133 2 mins 13 yrs

Wonder what you make of the news that the number of women having an abortion in England and Wales exceeded 200,000 for the first time last year. There has been an increased figure almost every year since the legalisation of abortion in 1967 – and the indications are this year’s figure will be even higher.

‘Pro-life’: Tory MP Nadine Dorries has hit out at abortions which she believes are ‘becoming a form of contraception’ Britain’s termination rate is already the highest in Western Europe, and if trends continue it will bypass the U.S. within a decade as the place where the greatest proportion of births are terminated. The shocking figures came just months after MPs rejected moves to restrict abortion to under 20 weeks only, in a bid to call a halt to the year-on-year rises. The limit for social abortions stayed at 24 weeks.

So, the UK is firmly on course to lead the world when it comes to abortions. With politicians and other “experts” determined to push sex education into the kindergarten, we can be surely confident that nonecan claim our crown on this. Proud to be British? 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

133 thoughts on “ABORTION CENTRAL…

  1. Another fine piece of journalism from the Mail. A very balanced piece full of quotes from the ‘pro-life’ without even a murmur from anyone pro-choice.

    The Mail is basically publishing Dorries press releases.

    Pro-li(f)e progaganda from start to finish.

  2. Frank, most newspapers will only run their own line on these things. The majority of time, papers like the Guardian and the Independent will only run Pro-Abortion views. Do you decry them as only being propoganda?

  3. FOD: "Pro-li(f)e progaganda from start to finish"

    Yep that vicious propaganda has convinced me, I am going joing Frank and his chums in the ‘Pro Death’ camp.

    The sooner we kill all these alien parasites and malignant homunculi, that inexplably seem to infest roughly half the human population, the better off we will all be.

    Runour has it, it costs nearly £50,000 to rear one of these critters.

    Who in their right mind would?

  4. APL,

    "Yep that vicious propaganda has convinced me"

    Don’t be so modest.

    I’m sure it took far more vicious ‘pro-life’ propaganda than that to convince you that people who are pro-choice are ‘pro-death’.

  5. The numbers are an inevitable result of the legislation and changing social attitudes. Any social taboo there was against abortion is diminishing. You’re simply left with the legislation, and you can guarantee that, short of a moral or religious revival in the nation, if the legislation stays as it is the abortion numbers will keep increasing. And of course the abortions via the morning-after pill is an extra item presumably not dealt with in these figures.

    So if the abortion rate is to come down, the only way is through changing the law through the reduction of the time limit. And that has to be fairly drastic if the numbers are to come down significantly.

    The other alternative is to outlaw abortion altogether.

    There is no real sense that the country is particularly bothered about any of this so I guess it will just carry on. For what it’s worth I think abortion is a vile practice, and only exists because it hides its true nature through ensuring people talk in terms of pro-choice/pro-life etc. It would be interesting to find out how many pro-abortionists have seen or dwelt on pictures of aborted babies, the true nature of which you can’t hide with words.

  6. >>the UK is firmly on course to lead the world when it comes to abortions. With politicians and other "experts" determined to push sex education into the kindergarten,yy

    If the UK is top of the world when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, it should really now be looking around to see what it’s doing wrong and what the others are doing right – and restricting sex education is obviously not part of it.

  7. Terry,

    "There is no real sense that the country is particularly bothered about any of this so I guess it will just carry on." I think that is key point – this issue seems to meet with indifference from our elite.

  8. FOD: "that people who are pro-choice are ‘pro-death’."

    Frank, Logically we are?

    It is because we are happy to bamboozle ourselves that we can embrace such a logical fallicy: to choose to kill something is not pro death, but pro choice. I find that since I have repeated it to myself enough times it has become self evident.

    To deny that a living thing is alive in order to kill it is not pro death it’s pro choice.

    And of course the best of the lot, pro choice doesn’t mean the choice of the creature that has the greatest interest in the decision, that creature doesn’t have a choice because it is, … well clearly it is not alive. So that’s OK!

    Once you have swollowed an intellectual elephant, a knat is easy.

  9. David, it may not just be with the elite. Is there any pro-life movement in the UK as there is in the US. Does anyone give a tinker’s damn?

  10. Charles

    No there isn’t and not to my knowledge anywhere in Europe either. It just isn’t a significant political topic in the public mind. The significant majority concensus is that abortion is simply a matter for the pregnant woman to decide on.

  11. The rise in abortions correlates with a rise in fertility that is a buck in the trend of the last ten years.

    A rise in fertility correlates to a rise in abortions since it results in both wanted and unwanted pregnancy.

    The ethnic groups vary in abortion stats rising or falling. It should not be a surprise to any here that the rise in some groups is higher and correlates to immigration – whilst it actually remains static and falling elsewhere.

    At the same time there has been a rise in GPs reporting botched illegal procedures requiring emergency treatments amongst illegal immigrants too ignorant or wary to seek medical treatment.

    One in 4 women don’t use any contraception, numerous valid reasons stated but interesting nonetheless. Boys were not even polled.

    But don’t let that stand in the way of yet another blase ATW attempt to posit an oft repeated pointless topic with zero actual interest in reducing unwanted pregnancies at all.

    This is merely another lazy attempt to demonise one particular racial group: white twenty something women. And platform that vapid bitch Nadine Dorries’ ignorant and lazy views.

    If you want abortion to be illegal please come out and state it APL clearly and succinctly. And you David. Then we can point the finger of blame at you for the little it achieves and the fecklessness of your own ‘arguments’.

    Otherwise give it a rest.

  12. Otherwise not.

    Even those supporting abortion I think would want it to be rarer than it is.

  13. APL,

    "It is because we are happy to bamboozle ourselves that we can embrace such a logical fallicy: to choose to kill something is not pro death, but pro choice. I find that since I have repeated it to myself enough times it has become self evident."

