mabel Horrocks

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  90. Ferret Dave

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  91. Woodo

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  92. Stew Wilson

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  93. Spir.Sotiropoulou

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/aaR0s0Y via @libcon Madness all around…

  94. Spir.Sotiropoulou

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  95. Yakoub Islam

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy: http://t.co/4O1PEpL via @libcon

  96. Lorraine Ash

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/aaR0s0Y via @libcon Madness all around…

  97. Jamie Robinson

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  98. Adam Banks

    This #Dorries nonsense isn't just anti-abortion and anti-women, it's anti-human http://t.co/lAWUwwh ht @sunny_hundal

  99. Woodo

    This #Dorries nonsense isn't just anti-abortion and anti-women, it's anti-human http://t.co/lAWUwwh ht @sunny_hundal

  100. Gemma Tumelty

    This #Dorries nonsense isn't just anti-abortion and anti-women, it's anti-human http://t.co/lAWUwwh ht @sunny_hundal

  101. Ellie

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  102. Ellie

    'turn(ing) the clock back for millions of women' MPs to force legislation through w/out vote http://t.co/QY3dz8z via @sunny_hundal #Dorries

  103. Chris Coltrane

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  104. Hannah Nicklin

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  105. dontplaymepayme

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  106. Sol Smith

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  107. Lynn Jackson

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  108. Sam the Drummer

    Department of Health also considering a broader ban on counselling by abortion clinics. WTF? http://bit.ly/krojj2 (cc @jester)

  109. Helen Wayte

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  110. Corinne

    RT @sunny_hundal MPs to force legislation through without a vote http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  111. Michael Moran

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  112. Staffordshire UNISON

    “@sunny_hundal: MPs to force legislation without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/6Wa5NIT Outrageous

  113. Maximilian Crema

    http://t.co/kClOMnN Can we change Nadine Dorries's name to Doris Umbridge now? But seriously, fuck her.

  114. Richard George

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  115. Tim Buckley

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  116. Itsmotherswork

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  117. annaarrowsmith

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  118. Emily Davis

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  119. Elly Hase

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  120. Nick H.

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  121. Sari B

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  122. Newbury Labour

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  123. Eroding The Right To Choose « BitchKitten

    […] The government is seeking ways to make it more difficult for women to access an abortion without bringing the proposal to a vote in Parliament, Liberal Conspiracy reports. […]

  124. Mary Hallam

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  125. Mary Hallam

    RT @sunny_hundal: Outrageous: MPs may be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries to restrict abortion access. http://t.co/v4Ldb6G

  126. The Curator

    MPs to force legislation through without vote, allowing a Muslim group to impose shariah on women http://t.co/DBUV99t (oh wait…)

  127. Parma Violet

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  128. Dick Mandrake

    Field & #Dorries to push abortion changes without vote http://t.co/bz2on81 (@libcon) #conservativewaronwomen #sackdorries

  129. Jennie Kermode

    Worried about what's happening to women's rights in the US? There's dodgy stuff going on in the UK, too: http://t.co/JfREuHC

  130. Cariad Eccleston

    Worried about what's happening to women's rights in the US? There's dodgy stuff going on in the UK, too: http://t.co/JfREuHC

  131. Cwningen

    Worried about what's happening to women's rights in the US? There's dodgy stuff going on in the UK, too: http://t.co/JfREuHC

  132. Paul Hood

    Worried about what's happening to women's rights in the US? There's dodgy stuff going on in the UK, too: http://t.co/JfREuHC

  133. Marie Craddock

    Field & #Dorries to push abortion changes without vote http://t.co/bz2on81 (@libcon) #conservativewaronwomen #sackdorries

  134. Joanna McKenzie

    Worried about what's happening to women's rights in the US? There's dodgy stuff going on in the UK, too: http://t.co/JfREuHC

  135. Victoria Jordy Cook

    Worried about what's happening to women's rights in the US? There's dodgy stuff going on in the UK, too: http://t.co/JfREuHC

  136. Paul Manzotti

    Outrageous: MPs may even be denied a vote on amendments by Nadine Dorries & Frank Field to restrict abortion access http://bit.ly/krojj2

  137. Vivienne Le Breton

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/tLTbggp via @libcon

  138. The F-Word

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  139. Philippa

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  140. Phil Beardmore

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ntJnOjL via @libcon

  141. Vita S.W.

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  142. Roxy Shamsolmaali

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  143. Ruth Herbert

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  144. Gwen Forkin

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  145. Wing Watson

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  146. Dusty

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  147. Bathtubgin

    RT @libcon: WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote http://t.co/ibZHOGJ

