Labour in a tizzy over abortion

Elindio

Old-Salt
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cide-upper-limit-terminating-pregnancies.html


"Senior frontbencher Maria Eagle, who has opposed a reduction in the abortion time limit, led calls for the proposals to be thrown out. Witnesses said the Shadow Environment Secretary banged the table and hit out at the male-dominated Commission who were drawing up the plans.

She said: ‘This is outrageous. What we’ve got is a bunch of men deciding on women’s rights to abortion.’"

This is where a large number of abortion supporters (I really don't like the terms pro-life and pro-choice), really show their hypocrisy, it isn't that they dislike men having opinions on abortion, they just cannot stand the fact that people have fundamental moral objections to the termination of an unborn child, and will look for any reason whatsoever to shut discussion down.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...it-terminating-pregnancies.html#ixzz3KajE7hgT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
As long as we don't end up with the kind of hysteria associated with abortion that we see in the US.

Whether people have fundamental issues with abortion or not, other people still have the right to choose it. That's the law and it's also the morally correct position in my view.
 

Elindio

Old-Salt
Well, for a start, unless the unborn child was created as a product of rape, then essentially, the parents have already chosen to have a child by eschewing all available forms of contraception including the morning after pill. However, if one has ever seen (or at least seen footage of) a living 10 week old fetus outside a womb, flinching at being tickled by a hair, it makes it more understandable as to why there are many people who support decreasing the amount of time in which an abortion can be performed. It isn't just a case of wanting to deprive women of the 'right to choose'.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Both the Greens (Chapman) and the SNP (Fabiani) wanted decicions on Abortion to be devolved. Labour were against it fearing that Religiously Conservative donors such as Souter would put pressure on the SNP to slash the upper limit (Souter has form on trying to invoke religious objections in Scotland - see Section 28,) Salmond had also expressed the possibility of reducing the upper limit. For the Tories it wasn't an issue.

It has not been included in the Smith recommendations, beyond that it should seriously be looked at.

A less hyperbolic piece from the Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ith-commission-to-drop-abortion-law-1-3620377

In the end Abortion is a hard fought right for women, it is ultimately their choice.
 
Last edited:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Well, for a start, unless the unborn child was created as a product of rape, then essentially, the parents have already chosen to have a child by eschewing all available forms of contraception including the morning after pill. However, if one has ever seen (or at least seen footage of) a living 10 week old fetus outside a womb, flinching at being tickled by a hair, it makes it more understandable as to why there are many people who support decreasing the amount of time in which an abortion can be performed. It isn't just a case of wanting to deprive women of the 'right to choose'.

What if they had been using a form of contraception that had failed?

What if the mother was ill and carrying the baby to term would result in the death of both?

What if the mother was an addict and the child would either be born with serious medical, or familial issues?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
What worried Labour is that one of the SNP main supporters and source of donations, Brian Soutar, is very anti things like abortion and rights of homosexuals; and Labour (well some people in) feel that if this is devolved to Scotland, Soutar's influence may force changes.

The Labour delegation to the Smith Commission then made this a red-line issue which would have stopped consensus and no agreement signed off. The Labour delegate phoned Ed Milliband for permission to do that. Reports in the Scotsman but I am using my tablet and can't link.

Good to know that Labour Scotland still have to ask the grown ups in London before doing anything.
 

Elindio

Old-Salt
What if they had been using a form of contraception that had failed?
I find it highly unlikely that if this happened, the mother would wait 24 weeks, or even 8, before terminating the pregnancy if this was the case. Proposing to shorten the limits doesn't necessarily mean that all abortion should be criminalised

What if the mother was ill and carrying the baby to term would result in the death of both?
I (and a large number of so-called 'pro-lifers') think that provision should be made for termination should be made in this case, I'm aware I didn't make this clearer earlier.

What if the mother was an addict and the child would either be born with serious medical, or familial issues?
If the medical issues were so severe that the child would not survive, then again I think termination should be an option, albeit I didn't state this earlier. If it could, then everything possible should be done to ensure its survival. This ultimately is why we have a national health service. As for familial issues, I do not believe it is morally right to terminate an unborn child on the speculation that it's life may be uncomfortable. A large number of planned children can have miserable upbringings, yet no one would advocate terminating them.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cide-upper-limit-terminating-pregnancies.html


"Senior frontbencher Maria Eagle, who has opposed a reduction in the abortion time limit, led calls for the proposals to be thrown out. Witnesses said the Shadow Environment Secretary banged the table and hit out at the male-dominated Commission who were drawing up the plans.

She said: ‘This is outrageous. What we’ve got is a bunch of men deciding on women’s rights to abortion.’"

This is where a large number of abortion supporters (I really don't like the terms pro-life and pro-choice), really show their hypocrisy, it isn't that they dislike men having opinions on abortion, they just cannot stand the fact that people have fundamental moral objections to the termination of an unborn child, and will look for any reason whatsoever to shut discussion down.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...it-terminating-pregnancies.html#ixzz3KajE7hgT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Do **** off back to beneath the stone from which you've crawled.

A woman's right to choose is precisely that.

