Given how far back they have fallen, the current Labour party leadership contest may be the most pointless exercise in democracy since the last Russian election. (I hope it isn't, Boris Johnson is as slippery as an eel thats been soaped, oiled and taken a PhD in slipperiness.) It's also proving to be yet another illustration of how the British left does dog whistle politics. Tolerance and inclusivity yay, but as Tim Farron discovered, woe betide you if your personal views diverge from the current progressive orthodoxy.
Rebecca Long-Bailey is now discovering the same thing, for having the independence of mind to question the law which currently allows terminating a pregnancy at 38 weeks (or ending the life of an unborn baby - we don't have a way of describing this that isn't already morally loaded) for reasons of serious disability. The pushback includes a campaign (successful) to get every leadership candidate signed up to a pledge to deregulate abortion still further, which categorises attempts to present alternative views as misogyny and hate crime.
Maybe I'm a conservative dinosaur, but I'd be deeply uncomfortable with any political context which treated the ending of human life, at whatever stage, as a settled issue. If we're going to wave around phrases like 'right to choose', lets at least look deeply into what we mean by them. If the right to choose is a fundamental principle, rather than just a slogan, then it can bear investigation and robust debate. Indeed, investigation and robust debate might succeed in carrying more people with it, and creating more of a consensus, than using it to shut debate down.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Tuesday, October 04, 2016
Warning Signs
Some pretty stark findings from a Girl Guides survey on how young girls see themselves, confirming what the Childrens Society reported a couple of months ago:
Among the 559 seven- to 10-year-olds who took part in the survey:
- 36% said they were made to feel the most important thing about them was their looks
- 38% felt they were not pretty enough
- 35% agreed women were judged more on their appearance than their abilities
- 23% felt they needed to be perfect
And these feelings were far more prevalent among the more than 1,000 11- to 21-year-olds who took part:
- 80% felt their looks were the most important thing about them
- 66% felt they were not pretty enough
- 93% agreed women were judged more on appearance than ability
- 47% believed their looks held them back most of the time
- 61% felt the need to be perfect
This follows on from last weeks news that 26% of women aged 16-24 are reporting symptoms of mental illness. Not so long ago, that was the lifetime figure - how many of us over our lifetime might suffer from depression, anxiety or other mental illness.
This is a major crisis. Philip Hammond was highlighting 'productivity' yesterday, and wanted the Conservative conference to believe that by investing in a few key parts of the economy, we'd get it sorted. Perhaps the problem is something much more fundamental, and the solution something much more radical. No matter how well educated we are, or how fast our broadband speed, we are a nation in the grip of a mental health epidemic. It affects our relationships, parenting, rates of substance abuse, and workplace productivity, along with a whole host of other things.
Time to Change is a commendable campaign to end mental health stigma, but don't lets pretend that once we've done that, all will be well. On the same day as the Guides survey came out, the Royal College of Surgeons issued patient guidelines for people wanting to have cosmetic surgery. This is a symptom of the same disease - women who learn to hate their appearance when children will be the customers of the cosmetic industry when they're older.
The Bishop of Gloucesters campaign on body image among girls is timely, but there is a whole industry that needs taking out here. After Justin Welby prophetically spoke and acted on payday loan companies, the Welby Effect has been quite dramatic. It will take something bigger to undermine the structure of an image industry which involves surgeons, dentists, magazines, music, film, TV, Kim Kardashian, social media, selfie sticks, the cosmetics firms, advertising, and the devil - who doesn't wear Prada, but wants women to believe that their lives are incomplete without a brand name.
In an image-dominated society, the cultural flow is towards appearance and presentation. How do we bring into the cultural mainstream the idea that beauty is a quality of character, rather than an advertisers dog whistle? "Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgement" (John 7:24). We are so far gone it's almost impossible to imagine what UK society would look like if we took these words of Jesus seriously
We are also incredibly conflicted about this - the Paralympics (remember them?) does a great job for promoting a positive image of people with disabilities, but at the same time we enshrine in law a procedure which will lead to the abortions of more disabled children. A sense of value is based on externals - what people can do, contribute, look like, produce, or achieve (anyone for Grammar Schools?) - is spiritually and emotionally toxic. I'm not sure if a post-Christian society is actually able to come up with anything better than this, the signs are that any cultural sense of intrinsic worth as people uniquely loved and made in God's image is decaying fast. 'Because I'm worth it' is a marketing slogan, not a philosophical truth - the irony is that the slogan undermines self-worth at the moment it's delivered.