    That you are happy to bamboozle yourself is clear.

    I could point out to you that to be pro-choice is support the legality of abortion, and not to choose to kill anything. I could point out that I also favor the legality of birth, which by ‘pro-life’ logic must make me pro-birth and indeed pro-life.

    But really the most suitable response to what you just wrote is this.

  14. Charles,

    "Even those supporting abortion I think would want it to be rarer than it is."

    There are three ways that are proven reduce the incidence of abortion:
    1) ensure that a critical mass of people has access to effective contraception and knows how to use it
    2) pay people to give birth
    3) put in place a police state, where the government has an unhealthy interest in the date of a woman’s last menstruation (e.g. Romania).

    The pro-life seem interested in 3 alone and generally oppose the other 2.

  15. Paul

    What are you on about with your stuff about the racial demonisation of white 20 something women ?

  16. Frank, I agree that the pro-life movement needs to work in offering real alternatives to women.

  17. Pete,

    "You forgot number 4 – keep your legs closed, darling."

    I was listing methods that have been proven to work. Telling people not to have sex has never worked.

  18. Great stuff APL

    Here is a picture to add to your collection

    http://www.exit.com/Archives/gerri.jpg

    Gerri Santoro. She died in 1964, when she was 28. She was a mother of two and bled to death from a botched self abortion attempt. The so-called "right-to-life" people want more Gerri Santoros. And they have had them since too, right up until recently.

    A splendid example of what you are proposing. Right? That is what you are proposing, correct David Vance???

    Can pro life give me a list of realistic things they would do to prevent abortions, reduce them or offer women viable alternatives? It is beyond boring and endlessly ridiculous to hear them offer up no alternatives on a near consistent basis.

    Having sought such information myself I can assure everyone there is NONE. They offer up nothing practical at all. This post is just another example of that.

  19. Jenny –

    I can’t imagine anyone not willing to debate the matter with so open-minded a person as you.

  20. Thank you DC

    Charles answer is evidence of the ignorance encountered by people who have no answers for the desperate. Even presented with obvious desperation he has no answer except a pathetic one. That is why they will continue to fail.

  21. Likewise from Pete Moore.

    You see? They have no alternatives. I wasn’t asking for a debate. I asked for solutions and alternatives. Pretty straight forward one would think for a group who have spent so long opposing it.

    They have none.

    Are you proposing making it illegal? Another straight forward question. In which case you have to deal with your consequences and ditch the soundbites and stupid answers.

    If not – what are your alternatives? Viable ones that offer up real choice. If you don’t have any then say so and let everyone see your own argument as meaningless and stop posting up such utter meaningless drivel.

  22. How do I know her state of mind or why she did it? So if a bank robber is desperate we should make armed robbery legal? Lots of women are desperate but choose not to put a coat hanger in themselves.

  23. Jenny, you delightful thing –

    Well a girl or woman could try keeping her legs closed for starters if she doesn’t want to be pregnant.

    She could try taking the pill and insist that the fella uses a condom.

    She could give the baby up for adoption by one of the many thousands of couples desperate to adopt.

    It’s about taking control of your life, which I understood wimmin are in favour of these days. I do not believe that the 200,000+ abortions this year in Britain are for rape victims or to protect the health of the mother.

    I believe most are provided to feckless, irresponsible fools who lack the simple self control to avoid becoming pregnant and find the whole thing inconvenient. Rather than grow up then, they’d rather kill the life inside them, all the better to free them from the horrors of personal responsibility.

    And you can drop all that ‘pro-life types want more Gerri Santoros’ nonsense.

  24. Jenny, one would have thought that Pete’s #2 suggestion, increased use of birth control, would have struck your fancy. It was you who asked for suggestions.

  25. Charles – I don’t debate with people who call me a "delightful thing" or steer the debate towards the patronising. They are not taking the matter seriously and I should not waste my time of a Friday night on a supposedly serious topic.

    I lost interest in any (sensible) debate on contraception thereafter which is yes surely what this post should have aimed towards in the first place? However it is NOT what I asked above. And I cannot see anything on offer to women for whom an obvious 9 month pregnancy is a massive factor and stigma depending on their personal situations.

    I have noted that several if not all women commenters on this site have in the past had the good grace to note up their own experiences of abortion. None fit into Pete Moore’s sweeping generalisation and none of their brave comments have ever helped shape the debate to a more grown up and realsitic one.

    Really – what is the point in these discussions? You don’t really want to achieve anything.

    I wish you luck with your cause, but as I said before this post is just another example of why you will always fail. In the end abortion will remain legal, and likely easier and earlier to obtain, so it’s not me who needs to worry about it all in the end. Nor do I need to stroke your battered and bruised egos on an issue that causes you such enormous concern but which seems to generate such a consistent lack of realism and fairness.

    And I can see why less women than ever comment on this site

    Goodbye

  26. Pete,

    "Well a girl or woman could try keeping her legs closed for starters if she doesn’t want to be pregnant."

    She could and she might be raped.

    Or she may simply want to have sex. She may even be married. Not really any of your business, is it?

    "She could try taking the pill and insist that the fella uses a condom."

    She could and it could fail.

    "She could give the baby up for adoption by one of the many thousands of couples desperate to adopt."

    She could, but if she doesn’t want to remain pregnant and go through childbirth, or if she thinks adoption is immoral, or she simply cannot afford to do otherwise, she could have an abortion.

    Especially if she, quite reasonably, doesn’t agree with you that an early term pregnancy is "a life" for quite some time yet.

  27. Pete,

    Oh and incidentally there is another option, one you consistently oppose. YOU could pay for her to give birth.

    After all, it is your morality so why should the costs come out of her purse.

  28. "After all, it is your morality so why should the costs come out of her purse."

    I take it then Frank that you are against NHS funded Abortions.

