BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates

Subject: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:02 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/whos-driving-high-abortion-rates-religious-right

You don't drive abortion rates down by banning or restricting abortion. You just make abortion unsafe. There is some very uncomfortable reading here for anti-abortionists (never pro-lifers in my book). Uncomfortable reading for all of us, actually.

Like them, I see human life as precious. Like them, I want to see a reduction in abortions. So I urge states to do the opposite of what they prescribe. If you want fewer abortions, support education that encourages children to talk about sex without embarrassment or secrecy, contraception that's freely available, and an end to stigma surrounding sex and birth before marriage.

The religious conservatives who oppose these measures have blood on their hands. They are responsible for high abortion rates; they are responsible for the injury and death of women. And they have the flaming cheek to talk about the sanctity of life.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 08:38 AM

In all abortion debates I've ever seen, 99% of the debating was being done by men.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

Taking the right to safe and affordable abortion has been a fundamentalist goal for many years, but the moment that poor woman delivers that child, they have more in store for her: accuse her of having that child to collect benefits and make those difficult to obtain. They want to be sure tax dollars aren't supporting an entire poor family, so make sure the father stays out of the house and out of the picture.

If she tries to go back to school in order to get a job to support her family, you might make some programs available to her, but no way are you going to make it possible for her to actually take those classes by providing safe and affordable child care while she's in school.

And any time she has a small windfall or a gift of a little extra cash, be sure to penalize her by docking that amount from her next welfare check. Keep her under your thumb, powerless to get out of the situation in which she finds herself. And by all means call her a whore for getting pregnant in the first place - she has free will right? She should have known better.

It is a very old story. One (as guest pointed out) that men tell themselves, in some form, to justify continued punishment of women who are in their child bearing years.

This is the version of the story that happens in the US, one of the few nations remaining where there is no paid family leave after the birth or adoption of a new child.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 10:13 AM

Well, Thomson, you can take it from me that this man is one hundred percent behind women having the unfettered right to full control over their own bodies, for freely-available abortion, contraception and contraceptive advice, and for religion-free, moralising-free education for sex and relationships. My reasoning is that I'm far more anti-abortion than any pro-lifer I've ever met, and certainly a damn sight more than the Pope. All they've done is prove that bans, restrictions, stigmatising and obstacles not only don't work but actually make things worse. Time to try something a bit different and a bit more enlightened. And let's certainly not accept strictures of any kind from celibate men in frocks or mad nuns, dead or alive.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 10:32 AM

In areas of regressive medieval practice such as, and it pains me as a UK citizen to say this, Northern Ireland, restricting access does not lead to fewer abortions, just more unsafe ones.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in such debates. I can see the moral argument for deciding when a biological growth becomes a baby, and agree it isn't the moment of birth. But there are many good reasons to abort and it isn't wrong to be pro the life of the potential mother.

Superstition, especially the organised variety would have you carry and raise a child after rape.

There is no massive answer, but The Abortion Act 1968 is still relevant to this day, and I cannot think of a clinical piece of legislation that has stood the test of time like it.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 10:34 AM

Well said Steve.

Les, a bloke

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 12:44 PM

Thanks, Les, and good post, er, Mr Sole.

I think that one of the most sterile and pointless arguments on the internet is the one about when the embryo/foetus becomes human, etc. We'll never get agreement on that in a month of Sundays and it generally turns into an emotional mush. Also, I absolutely hate anyone who wants to restrict or ban abortions calling themselves pro-life. To me, getting abortion numbers down to an absolute minimum is a practical issue rather than a moral one, and I heartily agree with George Monbiot. There is a moral issue, but it involves the mistreatment of women, and that's what has to be put right. The moralising, the restrictions, the obstacles put in women's way, the stigmatising of women by the likes of...(I won't mention her name but she's about to be sainted by dint of two fake miracles) - none of it has worked, all of it worse than useless. Every sane person on this planet wants to live in a world in which abortion is rare. So let's find the way to achieve it. As Monbiot asserts, it involves doing just about the opposite of what so many countries do now.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,SVIED
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 02:09 PM

