Update! Shock victory for free abortions in England for NI women as the government suddenly caves in to cross party pressure

The chancellor has just announced that the government intends to fund abortions in England for women from Northern Ireland.

I recommend scrolling down the Guardian Live for the sequence of events ending in reverse order with the splash in George Osborne’s Evening  Standard, “Abortion Vote Chaos Hits May.”

The Guardian believes this was done so fast and unexpectedly  to avoid  a Commons defeat on the Queen’s Speech, with some Tories supporting a Labour amendment  to introduce it. It carries a letter from the minister for women Justine Greening confirming the move.

It had also been foreshadowed by the leader of the the Commons Andrea Leadsom

In Westminster terms this is  a major victory  for cross party pressure on a minority government. It will  have been accepted partly to reconcile  some Conservative MPs to an otherwise toxic deal with the DUP.

IN Stormont terms the lack of resistance  from the DUP can be  seen as a limited conciliation gesture  to supporters  of elective abortion at an important juncture  , even though as the Appeal Court has just ruled, it means no immediate change in Northern Ireland itself. Pressure will mount there too although it remains a hard nut to crack. It is also an answer to critics including Sinn Fein that  the DUP never move an inch. They do, at least when they have little choice.

Above all it is a quite a victory for our women in need.

More than 50 MPs from the major parties had backed a call for Northern Irish women to have abortions for free in England – they currently have to pay.

In Northern Ireland abortions are only allowed if a woman’s life is at risk or there is a permanent or serious risk to her physical or mental health.

The government has been under pressure since agreeing a deal with the DUP.

The concession came ahead of a vote on the issue in the Commons after an amendment on the issue was selected for debate on the Queen’s Speech.

Since the election Theresa May no longer has a majority of MPs so has to rely on backing from the 10 DUP MPs – but even then she remains vulnerable to a rebellion from her own side.

Philip Hammond was responding to a question from the Conservative Sir Peter Bottomley, who asked why “only the poor should be denied lawful abortions”.

He was among MPs from various parties to sign an amendment, co-ordinated by Labour’s Stella Creasy, calling on the government to allow women in Northern Ireland to have abortions for free in England, instead of being charged as they are now.

Mr Hammond told him that Justine Greening, the minister for women and equalities, “either has made or is just about to make an announcement by way of a letter to members of this house explaining that she intends to intervene to fund abortions in England for women arriving here from Northern Ireland”.

Ahead of the Queen’s Speech debate, Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom told MPs the Equalities Department and the Department of Health were “discussing and looking very closely” at the issue of abortion in Northern Ireland.

This was in response to former Conservative women’s minister Maria Miller who asked for a statement on the matter.

Pressure has been building since the government agreed the £1bn deal with the DUP. The minority Conservative government is facing a series of challenges as it attempts to get its Queen’s Speech through Parliament.

 

, , , , , , ,

  • grumpy oul man

    If you have children in schoolthats paid for by the English.as our the. Hospitals and GPs, ever think you mifht need a policeman or fireman, maybe a ambulance.
    Do you drive on the roads at all.
    Im pretty sure you didnt pay enough tax to build a hospital or a motorway, all these things are subsidised by the English taxpayer.
    Like yourself i am not in benifits but a great deal of the infrastructure that we all use and makes modern life possible could not have been built without English money.

  • anglo-irish

    Nice cherrypicking of sources.

    A quick Google tells me the American College of Pediatricians is “a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States” and “was founded in 2002…as a protest against the AAP’s support for adoption by gay couples.” Not sure I’d take their opinion as definitive!

    You also include the opinion of Lejeune, a socially conservative and devout Roman Catholic. That’s not science, Marcus, that’s having a conclusion in mind and searching out evidence which supports your view without presenting or accepting the opposing theory.

    I respect your viewpoint but rather resent your attempt to patronise me by “welcoming me to science”!

  • Skibo

    You say a mother should look better after her unborn child but infer that the law could not get involved, yet when a mother abuses her born child, she could be done for child cruelty.
    Either the two are the same or they are not.
    The issue of when life begins and when a baby begins could be considered as two different things. While the fetus is in development, it is fully dependant on the mother’s body. It is not a decision that the mother makes to care for the fetus or not. When does the fetus stop being part of the Woman’s body and start being a separate being?
    Could the issue of brain activity be that marker?

  • Skibo

    Well then the fetus is actually part of the woman’s body then until it can survive on it’s own.
    This is not badly mixed up logic.
    If what you say is true then the fetus can stand alone as a separate being from the moment of conception. If not then it is part of the woman’s body.

