If this is the victory it appears to be, then congratulations and sighs of relief all round. However there are other amendments. What about the one proposed by the excitable Ms. Mensch?

Dorries wants to reduce the abortion rate. She claims, “When women have independent counselling, up to half change their mind and decide not to abort. However, when women are referred straight to the abortion clinic for counselling, that number can be as low as eight per cent”.

Elsewhere I have read that Dorries claims a reconfiguration of talking services could reduce the number of abortions by 60,000 (200,000 to 140,000).

Does anybody know where such figures come from – I mean is it all just magical Narian thinking, or is there any substance to it?

I must admit I’m surprised at such variability (if true) – even allowing for the religious hard sell (from certain providers) it does beg questions about the basis on which terminations are decided?

People do not need to have religion brought into what is a very personal decision, all they need is some idiot asking them to pray.

“Not only will his team vote against the amendments, but they are also urging other Tory MPs to follow their lead!”

Given that such issues have traditionally been given free votes, putting pressure on MPs to vote a certain way is rather inappropriate, actually.

Sunny,

I think you do your own fair share of screeching.

“Screaching”- we are above this sort of tabloid-esque distortion surely?

Ha ha. I have a facebook contact who shall remain nameless, who when the riots broke out or whenever some juvenile does something horrible in the news, screeches that some people should be sterilised and have their right to bear children taken away. Today that person bemoaned us allowing the disgusting practice of abortion. I wonder, do none of these froth-in-the-mouth pro-lifers make the connection that it’s those kids that grow up unloved and uncared for that are most likely to one day do to something horrible in the news…

You must give this foetus the chance to live! (kid grows up twisted and psychotic) Bring back hanging!

Nutters the lot of them

@7 Three of the guys I work with are exactly the same as your mate, though they also add against gay adoption into that list, just to ensure the maximal chances of kids growing up unloved and uncared for. Not that they see that way of course :/

@7:

George Carlin had a useful take on this:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XekUEXULMXg"

I’ve been involved (with many others) in some of the behind-the-scenes planning to mount a fightback to the proposals. Until recently, we were working under the assumption the amendments would be voted through.

Really? I thought it was doomed to fail from the beginning, but had to be opposed to make sure they didn’t win any arguments by default.

When my parents MP (Wollaston) was talking strongly against it ages ago (and using correct language, termination is a better term than abortion and should be used more by ‘our’ side), it was pretty clear that it was doomed. Dorries and Field are known quantities within the House, being seen to be on their side doesn’t win you any favours with mainstream opinion within their parties.

….screeches that some people should be sterilised and have their right to bear children taken away. Today that person bemoaned us allowing the disgusting practice of abortion.

Your friend is an outlier.

Most eugenics supporters have also supported abortion. Indeed, in some ways, abortion is the “new eugenics”.

Indeed, the campaign for the 1967 abortion law reform was run out of the (pro-eugenics) Galton Society’s offices.

Just shows that the rank and file tories are still batshit insane, and for all call me Dave’s bluster they are still the nasty party. Always will be.

@ 4 XXX

“Given that such issues have traditionally been given free votes, putting pressure on MPs to vote a certain way is rather inappropriate, actually.”

Is it? In my experience, individual MPs don’t tend to include their views on abortion in their election literature – I guess it’s not a big enough issue at election time to justify the risk of putting off potential voters. The main parties, on the other hand, have a general track record on abortion matters that could influence your vote if you saw it as a deciding factor. Put simply, pro-choicers are better off voting Labour, pro-lifers are better off voting Tory.

So if your MP has campaigned on the abortion issue, it’s a bit of an attack on democracy for them to be forced to vote the other way by whips. If not, however, it seems more democratic for them to follow the party line.

I remember the last time Parliament had a big debate on abortion, loads of MPs were claiming that they should be able to vote based on their personal ethics. But if I don’t know my MP’s stance on abortion, what democratic grounds are there to claim that their personal ethics matter?

I suspect much of the Cabinet’s decision to oppose the amendment probably came down to the whips saying “Look, you already have a really controversial Bill that’s had to go back to Committee for major rewrites to avoid it failing altogether at 3rd Reading. Do you really want to add another entirely unrelated controversial issue to the Bill, that a completely different set of people will vote against?”

4/XXX: Given that such issues have traditionally been given free votes,

Which … I can see, politically, why it’s happened, since none of the three major parties could plausibly whip effectively on the issue anyway … but doesn’t it strike anyone else as more than a little odd that this is defined as a “conscience” issue when a whole bunch of other issues with moral / religious / ethical implications get quite comfortably put in manifestos?

Frank Field should be de -selected for his part in this pile of crap.

MatGB – well we weren’t sure what the outcome would be. Many thought she would get her way, others thought it was doomed. But the early assumption was that she would get it unless we lobbied hard. And even if she won this battle, we had to get ready for other ones (abstinence is possibly coming up).

The truth is that there is very little desire in the UK for Dories’ style of fundie nutterism. To quote one of the “best rated” comments in the Mail:

Why won’t you reveal your backers Nadine? What shady Christian organisations would benefit from your proposed amendment? Thankfully we haven’t sunk to the depths of the US in terms of Evangelical nutjobs at the political helm just yet. You’re in the minority, and hopefully you’ll stay there.

If Mail readers oppose Dories, I think it’s safe to say that the UK electorate as a whole does.

[14] “but doesn’t it strike anyone else as more than a little odd that this is defined as a “conscience” issue” – abortion has been framed as a conscience issue for health workers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8698042/Catholic-nurses-use-Equality-Act-to-protect-their-pro-life-beliefs.htm

Didn’t IDS come to grief when he imposed a three line whip against adoption of children by gay couples?

I think stuff like hanging, abortion, religious matters, etc are generally not whipped, perhaps because even MPs can hold strong principles when it comes to such matters?

@16 abstinence? You mean they are going to try to push abstinence only education? For goodness sake these people never change do they, I honestly feel like we are going to be fighting against these stupid ideas till the end of time. I suppose the fight is worth it though, the thought of becoming the United States of Britain just creeps me out ‘shudder’.

Mason, yup, she’s also pushing for abstinence education, especially (or even only) for girls. As perpetuating the meme that it’s girls who are solely responsible for pregnancy is a good idea in her mind. I really hope her seat gets abolished in the boundary review.

@ 17 Phil Hunt

“If Mail readers oppose Dories, I think it’s safe to say that the UK electorate as a whole does.”

You can’t trust Mail comments as a way of finding out what Mail readers think. I sometimes read them (gotta get my laughs somewhere), and I’ve noticed that in each thread the ratings given to comments suggest either that most readers are very conservative, or most readers are very liberal.

Presumably, the reason for this is that the more outrageous Mail articles get referenced and condemned elsewhere on the interwebs, leading to people going over to the Mail’s site to sneer at it in the comments.

It is the big issue for the tories. Are they going to descend into anti science, Christian right wing nuttery like the US Republicans. Or are they going to resist.

The problem is that many rank and file tory backers, are of the nutty flavour.

Tax the Churches, and the Mosques. They are increasingly political, so should lose tax free status.

Look at the mail article;

“(Cameron) supported my vote to reduce the upper limit to 20 weeks. He is strongly pro-choice, a male feminist, but sensible and doesn’t want to see women abused,” said Dorries.

“But on Wednesday, pro-abortion campaigner and ex-Lib Dem MP Evan Harris tweeted: ‘I raised the DoH [Department of Health] plans with Nick Clegg directly yesterday. Today Govt climbed down. Climbdown was more down to Clegg than Cameron.”

The Mail are basically calling the Lib Dems child killers. How lovely!
The commentators on the site aren’t having any of it though.

Darce is a creppy little man with his hatred of woman.

@24 He’s also a sweary little man with his ‘vagina monologues’…

@25 According to Private Eye he’s cleaning up his act. No more double-cuntings. people are now fucking tossers. There be progress, in a righty stylee.

As we saw on a previous thread according to the surveyed evidence about 70% expressing an opinion would back lowering the last date to 20 weeks or lower as proposed in 2008. As we also saw such a move would leave, still way out of line with the 12 week European norm common France Germany Italy et al. I think it was amply demonstrated that Marie Stopes with its sordid eugenic history is about the last organisation we would want supplying pro abortion advice, so something is wrong here
The answer is simple. Doing nothing uses less political capital than doing something .As with the Forestry Commission, the NHS, Local Councils and the Military lobby the inherent weakness of the coalition means it has to concentrate all its strength on deficit reduction. There is a small but noisy Liberal lobby for whom a mountain of dead unborn children is a cause for celebration and Cameron has boldly run away
It has been disappointing that no left wingers have spoken for the defenceless and weak party in this equation a growing concern about late abortions is not located in only in right wing circles by any means .
We must console ourselves with the knowledge that public opinion is moving the right way and the shrill bossy elite are only hastening that process

@ 27

“There is a small but noisy Liberal lobby for whom a mountain of dead unborn children is a cause for celebration ”

Oh, go away and grow up, will you?

Fuck. I’ve been demoted from Liberal Elite to Liberal Lobby.

Sic transit and all that.

So the Paul Newman troll is a member of the “every sperm is sacred “ brigade. He has a fetish for the contents of a Petri dish.

So the Sally troll is fan of ending life on a whim and creating horrors such as this:

Strong Stomach needed to view, and no heart needed to do

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/aborted_7_month_fetus.jpg

32
Perhaps while you’re searching google for emotive pictures of abortions, you might look for the pictures of unwanted children beaten and murdered, or even take a look at children born into poor societies whose parents can’t feed themselves never mind their child.
Life is indeed sacred and it’s too precious to bring unwanted, unloved children into being when they face a dreadful life.

