Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 20th August 2008

Free Map of Scottish Castles

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Anti-abortion groups vow to keep fighting



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 May 2008
PRO-LIFE campaigners have vowed to resume their fight to cut the time limit for abortions after the next election.
Pinning their hopes on a Conservative victory, they predict that a Tory government would be more likely to deliver a cut in the present 24-week limit.

Despite emotive pleas from anti-abortion MPs, attempts to reduce the limit were rebuffed in the House of Commons late on Tuesday night. The closest vote, on a possible cut to 22 weeks, was lost by 71 votes.

Although MPs were given a free vote on abortion, proportionately more Conservative MPs than Labour backed a reduction.

David Cameron, the Tory leader, voted to reduce the limit to 22 weeks while Labour leader Gordon Brown wanted to keep the status quo.

Both men insisted the issue should be decided on a free vote. But Labour MPs were ordered to come to the Commons to vote by whips.

Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who proposed a reduction to 20 weeks, yesterday suggested the limit could be cut under a Tory government. "I would hope that if there was a change of government things would be slightly different," she said.

"By and large Labour has always backed pro-choice, and the Conservatives have been pro-life. I am neither of those; I support abortion in the first trimester; it is late abortions that I don't support."

The Alive & Kicking Alliance, made up of pro-life groups and medical professionals, also vowed to continue its fight for a reduction in the number of abortions in the UK. In 2006, more than 200,000 abortions took place in England and Wales and 13,081 in Scotland. Of these, 1.3 per cent in Scotland were performed after 18 weeks.

The leaders of Alive & Kicking yesterday accused parliament of being "seriously out of touch" with the public mood.

Its spokeswoman, Julia Millington, said: "Two out of three people, including three out of four women and two out of three doctors, have signalled their support for a lowering of the 24-week upper limit.

"That this refusal to lower the limit was led by the Prime Minister and his health ministers, and involved a three-line whip recalling government MPs to Westminster, shows that the government is not listening and is prepared to run roughshod over public opinion and put party politics above the health of women and their unborn children."

Despite the outcry from moral conservatives, there is little chance that parliament will have another go at the abortion debate ahead of the next election.

The SNP has called for a commission to be established to examine the scientific basis for reducing the limit.

The push to reduce the term was tacked on to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which critics argued was an inappropriate mechanism for changing the abortion law.

The full article contains 480 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 May 2008 10:05 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Abortion
 
1

,

22/05/2008 00:08:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

bring them on,

22/05/2008 06:53:53
Keep up the good work, Shug
3

,

22/05/2008 06:59:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

,

22/05/2008 07:20:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Proximaking,

Dundee 22/05/2008 07:36:34
When the abotion limit of 24 weeks came in we didn't have a pill you could pop up to 12 weeks to "get rid" but we do now. The limit should be set at 12 weeks or 16 weeks if you are really thick ie under sixteen. Also if you want an abortion you should have to pay for it yourself or approach one of the abortion charities, the pro-choice charities. Also if after having had contact with a pro-choice charity you decide to keep the child, after all that is what pro-choice is about the choice to terminate or keep, I think those pro-choice charities have an obligation to help under their charitable status and can be sued to ensure they do help raise "your choice" up until it is sixteen. The RC Church is weak on this one also, it encourages women to keep kids but won't support those kids in any way. The pro-life or pro-choice groups can't have it both ways of sticking their nose in then not supporting the resulting kids until they are sixteen. I look forward to hordes of single mothers who have already stolen their child's right to live in a happy stable home with their father heading down to the pro-choice offices demanding to be kept in the style to which they want to become accustomed or failing that down to the RC Church for the same reason, ...... at least the RC Church isn't a one issue brigade but the pro-choicers deserve to be hung out to dry by their main me, me, me "clientelle". Go and see them girls, get advice in writing, a leaflet will do, then simply sue them, after all they deserve it those interfering busybodies telling you how to kill your only chance of happiness, a kid and a relationship with a man and not a type of dry stone wall. llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
6

Bigwull,

edinburgh 22/05/2008 08:17:41
Give it up religious freaks, let people live their own lives and make their own descisions
7

sonofhamish,

edinburgh 22/05/2008 08:32:50
There is one reason Iceland is reputed to have the happiest inhabitants, they were to isolated and cold for missionaries to get their nasty little mits into.

Keep religion out of public life and we will ALL be a lot better for it.

Its worth also bearing in mind that the majority of MP's are male and can realistically have no concept of what its like to accidently get pregnant and have to deal with the results.
8

bring them on,

22/05/2008 08:37:23
Scottish people saying lower the limit.

How low can you go?
9

thinking,

22/05/2008 08:49:08
#3,6,7
What has religion got to do with it and why all the rant against Catholics? (I am not a Catholic but respect their views)
Medical science has advanced and anyone can look at pictures of unborn babies moving in the womb and have read of or know of babies born early that survived. They are living so abortion is killing.
10

Vigilant Watcher,

Bo'ness 22/05/2008 09:10:08
I don't recall Alive & Kicking asking me in any poll my opinion to be able to quote "two out of three people, including three out of four women and two out of three doctors, have signalled their support for a lowering of the 24-week upper limit".

It is this sort of misleading statements, which should be verified before publishing, which give statistics a bad name and leads to questioning of real and valuable research.