  • Zeno3

    We get 9 0r 10 billion from the block grant. Over 8 billion of that goes on Welfare and Pensions Payments. I’m pretty sure we could fund schools hospitals, emergency services and infrastructure out of the estimated 14 billion we raise ourselves.

  • Marcus Orr

    Show me a counter-opinion then from a non-socially conservative scientist, who is prepared to contradict the law of biogenesis, the fact that all species reproduce according to their own kind, and the fact that life begins at conception.

  • Marcus Orr

    “Well then the fetus is actually part of the woman’s body ”
    I think that you are mixing up the terms “part of” and “inside”. The unborn baby is clearly not part of the woman’s body. It is a different body in its natural habitat, inside the womb of the mother.

  • Marcus Orr

    Specifically I am looking for a scientific source that you can find which denies that the zygote is alive, or that it is a truly separate being from the parents who conceived it.

  • anglo-irish

    The “law” of biogenesis merely says that “life comes from other life” – certainly an observable fact, but it does not state that a foetus deserves the same rights as an adult/child/newborn. So I think that’s a non-sequitur in an abortion discussion. There are a great many scientists who argue the case for controlled abortion, Lord Winston being one who comes to mind.

  • Marcus Orr

    “Either the two are the same or they are not.”
    The two are very much the same sort of thing. The difference is the applicability of law. Stealing is wrong and being a “greedy” person is wrong, but theft can be established easily and objectively, to find out whether someone is a greedy person or not you would need the thought police. Therefore, not punishable by law for practical and libertarian reasons.
    In something of the same way, child abuse can be established but it’s more difficult when accusing a mother of smoking too much or drinking too much of “child abuse”. How much is too much ? Where exactly do you draw the line ? What if the mother is depressed, the reason for her alcoholism ? I just get the feeling that general societal shame “you shouldn’t do that” would be more effective than the state going around trying to measure the % alcohol in pregnant woman.
    I may be wrong on this. Either way nothing to do with abortion.

  • anglo-irish

    I’m not denying that a zygote is alive, nor that it is somehow a part of the woman’s body. I don’t think you’d find many scientists who would deny that. But, in my view, that is not the issue. I’ll remind you that I don’t approve of abortion and would not ever encourage it, merely that I don’t consider it “murder”, and that I don’t think it should be illegal.

  • hgreen

    In the real world sadly women are raped. Kids make mistakes. People forget to take contraception. People struggle to have kids and choose IVF. Your fundamentalist position is that they should be punished for this. My position is that women and couples should have access to services that can sort the problems out as soon as possible.

  • Marcus Orr

    “but it does not state that a foetus deserves the same rights as an adult/child/newborn”
    No scientific law can say anything about rights. As soon as we start talking about rights, we are in the territory of philosophy, not science.
    Oh, I agree many scientists argue for abortion, that’s certainly true, but I know of zero scientists who will try to claim that a new human life doesn’t begin at conception. They know they’re on shaky ground scientifically there, so usually they branch off into vague philosophical “personhood” or “sentient” arguments – the fetus is a human being but not a person etc.

  • Korhomme

    An abortion is the disruption of a normally implanted fertilized ovum.

    The morning after pill is not an abortifacient, it doesn’t act in this way.

  • Marcus Orr

    “nor that it is somehow a part of the woman’s body”
    It is certainly not a part of the woman’s body, that much is objectively clear, although it is INSIDE the woman’s body.

  • anglo-irish

    I think on this issue we can have some consensus – it is indeed a matter of philosophy, and the scientific debate is something of a sideline. Hence, as a philosophical matter like abortion, I believe in giving individuals the choice to act in accordance with their conscience.

  • Marcus Orr

    Technically you are right here, in that the fertilized egg is not yet implanted in the womb.
    However as the point of the morning after is to stop the possibility of this implantation from happening, as far as I’m concerned the morning-after is to be clearly distinguished morally from a pure contraceptive.

  • Marcus Orr

    “Your fundamentalist position is that they should be punished for this”
    No, exactly the other way around. Your extreme position is that the unborn baby should be punished for this, with the extreme penalty – death.

  • T.E.Lawrence

    Why do you not trust Women Croiteir ????

  • Marcus Orr

    But if you want to give individuals the choice to act in accordance with their own conscience (i.e. you’re saying do what feels ok for you on this issue) don’t we draw the line when they decide to kill other individuals ? You can’t take that position with say, bank robbery ? (I personally don’t approve but think it’s a question of individual conscience)…
    The whole point in this abortion issue is “what is the unborn”? We have to answer that question as a society before there is any movement on the abortion question. It’s tough for young women to pay for an abortion, they have to go to England, pay so much, dangerous to have backstreet abortions etc.etc.etc. All those arguments cut no ice if the unborn baby is another human being. You can’t kill it.
    I submit that it is pretty damn obvious that the unborn is a human being. I have answered the scientific questions. I have answered the philosophical questions (on sentient being etc) elsewhere on this thread.

