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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 08:22 AM

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.

You're again muddying the waters, Ake. Grasping at straws, how to prevent those women from terminating unwanted pregnancies. Your argument implies that you visualize a group of women, hammering at the doors of abortion clinics to get rid of the results of too much booze and a one night stand. And that this should instead be a day of reckoning for them, to pay the piper.

Pregnancy as a form of punishment is a draconian sentence that might have been imposed on women before safe and legal abortion were available except women turned to unsafe and illegal procedures to terminate unwanted pregnancies. And often died in the process. So it boils down to this: are you suggesting that a death sentence is the suitable punishment for a woman who finds herself (through whatever circumstances) at this point? That's the argument you're making. You need to stop parsing out the "what if" logical fallacy arguments. Women make these decisions for themselves as they need, they don't need you pushing men of straw into their paths on the way to their doctors offices.

♀

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 09:03 AM

Positive contributions are welcome, Michael. Read that sentence again before you post is my advice.

"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".

Yeah, well the intended point of the thread (I won't insist on it) was to exchange ideas on what might work in reducing demand and what hasn't worked. Whether we will make any progress is never going to be prescriptions from men or from women or from both. It is all about changing our attitudes towards each other in terms of respect and the promotion of good education. Once we've identified and extirpated the old obstacles, of course. I won't go over all that again.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 10:11 AM

It is a real tough one. One thing that may help is to make abortion a valid option amonst others. The others include better sex education and contraception. If it too late for that the options are to keep the baby, if that is what the woman wants to do, with as much help as she needs. Or adoption, again with as much help as required. Call me cynical, but while private clinics make money out of abortions it is in their best interest to promote that option above the others. While single mothers are vilified by the press and government that option is often the worst choice. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying any option is better than another as all cases must be treated on their own merits, but when people do have valid choices and are well informed of them they can then make the best decision for them at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 10:40 AM

The problem with "giving women all their options" is that it is difficult to do without seeming to apply pressure for one or the other. It has to be done, admittedly. Advisors will usually be medical professionals with an air of authority about them, with their own opinions, that vulnerable young women may find overwhelming, and pressure from family may already have been applied. On top of that, obliging women to wait for advice (which you can bet your life they'll have to) as to their options when time may be of the essence is, basically, an obstacle. As for private clinics, etc., well two things. First, I haven't heard any evidence of their being abortion-happy, and second, why not argue for the removal of any profit motive apropos of the provision of abortion services? My view is that abortions should be carried out by the NHS free of charge.

I won't argue against making the present system more humane and less stigmatising, of course not, and I acknowledge that, even in better times of low abortion numbers, such services will still be needed. But, to me, you are simply arguing for tweaking what we already have, when what I was hoping we would talk about is how we can work towards a situation in which a young woman turning up with an unwanted pregnancy has become a rarity. So far, everything we've tried seems to have failed.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 12:07 PM

Abortion is available on The NHS Steve. Over 90% of legal abortions are under NHS care.

Since the spot inspection series I was part of a few years ago, some private hospitals have made the decision not to offer any more, (not for failing but not feeling their being set for them is worth the registration work, given the demand for private is so low.) As it is "day case" the hotel type comforts of private aren't worth it and there is no waiting list as it is classed as "non elective" and has to be carried out before the cut off.

Ironically of course, one day I visited an NHS hospital and was talking to the gynae and obs consultant responsible. The next day I visited a nearby private hospital and of course, the same consultant. Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice.

I am not a doctor, nurse, social worker or woman so my personal take isn't the most relevant. But for me, the system cannot be improved much (and healthcare improvement has been my thing in recent years.) But the need? Complicated and multi faceted. I obviously don't have the level of understanding that those with confidence of their conviction have. Wouldn't it be nice to go through life judging without the obstacle of weighing the evidence? Some on here seem to have that ability. Must get their autograph.
☹️

