Abortion - lets have the debate
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O Connor was quite right in suggesting that abortion is a legitimate topic for debate in the next election. It is grotesque that we allow healthy babies to be aborted at 24 weeks when they could survive if born prematurely.
We should also be told what came of the enquiry into the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. Back in September they were caught by an undercover journalist advising women on how to get abortions at 25 weeks.
The BPAS continue to recieve large amounts of public money every year.
We should also be told what came of the enquiry into the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. Back in September they were caught by an undercover journalist advising women on how to get abortions at 25 weeks.
The BPAS continue to recieve large amounts of public money every year.
posted by David Davies AM at 2:33 PM
7 Comments:
Firstly I don’t like the idea of abortion and I can see the practical problems of a complete ban. However the current limit of 24 weeks is unjustifiable when babies of 22 weeks can be born prematurely and survive.
Surely a reduction to 20 weeks whilst further studies are undertaken would be reasonable.
I do not accept this is about women's rights. Women don't have the right to kill their babies after birth so why should they have that right before birth.
A baby doesn't undergo some miraculous physical change from inert being to human being on the short journey along the birth canal so why should his/her rights not be respected in the womb?
As for the "it has gone on for hundreds of years so we mustn't criminalise those who do it" I really cannot accept this at all.
Amnesty International is currently running a campaign to point out that many women continue to be the victims of domestic violence. No doubt this has also been the case for hundreds of years but that doesn't stop us from passing laws to try and prevent it.
I do agree with you that pro life campaigners should not target the vulnerable women who seek abortions. They should keep their sights on the politicians who make the laws and organisations which offer advice on how to get around those laws.
In answer to your last question I ask another question - why is any issue relevant to a General Election? Surely the public, including religious leaders have the right to raise any issues they choose with those who make the laws.
Are you a Monmouthshire person Claire? just pondering as you're posting
Let me take each of your paragraphs in turn:
Firstly around 13% of the 187000 abortions carried out each year take place after 13 weeks according to a pro abortion website. http://www.abortionrights.org.uk
13% of 187,000 is a lot. However the implication of your point is that you believe it is a good thing that most abortions take place before 13 weeks. You do not argue that it is irrelevant how late in the pregnancy the abortion takes place so presumably, at some level, you also have some concerns about the process.
To take your second and third paragraphs, I accept that women do not generally go into this light heartedly although I do not agree that it is being over emotive to refer to a foetus as a "baby."
A foetus which leaves the birth canal prematurely, at say 22 weeks, is a baby which doctors will try to, and often succeed in saving.
Why is it not a baby if it remains inside the womb?
Asking me to read about what happened to women who underwent illegal abortions is definitely being emotive. I could just as easily suggest you look at a new born baby and think what it would be like to make it undergo the procedure of "foeticide" which is used in late terminations.
Finally this is not a case of imposing my religious views on anyone. My own Church has actually been shamefully quiet on this matter, in marked contrast to the comments from the Roman Catholic Church and Jewish and Muslims faiths.
I also support Amnesty International's campaign to prevent domestic violence against women. I do not see this as "imposing my religious beliefs on wife beaters" nor do I worry about "criminalising those who are only doing something which has gone on for hundreds of years" to slightly change some of your arguments. It is a simple matter of right and wrong.
Why doesn't David highlight his blog in The Beacon (Monmouth local paper)? And if we are to bring faith in, how can a Christian support the pulling out from the 1951 European Refugee Canvention? Or indeed be a Tory?
I think in the earlier post, in response to a comment from somebody else (anthropax?) I stated that I had no problem with minorities only with some of the groups who claim to represent them. It was a separate argument.
I cannot put my finger on the statistics but I think slightly over 1% of abortions take place after 22 weeks – 1.7% rings a bell but I stand to be corrected. Let us work on your figure of 1% and for the sake of argument assume that half of those take place because of a threat to the mothers life.
That still means 935 abortions take place needlessly each year at a time when the baby/ foetus could survive if born prematurely. In my view that is horrifying.
The Conservative Party are not focusing on this at all, Michael Howard was asked his view to which he gave a straight answer – as did Tony Blair.
I am sorry to disapoint you but you are not annoying me at all. Unlike supporters of New Labour I do not expect everyone to agree with me on everything and I am delighted to take part in debate.
To Anthropax I would point out that my website, from which the blog is accessed, is advertised every week in the Beacon. Your other point deviates completely from this thread so I think I will deal with that in a separate blog.
Why not simply place the address of your blog in your advert (great photo by the way), allowing your devoted public to see your personal musings. It would also highlight the whole idea of blogs, and a few more may crop up in the Monmouth area. A good thing surely?
thank you nice sharing
cep programsymbian programnokia programhtml kodlarımodifiye resimleri
Post a Comment
<< Home