Wow, for the millionth time on here, that amendment of Dorries and Field was pro-choice. Sunny Hundal and all those who write here on Liberal Conspiracy are pro-manipulated choice.

You’re trying to keep in place a system that advises women to go ahead with abortion because its in their financial interests. That’s manipulated choice, it’s not free, fully informed, rational choice.

If you were pro-choice, you would have voted for that amendment because it wouldn’t concern you that other groups not financially complicit in the abortion going ahead were providing advice.

The fact is that Sunny, Diane, and all the others that write on here are manipulative, and prejudiced – prejudiced against anyone who might just have an interest in wishing that women had a free choice about what to do with their body – because, shock, horror, they may not always make the choice that Sunny and Diane would like.

James Reade:

[Women] may not always make the choice that Sunny and Diane would like.

Given the number of women who decide to have kids, I don’t see MPs endlessly trying to pass legislation to make them have abortions instead, let alone Sunny Hundal or Diane Abbott organising pickets outside of maternity wards. Dorries and others like her are the ones who repeatedly have a problem with other women’s choices.

Wow, for the millionth time on here, that amendment of Dorries and Field was pro-choice.

Yeah, it was as pro-choice as tax havens are pro-transparency. The amendment was so necessary that even Frank Field distanced himself from it!

‘Women …. do not need anti-choice groups muscling in on the political scene and interfering with sexual health policy or abortion provision.’

Funny – I thought that everyone was free to hold an opinion, to freely associate and to hold a point of view which, whilst abhorrent to some, they can lobby Parliament and local councils about.

It is up to Parliament to decide on these matters, is it not, and not for a Shadow Minister to decide who can and cannot hold an alternative view and promote it.

It is up to Parliament to decide on these matters, is it not, and not for a Shadow Minister to decide who can and cannot hold an alternative view and promote it.

It is emblematic of the self serving victim complex of the right that “muscling in” is seamlessly equated here with “holding an opinion”. You should look up the difference between “speech” and “action” and between “counter-lobbying” and “censorship” sometime.

“Holding an opinion” doesn’t involve telling women that abortion leads to breast cancer: that falls under the rubric of “spreading lies”. “Holding an opinion” doesn’t include deliberately giving women seeking a prescription for the morning after-pill appointments 2 weeks in the future: I think you’ll find that is actually “falsely withholding medical treatment”.

Get off your self righteous rocking horse, little man, and get used to the fact that a lot of people in this country hold the opinion that anti choice propaganda lies is no basis for healthcare policy. Holding an opinion, indeed.

@Max #4

It is up to Parliament to decide on these matters, is it not, and not for a Shadow Minister to decide who can and cannot hold an alternative view and promote it.

It is emblematic of the self serving victim complex of the right that “muscling in” is seamlessly equated here with “holding an opinion”. You should look up the difference between “speech” and “action” and between “counter-lobbying” and “censorship” sometime.

“Holding an opinion” doesn’t involve telling women that abortion leads to breast cancer: that falls under the rubric of “spreading lies”. “Holding an opinion” doesn’t include deliberately giving women seeking a prescription for the morning after-pill appointments 2 weeks in the future: I think you’ll find that is actually “falsely withholding medical treatment”.

Get off your self righteous rocking horse, little man, and get used to the fact that a lot of people in this country hold the opinion that anti choice propaganda lies is no basis for healthcare policy.

@ 5 MarinaS

“It is emblematic of the self serving victim complex of the right that “muscling in” is seamlessly equated here with “holding an opinion”. You should look up the difference between “speech” and “action” and between “counter-lobbying” and “censorship” sometime.”

The OP is talking about anti-abortion campaigns, not “action”. The sentence that Max was replying to does seem to say that pro-lifers should keep their mouth shut.

As for those lies and underhand tactics by pro-lifers you mention, the OP doesn’t actally talk about them. So I’m not sure why you’d assume that Max supports them, let alone use this as an excuse to attack him personally.

As far as I can see, Max has made a very reasonable point, but because it criticises a small part of an article you like, your only response is to insult him and hurl non-sequiturs about to confuse the issue.

I noticed that Sunny Hundal said ,a while ago, that he would support abortion up to the last week, which looks like an open door to infanticide to me.

