And Frank Field is an MP for which Party ?

Perhaps if you hadnt spent the last 18 months calling Libdems Traitors, scum etc…

It is very likely that the “independent” organisations brought in will be anti-choice charities and campaigners, such as for instance Care Confidential.
Independent: “Ms Dorries said she would be just as opposed to anti-abortion groups offering advise (sic) as she was to those charities which carried out terminations and suggested that the work could be carried out by counsellors registered with the British Association of Counsellors and psychotherapy. “Counselling would be offered by someone who is totally independent and impartial,” she said. “It means somebody who isn’t an abortion provider, who isn’t of a religious organisation. I can ensure you that if a catholic group said they were going to set up and offer advice I would be as against them offering advice as I am the abortion advisor.”

Perhaps if you hadnt spent the last 18 months calling Libdems Traitors, scum etc…

I’m sorry, what? They’re not trying to intervene because they’re in a mood?

@2 and Mad Nad has such an outstanding history of honesty

@2 – does the legislation make Nadine Dorries Supreme Comissioner in Charge of Deciding Who Provides Abortion Counselling Services? Because if not, her ‘opposition’ is as pointless as all the other things the Coalition.is both opposed to and enabling at the same time.

@3 Heh, good call. Yes, how dare we expect the lib dems to hold to their own stated principles, rather than watch them be abandoned because some people online said mean things about them.

I think you have to wonder how to take any posting on this subject on this site when the editor, Mr.( Killer ) Hundal, holds such an extraordinary position. This is what he had to say during a thread on the Liberal Conspiracies Editorial Line :

“I think if a woman chooses to abort her baby a week before its born( Yes a week ….) (and the likelihood is extremely rare) then its usually a VERY important reason, and I think they’re intelligent enough to weigh this up by themselves. I see no need to make the assumption that if a woman makes that decision, she is mad or something and should be forced to have the baby by the state anyway.”

Personally I am not sure why a woman should not pursue her teenage children down the street with a baseball bat if it suits her lifestyle to get rid of the unwanted brats Sunny , when does the culling season begin ?

@7

Presumably most people will be able to judge for themselves whether the opinions of the editor of the site somehow invalidate anything that is said in the discussions, or indeed serve as some form of knock out blow as you seem to think?

‘They also clearly go against the value of liberty, enshrined in the Lib Dem Constitution and on every Lib Dem membership card by effectively limiting women’s choices.’

This is the party of David Alton so they have history.

I’d have thought the Lib Dems, like any sane party would want people to have as much information as possible, impartially given? Choice is a good thing, but only if those making the choices are well informed.

Currently, they are not. They are informed by bodies that are funded only if those choosing say “yes”. That’s manipulated choice in anyone’s book.

So, actually, the Lib Dems should be for this proposal to open up the advice giving from this tiny cartel of financially compromised bodies.

But maybe this author, like Hundal, is pro-manipulated-choice, as opposed to pro-choice.

There really is no other explanation for such opposition to the proposed bill.

@10 Perhaps we should make “informed choice” mandatory for any and all important decisions in life eh? Mortages, buying a car, taking out a payday loan, selecting a school for your children, the list is endless – how about a mandatory course prior to going through with your choice in those cases?
Your decisions must be informed, I mean, we don’t want you making the wrong decision now, do we? Indeed, it might be best if you just left the decision making up to the ConDem government, that way you know your decisions will be the correct and best informed decisions for you…

@10

“There really is no other explanation for such opposition to the proposed bill.”

Yes, there is; the fact that it is Nadine Dorries pushing the concept. Despite your valiant efforts to suggest otherwise, this isn’t about providing objective informed choice by some neutral arbiter…. at best it is about “pro-life” and anti-abortion groups attempting to level the playing field in their eyes; at worst it’s a cynical ploy by crazed wing nuts like Dorries to promote her agenda.

James Reade @ 1

So, actually, the Lib Dems should be for this proposal to open up the advice giving from this tiny cartel of financially compromised bodies.

Fucking bollox, this is not about ‘opening up the advice giving’ this is about the Tory Party pandering to the religious nutters that infest the party and these cunts trying to foist their unwanted opinions on normal people.

I have no problem with people campaigning against abortion, but not with taxpayers money earmarked for counselling and via morally bankrupt Tories dressed up as ‘advisers’.