  • anglo-irish

    Ultimately, my stance is informed by three things:

    1) I consider the “unborn” to be of a different status to a newborn/child/adult – the law already recognises this in England with the offence of child destruction as opposed to murder, for example.

    2) My admission is that none of the pro-life or pro-choice arguments are necessarily strong or convincing enough for me to wish to impose my beliefs or philosophy on anyone else, and

    3) I don’t think the legalisation of abortion is destructive to civil society (see above re: imposing beliefs)

    I don’t think we will convince each other, so I’ll leave this here. Nonetheless, I welcome the discussion and certainly welcome posts from social conservatives who I recognise are a somewhat unfairly marginalised group online.

  • Marcus Orr

    I appreciate the discussion too, and especially your willingness to remain fair in the discussion.

  • Korhomme

    Morning after pills also delay or prevent ovulation.

    How do you view the management of an ectopic pregnancy?

  • The worm!

    Fine,

    ………………………if you’re comfortable enough with the destruction of human life being a matter of “free and conscientious choice” for everyone.

    Now if that were to be applied equally across the human spectrum, I wonder where it would take us?

  • Marcus Orr

    “How do you view the management of an ectopic pregnancy?”
    Pretty simple really. In an ectopic pregnancy the unborn baby has no hope of survival, nothing can be done to save it. So whatever steps that are necessary to safeguard the mother in this case must be taken. The baby must be removed, it has no chance to live.

  • Ron Keegan

    Barack Obama‏Verified account

    @BarackObama

    Follow

    More

    “You can judge a nation, and how successful it will be, based on how it treats its women and its girls.” —President Obama

    7:41 AM – 23 Jan 2014

  • Marcus Orr

    And the relevance is…?

  • Korhomme

    OK.

    It’s rather curious, is it not, that the law has no interest in the management of ectopic pregnancy when this will inevitably result in the destruction of the unborn, but does interfere in other instances, such as what happened to Savita Halappanavar.

  • grumpy oul man

    so no welfare or pensions then, so we don’t pay our way! fair enough!

  • grumpy oul man

    what is pathetic is taking comments out of context.
    and the whataboutry! what are you talking about.
    you challenged my comment i referred to what the comment was about, i suggest you check the definition of whataboutry.
    Now any comment on this nasty little racist rant!
    “Not Claude Akins • 20 hours ago
    Resounding victory indeed! Soon, all of Europe can embrace the nihilism and ennui of U.S. liberalism. Certainly making Mohammed’s job easier when you kill your own children.”

    anything to say on that or still going for offended self righteous!

  • Marcus Orr

    No, not curious at all I reckon.

    In an ectopic pregnancy the baby is outside the womb. There is no chance of saving the baby. So all must be done to safeguard the mother’s life. There are 2 lives involved, one life (the baby’s) is lost, let’s at least make sure that the mother is ok.

    Let’s be clear, you know as I do that in Great Britain today abortion is legal and on demand for any reason. The mother wants it, she’ll get it, and no questions asked. So 180’000 babies a year are put to death. The % of abortions carried out in the case of rxpe, incest or ectopic pregnancy are around 1-2% of the overall total – very small volumes. I’m interesting in saving the lives of the other 98% of aborted lives, put to death mostly for economic or lifestyle/ life choice reasons. I acknowledge the few exceptions such as ectopic / rxpe / incest, and I have indicated elsewhere on this thread that I agreed with the pre 1967 British law which outlawed abortion except for these exceptions. So why bring them up at all ? The only reason seems to be to try to make the suggestion through the exceptions that socially conservative people opposed to abortion are unfeeling, unsympathic, unreasonable and that abortion (for the masses) must be kept (in Britain) or strived for (in NI). Bad moral reasoning.

    The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar was due (as subsequent investigations found) to the mismanagement of a resistant e-coli infection arising during her pregnancy and occurring in an over-stretched maternity unit. Nothing to do with the abortion question directly in any sense.

  • Vince

    Arlene Foster, Theresa May and Maggie Thatcher……

  • Korhomme

    But it is curious and paradoxical. In both cases without appropriate and timely treatment both the mother and the unborn will die. In an ectopic pregnancy, the mother will die from exsanguination.