This was the sort of opinion expressed by one Anuebeon

Of course a neonate is a life-form, and they should be subject to protections (as are animals), but the sentimental view that baby are born as fully-formed persons just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny (based on any reasonable definition of person-hood – which wouldn’t also apply to a baby squirrel)

Unity was recently apologising for infanticide and in a weakly argued slithering essay tried to hide behind doubt when suggesting disabled infants might be killed

Their is no no perfect or absolute solution to Conor’s problem, not even a dogmatic belief in the sanctity of human life.

Scarey stuff . It is my belief that we are far too far down this road and we need to re -think.the majority agree with me and the vast majority , when they think about it, would agree with me that we do not have souls, we are souls.

Local residents have a right to contact their councillors about such a controversial matter. We should welcome the fact that people are taking an interest in politics at the local level, and that there are organisations that are concerned with national and local politics.

Consideration for councillors who have any sort of conscientious objection to commissioning termination of pregnancy should not be ignored either. These regulations should not be approved. this is an added burden for those who wish to serve their community in public office. Better support for women with unplanned pregnancy should be provided, not abortion.

British legislation is clear that there is no “right” to abortion. making abortion provision a requirement upon councils creates confusion and givs an incorrect presentation of the law.

The problem with money and reform of the NHS are by now obvious to most, which makes the news about spending on abortion all the more worrying. Lord Howe has revealed that the amount spent on abortion for 2010-11 was actually £118 million pounds. http://davidalton.net/2011/11/22/abortion-costs-30-million-higher-than-misleadingly-reported-to-parliament/

Having looked on the website of Diane Abbott MP, it seems a big contradiction that she speaks about her concern for women who smoke during pregnancy, yet campaigns for so-called abortion rights in the UK.

@10 – “Better support for women with unplanned pregnancy should be provided, not abortion.”

So there’s no money…oh yes, like other countries you can threaten them with jail!

Comment 3, Sunny I agree ,for once.

Given the wide support for the current situation is there much risk of SPUC or a revitalised Dorries having much success? Compared with, say, the threat to the NHS, started by New Labour and now being taken to its conclusion by the tories?

@ Paul

“the vast majority , when they think about it, would agree with me that we do not have souls, we are souls.”

Hmm. I agree with that statement, or at least one possible interpretation, but I’m not sure what it is specifically that you mean by it.

“the vast majority , when they think about it, would agree with me that we do not have souls, we are souls”

Where precisely is the soul located? What is it made up of? Can you provide any evidence beyond emotive rhetoric that such things exist?

There’s a very important point here which I think Diane Abbott completely disregards – that is, whether this is an issue that should be determined at a local or a national level. Diane Abbott wants the decision to be made nationally because she believes her views will obtain; SPUC prefers local decision-making because they think they may be able to win the argument in certain areas.

So the question is not about abortion as such, but rather at what level the relevant decisions should be made. I think that’s a really tough call.

As Dan B says, there is no “right” to abortion, either in UK law or in international law. This has been recently spelled-out in EDM 2220. On the other hand, the majority of UN member states have laws recognising, and offering some protection to, unborn children.

@Gwenfrewi #16:

As Dan B says, there is no “right” to abortion, either in UK law or in international law. This has been recently spelled-out in EDM 2220. On the other hand, the majority of UN member states have laws recognising, and offering some protection to, unborn children.

I fear that you are wrong on both counts.

Traditionally at common law one has a right to do that which is not forbidden. When the Abortion Act 1967 carved out circumstances in which an abortion would not be an offence it created a right to abortion in thiose circumstances.

On the other hand, it seems to me that very few UN member states – certainly not Western democracies – have laws protecting “unborn children”. Section 58 of the OAPA 1861 certainly isn’t such a provision.

In any event, a law protecting an “unborn child” would surely be very limited in scope, since it would only apply during the last few weeks of pregnancy.

@ Robin Levett – rather than write an an overly long comment on UN conventions, I’d like to point you in the direction of the following paper by bioethicist John Fleming PhD, who is one of the founding UNESCO International Bioethics Committee members. The case of UN conventions and declarations protecting unborn persons is evident, and does not discriminate between an unborn children in the first, second, or third trimester. http://www.amnestyforbabies.com/briefings/intl_law.pdf Abortion lobbyists realise this as a right tot abortion has been rejected on every single occassion – Cairo, Beijing, Millenium declaration 2000, MDG5 etc. This is why there is a massive push to create a right to abortion going on at the UN (cf reports by Pillay and Grover).