@ Paul Newman

I’d stick to the seafood sauce if I were you as facts really aren’t your forte.

For the record, the opinion polls which appear to show high levels of support for reduction in the current 24 week limit are uniformly based on the use of bias and leading questions.

Its more than 25 years since Yes Prime Minister did over the practice of push-polling and yet we still get people trying it on.

As for your 12 week European norm, that’s a load of bollocks as well.

The 12-13 week ‘limit’ found in many European countries relates specifically to abortion on request without the need to demonstrate that there are clinical/psychiatric grounds for abortion. The overwhelming majority of countries with such a limit then have a secondary limit of anything from 18 to 24 weeks during which an abortion can be obtained on medical grounds on pretty much the same basis that applies to all abortions before 24 weeks in the UK..

@ A&E

As best anyone can make out, this 60,000 reduction that Dorries is claiming is based on the assumption that shoving women in ‘counselling’ run by anti-abortion organisations will reduce abortion rates to something along the lines of those in Germany or maybe one of two other EU countries.

There is, of course, no evidence to support this proposition and no reason whatsoever to believe that that would actually happen, but what does that matter to a bullshitter like Dorries?

As HL Mencken pointed out, there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

Unity I am referring to a Survey conducted by U Gov in 2005. Its a reputable polling organisation and as we both know if the results suited your pro abortion views you would not be scrambling around for excuses.
On the availability of abortion after 12 weeks the position is mixed but as in this country economic or social grounds are admissable up to 24 weeks in practice we have abortion on request up to 24 weeks and our extended period for certain medical grounds has no limit at all.
So while there is some truth in what you say ,you have wildly overstated the case as one would expect. People can judge for themselves.This is a summary

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2007/abortion_europe.html

I cannot say the “coming into line with Europe ” line is one I use with much relish but I think it gives a context to the the fraudulent battle lines set up by David Steele for which I can locate no support at the time .

@ jojo

Much better just to murder them then, just in case isn’t it?

According to your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to murder any child, snuff out any life in fact, that does not meet your requirements of life worthy of life.

36
What a crass leap of logic.

Nadine Dorries is the last one who should be preaching about abstinence:-
http://cuttingedgeuk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=uk&action=display&thread=283

….and Sally is no troll, but one of the best posters at LC in my opinion!

@ 34:

“For the record, the opinion polls which appear to show high levels of support for reduction in the current 24 week limit are uniformly based on the use of bias and leading questions.”

Do you have any examples?

Unity

I am in no position to judge whether the opinion polls that show support for a reduction in the abortion time limit are kosher or push polls.

But I do know some people (…. and I’m probably one of them) whose views have been influenced by a vague and unspecific awareness of media reports about children being safely delivered at increasingly earlier stages in pregnancy, presumably consequent upon new techniques in obstetrics.

Viability is and always has been a legitimate issue in deciding limits. And surely the precautionary principle applies. “If an ultra premature newborn CAN survive, should we really be aborting foetuses two weeks older?” seems to me both a question worth considering and a reasonable cause for discomfort about a 24 week limit, however the question is framed by pollsters.

@ life is sweet…that picture was gross dude, I just put it up on my facebook wall, my friends are going to be grossed out when they see that. Man that is some sick shit.FUCK YEAH! I’m luvin it.

It’s heart-warming to see that, in general, this sort of religious lunacy is given short shrift in the UK. When even the Tories can see that embracing religious dogma as the foundation for policy is dangerously stupid there is hope for us all.

There is a case to say that the viability issue does have connotations for abortion law, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the likes of Nadine Dorries and her omnipotent imaginary friend.

I have heard a lot of talk about this issue being a free vote, have to say I can’t for the life of me understand why such things are allowed. Allowing a politician to ‘vote his or her conscience’ is completely at odds with the point of a representative democracy. The MPs are supposed to represent the electorate to the best of their ability, not necessarily pandering to exactly what the electorate wants, but doing their best on their behalf. The idea seems to be that a vote guided by conscience gives an MP a pass on their duty to represent their constituents. That’s unacceptable. If they don’t representing the people then they can get real jobs. I hear there are still a couple of those around.

I’ve seen pictures of aborted foetuses before – my RE class in a Catholic state school showed us some when we were 15. What I took away from it was that anti-choice people are nutters who try to use emotional blackmail and I’ve been strongly pro-choice ever since.

I’d have a lot more respect for what’s written here if it actually addressed the questions being put forward by some of the screaching right wingers. Yet it does nothing of the sort.

You just assert the current system is working, yet almost everyone I’ve read from all sides of the debate accepts there are “too many abortions” in the UK.

Well, is it just possible that the fact that advice is given by bodies that are paid only if the abortion takes place is contributing to that?

Any attempt to address this fundamental point? Didn’t think so.

And I’m not even a right winger. I just wish those against this amendment would actually answer this point instead of asserting things like “it all works fine”. I prefer evidence, not opinions.

@ Flowerpower

The argument from viability might be one that many find superficially compelling but its also far from straightforward and, for the most part, poorly understood by most of the people who cleave to it.

For starters, a foetus is not viable at 24 weeks gestations. If born at that gestational age it will die unless it is afforded complex, intensive and intrusive medical treatment. assuming that this is available.

Straightaway we run into an awkward ethical question. If viability is to be regarded as the key determinant of the upper time limit for legal abortion then it follows that we should consider it reasonable for countries which do not have access to the kind of medical facilities that we have in the UK to set an upper limit which reflects the viability of neonates born under local conditions – in which case one could have no complaint if a country in sub-Saharan Africa set its upper limit at 32-34 weeks gestation because, under local conditions, that’s the earliest that neonate could be born with any real prospect of survining.

Now consider this…

For a women who goes into labour at 24 weeks gestation, there is a 40% chance that the result with be a stillbirth.

If the neonate survives the birth, then there is a 1 in 5 chance that it will die in the delivery room in a matter of minutes, before it can be transferred to an ICU.

If the neonate survives long enough to make it the ICU than, based on the most recent data, it has just under a 1 in 2 chance of surviving to discharge but, if it does survive it has less than a 1 in 7 chance of growing up without any kind of disability, compared to a 2 in 7 chance of a severe disability and a 1 in 2 chance of having either a moderate or a severe disability.

So, if we now imagine a women who goes in labour at 24 weeks gestation.

Our hypothetical woman knows that her foetus has only an 8% chance of surviving and growing up with a disability but that if does survive long enough to be moved to the ICU that it has a 50% chance of having a moderate or severe disability and that this disability may not be evident to the doctor at the time that the neonate is born.

So, she decide that the risk of the neonate having a moderate or sever disability is too great to justify putting it through the kind of intensive and invasive treatment it would need to survive at all, calls the doctor over an informs him/her that even if the foetus survives the birth, she does not consent to it being transferred to the ICU or to it being resussitated should it stop breathing in the delivery room.

Assuming that our hypothetical woman is competent to make such a decision, is the doctor then obligated to respect her wishes and allow the neonate to die, even if it does survive the birth, and if so why should the same doctor take a different view if asked to perform an abortion at the same gestational age, assuming that he/she is not prohibited from doing so by law.

One can, of course, make a moral distinction in so far as the withholding of consent required the doctor to permit the neonate to die by not taking action to prevent its death as opposed to an abortion which requires the doctor to perform an action which terminates its life, but if the doctor is not minded to make such a moral distinction then there it little to distinguish the two scenarios given that the outcome is the same in both cases.

What that scenario demonstrates is that the argument from viability does not provide a solution to the problem of determining an upper legal limit for abortion, it merely provides some people with what appears to be an easy way out of having to deal with the complex moral and ethical issues that abortion raises but even in that it has its limitations, particularly in the face of people, like myself, who don’t rely on viability at all when considering their position on abortion.

Viability is not a reliable or stable basis on which to frame abortion laws, but then neither are opinion polls.

@44

Surely the evidence of the system not working would be if babies were being born because the mother couldn’t get access to an abortion? We can say we some surety that the system works if women are able to get a safe abortion in a timely fashion should they want one. That, and really only that, is the defining quality for a successful abortion system.

If you want to talk about too many abortions, well that’s not really the fault of the clinics and the doctors is it? I mean should we make it purposefully more difficult to get an abortion? Fewer unwanted pregnancies would be good, and an improved adoption system would be even better, but those issues are not related to abortion in and of themselves.

Erm, 46, I’m not sure that’s a good definition of whether the system is working or not.

Clearly others would say that given many unborn children are being killed, the system clearly isn’t working.

But in asking that, you reveal that it’s essentially impossible to say whether the system is working properly or not. Which makes Sunny’s assertion all the more vacuous.

The bottom line though is: Can anyone really be happy with a system in which the only groups giving advice to the woman under the auspices of the supposedly impartial NHS are those that financially benefit from the woman saying yes?

If you’re happy about that, you’re pro-manipulated choice, and you’re little better than someone who is pro-life and prepared to trump the rights of the mother with their own agenda. You decide you like the system as it is, despite it trampling over mothers in the interests of private agencies balancing their (non-profit) books. How is that pro-choice, exactly?

@44 James Reade

Isn’t the problem more one of too many unwanted pregnancies in the first place? I don’t see many constructive ideas from Dorries and her chums in this area. Abstinence for girls is fatuous, moralising and failed when it was tried in the US.