Personally, have lost two Grandchildren to this barbaric procedure

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 03:02 PM

You probably lose millions of grandchildren every time your teenage son wanks into a sock.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 03:31 PM

Personally, have lost two Grandchildren to this barbaric procedure

Perhaps you meant to say you have "lost" two zygotes? Even though they weren't "yours" to lose?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 05:03 PM

I don't want to sound harsh, but those grandchildren were not your children, and your daughter, or daughter-in-law, had every right to decide what to do. You are far too removed from her situation to have the right to make a moral judgement. I hope your bitterness does not show to her.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 06:04 PM

So, because we have not the will or the conviction , or lack , maybe the resources to stamp out back street butchers , makes it moral to provide legal destruction of human life ?!

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 06:36 PM

Sorry Pete... but there in reasonable & honest disagreement over what defines "human life". (and there will be "back street butchers " as long as no legal answers are available. Desperate women will often solve it themselves)
Controlling reproduction is a serious and universal problem, and with safe & legal ways now understood, it should remain a decision for the individual(s) directly concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 06:41 PM

Go 'way, Pete. If you wish to embrace fundagelical nonsense, that's your "right" - as long as you don't attempt to inflict it on sentient beings.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:00 PM

How cruel and unkind we can be to each other ! guesf and Greg have   Responded to this person SVied in a callous way that speaks volumes about them and makes a shameful disgrace of themselves. I am very much pro abortion but We must show at least a bit of compassion for others. No, they were not his/ her children, but I understand the sentiment . For anyone who has ever suffered the loss of a child it is heart wrenching. and please don,t me the usual lecture about a foetus not being a child.... I do know that. Please let us disagree, just this once, with a little less rancour.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:11 PM

Misguided, pete. We do have the resources to stamp out back-street butchers (actually, those "butchers" are often the desperate women themselves). Those resources are good education for sex and relationships, freely-available contraception and contraceptive advice and an end to moralising by people of religion and of the extreme right. Whether you regard unborn babies of any age as human life is a matter for your emotions, but you may rest assured that you'll get nowhere by trying to impose your personal definition on anyone else. The answer to this is to get abortion numbers down. Monbiot demonstrates beyond doubt that the approach you prefer not only does not work but actually makes things worse. The immorality in all this lies squarely with people like you. You want bans, you want restrictions and you want every possible obstacle placed in the way of pregnant women. But you don't want the appropriate sex education and education for relationships, you don't agree with free contraception for all and easily-available advice, and you would stigmatise women who have abortions. By any definition, you people are fairly and squarely to blame for the fact that we can't get abortion rates down. To be honest, pete, I'm a thousand times more anti-abortion than you are, because I actually want to do something about it, whereas you appear to need the abortion figures to beat women over the head.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:17 PM

Er, HiLo, I'm not quite clear about this. Are you saying that a potential grandad should actually have a say in whether his daughter or daughter-in-law should have an abortion? Clarify, please, preferably without the emotional tugging.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:35 PM

No, I am not saying that at all. all I was hoping to convey is that for some people this is not a moral or religious issue, but an emotional one. perhaps we should be less crude in our responses without compromising our belief in woman's right to choose. I do not believe that women make this choice lightly and often they involve family members who often don,t agree with them.That can cause great grief to all concerned and I think it might be little kinder to try to see that than just being a smart arse about it.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:43 PM

How cruel and unkind we can be to each other !

You bet, Hi- and the best example of this is others trying to control what women can do in what is an entirely personal decision for them.