  148. Donalea Scott

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  149. Sarah C

    …and Nadine #Dorries is trying to circumvent democracy re: abortion services (http://t.co/b67sEu9). If you care about your right to not…

  150. Emma Kennedy

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  151. Reni Eddo-Lodge

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  152. DarkestAngel

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  153. Mike, England. UK

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  154. Kim Blake

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  155. Helen Thomas

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  156. -

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  157. Carole Robinson

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  158. Wendy Constantinoff

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  159. Coleen

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  160. helenlp

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  161. Jolene Galbreath

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  162. Jamie Scott

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  163. natalieben

    Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://cot.ag/jfl1u1 Prochoice demo, 9 July!

  164. John Edginton

    Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://cot.ag/jfl1u1 Prochoice demo, 9 July!

  165. Lucy Lepchani

    Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://cot.ag/jfl1u1 Prochoice demo, 9 July!

  166. Anna Ghislaine

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zYjHi5D via @libcon

  167. Lindsey J

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  168. Lucy Lepchani

    Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth http://t.co/PkQN18F

  169. Georgia Emblen

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/tM4OeBX via @libcon

  170. Lauren Reid

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/tM4OeBX via @libcon

  171. Aisling Canton

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zYjHi5D via @libcon

  172. Matthew Bourgeois

    Serial liar, scaremongerer, expenses crook & hateful nutjob is also decidedly anti-democratic. #NadineDorries http://t.co/IJNyOWP

  173. Frank Field Is Wrong | Steve Pitt's Blog: Life & Politics in Wirral

    […] than through legislation? If so this is a dangerous precedent, and as Sunny Hundal points out on Liberal Conspiracy certainly undemocratic. Abortion is an emotive issue, but the provision and advice available for […]

  174. Rachael

    The Tories are not fit to govern our uteruses. Fuck them. Seriously. http://t.co/udNubuT

  175. Caroline McAllister

    If you are a British woman, then whatever your circumstances, your government is betraying you http://t.co/Tyg3b0m #prochoice #Dorries

  176. Pam Field

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/F8aH1Ea via @libcon

  177. Jenny Jones

    .RT@natalieben Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://t.co/H9hRMBJ Prochoice demo, 9 July! > constant vigilance needed

  178. Jenny Jones

    .RT@natalieben Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://t.co/H9hRMBJ Prochoice demo, 9 July! > constant vigilance needed

  179. Jenny Jones

    .RT@natalieben Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://t.co/H9hRMBJ Prochoice demo, 9 July! > constant vigilance needed

  180. Highbury Greens

    .RT@natalieben Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://t.co/H9hRMBJ Prochoice demo, 9 July! > constant vigilance needed

  181. Highbury Greens

    .RT@natalieben Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://t.co/H9hRMBJ Prochoice demo, 9 July! > constant vigilance needed

  182. Bob Irving

    .RT@natalieben Attempt to change UK abortion law by stealth: http://t.co/H9hRMBJ Prochoice demo, 9 July! > constant vigilance needed

  183. Diane Abbott attacks no-vote on abortion rules | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] pointed out last week that Frank Field MP (Labour) and Nadine Dorries MP (Cons) are trying to push their amendments on […]

  184. Sarah Jackson

    @sinjax @mortari Yep http://t.co/DYJJ9Lq Dorries/Field amendments to Health Bill esp http://t.co/mloiXeZ and this yest http://t.co/eXMzBwN

  185. Shreen Ayob

    WTF?!!!!!! Field & Dorries to push abortion changes in the UK without a vote. http://t.co/WgSFyFe via @libcon

  186. Tories plan to ban abortion charities on advising women | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] The Department of Health are also pushing for the amendments by Nadine Dorries and Frank Field to become a reality without the need for a vote in parliament, as we pointed out last week. […]

  187. Lina Bankrobber

    WTF?!!!!!! Field & Dorries to push abortion changes in the UK without a vote. http://t.co/WgSFyFe via @libcon

  188. rhiannonlassiter

    Nadine Dorries continues her campaign to restrict abortion access, through behind-the-scenes shenanigans. http://t.co/MJAvU5A

  189. Pro Choice Demo

    New barriers to UK abortion access to be pushed through without a vote http://t.co/XNYVluu

  190. Laur Evans

    WTF? Field & Dorries to push abortion changes without vote | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ZsCPIcz via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.