Nadine Dorries MP: Why 20 and not 22 weeks?

Nadine Dorries is MP for Mid Bedfordshire and is author of a popular blog.  She writes today about her cross-party campaign to reduce the upper limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.

I have 20 reasons why I think the abortion limit should be reduced to 20 weeks.  Viability - the age at which a foetus can survive outside of the womb - is only one of them.

The Trent study that has been in the headlines recently and appears to advocate 22 weeks is flawed. To begin with, some of Trent's data is twelve years old. There is only one lesson to be learnt from the Trent study and that is if you are about to go into premature labour, don’t do it in Trent!

The reason 22 weekers are not always surviving in the UK has everything to do with the fact that each neo natal unit had to close its doors an average 52 times over the last year (National Audit Office, Caring for Vulnerable Babies, The Reorganisation Of Neo Natal Services In England, 19th December 2007, pg 24 Para. 3.3). The units are understaffed, and as Bliss say, if we had dedicated neo natal transfer ambulances and well-staffed units - as they do in Sweden and other countries - we would begin to see a much healthier picture.

It's about the service the NHS provides to 22 weekers which prevents them from living, not their ability with the right treatment to make it through.

Look at individual hospitals with good neo natal units and you see an entirely different picture from the one painted by Trent.  Trent has averaged out all births from all hospitals and does not take into account how long it took some of the babies to reach a specialist unit.

But as I have said, viability is only one reason for 20 weeks.  As we know, premature births happen as a result of a poorly baby or mother – aborted babies are by and large healthy babies and therefore cannot be compared.

Some are quoting the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in support of not lowering the upper limit for abortions.

The RCOG guideline committee recommends keeping 24 weeks. Almost every member of the guideline committee has a professional or financial interest in the abortion industry and has been strongly advised by the government to reform and become more diverse in its composition.

I believe the procedure used to abort over 20 weeks is enough to make any compassionate person think that it's time to reduce the limit.

The RCOG issue guidelines state that, from 19 weeks of pregnancy, the baby needs to be - and I can't think of a gentler way of saying this - put to death in the womb before it is delivered.  This is necessary in case it lives and it is a procedure known as foeticide. Late surgical abortions mean that a baby is dismembered in the womb, and removed limb by limb, head often last.

Professor Sunni Anand, incredibly well respected and acknowledged as the world's leading expert in foetal pain, believes that a foetus feels pain as early as 18 weeks gestation. Before the dismembering takes place, the baby is injected with a lethal injection of Potassium into its heart, via the mother's abdominal wall. I will leave it to you to imagine how much distress and pain this may cause the baby.

So, on the one hand the pro-abortionists argue that a baby can't live below 22 weeks, and on the other they deploy 'just-in-case' techniques.

And how about the fact that we know that three quarters of all women and two thirds of GPs want twenty weeks and not 22? Do they not have voice? Is that not our job as MPs to represent their will in Parliament?

Or that Doctors perform operations, sometimes life saving on babies as low as 20 weeks whilst still in the womb, such as happened with baby Samuel in the picture below. Cutting the limit to 20 weeks will save thousands of lives, but to 22 weeks, only hundreds.

We need clear blue water between at what point a baby may survive if born and the upper limit. That’s why it needs to be 20 weeks and not 21.  There are exceptional cases of 21 weekers living such as Millie McDonough in Manchester. It needs to be 20, not 21, not 22 not 23, but 20. This would be a clear delineation, remove all doubt and facilitate an end to surgically dismembering human life.

As Professor Anand said, "legislation is just a snap shot in time, but science is like an ever rolling movie."

The fact is that it may be another 20 years before we have the opportunity to revisit this legislation.  How many babies will die in that time?

22 weeks will ensure we remain the abortion capital of Europe.  We already have the highest upper limit as it is: France 12, Germany 12, Italy 12, Belgium 12, Bulgaria 12, Denmark 12, Czech Republic 12, Greece 12, Hungary 12, Luxembourg 12, the Netherlands 13, Poland 12, Slovakia 12 and Sweden, the most liberal, 18. UK 24.

22 weeks just doesn’t do it. It doesn’t reduce the numbers or protect the vulnerable - yet 20 weeks does.

