Nadine Dorries faced a crushing defeat, but the fight isn’t over yet


by Sunny Hundal    
5:07 pm - September 7th 2011

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

The debate kicked off badly for Nadine Dorries today, when Cameron said she was “frustrated”, and ended with her losing the vote by a massive 250 majority (368 – 118).

There was broad relief of course. But key hurdles and issues remain, and those interested in protecting pro-choice legislation and promoting better health for women should not rest easy.

A few key points from the debate today:

- Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston did a great job of succinctly and comprehensively rubbishing Nadine Dorries’ claim that abortion leads to more mental health problems for women.

- Dorries claimed the Libdems had been “blackmailed” by Dr Evan Harris. This provoked rebukes, but is also a convenient excuse. Health minister Anne Milton’s letter to Tory MPs admitting BPAS was a “reputable organisation” was sent weeks ago, before public Libdem complaints.

- Anne Milton said the government would not support the amendment by Libdem MP Julian Huppert either – a shame as it sought to strengthen counselling standards. She also mentioned “legal implications” of changes to provision. Worried about lawsuits if counselling provision in disarray?

- Labour MP Diane Abbott said: “The proposer of this amendement assumes that thousands of women don’t know what they’re doing” and gave a good speech. She added: “This amendment is the opposite of evidence based policy making.”

- Frank Field abandoned Nadine Dorries during the debate calling for her to withdraw the amendment because, he said, the Dept of Health had already met many of their concerns. Bizarrely, his name had been left off earlier that day as co-sponsor of the amendment.

- Dorries’ speech was long, rambling, incoherent and simply alienated many within her own side (including Frank Field).

Two concerns remain
Anne Milton said her department would hold an inquiry into abortion counselling provision. Any inquiry looking to strengthen counselling provision for women would be welcome. But, as Abortion Rights have blogged today:

It will be important to monitor the criteria under which the Department of Health carries out its planned consultation on abortion counselling, and to ensure that it contains no pre-emptive assumption that there is a need to change the current system.

So we need to watch out for what the Dept of Health promised to Frank Field and others behind the scenes.

Secondly, Nadine Dorries’ crusade is not finished yet. Her bill on abstinence education, aimed at girls, will come up later this year or early next year. We have to mobilise for that too.

UPDATE: LIST OF MPs WHO VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT (via @mypigmorris)
Adams, Nigel
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Beith, rh Sir Alan (Libdem)
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benton, Mr Joe (Labour)
Berry, Jake
Birtwistle, Gordon (Libdem)
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Cairns, Alun
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Clappison, Mr James
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Colvile, Oliver
Cooper, Rosie (Labour)
Crabb, Stephen
Davies, Philip
de Bois, Nick
Dobbin, Jim (Labour)
Docherty, Thomas (Labour)
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Dorries, Nadine
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Durkan, Mark
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Flello, Robert (Labour)
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Fuller, Richard
Garnier, Mark
Glen, John
Glindon, Mrs Mary (Labour)
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Greatrex, Tom (Labour)
Gummer, Ben
Halfon, Robert
Hands, Greg
Hayes, Mr John
Henderson, Gordon
Hermon, Lady
Hinds, Damian
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Howarth, Mr Gerald
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Javid, Sajid
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Lidington, rh Mr David
Long, Naomi
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Morgan, Nicky
Mosley, Stephen
Mulholland, Greg (Libdem)
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Nuttall, Mr David
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Percy, Andrew
Pincher, Christopher
Pound, Stephen (Labour)
Pritchard, Mark
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Roy, Mr Frank (Labour)
Rutley, David
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shannon, Jim
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Shuker, Gavin (Labour)
Simpson, David
Stewart, Iain
Streeter, Mr Gary
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Tomlinson, Justin
Vaz, rh Keith (Labour)
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Charles
Wallace, Mr Ben
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
(Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brian Binley and Mr Peter Bone)

I’m marking all the Labour & Libdem MPs)

  Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Health


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Richard Morris

Hmm. If Nadine Dorries took a penalty kick, this is what would happen http://aviewfromhamcommon.blogspot.com/2011/09/if-nadine-dorries-took-penalty-kick.html

Interestingly, my MP, a Tory whip, assured me that there was no chance of her EDM passing into law. I shall be watching the debate with interest…

If you spot any other Labour or Libdem names, do let me know.

4. David Boothroyd

Party totals:

Ayes C 96 (incl tellers), Lab 11, UDUP 6, L Dem 3, SDLP 2, APNI 1, Ind 1
Noes Lab 211 (incl tellers), C 115, L Dem 41, PC 2, GP 1.

In other words Nadine Dorries did not even achieve a majority of Conservative MPs.

5. David Boothroyd

Labour MPs voting Aye were:

Joe Benton (Bootle)
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire)
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton)
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife)
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside)
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West)
Stephen Pound (Ealing North)
Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw)
Gavin Shuker (Luton South)
Keith Vaz (Leicester East)

Liberal Democrat MPs voting Aye:

Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West)

6. Ken McKenzie

Sunny, Alan Beith needs flagging.

He does have the excuse, poor though it is, of his faith.

7. David Boothroyd

A minor correction. One Conservative, Andrew Percy, voted in both lobbies, so the totals are:

Ayes C 95 (incl tellers), Lab 11, UDUP 6, L Dem 3, SDLP 2, APNI 1, Ind 1
Both C 1
Noes Lab 211 (incl tellers), C 114, L Dem 41, PC 2, GP 1.
Not voting C 95, Lab 33, L Dem 13, SNP 6, SF 5, UDUP 2, Ind Lab 1, PC 1, SDLP 1, Spkrs 4.

Of Conservative MPs: 31% supported, 37% opposed, 31% abstained
Of Labour MPs: 4% supported, 83% opposed, 13% abstained
Of Liberal Democrat MPs: 5% supported, 72% opposed, 23% abstained

Sunny, can you mark other minor Parties as well? SNP and Plaid? Thanks.

I got to ask, how are Labour MPs allowed to vote in favour of this sort of crap?

I mean I get that it’s an issue of conscience, I understand that, I think it shouldn’t be allowed, but while it is, whatever. However what bothers me is that this was an idiotic, dishonest, poorly thought out amendment with no basis in fact or reason.

Regardless of stance on abortion in general, no Labour MP ought to have supported this measure.

Siding with Dorries after she basically made an arse of herself for little purpose beyond taking up time that could otherwise be used on the NHS bill, that’s not on. Every Labour MP that voted to support the amendment needs to explain themselves I think. I can accept votes motivated by principle, but what happened to the principle of fair, honest, fact-based governance?

Rob Flello is Labour too – shadow minister no less.

Thanks for that David and other – I’ve marked the Libdem and Labour MPs. Can people let me know the names of MPs from the minor parties?

12. Ed Milimong and his superfluous extra gene

Abortion should be banned outright. Or, we should be allowed to kill babies.

I got to ask, how are Labour MPs allowed to vote in favour of this sort of crap?

Exactly – we could save money by getting rid of all but one MP in each party (its leader) and just going with whatever he says, weighted by the number of MPs he would otherwise have.

14. David Boothroyd

The DUP are Dodds, Donaldson, McCrea, Shannon, Simpson and Wilson S. The SDLP are Durkan and McDonnell. Naomi Long is Alliance Party and Lady Hermon is an Independent.

To Monglor, of course a Labour MP with a conscientious objection to abortion should not be forced to go against it. The conscience of one who believes that abortion rights are fundamental, is no more or less delicate than that of one who believes in the right to life of an unborn human being is primary.

I think that several of the Labour MPs who voted for the amendment did so on the basis of their faith. Abortion has always been treated as an issue of conscience, and I for one wont castigate MPs who vote on the basis of a strongly held belief.

Doesnt mean I think they’re right – but thats a different argument.

@15 Bear in mind those ‘strongly held beliefs’ were often (and in some nations still are) the justification for making lgbt’s second class citizens, if not outright enemies of the state requiring executions. So I’m fine with someone castigating MP’s for allowing their sectarian faith to dictate policy to a multi-faith secular society.
For shits and giggles here’s a fun link – http://www.citifmonline.com/mobile/?id=1.287144.1.543730

17. Paul Newman

Unity had a really interesting comment about the falsity of the viability threshold as an upper limit. I trust his facts ( I think) and he says that a woman going into labour at 24 weeks has virtually no chance of producing a live child and if it lives it will almost certainly be a dud. Viability is somewhat illusory then.
I find his defence of allowing the early baby to die in view of its small chance of a worthwhile life interesting and I might be convinced that this is an area for the discretion just as the endless and pointless prolongation of life might be . At least it exposes the appalling difficulty of the choices before us to the light of day and he is to be applauded for that
They are difficult because the unborn child does have rights by virtue of its potential and humanity which if we ignore we night as well dump new born babies at 3 months by reason of economic or social convenience.
Where, thank god,such a horrendous decision does not have to be made we ought to cry with joy and do all we can to prevent the needless killing .

.To be shrieking with delight at the prospect of dumping more little bodies for no good reason is surely tasteless at the very least.Is this really a cause for celebration ?

@13

Matters of conscience are all well and good, but there are far, far more important things in the world than the vestigial consciences of our political class. One of those matters is ensuring the country is well run. As Cylux points out in comment #15 matters of conscience and morality can be capricious, unjust and just plain bad things to use as legislative guide.

But this diverts from my point. The matter of conscience, the matter of principle, should be the enactment only of well crafted legislation based on sound findings and secondly the prevention of the Tories from ruining the country before we get it back.

If it was ever possible that an MP could put together an honest, fair and legitimate set of proposals for legislation limiting women’s control over their reproductive systems, then I would be less opposed to ministers embracing that according to their conscience. However what annoys me, and what makes me think it could be time for the de-selection fairy to pick up his fourteen pound lump-wand, is ministers voting in favour of bad legislation put forward by a dishonest moron.

And this all worries me because I look at the USA and I see the root of their problems and it’s not just Republicans going ape and ransacking the country, it’s Democrats not presenting a united front. Labour need to be stopping every single piece of Tory legislation they can. That should be the matter of conscience.

19. Dick the Prick

‘I’m marking all the Labour & Libdem MPs’ – ooooh, I bet they’re shitting bricks because a pathetic little wannabee has thrown his toys out of his pram!

20. Flowerpower

Here’s an extract from Nadine Dorries’ account of why she has qualms about abortions. It explains a lot.

I was working as a trainee nurse at a hospital in north-west England when I was asked to assist with the termination of a pregnancy.
The medical procedure was to inject a chemical into the uterus, effectively inducing the female patient — who was more than 20 weeks into her term — to go into labour.
Once labour was over, I was told to take the aborted foetus from the theatre to another room where it was to be destroyed in a mechanical sluice machine rather like a waste disposal unit.
The foetus had been placed in a bedpan and then covered with a cloth. So with some nervousness, I picked up the pan.

Then came the moment that will live in my memory for ever.
As I approached the sluice machine, I lifted the cloth from the bedpan. To my horror and anguish, the little baby was still alive — I could clearly see it struggling for breath, gasps shaking its tiny body.
In my shock, I ran to find the nursing sister. But she could hardly have been less sympathetic. Telling me to continue with the destruction of the foetus, she looked coldly into my eyes and said: ‘You’d better toughen up, young lady. You’ll see a lot of that sort of thing in this job.’

Labour need to be stopping every single piece of Tory legislation they can. That should be the matter of conscience.

No matter how good it is. And, presumably, vote for every piece of Labour legislation no matter how bad it is.

As I say, might as well save some money and just weight each leader’s vote by the number of seats the party won.

It’s pretty awful that of the 118 who voted for the amendment, 104 have and will never be in the position of being pregnant.

Monglor @ 18

However what annoys me, and what makes me think it could be time for the de-selection fairy to pick up his fourteen pound lump-wand, is ministers voting in favour of bad legislation put forward by a dishonest moron.

for me this is the kicker that really exposes the motives of the anti abortionist movement.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those broadly of the Left and a fair slice of the Right’s stance on abortion. They may have objections to abortion on a point of conscience, but the fact that they are willing to support bad and dishonest legislation which really turns the current position into a further mishmash of crap regulations and pointless hoop jumping.

24. Chaise Guevara

“It’s pretty awful that of the 118 who voted for the amendment, 104 have and will never be in the position of being pregnant.”

You mean people who have a male MP are entitled to representation on the political issue of abortion??? The horror!

What is the list all about? all you liberals going to come down from your high horses and go picket them for voting for what they believe and not what you believe??? go picket the men who had the cheek to vote on a political matter in Parliament?? You had all better watch the airs pretty toxic down at this level, not as pure as the air you are all used too.

Some of the arguments i have read on these blogs from ‘ pro-choice ‘ range from the rediculous to the extreme. How far lost up your own arse do you have to be to think animals, and some one even brought up veg, are on the same level as human beings. The very fact the argument is raised proves the argument is invalid. How many animals have the ability to put themselves into our shoes to feel our hurt?? An before any of you choke on your lentils, no that does not mean i believe in the mistreatment of animals, the mistreatment of food stock comes from mans greed for money and obsession with maximising profit, not a hatred for animals.

I suppose i would be put in the ‘ pro-life ‘ side of the argument although to be honest what kind of wanker do you need to be to not be ‘ pro-life ‘, who in their right mind is anti-life. Pish labels being thrown about like a shool debating club.

200,000 abortions per year, a figure that has remained consistant for about a decade, is a bit excesive. Most have nothing to do with rape or medical reasons. Some are there for the 3rd, 4th or 5th times. Why is it wrong or being anti-women or trying to deny any rights to say maybe we should try and reduce these numbers. Why should anyone be lumped in with the religious nuts of right-wing bible belt American backwardness if they say maybe women should be more concerned with their rights before they allow a man to ejaculate in them, instead of constantly just being concerned after the fact.
Or have like some clown said, to much of an interest in others sex lifes just because they do not have an interesting sex life. That begs the question, you old enough to have a sex life?

And same goes for the ‘pro-life’, just because people believe women should have the ultimate say in the life of her unborn, does not make them blood thursty monsters who are legitimising infantiside. God botherers need to look at themselves and their failed institutions more before judging others.

So instead of drawing up a list, like some demented fascist, of those who had the nerve to not see your rightiousness and voted for what they believed to be correct according to what they believe. Why not applaud them for voting even though they must have known they would loose. Called having conviction of belief. Some thing our MPs should have more off, instead of being sheep through the voting chamber.

John t @ 25

People have a right to know what their MPs vote for, surely?

200,000 abortions per year, a figure that has remained consistant for about a decade, is a bit excesive.

On what basis to you judge that to be a bit excesive?

Why is it wrong or being anti-women or trying to deny any rights to say maybe we should try and reduce these numbers

Yes, well go on then, tell us how to reduce those numbers. Tell us what we are missing that you have spotted. A couple of ideas spring to mind, though. We need to make sure that women do not suffer hardship if they give birth and perhaps free child care too, eh?

27. Leon Wolfson

@25 – “Why not applaud them for voting even though they must have known they would loose.”

Because it’s, at root, a public health argument and knowing which MP’s are against it is useful. Certainly there’s no point writing to anyone on the list about ANY public health issues of any kind.

@26 Jim

Those, “Too many abortion” arguments surely suggest too many unwanted pregnancies. I know saying so may seem a bit obvious, but when it’s an argument rolled out by pro-lifers you can be pretty sure they aren’t happy about proper sex education, availability of contraception, social programmes and the whole caboodle necessary to prevent these pregnancies.

The argument is, in such circumstances, specious and hypocritical.

Cherub @ 28

This is the point I have been trying to develop across a number of threads. The people among the (Christian) Right who are anti abortion are the same people who tell us that young women are having sex to gain council housing and benefits. Palpable nonsense when looking at the high number of abortions (200,000 per year from memory). Clearly there is something more complex going on. For the foam mouthed Tories among us facts are of little consequence because this is about ranting at women rather than any real concern about the life of a foetus.

So how do we reduce the number of abortions? I would suggest we would start at looking why women have abortions in the first place. What are the real reasons women have abortions? Is it economic? Is it social? Disability perhaps?

Well is that women who find out they have a disabled child feel that disabled children are treated badly that drives them to abortion? Perhaps if there was better provision for disabled children women would feel less pressured into that decision? Maybe if women weren’t penalised in the workplace by having children, would better maternity leave make a difference?

@21

no that does not mean i believe in the mistreatment of animals, the mistreatment of food stock comes from mans greed for money and obsession with maximising profit

Okay.

How far lost up your own arse do you have to be to think animals, and some one even brought up veg, are on the same level as human beings.

Hmm, so lets see if I’ve got this straight; Humanity, as a species, a species which has caused numerous disasters along the lines of the BP oil spill, killing millions of creatures and despoiling their living environment for pure unbridled careless greed, wiping out a whole species of flightless bird because it didn’t occur to anyone to NOT slaughter the lot of em, a species that engages in random and systematic acts of cruelty, malice and destruction for various reasons including ‘just for fun’ – this species is apparently better and more worthy than any and all other forms of life out there, it’s unborn children deserving of much greater concern than say a chicken’s eggs, purely on the basis that we can recognise that we’re a shit-stain of an invasion destructive species, while still being so?

I will agree with on one thing, Human beings ain’t on the same level as animals* and plants. And by the way, you’re pro-life because your selfish gene tells you to be. Think on that.

*And before you start, yes, I am aware we’re animals as well.

31. Chaise Guevara

@ 30 Cylux

Your assessment of the human species is entirely correct (although that doesn’t make us special; other animals would happily slaughter each other in droves if they had our technology). But I still value a human life way above any other species. A lot of that is anthropocentrism, sure, but human beings appear to be sentient and sapient to a point that other animals aren’t. I wouldn’t say we’re “better” or more “worthy”, but I do think we’re more valuable.

32. Flowerpower

Cylux

Humanity, as a species, a species which has caused numerous disasters along the lines of the BP oil spill, killing millions of creatures and despoiling their living environment for pure unbridled careless greed, wiping out a whole species of flightless bird because it didn’t occur to anyone to NOT slaughter the lot of em, a species that engages in random and systematic acts of cruelty, malice and destruction..

I wonder if self-hating sharks sit around doing the same Chinese-commie self-crit?

Jim@26…. yes people have a right to know what their MP has voted for but this is not the point of the list is it. The list is there for a good old fashioned bit of pious finger pointing. Don’t see any other lists being drawn up when votes are taken. On the solution to the problem well no single policy or couple of policies will have any effect. More a whole range and total change in our Societies attitudes will have to occur before we see a drop in 200,000 abortions. If you do not think 200,000 a year as excesive then fair does. As Stalin once said, 1, 10 even 100 deaths is a tragidy, 3,000,000 is a statistic.
If i had all the answers do you honestly think i would be sat here debating with people who think chicken eggs are on the same level as a human unborn.

Cylux@30…. yes we are as you say all animals but we are the supreme animal in the Solar System and yes some among us are wankers who care not for the planet or the live Humans who inhabit it let alone the animal kingdom. But what the fuck has all that got to do with abortions??? What you saying that because we do all you say and a whole lot more then people should not get upset about abortion or the numbers every year that take place??? Thats one sick fucking argument you got there. You must find it hard geting out of bed in the morning with all that weight and guilt of the human species on your back. I’m pro-life because i like people and have the upmost respect for human beings. Think on that as you try and get a conversation out a cow or a lilly. ( ooooooh he’s having a go at the lillies now )

And for all you pigeon hollers, no i am no Tory or Conservative nor am i a Christian or religious, i find religious doctrine as rediculous as those who think animals and plants are our equal. I believe in contraception, just not using abortion clinics as emergency contraception, i believe in better education and proper independent counciling if wanted. I believe the topic should be discussed in an open frank and grown up manner and not hid behind rape and medical excuses, because most do not concern these reasons. Most are for economic and drunken fumbles. Women should have the right and i will never say other, but if they are having an abortion due to economic reasons then she has the right not to have to go through with it.
If a woman wishes to abort due to the fact she just does not want it, then what can you do but respect her wishes and make sure it’s carried out as safe and stress free as possible. Called having respect and empathy for others even though you do not share their beliefs or agree with their personel choice, two wee traits that makes us stand out from the rest of the animal kingdom and for the bead rattlers out there, two things Jesus was rather big on. But then they very rarely take much notice of what Jesus said.

@ 30:

Your logic seems to imply that anybody who eats ought to be fine with the idea of killing people; or, alternatively, that anybody who opposes killing people ought never to eat anything. Both those positions are so ridiculous that I presume I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying. Would you care to enlighten me?

Both those positions are so ridiculous that I presume I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying.

You have. I was originally replying to a man who portentously called himself ‘Life is Sacred’, I bet that he was in fact being somewhat selective with what ‘life’ he was actually willing to consider sacred, I was of course right. Hilarity ensued, I’ll admit to a bit of trolling there too, intentionally pushing buttons. Furthermore, the idea that non-human life is unequal to human life as being some kind of given and is only the sort of thought capable of ‘someone up their own arse’ is an idea that needs challenging, because as Chaise recognises @31 a lot of that is anthropocentrism, or we’re important because we bloody well say we are.

Now, as you clearly noticed if you combine the two ideas that we need to kill things to survive, but we also consider life to be sacred and try not to end it, and then aim for extremes you end up with something silly. So aim for the middle, that life NEEDS death to continue, but we should be damn choosy about when we do so.

Now you well think I’ve just argued myself into a pro-life position, and you would be partially right, but then I don’t regard the Abortion debate as a matter of life and death, I regard it as a matter of women controlling when and with whom they reproduce. A 17 year old girl who opts for abortion, goes to university, meets the man of her dreams and then with him has 3 kids by her 30′s – did her abortion really subtract from the total sum of life in the world? Bearing in mind that had she been denied that abortion, the sequence of events that would have otherwise led up to the three kids that she wanted, that she chose would never have happened. They instead would have been the unborn who never made it.

In the alternate reality where abortion is illegal she might end up having a total of three kids by her thirties too – but they would be different kids. But, are the three kids she chose less worthy of the chance of life than the one she aborted (and the two she presumably wanted as well)? Especially since in order to give that aborted child the chance above and beyond those that would have followed anyway, you have to explicitly remove the right of bodily autonomy from over half the population. Is it worth it? Unintended consequences, they do exist.

Plus I’m also going to ignore the other alternative reality were abortions are illegal, but coat-hangers aren’t. There’s a reason sunny uses a stock photo with a protester holding a sign with ‘Never again’ on it for the abortion news links.

So is it really a ‘genocide’ if a woman bears children only when she’s ready? Because to me it looks not so far off the argument offered by the guy from my link @16 who thinks homosexual men should be charged with genocide because their sex-lives won’t lead to breeding.

Anyway, that’s my 2-cents on the matter.

36. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 Cylux

It’s true that some pro-lifers declare “life is sacred” as if it’s some irrefutable truth, and also true that those people’s full spectrum of beliefs are rarely actually consistent with that principle. However, speaking as someone who occasionally gets mistaken for a communist due to his screen name, I’d say it’s probably a mistake to read too much into someone’s online psuedonym.

@ 35:

“Furthermore, the idea that non-human life is unequal to human life as being some kind of given and is only the sort of thought capable of ‘someone up their own arse’ is an idea that needs challenging, because as Chaise recognises @31 a lot of that is anthropocentrism, or we’re important because we bloody well say we are.”

A lot of it is, but it’s also because humans are more sentient than other life forms (that we know of), and most people are generally quite consistent in giving sentient life more importance (consider how people would react if you killed a chimpanzee as opposed to if you killed an amoeba, for example).

As for the rest of your post: you can justify pretty much anything on the grounds that it might lead to a better result if you do it. If I were to go out and rape someone, and the resultant child grew up to solve global warming, discover a cure for cancer and eradicate world poverty, then it would probably be the case that the good the child does more than outweighs the suffering that the rape causes. Does that mean that rape should be legal?

@37 Given that both situations I presented resulted in the reproduction of three children where would you say the ‘better result’ comes into it? You’re asking for women to be robbed of bodily autonomy to save potential lives, which in the round would have been replaced by different potential lives (to either a greater or lesser extent, woman by woman), so you’ve achieved little difference* and taken active steps down the path of totalitarianism. Which should give you pause for thought given you responded with another totalitarian thought with your rape scenario. (forcing a child onto and indeed into someone)

*Quite possibly very little difference, I expect a ban on abortions to be about as ‘successful’ as the war on drugs, alcohol prohibition and abstinence only sex education.

39. Chaise Guevara

Cylux’s point above is a pretty strong one in favour of abortion. If someone wants to have, say, two kids, from a utilitarian standpoint it’s better for all concerned if they wait until they have the maturity and resources to have children on purpose than get saddled with them too early when they’re not ready for it.

@ 38:

“Given that both situations I presented resulted in the reproduction of three children where would you say the ‘better result’ comes into it?”

I took your emphasis on the woman wanting and choosing the kids in the first scenario to imply that she’d treat those children better. Even if it wasn’t, though, and the children in those two scenarios would be equally happy and well-cared-for, I still don’t find your reasoning very persuasive. It’s possible to come up with scenarios where carrying out pretty much any action — rape, murder, whatever — results in a better or equally good (from a utilitarian standpoint at least) outcome than not carrying out the action, but that wouldn’t justify legalising all these things.

“You’re asking for women to be robbed of bodily autonomy to save potential lives,”

We rob people of bodily autonomy all the time to save lives. Or do you oppose laws making murder illegal?

“*Quite possibly very little difference, I expect a ban on abortions to be about as ‘successful’ as the war on drugs, alcohol prohibition and abstinence only sex education.”

Evidence suggests that abortions are significantly decreased by making them illegal. At any rate, there tends to be a noticeable decrease in the birth-rate in the years after abortion is legalised, which suggests that bans on abortions do have an impact.

“and taken active steps down the path of totalitarianism.”

Not really. Or at least, no more so than existing laws against murder represent a slide to totalitarianism.

“Which should give you pause for thought given you responded with another totalitarian thought with your rape scenario. (forcing a child onto and indeed into someone)”

Not entirely sure what your point is supposed to be here…

@ 39:

Yes it is better, but given the possibility of having the child adopted the woman can avoid being “saddled” with anything after the nine months of pregnancy are up, without having to have an abortion.

42. Chaise Guevara

@ 41 XXX

I have to admit that I’m surprised adoption isn’t raised as an option more often in these conversations.

@42 Adoption is generally a more traumatic experience for the mother than abortion, so those who chose that option are to be lauded, but replacing personal choice with adoption-only still requires the state to compel women to be pregnant.

@ 43:

The State doesn’t “compel women to be pregnant”. It stops them from artificially ending the pregnancy, but that’s not the same thing. You might as well claim that laws against infanticide “compel women to have children”.

45. Chaise Guevara

@ Cylux

Agreed – although from a “the z/e/f is a person” persective, adoption sounds like a reasonable compromise. In any case, if we wanted to encourage people to put kids up for adoption, we’d have to make it easier to adopt – couples seem to be required to meet very high standards ATM, which seems sensible until you consider that the alternative is probably growing up in an orphanage.

46. Leon Wolfeson

@45 – Even if you dropped the standards somewhat, you’d still have trouble meeting the demand today, let alone massively increasing it. You’d need to more or less hand kids out…

XXX

Dorries’ amendment has been pretty much blown out of the water, mate. You have lost again and abortion will still be an option for around quarter of a million women a year.

So, what are you going to do about it? These foetuses are still going to be murdered, irrespective of your view on the subject. The Right have no stomach to fight abortion on an open front and we are unlikely to see any real attempt to ban abortion within the next four years, in which time close on a million babies will be dead.

So, given all of that, what is your response? Perhaps you could spend that time campaigning for better maternity rights and better benefits for mothers, better housing, and perhaps better facilities for disabled children? Perhaps you could campaign for more foster homes to be opened and better child protection?

Instead of bleating on and on about abortion why not beat the abortionists at their own game? Why not simply encourage women to stay away from the abortionists? Why not take away the fear from vulnerable women, so that they never need go to seek advice from these ‘flawed’ institutions? Surely if you and others all done that and paid for decent services, you could reduce the number of abortions? You keep telling me you are pro life, well what is stopping you being pro life and campaigning to improve the chances of those unborn children? That would be pro life, wouldn’t it?

@ 47:

What makes you think I don’t do those things already?

@44

You might as well claim that laws against infanticide “compel women to have children”.

One would hope that the combination of infanticide laws + social workers, means that they don’t.

@44 Also

It stops them from artificially ending the pregnancy

Should really be “It stops them from artificially ending the pregnancy via a safe clinical procedure”. The very same qualities of sentience and self awareness that are extolled as the values worth saving the unborn over, are also the same qualities that will continue to be their doom when their presence is undesired. Women will go on deciding their own fate, even if the state attempts to limit their freedom and rights.

@45 Chaise

Agreed – although from a “the z/e/f is a person” persective, adoption sounds like a reasonable compromise.

I think you’ve forgotten what their primary concern actually is, because it’s not a reasonable compromise, it’s not even a compromise, it is in fact a complete and total glorious victory for them (All z/e/f’s will be brought to term after all, job done). A compromise is defined by neither side getting what they want, which perfectly describes current UK abortion law. Abortion is available up to 24 weeks with some jumping through hoops, but outside of that it is not (apart from exceptional outlier circumstances).
Plus by their very position that abortion is the same thing as murder, compromise is unconscionable, because any compromise would require still allowing the murder of the unborn. Pro-choicers however are able to compromise, and indeed often already have, hence why the battle-lines seem to be drawn around pushing term limits closer to the moment of conception or making the hoops more difficult to jump through, as opposed to shifts toward making abortion easier to access – ie there’s a general slow drift toward the no-abortions-at-all position.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. This Year's War

    Here is the list of those that voted for Dorries' amendments http://t.co/EIEDhxj

  2. Digital Maverick

    RT @rocknrolly: Here is the list of those that voted for Dorries' amendments http://t.co/wVXpUiL

  3. Andy S

    UPDATE: Full list of MPs who voted for the Dorries amendment now here http://t.co/ydEInFD (via @mypigmorris) (via @sunny_hundal)

  4. Rebecca Devitt

    UPDATE: Full list of MPs who voted for the Dorries amendment now here http://t.co/ydEInFD (via @mypigmorris) (via @sunny_hundal)

  5. Chris Ingram

    UPDATE: Full list of MPs who voted for the Dorries amendment now here http://t.co/ydEInFD (via @mypigmorris) (via @sunny_hundal)

  6. Ellie Cumbo

    @santaevita On libcon http://t.co/sXqPCCi

  7. Martin Campbell

    A full list of #Dorries supporters in the House today can be found here. http://t.co/fNqHXGs

  8. Margaret Nelson

    A full list of #Dorries supporters in the House today can be found here. http://t.co/fNqHXGs

  9. sunny hundal

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  10. Larain.

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  11. William J. C. Brown

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  12. Jennie Kermode

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  13. Damien Austin-Walker

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  14. Alex

    Places you'll be unsurprised to find @PhilipDaviesMP's name: a list of MPs who voted for #Dorries' dangerous nonsense http://t.co/U9ULIzn

  15. Matt Hero

    MT @sunny_hundal: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, inc 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/hnVpTOB <- Keith Vaz ? :(

  16. Emma Jackson Stuart

    RT @sunny_hundal: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment http://t.co/Y0rlG5y > 118 in total: 114 men and only 14 women!

  17. alan

    RT @sunny_hundal: From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/PfH7zgP <READ!

  18. Emma Jackson Stuart

    MT @sunny_hundal List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment http://t.co/Y0rlG5y > 118 in total: 104 men & only 14 women!

  19. Alex Burrows

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  20. Aaron Stebbings

    Oh suprise suprise, Philip Davies voted for the #Dorries amendment http://t.co/yGC7IUs (via @libcon)

  21. Leah Williams

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  22. Andy S

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  23. Rhiannon Lockley

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  24. HouseOfTwitsLab

    RT @sunny_hundal From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/n76rPTe

  25. House Of Twits

    RT @sunny_hundal From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/rA839UP

  26. emma_emily

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  27. Foss ? Golfclap

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  28. Mary Costello

    @thatsoph http://t.co/afIkEso

  29. Rosie

    RT @sunny_hundal From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/n76rPTe

  30. Kerri Prince

    @chrstinadarling http://t.co/bukMmG7

  31. Kerri Prince

    @chrstinadarling http://t.co/bukMmG7

  32. Tim Ireland

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  33. Tim Ireland

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  34. Kieran Harley

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  35. Kieran Harley

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  36. Kerri Prince

    @SamJamesBaxter http://t.co/bukMmG7

  37. Kerri Prince

    @SamJamesBaxter http://t.co/bukMmG7

  38. Janneke Calle

    List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/Bvd5DnP” sorry to see Keith vaz on that list.

  39. Janneke Calle

    List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/Bvd5DnP” sorry to see Keith vaz on that list.

  40. Laura Maley

    In case you missed it RT @FeministNewsUK Full list of MPs who voted for the #Dorries amendment http://t.co/ToYyRGi

  41. Jillian Merchant

    RT @sunny_hundal: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/mFnBJDA > disgraces!

  42. Girl Interrupted

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  43. George Langley

    How sad to see that my MP back the #dorries bill today http://t.co/bsiTtna

  44. Stuart

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  45. Ciaran Lavin

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  46. Charlie Owen

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  47. Victoria Jamieson

    @PeterSwindon Roy, Greatrex & Docherty. Full list of MPs and how they voted here http://t.co/0EZTE6d

  48. Red Squirrel

    UPDATE: Full list of MPs who voted for the Dorries amendment now here http://t.co/xoKy6ru (via @mypigmorris)

  49. Tim Ireland

    @TomCamGriffiths http://t.co/1uzkHwA

  50. Murray Christison

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  51. CathElliott

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  52. Charlotte Cooper

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  53. Charlotte Cooper

    Well, my MP voted with #dorries is it worth writing a letter of disappointment? http://t.co/Oqjvy5y

  54. shawnaatteberry

    YES! RT @CTrouper: Well, my MP voted with #dorries is it worth writing a letter of disappointment? http://t.co/Ee3zGcV

  55. Moofleur

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  56. Gael

    RT @sunny_hundal: From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/SlFOomq

  57. Martin Pantling

    MPs Keith Vaz and @GavinShuker (Luton) were one of very few Labour MPs who voted with Nadine Dorries http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  58. Blue Pesto

    Well, my MP voted with #dorries is it worth writing a letter of disappointment? http://t.co/Oqjvy5y

  59. Ali B

    MPs Keith Vaz and @GavinShuker (Luton) were one of very few Labour MPs who voted with Nadine Dorries http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  60. Ali B

    MPs Keith Vaz and @GavinShuker (Luton) were one of very few Labour MPs who voted with Nadine Dorries http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  61. Ali B

    MPs Keith Vaz and @GavinShuker (Luton) were one of very few Labour MPs who voted with Nadine Dorries http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  62. Danny Nicholson

    No surprise there. My idiot MP David Amess voted for Nadine #dorries' amendment http://t.co/x6FHVer

  63. Sue (Upton) Parris

    Nadine Dorries faced a crushing defeat, but the fight isn’t over yet | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/m0bDl7H via @libcon

  64. Andy S

    MPs Keith Vaz and @GavinShuker (Luton) were one of very few Labour MPs who voted with Nadine Dorries http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  65. Zandy

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  66. Helen Rehman

    RT @Moofleur: RT @sunny_hundal: : List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/yKj7CiP. #fb

  67. Mark

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  68. louise pawley

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  69. louise pawley

    @JennieSue http://t.co/gjbOMrI

  70. For~The~Floods

    UPDATE: Full list of MPs who voted for the Dorries amendment now here http://t.co/xoKy6ru (via @mypigmorris)

  71. jailhouserock

    List of 118 MPS who voted for the abortion amendment – http://t.co/vcrJjcF

  72. sunny hundal

    @lefty_lisa lazy bones! http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  73. What can we learn from the UK abortion vote? | Women's Views on News

    [...] Liberal Conspiracy has produced a helpful breakdown of the party allegiances of the MPs who voted for the amendment. [...]

  74. John Edginton

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  75. Darling scuppers Miliband’s best line of attack, back and forth debates over the 50p tax rates, and more concern over the future of the NHS: round up of political blogs for 3-9 September | British Politics and Policy at LSE

    [...] As Nadine Dorries’ attack on abortion policy is comprehensively beaten in a vote in the Commons, Liberal Conspiracy warns that the fight isn’t over yet. [...]

  76. Holly Elliott

    From earlier: List of MPs who voted FOR Nadine Dorries' amendment, including 11 Lab & 3 Libdems http://t.co/xoKy6ru

  77. Holly Elliott

    My summary of abortion debate today: Nadine Dorries faced a crushing defeat but the fight isn’t over yet http://t.co/xoKy6ru





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.