  29. ‘Oh and incidentally there is another option, one you consistently oppose. YOU could pay for her to give birth.

    After all, it is your morality so why should the costs come out of her purse.’

    Nicely said Frank.

    Jenny, abortion rights and pro-choice rights are here to stay, thankfully. Abortion is a traumatic choice for women to make, and we must make every effort to ensure that sex/health education and contraception is available to all women who choose to enjoy their sexuality, which is of course every bit as important as satisfying an other human urge.

    I find that some of the attitudes you have seen here on this debate, reveal some sexually frustrated and sexually immature male dolts, who use the abortion issue to stand on their soap-box moralising just so they can avoid looking in a mirror and seeing their own inadequacies on display.

    They have neither a sound political/social argument to make ( b/c facts do back up their assertions) nor the balls to stand up and be a man who asserts the right of women to choose what they do with their own reproductive health.

  30. "They have neither a sound political/social argument to make ( b/c facts do back up their assertions) nor the balls to stand up and be a man who asserts the right of women to choose what they do with their own reproductive health."

    Pinky, it has little to do with that. Suprisingly Frank hit the nail on the head when talking about the matter. He stated that some women don’t "agree … that an early term pregnancy is "a life" for quite some time". That is the matter. It isn’t about denying women their rights to control their own bodies. It is just that some of us do actually believe that the unborn child has as much right to life that I do or you do.

  31. FOD: "But really the most suitable response to what you just wrote is this."

    Why thank you Frank, I’ve watched that two or three times and now I fancy I am at the intellectual level to discuss the matter with you as an equal.

    Now, may I join your death cult?

  32. It is just that some of us do actually believe that the unborn child has as much right to life that I do or you do.

    Believe whatever stupidity you want.

    The law so far protects the right to choose and long may that continue.

  33. "Believe whatever stupidity you want.

    The law so far protects the right to choose and long may that continue."

    Not where I come from. The law still protects the right to life and long may that continue.

    When, Pinky, in your inlightened opinion, does life start?

  34. Is there any pro-life movement in the UK as there is in the US.

    Thankfully, none that I am aware of.

    Most vocal opponents / anti choice nuts that I know of are the DUP and the Padraig Pearse Rosary Toting Provos.

    Not really company too many would keep!

  35. I can’t figure out if she’s coming or going. Who says chicks … never mind.

    Frank O’Dwyer –

    You’re being absurd now.

    or if she thinks adoption is immoral

    Ok, a woman might think adoption is immoral, but if she wants to kill the child who are we to argue?

    Now if a woman – married or not – wants to have sex it is absolutely none of my business. It’s none of your’s and none of the government’s either. We can agree then, so much of our lives are no-one else’s business. Three cheers for the restoration of the liberty to live our lives as we see fit, eh Frank O’Dwyer?

    YOU could pay for her to give birth.

    If I had the pleasure of getting her up the stick I would, but then I’m a reactionary conservative who takes responsibilty for his actions.

    Then after I’ve paid for the birth, I’ll pay for her to stay at home and be a mother.

  36. ‘Not where I come from. The law still protects the right to life and long may that continue.’

    yes, but it is an easy plane /boat journey- thank goodness. And it won’t be long anyway til we have the procedure offically done in Belfast, Enniskillen, Omagh etc etc

    ‘When, Pinky, in your inlightened opinion, does life start?’

    Why do you ask?

  37. >>It is just that some of us do actually believe that the unborn child has as much right to life that I do or you do.<<

    If so, then pay for the woman to have the child, as FoD suggested. Empty that piggy bank, overdraw your account, sell your car, if necessary – and it will be necessary – mortgage your house and spend all your time urging your friends to do the same – after all, these are all a very small price to pay if you really want to save at least some of those 200,000 or so "children" who die in Britain each year and who have as much a right to life as you do.

    But of course you don’t do any of these things because you don’t really want to save them.

    >>To deny that a living thing is alive in order to kill it is not pro death it’s pro choice.<<

    APL, you’ve already shown yourself up to be the fool you are, and if I were you I’d cut my losses and say no more on this subject.

  38. Then after I’ve paid for the birth, I’ll pay for her to stay at home and be a mother.

    Good for you Pete. That’s after she has decided whether or not she wants to advance with the pregnancy and give birth.

  39. "And it won’t be long anyway til we have the procedure offically done in Belfast, Enniskillen, Omagh etc etc"

    Don’t count on it. In a few short months Policing and Justice Powers will be devoled to Northern Ireland. Abortion is listed under Criminal Justice and will be devolved along with it. So Northern Ireland’s Abortion Policy will be in those "anti choice nuts [in] the DUP and the Padraig Pearse Rosary Toting Provos".

    "Why do you ask?"

    Well, if I am stupid for believing that life starts at conception and the unborn child is intitled to human rights, I want you to declare when you believe it becomes a human life, with human rights.

  40. Pinky –

    Good for you Pete. That’s after she has decided whether or not she wants to advance with the pregnancy and give birth.

    No. I’ll be the paterfamilias. I will decide. No wife of mine will have an abortion.

  41. "If so, then pay for the woman to have the child, as FoD suggested. Empty that piggy bank, overdraw your account, sell your car, if necessary – and it will be necessary – mortgage your house and spend all your time urging your friends to do the same – after all, these are all a very small price to pay if you really want to save at least some of those 200,000 or so "children" who die in Britain each year and who have as much a right to life as you do."

    I guess we should give finiancial rewards to those people who want to kill innocent children but choose not to. So every Tom, Dick and Harry with a knife should be quids in as well?

  42. Don’t count on it. In a few short months Policing and Justice Powers will be devoled to Northern Ireland. Abortion is listed under Criminal Justice and will be devolved along with it. So Northern Ireland’s Abortion Policy will be in those "anti choice nuts [in] the DUP and the Padraig Pearse Rosary Toting Provos".

