 sj |
||
|
||
BS: George Monbiot on abortion rates
|
|
|
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! |
|
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 - 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 - 06:20 PM Say goodnight, pete. |
|
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: 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: 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,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 - 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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." 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:31 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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. ♀ |