I have no idea what will happen at the vote on Tuesday, it seems like a long way off. I hope I have gone some way to explain why we need 20 and not 22.  If you needed further convincing, however, here is a picture of a 20 weeker.

If the 22 amendment is passed, babies just like him will continue to be chopped up. I know it’s horrible and it's not language I like to use believe me – but it’s a fact. That’s how it is, an awful fact.

If we are faced with a choice of 20 or 22 weeks I think one key question we will have to ask ourselves as MPs will be one regarding the type of society we wish to legislate for.

Do we want to be part of a decent and civilised society?

Are we proud of having the highest upper limit in all of Europe?

Do we want to represent the views of our constituents?

Do we want to protect the most vulnerable within our society?

Do we want to remove all element of doubt to ensure that not one baby feels pain as a part of the abortion process?

Does a healthy baby, who would be capable of life if allowed to be born, have a right to life?

If we answer those questions honestly then I think I know which way we will vote.

Related link: Senior Tories promise to vote for lower abortion limit

Comments

[Jennifer Wells]

I see that Brown wants the limit left at 24 weeks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/1961172/Abortion-debate-Gordon-Brown-to-oppose-20-week-limit-change.html

Good luck Nadine!

[The Silent Majority]

If you have a 20 week limit. Are you not in reality reducing it to 16 weeks?

Are doctors able to confirm the exact date of conception or can they only place the date to within 2 week margin of error.

Then there is the time taken to make an abortion appointment and time to carefully think through their decision.

I would like to hear from women who have had abortions and haven't been forced to bring up unwanted children. They are also Nadines constituents. Shouldn't their voice be heard?

[James Maskell]

The picture of the abortion undermines the whole case by stooping to emotion. If there is a scientific case to be made, backed up by substantial evidence I could support your argument. But to my mind, such a case does not exist.

Given that this campaign is seeking to reduce the limit for normal births, is it campaigning to drop the limit for those with minor disabilities, which I recall can be done up to 39 weeks? Do you agree with Camerons support of the current limit for aborting at 39 weeks for minor disabilities?

[MagicAldo]

Good luck, Nadine! Your campaign is really inspirational. But how do you live with being in a party whose front bench is almost uniformly in favour of this grotesque embryology bill?

[Tony Makara]

It is good to see that abortion has now become a political issue in Britain. For too long MPs have been afraid of the 'women's rights' argument, when in fact this is really about a child's right to life. More must be done to offer councilling to women who are thinking of having an abortion and schemes should be introduced by which childless couples can offer to adopt a child from a woman who doesn't want it. They could pay her to carry the child and legally adopt it at birth. This would save the child's life, would give childless couples a chance to be parents. Such a scenario is much better than just letting the baby die.

[Concerned Tory]

What a preposterous waste of a seat.

Does anyone think Nadine Dorries is capable of reading the research she's referring to?

[Editor]

There really is no need for personal attacks Concerned Tory. Please engage seriously or please don't bother commenting here.

[Matt Wright]

Well done Nadine. the fact that we have a 24 week upper limit and much of Europe has 12 weeks is nothing short of a disgrace.

Matt Wright
PPC Vale of Clwyd

[Abe]

A good piece, Nadine. I'm glad to see the pro-life case being argued reasonably well (this often isn't the case). But I'm not convinced.

Pain. We do need to protect foetuses from feeling pain but one guy in the American south's instinct of what's "likely" doesn't feel weighty. If you go to 20 weeks on this basis, why not much less? I think independent research into this may be necessary.

Viability. I don't buy this argument at all. Plenty of aborted babies are, by definition, going to be potentially healthy. But just because we have the technology to keep a child at 23 weeks alive in theory doesn't mean we must -- or should. As a carer for someone with brain injury acquired as a neonate (illness), these kinds of 'miracles' can be a very double-edged sword. A life sentence for all involved, in fact. That's not to say premature babies are the same at all, but until they reach adulthood we won't know the true consequences of birth this early. As science improves, babies may be viable much earlier, but it just means we'll be playing Russian roulette with the quality of that life.

Emotive imagery. It's sad when we put down a dog, but most realise that sometimes it's necessary. That foetuses are cute at 20 weeks doesn't sway me -- I want to know what's going on 'under the bonnet'.

International comparisons. Of course, there are other countries internationally who have more liberal laws, and much of Europe has a Catholic tradition so it's not too surprising.

