Abortion becomes a general election issue

Tony Blair has tried to sideline the abortion issue in the upcoming general election.

Michael Howard, Tory leader, has seized on the abortion debate, backed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster.

But a spokesman for the Prime Minister said he believes the issue is non-partisan one and a matter of conscience for MPs.

Mr Howard indicated he favours reducing the limit on abortions from the 24th week of pregnancy to the 20th week.
Is Mr Howard right to start a debate on abortion so close to the election? What are your thoughts on the aboirtion issue?

I agree with Mr Howard (a concidence) that the limit for abortion should be reduced as allowing women to abort a 6mnth old (24 wks) is morally and ethically wrong in my view. Premature babies have survived when born younger than 6 mnths so they are in my book completely viable humans, with the same human rights we all enjoy

Heavy morality topic for a general election. Will not prove decisive and will still come down to tax, Iraq, trust etc.

My view is get good medical opinion and time limits should be set as maximum based on clinical evidence.

Too many young girls taking chances sh*gging around knowing this is the easy way out. Back to morality again.
I think if you can look after and support the kid you should have it

if you didnt use a rubber or whatever, although none of its 100%, then you should accept the responsibility
Unfortunately too many mercenary chicks out there now. Entrapment is rife methinks.


Kit Reviewer
I was amused today to hear that Bliar had announced he didn't want abortion to become an election issue !
That's it Tone, if you don't like the subject run away from it.
No change from the usual then.

Perhaps he has just realised that it's a contentious subject and one on which he won't be able to please all the people all the time - especially a certain C.Booth QC.

He'll be so deep in the kak at home !
:lol: :lol: :lol:
So, presumably, if a young girl (at what age would you care to define as 'young'?) has an abortion she is in the wrong, and if she doesn't she's a mercenary chick? What a very male perspective.

if you didnt use a rubber or whatever, although none of its 100%, then you should accept the responsibility......

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are holding the fathers of these babies as responsible as the mothers?

I think if you look at the statistics you will find that most abortions are carried out on women, not girls, and a surprising number of those are carried out within marriages as well. I have a friend who fell pregnant with her third child but her husband decided he didn't want any more - he put huge pressure on her to have it aborted, drove her to the clinic and waited whilst it was done. She was in mourning for months and months.

I think you will also find that the very late abortions are only carried out for overwhelmingly strong medical reasons and not because the woman has just changed her mind.

I also agree that there are cases of the most appalling resons given for women wanting abortions (would interfere with her skiing holiday is one of the worst I have heard - her woman doctor refused it so she went to a male doctor who was glad to oblige)

This subject is far more complex than those who have posted appear to realise - have no issue with you holding views on the subject but make sure they are informed ones - it is a very emotive subject.

And no, I have never had one, but I am pro-choice, so would have done if I felt it necessary.


Kit Reviewer
Prodigal said:

I think if you look at the statistics you will find that most abortions are carried out on women

This is also true.
I am very much pro choice. However 24 weeks!! Women know if they are pregnant, or possibly pregnant within 4 weeks (there are exceptions but 99% do). If they miss their period – do a test. If that comes up positive see a doctor. Any fool can know within 6 or 7 weeks if they are pregnant. Then if an abortion is their choice it can all be done very quickly.
I never cease to be shocked by the number of women who apparently don't have a clue how their bodies work! Whilst there will always be the odd exception who continue to menstruate throughout their pregnancy and / or do not develop a bump or other indications of pregnancy, these women really are in the minority (any docs with actual statistics out there?) I have yet to meet a sexually active woman who doesn't have a mild panic if her period is even a few days late. My view is that abortions should be performed as soon after conception as possible and other than in the instance that there is a later-found medical reason why the pregnancy cannot continue, that they should be performed no later than 12 weeks. I know that for this to happen that major changes need to happen in the NHS (a whole bigger topic) as a very good friend of mine knew she was pregnant at 2 weeks, went through the process of arranging an abortion by 4 weeks but didn't have the operation till 13 weeks. The stress of this additional 9 weeks carrying the foetus was awful for her and very painful for me to observe: how do you comfort a woman who is going through all of the physical and emotional changes for a pregnancy which is 'booked in' to be terminated?