James, your arguments seem to be lacking something… evidence.

@47

I think it’s the best definition. The abortion system is simply the process of getting rid of unwanted pregnancies. I mean that’s the simple definition of what it is.

Should it be such an easy option? Yes. If a woman can go into a clinic, abort an unwanted pregnancy in a safe and painless procedure and walk out not feeling like a monster, that’s good.

Because if we talk about abortion being too easy, if we talk about the decision being taken lightly as bad things, then we have to look at the alternative. Making abortion more difficult, less readily available, more of an inconvenience. Making the decision more torturous. Making the process more painful.

No. I’d rather we made, or rather kept, abortion as easy, painless and quick as humanly possible. If people want to reduce the numbers of abortions the first place to start is making society a better place to drop a kid in the first place. More people challenging the perception of the single mother as some kind of fifth horseman of the apocalypse would be a good start.

Entire thread seems to be on the basis of a hypothetical person’s right to live or not.

Nothing about the real and proven person carrying the hypothetical person’s right to make choices or not unencumbered by other’s decisions. Which seems downright odd to me – why the concern for someone who (as Unity shows nicely) may not live in favour of someone who is clearly living, and if they do not want the child, suffering.

Perhaps we should start with the human being who exists and has rights and a mind of their own, rather than conjecturing about rights and viability of the foetus. Unless you really believe that having sex is a sin, and that the punishment for this should be carrying an unwanted baby…

@ 33 jojo

“Life is indeed sacred and it’s too precious to bring unwanted, unloved children into being when they face a dreadful life.”

I’ve never been sure about this one. It works off the assumption that unloved children would be better off dead, and I expect a great many of them would disagree with you.

It’s hard to get emotive pro-choice images simply because instinctive emotion isn’t the same as rational argument, and it’s hard to draw a simple picture showing the damage done to people’s lives when they’re forced to carry a baby to term against their will.

@ Jojo

Not at all.

What you are condoning is preventative murder. You are saying that based upon (your own) balance of probability the child would not have a good life, and therefore is better off dead.

Surely given your reasons for this argument, you must be able to describe with 100% accuracy the criteria that would justify this killing? Can you give a beyond any doubt case that any child is better off dead?

And is killing babies only OK if they are not visable? At what age would you say it not OK to kill?

@ Pasha

You are shown photographic evidence of what is clearly a developed human life that has been murdered by its own mother with the assistance of people sworn to do no harm. and you think so-called ‘anti-choice’ people are nutters?

But this is no ‘pro / anti choice’ matter. Except in cases of rape, the mother has clearly made a choice. The life inside her hasn’t. It is murdered without a say.

Snuffed out on a whim.

@ Chaise Guevara

Actually the connotation is usually far more sinister as it is with JoJo: A mere presumption that the child will not only be unloved but seriously abused and so it is therefore OK to murder them. On a mere presumption.

If there is any genuine way to determine this then surely sterilisation would be the most humane solution all round? The (presumed) abusive mother can continue to have as much sex as she wants but will never get to murder or abuse a child.

@53 – So you’d rather women die in back alley abortions?

You won’t stop them having them, the evidence is clear. And the NHS gets to clean up the results.

@Life is sacred

Something tells me you don’t live up to your user name when it comes time to eat. I wonder how many animal’s and plant’s lives are snuffed out on your whim that you’re hungry.

@ Leon Wolfson

People will always rob, beat, rape and murder other people as well.

Should that be made legal too?

@ Cylux

Twisted. You are trying to compare eating a lettuce to killing a baby? Really?

And Pasha thinks so called ‘anti-choice’ people are nutters. You are, in all seriousness, assigning and equating the rights of a cucumber to the same rights of a human life. How insane.

You are clearly quite mad but I am a vegetarian anyway, and I would also point out the plants, vegetables and fruit have no central nervous system nor a brain.

The anti abortionist lobby, need to get one thing into their collective minds. There are people out there who have better and more interesting sex lives than you and most of them enjoy having better sex lives than you as well.

Some of those encounters will result in unwanted pregnancies, which is sad and many of those pregnancies will end in abortion which is sadder still.

Okay, so you want to control women’s bodies, fair enough, but you cannot and that little fact hurts so much you are ready to burst.

What about this for an idea? What about this little thought? Instead of poking your unwanted nose into the life of people who have far more interesting lives than you, why not just ignore them? Instead of bemoaning your pathetic one in a bed sex romps, why not let these people get on with their own lives instead?

How the fuck does any of this matter a fucking inch either way to any of you cunts anyway?

You want to campaign for something useful that would actually save lives? Why not campaign to build irrigation to provide Africa with water? Or campaign against cluster bombs or land mines?

You want to prevent abortion; you could even campaign against driving people into poverty, or forcing people homeless thus making abortion more likely.

But of course, this is nothing to do with saving lives, is it? This is the shrill moralising of the socially backward Tories demanding DEVINE PUNISHMENT from above, isn’t it.

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one, but why do you cunts feel you have the right to everyone else’s life?

@56 – Is that what you pass off as logic?

All that needs to be said, really. Faux-Christians like you…

@ 57:

“The anti abortionist lobby, need to get one thing into their collective minds. There are people out there who have better and more interesting sex lives than you and most of them enjoy having better sex lives than you as well.”

Of course, in my experience people who go on about how much they enjoy their sex lives are usually compensating for something…

“You want to campaign for something useful that would actually save lives? Why not…”

Firstly, that’s just whataboutery. Secondly, you repeatedly make this assertion on every abortion thread. Any chance that you might someday get around to providing some evidence for it?

“How the fuck does any of this matter a fucking inch either way to any of you cunts anyway?”

So I suppose that if a local white supremacist decides to go and kill a load of black people, I shouldn’t try and intervene? After all, I’m not black, so it won’t affect me. Why should I care about it? Obviously I don’t like killing black people, so I’m going to avoid doing so, but why should I feel like I have the right to impose my views on someone if they feel otherwise?

@ Jim

I can see what a sterling moral arbiter you are from your prose. And what a beacon of tolerance you are too.

So you are not even going to try and justify murder with the pre-emptive life unworthy of life canard but instead say that unprotected sex justifies murder instead.

Controlling women’s bodies? Not even remotely. Its not their bodies or lives they are killing.

Unless you subscribe to the Fred West school of ‘I made you, I can do what I want with you.’

@ Leon Wolfson

Its what you tried to pull of as ‘logic’.

@60 – Can’t even spell it, let alone dance the tune.

@56 You still kill them to eat them though. And funnily enough I’m under the impression that the reason we regard human life as special and worthy of extra weight is because we’re human and are quite willing to come up with all sorts of reasons as to why we shouldn’t die, while slaughtering and devouring our why through numerous other life-forms. As George Carlin said in the judges link @9 “Chickens are decent people”.

@ 55:

So what, trying to stop people being murdered is logically incompatible with eating?

@63 Claiming that “life is sacred” certainly is.

XXX @ 59

Firstly, that’s just whataboutery. Secondly, you repeatedly make this assertion on every abortion thread. Any chance that you might someday get around to providing some evidence for it?

And you always make a point of dodging the issue. What evidence do you want? If ‘operation rescue’ appear outside an air force base denouncing those inside as murderers you may have a point, but for some reason the vast majority of anti abortionists never campaign for life, it is always anti abortion, why?

So I suppose that if a local white supremacist…

Yeah, about that? People in the sreet are not the same thing as a foetus. Sorry, that is a complete logic fail.

Whataboutery

And? You could clear this up with a few explainations. Does bombing civilian area count as murder? That is a fairly straight forward question?

LIS @ 60

I can see what a sterling moral arbiter you are from your prose. And what a beacon of tolerance you are too.

Who claims to be a moral arbiter, here? Not I. I have no objection to you if you choose to carry a child to term. None whatsever, even if that child is disabled beyond any redemption, I would STILL support your right to support from our Welfare State and expect you to get any help you need. However, I will also accept that for some people, that is not an option, but I cannot condemn them for that.

Its not their bodies or lives they are killing.

Why abortion, though? Of all the myriad ways children and unborn foetus die on the planet, why specifically abortion? Of the millions of children who die every year, why is it that most anti abortionists never appear the slightest bit interested in their plight, but the ones in the wombs of ‘immoral’ women get all the attention? Of all the millions of children who die through lack of clean drinking water, food shelter or even through war, why do the Right make no attempt to prevent them? Why is it that the Right never campaign to cancel Third World debt, a debt that kills millions of children every year and yet for some reason, operation rescue never appear outside the IMF?

Of all the babies murdered by bombs and bullets, why are born again Christians never outside the gates of BAE, McDonald Douglas?

Tim W cannot explain it, XXX cannot explain why, Paul Newman or any anti abortionist cannot explain it either, so it is down to you, ‘Life is Sacred’.

What is the difference between an unborn child killed in an abortion and another killed in a bombing raid?

@ Leon Wolfson

You don’t actually have anything of value to add or say here, do you.

@ Cylux

Once more for you: Plants, vegetables and fruit and have no central nervous system nor a brain.

They are not sentient life. You are desperate.

@ Jim

” Who claims to be a moral arbiter, here?”

You, quite clearly:

” Instead of poking your unwanted nose into the life of people who have far more interesting lives than you … Instead of bemoaning your pathetic one … How the fuck does any of this matter a fucking inch either way to any of you cunts anyway … You want to campaign for something useful that would actually save lives? Why not campaign to build irrigation to provide Africa with water? Or campaign against cluster bombs or land mines? … why do you cunts feel you have the right to everyone else’s life?”