Can you imagine a real person being forced to listen to a shrill, pissed soaked old Tory matriarch prattling away about sex before marriage? Who the fuck would foist that on anyone, far less a vulnerable woman? Christ that turns my stomach.

If there was ever a need for the Lib Dems to step up to the mark it is to end the formal coalition and agree to support the tories on a per policy basis. Their almost complete capitulation in pursuit of crumbs from the table may well prove their destruction at the next election.
My, we live in interesting times.

Anne Milton is my MP – from my experience I highly doubt she’ll listen to reason.

According to the Gruniard “A survey of 10 centres operated by Christian and anti-abortion organisations found evidence in most of them of poor practice and factually incorrect advice, while the quality of counselling differs widely. Advice ranged from scaremongering – linking abortion with breast cancer, for example – to actions apparently designed to steer women away from abortion, such as showing them baby clothes and talking about “the child”.

How can a reputable international organisations like Marie Stopes do any worse than this – the answer, is of course, they can’t – proof once again that Dorries ideas are not driven by evidence but by a barely concealed religious agenda.

@15 George

If only she hadn’t gotten the opportunity to be in government eh?

I wonder how that happened….?

Oh wait….

A and E Nurse – In that the Editor of this site accords an unborn child no more value than an unremoved tonsil its bold to start questioning other people`s agendas. What in any case is the problem with religious and spiritual values informing what is an ethical question.
A new born baby is a prematurely born simian embryo by comparison to our relatives. We are born at an early stage, possibly,due to the size of our heads which has interesting implications about the nature of humanity. I see no scientific reason not to extend the last date of legal destruction up to 3months post change of address. The new born is less sentient than a a comparably aged Chimp and a full grown dog so no special moral problem arises subject to humane destruction. Modest proposal eh ….
It was the religious conviction that we are all god`s children that powered the abolitionist movement when science assumed that black people were inferior without question as you will see in the early discussions of Darwinism . Rationalists were involved but only in as much as they demanded the logical consequences of what was a spiritual conviction.
How does one feel about the later aborting of disabled unborns for example ? This strikes me as a highly worrying area in which spiritual insights cannot be dumped …

Paul Newman @ 13

How does one feel about the later aborting of disabled unborns for example ? This strikes me as a highly worrying area in which spiritual insights cannot be dumped …

Oh, yes, that’s correct, because we all know about the Right’s compassion when it comes to disabled people. God forbid that that someone disabled be given sub human status in this Country. God forbid that when spare any expense in making sure a disabled child not suffer.

Funny that. Funny how a foetus is in the womb is one of ‘God’s children’, yet the second it makes it into the delivery room, it becomes a fucking parasite. Funny how you cunts want to save the child right up until it become old enough to need a mini bus fitted with a ramp to go to school, a special teacher or a decent wheelchair and then suddenly the Tory instinct for compassion appears to be missing? Funny how it is all about the little ‘Babeez’ when it little more than a bump, but the minute it is born is becomes the downfall of society, a part of the ‘feral youth’, or ‘dependency culture’.

So, spare me the shrill moralising from the least moral members of our society. I don’t know who you are fooling, because not a single person among the decent people are impressed. When you and the other religously backward nutters start to show a bit of compassion to the disabled that are actually here, perhaps your ‘point’ will have more relevance.

@18 Paul Newman

A&E is capable for answering for himself; however those of us who contribute to this site are quite entitled to make our views known without fear that Sunny’s views somehow mean we can’t therefore comment or pass judgement on the agendas of others.

I happen to disagree with the views you say Sunny holds, and with yours, and with those of Nadine Dorries. Thankfully, I think it is likely that “my” view is much closer to the views of the vast majority of “reasonable” people in this country, whether they are people of faith or not.

“Most” people don’t see the moment of conception as the start of an inviolable life. Most people are capable of seeing that later term abortions are not a good thing, and it would be better all round if they were minimised….. of course there is and will continue to be a debate about what figure in weeks is “acceptable”.

Altho anti-abortion groups, and religious “pro-choice” types might not like it, the vast majority of people accept a woman’s right to chose.

