Attempts to reform abortion laws fail

Trumpeter Lanfried

One of those free votes where the government put out a three line whip (to vote, rather than abstain) and made its own views clear.

Ben Elford

Tragic indeed, as was the outcome of every vote over the last two days. Let us hope that the debate will provoke growing revulsion towards this contempt for human life, and the associated rejection of fatherhood and normal family life.

David M

I agree. This has all been dreadful. The amendments were up against a political and medical establishment which combined invincible ignorance of the horror of late-term abortions with acute political nous. Labour used a Liberal out-rider to do their dirty work (take a bow, Evan Harris) just as they did in 1967.

Frank Pulley

Further proof of just how baneful and baleful the effects of the counter-cultural revolution has been. Perhaps this desensivitising, nay, dehumanising process is the evolutionary preparation for the horrors to come. I give thanks for having spent a long life in better times, but God help my children and theirs.

Fergus Pickering

I think the fact is that most lefties have closed minds on this (as on many other) issues. But if cameron is sincere then the excellent Nadine can have another go when this government is, what is the phrase, consigned to the dustbin of history. She, and other people, mostly doctors and nurses changed my mind on this.

Ramon da Varga

Very far from tragic. It's demonstrated quite conclusively the strong Tory links to religious fundamentalism. I'd say that was rather revealing.

MagicAldo

Perhaps a little less criticising Continental European polities in light of these votes? Their legislatures don't seem have to quite the same moral dilemma when it comes to foeticide.

Ray

So much for that famed 'moral compass'.

Ted Tedford

David M: This is *vincible* ignorance. There's no decent excuse for what our legislators have allowed to come to pass.

James Hopkins

And many people believe it is a woman's right to choose. Something five men above obviously disagree with.

Faceless Bureaucrat

Shame on you, Evan Harris, shame on you...

Tanuki

I'm really rather happy that for once the HoC have made the sensible, rational decision and come down in favour of preserving the status quo on abortion times.

Simon Richards

Am I alone in being dismayed by the placing of a report on the abortion debate so close to a report on infertility on R4 this morning?

Perry

Indeed Frank, a dismal prospect. And yes, gratitude for a longish life in better times. As the sage Wogan says, - ‘it’s theirs now’.

V Kobus

Indeed. A great horror this is.

Paul Linford

Very well said James. Aborting babies at six months gestation is not only wrong, it is evil. I sincerely hope Nadine Dorries in right when she suggests that a future Tory Government would reopen this issue, although I fear she may not be.

salieri

Leaving aside the hypocrisy of the so-called Free Vote, it doesn't help that the two points of view have been wilfully reduced to the facile slogans 'Pro-Life' (who isn't?) and 'Pro-Abortion'. The real debate is whether abortion should (barring rare medical necessity) be a standard and politically acceptable form of contraception for the feckless.

In the Nu-Lab society this is regarded as a self-evident truth: the mother enjoys human rights while the unborn baby has none.

Bill (Scotland)

The fact that this was steered through the HoC for the Conservatives by someone with alarmingly-close links to the worst kind of Christian religious fundamentalists makes me very glad all the proposed amendments were soundly defeated. Unfortunately it reveals that just behind the surface reasonableness of the contemporary Conservative Party, carefully crafted by Cameron and his allies in the last couple of years, there lurk the same old reactionary bigots ready to pounce. Even more alarming, and revealing, is that Cameron himself supported the amendment.

Perry

RdV & Scots Willy – cobblers. You wanna talk about fundamentalism and religiosity? Look to your own sorry past and present ‘leaders’.

PeterA

Reading comments from both sides, it is very apparent that some in favour of keeping late abortion equate conservatives with religious fundamentalism. Isn’t this so revealing of the schism between people who place their own livelihoods above unborn babies and those who at least have a glimmer of the morality of the issue?

CS

Anyone see Nick Robinson on BC News last night ending his report on the votes by commenting that, as most of the antis were Tories, people should expect that, if the Tories win a majority at the next election, they'll start banning abortion?