Regarding the UK Abortion Act 1967 & HFE 1990 amendments, under certain conditions an abortionist or the mother will not be prosecuted in the case of a procured abortion. This is a permission, not the creation of a right. Abortion advocacy groups also recognise this fact. There is no right to abortion.

The UK also has child destruction legislation, which is still used today. This recognises the unborn child as a victim of a criminal act if someone attempts to murder that child. This legislation does not only protect unborn children in the last few weeks of pregnancy, but as the Infant Life Presevation Act states, any child that can be born alive (for the sake of the times this was considered around 28 weeks, that’s in the 1920′s). Children are born alive anywhere between 19-23 weeks today, which is not the last few weeks of a full-term pregnancy.

Child destruction laws also exist in other countries around the world, including the USA, where at least 34 states have fetal homicide laws, and in 2004 the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was introduced.

I would also draw your attention to the new constitution of Hungry articles 1-4, the constitution of Ireland, the fact that the Abortion Act does not apply to Northern Ireland (another indication that abortion is not a right) the fact that Poland almost completely prohibited abortion in legislation a few months ago, and Chile which has completely prohibited abortion. The list goes on but you get the idea.

I would also suggest reading the recent case of Burstle v Greenpeace at the European court of Justice which recognised that human life begins at fertilisation, fertilisation is the beginning of a human being. Another judgement worth reading, this time from the European court of Human Rights, is the judgement of Vicent De Gaetano in the case of S.H and others v Austria.

ENDS

@18 – Ah yes, the laws in America used to charge women who have miscarriages.

“Nice” to see you’re trying to bring that here.

@DanB #18:

A couple of quick comment for the moment. At zero-one week from conception, it is far more accurate to refer to an unmiscarried miscarriage than to an unborn child. A blastocyst is not an unborn child. if the difference between an unborn child and a born child is birth, a foetus attains the status of unborn child only a few weeks before birth.

Brustle v Greenpeace does not recognise that human life begins at conception – it recognises that a human ovum after conception constitutes a human embryo, a very different thing.

At common law, that which is not forbidden is permitted – one has a right to do it. There is a right to abortion that is as enforceable as any other right.

@DanB contd:

One more quick comment – by your reasoning, there is no right of self-defence known to English law; which does rather make your argument look…odd.

20. Robin Levett

At zero-one week from conception, it is far more accurate to refer to an unmiscarried miscarriage than to an unborn child.

Why?

A blastocyst is not an unborn child. if the difference between an unborn child and a born child is birth, a foetus attains the status of unborn child only a few weeks before birth.

Really? How and when does it attain this status may one ask? Which legal or ethical tome contains the description therein of this change of status? Why is this anything other than your rather prejudiced opinion?

At common law, that which is not forbidden is permitted – one has a right to do it.

I am not sure the common law does say that. If you do no harm to someone else perhaps. But if you do, then you can be held liable. Even if there is no specific law against it.

@22 – “I am not sure the common law does say that.”

Well sure, I mean, you’re working on the effort to replace it with “Thou must do as the 1% say”, so…

@ Robin – your description of human development is muddled, so perhaps let’s leave the medicine and stick to the law stuff. wild claims and “I reckon” sounds pretty weak. @22 pretty much dealt with that.

Seems to me you only read the press release of the Bustle v Greenpeace case. You’ve read the last paragraph of the judgement, but that’s not enough. Bigger issues were dealt with in the case other than the material facts of the case itself. “Accordingly, any human ovum must, as soon as fertilised, be regarded as a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning and for the purposes of the application of Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive, since that fertilisation is such as to commence the process of development of a human being.” Please pay more attention and read sections 24-36. Notice that the judgment does not say process towards a human being, but “of a human being”

If one had a right to do what is not fobidden, then parliament would have to legislate for every single act or ommission that could be harmful in anyway so that, if faiing to do so, they would be creating a right to do harm. You argument sounds odd. Furthermore, British legislation does forbid the killing of an unborn child, and the Abortion Act has to be read within the context of British legislation as a whole.

@DanB #24:

<blockquote.your description of human development is muddled

Since that comes from someone who describes an unfertilised human ovum (on the authority of Bruestle) as an “unborn child”, forgive me if I treat that claim with some scepticism. But do read para 30 of the case with great care.

I agree though that I am a lawyer, not a developmental biologist, nor do I play one on TV – though I do know a few.

English law does not forbid the killing of an unborn child; it forbids abortion save in the circumstances defined in the Abortion Act 1967, which carve out a right to abortion in those circumstances.

…more will follow