    Ah well thankfully the planes and boats will still be going! Let the PPRTPs and the DUP at it. They should just keep moralising about ""killing babies,"" while they excuse their past behaviour of killing babies in prams, killing the parents of babies, killing the grandparents of babies. Have at that one.

    "Why do you ask?"

    ‘Well, if I am stupid for believing that life starts at conception and the unborn child is intitled to human rights, I want you to declare when you believe it becomes a human life, with human rights.’

    You want? Why? What does it matter to you?

  43. ‘No wife of mine will have an abortion.’

    She will if she chooses and you ll be none the wiser. She does not need your permission nor your approval.

  44. "You want? Why? What does it matter to you?"

    To know, in your opinion, where that dividing line between terminating a feutus becomes killing a child.

  45. Seamus,

    What any woman decides for herself is fine with me. I am not having an abortion, so I have no reason to moralise on the issue. Do you?

    ‘Would you care to address this: Let the PPRTPs and the DUP at it. They should just keep moralising about ""killing babies,"" while they excuse their past behaviour of killing babies in prams, killing the parents of babies, killing the grandparents of babies. Have at that one.’

    Were these BORN individuals worthy of life at all with the Padraig Pearse Rosary Toting Provos?

  46. Pinky –

    She does not need your permission nor your approval.

    Not legally, but morally the decision is mine. As I said, I’ll be the paterfamilias, my word will be final.

    But it’s all moot since I wouldn’t marry the kind of woman who’d casually abort her child.

  47. "What any woman decides for herself is fine with me. I am not having an abortion, so I have no reason to moralise on the issue. Do you?"

    So, two seconds before birth is perfectly fine with you Pinky. You are also not a mugger slitting someone’s throat yet I would imagine that you would not have the same blasé attitude about that.

    "Were these BORN individuals worthy of life at all with the Padraig Pearse Rosary Toting Provos?"

    One is a woman killing a child she doesn’t want, while the other was a military situation. They are completely different.

  48. Not legally, but morally the decision is mine. As I said, I’ll be the paterfamilias and so word will be final.

    But it’s all moot since I wouldn’t marry the kind of woman who’d casually abort her child.

    Pete, the delight for me and many pro-choice women is that your wife can and could have an abortion any time she wants, and you would never even know.
    You can moralise all you want, you can stamp your feet all you want, but for now, there is not a single thing you can do about it.
    🙂

  49. >>I guess we should give finiancial rewards to those people who want to kill innocent children but choose not to. So every Tom, Dick and Harry with a knife should be quids in as well?<<

    But you’d just said that the life after conception is an innocent child. Now it appears it isn’t! Own goal, lad!

    But obviously the situation we were talking about was one where abortion was not illegal and where your cash would make a big difference and save all those lives (otherwise you could just call the cops and save your money instead!).

    >>if I am stupid for believing that life starts at conception <<

    Seamus, are sperm and ova really not alive in your opinion? Never see any of those "facts of life" films?

  50. "Pete, the delight for me and many pro-choice women is that your wife can and could have an abortion any time she wants, and you would never even know."

    So you delight at the idea that, behind his back, Pete’s wife could butcher his child. Maybe that shows you what is wrong with the Pro Abortion movement.

  51. "Seamus, are sperm and ova really not alive in your opinion? Never see any of those "facts of life" films?"

    No, because sperm and ova are genetically identical to the man or woman who created them. The unborn child is not.

  52. What any woman decides for herself is fine with me. I am not having an abortion, so I have no reason to moralise on the issue. Do you?"’

    ""So, two seconds before birth is perfectly fine with you Pinky. You are also not a mugger slitting someone’s throat yet I would imagine that you would not have the same blasé attitude about that.""

    **I repeat and please answer the question: What any woman decides for herself is fine with me. I am not having an abortion, so I have no reason to moralise on the issue. Do you?"**

    "Were these BORN individuals worthy of life at all with the Padraig Pearse Rosary Toting Provos?"

    ‘One is a woman killing a child she doesn’t want, while the other was a military situation. They are completely different.’

    Oh I see, in your ‘moralising,’ murder is only murder when you say so. And a bunch of cells is more human an that baby in the prma.
    Good luck explaining that position to the victims of the Padraig Pearse Rosary Toting Provos.

  53. ‘So you delight at the idea that, behind his back, Pete’s wife could butcher his child. Maybe that shows you what is wrong with the Pro Abortion movement.’

    Tut Tut Seamus. Use your critical thinking skills and don’t put your silly rhetoric in someone elses mouth.
    I delight in the fact that ANY woman can so choose and the man has nothing to ay about it. he doesn’t even have to know.
    And it is known as Pro-Choice, silly boy.

  54. "I repeat and please answer the question: What any woman decides for herself is fine with me. I am not having an abortion, so I have no reason to moralise on the issue. Do you?"

    Pinky, would you moralise over a mugger slitting someone’s throat? Because, unless I am wrong, you’re not one of those either.

    "Oh I see, in your ‘moralising,’ murder is only murder when you say so. And a bunch of cells is more human an that baby in the prma."

    No, I view all military acts as murder but most people aren’t of that opinion.

    And firstly, a baby in a pram is "a bunch of cells" and seconly and unborn child is as human as a baby in a pram.

  55. "I delight in the fact that ANY woman can so choose and the man has nothing to ay about it. he doesn’t even have to know."

    Luckily enough, not entirely the case here in Ireland. Her husband might notice a couple of thousand pounds missing from their accounts or a new loan bill to pay off.

  56. "I repeat and please answer the question: What any woman decides for herself is fine with me. I am not having an abortion, so I have no reason to moralise on the issue. Do you?"