-

“Why abortion, though? Of all the myriad ways children and unborn foetus die on the planet, why specifically abortion?”

Abortion is easily preventable murder; that’s why.

“Of the millions of children who die every year, why is it that most anti abortionists never appear the slightest bit interested in their plight …”

Proof?

“What is the difference between an unborn child killed in an abortion and another killed in a bombing raid?”

None.

Both examples are avoidable, cold blooded murder.

No one has the right to commit murder, and murder is most especially repugnant to decent people when it is committed against those who are the most defenceless.

Clear enough for you? Now do you get it?

Now perhaps you can actually address the point I made, and you quoted:

“Its not their bodies or lives they are killing.”

I am right, am I not?

@66 Perhaps you ought to change your username to Sentient life is sacred, captain goal-post shifter. Course by making your definition of life that you give a toss about as having a “central nervous system or a brain” you’ve just allowed early-on abortions, prior to those forming, in through the back door. Result.

LIS @ 67

You, quite clearly:

And? So what? I am not making comments on anyone’s else’s moral code, I am I? I am not suggesting that these people should be open to abortion, I am not suggesting that their children are aborted. If people are against abortion, I respect their chioce, but that does not equate to allowing them to foist that on others. All I am suggesting is they keep their nose out of other people’s lives.

Abortion is easily preventable murder; that’s why.

So is drought, starvation and carpet bombing, if the political will is there. However, for reasons best known to themselves, the Right never campaign against these things even though they kill millions of babies every year.

Proof?

Er, the proof is the very fact that we are having the abortion debate and not a debate sponsored by the Right to build irrigation across Africa or a complete ban on bombing civilians. When the Right are debating that, then you got a debate on your hands.

No one has the right to commit murder, and murder is most especially repugnant to decent people when it is committed against those who are the most defenceless.

So, why aren’t people like Ron Paul outside George W Bush’s house demanding that he be tried for the murder of innocent babies in Iraq? Why isn’t Nadine Dorries demanding that irrigation be built in Africa? Why aren’t operation rescue outside army barracks calling for the murderers to be brought to book?

I am right, am I not?

If that is how you feel, fine, but that is not everyone’s view, some people believe differently and I, for one respect that, but I respect your view as well. You have the right to deal with your respective pregnancy the way you want. I totally support Sarah Palin’s right to go through with her pregnancy and give birth to her Downs Syndrome child, for example, but I do not think that gives her the Right to determine how everyone else should live their life.

@ Cylux

What on earth are you on about now?

First eating a lettuce is a bad as killing a baby, then cucumbers with equal rights to humans and now this trash.

When do human beings never have a central nervous system or a brain?

But more importantly why are you so determined to find reasons to kill human beings?

@ Jim

And? So what?

Make up your mind.

“However, for reasons best known to themselves, the Right never campaign against these things”

My understanding is the even the BNP, as far right as it comes, are against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

How do you campaign against drought or starvation? Donate to charity you mean?

But its interesting you seem to think I must be on the ‘right’ and even that everyone can be divaded into two very simple camps.

“the proof is the very fact that we are having the abortion debate”

Its a thread about abortion. Hence the debate about abortion.

“So, why aren’t people like Ron Paul outside George W Bush’s house demanding that he be tried for the murder of innocent babies in Iraq?”

Why isn’t Barrack Obama either?

“If that is how you feel, fine, but that is not everyone’s view”

Its not a view, its a fact.

By murdering the unborn baby, the mother still lives, her body still lives.

@70 Hey, your lack of comprehension and knowledge of biology is not my problem, plus if you get your way, how should we punish women who seek and obtain illegal abortions?

LIS @ 71

My understanding is the even the BNP, as far right as it comes, are against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

The Right have never came out and said killing civilians in these conflicts are immoral and the anti abortionists have never used terms like ‘murder’ and ‘murderers’ to describe the troops that do the killing of said innocent babies, though.

How do you campaign against drought or starvation? Donate to charity you mean?

You campaign for aid. Enough aid to build irrigation and technololgy to water the whole of Africa for starters and you you campaign to forgive Thrid World debt.

Its a thread about abortion. Hence the debate about abortion.

We are having this debate because the Right have ignored all the mass murder of children that goes on in the World and pitches everything into abortion.

Why isn’t Barrack Obama either?

Is Barrack Obama anti abortion to the same extent as Ron Paul? But lets stick to Ron Paul? Why does he not campaign against the death of the babies in Iraq?

Its not a view, its a fact.

Really? Says who? You? Who voted you to the beholder of ultimate truth?

@ Cylux

Quite the reverse. It is you is woefully ignorant of biology. Quite clearly.

Punishment is for the court to decided, as is guilt.

@ 65:

“And you always make a point of dodging the issue. What evidence do you want?”

I gave you an example of the sort of evidence I want on another thread: namely, a survey showing that people who identify as “pro-life” are less likely to campaign against nuclear weapons or landmines or whatever than members of the general public are. If you can produce such evidence, I’ll accept that you might have a point about pro-lifers’ motivations (although you still wouldn’t have succeeded in disproving the pro-life position itself). Until then, I’ll treat your argument about as seriously as it deserves to be treated, which is to say, not very.

“Yeah, about that? People in the sreet are not the same thing as a foetus. Sorry, that is a complete logic fail.”

Except that to a pro-lifer, they are, making your argument that even if you think abortion is murder you shouldn’t try and stop it, rather bizarre and unconvincing.

“And? You could clear this up with a few explainations. Does bombing civilian area count as murder? That is a fairly straight forward question?”

Well, I’ve already told you that soldiers who deliberately kill civilians ought to be considered murderers. Bombing civilian areas is likely to kill a fair few civilians. I’m sure you can work the rest out for yourself.

@ Jim

“The Right have never came out and said killing civilians in these conflicts are immoral”

Back to this ‘The Right’ thing again? There are only two types of people in this world are there? Left or Right? And “The Right” is always wrong, right?

But in any case you are mistaken. A 5 second search of the extreme right BNP turns up that very phrase countless times.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BNP+immoral+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

“You campaign for aid”

And only ‘The Left’ do this or donate? Proof.

“We are having this debate because the Right have ignored all the mass murder of children that goes on in the World and pitches everything into abortion”

Erm, no, its defiantly because this is a thread about abortion.

“But lets stick to Ron Paul? Why does he not campaign against the death of the babies in Iraq?”

No, lets stick with Obama, why doesn’t he?

“Really? Says who? You? Who voted you to the beholder of ultimate truth”

Its very, very simple really.

You murder an unborn baby, the mother still lives. Why? Because its not her life.

When the murdered baby is removed, the mothers body is intact and unharmed. Why? Because it is not her body.

Undeniable really.

Sunny

shame you did not research properly before posting:

Rejecting the amendment was a no-brainer even if religious groups and Nadine Dorries are excluded from the equation – the system works as it is! There’s no evidence to show otherwise.

Since 2008 BPAS and other abortion advocates in a group called ‘ Voice for Choice’ lobbied for a change to the abortion law – their website says

The 1967 Abortion Act, which came into effect 40 years ago this year, has never been significantly updated. It needs modernising in a number of important ways

@74 Crafty dodge on the punishment question there coward, and I’m very well aware of biology ta, which is why I’m not under the impression that upon fertilisation, eggs immediately possess a brain and nervous system and are sentient as you apparently do. I bet you don’t even realise that placental birth methods are essentially a form of parasitism, as opposed to oviparous methods, which becomes especially true in every sense (not just the technical sense) if the pregnancy is unwanted. Some people are kind enough to allow botfly larvae to grow within them, it’s alive and not really causing them too much trouble to be worth killing it so fair play to em I say, though I’m also not going to condemn or prevent those who want this thing out of them from having their wish.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermatobia_hominid

Cylux

Scraping the barrel, somewhat, aren’t you:

> I bet you don’t even realise that placental birth methods are essentially a form of parasitism

Using nasty scientific words, to scare people, eh?
But a fail: a foetus is a natural product of the mother’s own reproductive system which is designed to produce offspring and bring them to a point where they can service outside the body.
So the word parasite is a poor choice.

> Some people are kind enough to allow botfly larvae to grow within them…

How is that a good analogy?
Darwin says that creatures tend to care for the genetic offspring – as above, for evolutionary reasons a mother’s body and hormones et al are designed to give the foetus the best chance of growing to maturity, and hence success in later life for the genes of the mother.

The Botlfy larvae analogy is a 100% fail.

XXX @ 75

I gave you an example of the sort of evidence I want on another thread: namely, a survey showing that people who identify as “pro-life”

We don’t need a survey! We have their own actions for all the proof we need. People like ‘operation rescue’ often campaign outside abortion clinics but never campaign outside army bases. People like Ron Paul (to name but one) often come out against abortion but praise the army when they kill and dismiss civilian causalities as mere ‘collateral damage’. Nadine Dorries et al have never condemned the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Christ, if you look at this very message board you see the most despicable views aimed at the disabled are written by people who profess to be ‘pro life’

Judge these people by their words and deeds.

Well, I’ve already told you that soldiers who deliberately kill civilians ought to be considered murderers.

Then why are you not calling for soldiers and pilots to be locked up then? Given you despise murder so much, why not a peep from you or the other ‘pro life’ nutters?

LIS @ 76

Back to this ‘The Right’ thing again? There are only two types of people in this world are there? Left or Right? And “The Right” is always wrong, right?