Ah, the neutral viewpoint as ever.

Lance Diatessaron

Ramon, Bill: More lazy 'boo-words' substituting for debate. 'Reactionary' 'bigots', 'Christian fundamentalism'. Oh no, a scary religious maniac with a sinister agenda... That's as fatuous as pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian or opposed fox-hunting. As Salieri suggests, it would be nice if CH could rise above this sort of name-calling.

It's not a party political issue, but boils down to where you direct your compassion: to the unborn, or to those already existing. It is sad that both sides have been quick to collapse into sentimentality.

However, there is a small-c conservative point at stake, in that this cuts to the heart of the contract between our ancestors, the present generation, and those who will inherit the society we are making. This legislation bequeaths to future generations the responsibility of dealing with the unintended consequences of this mis-placed enthusiasm for perfecting the human condition. We have done little to solve existing problems and much to create new ones for our children to deal with.

Ray

"The fact that this was steered through the HoC for the Conservatives by someone with alarmingly-close links to the worst kind of Christian religious fundamentalists makes me very glad all the proposed amendments were soundly defeated."
Bill (Scotland), for a moment I thought you could so easily have been speaking about William Wilberforce trying to abolish slavery.

David Lindsay

Did anyone hear Nadine Dorries on the Today programme this morning? She suggested that the time limit would come down if the Tories won the next Election.

The American Republican Party has been keeping itself in existence like that for forty years: promising to ban or at least restrict abortion, but never doing the slightest thing about it, because those on whose votes it has come to depend would then declare "Mission Accomplished" and go home to the Democratic Party, whence they came and where their economic interest actually lies.

But the Tories could never pull off that trick here. Just as by far the most socialised sector would still never vote Labour in a million years, so the Catholics and the black-majority churches would never vote Tory in a million years. That's just the way it is.

Fergus Pickering

A woman's right to choose what? I've said it before, like most men I want a quiet life so I've tended to keep my head well nelow the parapet on this one. But Nadine Doprries is a woman, and the anonymous nurse who didn't much like seeing something gasping its life out on a slab was a woman too, so I'm not a part of some male conspiracy. Perhaps you were being ironic but I've always thought that stuff about right to choosse and it's my body was, well, rubbish, don't you know. What about a man's right to father the thing and then bugger off? After all, it's Nature, isn't it? Ducks do it.

Nick Kaplan

I so far don’t believe I’ve seen a single decent argument in favour of keeping the limit where it is. All those on this blog (and others) arguing for the status quo either make ludicrous ad hominem attacks suggesting anyone who votes for a reduction is a nasty religious fascist, or they simply give unthinking deference to the “scientific” view. But you don’t need to be religious (e.g. I’m an atheist) to be deeply uncomfortable about abortion. The point at which abortion is wrong is the point at which the thing aborted is a life, this is a philosophical issue not an issue for science, and not a single person in parliament seems to have made this very obvious point. Instead everyone just blindly accepts the scientists’ arbitrary decision to choose viability as the important point. Furthermore, all those ‘experts’ that advocate viability have committed the most ludicrous abuse of language and of principle by voting to keep the 24 week limit. Did anyone notice that the reasons they voted for 24 weeks is because there is no evidence of an “increase in viability” at 24 weeks? What exactly is an increase in viability? Something is either viable, meaning there is a feasible chance it will survive or is not viable, there are not stages in viability whereby some arbitrary percentage of survival is a deemed a necessary threshold. Those ‘experts’ who conclude that the 24 week limit should remain also admitted that 18% of premature babies born at 23 weeks will survive, if that’s not viable what exactly is???? The childish assertion of Women’s rights (not the issue) and the undue respect given to science on this issue, has crowded out any philosophical debate which is of vital importance in deciding whether this limit is acceptable. Thus one can only conclude that this decision was reached in the most deplorable way and therefore any future Conservative government should make it a priority to debate this topic again, but in a sensible and reasoned manner.