    Savita Halappanavar had an incomplete spontaneous abortion or miscarriage at 17 weeks gestation. At this stage the foetus cannot survive outside the womb. The dilatation of the cervix and the rupture of the membranes, together with large raw uterine surfaces, opens a portal which invites and nourishes infection which then can be fatal to the mother. The management of such a spontaneous abortion is timely, expedited delivery which could be called an ‘abortion’ though usually isn’t — it’s a completion of a spontaneous miscarriage. These facts have been known for a long time. The unit may have been overstretched; this doesn’t excuse any delay. Neither does the presence of a foetal heartbeat; this indicates that the foetus has a heartbeat, it doesn’t indicate whether the foetus is alive or not. The maternity staff seem to have interpreted the law quite narrowly, though this is unsurprising given the culture. So yes, her death was a direct consequence of the presence of a law interfering with appropriate medical treatment.

    As for the law before 1967; this is the law that operates in NI at present. The legal position derives from the Bourne case in 1937, with some input from other laws around ‘infant life preservation’. The judge, with a certain degree of prestidigitation, indicated that there was a difference between ‘life’ and ‘being alive’. Thus it is the ‘life’ of the mother which determines what may or may not be done. Although the Bourne case involved a young woman who had been raped, the law subsequently did not permit rape or incest by themselves as exceptions to the law — it was only the ‘life’ of the mother.

    As for the 180,000 or so abortions annually in GB; yes, I agree that this is a tragedy. But it is also a tragedy in terms of education and contraception — no contraceptive method is 100% effective. Sadly, sex education can be very variable and sometimes disingenuously misleading. Countries where there is comprehensive sex and relationship education and where contraception is easily available have a much lower rate of abortion than GB. Surely, this is a better way to take things forward? Further, there are questions around the support and welfare had these unborn not been aborted, support including benefits payments, the provision of schooling etc.

    And to confuse this further, the previous Chancellor (George Osborne) stopped child benefit/welfare/child tax credits for the third and subsequent child from April this year. This can be seen as a perverse inducement to abortion. And it’s even worse for women in NI. Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act for NI makes it a crime to believe that a crime may have been committed. There is an exception to the third child rule if the woman has been raped. To gain this exception in NI the woman must report to the Benefits Office that she has been raped; they must believe her for payment to be made, but by believing her they criminalise themselves. And if the woman has not reported her belief that she has been raped to ‘a constable’ she too becomes a criminal.

  • hgreen

    And your position is equally as extreme.

  • file

    Can a two-week old baby stand alone as a separate being? No, it needs protection, support and nourishment from its environment to survive, just as the baby in the womb does. Can an 80 year-old with dementia stand alone as a separate being? No, he needs nourishment and support from his environment to survive, just like the baby in the womb does. Can a severely handicapped child survive on its own. No. DO you want to start killing them too?

  • Marcus Orr

    How so ?
    I say someone forgets to take contraception and has a human being inside them, they don’t get to kill that baby by lethal injection. How is my position extreme – in comparison to yours ?
    I’m waiting for your answer to this one.

  • Marcus Orr

    The Halappanavar tragedy was a medical error from a non-abortion situation mismanaged medically, and ectopic pregnancies are not abortions at all, the child cannot live and must be removed. So let’s get back on topic. I understand that pro-deathers need to keep the focus away from the 180’000 dead babies through life-style choices every year in UK through abortion being legal and on demand for any and every wish of the mother, and so an exceptional tragedy such as the non-abortion situation with Halappenavar is manna from heaven in this regard and is misused. Anything to get the focus away from the human beings being destroyed through lethal injection in their masses.
    Ok got that manoeuvre, let’s move on from the smoke and mirrors.
    Education and contraception is the answer you say – in the 1960’s and 1970’s the British govt. started up sex education in schools to eliminate unwanted teenage pregnancies (rare at the time) – in GB not NI. Since the 1970’s and the start of “education” the amount of such unwanted pregnancies has increased exponentially. So we have more and more sex education. And the unwanted pregnancies increase further. The answer is more sex education for even younger children !! People (even children) are not stupid. They know how a girl gets pregnant and they know about contraception. The only effect telling 13 year olds about condoms has is that teacher talking about it sends them the message that it’s time they should be sexually active and no value judgement on that, go ahead with that, just protect yourselves while you’re shagging kids. Compare that with parental advice, or advice from the churches, to wait until later and abstain. Obvious which advice is better. Obvious which advice doesn’t get you pregnant. Obvious that the sexual revolution and the “education” showered on the youth since over a generation in Britain has only resulted in the over-sexualisation of children and many more unwanted pregnancies and killed babies.
    Concerning your last point on Osborne, let’s keep in mind what the unborn is – a human being. You cannot simply kill a human being. The idea that I won’t get dosh for this child, therefore I can have it’s life snuffed out, is wrong.

  • NotNowJohnny

    This is simply not true although I can understand why you would wish to misrepresent what has happened. People from Northern Ireland have been getting free medical procedures in English hospitals which are not available in Northern Ireland for a long time. This does not undermine devolution and no one has ever suggested that it does. It would be absurd to. Devolved powers relate only to the geographical area which is Northern Ireland. Nothing in this latest decision affects the geographical area of Northern Ireland or the laws of Northern Ireland. So how does it undermine devolution? The NI executive does not have some sort of feudal ownership of the people of Northern Ireland and cannot regulate what they do outside Northern Ireland. Neither does it have any jurisdiction over how the. U.K. Government operates in England. So this latest development cannot not impact on devolution whatsoever. Perhaps you think the NI executive has or should have powers to restrict women leaving the state? Perhaps you think the NI executive has powers or should have powers to control how women from Norther Ireland behave when in England? Perhaps you think that the UK government by allowing women from Northern Ireland to have drink in an English pup on Easter Sunday undermines devolution? I’d really be interested to know how you think this latest development undermines devolution.

  • Marcus Orr

    I wouldn’t class letting her have her baby killed by lethal injection in the same league as having a drink in the pub or having the car MOT’d.

  • Marcus Orr

    Trust them to kill their own babies ?
    That pathetic argument would be exactly like a man saying I can do what I want with my own body – trust me. If I want to rxpe someone it’s my body, my affair.
    Shall we trust men on the question of rxpe ? Er, no. But we must protect the women from the rapist you say. Well, we must protect the baby from the lethal injection too in abortion.

  • Korhomme

    To deny that abortion legislation played no part in the management of Savita Halappanavar isn’t helpful. Following her death, the government introduced the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 in an attempt to clarify the law in such circumstances. (Other cases played a role in formulation of the Act.) The Act specifically exempts ectopic pregnancy from its provisions. (There is no mention of ectopic pregnancy in the 1861 Act; there was no treatment for it then.)

    Abortion on demand is not legal in the UK, even if that may well be the de facto position.

    Early abortions do not require ‘lethal injection’; why do you suggest this?

    Cardinal Nichols recently stated that ‘the proper use of the sexual faculty is within marriage…’ That is, the position of the church is otherwise abstention. This is the ‘education’ that kids get in the southern states of the US, where they also have extremely high teenage pregnancy rates. (Compare that to the position in Holland.) The church doesn’t adduce evidence to explain how they know what ‘proper use’ is. This is against a background of the churches’ view of the nature of women as second class people who are chattels and subject to the control of their male protectors.

    And such ‘education’, and the soi-disant arguments of anti-abortionists so often includes resort to emotion rather than reason, inducing feelings of guilt, shame, remorse, sin; all of which reverts back to the ideas of ‘control’ of women and their sexuality. Such arguments often uses imagery unrelated to what happens in the majority of cases. Further, such arguments are often specious and are at times simply mendacious — that is, they spread fear through lies. There is further sophistry in the use of terms such as ‘murder’ and ‘baby’.

    To think that kids today are ‘oversexualised’ is to ignore the historical evidence from ‘illegitimate’ births (and the word itself speaks volumes), the presence of Foundling institutions, Magadalene Laundries and Mother and Baby Homes. The real situation in bygone times was largely brushed under the carpet to preserve a feeling of ‘purity’. (There were, unsurprisingly, no equivalent institutions for men.)

  • hgreen

    Forcing a raped woman to go through with a pregnancy. Denying IVF treatment to childless couples. That’s pretty extreme.

  • Marcus Orr

    I didn’t say either of those things.
    Pay attention at the back there please !

  • NotNowJohnny

    No. And no one is suggesting it is. Which is why it is somewhat bemusing that you should feel the need to make that point. How is the nature of the specific act relevant of the point being discussed?

  • hgreen

    You seem confused. Are you saying you are ok with abortion following rape and are content with the destruction of embryos during IVF treatment?

  • npbinni

    Sadly this will lead to more children with Down’s syndrome having their lives terminated before they get a chance to enjoy them. I find it ironic that children with Down’s syndrome normally have a happier and longer life than most members of the LGBTQ community, yet they are the ones being eliminated from society. What a selfish and horrible species the human race has become.

  • npbinni

    Not so fantastic for all those little inconvenient and unsuspecting babies about to have their heads crushed, or their bodies high-pressure sucked, or poisoned with saline solution or other toxic drugs.