Final thought: feminism needs to be reclaimed from capitalism. It has been colonised and trivialised. Imagine if you can the early Suffragettes sitting at the NFL final, watching Beyonce and her army of half-dressed minions waving their bottoms at the crowd, then turning to each other and saying "ladies, our work is complete." No, me neither.
From the Girl Guides report: From as young as seven, girls feel the impact of daily sexist images of women and girls in the media, online and around them. Girls tell us that sexist objectification of women in the media makes them feel disempowered and that gender stereotypes make them feel that their gender will hold them back in life. They tell us they have to confront intense and unobtainable appearance pressures to be perfect and many say they feel they’re not good enough.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
When liberals break cover: is an abortion debate possible?
Journalist Mehdi Hasan has written a fascinating piece for the Huffington Post on his views on abortion law:
What I would like is for my fellow lefties and liberals to try to understand and respect the views of those of us who are pro-life, rather than demonise us as right-wing reactionaries or medieval misogynists.
One of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that it's asymmetric: the two sides are talking at cross-purposes. The pro-lifers speak about the right to life of the unborn baby; the pro-choicers speak about a woman's right to choose. The moral arguments, as the Scottish philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has said, are "incommensurable".
Another problem is that the debate forces people to choose sides: right against left, religious against secular. Some of us, however, refuse to be sliced and diced in such a simplistic and divisive manner. I consider abortion to be wrong because of, not in spite of, my progressive principles. That I am pro-life does not make me any less of a lefty.
Being both left wing, and 'pro-life', Hasan is rather unusual. Judging by his Twitter feed, the reaction from fellow liberals and left-wingers has been pretty nasty. In response, one of his tweets says ' am v disappointed that lefties have confirmed every rightwing prejudice today: we close down debate, we enforce orthodoxies etc'
What kind of 'liberal democracy' are we, if certain debates are no longer possible? There are some issues I've decided to avoid blogging about, because the heat/light generation ratio is so dire.
What I would like is for my fellow lefties and liberals to try to understand and respect the views of those of us who are pro-life, rather than demonise us as right-wing reactionaries or medieval misogynists.
One of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that it's asymmetric: the two sides are talking at cross-purposes. The pro-lifers speak about the right to life of the unborn baby; the pro-choicers speak about a woman's right to choose. The moral arguments, as the Scottish philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has said, are "incommensurable".
Another problem is that the debate forces people to choose sides: right against left, religious against secular. Some of us, however, refuse to be sliced and diced in such a simplistic and divisive manner. I consider abortion to be wrong because of, not in spite of, my progressive principles. That I am pro-life does not make me any less of a lefty.
Being both left wing, and 'pro-life', Hasan is rather unusual. Judging by his Twitter feed, the reaction from fellow liberals and left-wingers has been pretty nasty. In response, one of his tweets says ' am v disappointed that lefties have confirmed every rightwing prejudice today: we close down debate, we enforce orthodoxies etc'
What kind of 'liberal democracy' are we, if certain debates are no longer possible? There are some issues I've decided to avoid blogging about, because the heat/light generation ratio is so dire.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Double Standards
A couple of media stories:
Powerful piece on our double standards over abortion law, in the light of the paralympics.
Natalia Partyka was born without a right hand and forearm. She won her first international table tennis medal at the disabled world championship when she was 10. She has won more than 30 medals since. Steve Brown is Great Britain’s wheelchair rugby captain. Following an accident he broke his neck and trapped his spinal chord and is now paralysed from the chest down.
Both these individuals smash the convenient myth that aborting a disabled child is an act of mercy that cut shorts a miserable, undignified and frustrating life. This specious argument is incessantly advanced to justify Britain’s abortion law, which allows abortion up to birth if the child is “severely disabled” (but in practice covers easily corrected conditions such as cleft palates).