In answer to your question: “What in any case is the problem with religious and spiritual values informing what is an ethical question.”…… the problem many of us would have with that, is that we don’t accept that particularist religious or spiritual values, however sincerely held, should be afforded any special place, or be allowed to dictate policy in this or indeed any other area.

@18 Bearing in mind Spanish conquistadors used to dash the heads of native infants against rocks, moments after an impromptu baptism, to ensure that their innocent souls reached heaven, which they of course couldn’t reach if allowed to grow up in their heathen culture…

21 – I think you need to finish that ellipsis. The conquistadors are relevant to this debate because…?

If it’s ‘people have done horrible things in the name of religion’ then I think Bob B’s chatroom for the terminally obvious is probably going on somewhere.

It’s perfect possible to separate personal views from political ones.

Women won’t stop having abortions. History makes that perfectly plain. What we can affect is if they have it done in a back alley, or in a clinic. Yes, personally – religiously – I dislike the current situation. But the public health argument is more important that that dislike.

And the current situation allows my people to make their own choice to follow their more restrictive practices, as we do. The sort of end-game total ban which Dorries wants *isn’t* compatible with our practices.

So…

[18] Paul, it is perfectly understandable that some hold anti-abortion views – terminating a healthy foetus is certainly a very difficult question, and one that often produces very strong,or even strident views in both camps.

But my point this time was not so much the pros/cons of abortion per se, rather the fact Dorries criticises one set of counsellors for lack of independence yet alternative providers (proposed within her scheme) are accused of poor practice and providing factually incorrect advice.

If there is to be abortion, isn’t it preferable that a credible organisation like Marie Stopes provide counseling, so that any women (or couple) who feels they need to learn more before making a final decision at least have access to a reliable source of information?

As I say the anti-abortion position is perfectly understanable especially for those who believe in the absolute sanctity of life, but flawed characters like Dorries trigger a near pavlovian reaction amongst those who have been subject to her derranged thinking on the likes of sex education (for example).

Google ‘Unity’ ,’Ministry of Truth’ & Nadine Dorries – I promise you that even if don’t agree with the line taken by the author you still might begin to see the utterances of Mad-Nad in a slightly different light?

The Lib Dems have thus far barely stood up for even the most basic liberal or progressive principles. They have made a minor squeek about some of the government’s loonier ideas about how to deal with rioters. But:

What has been their reaction to the governments attack on the welfare state, and their brutal assualt on the disabled: Silence!

Their reaction to the government’s atgtack on abortion rights: Silence!

Unless they grow a spine fairly sharpish, then they will richly deserve the oblivion which awaits them!

Does anyone actually know whether voting on the amendment will be whipped? I think it highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Historically the Liberals and Lib Dems have been largely in favour of legal access to abortion (David Steel, as he then was, sponsored the original private members bill in the 60s) but have always insisted on it being a matter of conscience. If it’s not whipped it’s probably doomed and may well not even be debated. If it is whipped expect fireworks at the Lib Dems annual conference.

@22 Well, given that the guy I was replying to was using an example of religion laying down the right set of morals, I figured it was only fair to point out that at one time that same religion was the prime motivator in the murdering of children. It just might be worth bearing that in mind before pontificating on what the problem is with religious and spiritual values informing an ethical question. Especially when the subject involved can be construed as ‘the murdering of children’.
A good start might be “why does Christianity have a problem with abortions now, but it didn’t have a problem with murdering kids then?” Did Christianity change? And if so, can it hurry up and change again please?

On a further note, if it could change to the extent that it features Dragons and Unicorns, I’ll become a fervent believer right away.

26. Abortion debates are never whipped, to my mind. MPs are rarely asked to vote on issues such as these without freedom.

I also find it pretty funny that anyone would think the stance pre-vote on this is that the Lib Dems wouldn’t stand up against anything that restricted the abortion rights of women. Clearly you are not following enough prominent Lib Dem MPs, activists and members that are already pushing very hard to stop Dorries’ and Field’s plans

@ 27:

So every time a poster or article justifies sometihing using left-wing principles, should we all mentions the gulags to remind said poster that left-wing principles have, at one time, been the prime motivator behind killing a lot of people?

@30 I doubt most left wingers would notice any change in discourse to tell the truth. It usually gets brought up by somebody along the line.

@29 – It’s a trust issue. I don’t trust them when it comes to the crunch.