And what does 'signalled' mean?

There is, if you believe the experts, no evidence to support the basic premise of viability to support a reduction of time.

That's not to say it shouldn't be reduced but be honest enough to 'come clean' with the real reasons for the desire to reduce the limit rather than by the back door approach.

However, in a welcome, increasingly secular and enlightened understanding of our position in the universe coming out with it as a religiously moral argument may not achieve their objectives.

Argue about the value of life from an open and honest perspective and more support may be forthcoming.

On the other hand it might not.
11

Bewildered,

Glasgow 22/05/2008 09:10:30
I'm sure the members of pro-life, and other such groups, have very deeply and sincerely held views on abortion and I respect them for that. They are, however, their views and while they have the right to express them and even try to convince others to share them they should not be trying to force these views on others through the legal system. If they don't approve of abortion, at whatever stage, then they do need to have one. The same applies to other moral or religious views. If church groups need the law to enforce their beliefs it suggests that they have failed to convince the flock either by the strength of the argument or the power of the church.
12

BJGlasgow,

22/05/2008 09:11:32
No 5 said:
"if after having had contact with a pro-choice charity you decide to keep the child, after all that is what pro-choice is about the choice to terminate or keep, I think those pro-choice charities have an obligation to help under their charitable status and can be sued to ensure they do help raise "your choice" up until it is sixteen. The RC Church is weak on this one also, it encourages women to keep kids but won't support those kids in any way."
The RC does offer help to those who wish to keep their baby in the Cardinal Winning Pro-life Initiative. see www.prolifeinitiative.org
13

Dbxsteve,

Dubai 22/05/2008 09:19:13
The number of terminations that are carried out at that late stage are low and exceptional.

This is a decision that no one takes lightly and one that should be allowed to be made by the mother with the help guidance and support of trained medical profesionals without interferrence from the State or religious groups.

14

educational snob,

edinburgh 22/05/2008 09:34:14
If all the atheistic ranters on this site were to see the recent programme "Life Before Birth", they would probably change their mind, even unwillingly, as to what constitutes human life. As long as women's rights are given priority over foetal rights, this scandalous state of affairs will continue. BTW, my view is subscribed to by MANY people who are by no means religious!
15

Nippy sweetie,

22/05/2008 09:52:34
The question the Pro Life campaigners can never answer is how can you justify forcing a woman to carry, give birth to and care for a child she DOES NOT WANT.

You are condemning a child and a mother to a miserable life.
16

Green,

Dundee 22/05/2008 10:08:36
Looking at the list of how the MPs voted (another item today everyone who voted for reducing the 24 week limit was a man.

Lets be clear ANTI-ABORTIONISTS (proponents for back street abortions), complain now that this is all the fault of Labour. The reason more Conservatives (who have very few female MPs) are in favour of the back street abortionists in relative terms to Labour (who have more women MPs).

But we've just had a joint religious campaignCatholic and other religious campaign, (various Protestant and Muslim sects)to make it a Free vote, not whipped by any party and Brown agreed. It was a free vote.

This is typical of the supporters of back street abortion, nothing ever satisfies them! They are right and everyone else is wrong.

The clear solution for women is to get more women into Parliament so women are properly represented.

Nippy Sweetie you are quite right.

There's not much representation of women amongst the religious organisations, we must have proper representation in Parliament!
17

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 22/05/2008 10:16:51
#16 Your post is barely coherent.

With increasing numbers of doctors not wishing to perform abortions on moral grounds, it seems that reducing the time is a reasonable compromise. Using abortion as a method of contraception (which seems to be the stage the UK is at) was never originally intended, and is increasingly irking the medical profession.
18

Em,

22/05/2008 10:21:40
#15
In the vast majority of cases the woman has decided to place herself in a situation knowing that pregnancy may result, this is her choice and she has decided to take this risk. You use the term justify as though the woman has had no say in her situation. In my opinion if a woman is willing to take this risk then she must be equally willing to face the responsibilities that it entails.
19

Karin,

22/05/2008 10:32:08
#17
If doctors are so unwilling to perform these terminations, why do they still continue to do them? I suspect that doctors recognise that there is sometimes a good reason for late termination and are prepared to carry that out. Nobody is forcing doctors to carry out these procedures.

Let's remember that we need the consent of 2 doctors to obtain an abortion in this country. We do NOT have abortion on demand, as it is so often misleadingly presented. We certainly don't have late abortion on demand.
20

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 10:55:05
Why don't they devote their energy to something worthwhile... Like campaigning for fuel duty to be slashed or the scrapping of speed cameras or the smoking ban?
21

hertscot,

22/05/2008 10:55:07
#18,
If I have read your argument that only the woman is responsible for a pregnancy, where does the man come in (excuse the pun)? Perhaps to balance out real responsibility, men who cause unwanted pregnancies should be castrated and need 2 doctors to stop the operation, it would otherwise be forcibly carried out at the time of the womans abortion.
It' not just keeping your legs shut and your knickers on, it is also keeping your dick in your trousers, unless of course you have made sure that the appropriate prophylactic is being used.
22

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 22/05/2008 11:00:58
#15 Nippy sweetie - "The question the Pro Life campaigners can never answer is how can you justify forcing a woman to carry, give birth to and care for a child she DOES NOT WANT."