And a bizarre reaction to the latest retail sales figures. "The feel good factor from the Olympics failed to inspire spending" said the British Retail Consortium. It's a peculiar idea that automatically links feeling better to spending more. How many people, after watching Mo Farah win his second gold, immediately jumped off their sofas and though 'right, I'd better get down to Tesco and buy something' as an integral part of their celebrations?
There's something insidious about the suggestion that our response to anything significant ought to be shopping. Is that all we are? The government thinks so: it's rumbling about making the Olympic extension to Sunday trading hour permanent. Good to see the boss of Sainsbury's speaking out against this last month. What a dismal Olympic legacy that would be.
Powerful piece on our double standards over abortion law, in the light of the paralympics.
Natalia Partyka was born without a right hand and forearm. She won her first international table tennis medal at the disabled world championship when she was 10. She has won more than 30 medals since. Steve Brown is Great Britain’s wheelchair rugby captain. Following an accident he broke his neck and trapped his spinal chord and is now paralysed from the chest down.
Both these individuals smash the convenient myth that aborting a disabled child is an act of mercy that cut shorts a miserable, undignified and frustrating life. This specious argument is incessantly advanced to justify Britain’s abortion law, which allows abortion up to birth if the child is “severely disabled” (but in practice covers easily corrected conditions such as cleft palates).
And a bizarre reaction to the latest retail sales figures. "The feel good factor from the Olympics failed to inspire spending" said the British Retail Consortium. It's a peculiar idea that automatically links feeling better to spending more. How many people, after watching Mo Farah win his second gold, immediately jumped off their sofas and though 'right, I'd better get down to Tesco and buy something' as an integral part of their celebrations?
There's something insidious about the suggestion that our response to anything significant ought to be shopping. Is that all we are? The government thinks so: it's rumbling about making the Olympic extension to Sunday trading hour permanent. Good to see the boss of Sainsbury's speaking out against this last month. What a dismal Olympic legacy that would be.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Should Christians Vote Tory?
Cranmer argued a couple of days ago that Christians had a duty to vote Conservative. Tom Harris has taken issue with him, and Cranmer responds in the comments thread.
Cranmers main argument was that the Conservatives are more likely to permit a vote on reducing the time limit for abortion. Personally I'm not sure if this is a dog whistle: drop some hints to the pro-life lobby that you're on their side, and they'll queue up to vote for you.
I'm not convinced it's as simple as that. From abortion to global warming to attitudes to money and greed, there are a whole swathe of plumb-lines to hold against our political parties. None of them comes out smelling of roses (or trees, or seagulls, depending on which logo you prefer). Any approach to voting that uses 1 issue as a trump-card to avoid thinking about the rest is sub-Christian.
Update: Cranmer has responded to the Tom Harris piece.
Cranmers main argument was that the Conservatives are more likely to permit a vote on reducing the time limit for abortion. Personally I'm not sure if this is a dog whistle: drop some hints to the pro-life lobby that you're on their side, and they'll queue up to vote for you.
I'm not convinced it's as simple as that. From abortion to global warming to attitudes to money and greed, there are a whole swathe of plumb-lines to hold against our political parties. None of them comes out smelling of roses (or trees, or seagulls, depending on which logo you prefer). Any approach to voting that uses 1 issue as a trump-card to avoid thinking about the rest is sub-Christian.
Update: Cranmer has responded to the Tom Harris piece.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
New Slogan
Following the atheist bus campaign, their Facebook group is looking for other slogans to go on the side of London buses. As one commenter writes: "The slogan used is really pants. Come on people, we can do better."
This is probably the kind of thread Madpriest should be hosting, but you heard the lady. We can do better than 'There probably is no God, now stop worrying and enjoy life.'
And you can probably do better than mine:
"Jesus, probably the best deity in the world"
"There probably is no bus, but step off the kerb and find out for yourself"
"I was enjoying life, then I read Dawkins"
"Look both ways"
good discussion here too.
And of course, this is all a convenient distraction whilst abortion law and embryo research are voted on in the commons today. Update: last minute amendments will make it possible for cloning to be done without consent from donated tissue . These have been thrown in at the last minute, without the chance for proper scrutiny, and they will be voted on today.
The alliance of scientists, biotech enthusiasts and parliamentarians behind the amendments seem to believe that no public case needs to be made for these changes, convinced as they are that cloning is the next big thing in medical research and that the UK has to be the Silicon Valley of this new industry. The dense thicket of over 100 amendments added to the HFE bill provided the perfect opportunity to slip in provisions that would otherwise be extremely controversial.
This is probably the kind of thread Madpriest should be hosting, but you heard the lady. We can do better than 'There probably is no God, now stop worrying and enjoy life.'
And you can probably do better than mine:
"Jesus, probably the best deity in the world"
"There probably is no bus, but step off the kerb and find out for yourself"
"I was enjoying life, then I read Dawkins"
"Look both ways"
good discussion here too.
And of course, this is all a convenient distraction whilst abortion law and embryo research are voted on in the commons today. Update: last minute amendments will make it possible for cloning to be done without consent from donated tissue . These have been thrown in at the last minute, without the chance for proper scrutiny, and they will be voted on today.
The alliance of scientists, biotech enthusiasts and parliamentarians behind the amendments seem to believe that no public case needs to be made for these changes, convinced as they are that cloning is the next big thing in medical research and that the UK has to be the Silicon Valley of this new industry. The dense thicket of over 100 amendments added to the HFE bill provided the perfect opportunity to slip in provisions that would otherwise be extremely controversial.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Unbelievable
I can see why people might vote to create subhuman embryos to research serious diseases, even though there are no fruits to this research yet, and plenty of other therapies (e.g. adult stem cells) are proving really fruitful. However if in 10 years the cures for Alzheimers and MND that have been dangled like carrots over MP's don't materialise, I hope the government of the time has the nous to revisit the legislation. (Kevin Davis, for example, supports the idea of a 'sunset clause' which writes this into the legislation itself.)
I can understand a parent doing everything to save their own child, though to know for the whole of your life that you were only conceived for the sake of your brother, not just because you were wanted for your own sake - I'm not quite sure what that does to you. Ok it was true in a way for Jesus, but he was already around before he was born.
I fail to understand why the abortion limit has to stay at 24 weeks, when babies born before this date are surviving. Why should the law lag behind science in this case, whilst in the rest of the embryology bill it's doing the opposite. Most other European countries have limits roughly 10 weeks below this.
And the cobblers about the 'right' of parents to have a child without a father , well words fail me. The law is supposed to protect the vulnerable, not sponsor social experiments which are already failing. But we've already fed our kids into the mincer in so many other ways. Hey, Labour, leave those kids alone....
Update: this mornings' news headline on 5 live was the Chelsea and Man U fans arriving in Moscow. Never mind the ethics, feel the football.
I can understand a parent doing everything to save their own child, though to know for the whole of your life that you were only conceived for the sake of your brother, not just because you were wanted for your own sake - I'm not quite sure what that does to you. Ok it was true in a way for Jesus, but he was already around before he was born.
I fail to understand why the abortion limit has to stay at 24 weeks, when babies born before this date are surviving. Why should the law lag behind science in this case, whilst in the rest of the embryology bill it's doing the opposite. Most other European countries have limits roughly 10 weeks below this.
And the cobblers about the 'right' of parents to have a child without a father , well words fail me. The law is supposed to protect the vulnerable, not sponsor social experiments which are already failing. But we've already fed our kids into the mincer in so many other ways. Hey, Labour, leave those kids alone....
Update: this mornings' news headline on 5 live was the Chelsea and Man U fans arriving in Moscow. Never mind the ethics, feel the football.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Embryology Bill
Really helpful guide in Times Online to the 4 big debates happening in parliament next week over abortion, hybrid embryos, the need of children for a father, and 'saviour siblings'. Dealing with one of these alone would be hard, debating and deciding on all 4 within a couple of days seems a lot to ask from MPs.
Various resources on the ccfon website for reflection on these issues. Something to ask people to pray for tomorrow. Whilst we've already crossed the Rubicon on abortion, the other 3 issues all cross significant ethical lines, and redefine what we mean by humanity, and the nature of key relationships within human community.
The embryo hybrid debate has been the biggest one, which shows how hard it is to deal with all these issues at the same time. There hasn't really been a public debate on whether children need fathers, or conceiving a sibling with the main purpose of saving the life of a living child. It's not hard to see a bit of 'divide and rule' going on here - opponents of one area will tend to be opponents of all 4, but if we split our energies 4 ways, we may lose on all 4. Campaigners have been forced to focus on 1 of the 4 issues, which weakens opposition to the other 3.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Abortion review
Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee Report on Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967
The Science and Technology Committee issued its report on scientific developments which ought to be considered in any new Parliamentary debate relating to abortion. In summary the main report, which is strongly anti–life and contrary to the weight of evidence submitted to the Committee, was supported by eight of the eleven members of the committee, including the chairman Phil Willis. Links to media coverage and opinion poll listed below.
The Committee concluded that:
There is no scientific basis to reduce the 24 week upper limit for abortion.
The requirement for two doctors’ signatures before an abortion can be carried out should be removed.
Nurses and midwives should be allowed to carry out early abortions.
An exhaustive list of abnormalities on what constitutes “serious handicap” (which is used as a reason for aborting foetuses after 24 weeks) is not feasible, but that guidance on the meaning would be helpful.
Foetal pain is not relevant to the question of abortion law.
A minority Report (contained in the Committee’s report at page 71) was proposed by Nadine Dorries and seconded by Bob Spink, essentially rejects the committee's findings. The minority report also highlights the misgivings on the oral evidence selection process. Of the 18 witnesses chosen to give evidence before the Committee, 13 were pro-abortion and only 5 pro-life.
Links
Report
http://www.ccfon.org/docs/HCFinalABORTIONREPORT.pdf
Press Release
http://www.ccfon.org/docs/SDAReport.doc
Full members of the committee:
Mr Phil Willis MP, Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough, (Chairman)
Adam Afriyie MP, Conservative, Windsor
Mrs Nadine Dorries MP, Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire
Mr Robert Flello MP, Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South
Linda Gilroy MP, Labour, Plymouth Sutton
Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon
Dr Brian Iddon MP, Labour, Bolton South East
Chris Mole MP, Labour/Co-op, Ipswich
Dr Bob Spink MP, Conservative, Castle Point
Graham Stringer MP, Labour, Manchester, Blackley
Dr Desmond Turner MP, Labour, Brighton Kemptown
Christian Medical Fellowship comment and Press Release on Report
http://www.cmf.org.uk/press_release/?id=94
Nadine Dorries on Radio 4 (Needs Realplayer) http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_abortion_20071031.ram
MPs call for abortion law reforms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7069011.stm
Meet Dr Death, the Lib Dem MP Evan Harris who backs embryo experiments, euthanasia and freer abortions
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490815&in_page_id=1770
Tories lead the protests over call to relax curbs on abortions
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490822&in_page_id=1770
Rebel MPs' minority report over abortion change is rare form of dissent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490828&in_page_id=1770
MPs reject cut in 24 weeks time limit for abortions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/31/health.homeaffairs
Make it easier to get an abortion, say MPs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JJSY5Z2UPXVUTQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news /2007/10/31/nabort131.xml
Bob Spink: Abortion inquiry findings laughable
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/31/nabort231.xml
Public Opinion Statistics:
76% of people, including fully 81% of women, think abortion a baby at six months' pregnancy is cruel (Choose Life/ComRes May 06)
68% of people, including 72% of women, want a substantial reduction in the upper time limit to around 13 weeks (Life/ComRes Sept 07)
55% of people regard the present law allowing abortion up to birth on grounds of disability as unacceptable (Choose Life/ComRes May 06)
69% of people think that making abortion available too easily cheapens the value of young life (Life/ComRes Sept 07)
75% think that preventing alternatives by offering attractive alternatives is better for women (Life/ComRes Sept 07)
Comment:
I'm not a big fan of public opinion, since by the same standard we should bring back capital punishment, but I'm blogging this press release from the Lawyers Christian Fellowship in its entirety because this is such an important issue. I may be dense, but 200,000 abortions a year doesn't suggest to me that our laws are too restrictive, so it beggars belief that the MP's want to liberalise the abortion laws still further. And I can't imagine how a midwife, who's vocation is to bring babies into the world alive, will possibly be able to deliberately end the lives of unborn children. How long before 'allowed' becomes 'it's part of your job'?
If foetal pain is not relevant to abortion law, does that mean non-fatal road accidents are not relevant to road safety? Or that anaesthetic is not relevant to surgery? Am I alone in finding this a deeply worrying sentence to come from those we've elected to govern us?