Nope, it just happens that on this subject the Right are trying to argue against freedom. They believe in the right to starve to death and the right to ripped apart by a laser guided bombs, they even believe in the right to treat disabled people as waste of skin,but the right to decide what to do with your own body and its contents. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. Every sperm is sacred and every unborn child is a sweet innocent child.

Right up until it is born and then it becomes a parasite.

Like I said, I would have more respect for the Tory scum if they spent as much time campaigning for the welfare of the children that are actually here, living among us.

For some reason XXX and the other nutters hate these children once they are actually born.

You want to stop or reduce abortion? You are that concerned with ‘life’? instead of campaigning ‘against’ things, why not act in a positive manner? Why not ensure that mothers are never put in sub standard housing? You want to be ‘pro life’ instead of supporting amendments to bills that have little chance, why not support George Potters motion calling for disabled people to be saved from being dragged out into the streets?

That would ACTUALLY be ‘pro life’.

I imagine that hell will be being trapped forever in an argument about abortion. Or Israel. Possibly both.

Tim J @ 82

I have to be honest here, Tim, I do not really detect that the mainstream Tory Party have either the stomach or the inclination for a political battle around abortion. I heard a minister make a half hearted attempt at a condemnation of the numbers of abortion in this Country; whether that was his beliefs or the beliefs he has to be seen to have I am not that sure, but I get the feeling among the older, more sensible Tories it is a debate that is settled.

I do not think that that abortion is the political hot potato that it is in America. I have no idea what most of the front bench’s position on abortion is because it is rarely discussed. I suppose your inside knowledge would be more accurate than mine on this issue, but I get the feeling that abortion rarely comes up at selection panels?

Jim @ 80:

“We don’t need a survey!”

Ah, I see, so you’re just speaking from prejudice then.

“People like ‘operation rescue’ often campaign outside abortion clinics but never campaign outside army bases. People like Ron Paul (to name but one) often come out against abortion but praise the army when they kill and dismiss civilian causalities as mere ‘collateral damage’.”

People like the Salvation Army and Christian Aid are probably quite pro-life, but they a considerable amount to help the poor.

Similarly, lots of people are “pro-choice” when it comes to abortions, but for some reason they don’t want to extend that choice to other aspects of life, such as whether or not to obey the law. I suppose that by your — I can’t quite bring myself to use the word “logic”, but by whatever it is that you use instead, these people are all hypocrites and, therefore, wrong.

“Then why are you not calling for soldiers and pilots to be locked up then? Given you despise murder so much, why not a peep from you or the other ‘pro life’ nutters?”

Firstly, how do you know that “the other ‘pro life’ nutters” aren’t protesting against these things? Do you have some sort of magical mind-reading power that enables you to tell what people’s views on abortion are? Have you asked every demonstrator what they think of abortion?

Secondly, nobody has enough time to campaign for everything that they can or should. There are a vast number of causes which one could support using similar logic to that which pro-lifers use. People have to prioritise, otherwise they’ll get nothing done. The fact that they choose to support one cause in particular doesn’t necessarily make them a hypocrite, it just makes them somebody who’s chosen to support that particular cause. And if we only listen to people who campaign for literally everything, we’ll never end up doing anything. If a charity criticises human rights abuses in China, should we refuse to listen to them until they criticise human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and every other country where human rights abuses happen? Of course not. If Ed Miliband gave a speech saying that the government should focus more on reducing poverty in this country, would you say “The government should also focus more on reducing crime levels, Ed didn’t mention this, therefore he’s a hypocrite and we shouldn’t listen to him”? Somehow I doubt it. In fact, I suspect that if someone were to make that argument, you’d accuse them of being rather disingenuous. Your position seems to imply that we shouldn’t try and solve any problems unless we can solve every problem, an idea which is so absurd that I don’t think you’ve thought through your argument at all.

@ 82:

“I imagine that hell will be being trapped forever in an argument about abortion. Or Israel. Possibly both.”

One of these days, Israel will decide to outlaw abortions, Palestine will decide to allow them, and then the faecal matter will really hit the electrically-powered room-cooling device.

XXX @ 84

Ah, I see, so you’re just speaking from prejudice then.

For fuck sake man!!!! Get a grip, not ‘prejudice’, evidence!!!! We can judge the anti abortionist by their very actions, not some kind of assumed prejudice, we can judge you people from their actual words. There are plenty of prominent anti abortionists throughout the West and they have all been interviewed, gave speeches published websites and we can see that many of them have no interest commenting on the vast numbers of children killed in wars, famines or other preventable fates the besmirch millions of unborn foetuses and children every year which many of the religious Right totally ignore. I think we are justified in interpreting that silence as disinterest.

People like the Salvation Army and Christian Aid are probably quite pro-life, but they a considerable amount to help the poor

Yes, and? You think that gives you people some kind associated moral cache? You think that because other people who campaign against abortion also do things that we might consider worthy that you gain reflected glory from that? Garbage, just because Christian Aid (or whoever) remain reasonably consistent does not let the rest of you off the hook; the Right are still hypocrites, you are still happy to let millions die.

Firstly, how do you know that “the other ‘pro life’ nutters” aren’t protesting against these things? Do you have some sort of magical mind-reading power that enables you to tell what people’s views on abortion are? Have you asked every demonstrator what they think of abortion?

I do not need mind reading abilities, I only read normal reading abilities. If Ron Paul never describes pilots who kill children as ‘murderers’ then I can deduce from that he does not think them ‘murderers’, given that he has no difficultity useingthat term for abortionists or those who choose to have abortions.

You have been asked if you think George W Bush is a murderer for given orders that would mean the deaths of innocent children. The best you have done is squirmed around the question. I can reasonably assume that you do not think of GWB actions as a murderer? Is that correct? No mind reading required. Killing children as a side effect is acceptable in your book, then. Is that a fair reflection?

The fact that they choose to support one cause in particular doesn’t necessarily make them a hypocrite, it just makes them somebody who’s chosen to support that particular cause.

If they call themselves ‘pro life’ then ignore every other mass killing? I think they are being a little hypocritical, don’t you? Then again, if someone was campaigning for food aid to the Sudan, yet actively argued that no food be given to any other Country? Yep, that would make them a hypocrite.

If Ed Miliband gave a speech saying that the government should focus more on reducing poverty in this country, would you say “The government should also focus more on reducing crime levels, Ed didn’t mention this, therefore he’s a hypocrite and we shouldn’t listen to him”?

Yes, that is exactly what happens, though, doesn’t it? That is how cunts operate. If Milliband says a) you people throw b), c), d) and up to z) at him all the time.

Your position seems to imply that we shouldn’t try and solve any problems unless we can solve every problem, an idea which is so absurd that I don’t think you’ve thought through your argument at all

But why start with abortion? You people appear to focus on perhaps the one thing that you know you will not have any real influence on, so why bother with abortion? If you REALLY wanted to save the lives of children, why not join Christian Aid, Oxfam or the like?

This is what I have difficulty with. XXX, if you really are that concerned with the unborn, why not campaign for women to be given a decent start in life if they DO fall pregnant? We have seen the type of grotty, pokey little flats that most teenage mothers actually get, as opposed to the lap of luxury the Daily Hate would have us believe they get, so why not campaign to give pregnant mothers the best start they can, thus reducing the numbers of abortions? Why not campaign for better rights for disabled people and the parents of disabled parents thus giving parents of disabled children a better outlook? Perhaps if people did not see special needs schools being closed down they would be more likely to opt to keep a child?

The next time someone says something absolutely idiotic like ‘if you cannot afford kids, don’t have them’, why not use your ‘pro life’ stance to change their minds and understand that means that economic system is bust, not the miracle of life?

From where I am standing, I get the distinct impression that you are not ‘pro life’, you just want pregnant women punished.

Prove me wrong XXX, let us see some ‘pro life’ campaigning instead of mere anti abortionist rhetoric. Do that and you will have a convert.

@ 86:

“For fuck sake man!!!! Get a grip, not ‘prejudice’, evidence!!!!”

You’ve consistently failed to provide evidence for your claim. And no, “Ron Paul says…” doesn’t count. There’s a reason why “Appeal to Anecdote” is the name of fallacy, you know.

“Yes, and?”

You have an obsession with the idea that pro-lifers don’t actually do anything to improve people’s lives. Pointing out organisations which are both pro-life and actively working to improve people’s lives seems like a fair thing to do.

“You think that gives you people some kind associated moral cache?”

No, but now you mention it, that idea is no more stupid than your contention that I suffer from some sort of guilt by association with Ron Paul and Nadine Dorries.

“Garbage, just because Christian Aid (or whoever) remain reasonably consistent does not let the rest of you off the hook;”

Just because Ron Paul and Nadine Dorries are (allegedly) inconsistent doesn’t have any bearing on the wider pro-life movement.

“You have been asked if you think George W Bush is a murderer for given orders that would mean the deaths of innocent children. The best you have done is squirmed around the question. I can reasonably assume that you do not think of GWB actions as a murderer? Is that correct? No mind reading required. Killing children as a side effect is acceptable in your book, then. Is that a fair reflection?”

I don’t know enough about the Iraq War to be sure, but I’ve already said that, if George Bush ordered civilians to be killed, then he’s a murderer. What exactly is unclear about that?

“Then again, if someone was campaigning for food aid to the Sudan, yet actively argued that no food be given to any other Country? Yep, that would make them a hypocrite.”

