Abortion debate thread

Benny_Cake · 26-11-2012 09:17PM

Mod note: Let's get back on topic please -specifically the topic of abortion as viewed by Christians.

Also, if anyone has a genuine issue with bigoted remarks they should report it via the "report post" button and one of us will deal with it, rather than making accusations, veiled or otherwise on thread. Bigotry is a charter violation and will be treated seriously.

doctoremma · 26-11-2012 09:37PM

All this talk of biblical translation/interpretation has made me wonder...completely open question, no agenda...

Those Christians here who 'generally' oppose abortion - how much of that opposition is based on biblical text? Do you look specifically to verses that might give you insight into the actual issue? Or maybe a wider reading or broader rule (Commandment style)? Or do you think it's a more internal belief, that you then find support for in scripture?

I guess the question is: if a new bible book appeared, or a new interpretation was accepted, would you change your mind?

Fanny Cradock · 26-11-2012 10:27PM

doctoremma wrote: »

All this talk of biblical translation/interpretation has made me wonder...completely open question, no agenda...

Those Christians here who 'generally' oppose abortion - how much of that opposition is based on biblical text? Do you look specifically to verses that might give you insight into the actual issue? Or maybe a wider reading or broader rule (Commandment style)? Or do you think it's a more internal belief, that you then find support for in scripture?

I guess the question is: if a new bible book appeared, or a new interpretation was accepted, would you change your mind?

My view on abortion is indeed informed by Christianity (and this of course means Scripture). But this said, I think that I would still oppose abortion even if I lost my faith. The problem for me would then be justifying my position.

I'm curious, was the "new bible book" suggestion an honest possibility to your mind? Or is it just something off the top of your head?

hotmail.com · 26-11-2012 10:29PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My view on abortion is indeed informed by Christianity (and this of course means Scripture). But this said, I think that I would still oppose abortion even if I lost my faith. The problem for me would then be justifying my position.

I'm curious, was the "new bible book" suggestion an honest possibility to your mind? Or is it just something off the top of your head?

What do you think should happen to women that have abortions?

PDN · 26-11-2012 10:59PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I guess the question is: if a new bible book appeared, or a new interpretation was accepted, would you change your mind?

There are always new books and 'revelations'. But, no, it wouldn't change my mind if a new book came out that said, "God wants you to kill unborn children."

doctoremma · 26-11-2012 11:11PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious, was the "new bible book" suggestion an honest possibility to your mind? Or is it just something off the top of your head?

Top of head and deliberately facile. I have no idea if 'new bible books' are ever released...However, I expected at least one reply to focus on rebutting this possibility rather than answer the genuine (if implausibly-framed) question. I shall wait...

When you say that you'd feel the need to seek new justification for your now-biblically-obsolete belief, would you be loathe to go with 'gut feeling'?

Fanny Cradock · 27-11-2012 12:26AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

What do you think should happen to women that have abortions?

It's a good question but given you history here I suspect you want me to say "put in prison", which would give you a nice platform.

I don't know what should happen to women who have abortions. I don't that all abortions are had for the same reasons and therefore I don't think that there is one way to approach this. What I'm interested in is protecting people, specifically unborn people.

doctoremma wrote: »

Top of head and deliberately facile. I have no idea if 'new bible books' are ever released...However, I expected at least one reply to focus on rebutting this possibility rather than answer the genuine (if implausibly-framed) question. I shall wait...

Well you did set the trap...

doctoremma wrote: »

When you say that you'd feel the need to seek new justification for your now-biblically-obsolete belief, would you be loathe to go with 'gut feeling'?

I'm not sure about gut feeling. I suppose instead I would have to go with personal preference. As in, "I personally don't approve of abortion, capital punishment or raisins in my muesli".

Obliq · 27-11-2012 09:40AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure about gut feeling. I suppose instead I would have to go with personal preference. As in, "I personally don't approve of abortion, capital punishment or raisins in my muesli".

But you're quite willing to have your personal preference imposed on people who don't agree with you?

philologos · 27-11-2012 09:54AM

Obliq wrote: »

But you're quite willing to have your personal preference imposed on people who don't agree with you?

Swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

Firstly I could argue that abortion by choice imposes death on an unborn child.

