|
Post by june on Apr 2, 2011 16:09:24 GMT
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8407026/MPs-launch-new-bid-to-cut-abortion-rate.htmlNadine Dorries, a Conservative MP, and Frank Field, a former Labour minister, will table amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill now passing through the Commons. Supporters of the amendments say that passing them would lead to a dramatic reduction in the number of abortions that take place in the UK. The first amendment would create a new precondition for any women having an abortion to receive advice and counselling from an organisation that does not itself carry out terminations. The health bill will restructure the NHS, creating new consortia of GPs with the power commission treatment for their patients.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 2, 2011 17:15:00 GMT
Thanks for that, June.
I guess it depends on your point of view and particularly how far you think the government should regulate people's lives.
As most people here now, I'm pro-life rather than pro-choice and I turned down the offer of an abortion when my first child was diagnosed in the womb as having genetic defects.
I support anything that can reduce the abortion holocaust.
In terms of whether it's a political matter, I don't think it's a question of left/right, conservative/socialist/liberal or whatever.
I'm broadly a left-leaning liberal but I'm pro-choice.
With moral issues - which abortion obviously is - it's always a difficult one for governments to get involved.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2011 17:56:00 GMT
There is always the possibility that people who would never have considered an abortion will do so after counselling.
Instead of being referred to an abortion clinic, women who are unhappy with unplanned pregnancies will be offered counselling at the GP surgery (or somewhere else local). They may have been given information by Pro-Life groups that is just plain wrong; Life has been taken to task for producing surveys saying that abortion harms women, when the reverse is true. They may be unaware of what stage of development their embryo is in. They may be under pressure not to have a termination, so feel intimidated at the idea of going to an abortion service.
If counselling is encouraged at an early stage of pregnancy, and gives women and girls the facts, I'm in favour.
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 2, 2011 18:53:12 GMT
As I understand the clinics give counselling too - they don't just operate. What these MPs are after is a clear separation between counselling and the medical procedure. That seems fair enough if it stops there and doesn't cost more money to the public purse.
I do worry about the burden being placed on GPs by this government - they seem to be the default response for handling anything vaguely medical. How can they do it all and be a GP too?
I'm pro choice and whilst I don't need a politician or someone else's religion deciding laws that only affect me because they 'know best', I cannot see a better way of having a debate about it and reaching a consensus that keeps all sides happy without it become a political topic.
I do struggle to understand why abortion of a potential life creates such fervour when child abuse is condemned but not as actively campaigned against. Nowt queer as folk!
|
|
|
Post by everso on Apr 2, 2011 20:50:38 GMT
I find it difficult to actually debate this. On the one hand, as a mother and a grandmother, to me, the idea of aborting a baby is dreadful.
On the other hand, I also feel that it's every woman's choice. She's the one who's body is taken over for 9 months and who has to give birth. And you can bet that she'll be the one who'll have to cope with raising the child - not the pro-lifers standing holding the placards.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 7:07:02 GMT
I find it difficult to actually debate this. On the one hand, as a mother and a grandmother, to me, the idea of aborting a baby is dreadful. . I don't regard an embryo as a "baby". The longer the pregnancy continues, the more the foetus becmes one, which is why an unhappily pregnant woman needs impartial information early on. But I don't agree that the BPAS has a "vested interest" in encouraging women to have abortions; they are a non-profit making body. The women who go to them are already thinking about having an abortion, yet apparently 20% don't go ahead after BPAS counselling. I take June's point about GPs, but so far as I can see they spend a lot of their working days either giving out parecetemol or referring patients to a specialist. There's no reason surely why all the surgeries in a town can't run their own counselling service; that way they can have control . They could make sure it is serving their patients' needs far more effectively than if it was administered by an outside body.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 3, 2011 11:23:17 GMT
I agree. Easy to try and impose your principles on others when you don't actually have to deal with the results of your views.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 3, 2011 15:21:33 GMT
I think this pretty well sums up my own view. But I can clearly see both sides of this issue. The hard part is when you're having a family gathering, perhaps a Christmas dinner. You look across the table at your grown son and your three grand children. Just think, there was a time when I could have shared in a decision to abort our son. No family get togethers after that decision. No laughing, playing grand children. Loneliness up ahead in an old age home for the elderly with no families. Also, many of the abortion counsellors would advocate adoption when the mother is clearly not economically equipped to deal with raising a child.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2011 15:45:32 GMT
Bush Admirer: terminating one preganancy doesn't rule out the possibility of going on to have children later, whatever the Anti-Abortion brigade would have us believe.
You say : "Also, many of the abortion counsellors would advocate adoption when the mother is clearly not economically equipped to deal with raising a child."