  • Marcus Orr

    I’m not confused at all. I haven’t said anything about IVF at all, to you or anyone else. And I’ve posted several times on this thread to say that I approved personally of the pre-1967 British law, which made abortion illegal but with exceptions for cases of rxpe and incest.

  • Marcus Orr

    Because we are not truly talking about “free medical procedures”, indeed we are not talking about healthcare at all. And other banal examples like drinking a beer don’t really come into the same league either.
    We are talking about the barbaric destruction of human life by lethal injection on demand. I suggest that if the regional devolved parliament has passed legislation on this matter (it has) then it is callous and wrong of the English NHS to make something considered unlawful by the legal devolved power of NI freely available to people from said region – it is just the first step towards pressurizing the NI devolved government to soften this law which prevents the death of so many innocent unborn children.
    Obviously the devolved powers only relate to the area of NI but by making what is considered an illegal in the province freely available elsewhere it is simply a blatant attempt to put pressure on said assembly to change its laws and follow the rest of the UK in their savagery against unborn human beings.

  • Korhomme

    GT, the thought I had, but didn’t want to utter to avoid any prejudice was ‘control’, that is, the control of women by men.

  • TJ53

    Personally I don’t agree with abortion.But it’s a woman’s choice.Now back into the sectarian box your locked into.

  • NotNowJohnny

    You may well think it is callous and wrong but that doesn’t mean that it undermines devolution. It has no impact whatsoever on devolution. Nothing in Northern Ireland has changed as a result of this decision. I presume that you dont think that refusing an English person a free abortion in Northen Ireland is wrong even though abortions are freely available in England.

  • hgreen

    Why do you think it’s fine to destroy an embryo in the case of rape but not other circumstances? Some screwed up logic there. And what about IVF? Are you ok with that? You said these embryos are women. Now you are OK killing some of them depending on how they were created. Like many anti abortionists my hunch is you don’t really love the embryo at all. You hate the woman.

  • Marcus Orr

    Of course according to pure logic and reason, in cases of rxpe / incest we should be only interested in punishing the man who committed the crime but not the innocent child which results from the crime, ideally the mother should carry to term. But any law should know mercy in the truly difficult cases. The old British law pre-1967 (still applicable in NI today) outlawed abortion but allowed for exceptions after the 1938 case of the doctor who performed an abortion on a young woman who had been brutally gang-rxped and was in a pitiful condition. He (the doctor) turned himself in and was not convicted by the judge. As far as I’m concerned I can live with that decision. It is easy to moralize about always protecting the unborn child but difficult if you are the 17 year old girl brutally gang-raped.
    At any rate, as said before, I am willing to allow the very few exceptions for cases of rxpe and incest to save the 99% of the 180’000 babies who are killed every year for purely economic or life style reasons. This is completely indefensible. And that is what you are defending. Would you like to say a word in defence of the barbarism that you advocate for hundreds of thousands of killed babies, or do you wish to continue to talk about the handful of difficult cases (in which you would have the baby killed as well) as a smokescreen ? The choice….is yours.

  • chrisjones2

    Yes…indeed we are

  • chrisjones2

    My humanity goes to support the women who is alive sentient and in distress and , above all, whose body we ware talking about. Its her choice

  • chrisjones2

    It grows by feeding off the woman. It implants into her so it can extract nutrients and oxygen and get the material it needs to grow

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite

  • chrisjones2

    No…this is the usual nonsense. They are sentient human beings.

  • chrisjones2

    …in circumstances where the plans for the USA are without logical foundation or hope and will cause great disdress to the child ….yes, sadly the child should be allowed to die in peace and with some dignity. Unfortunately , while I feel great sadness for the parents, there is no alternative to death

  • chrisjones2

    “Scientific fact, not in question.”

    Thats nonsense. THe question is not ‘were these cells created by an egg and sperm’ – yes they were but

    1 is this group of cells capable of independent life? No

    2 does the woman want to continue with the pregnancy? No

    3 in many cases, will continuing harm the mother physically or mentally ? Yes

  • chrisjones2

    I think you will find they prevent implantation

  • chrisjones2

    ” Nothing to do with the abortion question directly in any sense.”

    Utterly untrue . She was killed by the refusal to abort a non viable non sentient foetus that still had a heartbeat but was otherwise dead and decaying and causing a sepsis that killed her. IT was a direct result of Doctors being forced to follow Irish law

  • chrisjones2

    I dont keep the focus anywhere but on the fact that its the right of the woman to choose

  • chrisjones2

    Not a human being at the point where it is aborted.