    ""Pinky, would you moralise over a mugger slitting someone’s throat? Because, unless I am wrong, you’re not one of those either.""

    ++Slitting someone elses throat is against the law. You are very confused Seamus.++ But I ask you again, I am not having an abortion, so I have no reason to moralise on the issue. Do you?"

    ""Oh I see, in your ‘moralising,’ murder is only murder when you say so. And a bunch of cells is more human an that baby in the prma."

    No, I view all military acts as murder but most people aren’t of that opinion.

    Oh well, those in NI government who might deny the right of women to choose, will surely not moralise too much,considering they left a few dead behind them- to get to the pig trough, mind.

    "And firstly, a baby in a pram is "a bunch of cells" and seconly and unborn child is as human as a baby in a pram.""

    Not according to the laws of various states, where women can avail of their right to choose.

  57. Pinky –

    Quite rightly, a wife vows to ‘love, honour and obey’ her husband. ‘Deceive’ doesn’t come into it.

    But truth be told, I blame men. We’ve become feminised, allowed ourselves to be cowed and chastened for being men. British Civilisation is doomed unless and until we again insist on standards from our womenfolk.

    Well, there’ll be none of that feminist silliness in my marital home. She’ll love, honour and obey be and how’s about a cuppa while you’re in the kitchen, babe? Ta.

  58. ‘Luckily enough, not entirely the case here in Ireland. Her husband might notice a couple of thousand pounds missing from their accounts or a new loan bill to pay off.’

    Don’t be ridiculous Seamus, women are much more resourceful than that.

    Of course, there is the little matter of D&C that are performed daily in NI. 🙂 You silly boy.

  59. >>because sperm and ova are genetically identical to the man or woman who created them. <<

    Seamus, You asked for a definition of when life begins. And they are very much alive. Whether genetically identical or not is irrelevant. (Are identical twins not also genetically identical ? Not alive in your book, then?)

  60. Well, there’ll be none of that feminist silliness in my marital home. She’ll love, honour and obey be and how’s about a cuppa while you’re in the kitchen, babe? Ta.

    Pete we very much agree on some things about women. However, that will never change the FACT that legally your wife can and could have an abortion any old time she wants, and you would be none the wiser.
    None of your silly macho nonsense changes that fact.

  61. No, Pinky, I am not confused. I just have a different distinction between what is right and what is legal. Many things that are wrong are perfectly legal [abortion] while many things that are right are illegal [the ability to defend yourself].

    "But I ask you again, I am not having an abortion, so I have no reason to moralise on the issue. Do yo"

    I will have a problem with any murder. You don’t have to be a murderer to be able to have an opinion on the murder.

  62. "Are identical twins not also genetically identical ? Not alive in your book, then?"

    No, there not genetically identical.

  63. >>No, there not genetically identical.<<

    Monozygotic twins are indeed genetically identical, Seamus!

    But in any case, you are avoiding the issue. The sperm is very much alive. (I mean, just look at them swim!)

  64. ‘I will have a problem with any murder. You don’t have to be a murderer to be able to have an opinion on the murder.’

    Pro-choice is not murder.

    Again, I so enjoy watching men debate abortion.

    Get this: There is not one friggin thing you can do about it. Not until you change the law.

    And every time you ‘self-satisfy’ yourselfs, get thee to a mirror afterwards and call yourself MURDERSs.

    The rest of us will just get on with living and let others enjoy the same right.

  65. Pinky –

    Now this is where you have too much respect for the law. It’s not a "FACT that legally your wife can and could have an abortion any old time she wants, and you would be none the wiser".

    As the paterfamilias, my word is the only authority in my home. The law stops outside my door. Now that’s a fact.

  66. "Monozygotic twins are indeed genetically identical, Seamus!"

    Really?

    "But in any case, you are avoiding the issue. The sperm is very much alive."

    Do you consider a sperm to be an alive human being, with human rights?

  67. It’s not a "FACT that legally your wife can and could have an abortion any old time she wants, and you would be none the wiser".

    LOl of course it is. She is an adult, and needs no consent from you. She can go along to her doctor any time she wants, and have the procedure done. You wouldn’t even know.

  68. Do you consider a sperm to be an alive human being, with human rights?

    LOL Oh God, now he answers the question without even realising it. 🙂

  69. "LOL Oh God, now he answers the question without even realising it. :-)"

    Then Pinky, we go back to an earleir question, which you liked to dodge. At what stage does a someone gain human rights? Birth?

  70. "Seamus, who says that being pro-choice is murder?"

    It comes down to opinion. You stated categorically, that it wasn’t murder. Who decides this?

  71. ‘Then Pinky, we go back to an earleir question, which you liked to dodge. At what stage does a someone gain human rights? Birth?’

    You never asked me that question, so I didn’t dodge it.

  72. comes down to opinion. You stated categorically, that it wasn’t murder. Who decides this?

    Seamus, how can pro-choice, a BELIEF SYSTEM, be murder?

  73. The foetus becomes human at some point, wouldn’t you agree Pinky?

    Yes Charles, when it has the ability to survive independently, thaen I would have to question a woman as to why she makes her choice. But I would never deny her that choice.

  74. "Yes Charles, when it has the ability to survive independently, thaen I would have to question a woman as to why she makes her choice. But I would never deny her that choice."

    Survice independently. A five year old can’t survive independently. A 75 year old can’t survive independently.

  75. >>You never asked me that question, so I didn’t dodge it.<<

    She’s right, Seamus, you never did.

    And the "human rights" argument will get you as far as the "when does life begin" one. A fertilised ovum does not have human rights by any definition. Also, a "human being" does not begin at conception, neither legally nor medically.
    In fact, even a pregnancy doesn’t begin at conception!

  76. Abortion is, in my opinion.

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    That of course does not prevent ANY woman from availing of the option, thankfully.