Since nobody, as far as I’m aware, if actively campaigning both against abortion and for murdering children, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here.

“Yes, that is exactly what happens, though, doesn’t it? That is how cunts operate. If Milliband says a) you people throw b), c), d) and up to z) at him all the time.”

Give me three examples of when I’ve done that.

“But why start with abortion?”

The UK has tens if not hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. If you believe that foetuses are human, then it’s essentially state-sanctioned murder on a massive scale. Pretty important, I think you’ll agree?

XXX @87

You’ve consistently failed to provide evidence for your claim.

What the fuck do you want, you cretin? Do you want me to go to every website of every major campaigner on abortion and post links showing that most of the anti abortionist campaigners never publish condemation of millions of deaths by famine.

Try and grasp this fact, the normal people here are all too aware of these scum and their vile beliefs. There are about three people who are completely ignorant of that and you are two of them.

Pointing out organisations which are both pro-life and actively working to improve people’s lives seems like a fair thing to do.

That is not who we are talking about and you know it. We are talking about the Right Wing vermin who are attempting to take away the right to choose, not Christain aid.

Just because Ron Paul and Nadine Dorries are (allegedly) inconsistent doesn’t have any bearing on the wider pro-life movement.

Er, it is the likes of Nadine Dorries we are talking about, though isn’t it? It is the Right Wing anti abortionists who call themselves ‘pro life’ when they mean anti abortion that is the problem.

I don’t know enough about the Iraq War to be sure

Are you having a laugh? You don’t know enough about the biggest post war killing spree to be sure? You are not sure whether or not ordering bombers to bomb a city was likely to cause deaths of innocent children?

‘Here you guys, I want you to go over to an ancient city and bomb the shit out of it’ and you are ‘not sure’ whether that is ‘deliberate’ or not? Does it matter if he said ‘oh and make sure you kill civilians’? Hundeds of thousands of deaths and ‘pro life’, XXX deosn’t know if that counts.

The UK has tens if not hundreds of thousands of abortions every year.

A fraction of the number who die of preventable causes while we in the West plunder these Countries for debt that they cannot ever expect to pay back and could easily feed and generate enough water to save an entire planet, vatly more important than the former, won’t you agree?

@ Jim

“Do you want me to go to every website of every major campaigner on abortion and post links showing that most of the anti abortionist campaigners never publish condemation of millions of deaths by famine”

Jim, you’re right that it would be basically impossible for you to prove that pro-life campaigners never fight for life-saving causes such as battling famine. You can’t show someone a proof of absence like that.

On the other hand, how would you go about proving that pro-life campaigners often DO support these causes? A photo of a group of pro-lifers at, say, an anti-war march would look the same as a group of pro-choicers: they don’t have “pro-life” written on their foreheads.

Similarly, an organisation designed specifically to advance pro-life views would be unlikely to have unrelated beliefs written on its website. Two reasons: firstly, it’s simply off-topic; and secondly, adding extra beliefs would tend to lose you support. The number of people who oppose abortion AND support sending aid to the third world is by definition smaller than the number of people who oppose abortion.

In other words, it would be very hard for you to prove that pro-lifers don’t support these causes, and very hard for XXX to prove that they do. And the whole thing is a bit pointless – if you find a pro-lifer who doesn’t care about children dying in wars, you’d be right to call them a hypocrite, but it doesn’t have any bearing on pro-lifers who do care.

Chaise @ 89

On the other hand, how would you go about proving that pro-life campaigners often DO support these causes? A photo of a group of pro-lifers at, say, an anti-war march would look the same as a group of pro-choicers: they don’t have “pro-life” written on their foreheads.

The point being though, the groups and campaigners who call themselves ‘pro life’ normally campaign on a very narrow issue, namely, abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rescue_(Kansas)

I don’t see anything other than abortion on their radar, do you? Yet the millions of babies killed by American bombing over the last forty years goes unmentioned? Babies aborted via ‘agent orange’ goes unpunished or unquestioned?

Nothing on focus on the family either?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family

I won’t bother you with everyone on the Right, but you get the general idea? XXX suggests that just because these people never publish their views on State sponsored killing via an airstrike we cannot guess their views, well here is Ron Pauls wikipage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

He believes that life begins at conception, fair enough, but what is his position on whether or not civilian dying in airstrikes have been murdered? I will stick my neck out and suggest that no, he does not think that American pilots who bomb targets that lead to innocent deaths is murder.

@ Jim & Cylux

Well, this is a waste of time. I don’t agree with you and you don’t agree with me.

And so far you have equated taking human life with eating a lettuce, gave cucumbers the same rights as human life and both called babies parasites.

Problem is, figures from 2008 show that these “parasites” (what a disgusting psychopathic term) have a 47% survival rate when born at the legal time limit for abortion, and 27% when born a week below, thus proving that they are quite clearly human beings, human life, and independent of the mothers body and life.

These are the facts, the rest is opinion.

Bye now.

Jim, Ron Paul, is probably a bad example here as, despite the slightly wacky views on a number of subjects, he’s fairly consistently anti-war and takes a very isolationist stance. I suspect he would absolve the pilots for chain of command constitutional stuff (he’d probably ignore Nuremberg rulings as they’re not in the constitution), but he might say the President should be impeached for giving illegal orders &c.

I do broadly agree that the so-called “pro life” lobby are very badly named, but if they simply change it to anti-abortion then they’re consistent single issue campaigners that you and I disagree with vehemently.

Frankly, i think you’re wasting your time with this line, but if you’re having fun with it…

@91

Well, this is a waste of time. I don’t agree with you and you don’t agree with me.

Took you fucking long enough to figure that out, trolling this thread was starting to get very boring I tell ye.

MatGB @ 92

Jim, Ron Paul, is probably a bad example here as, despite the slightly wacky views on a number of subjects, he’s fairly consistently anti-war and takes a very isolationist stance.

On second thoughts you are right, Matt, he is just the first name that pops into my head on this debate. There are better examples of this type of thing, but I think we get the general point.

I do broadly agree that the so-called “pro life” lobby are very badly named, but if they simply change it to anti-abortion then they’re consistent single issue campaigners that you and I disagree with vehemently.

Guys like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and the others are very conspicuous by their absence at other such event that could be construed as broadly ‘pro life’ anti famine, anti war etc. They are not actually ‘pro life’, but merely anti abortion.

I am against the death penalty for example but I will call myself ‘anti death penalty’ and never anything like ‘pro life’ or similar euphemism because that is totally disingenuous.

I don’t have a particular problem with say the Salvation Army calling themselves ‘pro life’ (other than the rather mawkish implications it has) because they can be seen at most thing I would broadly see as ‘pro life’ anti famine, anti poverty, anti Third World debt, anti war, type things. Okay, I am not saying there is a right and wrong here, but to call yourself ‘pro life’ is a very big banner to walk under. Operation Rescue, for example ONLY campaign outside abortion clinics and hurl abuse at both employees and women using the services, they are NOT ‘pro life’ but anti abortion.

One of the biggest problems for the Left is we recognised the use of language was crucial to further the debate and put forward our agenda. However, the Right have never stopped using that knowledge as a point of ridicule (PC gone mad etc). The term ‘Political Correctness’ being a term coined by the Right to stigmatise our efforts to shift the ground.

On the other hand the Right have long since seen the power of language, which is why they resist any and all attempts to move from politically sensitive terms to neutral terms. They use language every bit as pointedly (feminazis, the health nazis, ecofasicts, climate alarmists, warmists) as we do and they want to use the term ‘pro life’ to instil an image of being caring, sharing people instead of the Right wing control freaks and religious nutters that they are.

The thing is when we do it, we are PC, when they do it, we allow them to shift the debate onto their ground. The used the term ‘Brown’s recession’ to drive home a simple message and we saw how effective it was. On the other hand when attempt to use the term ‘wheelchair user’ instead of cripple and ‘learning difficulties’ instead of ‘spastic’ we are attempting to humanise people.

They are attempting to soften themselves into a warm cuddly group when the truth is anything but. The best reason to use the term ‘anti abortion’? Because they dislike the term.

Plus accuracy is never a bad thing.

@94

On second thoughts you are right, Matt, he is just the first name that pops into my head on this debate. There are better examples of this type of thing, but I think we get the general point.

Yeah, Ron Paul’s stance on abortion has more to do with undermining his libertarian credentials, along with the other subject of gay marriage. In both instances he expressly believes the rights of the individual come second to the demands of a state (but not the federal government, that’s always bad in his book). Hence why he gets accused of championing ‘state rights’ rather than individual rights.

@ 90 Jim

“The point being though, the groups and campaigners who call themselves ‘pro life’ normally campaign on a very narrow issue, namely, abortion.

I don’t see anything other than abortion on their radar, do you? Yet the millions of babies killed by American bombing over the last forty years goes unmentioned? Babies aborted via ‘agent orange’ goes unpunished or unquestioned?”

I did just address this in the post you’re replying to. It would be downright weird for a group about abortion – on either side of the debate – to suddenly start posting loads of opinions on their website about a different issue.

You can’t accuse someone of not caring about an issue just because they haven’t mentioned it in your presence.

“Nothing on focus on the family either?”

Focus on the Family is a rather stupid religious group, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that their views don’t add up logically. They’re anti-abortion because they think the Bible says they should be.

“He believes that life begins at conception, fair enough, but what is his position on whether or not civilian dying in airstrikes have been murdered? I will stick my neck out and suggest that no, he does not think that American pilots who bomb targets that lead to innocent deaths is murder.”