Secondly, since I believe that the law should respect human rights. I'm more than willing to say that the law should impose protections on the rights of the child in the event that people want to violate them.

MrPudding · 27-11-2012 10:48AM

philologos wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

Firstly I could argue that abortion by choice imposes death on an unborn child.

Secondly, since I believe that the law should respect human rights. I'm more than willing to say that the law should impose protections on the rights of the child in the event that people want to violate them.

Human rights are great and all, and I am a huge fan, but it really isn’t that simple, no matter how much you want it to be. Europe is, though some may disagree, a fairly civilised place. The EU, though its various organs, is trying to eliminate discrimination. In addition to this it is trying to promote human rights in the member states. To this end we have the convention on human rights which most, if not all, member states have transcribed or otherwise recognise in there own laws. This is all very well. Human rights for everyone. The problem is these human rights frequently come into conflict with each other. Freedom of Speech v Right to Privacy; freedom of religion v right to private life or right not to be discriminated against. Always conflicts that need to be resolved.

Of course, you will argue that a foetus should have a right to life. In all honesty I do agree with that, at least to a certain extent. Where this right does not come into conflict with anyone else’s right then I am perfectly happy. In those circumstances we should protect the right to life of the foetus. However, where there is a conflict I believe this right to life can, quite properly, be superseded. I’m afraid that where there is a conflict between the right of the unborn and the rights of the born I, like many others, believe the rights of the born are supreme. I do find this unfortunate, that there has to be a loser, but I believe it is right.

I have said it before, as have many pro choice people, but I really am not pro abortion. I have a major problem with it, but I still believe that a woman should have the freedom to choose to have an abortion. Whilst it is a very emotive subject, at the end of the day it still comes down to a simple conflict of rights. For me there is no need to look at where life begins, is the foetus human or not, is it a person or any of that stuff. It is simply a question of whose right is stronger. The foetus has rights, the woman has rights. Whether we like it or not the rights of the born should trump the rights of the unborn.

MrP

Obliq · 27-11-2012 10:49AM

philologos wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

Firstly I could argue that abortion by choice imposes death on an unborn child.

Secondly, since I believe that the law should respect human rights. I'm more than willing to say that the law should impose protections on the rights of the child in the event that people want to violate them.

It's true -swings and roundabouts indeed. We have two very opposed points of view, and I wish it wasn't so, because believe it or not, I respect the approach to this that many of you up here on Christianity have taken to the debate.

Firstly, I agree with you. Abortion by choice does impose death on an unborn child.

Secondly, I agree that the law should respect human rights. I am not willing to say that they should be accorded equally to a born person (with all the autonomy/experience/emotional attachments afforded to a born person) and an unborn person.

Thirdly, it is my understanding that a person's religious belief in the sacredness of life sometimes means that they never have to weigh up the relative value of a woman's needs (even taking into account some appalling circumstances) and the life of a tiny, unknowing being. It is safe for the religious person just to say it's wrong, full stop. Until, perhaps, they are in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy - then (in many cases surely, pro-life Christian), they are forced to discover some unwelcome truths about how selfishly human they actually are.

georgieporgy · 27-11-2012 11:11AM

The question is, though, is it right that Caeser (now known as the omnipotent EU) can bestow human rights on humans?
I suppose if enough people holler "give us Barabbas!" the EU will magnanimously give us Barabbas.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 11:36AM

doctoremma wrote: »

OK. Again, I would be interested to get a recap from you as to where you're headed. I've lost the thread.

I think the moment of conception something important and significant happens - in a biological sense. I hate analogies and I don't mean this as a killer argument but it might help clarify what I am trying to say.

Note, I am cringing as I write this. But it is the Christianity forum so heck let's have an analogy. (Get your popcorn PDN).

You want to make a cake. You take all the ingredients. Or their own they are just chocolate, sugar etc. Put them together, in certain place - cooker they react a certain way and you end up in a cake.

chocolate - sperm dna
sugar - egg dna
cooker - womb
cake - foetus
cake out of over - baby

Now you could say the protons and neutrons from the sugar have not gone away. But, put the same sugar with a cup of hot water and tea bag and you end up with someone else.