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 12:31 PM

I had a feeling that most abortions were carried out under the NHS. Good that there's no waiting list as such. The last thing we need are Texas-style obstacles, as Monbiot describes. There will often be a very short period of time between a girl discovering that she's pregnant and the time limit, especially as sex education in this country is so patchy and, frankly, so poor. A vacuum for the religious and moral brigade to waltz into. Scandalous it is, and I have a feeling that posters from other countries might tell us the same thing. Naturally, the poorest people are the worst off in every regard when it comes to this issue. So much for convenience abortions for career enhancement purposes, eh. Agreed that our personal takes are not the most relevant. As a bloke posting about this, I'm painfully aware of this and am wanting to steer clear of all those aspects that just wind people up and cause the moralisers like akenaton to crawl out of the woodwork. What would be great would be to see free abortion for all who want it but the workers at the clinics twiddling their thumbs because there was hardly any work. We could start with what happens, or doesn't happen, in our schools...

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 12:31 PM

Acme, I can't really answer your post as it seems slightly hysterical and insinuates things about my stance that I do not recognise.

My one and only point is that "abortion on demand" is wrong, it sees life as without value, pregnancy an encumbrance.
To produce a child is never a "punishment"....I knew a woman who gave birth to six children without being married or in a long term relationship......she brought up those children on her own, with very little State help worked all her life and was revered by her family.

Society is a mess, traditional marriage on the decline, children are simply a nuisance, the media promotes promiscuity and pornography, the Church is ridiculed for attempting to instil family values, monogamy in marriage and promoting traditional marriage as the best way to bring up children.

Is it any wonder than normal followers of Islam are disgusted by our lack of values and our attitude to children?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 12:38 PM

I think that crawl out of the woodwork was a bit too bland.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:02 PM

How typical, for a man arguing against abortion with irrelevant points, to call a woman's opinion "hysterical."

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:17 PM

I came on here looking to see if Keith A. or Teribus had gained a smidgeon of humanity on the WW1 thread, and found this discussion.

Steve's action in posting it is thoroughly laudable. Some of the comments, especially, akenaton's last one, are thoroughly deplorable.

It's my body, akenaton. You've no right to tell me or any other woman what to do or make judgments when we don't abide with your puritanical worldview. Were you fitted with blinkers as a child?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:37 PM

Was it a woman that was being referred to , vantage   ? Is acme a woman ...we only have a name/handle.    Seems to me that the charge that pregnancy as a punishment is missing the point. Opposition to abortion generally is due to the sanctity of human life . But as someone above observed, expedient and convenient passes for morality and truth.   .....irrelevant points....    Well, if highlighting probable causes is not relevant....

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 01:47 PM

I know of no woman who has lightly undertaken an abortion. It is always (as far as I know) a difficult stressful distressing decision. It is made worse by oppressors like Akenhateon and Pete from the Looniest Star.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,LynnH
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 02:07 PM

If I get pregnant as a result of being raped I should carry the little bastard around for 9 months? Being forced to carry that child is punishment! If being pregnant is endangering my health I should die giving birth just to satisfy some pseudo-religious and/or political hypocrites?

Oh, of course how stupid of me, as far as the pseudo-religious and/or political hypocrites and bigots are concerned, it's my fault if I get raped,isn't it?

Luckily I'm too old for this and, in any case, this particular chalice luckily passed me by, but at the end of the day it's my life and my body and I've very little time for those, men and women, who are talking through their arses!

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM

Yes pete, Acme is a woman, akenaton knows she is a woman and anyone bothering to actually use their eyes can see the symbol at the foot of her posts. Happy now? Any more straws you'd like to clutch at? The rest of your post shows that you are completely out of kilter with the sentiment of the thread, not to speak of the generally constructive debate going on. Do creationists encourage naked opportunism?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 02:25 PM

I am sure you are right, Steve. Tweaking doesn't do much. A radical overhaul is required but, in the meanwhile, even small things may help a little. Glad to hear that the profit motive has been almost eliminated as that was something I was not aware of. Thanks for the info, Musket.

Not sure what can be done, Steve. I am a great believer in education to resolve a lot of issues but, as some on this thread have shown, no amount of education will remove some views and there does not seem to be a cure for ingrained stupidity :-(

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 03:08 PM

The successful deployment of safe birth contol by men and women is the single best way to prevent pregancy for sexually active individuals. Getting the information to the right audience is a challenge.