So butt out.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:45 PM

No, don't clarify. Too many people feel entitled to have opinions about the lives of women in general and/or specific women in their frame of reference, when in fact it is the women alone, or the women in conjunction with their partners, who have a say in having a child or terminating a pregnancy. EVEN parents of minors. If those minors want to have a legal and safe abortion, in some states in particular they are put through excruciating steps to get permission -steps that are often simply a delaying tactic to push them into a time frame when the abortion is no longer legal or the fetus is viable. If parents and children have a good relationship the courts aren't involved, but when the courts are involved, the results serve more as a way to punish young women than allow them autonomy over their own lives and futures.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:50 PM

This is an open forum Greg . You have no business telling anyone to butt

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:55 PM

Acme, what do you mean, don,t clarify. Why do you feel entitled to tell me if I should clarify my point. I clearly am not suggesting that women be restricted in any way from making their own choices.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Kampervan
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 08:49 PM

Greg F, I think you'll find that HiLo was actually agreeing with you.

All he was doing was asking for some restraint in the language of some of the contributors when disagreeing with other contributors.

Not unreasonable given the nature of the subject?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 09:02 PM

Steve Shaw quotes Monbiot: Like them, I see human life as precious. Like them, I want to see a reduction in abortions. So I urge states to do the opposite of what they prescribe. If you want fewer abortions, support education that encourages children to talk about sex without embarrassment or secrecy, contraception that's freely available, and an end to stigma surrounding sex and birth before marriage.

And later, Steve states his own opinion: I think that one of the most sterile and pointless arguments on the internet is the one about when the embryo/foetus becomes human, etc. We'll never get agreement on that in a month of Sundays and it generally turns into an emotional mush. Also, I absolutely hate anyone who wants to restrict or ban abortions calling themselves pro-life. To me, getting abortion numbers down to an absolute minimum is a practical issue rather than a moral one, and I heartily agree with George Monbiot. There is a moral issue, but it involves the mistreatment of women, and that's what has to be put right. After that, Steve goes on with his usual diatribe against Mother Teresa (whom he doesn't name) and the Pope (whom he doesn't understand), but I'll leave Steve's anti-nun/anti-pope diatribe alone and say that I agree with most of what he says. I think if he sat down with the Old Nun and the Old Pope, he might get answers that would not fit his stereotypes.

In the second message, Thompson says: In all abortion debates I've ever seen, 99% of the debating was being done by men.

There's truth to that, but actually, the conservative standpoint is often represented by women who wear a lot of makeup and never wear pants. Nonetheless, I am forewarned and will watch what I say.

Guest, SVIED says: Personally, have lost two Grandchildren to this barbaric procedure

And Greg_F responds: Perhaps you meant to say you have "lost" two zygotes? Even though they weren't "yours" to lose?

As usual, any issue worth discussing is not a black-and-white issue, and there really aren't easy answers. Abortion is a moral dilemma, and there are agonizing aspects to both sides of the issue.

SVIED refers to "this barbaric procedure," but the abortion clinics I have encountered are far from barbaric. My experience is limited, but genuine. I think that the vast majority of abortion clinics and doctors who perform abortions, are very professional and compassionate. They just don't fit the stereotypes the right-wing extremists attempt to impose on them. They don't fit the stereotypes the left-wing extremists would want to impose on them, either. They recognize and acknowledge the moral dilemma, and approach it with wisdom derived from experience.

If my son and daughter-in-law were to announce that they were "expecting," they would not say they were expecting a zygote. They would refer to the expected as a "baby," and I would have every right to rejoice at the expectation of having a grandchild. And if that zygote were to be lost to miscarriage or stillbirth or abortion, I would have every right to grieve the loss of that child. Most likely, my son and daughter-in-law would also grieve the loss of the child (not zygote), even if they had chosen to lose the child because they decided that abortion was necessary.

I think that for most women, the choice of abortion is a difficult decision, but sometimes it's the best choice available. I think it's appropriate for people to question that choice, but the decision must ultimately be made by the woman who is pregnant. And if my daughter-in-law makes that choice, I think it's my duty to support it. Still, I wouldn't mind having more grandchildren. I have only one, and she's wonderful.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 09:28 PM

