What you said

Excuse me? Since when was it the responsibility of the UK to pass judgement on abortion laws in other countries, and since when was it the responsibility of the NHS to help those who are not even resident in the UK? If this case goes through, the UK will become ‘abortion central’ for everyone in the EU who disagrees with their own national abortion laws (which, given that the UK has a much higher limit than almost every other country, will be quite a few people).

And guess who is going to pay for these abortions? Yes, you guessed it, we will – British taxpayers.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Oh, boo hoo – it’s a worthier cause than most of what our taxes go on. Or indeed what most of us would spend the money on were it not taxed. Anyway, at least in this case, we’re not even going to be paying for it. She’s going private. Presumably she wouldn’t be doing so if it were available to her on the NHS, so I strongly suspect the British Taxpayer will not in fact be paying for any of these dreaded abortion tourists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/2198987/Romanian-rape-victim,-11,-to-have-UK-abortion.html

And guess who is going to pay for these abortions?

How about the foreign national? According to Wikipedia, the EHIC doesn’t cover people travelling for the purposes of medical treatment.

LfaT, she’s ELEVEN, and has been RAPED.

I have never been so disgusted by a comment in my life, you selfish git.

What Jennie said. Damn, I’m looking forward to the compassion and decency of the next Tory government…

Even if it were covered by EHIC, it would be the Romanian government effectively picking up the tab from its contributions to the EU, all of which is besides the point I know, but worth mentioning nonetheless.

Now we need a wealthy anonymous benefactor to pay Dorries to keep her mouth shut…

#2
> And guess who is going to pay for these abortions? Yes, you guessed it, we will – British taxpayers.

Yes indeed, what a disgrace that we should fork out a few quid to help an 11-year-old who’s been raped by her uncle. When it could be going on nannies for rich Tories and the like.

Not that we’re going to be paying, obviously, if you read those EHIC Ts&Cs.

And tell me, how’s losing that ‘Nasty Party’ label going?

Letters From A Tory

Well, as the update has highlighted, it isn’t the taxpayer who is going to pay. BUT: Would that really be so bad? Personally, I’d quite happily allow this to help the poor girl. What, the proverbial fuck, is wrong with you?

She was raped by her uncle.

Since when was it the responsibility of the UK to pass judgement on abortion laws in other countries…

I think you need to go and read the post again, come back, and explain where anyone argued that Romania needs to change its laws?

Tories, huh.

LFaT – that is a vile sentiment, and you should be ashamed. Disgusting post, I think you really have delusions of adequacy.

It seems as though many people have skipped past the point of my original post.

I notice in the update that this treatment will be privately funded, which is fine with me. My point was (please go back and read my post if you don’t believe me) was that if a country has an abortion limit twice as high as many other countries – which we do – it would be financial suicide to allow foreign nationals to have abortions there should they have passed the legal limit in their own country. If the treatment is private and doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything, I’m obviously fine with it because the British taxpayer will not be affected in anyway.

For those of you e.g. Mund, Aaron Heath etc who are desperate to make out that I am not compassionate or a heartless person, you are sadly mistaken. What happened to the girl was absolutely awful, but like I said the UK cannot allow itself to fund abortions from overseas nationals due to our abortion limit being significantly out of line with our European counterparts. With no immigration controls within the EU, it would result in major difficulties for the NHS.

Hope that clears it up.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Nope, still sounds like you think a couple of hundred quid is more important than this poor girl’s entire life, LfaT, sorry.

I can see LfaT’s point, but I can’t understand how you (LfaT) don’t seem to be able to even accept that there should be provisions for people in this girl’s situation to get it even if it did cost the taxpayer money?

I can understand if you’re looking at the wider picture of abortions for all…but do you accept that there would be no reason to not allow those with special circumstances to come and have abortions here even if it was on the NHS?

The NHS is not paying for the abortion, and will not be paying for any similar abortions, so there is no debate. However, in the fantasy world in which the NHS did have to pay for Romanian rape victims to have abortions, the NHS would be doing a good job and I would defend it to the hilt.

but like I said the UK cannot allow itself to fund abortions from overseas nationals

Which was never going to happen, so this was a pointless point to be making

due to our abortion limit being significantly out of line with our European counterparts.

As Unity evinced at length here, we aren’t as wildly out of step with others as people say (and which is why I was surprised when he said “only because UK has some of the most liberal and humane abortion laws in Europe”

LFaT, it would be helpful if you got your facts straight.