Their vote share alone should show their problem with this, and it ain’t going to get better. I’d sooner vote SWP than LibDem.

@ 31:

Still, I suppose it’s “only fair” that they do so…

Tell Nadine to fuck off, and take Frankie wannabe Tory with her. I love my abortions….if they want to ban them though, tell them I am ready. I got my bucket and a coat hanger.

@26: According to this artie:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/28/anti-abortion-lobby-reforms
it will be a free vote in all 3 main parties.

@9: David Alton hasn’t been a member of the Lib Dems for about 15 years. And although there are a few leading Lib Dems who are anti-abortion, he was the only one who ever made it a campaigning isue.

Whoa, lets not conflate David Alton with these fuckwits, Field and Dorries. At the time, I supported the David Alton Bill, though my views have changed somewhat since then. I feel more mature and better able to look pragmatically at life now.

However, David Alton was honest, something that Dories and Field would never understand. Alton stood up and demanded a debate on the merits of abortion and was given one. If memory serves his bill was talked out, and therefore never made it to a vote (different thread), but at least he stood up and stated what he felt was right.

What these clowns are proposing to do is an entirely different matter. Not have an abortion debate. Not get a discussion on the rights or wrongs of abortion or anything remotely as honourable as that. They don’t want a debate or to attempt to repeal the Bill. No what they want is far more pernicious than that.

They want to change the people who give the advice to their own Right Wing religious nutcases. Not only is this an attack on the right to an abortion, this is about we run our politics. If a political ideology has an issue with a given law, don’t change the law, just change the people who interpret or administer the law. Don’t like the position regarding incapacity? Don’t help employers to employ disabled people, don’t help disabled people, just change the people who judge incapacity.

Dories and Field cannot win the debate in the open, so they try and do it via the back door, unlike David Alton who attempted to do the honest thing.

At least Dorries has an excuse, she was brought up a Tory and knows little better, no none should find it worrying that scum acts like scum, but Field? He has betrayed us in the most sickening fashion possible.

@Jim: I agree with you about David Alton. I disagree with him on the abortion issue, but like you I don’t doubt the sincerity or integrity of his position. I certainly did not intend to conflate Alton with Nadine Dorries, although I suspect that poster @9 did. It’s also worth noting that David Alton does not, and never did, hold views that are typical of right-wing Christian fundamentalists (for instance, he voted to equalize the age of consent, and he is against the death penalty); in the Liberal Party of the 1970s and 1980s he was regarded as something of a left-winger. That said, to focus so strongly on campaigning against abortion, as he did from about the late 1980s onwards, was never going to make him popular in his party, however he chose to do it.

Wow, you guys are spectacular. Seemingly way, way beyond reasoned debate about something as simple as the advice being offered to women seeking to make a hugely important decision about their future.

Ok, responding to those that did respond to my point (@10).

First, Cyclux. The point, which you have missed, is that the current system offers compromised advice. It would be nice if everyone was well informed about everything. But at least we can try and bring an end to systems where the advice is clearly biased by financial motivation. What’s wrong with that?

Second, Galen10, how about we get past the people and talk about the issues at stake here. I don’t really care for what you think about Dorries – you are clearly very biased against anyone who professes any Christian faith, but I want to get past that. The point is: Right now, the advice women are offered is not independent of financial gain – hence any choice a woman makes is manipulated. I don’t get why you just ignore this because a Christian proposes the amendment? If you want choice for the woman involved in the decision, surely you want it to be a choice she makes without being pressured one way or another by the supposedly independent (but financially compromised) body giving it?

Third, Jim, let’s keep the subject at hand. The point here isn’t Christians pontificating about what they think people should do. The point is that the bodies providing advice are not bodies that are paid only if the person making the choice makes one particular choice. It’s as simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you add is because you have a particularly virulent anti-Christian view of the world. But the point is currently, the two bodies offering advice to women wanting to make the decision on aborting gain financially if the woman says yes. I don’t understand how you can defend such a system. If you choose to answer that question, please avoid your bluster about how much you hate Christians and stick to the topic we’re discussing.

James Reade @38

Well, first of all I have nothing against Christianity. No-one should be persecuted for their beliefs. Nadine Dorries, however is no Christian, nor anyway near Christian. She joined the most heathen of Political Parties for fuck sake. She joined a political creed that is as far away from Christian values, as you could comfortably get.

