Very cool, if true

Except that the UK is mindnumbingly unlikely to ever do anything about this.

A poll from 2001 shows 65% of people in favour of women having an abortion if they so wish, with 18-25% of people against.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=82201

From:

I think it's Michael Howard's own personal view, isn't it? Abortion is an issue that generally gets a free vote.

From:

It is, however, the view of the leader of party's view, two months before an election.

From:

makyo.livejournal.com

In a bizarre bid to be even _less_ relevant to modern society...
I feel a tremendous sense of frustration at the Tories. Not because of their general ineptitude and disorganisation - I disagree with most of their policies and am reassured by their current unelectibility. But because they seem utterly incapable of doing the one thing I want them to do - to keep the current Labour administration in line, and to point out when they're about to do something dangerous, stupid and/or costly.

I want them to either make a decent effort, or get out of the way and let someone else (probably the LibDems) do the job, because this dithering, ranting, headless-chicken act isn't doing any of us any good.

Their current collection of policies seems to have been assembled in answer to the question ``How can we get people to vote for us?'' rather than ``How can the country be run better?''

From:

the-gardener.livejournal.com

Their current collection of policies seems to have been assembled in answer to the question "How can we get people to vote for us?" rather than "How can the country be run better?"

That's Lynton Crosby for you: all tactics, no strategy. The Australian Liberal government seems to operate on very similar lines.

From:

Oh sure. I agree. Don't want you to think I'm soft on Tory leaders. Or the causes of Tory leaders. Abortion up to 3500 weeks is sometimes justified. ;-)

From:

Although I'm interested to note that you make no mention of the broader context of the discussion, which was a question about new medical evidence suggesting that the foetus was far more developed at 22 weeks than previously considered. The question was put to all three leaders with Blair saying "The debate will continue" and Kennedy that the LibDems "looking at their position in the light of new medical evidence".

If there is evidence that an abortion at 22 weeks is tantamout to killing a young human being, in what way is it a "lurch back to the 19th Century"?

I'm not saying that we should change the law, because I haven't reviewed the evidence in detail - but I do feel that any civilised society should be constantly reviewing its position on an act which terminated the process that brings a human into being and that sweeping generalisations on either side do nothing to help that.

From:

communicator.livejournal.com

'I think that what we have now is tantamount to abortion on demand,' Howard told Cosmopolitan magazine. 'I believe abortion should be available to everyone, but the law should be changed.'

Eh? He thinks abortion should be 'available to everyone', but not 'on demand'? What the heck does that even mean?

If he thinks the law should be changed, is he advocating an increase in availability (to 'available to everyone') or a decrease in availability (away from the imaginary 'on demand')?

From:

the-gardener.livejournal.com

'available to everyone'

According to Howard's logic, this would have to mean men, too. So his argument is even more bonkers.

From:

If there is evidence that an abortion at 22 weeks is tantamout to killing a young human being, in what way is it a "lurch back to the 19th Century"?

Perhaps because it is a similar way of thinking about abortion. Before it was made illegal in the 19th century, abortion was legal before the woman felt the foetus move - which was thought to be the moment the soul entered the child's body. Those who wish to drag us back to those days generally do so by equating a foetus with a human being ... not enough of us believe in the soul these days so they have to blind us with science instead.

A foetus is not a human being, and although information about what it gets up to in the womb is important because it may influence a woman's choice about a particular instance of abortion, it should remain her choice.

In my opinion the viability issue is a red herring. If a woman doesn't want a foetus inside her then she should have the inalienable right to have it removed from her body.

From:

... and what we have now is not "abortion on demand". By no means ... it isn't even close.

From:

A foetus is not a human being

In your opinion. Many other people feel otherwise. That's why there should always be a debate on this issue.

the inalienable right to have it removed from her body

Ah-ha. You're a pro-choice absolutist. No point in trying to have a debate then, because once words like "inalienable" come into play, you make it clear that you're not interested in having one.

(And yes, I feel just the same way about pro-life absolutists, too, who are too blinded to see the reality of back-street abortion. Morons.)

From:

themongkey.livejournal.com

Is sleeping with the president mandatory in order to obtain a postpartum abortion? 'Cause that'd surely reduce demand to zero.

From:

Sure, I am pro-choice. Doesn't mean I don't want to debate the legality and ethics of abortion. I just don't think viability is a trump card, and it's often presented as one.

If you'll forgive me from saying so, the choice of words in the phrase "If there is evidence that an abortion at 22 weeks is tantamout to killing a young human being" has a pro-life absolutist (to use your term) air about it. How can there be medical evidence for such a thing? Whether an act of abortion is "tantamount to killing" is an ethical question.

From:

There you go - trying to paint me as a pro-lifer.

I'm not.