A foetus is contigent on sperm, egg and womb. But on their own this things can't do anything.

Therefore the sperm / egg / womb is the starting point of life.

The analogy is not meant as argument but just as an explanation for what I trying to suggest. Also, I believe that starting point of life is ultimately subjective. People are entitled and should differ on the matter.

A side note: I'm not sure why you are (apparently) taking exception to my posts. Of course, regarding the discussion, you can take exception as you please and that can be discussed. But I'm feeling a little aggression from you and perplexed as to why?

I find your style a little bit patronizing. That's just a personal opinion.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 11:41AM

doctoremma wrote: »

OK. Do you have some traits (or categories thereof) in mind that prompt ^^^?

I read a good few books on the subject about five, six years ago. This one:
'Genome: The Autobiography of a Species' in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley
was pretty good. All the Richard Dawkins ones (Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker, Ancestors Tale) are brilliant and there's a few other in the area of evo -devo: 'The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution' by Sean B. Carroll and a few others.

Peregrinus · 27-11-2012 11:43AM

MrPudding wrote: »

Human rights are great and all, and I am a huge fan, but it really isn’t that simple, no matter how much you want it to be . . . The problem is these human rights frequently come into conflict with each other. Freedom of Speech v Right to Privacy; freedom of religion v right to private life or right not to be discriminated against. Always conflicts that need to be resolved.

Of course, you will argue that a foetus should have a right to life. In all honesty I do agree with that, at least to a certain extent . . . However, where there is a conflict I believe this right to life can, quite properly, be superseded. I’m afraid that where there is a conflict between the right of the unborn and the rights of the born I, like many others, believe the rights of the born are supreme. I do find this unfortunate, that there has to be a loser, but I believe it is right . . . The foetus has rights, the woman has rights. Whether we like it or not the rights of the born should trump the rights of the unborn.

I’ve bolded the bit that I think represents a weakness in your position, Mr P. Not that I think what you say is necessarily wrong, but your assertion that, in the event of a conflict, the rights of the born should prevail is unsupported by any argument or proof beyond the assertion that “many other people” agree with you. For those who don't like it, it's simply not true that "the rights of the born should trump the rights of the unborn".

Doesn’t this leave you exposed to exactly the same criticism that Obliq made against Fanny Craddock in post #489? Namely, that you are seeking to have your preference on this matter imposed on others?

The fact is that both sides in the pro-life/pro-choice debate actually have a lot of common ground; they both argue their position out of a shared understanding that human rights make a strong moral claim on us, and that we can measure laws against the claims of human rights, and criticise them if they fail to uphold or respect human rights. They just disagree about how the conflict between the rights of the born and the right of the unborn should be negotiated or resolved.

It seems to me that the pro-choice position arises from looking at the subject whose rights are in issue; they consider that a born subject has a stronger claim to rights than an unborn subject. Whereas the pro-life positions assumes that all subjects have the same claim to rights, but they see infringement of the right to life (resulting in the death or destruction of the subject) as a weightier matter than infringement of the right to bodily integrity (which can have very profound consequences, but rarely results in death or destruction).

Neither of these opposing positions can lay claim to any objective, empirical validity or demonstrable truth; they arise from differing philosophical understandings about what human rights are and why we have them. To the extent that we seek to have our understandings of human rights reflected in law, aren’t we all guilty of seeling to impose our subjective preferences on others?

Obliq · 27-11-2012 11:48AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither of these opposing positions can lay claim to any objective, empirical validity or demonstrable truth; they arise from differing philosophical understandings about what human rights are and why we have them. To the extent that we seek to have our understandings of human rights reflected in law, aren’t we all guilty of seeling to impose our subjective preferences on others?

Well, that's true in my book. However, AS "neither of these opposing positions can lay claim to any objective, empirical validity or demonstrable truth", why is only one side enshrined (never mind reflected) in law, and imposed on others?

Obliq · 27-11-2012 11:53AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

chocolate - sperm dna
sugar - egg dna
cooker - womb
cake - foetus
cake out of over - baby

How about moving with the discussion Tim?! Just a thought.

Have copied this bit of your comment because I'd like to point out it's a rubbish analogy. You can take a cake out of the oven before it's done and nobody calls you on killing the cake. And yes, I realise you were just illustrating your point that something essential happens at conception.