A civilised society. We all want a civilised society; I just happen to think the right to choice is an element of that, however the argument about cut-off points lies. (Actually, the extent of abortion rights strikes me as not a bad index of civility internationally).

I'd be more comfortable supporting moves to find the cause of late abortions.

For example, my understanding is that often late abortions are caused by difficulty accessing servives, so surely improvement in that area should be a priority.

Also, I'm curious as to the reasons given for late abortions. We're talking about such a small proportion of abortions so one must assume there's a pressing reason by the parents in at least a substantial proportion of these cases.

The point of the pro-choice argument isn't that we should be clubbing babies. It's that the option should not be taken off the table.

There are much, much crueler things that can befall a child and its family than terminating it as a foetus while it is still less highly functioning than many animals.

[Maggie Johnston]

Re: James Maskell, the picture is not actually of an abortion, but a pre-birth operation being performed to minimise the effects of spina bifida. The child's name is Samuel Armas, and his story can be read at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012548/posts

The point I think Nadine makes by the showing this is to demonstrate the odd dichotomy that in one hospital ward doctors may frantically be attempting to save or improve the life of one twenty-one week old child, yet another set of doctors be doing all they can to end the life of another unborn child at exactly the same point of gestation.

[Stewart]

Images of babies in the womb and abortion itself provide real evidence of an inconvenient fact which I think we all really know anyway that abortion kills children.
There are some pro-abortionists who will have the courage to look the truth in the eye and call things by their proper name. Germaine Greer for instance has on occasion been astonishingly frank about abortion while still arguing for its legitimacy. However, such people are rare.
Much of the pro-abortion 'argument' on this site and elsewhere is not really argument or persuasion as such but merely a series of hysterical assertions often made more in hope than reason.
For all the arguments to the contrary I have never been convinced that abortion is anything other than killing.

[wtf]

Concerned Tory, I wouldn't phrase my criticism in the same way as you, but I am concerned that Nadine seems to be concentrating on the abortion issue at the expense of everything else.

Her obsession in forcing her moral views on everyone else whilst neglecting constituency duties and other national issues is troubling.

[Kylie]

I undewent an abortion 6 months ago.

If Nadines 20 week abortion rule had been in force I would have been forced to carry the foetus full term.

Since the abortion I have been able to continue on my career path and continue socialising.

Would Nadine force me to have an unwanted child or perhaps I would be forced to go to a back street abortionists.

Women have rights, a foetus does not!

[Felicity Mountjoy]

As long as you didn't have to interrupt your "socialising" Kylie then all is well in the world.

You are not a good ambassador for the pro-choice movement.

[Stephen Jones]

Well done Nadine for fighting somewhat of a lone battle within the party.

It's the phrase 'abortion on demand' that disturbs me most. I am deeply uncomfortable that the only medical procedure that you can walk into a hospital and 'demand' within a short space of time seems to be an abortion.

What about 'prompt cancer surgery on demand' or 'supply of life-saving drugs on demand'? It would be nice if we could all be confident that the NHS would treat our medical demands with the same priority as an abortion.

[Paul]

"Since the abortion I have been able to continue on my career path and continue socialising".

Kylie, what an awful human being you are. Would you consider getting rid of your mum or dad if became gravely ill so that you could carry on going out on a Saturday? You obviously care about no one else but yourself.

[Editor]

I suspect Kylie is a troll.

[wtf]

It seems to me "Kylie" is a made up commenter designed to bolster the moral case for the anti-abortionists, and paint anyone who is pro-choice as feckless and irresponsible.

Low tactics.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

I don't believe that Nadine Dorries goes far enough. I don't see why we shouldn't reduce the upper limit for abortion to 12 weeks.

[Norm Brainer]

Seems to me this nadine is just in it for the fight or to get her name out there.

Most of her reasons are playgroundish - like "well other people's are lower" and
"The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s report recommending retention of the 24 week upper limit was heavily influenced by pro-abortion witnesses." - assuming they were wrong because their opinion differs.

Or saying go to 24 weeks just to reduce the numbers which, as I've said before, is just like taping over the warning light - look at why it's flashing and deal with the cause or it'll be worse in the long run.

[John W]

It is horrific that we come to a point where we talk about peoples' 'rights' rather than the sanctity of human life.

