Public reject Dorries' abortion proposal

Paul Huxley

What a sorry excuse of an article. You fail to mention that, in the words of ComRes: "78% of the public supports the view that counselling should be independent and be provided by a source that has no financial interest in the outcome of a woman’s decision."

People may not be aware of bpas and Marie Stopes' financial interest but that doesn't mean they support it.

And on the final pie chart you spin it as the majority dismissing the notion, whereas more say it's too easy than say it's too hard.

Right On

This is a bit one sided - the YouGov question is heavily weighted in favour of oppose so shouldn't be taken as definitive.

I actually thought the most interesting thing was that more people favor a reduction from 24 weeks than favor the status quo.

I can never reconcile where I stand on this issue, it's far too complex - but the poll has very definite mixed messages and isn't as clear cut as you are suggesting.

alexsandr

we need to make sure that when an abortion is allowed, the foetus is not viable. Aborting foetuses that in other pregnancies result in a premature birth with the baby surviving is imoral.

Sean Haffey

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of abortion, an organisation which performs abortions has a conflict of interest when it comes to giving advice on choice.

LibertarianLou

Well it's a matter of competence and workability, isn't it? There are plenty of pro lifers who think this amendment is just poorly put together. Including the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/alerts/2011/dorriesbriefing20110905

Swiss Bob

Far be it for me to tell any woman what to do, and I wouldn't even dare, however, watch a few late term abortions and I challenge anyone to not want to see the number reduced.

Man in a Shed

As ever it depends how you ask the question.

Any polls on the children denied life ?

Yam Yam

After all the media and left-wing vilification of Nadine Dorries it's hardly surprising that the "public" have been so hoodwinked on this.

And, pray tell us, precisely what "evidence-based guidance" are women likely to receive from organisations that support abortion-on-demand and stand to profit from it?

MikeF

A squib of an article that does no justice to a complex issue. I haven't seen the term 'anti-choice' before but it is a logical development of the 'liberal' mindset in which what they believe in is represented as a reference point against which all other views can be judged rather than simply as their own opinion.

strapworld

YouGov are an absolute joke of an organisation. Who is the boss man? Peter Kelner, who is he? Married to the ghastly Baroness Ashton an unelected 'leader' of the EUSSR.

The article ignores the more realistic poll and so is an extremely shoddy piece of journalism.

Obviously the Spectator agrees with this mass murder of the innocents.

alexsandr

if women want choice about their bodies, dont make babies in the first place.

once its made you have a responsibility towards it.

Dave B

Put forward by Nadine Dorries AND FRANK FIELD.

"...those seeking to characterise the measure as an import from what they portray as the knuckle-dragging, U.S. Right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda cannot acknowledge Field’s involvement.

For this would destroy the demonisation strategy by suggesting the amendment is motivated by sound and decent principles. So, tellingly, Field has been all but airbrushed out of this venomous campaign. It is Dorries, the Tory bogeywoman, who receives the hate mail and death threats."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2033783/Abortion-David-Cameron-stop-running-scared-zealots.html

John David Barnett

We are slaying thousands of potential future citizens and having to import thousands, many from the islamic world, to fill the gap left by our soulless massacre. Because of our moral depravity our demise as a people will be richly deserved.

W Lambeth

If I take a loan I would always ask the lenders advice on whether I should purchase additional insurance from them.

H

You people are hilarious.

Andy Carpark

Marie Stopes is a hairy man. But IDS is a noisy man.

Richard Marriott

My view is that this is the wrong target. I would much prefer to see the time limit for elective abortion (as opposed to abortion for medical reasons) reduced to 18 weeks.

daniel maris

The argument that we don't have enough people on this island is a pretty poor one.

Abortion is a complex ethical issue. I certainly think the media fixers should stop people seeing abortions performed on TV. Everything else has been on TV - sex change ops, birth, sexual intercourse, death, suicide etc etc. But there is one thing you are not allowed to see: an abortion. Despite it being claimed that this is a simple medical procedure.

I would like us to have an informed debate about abortion, but I think we would end up with something quite similar to the current legal framework.

bojimbo

And if the woman has been raped ?

Magnolia

I wrote about my stand against the killing of normal foetuses over at the DT and I support this very modest and helpful amendment from Saint Frank and Martyred Nadine.
The personal abuse, spite and venom that I was subjected to from other commenters was something that has never happened to me before. It gave me a taste of what real prejudicial hatred feels like.
As a doctor I always felt that the foetus was my patient as well as the mother and I could not kill the one for the other.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Say I go to the Mafia to arrange for a Button Man to remove somebody who I find a nuisance. Does the Godfather first ask me, "Are you sure? Do you want this guy garreted, shot or stabbed? Let's discuss it like civilised guys."