    20 to 25% of all pregnancies abort naturally

  • chrisjones2

    Not a human being yet

  • chrisjones2

    “Sorry that’s not good enough.”

    But that is not your choice. Its the choice of the woman ….not even the man …this is in HER body not his or yours

  • chrisjones2

    Yes

  • chrisjones2

    In IVF perhaps 6 or 7 embryos are created and 1 or 2 implanted. The rest are destroyed

  • chrisjones2

    ” ideally the mother should carry to term ”

    iDEALLY FOR WHOM?

    When were you appointed to decide on this?

    “The choice….is yours.”

    No its hers. She is the woman whose body is involved. Its her choice. Do have a problem with females making decisions?

  • chrisjones2

    So if we manufacture a zygote through genetic engineering, is it human?

    The technology is there now to do it. Indeed it may have been done

  • Korhomme

    They do; that’s sort of implied in my reply to Marcus Orr. I do not consider the prevention of implantation to be ‘abortion’ as he does in an earlier comment.

  • Marcus Orr

    Shall I get your lethal injection ready then ?

  • Marcus Orr

    Exactly as it is supposed to do by nature. Unless someone has it ripped out and killed that is.

  • Marcus Orr

    “1 is this group of cells capable of independent life?” It’s a human being, not a group of cells, and yes, it is already alive. A newborn baby is not capable of independent life. What a laughable argument.

    “2 does the woman want to continue with the pregnancy?” Re-frame the question – does the woman want to have her child killed? – not her choice, it’s another human being.

    “3 in many cases, will continuing harm the mother physically or mentally ?” I feel a bit depressed too, can I go out and kill someone ?
    What is the unborn is the only question that counts. If it’s a human being (you and I know it is) you can’t kill it. Neither can the mother. It’s simply wrong.

  • Marcus Orr

    The doctors made a poor medical decision in the treatment of the sepsis.
    Not surprised that the pro-deathers light on this case though – not even an abortion, but it’s one case where they feel they can argue that a mother’s life is put in danger. And in so doing the millions of babies killed in the UK since these laws were relaxed are not in focus. But they should be, and you as a pro-deather have that to answer for too if you support the British law.
    What to continue discussing this one case, or shall we discuss the 180’000 babies killed every year for selfish economic / life style reasons ?

  • Marcus Orr

    You have to learn to finish your sentences Chris. I am an adult, I manage to complete my sentences, here’s an example:
    A man has the right to choose…whether he drinks coffee or tea for breakfast.
    A man does not have the right to choose….to do anything whatsoever he wants with his body, for example he does not have to right to use his body to rxpe a woman.
    So, to complete your sentence (an adult sort of thing to do) you think: its the right of the woman to choose…to have her unborn child put to death through death by lethal injection or by being ripped apart in the womb until it bleeds to death.
    I think you are seriously morally wrong in that contention. No woman should ever have that right as an unrestrained demand.

  • Marcus Orr

    You are in denial of Science.

    “Development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an ovum to form a zygote; this cell is the beginning of a new human being.”
    Moore, Keith L., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, page 12, W.B. Saunders Co., 2003

    “In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
    Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., 1974

    “A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum.”
    Encyclopedia Britannica, “Pregnancy,” page 968, 15th Edition, Chicago 1974

    “”Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
    Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

  • Marcus Orr

    Neither the location of a human being (in the womb) nor its degree of dependence on its mother gives anyone the right to have it killed off.
    As soon as a woman becomes pregnant she is a mother of a child and she is responsible (with the father, who often loves to run away from his responsibility and is delighted when the mother has an abortion) for the unborn baby.
    Don’t want the responsibility, don’t have sex. Simple.

  • Marcus Orr

    “iDEALLY FOR WHOM?”

    What a question. Ideally for the baby of course.

    Aren’t you pleased your own mother didn’t have you killed off in the womb ?

    “Do you have a problem with females making decisions?”

    I have a problem with males and females making decisions which are wrong. I might be for rxpe because my body is involved, I get pleasure from it and what men do with their body, and these rxpe decisions they make, are their choice in my opinion.

    I do hope you would oppose me if I came up with this sort of nonsense justification for the terrible crime of rxpe.

    In the same way, I am opposing your nonsense about woman having the right to choose, the right to dispose of their own bodies, etc. etc. etc. It’s a load of bull, and you know it Chris.

  • The worm!

    What has Catholic or Protestant to do with it you idiot?

    Have you not the wit to realise that whatever the rights and wrongs this is one case where the two sides straddle the sectarian divide.

    Many Catholics pro-life, many Protestants pro-abortion.