Anyway, I think that the abortion debate is in some ways a symptom of a wider problem about our increasing unwillingness to take responsibility and deal with the consequences of our actions.

The consequence of having sex is pregnancy, we need to take responsibility for the actions we take. Destroying a human life to avoid the consequences of our choices is an outrage, plane and simple.

The laws of a progress and liberal democracy should seek to protect the weak from the strong, and stand-up for those who cannot defend themselves. An unborn child is the most weak and vulnerable member of our society, it cannot defend itself. We should legislate to protect not destroy.

This legislation must go hand in hand with policy focused on helping those who fall unwantedly pregnant. But we must remember that it never benefits people to take responsibility away from them, there are consequences to choosing to have sex, even when one does not want a child.

[Stewart Geddes]

A woman and a man have a right to choose. The choice is made when they engage in sex whether protected or not as no form of contraception is 100% foolproof. John W makes a valid point that the most vulnerable in society deserve to be protected.

This is a case of rights and responsibilities not to mention consequences

[chris]

I wish the religious right would keep quiet on the rather emotive yet plainly sensible matter of abortion.

People need to get their priorities right. The last thing I want is the Conservatives emulating the Republicans with their fascination with this single issue.

Does the highly controlled death of an unborn, partly formed child suffer any more than the animals we kill for food? Does the unborn child suffer any more than the thousands of adults being killed by this country in Iraq and Afghanistan?

There are bigger things to worry about in the world than the relatively few woman who choose to abort between week 20 and week 26.

And frankly that's their choice. Not yours.

[Stewart]

"highly controlled death"

eh?

My goodness Chris, since when did "highly controlled" impinge on right and wrong?

I have never before heard of the link between killing unborn babies in the UK and deaths resulting from Allied Action in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Ironically, you are right though that there are wider issues than the relatively few women aborting between 20 and 26 weeks. How about the much larger group aborting earlier in pregnancy.

No posts here or elsewhere have ever convinced me that abortion is anything other than killing babies who are unwanted.

Oh to be wanted.

[Sophie Fernandes]

Has anyone considered why women undergo abortions this late? Terminations taken this late on are generally for women whos life is in danger if the pregnancy is carried long term, disabilities or very young girls who are too scared to speak up at first when they find they are pregnant. No woman would undertake a termination at such late a stage without huge consideration, no choice, and I imagine, heartbreak.

In relation to the hospital arguement about the fact that no NHS hospitals undertake abortions past a certain amount of weeks and refer women to private clinics may simply be a reflection on the NHS. Do they have the funding and medical resources to properly undertake a termination that is this late? Could the referral be in fact so that the woman has a higher level of care because of the dangers associated for the woman with this type of late termination.

I also hate the term pro-abortion used by pro-lifers when they are actually referring to those that are pro-choice. They are not the same thing.

[John W]

Talking about priorities I think you a right in a way Chris - if we focus on it, as with the American religious right, we will lose an awful lot of arguments that matter.

But at the same time, abortion has become the biggest single killer in the UK, it is not a tiny issue on the edge of the radar screen.

We need to be pragmatic, while holding on to principles of the sanctity of human life and allowing people to take responsibility for their actions. Much of European society is far more permissive than we would welcome in this country and yet we have a phenomenally late cut off point for abortion that would not be tolerated in these other countries.

I think pragmatism in this situation means reducing the time limit, yes to 20 weeks but better beyond, and providing every opportunity possible for mothers to opt for a better outcome. Which will include adoptions, pre and post natal support, and a change in societies attitudes to who can have babies and when.

Abortion is traumatic for a mother as well, this needs to be recognised. It is not a matter of mere 'choice' and 'rights', women who seek abortions are in difficult circumstances whoever they are, they need options, help, information on what they are choosing and encouragement to make choices which are difficult.

[Stewart]

"I also hate the term pro-abortion used by pro-lifers when they are actually referring to those that are pro-choice."

I'm sorry Sophie, but "pro-abortion" it remains - at least for me. As a life-long Conservative I believe choice is a good thing to be shouted from the roof-tops about. But the choice for abortion uniquely defies the standard tests of freedom. I mean you no insult and I respect your right to put forward your opinion, but I still think that abortion is an enormous conspicuous silent cover-up for killing babies who are the unwanted bi-product of an age which has got relationships a bit wrong.