As with Prodigal, I have never had an abortion and fervently hope never to be in the position of even having to consider one, but I am firmly pro-choice, though have issues with women using abortion as contraception, especially if the pregnancy is just an 'inconvenience'.
if were not careful we will end up like spam land where the god bothers force there morality on the rest of us.
my partner had an aboration before I met her so what.
I always find it very amusing that the catholic church takes the lead on this debate and its priests are suppoused to be celibate :roll:
Well premature babies have survied at 6months or less but take vast
amount of care and technology and often end up very handicapped so
not really viable .
Blair filrting with catholisim but couldnt sell anti choice
( I wont call the ******* pro life because i worked at a hospitial which they targeted) to new labour .Howard got a history of hating women
handcuffing women in labour was an idea of his when he was home secatery (as mrs woody often reminds me :roll: ) so once again no real choice think its a mistake and can only lose votes . OH and the preist
can f off they can teach morality when they stop buggering choir boys
and supporting terrorists :twisted: .
Prodigal said:
It might interest you all to know that in Russia abortion is the main form of contraception and the average Russian woman, in fact, has 8 abortions in her lifetime.
I accept your point Prodigal, but abortion isn't contraception: it prevents birth, it doesn't prevent conception.
So we are starting to venture down the road of the US on abortion? Or is it a political scam by Howard to try and get some minority opinion votes of his own??

You decide!


Kit Reviewer
Taken you cynical pill this morning have you Dui-Lai ?
Leaders join forces to cool abortion row

Michael White and Stephen Bates
Wednesday March 16, 2005
The Guardian

The Catholic hierarchy last night joined forces with both Labour and the Conservatives to head off a political row over abortion in the coming election after the Archbishop of Westminster suggested that religion should play a larger part in British politics.

Michael Howard insisted he had not tried to make abortion an issue during a magazine interview and key aides stressed that it should remain a matter for MPs' consciences.

No 10 called for a "calm and rational" debate, but said Tony Blair has no plans to change current laws. Mr Howard said: "I don't decide what is an election issue, neither does Mr Blair. The British people will decide."
source http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1438508,00.html
brighton hippy said:
I always find it very amusing that the catholic church takes the lead on this debate and its priests are suppoused to be celibate :roll:
What has that got to do with the price of fish? That's like saying Buddhists can't take a few on war/peace because their priests are pacifists...The real amusing issue here is that if you set up yourself on a values agenda these days, then best be prepared to be rubbished on anything but the topic under consideration. Having a strong sense of moral purpose doesn't mean you are some kind of olde worlde freak.

I am amused that Bliar doesn't want this to "become" an election issue. It only becomes one if the people care, not because some gadget of politico-lawyer thinks it might look good in his interminable and expensive biography...well Tone my man, people care and I certainly am all in favour of a political party that is prepared to make an issue out of this. I am also in favour of Cormac murphy O'connor's comments, not least because St tone and cherie the wicked Witch are going to have some interesting bedtime chats on the "issues"!!
To be fair to Howard he was answering a direct question in some Doris' mag (Cosmo?) he didn't bring it up in parliament, or make a statement outside a church. Slightly more worrying is the fact that the good old CofE haven't said a word - jewish and muslim leaders have all put their point of view forward. And they wonder why no-one listens to the Church any more.

Also why do 'pro-lifers' kill people?
Completely accept your point Dozybint. Still, fairly awful statistic isn't it?! Apparently there is virtually no available contraception, so this is their only option.

This issue should be driven by public opinion - the 'pro-lifers' have tried hard to make it a public issue but have never really succeeded. I would not like to see the more extreme organisations, such as the Christian group that protested against the Jerry Springer theatre show, trying the same tactics against abortion clinics.

Abortions happened without those clinincs, resulting in the most awful consequences.......

I also question the money and resources 'pro-lifers' put into campaigns against abortions but become suddenly disinterested in children who are born into terrible social conditions - surely the argument of sanctitiy of life is more important to a child who exists, rather than to an unviable foetus?

My own personal religious beliefs do not specifically include any formal opinion on abortion, so I can't argue the religious case - and I also don't believe in the sanctitiy of human life - if I did, I wouldn't have joined the Army....
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Elindio The Intelligence Cell 108
Joshing-lens Sick Jokes 2
REMEbrat The Intelligence Cell 21

Similar threads

Latest Threads