She, and a significant part of her Party are what I describe as ‘religious nutters’. People who appear to latch onto some kind of religious excuse for their prejudice. The vast majority of the New Testament is not about sex before marriage and ‘sin’, it is about forgiveness, love and the human conditions. The Tory nutters miss all of that and prattle on about homosexuality and abortion. Is that the Christian message? Don’t be gay or have abortions? Garbage, utter garbage. When Dorries starts to act in a manner consistent with ALL of Jesus’ teachings and not just the things that she would have us believe that she argees with, then perhaps we will have her claims taken seriously. If true Christians had actually followed Christ’s teachings they would not join the Tory Party.

Okay as to the abortion advice? When women find themselves pregnant they go and get advice. There cannot be many women who choose abortion after a visit to Mary Stopes or BPAC unless they were fairly committed to the idea.

Here we have a political Party that is all about private business self regulating to give advice. Here we have a political party determined to let free markets give advice to consumers on any subject, yet on one subject, they are concerned that the Tory message is not getting through?

There is nothing wrong with the advice given, so why bother changing it?

@38 (James Reade): The abortion providers that Ms Dorries mentions (Marie Stopes, BPAS) are not-for-profit organizations. Therefore they do not gain financially from women choosing to have abortions, and no inherent conflict of interest when providing counselling.

Alex: The not-for-profit thing isn’t relevant. The fact is: They get paid for the abortion, hence if they advise, and the woman says no, that’s wasted time they can’t claim for, so to speak. That they are non-profit does not mean they don’t have vested interests, conflicts of interest and all of that.

Jim: It’s funny. Until I met most of my current friends, I’d have thought the same – how can you be a Tory and a Christian. Most of my friends ask how I can not be a Tory and be a Christian.

I suspect you’re misrepresenting Dorries’s views. For sure, much NT is about love and forgiveness, but you’d be advised to recall what needs forgiving – sin. Sin being rejecting God, and what God says. Not just the sins of people who engage in homosexual practices, but also those in heterosexual ones out of marriage, and all sorts of other things. But that’s beside the point. She doesn’t “tell people not to be gay”, she likely (haven’t read in detail what she says) says that it’s a sin. Which, according to the definition above (and upheld in the NT), homosexual activity is. As would be taking the life of an unborn child.

If Dorries seeks to control, then she goes above and beyond what Christians should do, and then we might agree. But in this amendment, she doesn’t. All the amendment allows is more bodies to provide advice and counselling. You may think the current advice is fine, but it’s impossible for the advice giver to be neutral and bias free. Particularly if they recieve financial recompense for convincing a woman to say yes. Hence given that, it must be right to open this up to more advice givers.

You may have a distinctly pro-life bent, I don’t know – but if you are pro-choice, then surely you have to agree it’s better if those giving advice to the person making the choice are a little less financially motivated to encourage a “yes” choice. Because as it stands, the system is pro-manipulated-choice.

@James: You are wrong. Either you are being disingenuous, or you don’t understand that for there to be a profit motive, there has to be a PROFIT. If the clinic is paid only for its own costs in performing the abortion, then the advice is revenue-neutral, regardless of the woman’s choice. And in this case, IT DOES NOT MATTER

[continued]
And in this case, IT DOES NOT MATTER to the clinic what the woman eventually decides to do. Either she chooses to have the baby, and there is no cost to the clinic in performing the operation, or she chooses to have an abortion, in which case the operation is performed and it recoups the cost from the woman.

Put simply – it goes against the principles of liberty as understood by Locke, Hobbs and Mill to suggest people should have pressure applied to their decisions rather than leaving them free to make decisions for themselves.

That being the case, and since women making this decision can go to Marie Stopes, her local Iman, Care Confidential or anyone else for that matter already – why on Earth should the be forced through a process of applied pressure at all?

Surely better that the government gets out of the way and allows women to choose who they get advice from, or whether they even want “advice” on a subject that is extremely personal to them as an individual.

So…

…Lib Dems – vote against state intervention and forced influence on individual lives. Or alternative – drop the pretence of being a liberal party.