Lectures by religious zealots who wish the whole world believed as they do will solve nothing and contribute little to the discussion. It can be argued that their positions on the subject relate directly to the number of abortions if they were able to interfere with the timely and effective teaching of sex education in schools.

Abstinence is not the answer in sex-positive cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 03:15 PM

There may be those who may say I'm clouding the issue with "emotional mush," but I think the emotional aspect of this is very important. A child needs to be born into a loving family, a family that wants a child. If the biological parents are unable or unwilling to provide such a home, is it a service to the child to "rescue" him/her from abortion?

I don't think things are right if Those Who Pass Judgment argue against abortion because they think that the biological parents must bear the consequences of their sexual activity. If a child is viewed as the burden/consequences of misconduct, what kind of home is that child going to have?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 03:40 PM

Thank you, Vashta.

Good second point, Joe. As for your first one, you are telling half the story or less. Rescuing a child from an abortion involves obliging a woman to go through the emotional turmoil of bearing a child to full term, giving birth to it with all the bonding that it entails then handing it over. You have no right to suggest that and neither have I. We are not that person, and, worse, we're blokes. Let's stick to the point about how we reduce, genuinely, unwanted pregnancies without suggesting strategies that have failed again and again.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 03:52 PM

Well Steve, you certainly scored a point as I did miss the symbol. Out of kilter with the general sentiment ?..   Guilty as charged, but that don't mean I am wrong.   Possibly you may have an argument that in our "sexpositive" society destroying life on the NHS may lower abortion rates , though I expect it could be argued otherwise but I concede it may be the case.   I note you don't want to get into when does life begin.....and with good reason , as once you concede that it is another life , it is obviously a moral issue.   Joes post is , I suppose , situation ethics , which I am generally suspicious of , though I suppose if someone had bumped off hitler it might be considered justifiable assassination . But then, he was not a defenceless baby.   There are always cases where terminating a pregnancy may be seen as justified, but these are the minority . And since , Steve, you just can,t help making creationist jibes , it is certainly the case that if you think we just arose from the slime, that any claim to being pro (human) life rings hollow.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 04:19 PM

I wouldn't disagree at all, Steve. I was just looking at the matter from the point of view of the child. I think there have been studies that have shown that when a pregnant woman is in emotional turmoil, it's not healthy for the coming child. I think we've refuted all the usual arguments against abortion, but I still think it all boils down to the the pregnant woman being the one best-suited to making the decision.
"Abortion on demand" is a phrase that has an interesting impact. It gives the implication that the person requesting an abortion, is somehow asking for a privilege to be granted by someone who has the authority to grant that privilege. In this case, I think the supreme authority must be the woman who is pregnant. Yes, there may be times that pregnant women may choose abortion for less than noble reasons - but I would suspect that if such a woman were forced to carry the child to term because she failed the "sufficient reason" test, the one who would suffer the worst consequences would be the unwanted child.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 04:24 PM

No, there is no argument as to where life begins, or pregnancy wouldn't be the problem. The discussion isn't about your world view, it is about a woman's right to choose to play host to that life. Or not.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 05:12 PM

We are agreeing, Joe. And I must say that I've always felt uneasy with the term "abortion on demand" with its tendentious undertones. In this of all debates we need to avoid that kind of expression.

If you want to start a thread about when life begins, pete, carry on. You won't find me contributing. In addition, you appear to be extremely confused about what's being said in this thread. I also note that in your post you do not mention the women involved once. Says it all, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 05:24 PM

Well, I also know of people who were almost talked into abortion, they finally refused and when the baby was born they thought it was the best thing in their lives.
I know one young girl who did have an abortion due to pressure from her parents and it really blighted her life....she told me that she never got over the regret and developed severe psychiatric issues.
She never made proper relationships and never had children. She died at 40.

This is not a simple issue.