Maybe part of sex education should include the news that the whole point of sex is to produce babies as part of a happy family, instead of saying - look this is a condom, if you want some, go to the school nurse and if that doesn't work or you forget to use it, just go and have an abortion - and shh, we won't tell your parents.

Oh, and if you fancy having a lesbian affair AND a child by IVF, there's now no need for a father to be considered at the clinic (apart from his DNA).

And atheists think Christians are whacky!

My new article, "Children no longer entitled to a father, but two lesbian mothers is just fine" is here:

www.thelabourparty.org

23

thinking,

Scotland 22/05/2008 11:04:30
#15, 18, 21
I agree with 18.
21 I understand where you are coming from but the man doesn't carry the child.
15 I wouldn't have a daughter if her mother had had an abortion.
Adoption is the area the abortion groups do not talk about.
24

Em,

22/05/2008 11:10:24
#21

I did not say that only the woman is responsible for pregnancy, I did say that in the vast majority of cases the woman has a choice weather or not to put herself in the situation where she has the potential to become pregnant.
25

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 22/05/2008 11:19:39
#19 wrote:
"If doctors are so unwilling to perform these terminations, why do they still continue to do them?"

I didn't say all doctors, but increasing numbers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/abortion-crisis-as-doctors-refuse-to-perform-surgery-444909.html
"Britain is facing an abortion crisis because an unprecedented number of doctors are refusing to be involved in carrying out the procedure. The exodus of doctors prepared to perform the task is a nationwide phenomenon that threatens to plunge the abortion service into chaos, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has warned."

If memory serves me right two thirds of doctors want the 24 weeks reduced.

26

Nippy sweetie,

22/05/2008 11:20:29
#22
the whole point of sex is to produce babies as part of a happy family

Dear UK,

Please all stop having sex unless you are trying to get pregnant...

Hardly realistic.

Regarding women's responsibility, of course they are responsible for their own bodies.

However what about rape, incest, contraception failures, ignorance about sex that leads to children not knowing they are pregnant. You cannot force woman in these circumstances to carry children to term, it is inhuman to do so.
27

Nippy sweetie,

22/05/2008 11:39:46
#23

Can you really say that forcing a woman to suffer an unwanted pregnancy to furnish a childless couple with a baby is a good enough reason to ban abortion.

I don't think so.
28

Em,

22/05/2008 11:45:51
#26
the cases you highlight are a minority and don't represent the large number of abortions carried out every year.

#27
There is the saying- When life hands you lemons make lemmonade.
It seems a better idea to have the child adopted rather than killed when you think about the childless couples who cannot conceive yet yearn for the opportunity to be parents.
29

Alan Reid,

NZ 22/05/2008 11:49:39
The problems in the world is all down to humans. Therefore less humans, less problems, it's not nice but less humans on the planet is really the only solution, sorry.
30

Em,

22/05/2008 11:56:43
#29
Regardless of how many humans there are problems will still exist, demanding a reduction in population solves nothing.
31

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 22/05/2008 12:25:24
Of course the religious nutters won't give up their anti-abortion claim; they are the most persistent opponents of freedom in history.

But luckily more enlightened secular folk remain in charge to stop religion taking us back to the dark ages.
32

Stewart C.,

Stranraer 22/05/2008 12:31:47
Oh dear #29 Alan Reid, you have fallen under the spell of the eugenicists. Humanity is scum and must be culled, eh? Starting by making the womb the most dangerous place on earth to live.

#31, Mikko, THESE are the Dark Ages, waken up! Brought on by people who think like Mr Reid.
33

CS,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 12:45:26
Emotive subject, emotive comments. When discussing such subjects it is best to stick to facts and leave religion, politics and gender out of it. Facts - world is suffering from over population (by humans), those born around the 24 week abortion limit have a much higher chance of suffering from a myriad of physical and mental disorders because of being born so early and not to put to fine a point on it a high percentage of people born around this time will be a drain on societies resources for the whole of their lives without ever putting anything back into it. Un PC, yes but fact none the less and be very clear on this, I said a high percentage, not all and mean no disrespect to anyone. In this pc world we have seen so many press articles about those born at 22,23,24 weeks who are fine but strangely enough there are no accompanying articles and pictures of badly disabled people who are so because of their premature birth and very few medical statistics to back up a pro life stance. Life is a lottery but make no mistake being born so prematurely loads the dice heavily in regards to life outcomes and not in a favourable way. Personally I would vote for a lowering of the abortion limit and against allowing single women being given the right to create children without a father but would not expect everyone else to agree with me and be mature enough to accept the majority outcome.
34

wee_one,

22/05/2008 12:47:25
#20

I hope you are joking when you say that fuel tax, smoking bans etc are more important than the issue of abortion, i.e. potential life or death.

#23, #27
I posted something similar yesterday about the issue of adoption. I would never suggest banning abortion, but think adoption needs to be discussed more as a serious alternative, especially as infertility rates rise. It just seems such a sad situation to have so many childless couples longing for a baby and spending thousands on IVF treatment, while others are aborting pregnancies (sometimes causing them lifetime of regret and guilt) because they feel they can't cope with bringing up a child. Perhaps if some women considering abortions could meet and get to know the prospective adoptive parents, and be satisfied that their baby would be brought up by loving parents, they might choose that option?
35

SHELDON THE CRACK DEALER,

22/05/2008 12:48:52
Yeah MIKKO - religion the most persistent enemey of freedom in history - that's right - it wouldn't be those atheists communists would it? Thank God I've escaped the bonds of the church of england.