1)UK taxpayers don’t pay for NHS treatment of non-UK nationals, which is one more thing sorted out by pan-European agreement.
2)Freedom of movement is a human right enshrined in European legislation, but your party is against all three
3)Do you want immigration controls to complement the surveillance state, or as an alternative to it? Do you want a body cavity search with that?

So stop shifting your goalposts, human individuals are no more than specks on the surface of the planet to you.

LFaT,

I’m not desperate to make you out to be anything. You write what you write, I’m simply exercising my right to call you on it. *You* chose to skew the initial theme of Unity’s post into a tax rant. You ignored the moral and ethical kernel of the debate, so yeah, you do come across as a bit heartless. Sorry.

…the UK cannot allow itself to fund abortions from overseas nationals due to our abortion limit being significantly out of line with our European counterparts. With no immigration controls within the EU, it would result in major difficulties for the NHS.

What is clear is that you’ve swallowed the rag-press line; hook, line and..

It has been pointed out that tax-payers and the NHS wouldn’t foot the bill.

and which is why I was surprised when he said “only because UK has some of the most liberal and humane abortion laws in Europe”

If you stick to the strict letter of the law then our system does leave something to be desired when compared to countries that allow abortion on request during the first trimester.

If, on the other hand, you look at what happens in practice then as long as women are referred to an appropriate provider, the two doctor requirement presents few barriers and post 13 weeks our system provides fewer restrictions than at the same stage in many other countries.

In all, while there’s scope for improvement, we still come out pretty well compared to most EU countries, particularly when it comes to dealing with exceptional situations.

I’m not much of an accountant, but have done a few sums on my calculator here and was wondering if it would be possible to direct a few of the funds presently reserved for flattening Iraqis, etc, into helping this girl and even others around the world in this way?

It’d be nice to see some of my tax money going into humane causes like this one, even if only for the novelty value.

Just a thought.

lfat, every-one can see what you wrote. Your feelings are pretty clear. You would not want our country to pay for this regardless.

Your own ego makes you believe we want to paint you as something. I don’t care about you it’ your stupid idea’s that worry me.

“It is, generally, considered to be ‘very bad form’ to attempt to reintroduce an amendment rejected at the committee stage, if it was voted on by a committee of the whole House – not that Dorries ever seems to show much regard for established parliamentary conventions.”

Abbott used the same attack against the government on the 42 day legislation, saying while not against the rules she was annoyed that they have disregarded conventions and reintroduced the 42 day thing when 90 days was rejected not long ago. It seems that these conventions are flying out the window.

If this case goes through, the UK will become ‘abortion central’ for everyone in the EU who disagrees with their own national abortion laws

Good. Let them come. Let them come and have medical procedures that are outlawed by unethical laws in their own country. Let them come and pour money into the NHS because Bob knows the Government isn’t doing that. Let them come and demonstrate that they’re not going to stand and be victimised by bullying tactics by the lobbyists in their own country. Let them come and show that the UK ‘s abortion laws, while still stupid, are what women want and need.

And let us accept them. We have a human rights responsibility here.

Yep, Debi, exactly right. Exactly right.

Let them come and pour money into the NHS …the Government isn’t doing that

*stops dead in tracks, and does comedy shake of head*

Hasn’t this government done little else but “pour” money into the NHS? IMO at the expense of sorting out troubled kids and further investment in education. Money they got, reform and consistent direction they lacked.

Reading through the thread, I was going to make Debi’s point but she has done it so much more eloquently.
Isn’t it funny how right-wingers are citing Europe as a fount of all wisdom on this particular policy?

Debi@24, I’m into it.

@ #2
> And guess who is going to pay for these abortions? Yes, you guessed it, we will – British taxpayers.

Good. I have no problem with my tax contributions funding abortion for anyone who wants it (especially 11 year old rape victims). Besides i’d rather tax was being spent on that than locking people up for 6 weeks or bribing parents to stay together to the disadvantage of single parent and poor families.

All those who say they would like their taxes to fund this – why don’t they personally donate their own money?

Someone did, don’t you read the post?

The abortion debate is one that presents no easy answers, least of all when exceptional cases such as this one arise, and its for that reason that the only right and humane way in which the UK’s abortion laws should be framed in a manner which affords pregnant women the maximum possible opportunity to make a positive choice about their future, whatever that choice may be.

Leaving aside the fact that you do a passable impression of someone who thinks the debate presents the easiest of answers, the logical conclusion of your suggestion above is that full-term abortion should be both supported and legal.