  • Skibo

    See this is the big problem I have with the “God fearing people”.
    They believe that sex is only for producing babies and not be used as an act of love and pleasure. You would still have us running around with 16 or more children.
    I know that during my Grandmother’s time even the use of condoms was frowned on.
    What cannot be proved is when a fetus can be confirmed as a separate life and when it is actually part of the woman’s body.
    I say this and yet I would not try and convince anyone to have an abortion. In the same way though, I cannot say that I have a right to demand that each and every woman carries that fetus to full term.
    By the way, abortion is not the norm in GB, carrying on with the pregnancy is the norm.

  • Marcus Orr

    “They believe that sex is only for producing babies and not be used as an act of love and pleasure. You would still have us running around with 16 or more children. ”
    No completely wrong. Read the book Song of Solomon in the Old Testament. Sex there is described very clearly as a pleasure between man and woman and not just for pro-creation. There is no issue whatsoever with the use of contraceptives to limit the amount of children you have. It is only the abortive methods (once the baby is already there, to which I include the morning-after pill) which are wrong.
    This is very standard protestant theology though I might add the Roman Catholic Church (especially in the past) have been very restrictive on contraception as well. Their position on contraceptives in the past (and maybe today) is in my humble opinion non-biblical and therefore non-Christian – only my opinion, don’t want to start a prod vs. Catholic thing here.
    The fetus is very clearly and scientifically a separate human being at conception, as any science textbook will confirm. It is certainly not part of the woman’s body, though it is inside her womb.

  • hgreen

    Either you believe the destruction of an embryo is murder or you don’t. You are hopelessly inconsistent. What about IVF is that murder or not?

  • Marcus Orr

    I haven’t said anything about murder, but I certainly believe abortion is a case of unlawful killing. I am not hopelessly inconsistent but rather realistic. I would rather save 180’000 babies lives every year than insist on the strict application of no abortions for the tiny handful of rxpe / incest cases. You want to kill them all, no questions asked.
    IVF, when it is used to create many human embryos, with the express knowledge that several of these embryos will die, is morally wrong as well.
    Couples who are infertile always have the possibility to adopt a child, a measure that does not involve recourse to the doubtful moral position of IVF.

  • Skibo

    How can it be a being without brain activity?

  • Marcus Orr

    That’s besides the point. Brain activity starts at 10-12 weeks, but so what ? Consciousness is no indication of whether you are a “being” or not.
    When I am sleeping, or when I have been knocked unconscious, or when I faint, or if I’m ever in a short-term or long-term coma, I am not in a conscious state. Nevertheless you don’t get the right to put me to death because of that. A human being is a human being, whether or not it is conscious or not.

  • Skibo

    Whether you are awake or asleep, conscious, unconscious or fainting there is brain activity. It is one of the criteria that the doctors use to determine if it is worth while keeping a person going in life support.

  • Marcus Orr

    Fair point – allow the difference being a person after a terrible accident on life support, the cessation of brain activity indicates the end – there is no possibility that brain activity will stop (after the damage sustained in the accident etc.) and then nature will magically reverse itself and activity will start up again.
    The difference with the unborn baby is that even if brain activity cannot yet be certified or measured it is coming as soon as week 10 is reached. The reason why it is monitored in the case of the person on life support is to ascertain if the person is basically dead (even if still rather artificially sustained by the life support machine).
    Different for an unborn baby though. The brain activity is coming, not ceasing for ever.

  • Skibo

    I would have thought that a lack of brain activity can be used as a sign of no life, then surely it could be used as a sign that life has not yet begun. It would not be a sign of a fully active brain but that there is brain activity? One of the reasons why I think abortion should be restricted to pre brain activity.

  • Marcus Orr

    “it could be used as a sign that life has not yet begun”
    Life has begun alright with the unborn baby clearly in existence in the womb, it’s just that the baby’s brain has to develop some more in order to register first brain activity. Just a question of waiting a few more days / weeks.
    Given that most woman discover they are pregnant around 7 or 8 weeks, they must be in an almighty rush to get the poor baby’s head bashed in before the 1st brain activity starts, they have 2 weeks max to plan the “operation”.
    I’m sorry but I don’t see “brain activity measurement” of the unborn baby as a measurement of “life”, the baby is already clearly alive and prospering in the womb.
    Brain activity seems to me to be just a fob-off for the abortion lobby to tell poor mothers considering abortion in order to try to give them a good conscience “they won’t feel a thing etc.”.

  • hgreen

    Morality eh. Not really up to you to decide what is moral or not. I don’t see removing some cells as killing.

  • file

    unlike you?