You want to cut unwanted pregnancies? Discourage promiscuity, educate our people about the sanctity of life, encourage monogamy.
Bring back family values. Educate our young people on the meaning of the word responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 06:20 PM

A very odd thing happened then with my iPad which I won't regale y'all with but a "'saved" version of my post got posted instead of what I was working on. It wasn't much different but I'll post it again with the additions I intended. Ahem:   

Well I suppose we have to believe your examples. But, even if true, they are just that, a couple of examples out of millions, plucked out to support your misguided and uninformed standpoint. Needless to say, the formula suggested in the last two lines of your post not only makes Victorian family values look like an illegal rave, but also is completely useless. No mention of education for relationships, the nurturing of respect for self and others, free availability of contraception, a fight against poverty. No mention of real support and advice for young people free of moralising. In fact, not a single practical suggestion as to how we can treat people with non-authoritarian respect and still reduce unwanted pregnancies. Just cod-moralising same-old. Abject in the extreme. You should be embarrassed.

---

First post removed. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 07:26 PM

No luck Steve, it was just as inane the second time :0(

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 07:29 PM

You've had enough from me. I await sensible input from sensible people. Respond if you wish but you'll get no further reaction from me.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 09:41 PM

Pete and Akenaton are itching to turn this into a debate about the morality of abortion vis a vis the occupant of the uterus. As if the mother, a full-grown autonomous individual, is not a life worthy of consideration. And her calculations on the success of said pregnancy. The article Steve linked to is titled Who's driving high abortion rates? It's the religious right and I think that is exactly right.

In this conservative state, I made sure my children understood about birth control and the responsibilities of parenthood because I knew the schools were going to sidestep the important issues. I not only want my children to grow to adulthood, I want them to be successful in their choice of partners and when to have children.

The point has been made and discussed. The lunatic fringe is a small and vocal minority, but they don't always get to direct the conversation.

♀

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 09:57 PM

Sadly, the issues are sidestepped in schools here too. For my sins, as the biology teacher I was "in charge of sex education" in two of the schools I taught in, supposedly shoehorning what I could into already overcrowded science syllabuses. But in assemblies and "special days" we'd have the school nurse, or a person of faith, or the ultra-Christian senior mistress adding their input. It wasn't always bad but the whole shebang added up to a piecemeal and uncoordinated approach. Very frustrating, but in fact we may well have been doing it better than most. I have some strong ideas about how secondary schools should be dealing with it but I won't bore you just now. Suffice to say that I think every teacher in the school has a role to play in education for relationships and that coordination is paramount. I got sick of "sex ed" becoming a Cinderella subject, diagnosing pubic lice from samples the kids brought in and sneaking girls out to the local clinic for the morning-after pill. And how many times did I hear that it was the parents' responsibility anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 10:29 PM

I like much of what Vashta Nerada says here, but would add that all cultures should view sex positively. To view it negatively gainsays possibly the strongest single human drive - which gainsaying can only lead to more misery.   I find, however, his or her post of 0424 Mudcat time puzzling. The terminally religious (and misogynistic) seem to assert that a zygote is a life, and on such ground reduce women to vessels to serve that life - which I think is rubbish.

I should also express my liking for much of what Acme says.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 11:18 PM

The fertilized egg is alive, or the pregnancy wouldn't be a problem, so the protestation of "when live begins" from Pete or Ake is moot. Life is acknowledged; it was never like women only wanted to abort dead zygotes. There are reasons why women find they can't allow a pregnancy to continue.

Eight Stories Show What Abortion Was Like Before Roe V Wade. From Ms magazine.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 16 - 11:32 PM

I suppose this is going to make the absolutists on both sides angry, but I don't really think we can find a point where life begins.

Steve Shaw attempted to remind us of what we should have learned in Biology class long ago, and I think people missed his salient point. A zygote is a single cell, the product of the fertilization event between two gametes. That single-cell zygote divides and forms two blastomeres within 30 hours, and those lead to forming a blastula and then a foetus; so it's unlikely that someone performing an abortion would ever be able to find a zygote, much less remove one. More here (click) for those of us who need help recalling what we learned in Biology class all those years ago.

So, does life begin at the zygote stage? As a blastomere? A blastula? Or is the line drawn somewhere in the development of a foetus? Or is it at birth?

I think the answer is that the formation of life is a process, and one cannot pinpoint a spot in that process where there's no life before and there is life afterward. The process has to be viewed as a whole, not broken into pinpoints.