If you are a man or woman outside of the, undoubtedly, very difficult decision making process that surrounds abortion; then you have no say in the matter and should STFU.

If you are a catholic priest, then as a celibate bloke in a frock you have no say in the matter and should STFU.

If you are a Born Again Christian with a an agenda that denies women a full and complete role in society (or indeed their own lives) you too have no say in the matter and should STFU.

A woman's right to abortion has been enshrined in law since 1967.

Ever since then narrow minded ******* have been trying to take that right away.

Oh look - I just sought to close your "discussion" down.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I find it highly unlikely that if this happened, the mother would wait 24 weeks, or even 8, before terminating the pregnancy if this was the case. Proposing to shorten the limits doesn't necessarily mean that all abortion should be criminalised


I (and a large number of so-called 'pro-lifers') think that provision should be made for termination should be made in this case, I'm aware I didn't make this clearer earlier.


If the medical issues were so severe that the child would not survive, then again I think termination should be an option, albeit I didn't state this earlier. If it could, then everything possible should be done to ensure its survival. This ultimately is why we have a national health service. As for familial issues, I do not believe it is morally right to terminate an unborn child on the speculation that it's life may be uncomfortable. A large number of planned children can have miserable upbringings, yet no one would advocate terminating them.

All of those scenarios I have described are viable and more common than you think. Contraception is not infallible. Women often don't discover they are pregnant until quite late on, due to lifestyle or health factors.

Unless the pro-life movement are willing to stump up their own money and time to raise these kids in a safe, loving environment they should leave women to make their own choices.
 

Elindio

Old-Salt
Do **** off back to beneath the stone from which you've crawled.

A woman's right to choose is precisely that.

If you are a man or woman outside of the, undoubtedly, very difficult decision making process that surrounds abortion; then you have no say in the matter and should STFU.

If you are a catholic priest, then as a celibate bloke in a frock you have no say in the matter and should STFU.

If you are a Born Again Christian with a an agenda that denies women a full and complete role in society (or indeed their own lives) you too have no say in the matter and should STFU.

A woman's right to abortion has been enshrined in law since 1967.

Ever since then narrow minded ******* have been trying to take that right away.

Oh look - I just sought to close your "discussion" down.

Well, yes, you did. Rather than explain, why the mother, and the mother alone has the right to decide whether or not to abort their unborn child, and why either no one else can, or why the unborn child does not deserve to be protected under the law, you've instead spouted off the same old cliches suggesting that it is a right comparable to the rights to life and liberty, and made a wild array of incorrect assumptions about me and the straw opinions of people who are opposed to legal abortion.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
Well, yes, you did. Rather than explain, why the mother, and the mother alone has the right to decide whether or not to abort their unborn child, and why either no one else can, or why the unborn child does not deserve to be protected under the law, you've instead spouted off the same old cliches suggesting that it is a right comparable to the rights to life and liberty, and made a wild array of incorrect assumptions about me and the straw opinions of people who are opposed to legal abortion.

The mother alone has the right to chose because more often than not she is going to be the sole parent.

An unborn child is precisely that - a foetus. It is not a sentient being within the current legal terms for abortion. Stop clouding the issue with sentimentality.

I haven't made any assumptions about you; other than you're a right wing **** who doesn't give a toss for women's rights.

You may be upset about a piece of legislation that was enacted nearly 50 years ago. I'm more than happy to defend it.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Well, for a start, unless the unborn child was created as a product of rape, then essentially, the parents have already chosen to have a child by eschewing all available forms of contraception including the morning after pill. However, if one has ever seen (or at least seen footage of) a living 10 week old fetus outside a womb, flinching at being tickled by a hair, it makes it more understandable as to why there are many people who support decreasing the amount of time in which an abortion can be performed. It isn't just a case of wanting to deprive women of the 'right to choose'.

Does a child who's the product of rape have any less right to life? It's not the child's fault how he or she was begot. An old friend of mine is the product of his mum being raped. She can't handle it...loses it whenever she sees him, because of the memory. Hell of an upbringing and he's turned very well considering but what's your 'judgement' there?

A problem in this debate is the propensity of pro-lifers to try to turn abortion into a straightforward good/bad debate, not the nuanced debate it really needs to be.
Although, no doubt, I'll burn in hell forever for saying that.
 
What if they had been using a form of contraception that had failed?

What if the mother was ill and carrying the baby to term would result in the death of both?

What if the mother was an addict and the child would either be born with serious medical, or familial issues?

Don't be ridiculous. Abortion is a black and white issue, there are never any grey areas.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
This is a very difficult issue. The views of cultists must be discounted because their moral compass and decision making is perverted by what they think some one else's imaginary chum wants them to think.

Ultimately it has to be the decision of the mother. In an ideal world she would do that in consultation with medical professionals and her family (including the father). Of course in an ideal world abortion would be avoided. Odd that cultists tend to object to the kind of education and contraception that would avoid the majority of unwanted pregnancies but as I say their views must be discounted. Abortion may be the best option for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy but it is likely to have consequences for the mental well being of most women.
 

Latest Threads

Top