Not in Britain, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 3, 2011 16:01:11 GMT
It's a moral issue rather than a political one, and women are either completely anti, or would agree to an abortion in certain circumstances. Any woman who feels strongly that abortion is wrong in any circumstances will never contemplate going through the procedure. On the other hand, a significant proportion of women would want to be aborted in certain circumstances ( severe congenital malformation, after rape, for example), and they might well benefit from sympathetic counselling. Then there are the small minority of women who use abortion as a form of late contraception; and this cannot be right.
Whether any of the groups will change their opinion after conselling is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 3, 2011 18:42:54 GMT
I find it difficult to actually debate this. On the one hand, as a mother and a grandmother, to me, the idea of aborting a baby is dreadful. On the other hand, I also feel that it's every woman's choice. She's the one who's body is taken over for 9 months and who has to give birth. And you can bet that she'll be the one who'll have to cope with raising the child - not the pro-lifers standing holding the placards. I made that choice, Everso, and I've spent the last ten years raising a son with a number of problems as a result. Genetically there's no difference between a foetus and a fully grown baby and I can't see any MORAL difference between abortion and infanticide. I know I'm fairly liberal on most issues but on this one I take the view that abortion should be a last resort. If the mother's life is in danger I support it. If the baby was conceived as a result of rape or incest I support her making that choice (though I've known one other victim of rape who DID choose to raise the child and has never regretted it). Other than that I feel it should be illegal. I'm particularly opposed to those women who use it as a lazy alternative to contraception. We have women who've had six, seven or eight abortions on the NHS and it's a shameful waste of resources. That doesn't mean I condemn most women who have abortions because in most cases they are NOT like that - heartless, self-indulgent and uncaring as the repeat offenders are. (God, I wish I was one-dimensional sometimes; it makes life so much easier when you are!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2011 6:20:16 GMT
Genetically there's no difference between a foetus and a fully grown baby and I can't see any MORAL difference between abortion and infanticide. But if you had the job of counselling a pregnant woman, you would have to put your vision of morality aside. If a client came to you and said "I'm only six weeks pregnant, I don't agree with late abortion so I want it done now", what would you say? Would you tell her "It makes no difference. Yes, your embryo isn't yet a complete foetus, it is still going through the process of cell division, but the genetic makeup is just the same as for a live baby"? If someone said that to me, I'd point out that all (or at least most) of her cells held her genetic make-up, so every time she cut her toe nails she was committing murder. But I don't think that would make a very constructive counselling session.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 4, 2011 12:37:17 GMT
We should not forget also that nature is the biggest abortionist of all. One in 4 pregnancies ends in abortion (or miscarriage if you prefer the lay term) without the woman doing anything at all, thus dwarfing the number of chosen abortions.
I object to the term 'pro choice' being construed by pro-life supporters as anti-life.
I am pro-choice. I had a pregnancy that was the result of contraceptive failure. Because I was married and it was simply not planned for that time rather than not wanted we did not opt for abortion. Pro choice means just that - choice. It does not necessarily mean abortion.
My daughter is pro-choice. She knew when she was pregnant because of scans that there was a strong chance her baby would be disabled. It was, and her life has been wrecked because of her choice. But it was her choice and she made it and all of our family supported her, even though it would not have been the choice I would have made.
We all have to make difficult decisions in life and I do not think politicians are the ones to which we should hand over control of women's bodies. In fact, it sickens me to think that might be the case.
As I said, principles are easy when you are unlikely to be challenged to uphold them.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 4, 2011 17:27:56 GMT
Genetically there's no difference between a foetus and a fully grown baby and I can't see any MORAL difference between abortion and infanticide. But if you had the job of counselling a pregnant woman, you would have to put your vision of morality aside. If a client came to you and said "I'm only six weeks pregnant, I don't agree with late abortion so I want it done now", what would you say? Would you tell her "It makes no difference. Yes, your embryo isn't yet a complete foetus, it is still going through the process of cell division, but the genetic makeup is just the same as for a live baby"? If someone said that to me, I'd point out that all (or at least most) of her cells held her genetic make-up, so every time she cut her toe nails she was committing murder. But I don't think that would make a very constructive counselling session. Skylark, I'm not judgemental on the whole. What gets to me is when women use abortion as a lazy way of contraception. Yes, I don't agree with men who don't show responsibility either. We can all have one pregnancy we didn't want and I'm willing to swallow my principles and give the woman the benefit of the doubt. Like I say, it's the repeat offenders that get to me.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Apr 4, 2011 18:50:53 GMT