    And next time, you get giggy with yourself, I hope you will bear in mind that you believe that you are a murderer.

    Unless you are a hypocrite? Or without conscience?

  77. "And the "human rights" argument will get you as far as the "when does life begin" one. A fertilised ovum does not have human rights by any definition. Also, a "human being" does not begin at conception, neither legally nor medically."

    There is no distinct medical definition of when pregnancy begins or a human being begins, and as I pointed out, many laws are wrong. The Jews in Nazi Germany weren’t legally human. It didn’t mean that they weren’t.

  78. >>is not murder. Abortion is, in my opinion.<<

    That’s also nonsense, Seamus. Murder is a term defined in law, not by opinion.
    A person can of course say that knocking over a snowman is murder in his opinion. He wont get many to take him seriously though.

    In any case, we’ve already seen that even you don’t consider abortion anything like murder, as you don’t do anything to stop any of those 200,000 "murders" in the UK every year, even though you quite easily could.

  79. "And next time, you get giggy with yourself, I hope you will bear in mind that you believe that you are a murderer."

    Actually, no. As I pointed out, in my opinion, life begins at conception, when a genetically different person is created.

  80. In fact, even a pregnancy doesn’t begin at conception!

    Noel, of course it doesn’t.

    (One reason why the D&C process is not done immediately:-) thank goodness Seamus and others moralisng on this issue seem to be unaware of what D&C is- they would be condemning all the women they know to hell. Of course, there are thousands of D&C procedures carried out every week in NI. )

  81. "That’s also nonsense, Seamus. Murder is a term defined in law, not by opinion."

    Was the Final Solution murder?

  82. Actually, no. As I pointed out, in my opinion, life begins at conception, when a genetically different person is created.

    Says you. But again, thankfully that does not matter.

    or you all could do what Noel says, pool your resources, give up your lives, and stop the """"murder"""""

  83. Was the Final Solution murder?

    German women enjoy Freedom to Choose rights in their country.

    Padraig Pearse Rosary Toting Provos Murders sit in government, and along with some of the sheep that vote for them, tell women their right to choose- is MURDER.

    Bizarro world.

  84. You did not answer the question, Pinky. noel stated that Murder is a legal term. I ask again, was the Final Solution, the Holocaust, the slaughter of the Jews in Aushwitz, murder?

  85. You did not answer the question, Pinky. noel stated that Murder is a legal term. I ask again, was the Final Solution, the Holocaust, the slaughter of the Jews in Aushwitz, murder?

    What does that have to do with the right of woman to choose?

  86. "What does that have to do with the right of woman to choose?"

    You still did not answer the question. Noel stated that Murder was a legal term. I want to know whether you agree, in all cicumstances. Was the Final Solution murder?

  87. >>I ask again, was the Final Solution, the Holocaust, the slaughter of the Jews in Aushwitz, murder?<<

    Yes, it was entirely illegal everywhere, even in Nazi Germany.

    You’re going to have to try harder than that, Seamus 🙂

  88. "Yes Charles, when it has the ability to survive independently, thaen I would have to question a woman as to why she makes her choice. But I would never deny her that choice."

    Well that’s progress in the debate. Although I’m at a loss as to why when you consider the foetus as a human life, you have the inability to say that ending that life is wrong. Would you deny the woman in question this choice 5 minutes after the baby is born. I think you would.

  89. "Yes, it was entirely illegal everywhere, even in Nazi Germany."

    Actually, no, the Holocaust was not illegal under German Law, where the Jews were legally untermencshen, sub human. They did not have legal rights are were quite legally exterminated. It was still murder.

  90. Instead of exhausting yourselves getting your knickers in a twist over a woman’s right to choose, why don’t you all starting worrying about feeding and housing the starving and homeless that are born.

    You’d all probably be the first people to walk over a homeless woman and child begging on the streets, tut tuting about their place of birth, the welfare state ad mauseum.

    So as the saying goes, Put up or Shut Up.

  91. Would you deny the woman in question this choice 5 minutes after the baby is born. I think you would.

    After it is born. Now Charles, don’t be silly, that is infanticide.

  92. "You’d all probably be the first people to walk over a homeless woman and child begging on the streets, tut tuting about their place of birth, the welfare state ad mauseum."

    Again, Pinky, you happen to be wrong. As most of the other Pro Lifers here can confirm, I happen to be a Socialist.

  93. >>Actually, no, the Holocaust was not illegal under German Law, where the Jews were legally untermencshen, sub human. They did not have legal rights are were quite legally exterminated.<<

    I’m afraid you don’t know what you’re talking about, Seamus.
    There was no law, even in Nazi Germany, allowing for such killings. Laws were in force, and courts continued to function, until the end. These were extra-judicial killings, carried out secretly by special units of the government, who were acting outside the law. They were of course also outside all conventions and usages of war, and were contrary to the Geneva Convention, to which Germany was a signatory at the time. This constituted one of the main planks for the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials.
    So, yes, the holocaust was very definitely murder, that we can all agree.

    On the other hand, none of us, not even you, believes early abortion in, say, the UK is murder.

  94. Of course a question of infanticide is silly. So what makes a choice about killing the baby 5 minutes before it’s born not silly. A span of 10 minutes here mind you.

  95. "There was no law, even in Nazi Germany, allowing for such killings. Laws were in force, and courts continued to function, until the end."

    Actually, several laws took the legal humanity away from the Jews, including some passed in 1935 and many then in the early years of the war. Killing a Jew in Germany was like killing a dog.

    "They were of course also outside all conventions and usages of war, and were contrary to the Geneva Convention, to which Germany was a signatory at the time."

    Where does it say in the Geneva Convention that it is illegal to kill people who are legally not human? Does the Geneva Convention carry a clause stating what a human life is?

    "These were extra-judicial killings, carried out secretly by special units of the government, who were acting outside the law."

    Again, you are wrong. Hitler’s will was law in Germany. The Enabling Act and a few other acts and orders meant that if Hitler was asked a question on policy and nodded his head, then that policy was then legally binding in Germany. Germany appointed Heydrich to sort the Jewish Problem and thus passed all legal authority to whatever measure Heydrich chose. The Holocaust was thus legal in Germany, and if murder is a purely legal definition then the Holocuast was not murder.

  96. >>So what makes a choice about killing the baby 5 minutes<<

    Charles, the question is when it becomes a baby, as you suggested earlier.
    How are you, by the way? Haven’t seen you around much lately. How’s the love life? Mine is the pits at the moment, I have to say!

  97. That’s the question Noel.

    As to the love life, let’s just say my heart rate stays at about 60 beats a minute! 🙂

  98. >>Actually, several laws took the legal humanity away from the Jews, including some passed in 1935 and many then in the early years of the war. Killing a Jew in Germany was like killing a dog.<<

    You are wrong. The Jews were denied their civil rights, and were officially considered Untermenschen. It was still, however, illegal to kill a Jew. Jews of course also continued to be prosecuted by the courts, which puts paid to your argument that they were not people under the law.

    >>Where does it say in the Geneva Convention that it is illegal to kill people who are legally not human?<<

    The GC says it is illegal to kill all civilians without due process. Seamus, you’re rambling at this stage.

    You are also wrong on your last point. While Hitler could dictate policy, he had to declare it as such. He never dictated the Holocaust in this way, in fact he never mentioned the Holocaust on record at all. It was simply OFFICIALLY not German policy at the time, even while it was systematically being carried out. There was no record of Hitler ordering it. It had absolutely no basis even in German law.

    Besides, the point is not really relevant. Even if it had been German law, it was still subject to the Geneva Convention and other conventions, which don’t take their definition of a humam being from any government.
    As I said, this is how Nazis leaders were prosecuted at Nuremberg. The Holocaust formed a major part of the crimes levelled against them.

  99. >>my heart rate stays at about 60 beats a minute! <<

    Never too late, lad. Go give yourself a break with someone nice and warm on the side.

    "Now let us sport us while we may;
    And now, like am’rous birds of prey,
    Rather at once our Time devour,
    Than languish in his slow-chapt pow’r.
    Let us roll all our Strength, and all
    Our sweetness, up into one Ball:
    And tear our Pleasures with rough strife,
    Thorough the Iron gates of Life.
    Thus, though we cannot make our Sun
    Stand still, yet we can make him run! "

  100. "Besides, the point is not really relevant. Even if it had been German law, it was still subject to the Geneva Convention and other conventions, which don’t take their definition of a humam being from any government."

    But don’t provide a definition of a human being themselves and as such the Geneva Convention is fundamentally flawed as it does not provide a case against a Government who does not recognise a human being as a human being.

    "As I said, this is how Nazis leaders were prosecuted at Nuremberg. The Holocaust formed a major part of the crimes levelled against them."

    But they were not tried under German Law. Techinically, under German Law, the Holocaust was not a crime. It was considered a crime under International Law because International Law at Nuremburg time took the definition of humanity from the Allies.

    "It was still, however, illegal to kill a Jew"

    It is illegal to kill a dog. It doesn’t mean killing a dog is murder.

    All this comes back to my point that Murder is not simply a legal term. And as such, if you consider an unborn child to be a human being, and Abortion ends that human beings life, it is acceptable for said people to consider Abortion murder and those women who get and their doctors as murderers.

  101. "While Hitler could dictate policy, he had to declare it as such"

    That isn’t correct. Having Hitler’s agreement was deemed legally binding in Germany. He basically was a new Monarch who’s very will was law.

  102. >>But don’t provide a definition of a human being themselves and as such the Geneva Convention is fundamentally flawed <<

    Nonsence. Why should the GC, or any convention, provide a definition of what a human being is!

    >>But they were not tried under German Law. Techinically, under German Law, the Holocaust was not a crime.<<

    You are still wrong. Nazis were tried at Nuremberg and at various other legal venues, including in German courts, where they were tried according to German law. Nobody – not even their defence – tried to claim that anyone who killed Jewish civilians without trial was acting within the law at the time. All were aware that there was no basis in law for what they did. The individual killers could, and did, claim they were following orders, but ultimately someone had to be answerable for these killings being outside the law.
    By contrast, when some high-ranking officers were tried for ordering the hanging of deserters, etc. they successfully argued that they were acting within matial law at the time.
    Nobody ever tried that with the mass killings of Jews, becasue they knew what you don’t know.

    So, back to the present. Abortion in the UK is not murder simply because it is legal. In Ireland, on the other hand, it is almost always murder. You may say it is similar to or as bad as murder, or you can use "murder" metaphorically, but you cannot say it is an illegal killing when it isn’t.

    Now, why do you not stop wasting your time here blogging when you could be out trying to stop this mass murder being carried out in front of your eyes.
    I’m afraid you are opening yourself to the same charge as those Germans who said they couldn’t stop the Holocaust (although you don’t even have their good excuse of a hangman at dawn for their troubles). Complaining about mass murder on a blog is really no substitute for action! 🙂

  103. >>Having Hitler’s agreement <<

    Rubbish. Nobody keeps laws secret! Where did Hitler give his agreement to the Holocaust that could be interpreted as law?

  104. Actually, no, the Holocaust was not illegal under German Law, where the Jews were legally untermencshen, sub human. They did not have legal rights are were quite legally exterminated. It was still murder.

    From memory, not even the author of the Nuremburg Laws could find legal justification under German law for the final solution. This was a major part of the Wansee conference.