Peregrinus · 27-11-2012 11:53AM

Obliq wrote: »

Well, that's true in my book. However, AS "neither of these opposing positions can lay claim to any objective, empirical validity or demonstrable truth", why is only one side enshrined (never mind reflected) in law, and imposed on others?

Because it commanded majority support the last time we voted on this, is the short answer.

The slightly longer answer is that I don't immediately see how you can have a law that doesn't reflect some unproven and unprovable ethical belief on this question. Even if you have no law at all, and an abortion free-for-all, that would still be a reflection of a particular ethical position.

It seems to me that the discourse we need to have is not, which of these perspectives should be reflected in law? It's, in a pluralist society with diverging views on this matter, can we find an approach to legislation which respects the diversity of views and doesn't involve the currently popular view steamrollering the others?

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 11:54AM

doctoremma wrote: »

Of course, technology is moving quickly. I'm not clear what you've said there ^^^ but we use massive parallel sequencing in my unit - is that what you are referring to?

There are techniques available such as map / reduce which help analyse data. Google wrote some really good stuff in this but now the technology form the Open Source community such as Hadoop has been shown to be even faster.

The' missing-link' is a lot of Scientists can't program and don't really understand software engineering and don't want to. If you ask a lot of senior academics in Ireland - you'll find the programming skills are between weak and non-existant. However, this won't last.

The best universities will produce a culture of skilled programming in their science facilities because the possibilities that will open up will mean that this will become inevitable.

However, while I can map an entire genome in a few days, I still have to work out what that information means. Having all this information isn't really the Holy Grail we were looking for. Yes, it's quick. Yes, it's easy. But we still don't know how to interpret half of what we see. There are times when it's very clear and times when it isn't. The "rules of interaction" still need to be defined.

Yes, that is well explained in most pop science books on the matter. The point is the break throughs in software engineering make it easier and faster to analyse the data.

We're not just talking Moore's law here. The problem is that traditionally, data storage was stored relationally and it was very hard to scale it to leverage increased computational power.

Now, with the re-emergence NoSQL and Map Reduce architectures, we can leverage Moore's law in data analysis.

So the techniques google are using to try to predict what web pages to show can be used by Scientists. The challenge is that Scientists need to become far more skilled at Software so that the technology can be best used.

Obliq · 27-11-2012 11:56AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because it commanded majority support the last time we voted on this, is the short answer........

It seems to me that the discourse we need to have is not, which of these perspectives should be reflected in law? It's, in a pluralist society with diverging views on this matter, can we find an approach to legislation which respects the diversity of views and doesn't involve the currently popular view steamrollering the others?

Agreed. Particularly with the bolded part, as that is essentially what was completely absent the last time we voted on this in 1983.

Fanny Cradock · 27-11-2012 12:11PM

Obliq wrote: »

But you're quite willing to have your personal preference imposed on people who don't agree with you?

That's an open-ended question, but if you are looking for an answer, yes, I am willing to have my personal beliefs imposed on others. That's pretty much the outcome of any democratic process.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 12:13PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's an open-ended question, but if you are looking for an answer, yes, I am willing to have my personal beliefs imposed on others. That's pretty much the outcome of any democratic process.

It is not. I am anti smoking but myself and other democrats don't take the right away from other people to smoke. Just as long as they don't do it in front of me and put me at risk from their lifestyle choices.

Is that an analogy or an example?

Obliq · 27-11-2012 12:16PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's an open-ended question, but if you are looking for an answer, yes, I am willing to have my personal beliefs imposed on others. That's pretty much the outcome of any democratic process.

Well, yes, that is true. Unfortunately, the case of the 1983 amendment can be seen to be completely undemocratic, in that no debate was had at all.

Obliq · 27-11-2012 12:23PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is not. I am anti smoking but myself and other democrats don't take the right away from other people to smoke. Just as long as they don't do it in front of us.

IS that an analogy or an example?

Um, an example?! And in fairness, I think it is the outcome of any democratic process. It becomes undemocratic if the information delivered to the people on the full implications of their decisions is not balanced or fair to both sides.