Louise

I was an 18 year old with an unplanned pregnancy more than 15 years ago. It is a terrible situation to be in for good decision making and although I made the right decision I nearly made the wrong one.(given that I'd got pregnant in the first place my decision making wasn't evidently amazing at the time) There was no professional help available and I could have really done with someone to help me work through the panic as there is so much pressure to decide quickly, I honestly couldn't think rationally. This amendment has got to help women. As an aside I totally agree with comments above to reduce the upper limit for abortions, I had to be about 6 weeks pregnant when I found out - why do we need 24 weeks! As a society we are asking our doctors to save babies of the same gestation that we are asking doctors to destroy. Look at those babies in special care and it's not a great thought is it?

Baron

the poll's results aren't at all surprising in a society where abortions are one of the means of birth control for many.

there will come a day we'll regret this killing.

Magnolia

@bojimbo
In the not too distant past men were allowed to rape their wives.
Some people may have grown up in households where this happened but nevertheless be glad of the siblings so produced who themselves might be happy, healthy and leading fulfilling lives here and now.

SJH

But Nadine Dorries' and Frank Field's proposal is the very essence of pro-choice: to put the pregnant woman in a better position to know what she is doing, rather than to look back later, perhaps bitterly, and feel that she hadn't properly participated in what had happened to her.

John David Barnett

Magnolia

God bless you.

snar

Yougov question is a whole lengthy paragraph long, with a few typos that make it almost incoherent. Comres get the oposite result - vast majority in favour of ammendment - by asking a shorter question. http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/525/right-to-know-abortion-public-opinion-poll.htm

alexsandr

bojimbo@September 6th, 2011 7:37pm
Not heard of adoption?

Mike

This may just be a blog post, but its skewed bias in favour of abortion is an utter disgrace.

Alice

I think this article makes the big mistake of not clarifying that what Dorries is after is LESS independent advice.

She is attacking Marie Stopes and BPAS for not being independent but has no evidence to support this. Yes they will receive funds to cover the *cost* of abortions provided but these are not for profit organisations. For the slower posters above that means they don't make larger profits from giving more abortions. Meanwhile audits of both organisations have reported high standards of counselling, with impartiality being a key measurements used in such assessments.

So Nadine is proposing a solution to a problem that no-one but she seems to think exists.

Dorries, on the other hand, wants less impartial advice. She wants non providers giving advice - the very same sort of independant counselling that the Dep. of Health currently warns women about. Why? Because such charities are in the main Christian, anti-abortion and will therefore give biased advice. Other websites have shown how several leading organisations have been caught giving inaccurate advice about the dangers of abortion.

So, having failed to reduce abortion by reducing the time limit (about which I'd agree there is a debate to be had) she's going about it by the back door - scaring women into fewer abortions. Pathetic.

Bill Rees

Alice, you seem remarkably naive.

You write, "She is attacking Marie Stopes and BPAS for not being independent but has no evidence to support this. Yes they will receive funds to cover the *cost* of abortions provided but these are not for profit organisations."

The organisation may not make profits, theoretically or in practice, but the people who work for and direct those organisations most certainly will make a living from them. So they clearly are profiting from providing abortions, they will need to undertake a certain number of abortions to justify their existence, and in that case they are clearly not independent.

"Dorries, on the other hand, wants less impartial advice. She wants non providers giving advice - the very same sort of independant counselling that the Dep. of Health currently warns women about. Why? Because such charities are in the main Christian, anti-abortion and will therefore give biased advice."

It's fair to say that religious bodies will tend to come down in favour of saving the life of an unborn child. I'm not a religious type, but I would share those principles. But surely the key point is that bodies other than religious ones would be able to establish advisory services too. You could presumably do it yourself if you were so inclined and followed the right procedures.

"So, having failed to reduce abortion by reducing the time limit (about which I'd agree there is a debate to be had) she's going about it by the back door - scaring women into fewer abortions. Pathetic."

It's people like you who seem to be scared of allowing advisory services to be widened. I'm not sure why you feel this way, but you present a very unconvincing and illogical case.

Sorry if I'm one of the 'slower' contributors on here who you condescendingly referred to in your post.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

I am against abortion, except for three exceptions: 1. The woman has been raped. 2. The result of incest and 3. The woman is in peril of death if pregnancy continues.
I find it suits their agenda that NuLabour being pro-abortion, does n ot encourage the abortion of pregnancies in the mainly Pakistan sector, the result of cousin marrying cousin, generation after generation. One sees many black covered up women pushing buggies filled with deformed and tragically disabled children. I say cousin marriages, but possibly there are many cases of incest too, with polygamy allowing multiple wives. It seems NuLabour, and this government too, is willing to support for life these wretched offspring, yet healthy native British babies can be 'terminated' (I prefer the term murdered).

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

"black-covered up women". In my posting, forgot the hyphen. I wasn't referring to the colour of the women, rather their shroud-like gear.