You're proving my point for me - you're trying to turn me into one of the other camp so my opinions can be defeated.

From:

communicator.livejournal.com

Yes, I decided to keep my rant short so I kind of skated over that, but yes.

From:

Er ... well. This is an interesting debating style you have. Labelling people as pro-this or pro-that. Sort of stiffles discussion tho, I think.

I think you accused me of being a pro-choice absolutist. Was that you trying to paint me into a camp? Meanwhile I was merely trying to say that some of your phrasing is very emotionally charged for the middle ground of the argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by your "opinions can be defeated"? I assure you, I'm interested in your true opinions. I'm just not sure what they are, thus far.

From:

Nice evasion of my point...

Anyway, my opinion is (fairly) simple: I'm not a fan of abortion, but accept that it's necessary (one of the few things I agree with Blair on at the moment, in fact). However, I think that a civilized society should continually testing its own opinions on the subject in the context of both scientific discoveries and prevailing ethical and moral standards, and that it's one of those topics where there is no right answer, only a least wrong one. And we should always be striving to ensure that the answer is as close to the impossible right as, well, possible.

From:

armoire-man.livejournal.com

See, you live in a country that's still relatively sane about abortions. Here in the U.S., the fetus is sacred, and the mother is seen as an insane, evil cow who must be punished for any infractions.

From:

armoire-man.livejournal.com

Except that the UK is mindnumbingly unlikely to ever do anything about this.

Uh-huh. That's exactly what we Americans thought, too.

From:

azalemeth.livejournal.com

Vote lib dem ;-). Why?

I'd take unproved incompetence over proven / current incompetence any day....

In the US, the simpsons take on it really is right though:

"Abortions for all!"
*BOOOOO*
"Hmn, okay then. Abortions for none?"
*BOOOOO*
"Ahh, okay. Abortions for some, free american flags for others!"
*YAAAAAAAAY*

(And I agree with you, by the way)

From:

gomichan.livejournal.com

*wince* Watching Brits talk about this is like seeing a kid come home from his first day at school reeling from the discovery that some of the kids are just plain mean.

I do not look forward to watching you guys cope with the related understandings that the bullies usually get away with it, and most of the other kids /like/ them for it.

I really hope I'm just paranoid, and this isn't the first European tumor of the American cancer. You know the one I mean? The one where the government stops bothering to govern at all, and focuses entirely on manipulating public opinion to gather more and more power to itself. The one where leaders seek out the most ignorant and ill-considered views of the populace and make successful careers of jerking emotional chains. I really hope I'm wrong.

If I'm right, though, you might want to start planning /now/ what you're going to do when misleading language, fact-twisting, and outright lies become acceptable methods of governance, and media conglomerates are owned by the families of the officials, and so forth. If you come up with any good solutions, be sure and let us know. Because I tell ya, we're all stumped over here.

From:

Nothing I can disagree with there. (damn!) ;-)

From:

green-amber.livejournal.com

Actually out of all of it that one makes sense. Everyone should have access to abortion in principle, but threshold grounds for having an abortion mopre than just plain desire to have one eg that it would cause harm to the mother's health, should still be enforced. That is usally seen as the opposite of "abortion on demand" and is in fact the system we have :-)

From:

green-amber.livejournal.com

I really hope I'm just paranoid, and this isn't the first European tumor of the American cancer

No it isn't basically. because we do not have a large voting Moral Majority in ths country. Actual religious belief that supports unthinking pro life views is very much a minority sport here.

From:

xquiq.livejournal.com

Long may it remain that way. The spread of the type of fundamentalist belief that leads to unflinching absolutionist standpoints on things like abortion terrifies me.

We've already seen the abstinence movement trying to break in over here. That's not necessarily a bad thing per se, but they have the same roots. I don't relish the idea of some of the related ideals / movements gaining a hold in the UK.

From:

A foetus is not a human being

That's very much a matter of opinion.

From:

If there is evidence that an abortion at 22 weeks is tantamout to killing a young human being

That depends very much on your definition of human being.

From:

birdofparadox.livejournal.com

As someone who has had an abortion for (among other reasons) health issues, I can say it's hardly a pleasant thing. It's never a matter of black or white: there is never a clear-cut, absolute answer, and so it's always going to be a huge point of contention.
While I, too, disliked the idea in principle, when faced with the various options I had, it was really the best decision for everyone involved. I still think the larger problem at hand (at least here in the States) is a less idealistic stance on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies (because I find the abstinence movement painfully naive) and a system that actually WILL support and nurture the children they'd like women to give up for adoption. It's a sad, cold fact, but very few of the people who stand on street corners with signs condemning women who choose abortions... WILL actually adopt, let alone adopt a child from a racial background other than theirs, or a child that was in less than perfect health.

From: