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.

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.

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)

Sunny, Alan Beith needs flagging.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

‘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!

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.

“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?

@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.

@ 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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

@ 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”.

@ 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.

@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.