BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 06:50 AM

"...really are having problems with this, aren't you?" sez Steve to Ake. & of course he is. But so is Steve, as well. So are we all. It's one of those problematic, infinite shades of grey, topics. That's why we have threads like this going, innit!

My answer?

Pass!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 06:49 AM

Yes Stu, That is exactly the point I was making, no matter how others twist my words.

The responsibility is also on the shoulders of men to ensure that "unwanted babies" are not produced, although availability of female contraception made that more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 06:35 AM

Richard Bridge misses the irony in "get laid" when combined with my comments re social conditioning.

There are many circumstances where termination is neither the clinical or best interest decision and doctors dual signing also takes into account their "curate or palliative" do no harm stipulation.

If the patient desires it and there are no reasons to deny the wish under prevailing legislation, then the issue isn't whether to carry them out or not but whether the day to day normality of availability exacerbates demand.

The evidence in George Monbiot's article and years of consistent public health studies state that availability does not increase demand, just makes the ever present demand safer.

How do you reduce demand regardless? Other than bromide, I'm not sure. The need to fuck is far more hard wired than the need to pray. See priests for details.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 06:19 AM

"I would like to think that everyone of sound mind is anti-abortion, not in the sense that abortion should be banned or restricted, but in the sense that we should want the best, most effective measures to get abortion numbers down to the irreducible minimum"

Spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 06:16 AM

"There are numerous scenarios where it arguably could not be left to the mother to decide whether the baby should be terminated or not?

Psychiatric problems, revenge, convenience in pursuing a career etc etc."

You protested about being accused of advocating enforced pregnancies. Yet here you are, for the third time in this thread, doing exactly that. You really are having problems with this, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 03:36 AM

If two people want to have sex that, too, is their decision and nobody else's. I hate the expression "get laid", it implies that the woman is the passive recipient of sexual aggression.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 03:18 AM

The real picture, which having checked, also applies to The USA, Australia and Canada is that it is the patient's decision but there is a slight proviso to the Acme statement.

The clinicians carrying out the procedure must be satisfied that the consent is valid and there would not be complications as a result. (The more you have, the worse the prognosis.)

Talk of secular humanists is an irrelevant sideshow. If you are a member of a religion and accept a doctrine that requires control of your decisions, that is, perversely enough, your decision. Psychiatric colleagues of mine may argue your judgement is impaired by social conditioning but the reality is, it's still your choice to observe controlling old men or not, even if you do confuse their rhetoric with moral guidance.

Moral guidance may have a purpose before getting laid but it is superfluous afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 03:15 AM

I know that it is NOT a simple issue Joe.
For a start, Acme did not make the statement, however the moral question is surely "abortion on demand", that is surely a step down a very dangerous slope, taking into account that we are dealing with the death of a live human being.

The statement implies that abortion is the correct course of action as long as the mother wants it....under any circumstances.

There are numerous scenarios where it arguably could not be left to the mother to decide whether the baby should be terminated or not?

Psychiatric problems, revenge, convenience in pursuing a career etc etc.

I was not inferring that either Acme or Richard were "stupid", simply that the statement, without qualification, did not seem reasonable and could be viewed as a cliché.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:35 AM

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

Akenaton says: That statement is so patently stupid that I am amazed that someone like Acme can attempt to validate it.

Acme's statement may seem simplistic on the face of it, Ake, but I think it's correct. The choice to abort is a difficult decision with many implications, and it is a decision not to be made lightly. But there is only one person competent to make that decision and understand all its implications - and that is the person who is pregnant. Not the clergy, not the lawmakers, not the courts, not the doctors, not the grandparents, and not the father of the child. All of these may have valid and valuable perspectives to contribute, but the one most capable of making the decision is the woman who is pregnant.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Sequentia
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:12 AM

"We are dealing with secular humanists, and while we are on earth, what is expedient, and convenient, will pass for truth and morality."

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Kampervan
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 10:43 PM

Go to agree 100% with Steve here.
And also to point out, as I think that someone else did earlier, that, unfortunately, this discussion is poorer for having very little input from women.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 05:24 PM

I did try to start this off on a different tack, Dave, and have valiantly tried to hold the line. I don't wish to discuss the point at which life begins, when an embryo becomes a foetus, engage in emotional talk about foetuses being ripped out or what God or his earthly lackeys say about the sacredness of life, etc. Instead, I was hoping to confine the argument to the practical and realistic steps we can take to get abortion numbers down. That's all really. Not easy!