Is this your position? If not, what about tragic cases that involve a 25-week old foetus? Or 27 week? Or 30 week? Or at one day past wherever it is you deem the line should be drawn on terminations?

BTW, the current law permits abortion post-24 weeks in special circumstances:

“if there is grave risk to the life of the woman; evidence of severe foetal abnormality; or risk of grave physical and mental injury to the woman.”

Most supporters of a lower abortion limit – like me – advocate retention of such special provisions to cater for exactly the sort of case we now see with this poor Romanian girl. I’m not aware of Dorries’ thoughts on this and I couldn’t care less what they are, but certainly the original amendment would not have removed these provisions. So to suggest that terminations at 21 weeks in cases such as this would be impossible if the ‘normal’ limit were reduced to 20 weeks is misleading in the extreme. Forcing an 11-year old to continue with a pregnancy would meet the “grave physical and mental injury to the woman” test without too much trouble, I think.

Please try not to misrepresent the facts in what is, as you agree, a debate where there are no easy answers.

.I’m not much of an accountant, but have done a few sums on my calculator here and was wondering if it would be possible to direct a few of the funds presently reserved for flattening Iraqis

I’m not sure the representatives of the proto-fascist death cult in question would be up for it. Word has it that abortion rights in particular and women’s rights generally are pretty low on their list of priorities.

You could always ask, I suppose.

“the logical conclusion of your suggestion above is that full-term abortion should be both supported and legal.”

I think you’ll find there are a few of us on here that believe there is a case to be made for this, I think a search (top right) would give you quick access to some older debates

I think you’ll find there are a few of us on here that believe there is a case to be made for [full-term] abortion

I wish I could say I’m surprised.

I wish I could say you’d bring anything new to the table. Alas it is almost 2am so I guess those with any kind of intelligent arguments rather than off-hand quips are no-where to be seen. Maybe when I wake up again in the morning you’d have said something profound rather than pompous.

“I’m not sure the representatives of the proto-fascist death cult in question would be up for it.”

In contrast, of course, with the muscular interventionists that “repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent”. Liberal internationalists that still prevent investigation into the loss and theft of billions from weakened nations. Humanitarians that have used cluster bombs, white phosphorous and torture, while allowing mercenaries to kill civilians.

Apologies for sounding like (or being) an aggressive little windbag, but you should try catching me at 4.48.

I’m not sure the representatives of the proto-fascist death cult in question

So…. all Iraqis are part of “proto-fascist death cults”? No wonder you supported the war then.

Leaving aside the fact that you do a passable impression of someone who thinks the debate presents the easiest of answers, the logical conclusion of your suggestion above is that full-term abortion should be both supported and legal.

And what’s your point?

I’m not aware of Dorries’ thoughts on this and I couldn’t care less what they are, but certainly the original amendment would not have removed these provisions.

Which one? The one for 12 weeks?

all Iraqis are part of “proto-fascist death cults”?

You’re missing the point Sunny – having dropped the F-bomb, Brownie has laid waste to all counter-arguments against British Iraq policy. Once the fascists are invoked, no amount of rational thought on the matter will help.

Think it’s significant that the Americans are still hitting Iraq with thousands of air strikes a year? But the fascists!

Reckon that there’s no hope of the longed-for political reconciliation between Iraq’s political parties while the country is occupied? The fascists!

Point out that it’s a bit fucking hypocritical to be blatting on about fascists when large numbers of the very bombers, torturers and murderers you spent years condemning are now on the American payroll, putting their skills to good use in the name of liberty? Fascists, fascists, the FASCISTS!

It really all boils down to this – Terrorists Are Bad And We Are Nice, So We Can Do Whatever We Like, And Any Dissent Is Proto-Fascism In Itself.

As others have pointed out, Britain doesn’t pay for any of these operations. However, if Britain did do, it could be funded by a special tax on religious nutters who want to impose their beliefs on others.

How about we only put a special tax on people who believe in socialism to fund the NHS because they want to impose their beliefs on everyone else?

Richard,

How about we tax you with reading the post and comments. You’d soon discover that Brits don’t pay for EU nationals travelling here for treatment.

If your comments are a wider attack on the NHS. Why don’t we have a referendum on scrapping the NHS? I think you’d find that the vast majority of people value the ethos of universal healthcare, so then you’ll have a choice :: shut up or shove off.

And guess who is going to pay for these abortions? Yes, you guessed it, we will – British taxpayers.

Hey I’m a tax payer and I’m more than fucking happy to pay for this; much better than all those arm industry subsidies we shell out for or those illegal wars fuckers like you love.

Aaron, the point I was trying to make is that it is silly to tax people just because you don’t like their beliefs – “it could be funded by a special tax on religious nutters who want to impose their beliefs on others.” There are many people apart from religious nutters who would like to force their beliefs on other people. Personally I just ignore them.

I was also responding to those saying “I’d be hapy for my taxes to pay for this”. Well I’m sure there’s many things that people out there would be happy to fund that you wouldn’t (religious schools for examples). The anser of course is to make people fund these things themselves. You want to send your children to a religious school – pay for it yourself. Same applies if you want to send your children to a secular school. Let people spend their money how they want.

Oh look, it seems some people want a debate about Iraq. That’s fine by me, but I’m not sure a thread about abortion is quite the place. Then again, if commenters insist on coming out with guff like:

was wondering if it would be possible to direct a few of the funds presently reserved for flattening Iraqis, etc,

I think it’s worth pointing out that the people currently “flattening Iraqis” are members of a proto-fascist death cult. It’s a source of no little amazement that this simple statement of observable fact should ruffle so many feathers. And to think, of all the things there are to quibble with over Iraq, some choose the application of the “ptoto-fascist” label to Al Qaeda-esque groups!

Yep, if only these pitiless, murderous enemies of democracy were given correct name, everything would be just dandy.

Flying Rodent, I normally respect your commentary even when I disagree with it, but these trasnparent attempts to ingratiate yourself with a bunch of people who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire, are truly nauseating.

Oh, and Sunny, if you uneed to be told what is wrong a policy of full-term abortion, then you have my deepest sympathy.

“Oh, and Sunny, if you uneed to be told what is wrong a policy of full-term abortion, then you have my deepest sympathy.”

Humour us, give us your sympathy as well as telling us your opinion on why it is “wrong”. Don’t just come on here spouting loud words with no substance, back up your arguments, that’s what debate is about.

“I think it’s worth pointing out that the people currently “flattening Iraqis” are members of a proto-fascist death cult.”

Brownie, she was referring to sickening incidents such as this…

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq26-2008jun26,0,573885.story

…and not to sicking incidents such as this…

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.briefs262jun26,0,2923854.story

Lee,

I’ve been called plenty of things in the 6 or 7 years of blogging, but I’ve never been accused of shirking an argument. But I’ve no more inclinitation to waste keystrokes explaning why full-term abortion is wrong then I have to use my spare time justifying female circumcision.

None of which stops you making the case, of course.

I’ve told you, we’ve made the case, use the search feature (or the links in the top right on the HFE bill) and you’ll see where we have already discussed full-term abortion. If you’re really lazy maybe I’ll dig up links, but you’re not really lazy are you?

“But I’ve no more inclinitation to waste keystrokes explaning why full-term abortion is wrong then I have to use my spare time justifying female circumcision.”

But I’m loving the 6-7 year old Usenet tactic of “I can’t be bothered to waste my time” to avoid actually standing up for yourself. 0 points for effort but 7 for old-school style my man

No Lee, let’s not ask him. I don’t really want Brownie’s faux sympathy nor his explanation. I’ve got far better things to read or bother with.

Brownie is a boy? I assumed female… LOL

Ben,

Leaving aside the fact that the details about the incident involving US troops appear to be somewhat unclear, Kate was referring to moeny the UK could spend treating EU nationals rather than “flattening Iraqis”. I’m afraid the US Marine Corps are not funded by British taxpayers.

No doubt this will see you Googling for the last bloodletting involving British troops, as if there were some moral equivalence with the extermination of young-males waiting in line to get a job, or the slaying of women and children buying food in a market-place, or the murder grieving families burying their dead, or the decapitation of journalists, etc. ,etc..

Lee,

As it happens, I did just use the search facility, but I can find no discussion of full-term abortion. I’m not saying it han’t happened, I’m saying I can’t find it. This appears to be a site that has a problem with a specific Tory MP who wants to see a reduction in the time-limit, so maybe the discussion you have mind n lost somewhere in the midst of all the Dorries stuff. Feel free to provide a link if there is one.

I’m still trying to come terms with the fact that, after 39 years of life, I’ve finally run into sentient, warm-blooded creatures who suppport full-term abortion. Maybe that’s just me, given this particular policy’s spectacular popularity in the civilised world, and all.

Nope, just checked the threads on the HFE links and I still can’t find this case for full-term abortion you keep referring to. Like I said, deosn’t mean it’s there.

Go on Lee, give me a link.

Or give me your argument.

Doesn’t mean it’s *not* there, of course.

Is it there?

these trasnparent attempts to ingratiate yourself with a bunch of people who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire, are truly nauseating.

You’re responding to my honestly held opinion there Brownie. A quick Google search would probably unearth several hundred instances of me acting like a huffy prick or a pompous ass, but ingratiating?

Not my style.

Flying Rodent, to be fair, I /wouldn’t/ piss on you if you were on fire. I’d roll you over in a blanket or similar instead. Much more effective way of extinguishing a burning personand doesn’t involve singed pubes for me…

Who are these people who get the urge to piss on burning folk anyway?

No, on second thoughts, it probably isn’t. Retracted.

Do you know where the full-term abortion case is hiding on this site, Jennie?

attempts to ingratiate yourself with a bunch of people who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire, are truly nauseating.

Haven’t heard one from the condemnathon in quite a while yet.

Maybe that’s just me, given this particular policy’s spectacular popularity in the civilised world, and all.

You do know Canada has completely decriminalised abortion and New Zealand & Australia are also moving towards it?

Maybe all that time spent condemning “proto-fascists” and writing eulogies for Bernard Manning could be better spent in the real world.

“Leaving aside the fact that the details about the incident involving US troops appear to be somewhat unclear”

Indeed, we should be sceptical of all information filtered through the media, but those behind the US statement have the means, a motive and a history of obscuring such incidents. I could be wrong, of course – though I doubt that more will be made of the incident – but I used a current example for reasons explained below.

“I’m afraid the US Marine Corps are not funded by British taxpayers.”

Would you quibble with the proposal that the invasion was the result of a union between Britain and America? If not, then would you argue against the suggestion – made by fairly prominent figures* – that if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities they should be withdrawn? If not, then would you agree that such cases as those above are indicative of Coalition forces hindering Iraqi authorities?

Admittedly, these are ‘minor incidents’ in comparison with the horror that Iraq has endured during preceding years, but current events are more relevant to the decision to withdraw toops. If I’d wanted to make a more concerted and substantiated case then I could, of course, have referenced Fallujah, the Haditha killings, the torture of Bagram and Abu Ghraib and the continued theft of Iraqi assets.

* http://www.barackobama.com

“No doubt this will see you Googling for the last bloodletting involving British troops, as if there were some moral equivalence with the extermination of young-males waiting in line to get a job, or the slaying of women and children buying food in a market-place, or the murder grieving families burying their dead, or the decapitation of journalists, etc. ,etc..”

Brownie, if we’re debating the actions of Coalition forces in Iraq then of course we need to use empirical examples. I wasn’t making any attempt to draw ‘equivalency’, but merely describing them both as sickening incidents as I considered that axiomatic.

“Do you know where the full-term abortion case is hiding on this site, Jennie?”

I’ve certainly never seen such a debate.

Maybe all that time spent condemning “proto-fascists” and writing eulogies for Bernard Manning could be better spent in the real world.

By which you mean ‘Canada’, of course.

No Brownie.

It is you that argues for death in Iraq, in order to save Iraq. You are a daft wee tit. And Canada has sweet FA to do with it.

You may well be a proto fascist. In fact, I think you are….

You are sure as fuck not a typical Canadian….

“You may well be a proto fascist. In fact, I think you are….”

Douglas – there’s no need for that.

And Canada has sweet FA to do with it.

He’s talking to you, Indecent Leftie.

You are sure as fuck not a typical Canadian….

Well, I’m still waiting for my first partial-birth abortion, if that’s what you mean?

Have yersel a wee lie down there, douglas.

If not, then would you argue against the suggestion – made by fairly prominent figures* – that if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities they should be withdrawn?

As soon as the democratically elected Iraqi government can be counted amongst those fairly prominent figures, then yes. In fact, this is the official policy of HMG. I’m of a view that the Iraqi government is probably in a better position to judge these matters than bloggers in the UK.

YAY for our current liberal and humane abortion laws.

NAY to Nadine Dorries. What is that woman’s problem? I don’t understand why on Earth she’s obsessed with abortion when she’s never had one herself. I also don’t understand how someone that dumb managed to become an MP, for anyone who might not have seen it yet:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=634

She and Anne Coulter and women like that – what the hell? They want to decree how life should be for the rest of us (invariably full of Dark Ages restrictions) while giving themselves freedom equivalent to that enjoyed by men. I think they probably want to be men, deep down…

But seriously – is Dorries even competent for her post? Is she doing anything the voters ask of her, or is she just lucky enough to be holding a safe seat?