The Science and Technology Committee issued its report on scientific developments which ought to be considered in any new Parliamentary debate relating to abortion. In summary the main report, which is strongly anti–life and contrary to the weight of evidence submitted to the Committee, was supported by eight of the eleven members of the committee, including the chairman Phil Willis. Links to media coverage and opinion poll listed below.
The Committee concluded that:
There is no scientific basis to reduce the 24 week upper limit for abortion.
The requirement for two doctors’ signatures before an abortion can be carried out should be removed.
Nurses and midwives should be allowed to carry out early abortions.
An exhaustive list of abnormalities on what constitutes “serious handicap” (which is used as a reason for aborting foetuses after 24 weeks) is not feasible, but that guidance on the meaning would be helpful.
Foetal pain is not relevant to the question of abortion law.
A minority Report (contained in the Committee’s report at page 71) was proposed by Nadine Dorries and seconded by Bob Spink, essentially rejects the committee's findings. The minority report also highlights the misgivings on the oral evidence selection process. Of the 18 witnesses chosen to give evidence before the Committee, 13 were pro-abortion and only 5 pro-life.
Links
Report
http://www.ccfon.org/docs/HCFinalABORTIONREPORT.pdf
Press Release
http://www.ccfon.org/docs/SDAReport.doc
Full members of the committee:
Mr Phil Willis MP, Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough, (Chairman)
Adam Afriyie MP, Conservative, Windsor
Mrs Nadine Dorries MP, Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire
Mr Robert Flello MP, Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South
Linda Gilroy MP, Labour, Plymouth Sutton
Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon
Dr Brian Iddon MP, Labour, Bolton South East
Chris Mole MP, Labour/Co-op, Ipswich
Dr Bob Spink MP, Conservative, Castle Point
Graham Stringer MP, Labour, Manchester, Blackley
Dr Desmond Turner MP, Labour, Brighton Kemptown
Christian Medical Fellowship comment and Press Release on Report
http://www.cmf.org.uk/press_release/?id=94
Nadine Dorries on Radio 4 (Needs Realplayer) http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_abortion_20071031.ram
MPs call for abortion law reforms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7069011.stm
Meet Dr Death, the Lib Dem MP Evan Harris who backs embryo experiments, euthanasia and freer abortions
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490815&in_page_id=1770
Tories lead the protests over call to relax curbs on abortions
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490822&in_page_id=1770
Rebel MPs' minority report over abortion change is rare form of dissent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490828&in_page_id=1770
MPs reject cut in 24 weeks time limit for abortions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/31/health.homeaffairs
Make it easier to get an abortion, say MPs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JJSY5Z2UPXVUTQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news /2007/10/31/nabort131.xml
Bob Spink: Abortion inquiry findings laughable
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/31/nabort231.xml
Public Opinion Statistics:
76% of people, including fully 81% of women, think abortion a baby at six months' pregnancy is cruel (Choose Life/ComRes May 06)
68% of people, including 72% of women, want a substantial reduction in the upper time limit to around 13 weeks (Life/ComRes Sept 07)
55% of people regard the present law allowing abortion up to birth on grounds of disability as unacceptable (Choose Life/ComRes May 06)
69% of people think that making abortion available too easily cheapens the value of young life (Life/ComRes Sept 07)
75% think that preventing alternatives by offering attractive alternatives is better for women (Life/ComRes Sept 07)
Comment:
I'm not a big fan of public opinion, since by the same standard we should bring back capital punishment, but I'm blogging this press release from the Lawyers Christian Fellowship in its entirety because this is such an important issue. I may be dense, but 200,000 abortions a year doesn't suggest to me that our laws are too restrictive, so it beggars belief that the MP's want to liberalise the abortion laws still further. And I can't imagine how a midwife, who's vocation is to bring babies into the world alive, will possibly be able to deliberately end the lives of unborn children. How long before 'allowed' becomes 'it's part of your job'?
If foetal pain is not relevant to abortion law, does that mean non-fatal road accidents are not relevant to road safety? Or that anaesthetic is not relevant to surgery? Am I alone in finding this a deeply worrying sentence to come from those we've elected to govern us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)