It's absolutely disgusting that people don't even question the killing of a borderline viable foetus that in other circumstances would be in an ICU, and that we're not even allowed to have a debate about it without the usual nutcases levelling their usual insults about religious beliefs and steamrollering a symnpathetic lefty government with their views, which, by the way, almost certainly do not represent the views of the electorate, christian, muslim, jew, atheist or pagan!

"Wanted baby's and willing moms" one person said. Why not euthansase ALL unwanted children then, seeing as you're all so convinced we're nothing but a bunch of chemicals, why not? Answer me that with something more convincing than "because, er, we don't want to", and I'll have some more respect for your viewpoint. Then tell me why we shouldn't allow mothers to euthanase a baby born at 24 weeks post LMP. Answer me that! If a mother is allowed to make the choice to kill her baby in the womb at that age, then why the hell not in the ICU?

You cannot just do what you want in life - there are consequences, we are a society, there is right and wrong. If you're an unwilling mom and a baby is unwanted THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT. If you do get pregnant, why do you need 6 months to decide if you want the baby, why not 3?

Let's not forget also, despite MIKKO and other jokers' assertions that dropping the limit would deliver thousands of unwanted children into the hands of paedo rings, that about 1.5% of mothers actually have a late stage abortion!!!!

The whole thing is a disgrace and we've been steamrollered by the kind of lefty nutjob out in force on this forum.
36

Em,

22/05/2008 13:14:25
Mikko

again with the tactics of painting the issue of abortion to be a dispute between the religous and non religous.

#33 CS
You said-
"those born around the 24 week abortion limit have a much higher chance of suffering from a myriad of physical and mental disorders because of being born so early and not to put to fine a point on it a high percentage of people born around this time will be a drain on societies resources..."

If my understanding of what you are saying is correct then your argument is illogical. To remove the option of abortion at 24 weeks does not mean that the baby who would have been aborted at this time will automatically be born premature unless another factor is involved these babies would be born at full term like any other and the percentage of premature births would certainly not increase.
37

Luke Skywalker,

22/05/2008 13:19:46
I agree with 31. Let's bring female priests into the discussion. Oh dear I forgot - women being inferior are banned by the Church from that position. Well what about Muslim women? Oh their church does not allow inferior beings the right of self thinking either. Abortion is a tragedy that only women can understand. We males cannot empathise in any way with the agony a woman must go through to make her decision, therefore priests, rabbis, imans or whatever cannot contribute to this discussion.
38

Calvinist,

22/05/2008 13:19:56
Why should we tolerate and respect a religious point of view more than any other type of opinion? It seems that religious people automatically expect respect simply because they hold a religious viewpoint. Apparently we are not able to criticise their views and beliefs because this constitutes some form of prejudice and yet they are more than happy to try and impose their principles upon the rest of us and freely criticise those of us who do not accept such principles. If you want to follow a religion, fine, if you want to believe in what is irrational, fine, but please keep it to yourselves and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
39

Calvinist,

22/05/2008 13:40:26
#35

If you can define 'right' and 'wrong' then you are the greatest moral philosopher that ever lived.
40

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 22/05/2008 13:41:40
#35 Religion is guilty of the most heinous crimes throughout the longest period of human history. It seems that some flaw in humanity causes many people to follow any old mocked-up fairytale and then kill anybody who happens to disagree with them

And yes, have no doubt: this anti-abortion nonsense is dominated by religious types. Sure there might be one or two atheists knocking about as well but, just as we saw in the Commons debate, it's the religious bigoted minority that seek to dominate the argument - even pulling out photos of poor little blobs in the womb (against Commons rules and correctly ruled out of order by the speaker).

Follow any fairytale you want but keep your fairytales to yourselves and any fellow idiots that follow them Leave the rest of us alone to follow life as we, the enlightened and non-medieval majority, see fit.
41

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 13:43:31
#34:

"I hope you are joking when you say that fuel tax, smoking bans etc are more important than the issue of abortion, i.e. potential life or death."

Of course I am not joking.

It really could not matter less to me whether someone I do not know and never will know has an abortion or not, or when they have it. It is a matter for them, or at best, them and their partner. No-one else should presume to be involved.

On the other hand, criminally high fuel duty is crippling this country. Speed cameras are costing hundreds, if not thousands of lives a year and the smoking ban is an un-neccessary oppression and infringement of rights.

It is about time people devoted their energy to addressing the issues that really matter rather than pretending they are living in some kind of tragic/romantic novel and seeking to involve themselves in someone else's private affairs.
42

jamurai,

22/05/2008 13:46:34
Mikko, people like you are as enlightened as the dark side of the moon.
43

Em,

22/05/2008 13:50:07
It's funny how those who are pro abortion leave the issue entirely to rant about religion instead
44

wee_one,

22/05/2008 13:50:44
#40
I am not religious in the slightest but still feel uncomfortable with late abortions - although I accept that they should still be available in exceptional circumstances. I also feel that abortions are too readily available, so much so that some (incredibly stupid)people are not even bothering to use contraception. As I posted yesterday, I have first-hand experience of this which has somewhat influenced my opinion on the subject of abortion. Of course the majority of abortions are the result of failed contraception, but some are the result of no contraception at all - which absolutely must be tackled (although don't ask me how).
45

wee_one,

22/05/2008 13:57:20
#41

You are of course correct that abortion is a matter for the parents involved, and I do believe it is their right to choose, but I find your claim that speed cameras and the smoking ban are somehow more important than the life or death of potential human beings slightly offensive.

As for the smoking ban being an "infringement of rights" - don't even get me started!
46

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 13:57:35
The reason religion and abortion are so closely entwined is quite simple. The god botherers creed depends on the notion that we humans are special, created in HIS image by the big G. Turns out we are animals like the rest of creation (sic). Bummer.

In nature reproduction is imperfect, some species easily produce squillions of soma (offspring) most of which are eaten, squished, or otherwise annihilated by an indifferent environment. Other species (ours is one)put so much resource into live born, protection-requiring progeny that their loss is catstrophic (for survival of our DNA) and we mourn their loss and try again.

Left to its own devices, human neonatal infant mortality would be around 25% and perinatal maternal mortality somewhat less. Good enough for nature and the third world but not for modern human society.

It is hard to sustain the delusion of a benign omnipotent God who is happy with such sloppy design and who far from breathing life into Adam, can only be included rationally where science has not gone yet. Like before 10** -26 seconds after the big bang.

Just how special are we if inflation, galaxy formation, marginal ripples in space time, star birth and recycling, accretion of dust round a mediocre star, and a billion years later a twitch in the slime began a selection process that produced the Bay City Rollers?

Too much huh? OK; so much cruelty requires original sin, from which we are to be redeemed by acceptance of a constantly evolving fairy tale involving a white guy in the middle east who annoyed the prevailing god botherers and got nailed to a dod of wood for his trouble.

Religion tells it's flock that they as individuals have a special meaning in the universe. How such arrogance be found among the ignorant is beyond me, but if it were so then when did I begin? Was it that third voddy ma maw hud? No! It's the embryo stoopid!

With the tyranny of the discontinuous mind religion requires imbuing the blob of gristle with a soul at
47

jamurai,

22/05/2008 13:58:56
I've not seen anyone here ranting on about their fairytales Mikko. It's in your head.
48

jamurai,

22/05/2008 14:00:36
Incidentally, what are your views on capital punishment?
49

BrianHill,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 14:18:04
Adoption NOT Abortion should be their slogan.

You know it makes sense.
50

wee_one,

22/05/2008 14:23:24
#49

I totally agree that the option of adoption needs to be discussed more. Except nobody seems to want to do that, they just want to argue about religion and presume that anyone who doesn't agree with abortion 100 per cent is a religious nutter.
51

JFaeLeith,

22/05/2008 14:32:49
Adoption isn't a sane "alternative" to abortion. Adoption is a solution for children to find new parents if their own can't or are unfit to care for them.

Pro-lifers who want women to have babies for the purpose of abandoning them to strangers are proposing something that hasn't been tried since, oh, 1865 or something like that: "While the 1808 ban did not entirely prevent the importation of slaves, it and subsequent action by the Royal Navy to end the African slave trade did reduce the importation. This created a shortage of slaves just as demand was increasing because of the expanding cultivation of cotton. There were other crops (indigo, rice, sugar cane, and tobacco) for which slave labor was used, but cotton was by far the most important. As a result, a new aspect of slsvery in America developed--the breeding slaves. This was not unknown in the 18th century, but the difficulty of importing slaves greatly expanding breeding activities. There was a simple financial calculation here. As the supply of slaves fell and demand for slaves increased, the price for slaves increased. This mean that breeding slaves became an increasingly profitable undertaking. Virginia became the single most important state involved with breeding slaves. Valuable information can be found in the advertisements published in Southern newspapers. An advertisment from a Charleston, South Carolina newspaper in 1796 read, "... they are not Negroes selected out of a larger gang for the purpose of a sale, but are prime, their present Owner, with great trouble and expense, selected them out of many for several years past. They were purchased for stock and breeding Negroes, and for any Planter who particularly wanted them for that purpose, they are a very choice and desirable gang."
http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/us/sla-dst.html

If a woman doesn't want to/can't care for a baby she shouldn't have a baby: it's thoroughly irresponsible to try to talk her into bearing a child for the purpose o
52

wee_one,

22/05/2008 14:58:22
#51

I certainly wasn't suggesting trying to coerce women into having babies for adoption if that's not what they want. Some women who have abortions are extremely upset by the experience and end up being haunted by feelings of guilt. They may only go through with an abortion because they see no alternative. All I would suggest is more discussion about adoption, and the opportunity for women considering abortion to meet prospective adoptive parents for their child - if they WANT to.

If I had an unwanted pregnancy and couldn't face an abortion, but felt I couldn't bring the baby up myself, I know I would feel a lot better about making the decision to have the baby if I knew for certain it would be cared for by a loving family.
53

SHELDON THE CRACK DEALER,

22/05/2008 15:17:50
Hey MIKKO, I think you'll find a combo of the (very militantly) atheist Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a couple of others killed and oppressed many millions more than all sectarian conflicts combined.

but of course, if you're as fundamental an atheist as MIKKO then you don't actually need to believe in god to follow a religion, which is why he and others like him apparently see no paradox in criticising theism by citing religious intolerance, at the same time as labelling overtly atheist belief systems which happened to be intolerant as religions. Talk about having your cake and eating it!