I don’t know about Ron Paul, but I’ll address the general concept. It’s not actually inconsistent to be against abortion while accepting civilian casualties.

Civilian casualties happen inevitably in war. To refuse to back any action that leads to this happening means you have to be a hardcore pacifist – against even the most justified of wars. If you support Britain for declaring war on Germany in 1939, you are someone who is prepared to put up with civilian casualties in the hope that the end result will be positive (less people dying in the Holocaust and the defense of Europe against tyranny, in that case).

Now, you may think that life does not begin at conception, and that the American campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong. But that doesn’t mean that someone who thinks abortion is murder and that the Iraq War is a good idea is somehow a hypocrite.

@ 90:

“The point being though, the groups and campaigners who call themselves ‘pro life’ normally campaign on a very narrow issue,”

So do most organisations. Do you think that the RSPCA is hypocritical because they campaign against cruelty to animals and not against cruelty to humans?

@97 To be fair they are campaigning against human cruelty toward animals, so quite why they’d also stick up for that torturing bastard, warmongering, despoiling species is beyond me.

XXX @ 97

Do you think that the RSPCA is hypocritical because they campaign against cruelty to animals and not against cruelty to humans?

Look sparky try and get this through to your head. The RSPCA is the Royal, Society for the Prevention of Cruelity to Animals.

That is expicit in their title, the campaign specifically for animal welfare, it is in the fucking title. Many of the so called ‘pro life’ are nothing of the sort, they are specifically ‘anti abortion’. In fact, they many of their published views are anti ‘life’, many anti abortionists are pro war, pro death penalty etc.

If the RSPCA ever go on a fox hunting spree killing wild animals, then they may be accused of being a tad hypocritical.

Chaise @ 95

to suddenly start posting loads of opinions on their website about a different issue.

Remember Chaise, they do not call themselves ‘anti abortionists’, they call themselves ‘pro life’. They claim to be campaigning for the unborn child, yet as we have seen unborn (and new born) children die every day in huge numbers most of whom never die anywhere an abortion clinic. You see it would be weird for anti abortionist to publish opinions on things other than abortion. Well I agree, on the other hand, I find it equally weird that people who claim to be concerned about ‘all life being sacred’, yet never comment on the countless human life lost at war or famine? How could anyone who claims to be about ‘life’ and the unborn child not have a single opinion on the millions of deaths of innocent lives?

Civilian casualties happen inevitably in war.

Exactly! However, if you start of with the premise that all life is sacred and life begins at conception and that killing unborn foetus is tantamount to murder, then I cannot see how you can be anything other than a hardcore pacifist. If you send troops into a highly populated War zone you are sending innocent people to their deaths, a percentage of whom will be pregnant and you will be killing unborn children. The inescapable logic of that is that War = murder. There are no grey areas here for the anti abortionists remember.

Death of a foetus is murder to them, then I can see no other reasonable conclusion than a completely pacifist stance. However, given that the Christian Right are anything but pacifists, it make you wonder why they are so vehemently opposed to one specific method of death for the unborn.

The ‘Christian Right’ have no problem unborn children dying in famine, drought, war, via disease, because their mothers cannot afford medicine, poverty etc, but they have an issue if that child dies at as a result of the mother seeking abortion OR if the mother’s drinking/smoking/drug taking causes death.

In that case you have to question their motives. Why is it acceptable for a child to die in an airstrike, but not in an abortion clinic?

In my opinion it is not the ‘life’ they are concerned with, but the conduct of the mother. They are out to punish women, not save lives.

@ 100 Jim

“Remember Chaise, they do not call themselves ‘anti abortionists’, they call themselves ‘pro life’.”

You’re being over-literal about a fairly euphemistic term. You’re pro-choice, I take it – so that means you support my right to choose to commit theft, right? Right? No, it’s understood what “pro-life” and “pro-choice” means, so creatively mistinterpreting them doesn’t help anybody.

“Well I agree, on the other hand, I find it equally weird that people who claim to be concerned about ‘all life being sacred’, yet never comment on the countless human life lost at war or famine? How could anyone who claims to be about ‘life’ and the unborn child not have a single opinion on the millions of deaths of innocent lives?”

Jim, it’s weird of you to ask questions that I’ve already answered in post 89. It suggests you’re not actually reading posts before replying. I’m not explaining this to you a third time: just scroll back up and read it again.

“Exactly! However, if you start of with the premise that all life is sacred and life begins at conception and that killing unborn foetus is tantamount to murder, then I cannot see how you can be anything other than a hardcore pacifist.”

Because you can save lives by fighting wars, whereas (working from the pro-life assumption that a foetus is a person), abortions are never going to add up to a net gain in the number of lives “saved”. Basically, they’re very different issues. A pro-lifer might as well claim that you (Jim) are a hypocrite for opposing the Iraq war while being pro-choice; it’s just as nonsensical.

“Death of a foetus is murder to them, then I can see no other reasonable conclusion than a completely pacifist stance. However, given that the Christian Right are anything but pacifists, it make you wonder why they are so vehemently opposed to one specific method of death for the unborn.”

I thought we were talking about pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists, if you prefer), not the “Christian Right”. If you mean that segment of Christian rightwingers who have a bloodthirsty attitude to foriegn wars, then I agree that they’re wrong, but I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about all the other pro-lifers you’re trying to tar with the same brush as the American bible belt.

Chaise @ 101

You’re being over-literal about a fairly euphemistic term. You’re pro-choice, I take it – so that means you support my right to choose to commit theft, right?

I think everyone understands that ‘pro choice’ refers to a very narrow definition within the context of this particular debate; no one really believes that pro choice extends to theft. I would not describe myself pro abortion because I do not particularly approve of abortion, per se. What I, and I would guess most of the ‘pro choice’ camp believe is that women should have the choice whether or not they wish to have a safe, legal abortion. I am NOT in favour of any individual abortion. Pro choice is a just a shorthand for ‘pro the ability of the women to make an informed choice regarding abortion’. If you can come up with a more accurate description of that in a nice neat phrase, I would be perfectly happy to use it instead.

The anti abortionist side use the term ‘pro life’ to hide a fairly vicious, authoritarian streak who appear to be more interested with punishment than with any concern with the foetus. Chaise, I am seriously not trying to bludgeon you with this, but seriously look up the websites of the Christian Right on this subject (and most others), there is very little ‘pro life’ there and very little Christianity to boot.

They use the term ‘pro life’ as cover.

Jim, it’s weird of you to ask questions that I’ve already answered in post 89. It suggests you’re not actually reading posts before replying.

Oh, I have read what you are saying, but nothing you have written does not address the issue that the anti abortionist continue to duck. I am not knocking you for that BTW, you are not actually an anti abortionist, so I doubt you could, but either babies dying is right or wrong. Either way, I am not sure but I wish to keep it consistent.

Because you can save lives by fighting wars, whereas (working from the pro-life assumption that a foetus is a person), abortions are never going to add up to a net gain in the number of lives “saved”.

So they are prepared to let innocent people die to achieve an objective! Then life is NOT sacred then, is it? Why would someone who believes that ‘all life is sacred’ want to kill some people in order that others may live?

If so, would it be right for the NHS to abort ten unborn disabled children and use the resourses saved treating them to keep 12 other children alive?
What if aborting a third child meant that a women could look after first two children in a better fashion?
What if aborting a childs at the start of your career meant you could have two healthy children later in your life?

What if a woman was going to die unless she had an abortion?
What if she would kill herself and her unborn child unless she had an abortion?

Is it better that two people die or just the one?

Once you admit that it is better to kill some innocent lives so that other lives are saved then the every life is sacred defence dies right there.

Sorry Chaise, I didn’t quite address your last point:

I thought we were talking about pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists, if you prefer), not the “Christian Right”. If you mean that segment of Christian rightwingers who have a bloodthirsty attitude to foriegn wars, then I agree that they’re wrong, but I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about all the other pro-lifers you’re trying to tar with the same brush as the American bible belt.

It is not the ‘pro choice’ lobby that ‘tar with the same brush’. It is the anti abortionists that do that and deliberately so. There are groups, campaigners and individual people out there for whom the term ‘pro life’ could reasonably be used. There are people like the salvation army who believe in a broad ‘pro life’ agenda, whose aims and campaigns are across a whole spectrum of issues and remain fairly consistent. I have no problem with them calling themselves ‘pro life’ (leaving aside the mawkish nature of the term). However, they are often swamped by others who attempt to feed on a bit of veracious credibility from the humanitarian acts of such groups. ‘XXX’ is keen to point out that the ‘pro life’ agenda is supported by Christian Aid for example and he feels that somehow that justifies his purely anti abortionist stance.

If the genuinely ‘pro life’ campaigners are being tarred with the religious nutters then they need to make sure they distance themselves from the scumbags.

@ 102 Jim

*Regarding “pro-life” and “pro-choice”: you rightly say that people know what is meant by “pro-choice”, but the same applies to “pro-life”. Both terms are technically inaccurate, and in both cases that’s not really important. As for the Christian Right – as I said already, that’s shifting the goalposts. I’m not defending morality gained through revelation.

*Regarding pro-lifers allegedly not supporting other life-saving operations: my post at 89 quite clearly HAS addressed the reasons why pro-life groups are unlikely to volunteer the opinions their members hold on unrelated topics. If there is a counterargument, you have not employed it. If, on the other hand, you’re talking about individual pro-lifers who refuse to comment on war casualties and the like, then fair enough – but that only applies to those individuals, you can’t use it as a bludgeon to hit everyone who wants to ban abortion.