Easy choice for them to face, and one to be made without forced consultation with Labour and the Tories…

James Reade

As a private individual I’m not sure what motive might lead me to take £15 off some one to go and buy them a £15 jumper and give it to them. But the motive it clearly isn’t is financial. There would be no financial motive at all.

Unless you imagine wrongly that Marie Stopes builds into its pricing a margin to cover the costs of other activities – and thus in effect the abortion provision aspect of its work runs at a profit – you don’t get economics.

And if you do imagine wrongly that Marie Stopes builts into its pricing a margin to cover the costs of other activities – you are wrong and have been corrected. Its other activities are paid for by a variety of fundraising efforts, not through profits on abortions.

@Margin4error: It is likely that most Lib Dem MPs will oppose the Dorries amendment. It is no longer backed by the government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/downing-street-uturn-abortion-proposals

This government U-turn is thought to be due to Lib Dem influence (certainly according to opponents of the Lib Dems).
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100102788/david-cameron-is-wrong-about-abortion-counselling-he-should-have-supported-nadine-dorriess-plan/

In any case it is, and was always going to be, a free vote.

Thanks Alex

As I said, easy choice to make and one they have seemingly made. Not sure the government was ever too keen on the ammendments anyway. Cameron does like to pretend to be a social-centrist.

@ Alex. I don’t think I’m wrong. I didn’t say profit did I? Financial motive. Very different. The fact is if you are offered a sum of money if a third party says yes, and if you have the power to influence that decision, it’s a no brainer. You influence that decision such that you get the money. To think otherwise is naive or, as you accuse me of being, disingenuous.

As far as I can see, you like abortion, and the current system favours abortion (hence our rather high rates of abortion). So you are, like any vested interest, railing without any decent arguments, against the current cartel of a system. But why force women to make such manipulated choices? Why not allow more bodies to offer advice under the remit of the supposedly impartial NHS?

Margin4error, thanks for your assertion that I don’t get economics. Chuckled for a little while, then thought about a response.

Your bottom line appears to be: Get the government out of the way. I’m inclined to agree, to the extent that governments ought to be involved in healthcare due to imperfect information in that market that leads to wrong choices being made – particularly on hugely life-important decisions like abortion.

You may think that a woman’s liberty is preserved if the government doesn’t force any advice on her whatsoever. However, what is liberating about making a choice about which she has no idea whatsoever about the consequences of it?

Individual decisions can only be liberating if the individual is fully informed about the consequences of their choice, and you have to be rather crazy to think that women are fully informed about the consequences of a decision to abort a baby if they don’t seek any advice from a qualified medic.

@James Reade

Individual decisions can only be liberating if the individual is fully informed about the consequences of their choice, and you have to be rather crazy to think that women are fully informed about the consequences of a decision to abort a baby if they don’t seek any advice from a qualified medic.

The decision to seek advice should be the woman’s to make, not the state’s to ensure that her choice is ‘informed’. Plus why is it assumed that women opt for abortion while being completely clueless as to all that is involved? Being informed on any decision is the responsibility of a person, not of the state to demand someone to become ‘informed’.
Imagine if this idea was expanded beyond the abortion debate, would you like to live in a nation that didn’t allow you to cast a vote until the state had satisfied itself that you would be making an ‘informed choice’?

James, you’re fired.

That is what Lord Sugar would say if you put forward the argument you do in #48. Financial motive == Profit motive. Do you HONESTLY think anything else? If so then you are an idiot. Do you HONESTLY think that anyone would accept a sum of money for a proposition based on a purely financial motive if they knew that the cost of the propostion was the same amount as what they are offered? Say you buy an item for £100, and can sell it for £130. OK, you have a profit of £30. That’s a financial motive. But what if the cost of transporting the thing (petrol etc) was £30? That wipes out the profit, and therefore wipes out ANY financial motive in agreeing to the transaction. However, in your world, it would appear that the only thing that matters is the £130 from selling the item. Never mind the £100 that it costs to buy it, never mind the £30 transportation costs. All that matters in the world of James Reade is that he is being offered £130 to perform a transaction. NO-ONE with any business sense does anything from a purely financial motive unless they know that what they are paid for something is greater than its cost. Your cluelessness on matters of economics means your argument here lacks ANY CREDIBILITY, and it means that am not prepared to engage in discussion with you any more.