What do you believe man? Evidently nothing.

If you (and your non-god bothering chums) REALLY do, as you constantly like to assert, believe "nothing", then may i suggest you are less of a human being than a 13 week old foetus?

By the way - good and bad - how about the 10 commandments? It's been a fairly good template for our ideas.
54

SHELDON THE CRACK DEALER,

22/05/2008 15:25:52
Voltaire's Janny, the trouble with you is that you talk about the universe in very absolute and human terms.

Talking about size and randomness etc, without aknowledging that size is totally relative.

It's a common flaw amongst the scientific faithful, and i have realised through many debates with colleagues that some people are simply incapable of perceiving the possibility of anything beyond their own experience.

Anyway, you have a rather bleak and narrow philosophy about life, the msitake comes when you start to thnk anyone who has different perception of existence from you must be stupid.

Please don't make that mistake!!
55

Calum Crubag,

22/05/2008 16:11:14
#53 - but Stalin et al didn't kill in the name of atheism.

Hitler was a good Catholic btw.

Why don't the 'pro' life nutters protest against the arms trade? Are they also anti-m.asturbation?
56

Calum Crubag,

22/05/2008 16:13:03
Sheldon - do you beleive in Zeus, Thor or 'the little people'? Not a non-beleiver are we? Why not make up lots of pretendy creatures and beings?

You NUTTERS.
57

W Smith,

Middle East 22/05/2008 16:15:26
For those of you believe in and encourage abortion take note.

If your mother had chosen to abort you the rest of us wouldn't have to put up with your dumbass arguements.

Please give your mum a slap, on my behalf, for not 'terminating' you.

;)

BTW
In looney left Scotland being made redundant is worse than killing the unborn child.

Although the employer who 'terminates' your contract is motivated by the exact same self-interest as the pregnant mother who feels the child in her womb is an 'inconvenience'.

So the Scottish 'caring' Left/liberals tolerate self-interest after all.

Funny that.
58

thinking,

22/05/2008 16:21:54
#27, 51
No-one is advocating women becoming pregnant to provide babies for adoption but if they have already created a life by becoming pregnant I am saying that they should be told how adoption is a viable option. That way they do not have the guilt of killing their unborn child which action, mentally and emotionally scars many of them for life. Most of the family planning clinics do not discuss this properly and many have abortions because they see no alternative.
59

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 16:22:48
#45:

Speed cameras and their associated propaganda are responsible for the deaths of REAL, LIVING human beings.

Surely they take priority over "potential" human beings--who, let's face it, may not even be wanted and the presence of whom may actually ruin someone's life.

I can see the argument for a time limit on abortions from a purely medical standpoint, however, that limit is correct and need not be changed.

All these "pro-life" people are living in some romantic dream world which has no connection with real life. Is it not more logical to allow the abortion of an unwanted baby, rather than force the mother to give birth, and risk having that kid grow up un-loved, potentially neglected or possibly even worse?

Yet again, the blinkered opinions of a few fanatics have been allowed to make inroads into the mainstream and affect the business of parliament. I realise that this is a huge issue and there are many more factors to it than just the medical chances of a premature baby making it---which is what the pro-life people are putting forward as their sole argument.

I can accept that those people would never choose to have an abortion---fine. That is their choice which they are entitled to make. However the circumstances of others are often vastly different and they should continue to be allowed to make up their own minds within the existing framework of law.

Why is it nowadays that everyone has to adopt the thinking of the so-called "enlightened" few?
60

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 16:27:02
Shelly the crack-pot.

Sorry my last post got truncated and tiresome work intervened. Back to my evangelism for enlightened rationality.....

Atheism is not a belief nor is the meally-mouthed agnosticism. These are just the Latin and Greek words meaning No God -ism

This may be tied into ones's personal view of the Universe but what it really means is people who reject the introduction of superstition, appeal to higher authority/ancient tome/voices as argument in a debate about ANYTHING never mind how I should conduct my life and society.

No matter what your religion you are an atheist for all the other gods, save your own and you are absolutely secure in this delusion. That is why rational people have to watch what you are about. We don't want to wake up and find your lobbying has altered our freedoms because your god has a penis and nowhere to put it.

Against abortion? Don't have one!
Against sex other than for procreation? Don't do it!
Against homosexuals? Keep your bum as an exit!
Tell me what to do, or think? Go fcuk yourself!

Aginst that too? Well just pray afterwards, your sin disappears with a single flush.
61

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 16:38:29
I watched 15 minutes of the Islam channel with subtitles last night. An awful lot of stuff about giving God what is his etc but a degree of chat about Qibla (I think) meaning direction in prayer and used to refer to the "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews. Very obscurely this appeared to amount to we are right, they are right too (though not As right) and it's more important to support your team (Islam) and for them to support theirs. Our Direction is Man U, but theirs is Chelsea or Spurs. Atheists are Derby and apostates are Gretna (aplogies to thae fer whom fitba is a religion)

Apostates and atheists are the bad guys but there was no mention of extreme violence to be done to us in this world, mostly how when we are roasting in hellfire it will not do to appeal to merciful wotsit (praise be etc) because he will be "stern".

Yeah yeah. Keep that mince to yourselves, wear a silly beard, dodgy hat, eat a cracker; call it flesh. Drink some wine and call it blood. Have yourself nailedup for easter if you must or crush each other in the Haj melee if you must. But bring that keich my way and we'll see about that.

Well done Westminster. Sanity obtains at last....

62

jamurai,

22/05/2008 16:42:19
#59-"However the circumstances of others are often vastly different and they should continue to be allowed to make up their own minds within the existing framework of law."

and should not "pro-life" activists (fanatics if you prefer) be allowed to challenge the law they believe is unsound and lobby for its alteration, within the "framework of the law" as their democratic right?

Yes of course they should. Well, democracy at work, they lost this time- but at least we live in a society where people of differing views are allowed to assert them. Maybe others on this thread should remember that we live in a tolerant society.
63

jamurai,

22/05/2008 16:48:40
no 61. It would appear you consider yourself pretty omnipotent . Good luck to you. By the way, nobody is telling what to think- it does however seem that you take extreme pleasure in telling others what they should think. Hmmm. An atheist with a god complex. lol
64

SHELDON THE CRACK DEALER,

22/05/2008 17:00:04
No Voltaire's Janny - I believe our understanding of God evolves as we progress.
Zeus, Thor or whatever were just contextualised expressions for the same thing - God. it's not possible to understand God completely as a human being, hence differences in religious dogma, although all religions from tribal to catholicism have thigns in common.

Frankly, the idea that there CANNOT be a God is far more ridiculous than the idea that there MIGHT be one.

And by the way, if a public figure is a deep believing christian (or Jew, or Pagan for that matter), then wny the hell should (s)he keep that private to placate a few misanthropic secularist ogres who can't tolerate diverse opinions?

We have a growing ogre in our midst - the next substantial challenge to personal freedom and freedom of conscience will come from the arch secularists.

Hell, these people can't even debate the rights and wrongs of killing babies without levelling insults about personal beliefs, God help us!!! ;-)
65

jamurai,

22/05/2008 17:01:53
Tio get back to the point that is really bieing missed. Do we really need 6 months to decide wehther or not to have an abortion? Of course not. Okay so some say the pro-lifers will keep trying to whittle the term down further and further. Well that is their right. Some pro-"choice" would like to lengthen the limit. If they so wish get out and start lobbying for it. Are you not the enlightened sane one's who live in the modern ages? The debate is really where we draw a final line in the sand but nobody will really ever be happy.Personal abuse certainly helps no-one, but a little more understanding of each other's position will.
66

SHELDON THE CRACK DEALER,

22/05/2008 17:02:41
Hey Voltaire, BTW - this is just waht i believe, I don't know.

You, on the other hand, seem pretty secure in your beliefs, or non-beliefs if you don't want to engage in the normal round of semantic querulousness which trademarks the rogue with a weak argument....
67

jamurai,

22/05/2008 17:05:02
Question for Voltaire the Wise. Where did the primordial soup come from?
68

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 17:08:27
63 Jamiroquai

I am not telling you or anyone what to think. When your freedoms and mine don't clash your head is your temple.

You are also free to construct your own morality and live by it. You are not free to construct mine nor tell me I am immoral by yours.

If you take a view on a secular matter and objective debate creates a consensus that becomes law, you are free to contribute and take a side. You are even free to do so motivated by your superstitions or your book.

You are not free to introduce these as elements of the debate. I can reject them and expect my representatives to reject them for they have no place in objective debate.

They have done so. And I am pleased.
69

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 17:09:10
67

Campbells of course
70

Warden An' All, Reborn,

22/05/2008 17:12:38
How could anyone trust an anti-abortion group who would fight to have a reduction instead of fighting to have a ban on principle?
71

Calvinist,

22/05/2008 17:17:32
#53

The 10 commandments? Is that meant to be a joke? The first five have no relevance to anyone who does not accept the existence of the Abrahamic God. The second five have never been adhered to at any point in the history of mankind not even by the church itself. Read your Bible: Jesus Christ himself rejected them. The problem with morality is that it comes in shades of grey, not black and white.
72

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 17:19:30
66 beliefs in a god botherer are immutable.

However pompous my impressive vocabulary makes me sound or however settled and convinced I seem in my world view, I am prepared at the slightest (confirmed) appearance of evidence to throw it out and encompass the new. They are not beliefs, they are positions or working models. I know Newton was wrong, but no-one uses Einstein/Besso maths to compute an orbit. No need.

Science does not know everything but it rejects or places in a bucket called "not known or confirmed yet" everything that contradicts the present model, knowing that the resolution of items in the bucket can and regularly does change the whole picture.

Religious people prefer the comfort of God to the bucket and the certainty of received wisdom to the fragility of having to think and be wrong.

In 2009 or so CERN will or will not find a Higgs particle (aka God particle by the way). A retired Edinburgh professor will get a Nobel prize or be consigned to history. He will celebrate either way for that is the difference between belief and intellect.
73

Warden An' All, Reborn,

22/05/2008 17:26:22
66/SHELDON THE CRACK DEALER- The strength of an arguement is in the proof wouldn't you say, and yet at best we still call religions faiths as they don't measure up tp this high ideal.
74

jamurai,

22/05/2008 17:26:31
VJ, "You are also free to construct your own morality and live by it. You are not free to construct mine nor tell me I am immoral by yours." Yes indeed I am. I have never tried to construct your morality or tell you you are immoral.