*Regarding the “life is sacred” thing – firstly, I think it’s possible to say life is sacred and still support a policy of letting one person die to save two others. That’s two sacred lives for the price of one, so to speak. But more importantly, you’re talking about a specific niche again, and I’m not defending that position, I’m defending pro-lifeism itself from the accusation of hypocrisy.

Jim

“It is not the ‘pro choice’ lobby that ‘tar with the same brush’. It is the anti abortionists that do that and deliberately so.”

You’re doing it right now. And how, exactly, would the fact that pro-lifers behave this way (which many do) somehow prove that pro-choicers don’t? Please answer this question rather than ignoring it, as I think it’s important.

“‘XXX’ is keen to point out that the ‘pro life’ agenda is supported by Christian Aid for example and he feels that somehow that justifies his purely anti abortionist stance.”

Jim, you were going around claiming that pro-lifers don’t try to save lives in other ways. XXX obviously raised Christian Aid to disprove that claim.

If you make a claim that can be disproved with evidence, someone is likely to give you that evidence. It’s unreasonable to then attribute fake motives for them doing so.

“If the genuinely ‘pro life’ campaigners are being tarred with the religious nutters then they need to make sure they distance themselves from the scumbags.”

Kinda hard to do that when people such as yourself won’t admit there’s a difference. And anyway, why should they? It’s not their fault that other people deliberately misinterpret their views, is it?

Chaise @ 104, 105

Regarding pro-lifers allegedly not supporting other life-saving operations: my post at 89 quite clearly HAS addressed the reasons why pro-life groups are unlikely to volunteer the opinions their members hold on unrelated topics

No Chaise you haven’t. When you look at the rhetoric the Christian Right use they clearly* use terms implying that they are against killing of babies. If they use the term ‘killing of babies’ I cannot see how they can remain consistent in that UNLESS they are willing to comment on all events that reasonably lead to unborn children being killed. Christian Aid has lots of campaigns that all run more or less concurrently, as do the Red Cross, Oxfam etc.

If the RSPCA stopped all its campaigning and shifted all its efforts to fox hunting for example, it would be fair to say that they were not interested in animal cruelty any longer, just fox hunting, no? Is that a reasonable assumption? If Sport England stopped spending money on sport throughout England and spent their entire budget on snooker in Yorkshire, wouldn’t they be better off calling themselves snooker Yorkshire?

Am I really being unreasonable in expecting people who describe themselves as ‘campaigning against killing of unborn babies’ to express an opinion about unborn children killed in airstrikes?

“We want to stop deaths of unborn children, but deaths of unborn children in airstrikes? Nope, that lot are down the hall, past the ‘death by famine group’ and a bit down further than the ‘unclean water people’, we just happen to be the death by abortion, drink or drugs people”

Seriously dude? Seriously, is that bullshit and we all know it. The Christian Right are not the slightest bit interested in babies, they are only interested in how they die. The deaths of children they are interested in are abortion and the addictions of mothers. Why? Because it is about condemnation, not compassion, that is why.

You have been duped into believing this has anything to do with life, you are attempting to defend people who frankly do not need defending, well that is your choice.

*(do you want me to pull up a link? Why not just look at up for yourself? I am cool either way)

@ 106 Jim

First off, I realise this thread has dropped off the main page, so I won’t claim you’ve “run away” or anything if you don’t pick it up.

“No Chaise you haven’t. When you look at the rhetoric the Christian Right…”

For the last time, I am not going to defend the Christian Right simply to give you an easy target. This is a repeated straw man, and you really need to drop it. If you’re gonna back up the claim “No Chaise you haven’t”, you need to be addressing what I wrote, not what some idiot from Focus on the Family thinks.

“If the RSPCA stopped all its campaigning and shifted all its efforts to fox hunting for example, it would be fair to say that they were not interested in animal cruelty any longer, just fox hunting, no? Is that a reasonable assumption? If Sport England stopped spending money on sport throughout England and spent their entire budget on snooker in Yorkshire, wouldn’t they be better off calling themselves snooker Yorkshire?”

Indeed. Likewise, a political group that only talks about abortion is an abortion group. But if someone was a member of Snooker Yorkshire, would that prove they didn’t like football? No. Likewise, membership of a pro-life group does not demonstrate that opposing abortion is your only political interest.

You’ve been rightly pointing out that absence of proof is not proof of absence throughout this thread, but you seem to forget that principle the moment it’s inconvenient to you.

“Am I really being unreasonable in expecting people who describe themselves as ‘campaigning against killing of unborn babies’ to express an opinion about unborn children killed in airstrikes?”

You’re not being unreasonable, exactly, but for reasons I’ve given above it would probably be a bad idea for people to combine the issues while campaigning. If you believe in X and Y, you’ll get more signatures if you have one petition for X and one petition for Y than if you have a single petition for both X and Y. Because a petition for both X and Y will not get signatures from people who agree with X but not with Y, or vice versa.

Similarly, if you feel strongly about abortion AND war (in any direction), you’re better off making two websites.

“Seriously dude? Seriously, is that bullshit and we all know it. The Christian Right are not the slightest bit interested in babies…”

See above RE straw man.

“You have been duped into believing this has anything to do with life, you are attempting to defend people who frankly do not need defending, well that is your choice.”

Jim, I used to be pro-life. It is genuinely conceivable that I somehow duped myself, but given that I was and am a strong believer in gender equality, plus a pretty serious atheist, it seems really unlikely that Chaise, ten years ago, opposed abortion because he secretly wanted to oppress women in the name of God.

@ Cylux

“trolling this thread was starting to get very boring I tell ye”

Well to use your and Jim’s gutter parlance: Why did’nt you “fucking” stop then, you “cunt”?

@36 Life is sacred

Clearly I have to spell-out my point @33 – I was making reference to the emotive picture you decided to use, bearing in mind that most abortions occur between 12 and 14 weeks. Women who actually have abortions either did it for medical reasons or did not want to give birth to a child. My reference to abused and battered children was to counter your own hyperbole with another.

@Chaise

However, I often work with young people who were born to parent/s who clearly did not love or want them, many are desensitized by the verbal, and sometimes physical pain they have experienced. Many turn to drugs and alcohol to ease that pain which is confounded by mental health problems.
No, I haven’t asked them if they wish they had not been born, I don’t suppose I really want to hear the answer.

@ 109 jojo

This is something of an oversimplification, I’ll admit, but I think there’s solid evidence that people wouldn’t be happier dead in the fact that they haven’t killed themselves.

I’m not at all comfortable with a defence of abortion that relies on claiming that people born into unpleasant circumstances would generally have been better off not being born at all. Not because I think it’s insulting (I think accusing someone’s argument of being offensive is normally a way of avoiding addressing their point), but because I think it’s simply untrue.

The whole “let’s abort the child for it’s own good!” thing just rings hollow to me. I think people often don’t really think about it before saying it – they just think it’s another point on their “side”, and therefore assume it must be right. And this isn’t the first time I’ve seen it raised to counter dodgy images of aborted foetuses – which are themselves a cheap appeal to emotion that doesn’t need to be dignified with a counter-example.

110

Your belief that someone who doesn’t commit suicide wants to live is also an oversimplification (perhaps you can reference the research/work you base your opinion on)
Damaged people often give themselves other problems such as an addiction which needs feeding, suicide does not figure in their day to day survival, in fact, the survival instinct is incredibly strong.
And you are putting words into my mouth when you assert that I am saying ‘abort people for their own good’. I am in no position to make that assumption about any pregnancy, that is the choice of the woman. And perhaps those women who choose to terminate are acting in the best interests of a potential human.
Only the woman can make that assessment, not you, me or Life is sacred.

@ 100 jojo

“Your belief that someone who doesn’t commit suicide wants to live is also an oversimplification (perhaps you can reference the research/work you base your opinion on)”

I just admitted it was an oversimplification, so I’m not sure why you’re repeating my statement like an accusation. Nevertheless, most people in these categories don’t commit suicide and – far more to the point – many go up to live happy lives.

“Damaged people often give themselves other problems such as an addiction which needs feeding, suicide does not figure in their day to day survival, in fact, the survival instinct is incredibly strong.”

Agreed, that’s why it’s an oversimplification.

“And you are putting words into my mouth when you assert that I am saying ‘abort people for their own good’.”

I’m not putting words into your mouth, I’m synopsising. Upthread, you said “Life is indeed sacred and it’s too precious to bring unwanted, unloved children into being when they face a dreadful life.” You’re not literally saying “abort for their own good” there, but I can’t see how you could make that sentence make sense without the logical conclusion that unwanted, unloved children are better off not being alive (whether that means “dead” or “never born”).

“I am in no position to make that assumption about any pregnancy, that is the choice of the woman. And perhaps those women who choose to terminate are acting in the best interests of a potential human.
Only the woman can make that assessment, not you, me or Life is sacred.”

Open question really, this. What you say is certainly correct if you think that the woman is the only person involved in the abortion – and that’s the whole pro-life/pro-choice argument right there, obviously.

@ JoJo

You are backtracking.

“bearing in mind that most abortions occur between 12 and 14 weeks

Where are your figures for this?

“Women who actually have abortions either did it for medical reasons or did not want to give birth to a child.”

Again figures – and the second reason is as broad as it comes and as terrible an excuse for murder as I have ever seen.

If they don’t want to give birth to a child, don’t get pregnant. It really is very simple.