Well, Joe, as a heterosexual fellow with children and a grandchild, who is married and who does not go out on Sundays wearing frocks, I think it's a bit rich to tell me that I don't "understand" the Pope. In fact, I feel that popes in general don't understand women very much at all. I wonder why not. Well, actually, no I don't. And if I understand the sentiment of your penultimate paragraph, well I'm afraid that it's a cardinal example of the emotional mush I was referring to. That kind of argument gets us precisely nowhere. The only way we will ever get abortion numbers down is to ditch the emotion, ditch the preaching, ditch the moralising and get practical and hard-headed. I gloomily predict that this thread will go the same way as every other abortion thread and it will be all your fault. I wanted to kick it off on a practical tack rather than a moral one, but hey ho. It was worth a try. As a last-ditch attempt, can I invite you to condemn the antediluvian attitude of your church and of the extreme right in your country, both of which promote ignorance, "abstinence", lack of education and the proscribing of contraception and contraceptive advice? It's your club. What are you going to do about it?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 09:38 PM

"No, don't clarify. Too many people feel entitled to have opinions about the lives of women in general and/or specific women in their frame of reference, when in fact it is the women alone, or the women in conjunction with their partners, who have a say in having a child or terminating a pregnancy."

Fine. Throw us overboard then. After all, anyone with testicles must automatically be a patronising, imperialistic, misogynistic git. Acme, I've spent my whole bloody life fighting for women's right to choose. I don't want praise for it but I wouldn't mind if you just left me out of your rather defensive "too many people" category. Know thine enemy, and I'm not it, and neither are lots of other men I know, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 09:49 PM

Steve, I agree completely that there must be a huge shift in social and political attitudes to abortion . But the fact remains that it is a highly emotional struggle for many women, their partners and their families. The emotional mush, as you call it, is a huge factor for some and , although it may not move people forward, we do need to accept that it is there and not be all glib and smart arsed about it.,. I don,t think you have been, but others have and that attitude gets us less than nowhere.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 11:03 PM

Damn. And all this time, I thought I was agreeing with Steve...

Turns out that he still thinks I'm horrible.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 03:19 AM

I used to work on the wards of hospitals before retiring. Termination of pregnancy patients, after the necessarily protracted consent procedure are given medication that results in a "large bleed" that is painless physically but of course emotionally distressing at the time.

Compare that to elsewhere on the gynae ward where ladies who had been to "back street" solutions for a whole set of different reasons but the hospitals were having to sort out the medical and psychological mess.

Where abortion is stifled by governments, just as many take place as in areas where they are legal. The difference being the welfare of the woman in a vulnerable condition seeking options.

There is an argument for when a biological growth becomes a person, and I doubt those who believe in supernatural phenomena are best placed to insist on such a point in time. Women reading this will, statistically speaking, have experienced an occasional period that was much heavier than normal with no reason other than having had sex previously. Presumably the anti abortion argument would put such women as inadvertent criminals? Not capable of looking after their own bodies?

The problem with those who use a rigid guide such as shaky translations of ancient stories is that their cock sure belief fails to address reality in so many ways. Understanding how biology sometimes works being a prime example.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:40 AM

HiLo, the emotional mush (a phrase I'm beginning to wish I'd never invented) refers to the inevitable end-point of the usual squabble about the exact moment when life begins, when the conversation invariably turns into pure heat and no light. I've been in that one so many times and I decided years ago that I'm done with it. I did not intend the phrase to apply to the emotional wrangle that anyone contemplating an abortion has to go through. In fact, it's because of that that it's incumbent on us to remove additional burdens on women, such as obstacles put in the way of getting help (read what Monbiot says about Texas), being kept ignorant by rotten education or miseducation, being denied contraception and advice and being preached at or denigrated by men (and nuns) of the cloth or their right-wing lackeys. It's tough enough without all that. Just to clarify.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:12 AM

Yes Steve, I do see what you mean and I agree totally with your points.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:28 AM

I don't think you're horrible, Joe Offer, but I do think that your Church has been playing a significant role in getting us to the not-very-good place we are at today. That does not mean you should be condemned for being a member, but it may mean that you're open to challenge on issues such as this one when you speak out, just as everyone else is.   One victim of the emotional mush of the when-does-life-really-begin tussle, by the way, is accuracy. Pedantic of me, maybe, but "zygotes" are never aborted by elective termination.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 10:07 AM

Until there are women joining this discussion it's largely pointless. We might all have an opinion, but that's as far as it goes for men. This is an issue that really needs to be tackled by women and doctors.