We should not forget also that nature is the biggest abortionist of all. One in 4 pregnancies ends in abortion (or miscarriage if you prefer the lay term) without the woman doing anything at all, thus dwarfing the number of chosen abortions. I object to the term 'pro choice' being construed by pro-life supporters as anti-life. I am pro-choice. I had a pregnancy that was the result of contraceptive failure. Because I was married and it was simply not planned for that time rather than not wanted we did not opt for abortion. Pro choice means just that - choice. It does not necessarily mean abortion. My daughter is pro-choice. She knew when she was pregnant because of scans that there was a strong chance her baby would be disabled. It was, and her life has been wrecked because of her choice. But it was her choice and she made it and all of our family supported her, even though it would not have been the choice I would have made. We all have to make difficult decisions in life and I do not think politicians are the ones to which we should hand over control of women's bodies. In fact, it sickens me to think that might be the case. As I said, principles are easy when you are unlikely to be challenged to uphold them. Firedancer, my daughter had only been married about 5 months when she became pregnant due to a contraceptive failure. They hadn't planned on having a family for many years - and, in any case, she'd never been that bothered anyway. She took the morning after pill, which failed, and they discussed abortion, but just couldn't make that decision. They went ahead with the pregnancy and it turned out to be twins! My grandson and grandaughter are now 4 years old with a sister on the way in July. My daughter can't even bear to think that she even contemplated abortion. I do feel sorry for women who have to choose abortion. It's a terrible thing to have to decide, particularly if you have other children.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2011 20:36:03 GMT
We all have to make difficult decisions in life and I do not think politicians are the ones to which we should hand over control of women's bodies. In fact, it sickens me to think that might be the case. As I said, principles are easy when you are unlikely to be challenged to uphold them. Do you think that is what is behind this new counselling initiative? If so, what is the agenda? I'm sorry to hear about your grandchild, and it is brave of you to say that her decision wrecked her life. Some anto-abortionists deny that a child is ever anything other than a blessing.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 4, 2011 23:26:44 GMT
Well, the agenda is to reduce the number of abortions and Dorries clearly mistrusts the professionals to be impartial even though BPAS said that 20% of their clients decide against an abortion.
She is on record as being very much against abortion and when you see her quote i.e. “Our amendment will remove the incestuous behaviour of the RCOG and bring the care of vulnerable women back to a balanced, impartial, accountable and caring footing.” it is pretty clear that she wouldn't recognise the words 'impartial and accountable" even if she read them in a dictionary. And I certainly wouldn't want to expose a vulnerable woman to Dorries' version of "caring and balanced".
Actually it is not brave to say my daughter's life has been wrecked. It's a simple statement of fact though it would be wrong to go into detail about it. Those pro-lifers who, as you say, deny that a child is ever anything but a blessing either have zero experience of major disability or, if they have, are somewhat in denial, and I would like to be privy to their deepest private thoughts when they lie exhausted in bed at night. None of which is to doubt for one moment that they - like my daughter - have anything but the strongest love for their disabled child and would go through hell to protect him/her and pretty well do (which is not that much of a hyperbole when we are talking about complex multiple disability as I am).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2011 9:37:10 GMT
The decision not to have a child at all and terminate an accidental pregnancy perhaps raises different questions to the decision to terminate a preganancy because the child will be disabled.
I don't see why anyne need feel guilty about deciding on to terminate in the first trimester, but again, it all depends on what you think an embryo is.
For the woman who finds her feotus has genetic defects, the decision to continue with the pregnancy raises much more complicated questions, such as how we value the disabled. Of course, if the problems are so great that your child will lead a life full of suffering, the decision becomes one of concern for that child rather than for yourself.
The poltiician pushing this reform may be anxious to reduce the number of abortions, but I hope that any service provided has a different agenda.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 5, 2011 14:23:08 GMT
There is always the possibility that people who would never have considered an abortion will do so after counselling. Instead of being referred to an abortion clinic, women who are unhappy with unplanned pregnancies will be offered counselling at the GP surgery (or somewhere else local). They may have been given information by Pro-Life groups that is just plain wrong; Life has been taken to task for producing surveys saying that abortion harms women, when the reverse is true. They may be unaware of what stage of development their embryo is in. They may be under pressure not to have a termination, so feel intimidated at the idea of going to an abortion service. If counselling is encouraged at an early stage of pregnancy, and gives women and girls the facts, I'm in favour. the simple reality is that abortion DOES harm women. of the four girlfriends that ]'ve had over the years who had abortions, three of them ended up having to go to a therapist to straighten out their heads. obviously, there are some who could care less, and use abortion as birth control, which says the world about them, but the vast majority of women realize that abortion is a last resort
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 5, 2011 14:26:45 GMT
I find it difficult to actually debate this. On the one hand, as a mother and a grandmother, to me, the idea of aborting a baby is dreadful. On the other hand, I also feel that it's every woman's choice. She's the one who's body is taken over for 9 months and who has to give birth. And you can bet that she'll be the one who'll have to cope with raising the child - not the pro-lifers standing holding the placards. abortion is abominable, but, the bottom line is that the issue is NOT whether abortion is wrong or not. it is the fact that it IS the woman's body, and she has the right to make the choice. if it is wrong, she'll have to explain it to god, not me nor any other person
|
|