“I’m of a view that the Iraqi government is probably in a better position to judge these matters than bloggers in the UK.”

I respect your considered opinion, and was merely substantiating an argument. I would say, however, that to the latter grouping you should add the American people, the British people and, judging by the most recent poll that appears to be available, the Iraqi people.

I’d like to see that poll. Most I’ve seen that deal specifically with the question of when troops should leave do not show a majority in favour of imemdiate withdrawal where “immediate” means the troops should start leaving today.

Do you accept that, were Britain and the US to withdraw troops now, they would be tearing up a UN resolution that underwrites their presence?

I can’t think of anything more reckless than to withdraw troops now, just as light starts to appear at the end of the tunnel.

Amrit, yes, sadly Dorries is in a seat where they would vote for an elm tree if it had a blue rosette on it…

Brownie: https://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/02/25/life-with-dave/

Settle in and have a good read. Can we have your argument now, pretty please?

“Most I’ve seen that deal specifically with the question of when troops should leave do not show a majority in favour of imemdiate withdrawal where “immediate” means the troops should start leaving today.”

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/250.php?lb=brme&pnt=250&nid=&id=

In 2006, a poll suggested that 71% of Iraqis wanted U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq ‘within a year or less’. The failure of the Coalition to even consider or verify this implied that their plans were not influenced by the will of the Iraqi people.

A later BBC and ABC study suggested that 47% of Iraqis wanted Coalition forces to ‘leave now’, but offered no option of a timetabled withdrawl and rather conflictingly stated that 72% thought that the presence of US forces was to the detriment of ‘the security situation’. A majority even supported attacks on Coalition troops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_09_07_iraqpollaug2007_full.pdf

“Do you accept that, were Britain and the US to withdraw troops now, they would be tearing up a UN resolution that underwrites their presence?”

I wasn’t aware that the UN had become ‘relevant’ again, but so be it. Which specific UN resolution are you referring to?

“I can’t think of anything more reckless than to withdraw troops now, just as light starts to appear at the end of the tunnel.”

Well, I haven’t actually given my own opinion yet, but ‘if I was Prime Minister’ I’d support an immediate review of the need for British forces in Iraq, and whether they are a help or a hindrance to the security and will of the Iraqi populace.

(Incidentally, apologies for the derail.)

Forgive me for the terrible pun, but Dorries needs to have her post (ex)terminated. She clearly has nothing other to do with her time than chase after a lost cause, spurred on by, er… (God?)

WASTE OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY! I’m sure the Tories in her area can find a better waste of money.

OK, Daily Mail moment over :-D.

Lee,

I read it, but it wasn’t you said it was. Douglas pointed out to those who didn’t know that abortion post-24 weeks was possible in exceptional circumstances. See me at 32 above where I make the same point. I didn’t see anyone on that link arguing that we should extend the justifications for pre-24 week termination to post-24 weeks abortion including up to birth.

So in fact I still don’t see anyone making the case for non-exceptional case full-term abortion (except perhaps Doug in his roundabout way). Maybe there are more who support non-exceptional full-term abortion, but contrary to what you claim their arguments do not appear on that thread. Which comes as a relief because, as I mentioned right at the start, I really don’t have the stomach for such a debate.

Ben,

But that’s exactly what I mean. If you ask an Iraqi whether he wants troops to withdraw in 6 months, then his/her answer will be conditioned by his opinion about what the situation will look like in 6 motnhs time. It’s entirely conceivable that those who would support a withdrawal in 6 motnhs do so because they believe the security situation will have improved in 6 months. If in 6 months time you asked the same Iraqi about troop withdrawals, he might well argue for a withdrawal in another 6 months rather than immediately because the secuirty situation has not developed the way he imagined it would 6 months earlier.

This is why I specifically questioned the existence of polls which mentioned an “immediate withdrawl” where immediate meant immediate, not at some future time.

The failure of the Coalition to even consider or verify this implied that their plans were not influenced by the will of the Iraqi people.

Do you think the coalition should withdraw, return, withdraw, return as the polls dictate, or operate with the consent of the Iraqi government? Are UK troops in Germany there with the consent of a majority of Germans, or the German government?