"If you take a view on a secular matter and objective debate creates a consensus that becomes law, you are free to contribute and take a side."
Wow. Very generous of you.

"You are not free to introduce these as elements of the debate"....and why on earth not?

And as for morality, what parameters of your atheism define yours?
Why is murder a crime? Rape? Child abuse? Smoking weed? Tax evasion? What mechanisms brought them to the statute books? I would be interested in the jurisprudential workings of an atheist with a God complex's mind.
I will bring any elements of my morality to the debate that I d.well please and when they are rejected at least I will have the courage of my conviction.

75

jamurai,

22/05/2008 17:34:44
and I repeat a simple scientific question, for that scientific mind you seem so proud of. Where did the primordial soup come from?
When you answer that question and prove there is no God I will accept your right to bully and ridicule anyone who has any religiious beliefs.Until then keep stoosh with your self-conceived intellectual snobbery bshit. And no, your vocabulary does not impress-it just clouds yoiur drivel.
76

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 22/05/2008 17:36:12
#53 Sheldon the crack dealer says:

"By the way - good and bad - how about the 10 commandments? It's been a fairly good template for our ideas. "

Really? You think so? Then why not stick to them? As one religious book puts it "Leviticus 19:11, "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."

In that case why do the religious types break that rule all the time by lying year on year by trying to chip away at the time limit on abortion rather than being honest and going for what they really want: ie. zero abortion?

Hypocrites and liars the lot of them. If religious folk believe in their "good books" then they should follow them and be honest and go for broke. But they won’t because they know that they can never win the argument so they will just keep on breaking their “devout” rules and lying to the rest of us.

Watch it religious folk, if your god exists he doesn't like liars. They are mortal sinners too.
77

jamurai,

22/05/2008 17:46:16
Whoah, Mikko th Sikko's back
"In that case why do the religious types break that rule all the time by lying year on year by trying to chip away at the time limit on abortion rather than being honest and going for what they really want: ie. zero abortion?"
What a complete load of utter claptrap, the whole post. It just confirms to me what a twit you really are. Enlightened. There is more enlightenment at the bottom of that loch next to you. Do us all a favour and go and have a nice pint with the nice chaps at the Ben Leda Hotel. If you're old enough. I've had enough. Night chaps.
78

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 17:50:59
Ignoring 74 as incoherent or disingenuous...

#75
Science does not yet state what event sparked life nor have an estimate for its probability which could be either inevitable or fantastically unlikely. For the moment it matters not. Given that event, evolution alone by differential survival (non random survival)and random variation is a theory capabale of describing the rest with no credible or even rational alternatives.

You might dispute this, but I will know to file you under loony and move on.

If you are serious about rational debate you might find, and science cannot contradict, the divine hand of a creator somehwere in the sludge. Maybe. But this requires a more ridiculous and more incredible postulate than life's spontaneous spark in clays or organic ponds. You have to appeal to the supernatural.

And besides, this isn't what your book(s) say christian, muslim or jew... the bible, quran and talmud say something quite other and specifc and which you may believe or not in degrees and with differences you kill each other over.

So which individual interpreter of His word do you want to be allowed, unchallenged, to give evidence in a rational debate and why should the Pope, Muhammed or Jesus be introduced when among your deluded associates some nutter just as righteously or zealously claims the truth?

On your style comments it is thee not me oh faithful one who, not only mistakes my self mockery for pride, but resorts to abuse. Tut.
79

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 22/05/2008 17:51:16
#77 jamurai,

Oh you make winning the argument to easy for us. The last resort of the selfish little boy in the playground is to do what you have just done and say "it's my football so if I can't win the game then I'm taking my ball and going home". Bless.
80

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 17:56:52
He's baggahed awf. Spare your breath. Rationality won the day, or at least posessed the field.
81

Green,

Dundee 22/05/2008 17:58:29
17

17

‘With increasing numbers of doctors not wishing to perform abortions on moral grounds, it seems that reducing the time is a reasonable compromise.’

Would be nice to see some statistics here no 17? We’ve already seen the falsification of the stats about survival rates.

And also is there not some obligation to show the logic behind saying, if more doctors don't want to do it, then fewer should be done?

If fewer doctors want to help the elderly (geriatric medicine) does that mean we give less medical treatment to old people.?

One of these anti- legal abortion doctors was n Radio 4 a while ago. The point was made if you don't want to be involved with your patient's who want to have abortions, (or consider abortions) and you pass them onto someone else, do you get less money.? Point being doctors (GPs) receive a per capita fee for everyone on their list to provide all GP services.

Answer no, they still get the money.... but someone else in the NHS system has to do their work! So the GPs who refuse to do the work get paid for it, but don't do it.. Being paid for abortion work? Somehow that's not troubling their consciences, that’s OK!
82

voltaire's janny,

22/05/2008 18:03:07
One last jibe for it's goin home time for me too.

Science does not have to (and cannot) prove there is no God. If he drops in and explains why he needs so much worship I suppose I'll have to mend my ways.

However rational debate needs him not other than as a metaphor for the universe or the unknown.

I'm with Laplace on this one.....

"nous n'avons besoin de cette hypothese".