  105. Intereseting take on abortion by Miranda Sawyer here

    I’m pro-choice, and so is Miranda, but we should be aware of the fine line that we tread:

    "One of the oddest people I met on my travels was Norma McCorvey. She was Jane Roe in Roe v Wade, which established the right to abortion in the US. Norma won her right to a legal termination, though it was too late for her: she had the baby and it was adopted. Once a poster girl for the pro-choice movement, Norma is now – and I couldn’t quite believe this – anti-abortion. A lonely woman, she turned to the church a few years ago, converted to Catholicism and rejected abortion."

    "In the end, I have to agree that life begins at conception. So yes, abortion is ending that life. But perhaps the fact of life isn’t what is important. It’s whether that life has grown enough to take on human characteristics, to start becoming a person.

    In its early stages, the foetus clearly hasn’t, so I have no problems with early abortions. In fact, I think they should be given on demand, as they are in France, rather than the UK system which forces women to get two different doctors’ signatures in order to get an abortion.

    But once an embryo has developed enough to feel pain, or begin a personality, then it has moved from cell life into the first stages of being a human. Then, for me, ending that life is wrong."

  106. Peter, would you believe that Miss Norma lives in Dallas and was baptized into the Church by my biology teacher from high school, Father Robinson?.

    Miss Norma’s website is here.

  107. Pete,

    "or if she thinks adoption is immoral

    Ok, a woman might think adoption is immoral, but if she wants to kill the child who are we to argue?"

    The point (again) is that not everyone agrees with you that there is a child, and their disagreement is entirely reasonable.

    Let me spell it out: not everyone agrees that is more ‘responsible’ or more ‘moral’ to proceed with each pregnancy in order to squirt out children willy nilly and hand them over to strangers (if any willing ones can be found), than it is to abort a pregnancy BEFORE there is a child. And these people have a point. So those of you who want to mandate or harangue women into ‘responsibility’, be careful what you wish for.

    You are of course entitled to argue your view that it is too late and there is a child already. But she is equally entitled to her view that there is not, which is entirely reasonable, and ever more reasonable the earlier in the pregnancy it is.

    And that’s only if we talk about the morality of it. Because legally there is no question at all: she is right and you are wrong. There is no child. Millennia of legal tradition and custom says so and I know how you feel about tradition. So let’s have none of this loony radical talk about single cells and embryos being the same as babies, and three cheers for the conservative view that say life begins at birth.

    Seamus,

    "I take it then Frank that you are against NHS funded Abortions."

    I am pro-choice – either childirth and abortion should be funded or neither should. Of course childbirth costs an awful lot more.

  108. Peter,

    (quoting from an article)
    "But once an embryo has developed enough to feel pain, or begin a personality, then it has moved from cell life into the first stages of being a human. Then, for me, ending that life is wrong."

    Few would disagree with that much.

    However clearly a few steps have been skipped and some circumstances have been forgotten. Because there are children all over the world who have developed enough to feel pain and indeed developed enough to walk around and talk. They also have bucketloads of personality.

    Yet they are dying like flies. Many who are ‘pro-life’ not only accept that, but also demand that some of the ones who aren’t dying need to be bombed. The only justification given is of whatever they are afraid of: Iran having nuclear weapons, Saddam having WMDs, Britain ruling NI, Islam, whatever has them terrified this week. Not only does there not need to be much evidence of a threat, there doesn’t even have to be much in the way of evidence that bombing children would alleviate it.

    You see, apparently it is OK to sacrifice (real) children if there is any chance at all it save their scrawny and ever so vulnerable necks, but it is different when it is a woman. We all know why – how dare she agree to have sex and enjoy it, and get away scot free.

    It’s got nothing to do with saving children. It’s all about making women wear the scarlet letter.

  109. However clearly a few steps have been skipped and some circumstances have been forgotten. Because there are children all over the world who have developed enough to feel pain and indeed developed enough to walk around and talk. They also have bucketloads of personality.

    Yeah and how many fucking pro life posts do you see up here about those kids over and over and over and over and over again? Fuck all that’s how many. You’re all so full of shit!

  110. Yeah and how many fucking pro life posts do you see up here about those kids over and over and over and over and over again? Fuck all that’s how many.

    Apart from all the ones that pray for the destruction of places like Iran and cheered the destruction of Iraq. Or the comments that supported the brutal mass infanticidal sanctions in Iraq. All would or have guarunteed the destruction of thousands of children. In the end we see that the pro-life camp are really, at best, Kissingeresque pragmatists.

  111. ‘I happen to be a Socialist.’

    Yea I know you think you are Seamus. I know you think you are.

    You are a socialist of the Sinn Fein ‘variety’ are you?

  112. "Yet they are dying like flies. Many who are ‘pro-life’ not only accept that, but also demand that some of the ones who aren’t dying need to be bombed. The only justification given is of whatever they are afraid of: Iran having nuclear weapons, Saddam having WMDs, Britain ruling NI, Islam, whatever has them terrified this week. Not only does there not need to be much evidence of a threat, there doesn’t even have to be much in the way of evidence that bombing children would alleviate it."

    "Apart from all the ones that pray for the destruction of places like Iran and cheered the destruction of Iraq. Or the comments that supported the brutal mass infanticidal sanctions in Iraq. All would or have guarunteed the destruction of thousands of children. In the end we see that the pro-life camp are really, at best, Kissingeresque pragmatists"

    Add to that the Provo Sheep- I saw and still see no tears, nor hand-wringing for the children who suffered and died and mourned during their ‘war of freedom.’ But now while taking a break with the DUP, from the pig’s trough, they have time to tell women they are murderers for making choices about their own reproductive health and lives?

    Hang you heads in shame! And the next day you are on Royal Avenue or Grafton Street, celebrating Xmas cheer, remember that the Romanian woman with her child/baby in her arms, may ACTUALLY be hungry and cold and in need of your help.

Comments are closed.