And I think that maybe it doesn't really matter when life begins. As acme says above, the question is moot. I don't think that "the moment when life begins" is the right question to ask. Whether it's life or potential life, it all has value - so the decision to end it must be taken seriously. But life ends or is thwarted all the time - it's a fact of life, if you will. So, I think we have to ask other questions.

And I think it all boils down to this: does the mother want to bear a child, and does she have the ability and desire to raise that child? If not, what is the best alternative?

And again, I think the question is one that must ultimately be answered by the pregnant woman, and it is the obligation of society to make it easy for that woman to carry out whichever choice she makes.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 03:18 AM

I really don't see how anyone can argue that "life" does not begin at the moment of fertilisation......that is the natural process.

However, surely that is not the point of this discussion, which it about cutting the numbers of abortions.
Abortion on demand will only increase the number.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 03:52 AM

Luckily, few people argue in the way Akenaton is.

I find it comforting to know that when UK termination of pregnancy legislation was passed, it was still the '60s with the general life attitude of sweeping problems under the carpet and listening to old men with no mandate from reality. Yet still, society was up for the challenge. That approach has stood the test of time and the act of Parliament still dictates procedure.

Need? That's another issue entirely. The evidence in the article and elsewhere is that restricting doesn't alter demand but pushes it into back street supply, often with tragic results. I doubt the issue of accidental pregnancy can reach a consensus on this thread, especially when Akenaton appears to be saying that wanking is the point of life and others are using inflammatory language such as "ripping from uterus."

I did my clinical attachment in this field many years ago and speaking to and consenting women for this heavy decision still sticks in my mind, and my conclusion stands that every situation is different, every pontification by talking heads misses the point.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 06:27 AM

I have attempted to inform the discussion, akenaton, by linking to an article that clearly shows that "abortion on demand" does not, as you falsely assert, increase the overall numbers of abortions. It does, however, make abortions safer. That may not be important to you but it is to me. Honestly, I don't know why I bother. I'm beginning to see that your favourite style of argument is the one from deliberate and wilful ignorance. Beginning? Gosh, I think I've known it for years.

The danger in all these discussions is always the "when does life begin" chestnut popping up. Well, it began about three and a half billion years ago and has been a continuum ever since. The unfertilised egg and the sperm that has ambitions to get in there first are just as alive as any zygote/blastocyst/embryo/foetus/baby/dude. They each exhibit the criteria of life that we all learned in them dusty ould classrooms decades ago. To see it any other way is futile. Trying to pinpoint an exact moment is just bandying words. I'm risking thread-implosion by saying that, but despite my best endeavours I'm not the first to raise it. I don't mind that as I'm an expert on hijacking threads myself, but it isn't really the point of the thread. What should we be doing as parents, friends, teachers and society to make it so that those abortion clinic staff sit around all day playing cards due the the lack of unwanted pregnancies reporting in? Bearing in mind that what we've done so far doesn't seem to have worked very well?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 07:39 AM

I am very much with Joe and Steve on this one, but unfortunately "when life starts" isn't really a moral or philosophical or scientific question : it is about law. And it is the nature of laws that they define boundaries where on one side things are legal and on the other illegal. If we could frame a law that has some consideration of the individual circumstances into account it would be ideal, but that is incredibly difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 08:09 AM

It was a good article that started the discussion and the discussion was generally orderly. I've spent as much as I care to writing about it. The usual suspects have taken positions that no amount of studies and authoritative numbers will sway and it is their wont to shout it again and again, as if that will make it the truth. When one of them says "I can't understand how" it should read "I can't see beyond the religious dogma I cling to."

Abortion on demand works when needed, keeps women safe

Good birth control information and devices or medications to males and females alike, with easy access to both, is a better way to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

Women's bodies are the subject of a great deal of discussion and legislation, while subsidized prescription access to male products like viagra is a given. Clearly sex for women and sex for men are not treated equally.