Zombrex · 27-11-2012 12:32PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is not. I am anti smoking but myself and other democrats don't take the right away from other people to smoke. Just as long as they don't do it in front of us.

Er ....

PDN · 27-11-2012 12:35PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's an open-ended question, but if you are looking for an answer, yes, I am willing to have my personal beliefs imposed on others. That's pretty much the outcome of any democratic process.

True, but I think a qualification needs to made. Enforcing our views on others is the basis for any kind of laws that restrain us from harming others. The abolition of slavery enforced the views of some (the abolitionists) on the others whose views were that they wished to keep transporting ships of slaves from Africa to the Caribbean.

William Wilberforce was a committed Christian. His Christian beliefs led him to lobby, and eventually get through parliament, bills that outlawed slavery and also cruelty to animals such as bull-baiting (although famous as an abolitionist, it is a lesser-known fact that he was a founder member of the RSPCA).

And this is where, for Christians, there is a world of difference between 'blue laws' and laws that prevent social injustice.

We have no right to enforce our religious morals on other people. That is why IMHO Christians should support laws to give equality to gays, and should not discriminate against those who choose not to follow Christian morality. We are not the Taliban, and Christ's Gospel gives us no mandate to enforce our own versions of Shariah Law.

However, Christians do have a right - nay, an obligation - to protect the vulnerable or the oppressed. Therefore our values and beliefs compel us to use every influence we possess to prevent slavery, to combat cruelty against people or animals, to protest against military atrocities being committed by our governments, to resist racism, to combat bullying and homophobia, or to protect the unborn.

Like Obliq I am all for a discourse taking place - and I think such a discourse should be conducted with honesty. That means we should not misrepresent the views and motives of those who are on the opposite side of debate.

it is wrong for Christians to portray the pro-abortion side as monsters who have a rabid desire to kill as many babies as possible.

It is equally wrong for someone to post, as they did in this thread, that Christians oppose abortion because they don't like sex. That is nothing but a blatant lie.

It is also wrong to pretend that Christians, in opposing abortion, are thereby just trying to impose their views or morality on others. that is not what this is about. This is primarily a social justice issue. I oppose abortion for the same motives and reasons that I support legislation to stop people trafficking - because I care about injustice when the powerful enforce their will upon the powerless.

Now, others might well disagree with us - but please let's keep the debate honest.

Obliq · 27-11-2012 12:48PM

PDN wrote: »

We have no right to enforce our religious morals on other people. That is why IMHO Christians should support laws to give equality to gays, and should not discriminate against those who choose not to follow Christian morality. We are not the Taliban, and Christ's Gospel gives us no mandate to enforce our own versions of Shariah Law.

However, Christians do have a right - nay, an obligation - to protect the vulnerable or the oppressed. Therefore our values and beliefs compel us to use every influence we possess to prevent slavery, to combat cruelty against people or animals, to protest against military atrocities being committed by our governments, to resist racism, to combat bullying and homophobia, or to protect the unborn.

Agree with you, and would like to add that it's not just Christians who have a right/obligation to protect the vulnerable or the oppressed. In relation to the unborn, will answer below.

Like Obliq I am all for a discourse taking place - and I think such a discourse should be conducted with honesty. That means we should not misrepresent the views and motives of those who are on the opposite side of debate.

it is wrong for Christians to portray the pro-abortion side as monsters who have a rabid desire to kill as many babies as possible.

It is equally wrong for someone to post, as they did in this thread, that Christians oppose abortion because they don't like sex. That is nothing but a blatant lie.

It is also wrong to pretend that Christians, in opposing abortion, are thereby just trying to impose their views or morality on others. that is not what this is about. This is primarily a social justice issue. I oppose abortion for the same motives and reasons that I support legislation to stop people trafficking - because I care about injustice when the powerful enforce their will upon the powerless.

Now, others might well disagree with us - but please let's keep the debate honest.

Thank you for your fairness. Where we disagree here is in the relative values given to two people who are powerless. The pregnant woman (I'm not going to list all the ways she could be powerless - thoughtful people will know) and the unborn. BTW, I apologise if I ever said that ALL Christians are just trying to impose their views or morality on others, but to the SOME Christians who say essentially "I'm right and there's no two ways about it", well, there are two ways, and the pro-choice way has not been represented fairly in Ireland to date.

Zombrex · 27-11-2012 12:56PM

PDN wrote: »

but please let's keep the debate honest.

Indeed. One thing that would help that is if the Christians actually tried to honestly tackle the central "pro-choice" argument, that of bodily privacy, rather that skirting around it or flat out ignoring it (or misrepresenting it as being pro-abortion)

Consider both the woman (person A) and the embryo (person

are persons. Why does person B have more right to control body A than person A herself does?

Is it simply that person B needs it to live? Does that over ride the right for person A to control her own body?

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 01:31PM

PDN wrote: »

However, Christians do have a right - nay, an obligation - to protect the vulnerable or the oppressed. Therefore our values and beliefs compel us to use every influence we possess to prevent slavery, to combat cruelty against people or animals, to protest against military atrocities being committed by our governments, to resist racism, to combat bullying and homophobia, or to protect the unborn.

This all sounds very noble. But the difference is that there is an existentialist question of when life begins that no-one Christian, Atheist can give an objective answer.

The majority of people calling themselves pro-life don't care about these babies as soon as they are born. They are pro - birth, rather than pro-life.

PDN · 27-11-2012 01:46PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Indeed. One thing that would help that is if the Christians actually tried to honestly tackle the central "pro-choice" argument, that of bodily privacy, rather that skirting around it or flat out ignoring it (or misrepresenting it as being pro-abortion)

'Pro-abortion' IMHO is more honest. 'Pro-choice' makes it sound like we are talking about the choice of wther to watch Sky News or the BBC.

If people are in favor of permitting abortion pretty much on demand. then it seems fair to describe them as 'pro-abortion' because they want a society where more abortions are permitted.

Consider both the woman (person A) and the embryo (person are persons. Why does person B have more right to control body A than person A herself does?

Is it simply that person B needs it to live? Does that over ride the right for person A to control her own body?

There are certain rights that are more fundamental than others. Any coherent code of ethics recognise that at times there is a conflict of rights. Any fair or just code of ethics recognises that when that happens the needs of both parties should be taken into account and a fair balance achieved.

Major rights, such as those to life or liberty, should take precedence over lesser rights, such as rights to privacy or the right to freedom of expression. This is why, for example, you don't have the freedom of speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

If a significant risk exists to one person's life - then that may override someone else's right to life. Which is why, if you genuinely think someone is about to hijack your car at gunpoint, then you may be justified in driving over them.

However, it is much harder to justify driving over Romanian gypsy selling copies of The Big Issue because he is slowing the traffic and interfering with your right to freely proceed from your home to your workplace.

In the same way, every pro-life advocate I personally know supports medical treatment to save the life of a mother - even where such treatment will kill her unborn baby.

But it is a different kettle of fish when, for example, you want to kill the unborn baby because the mother wants to exercise her right to continue her career or education without the interruption a baby will bring.

So, if we afford both mother and baby the status of personhood - then sensible legislation will permit abortion to save a mother's life, but not otherwise (except for extreme and rare situations - there is room to debate instances of rape, or very severe malformation of the child).

But, if you want to push for an abortion on demand scenario - then it is difficult to see how that can be justified so long as you see the unborn child as a person, and consequently as deserving of human rights.

My own opinion is that the vast majority of Irish people do view the unborn child as a person - heck, just ask most Mothers whether they believe that the little guy they felt kicking during pregnancy was a person or not. Therefore I would be amazed if there were any appetite for abortion on demand in this country.

What I do fear is bad legislation that is a knee-jerk reaction to the very understandable sympathy we feel when a young mother dies.

I am also deeply suspicious of those who want abortion on demand, and will try to exploit rare and unusual scenarios to achieve that end. For example, Clare Daly speaking out of both sides of her mouth at once when proposing a bill that supposedly dealt only with very rare medical cases - but then proclaiming that she was doing so on behalf of "the thousands of women" who travel from Ireland to the UK for abortions.

I think that there is a real danger that we get legislation that, on the face of it, only legislates for extreme situations, but then permits virtual abortion on demand where everyone knows with a nod and a wink that "All you have to do is say you're suicidal, then they have to give you an abortion."

Abortion debate thread

Comments