A later BBC and ABC study suggested that 47% of Iraqis wanted Coalition forces to ‘leave now’

And 53% supported varying alternatives to the “leave now” scenario. In other wrods, most didn’t want troops to ‘leave now’.

I’d support an immediate review of the need for British forces in Iraq, and whether they are a help or a hindrance to the security and will of the Iraqi populace.

I imagined they thought of the first part of that long ago. And whilst I wouldn’t completely ignore whatever the polls were telling me about the wishes of the Iraqi people, the convention is to work their democratically elected representatives.

Take a look at this and check out page 4.

Brownie,

“This is why I specifically questioned the existence of polls which mentioned an “immediate withdrawl” where immediate meant immediate, not at some future time.”

Yes, and that was such a poll. The options did not represent moments for the initiation of a withdrawal, but timetables for a phased withdrawal. 37 percent wanted troops withdrawn “within six months” and 34 percent favoured “gradually withdraw[ing] U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline”.

“Do you think the coalition should withdraw, return, withdraw, return as the polls dictate, or operate with the consent of the Iraqi government?”

No, I think that such polls should be considered, as the will of the people is usually an indication of the lives of the people. There is no need to act upon a single factor, and I’ve never claimed that there is such a need.

“And 53% supported varying alternatives to the “leave now” scenario. In other wrods, most didn’t want troops to ‘leave now’”

- There are many reasons for scepticism regarding all the results of that particular BBC/ABC poll. Why, for example, would a slim majority support the presence of coalition and yet a large majority claim that the presence of US troops is to the detriment of the ‘security situation’. Why, also, would a majority support attacks on coalition troops.
- The ‘leave now’ theme was, I think, introduced by you. While it is an interesting debate, I can’t see how it detracts from my claim that “if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities [or people]” the Iraqi people would support (and benefit from) a withdrawal.

“I imagined they thought of the first part of that long ago.”

There have indeed been reports of a phased withdrawal (although there seems to have been with every year).

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1025422/All-British-forces-pulled-Iraq-year.html

“Take a look at this and check out page 4.”

That is indeed a far more encouraging poll. What interests me, again, is why only 26 percent support the presence U.S. and coalition troops and yet a majority do not support ‘immediate withdrawal’. In the context of this report, one wonders, does ‘immediate withdrawal’ mean the immediate initiation of a phased withdrawal – as you defined it – or simply the pulling out of all troops within twenty-four hours.

Our digressions aside, my initial point – that “if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities they should be withdrawn” – stands. Whether they are is a matter for debate, but it is a debate that must be had, especially considering the impending US elections.

Respectfully,

Ben

(Incidentally, apologies if I’ve lost all sense of spelling/grammar. The time takes a toll.)

Oh, apologies for straying from the topic (and then into another topic, but I do like to track the evolution of debate).

Well Brownie, if it isn’t there in that thread it is certainly around, but your lack of conviction as well as amount of time avoiding getting in to the debate is laughable. Cheers.

Ben,

The options did not represent moments for the initiation of a withdrawal, but timetables for a phased withdrawal. 37 percent wanted troops withdrawn “within six months” and 34 percent favoured “gradually withdraw[ing] U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline”.

And as I’ve said, support for having troops withdrawn within any arbitrary period will in all likelihood be influenced by what the respondents assess the security situation might look like by the end of that arbitrrary time period. It’s not indicative of a desire to see all troops gone within time period X *regardless of the implications*, which is how these polls are sometimes reported.

There are many reasons for scepticism regarding all the results of that particular BBC/ABC poll.

The apparent contradictions you list appear in virtually every poll I’ve ever seen about Iraq. Neither the BBC/ABC poll nor the most recent poll I link to are unique in this regard.

In the context of this report, one wonders, does ‘immediate withdrawal’ mean the immediate initiation of a phased withdrawal – as you defined it – or simply the pulling out of all troops within twenty-four hours.

Given the latter or anything like it is a logistic impossibility, I’d suggest it means the former and this is how it will have been commonly understood.

Our digressions aside, my initial point – that “if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities they should be withdrawn” – stands.

And I didn’t contest this, but made the observation that the democratically elected Iraqi government is probably best-placed to make this judgment. You suggested that we add to that list – amongst others – the Iraqi people, and you cited opinion poll findings to buttress this point. At which point we got into a discussion about whether the opinion polls do offer any evidence of support for “immediate” withdrawal. I’ve explained why, even if such support did exist (and I have still to see), using opinion polls to determine policy this subject would be foolish (hence “wihtdraw, return, withdraw, return” as the polls dictated). Much better to stick to the convention of engaging with the democratically elected representatives of the people. You’ve a little more circumspect in your comments about how we might judge whether troops are a help or a hindrance. At least, you haven’t done as I’ve done and made it clear that the obvious barometer of our effectiveness and heplfulness is the Iraqi government.

You are, of course, free to make whatever points you wish, but it’s spectacularly uncontroversial to state that we shouldn’t be there if Iraqis would be better off without us. I don’t know a single supporter of the war who would disagree with this. This issue, clearly, is how we gauge this, and if you can come up with something better that using the assessment of those who have been elected to represent the people of Iraq, then I’m all ears.

Lee,

Genuinely, I’m interested. Are you talking about a dicussion where the case was made for extending social abortion (by which I mean where no threat to the life of the mother or disability to the foetus is applicable) to full-term, or are you simply referring to the practice of permitting third trimester abortions in very specific circumstances?

Obviously, the latter is already permitted and I support that, even though it is clear from several threads on this blog that not all contributors are aware of this. This is quite different from simply removing the time constraint on all abortion, which is how I’m interpreting your earlier comment concerning a case made for “full-term abortion”.

Well Brownie, if it isn’t there in that thread it is certainly around, but your lack of conviction as well as amount of time avoiding getting in to the debate is laughable. Cheers.

As before (and as demonstrated by my discussions with BenSix), I’m more than happy to have a debate, but what truly would be “laughable” would be for me to submit a comment which argued against full-term abortion rights for all forms of abortion if indeed no-one was actually making such a case.

Do you see my quandry?

Brownie,

“And as I’ve said, support for having troops withdrawn within any arbitrary period will in all likelihood be influenced by what the respondents assess the security situation might look like by the end of that arbitrrary time period.”

Yes, but in this report 78% of those polled believed that the occupying forces were provoking more conflict than they were preventing, and 61% stated that their security would be enhanced by a withdrawal. It seems unlikely, then, that they were expecting security to improve within the intervening time.

“Much better to stick to the convention of engaging with the democratically elected representatives of the people. You’ve a little more circumspect in your comments about how we might judge whether troops are a help or a hindrance. At least, you haven’t done as I’ve done and made it clear that the obvious barometer of our effectiveness and heplfulness is the Iraqi government.”

In the poll that you offered, only 27 percent of Iraqis believed that the presence of forces enhanced security, while 61 percent stated that it was actually to the detriment of the security situation. Their rationale for opposing troop withdrawal, then, was the fear that a crisis would occur in its aftermath.

The problem, however, is that these fears may not be dispelled. As long as occupying forces remain in the country, there will be those who oppose them and exacerbate those fears.

“This issue, clearly, is how we gauge this, and if you can come up with something better that using the assessment of those who have been elected to represent the people of Iraq, then I’m all ears.”

I don’t have a reliable opinion as to what action should be taken, though, which is why I engage in these discussions. When and if I do, however, I’ll try and remember to drop a note in here.

Thanks for challenging some of my lazier views.

Ben

I don’t have a reliable opinion as to what action should be taken, though, which is why I engage in these discussions. When and if I do, however, I’ll try and remember to drop a note in here.

i’ve re-read all your posts on this thread. It’s certainly true that you’ve never actually typed the words “we should withdraw troops now”. In fact, the only unequivocal opinion you’ve offered is that troops should be withdrawn if it can be demonstrated they are doing more harm than good. I’ve already said this is a particularly uncontroversial view but then there is no requirement to be controversial.

My main point was and remains that the Iraqi government is probably in a better position to judge these matters than bloggers in the UK, or indeed anyone in the UK. My issue is not so much with those who call for a troop withdrawal, but those who do so claiming this is what is best for Iraq and Iraqis, almost as though they are deaf to the wishes of the democratically elected government there.

Ideologues, one and all.

“In fact, the only unequivocal opinion you’ve offered is that troops should be withdrawn if it can be demonstrated they are doing more harm than good. I’ve already said this is a particularly uncontroversial view but then there is no requirement to be controversial.”

With regards to this subject, the formation of unequivocal opinions is, I trust you’ll agree, exceptionally difficult.

“Ideologues, one and all.”

That may be true of some. I opposed the invasion vehemently, and that view and my currently ineffectual ditherings as to ‘the next step’ are – without wanting to sound quaveringly self-righteous – only concerned with the good of the Iraqi populace.

Ben