No men have the right to tell any woman what to do with her own body. Those that think they do are not only wrong, but part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 10:53 AM

People who create life, through ignorance, drunkenness, stupidity or any other reason except forced sexual intercourse, have a responsibility to what they have created.
That has nothing to do with religious conviction and everything to do with common humanity.
In our present day society pregnancy and birth rights are treated as if they are of no consequence by men and women alike/
In my youth making a girl pregnant involved stigma to the male and the female and although the means of contraception were hard to obtain the numbers of one parent "families" were many times less than we see today.....pregnancy for many poor young females means a house and a life on benefits.

Society has certainly changed, abortion on demand means the destruction of living human babies in the interests of convenience in very many cases.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:16 AM

Absolute rubbish. Talk about the antediluvian voice of the past.

I see your point, Stu, though I'd point out that Acme and Thompson have contributed to this thread. I suppose some people see a Steve abortion thread and decline to click on it, who knows. Whilst men (like akenaton for example) or even other women, should never have any say in any woman's decision (emotion-free and practical advice is not the same thing), I can't see the harm in letting women know, in humility, that some of us men, as well as women, want the best education for sex and relationships, free access to contraception, no obstacles put in the way of women seeking abortions and an end to stigmatising and moralising. That's the only way to get abortion numbers down.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM

I disagree with you Ake. This is a different world, one where women should and in some countries, do have a choice about having a child or not. I doubt that many bear children in order to get benefits and housing. You are a bit delusional on this subject and attitudes akin to yours are part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:29 AM

Amen to that. Lamentably, he's far from alone.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:37 AM

Of course if we argue for the rights of the unborn it is emotional mush....but somehow it is not when arguing for the "right"of women and their partners too, probably.,..to destroy the unborn baby !.   And I did not say I am against education regarding sex and relationships, but in my opinion , that is about more than avoiding pregnancy. There are two ways of avoiding unwanted pregnancy , contraception, and abstinence , but unfortunately the culture does not encourage the latter , and pushes the former.   Of course there is less chance of pregnancy, but I don't know about the chances of aids and other dangerous conditions from promiscuity from an early age.    It is true that there may be legitimate discussion of when there is human life, but I think abortions are carried out when there is little doubt that it is a living , though unborn baby that is being ripped out of the womb.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:45 AM

I don't know about the chances of aids and other dangerous conditions from promiscuity from an early age.

If you don't know, why bring it up?


I think abortions are carried out when there is little doubt that it is a living, though unborn baby that is being ripped out of the womb.

Now THERE'S your problem - ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:47 AM

If men or women Don't want a child, both should take the precautions required to make as sure as possible that pregnancy does not occur.

If they are too stupid or too drunk to do so, they still have a responsibility to the living being that they have created.

It takes two people to produce a baby, both should be involved in its welfare.....I am not against all abortion, there are medical issues to be considered, that brings the health authorities into the equation, destroying a human foetus also raises moral questions regardless of how it is conceived.

The personal convenience of the mother or father,
is not an appropriate reason for the termination of human life....IMO.

Which takes us back to "rights" and Steves famous double standards.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:52 AM

Convenience. Really?

I suppose that is what you might call it, when a woman finds she is pregnant and is in no position to support a child, house a child, or has children and can't afford or risk another, or, as others so sweetly suggest, give birth and give it up for adoption. As if having a child isn't a life-changing event, and at times a life-risk. It's a BIG DEAL and if a woman isn't in a position where she feels that she can safely take that risk, then legal abortion is a reasonable option.

In cultures where education and birth control information or devices aren't available to women they end up having many babies because a few will be lost due to childhood diseases or other disasters. It is as painful for those women to lose a child as it is for a woman anywhere else in the world. As women gain both education and access to birth control they have fewer babies and are more successful in raising them to adulthood. And choosing to have babies - whether through the efficient use of birth control or the judicious use of abortion - is a feature of cultures with more educated women* who want to have and raise babies in an environment where they will be most successful in raising them to adulthood.

*This does not take into account nations with population laws on the books, such as China. That's a different kettle of fish.

♀

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 12:05 PM

Hilo, no disrespect intended, but I am far from "Delusional" on this or any other subject.

I can assure you that life in Scotland is extremely hard for poor young people, no matter how "well educated" they may be. In many cities and small towns we have a severe housing shortage almost the only way that young girls can escape their environment get a "house of their own", is to become a mother and declare themselves homeless. The authorities are bound by law to rehouse them, and what social housing there is, requires to be of good specification.

That point may have nothing directly to do with abortion per se, but it does point up the casual way that that the creation of life and the destruction of life is regarded.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 12:18 PM

"Of course if we argue for the rights of the unborn it is emotional mush..."

Not what I said. I said that trying to define the point at which life begins was a pointless and futile discussion. I said nothing more or less than that.

" There are two ways of avoiding unwanted pregnancy , contraception, and abstinence , but unfortunately the culture does not encourage the latter , and pushes the former"

"Unfortunately"? Why unfortunately? What's wrong with contraception?

"unborn baby that is being ripped out of the womb."

Unborn babies are not "ripped out." Actually, I want to see as few abortions as humanly possible. My way is via education, contraception, removing all obstacles to getting abortions (making all abortions safe) and freedom from moralising and stigmatising. Your way, apparently, going from the above, is to tell people that they must go against human nature and just refrain from bonking. It won't work. You're in cloud cuckoo land. It's quite possible that I already knew that.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 01:57 PM

Not often I fully agree with a post by Lilo. A pity of course that as ever where wide agreement is available on Mudcat, the subject is ignorant rants by an unfortunate person who reckons he speaks for a Scotland he patently knows nothing about.

It is a very emotive subject and always shall be. I used to regulate healthcare and our inspectorate once did a series of unannounced inspections on every registered termination of pregnancy clinic and hospital in England. I did half a dozen personally. What we found was a picture of high clinical standards and not inconsiderable support for the women who, through many backgrounds to their situation had found themselves in that place.

It is not easy to label or point a finger one way or the other. What I do know is that such debate requires a few more facts and a few less preconceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 02:25 PM

Of course it's an emotional subject, but the question of abortion rates (which is what started this thread, but hey ho) has to be dealt with with hard-headedness, with one aim in mind - to get abortion numbers down to the absolute minimum. Everything tried so far has failed abysmally, the world over. Pete and akenaton parrot out the same old tired moralising rubbish that has let millions of women down so badly, leaving thousands dead or maimed. Only fools keep on making the same mistakes. I posted Monbiot's article because I agree with its overall thrust. He can be as daft as a brush sometimes, but on this occasion he's right on the money. We need a radically different approach, and we need the mullahs, the priests and the nuns involved like we need a hole in the head.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST, 34
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 03:20 PM

I think everyone agrees that an abortion is almost never a good thing. What amazes me is the number of people who think slavery is better. I consider forced pregnancy and childbirth a form of slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 03:44 PM

And, uniquely, a form of slavery that can never be imposed on a man. You listening, pete? Akenaton?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:26 PM

Who's talking about "forced pregnancy" Steve?..... In fact I specifically excluded that in my first post.

Perhaps you would be better to actually read the other posts before sounding off......You listening Steve?

You appear to see only what you WANT to see.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:20 PM

"Who's talking about "forced pregnancy" Steve?"

You are.

If they are too stupid or too drunk to do so, they still have a responsibility to the living being that they have created.

It takes two people to produce a baby, both should be involved in its welfare.....I am not against all abortion, there are medical issues to be considered, that brings the health authorities into the equation, destroying a human foetus also raises moral questions regardless of how it is conceived.

The personal convenience of the mother or father,
is not an appropriate reason for the termination of human life....

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 08:16 PM

It's very simple. Women should have abortions if they want them. End of story.