Now perhaps we can discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 09:40 AM

Thank you, Acme. Well, except perhaps for that last bit. It's been as constructive an abortion thread, if there ever is such a thing as a constructive abortion thread, as I could have hoped for. We've had the usual attempts at derailing, as you'd expect, but on the whole it's been possible to get points across without getting mired in cod morality and male chauvinism. And I'd also like to think that we've shown that there are some men at least who want to discuss this respectfully, without patronising women and pretending they have the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Mpdette
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 11:09 AM

R.Sole (a delightful pseudonym),

The 1967 Abortion Act exempted Northern Ireland, where the situation remains as it was prior to the legislation's enactment in the rest of the UK. As a result, hundreds of women travel each year to Liverpool and Manchester for abortions in private clinics, but only if they can afford to do so, since, despite being NHS patients, they cannot be referred by their GPs except in very limited circumstances (e.g. continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the woman's life). Many must have run the gauntlet at the Belfast branch of the FPA - Anti-abortionist activity in Belfast.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 11:18 AM

One example of how misinformation is disseminated:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/republican-lawmaker-interrogates-students-about-their-virginity-during-teen-lobbying-day-visit/

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 11:39 AM

I'm aware of the NI situation. (I did my elective in Belfast when I qualified.)

Awful, truly awful. There are many local laws in Northern Ireland that are a stain on The UK. The answer? I genuinely don't know, but as a doctor, and knowing NHS care there requires financial support from Westminster, I have signed two petitions from BMA to Dept of Health challenging funding of NHS care that does not follow the rules. (There are a few cutting edge procedures that aren't available as well, not through cost or expertise but through political decision, certain stem cell work and variations in assessing mental capacity.)

Read my first post to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 12:02 PM

Ya just gotta love them Republicans, dontcha, Vashta. What a gang of morons.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 12:27 PM

It wouldn't be half so bad if those ignorant people's activities had any prospect of reducing unwanted pregnancies, even if they got what they wanted. All that would happen is that unsafe abortions would increase. Effectively, they're campaigning for more damaged women. I defend the right of anti-abortionists to have their voices heard, but it should be illegal to harass individuals in streets or shops (about anything, not just abortion), and protests right outside clinics should be outlawed.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 01:36 PM

One of the things that I think must happen is that parents need a lot of support and education with regard to talking frankly and honestly to their children about sex and relationships. Much of the angst young women experience is as a result of pressure from parents. Many times the parents are more concerned about how things "appear" to be than they are about the well being of their daughters. Young men also need to to have education, especially on the proper use of birth control and on the responsibility they must take to help ensure that unwanted pregnancies do not occur.
   I agree that education will go a long way, but many people need to be part of that process.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 02:42 PM

Exactly that. We have to remember (especially the people who claim that "it's the parents' responsibility") that the parents we're talking about are, on the whole, not well-educated themselves in matters of sex and personal relationships (I should know, as I was involved and could tell you stories all night about obstacles and piecemeal approaches). Not their fault, and it's unfair to place the burden entirely on their shoulders.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 05:24 PM

Just had a look at stats since 73. It started quite low and steadily increased to the 80 ,s where it levelled off till the nineties and then began to fall to less abortions. Not sure how that pans out with the pro life camp being responsible for supposedly increased abortions !. Oh that was just the US , I think .    not looked at the UK ,s yet.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 06:06 PM

This was looking sensible until the lunatic go-d botherer kicked in. Particular compliments to Acme. Including on pointillism.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 06:20 PM

Say goodnight, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 06:21 PM

Nobody said that the "pro-life" camp have been responsible for increased abortions, pete. The facts are that abortion rates overall are not affected by freely-available abortions. What is affected by pro-life-style bans is the number of unsafe abortions, the kinds that maim or injure women for life, which increase. I mean, why do you think I posted the original article, pete? So that you could look at the link, not click on it, put your hands over your eyes and carry on with your blind prejudice?

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 06:51 PM

So that you could look at the link, not click on it, put your hands over your eyes and carry on with your blind prejudice?

Got it in one, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 16 - 07:24 PM

It's depressing it is, Greg. Have you noticed that he never mentions women in his posts? I wonder whether that's because he thinks that babies are brought by storks, not women... Mind you, he doesn't mention storks either!