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry aka R Sole
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 10:38 AM

If you come on here looking for truth, bad move. If you look for honesty, I doubt you get that either. It's rather interesting that someone on here advocates a case for unborn babies yet...

I cannot say for certain about other countries but a combination of The Abortion Act 1968 (could be 7, long time since medical school) The Health Act 2006 and The Health and Social Care Act 2008 combine to reinforce the fact that consent is for, by and the intellectual property of the patient. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 helps where informed consent may be an issue or The Mental Health Act 1983 where the patient is subject to detention under a relevant section of said act.

In other words, whilst two doctors are required to sign independently that they have discussed the rationale for the termination with the patient and the patient has given informed consent and there are no clinical reasons why termination isn't an option, the patient decides. Nobody else. Period.

There is no and cannot ever be an alternative to a patient consenting.

So in so many words, Richard Bridge is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 09:31 AM

You're being disingenuous, Ake. I'm not talking about your right-to-life platform to force all women to let fertilized eggs grow.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 09:29 AM

only fools keep on making the same mistakes.

I dunno, Steve. Without wishing to sound trite on such a serious topic, we keep coming on here and expecting reasonable debate :-( Maybe we are fools?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 08:33 AM

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

Once again, you are:

"Women should have abortions if they want them".....surely you cant be serious....

From Joe:

That sort of propaganda does not allow for reasonable discussion. There are valid points on both sides of the debate, but resorting to propaganda and emotionally-charged terminology simply leads to polarization and makes discussion impossible.

That's dead right. I would like to think that everyone of sound mind is anti-abortion, not in the sense that abortion should be banned or restricted, but in the sense that we should want the best, most effective measures to get abortion numbers down to the irreducible minimum. And I'm saying that you can't do that by imposing a religious element on education for sex and relationships, by denying that education or by moralising at women, and certainly not by suggesting ludicrous notions such as abstinence when perfectly good methods of contraception are available. We have all the statistics we need to show that banning or restricting abortion simply increases the incidence of unsafe practices that damage thousands of women, with overall numbers of abortions not going down. If you know that, but still campaign to ban or restrict legal abortion, then there's something a bit wicked about you at worst or deluded at best. As I've said, only fools keep on making the same mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 03:16 AM

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

That statement is so patently stupid that I am amazed that someone like Acme can attempt to validate it.

What has happened to all the rights you champion? "Women should have abortions if they want them".....surely you cant be serious....under ALL circumstances?......even if the rights of the unborn child were to be completely ignored and there may just possibly be case for that, are the rights of the father regarding the welfare of his child to be ignored in ALL cases?

"Women should have abortions if they want them" is a sweeping statement and says rather a lot about your professed ideology.
It goes something like this, "You shall have rights, but only the rights I think you deserve"

At some stage in our "social evolution" humanity must start to take back some personal responsibility for the mess it makes.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Jan 16 - 02:46 AM

Too true Joe.

Steve is mentioning a well thought out and laid out article on abortion rates. I doubt the conclusions from any evidence would differ in any advanced healthcare society so there is a huge conclusion that puts the case for reality rather than any principle either way:

Incidence does not increase with availability. Incidence increases by the same social background markers regardless. Post abortion complications increase where mainstream availability is lower or society values shun the practice.

It seems logical enough but the message is that restricting access does not lower either the perceived need nor the actuality.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:22 PM

Musket says:
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.

I went to a couple of abortion clinics in Sacramento to do security clearance investigations on former employees who had applied for high-level government jobs. But I was curious about abortion clinics and particularly Planned Parenthood, since they are so overwhelmingly condemned by the anti-abortion activists in my Catholic Church. I found the same thing in the US that Musket found in the UK - "high clinical standards and not inconsiderable support for the women." In my limited experience, I found US abortion doctors to be compassionate people who know what they're talking about, people who do not take abortion lightly.

So, frankly, I dismiss the phrase "unborn baby that is being ripped out of the womb" as propaganda from somebody who hasn't witnessed what he is talking about.

That sort of propaganda does not allow for reasonable discussion. There are valid points on both sides of the debate, but resorting to propaganda and emotionally-charged terminology simply leads to polarization and makes discussion impossible.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 10:32 PM

Thank you, Richard.

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.

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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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,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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 11:16 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 07:50 PM

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