Often too women who have had abortions will say "...but I had no choice"

Those too who are so horrifically discriminatory against disabled people that they view abortion of all disabled babies as near to compulsory offer Hobson's choice to women.

If it is choice it is a choice to kill.

[Sophie Fernandes]

Stewart, pro-choicers do not endorse abortion as the ONLY option, they endorse that it should be A option. They do not disagree with keeping the baby, adoption etc etc, it is just that they also include abortion as a choice for the woman.

Also, do you think abortion was any less abundant back when it was illegal? It wasn't, it just drove women to put themselves in the dangerous hands of back street abortionists.

[Tony Makara]

The pro-abortionists always come at it from the same angle, trying to equate the right to abort with some sort of democratic principle. Then they push the back street abortion argument and how this endangers the womans life etc. They consciously avoid bringing the child into their rationale at all, if they do its some childish non sequitur about how an acorn isn't a tree etc. Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, it really is that simple.

[Stewart]

Regrettably Sophie, I must disagree with you again.

In my understanding the choice for abortion is not a real choice in the ordinary sense of the term. One would not say that a criminal who freely and of his own volition commits a crime was exercising "choice" when so doing. We could descend to semantics and quibble over the expressions we employ in this debate but that would be going around in circles.

You could not though deny that there is enormous pressure on women to exercise their choice in one particular way - especially from men who might find fatherhood to be terrible inconvenience.

You bring out the subject of the damaging consequences of illegal abortion as a justification for legal abortion. I don't think this is a sound argument. Either abortion is ok and I am wrong and you are right (that it is not the killing of babies)OR -argue at the third level if you will - abortion really is killing. If that is the case it is not wrong merely because a few people whose beliefs do not correspond with your own say so, but because killing people really is wrong and undermines the whole moral order which is the well-being of mankind.

Abortion does tend to lead to axiomatic positioning - with killing you can't be a little bit right and a little bit wrong. And in a way that is why the compromise of the 1967 Abortion Act is an unhappy one.

On the subject of illegal abortions though, I think you would be right to assert that there was not a glorious past prior to 1967 which pro-lifers or anyone else for that matter can look back upon wherein women, children, families, disabled people, single parents were respected, and helped. Rather this was not the case.
Certainly, illegal abortion was a fact, but I have no doubt that it was nowhere near the scale of today's legal abortion totals. Casualties did occur, but nowhere near on the folk-lore scale purported by pro-abortionists who wish to continue the myth that legal abortion was some great panacea ending the ills of society.
- Hospital admission records prove this.
- The tiny number of prosecutions for illegal abortions prove this.

The myth that working class girls regularly submitted to gin-soaked old crones using filthy knitting needles to procure a miscarriage is about as real little red riding hood.

I remain utterly convinced that abortion kills children and that this inconvenient fact is silently and ignored by a large number of people.

[John]

I suspect Kylie represents the views of many of the 180,000 women that have abortions each year. She happily proclaimed that women have rights to kill an inconvenient foetus, the product of irresponsible sex, that threatens the continuance of her socialising and she is correct to say that the foetus is without a right to continue to live and in that one sentence we should all bow our heads in shame.

In this life we are all expected to be accountable for our actions and I see no good reason why the creation of a life, when it could so easily be avoided, should be exempt from responsibility.

Those of us that have but a smidgen of morality instinctively know it’s wrong to kill and dismember a baby, they also know it’s wrong to cause distress and pain to a foetus or to go out clubbing and run the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

A foetus or baby is a young human being before birth that can be treated in the same way like an animal in a slaughterhouse, killed and dismembered and in the doing of it we declarer our inhumanity and lack of reverence for life but worse than this we demonstrate that humankind is largely beyond salvation and inherently evil.

And if you do not believe this then take a good look at the world we live in and if you see what I see you will understand that what goes around comes around and it is called Armageddon.

[Ceidwadwyr]

Killing unborn children is wrong but then so is forcing 16 year old children to have children.

[watcher]

I have no objection to a bigoted crackpot like Dorries (who denounces her opponents as "The Hounds of Hell") espousing such a thoroughly inane and intellectually faulty campaign as this, but I am *very* concerned that senior party figures are being pressured into lending their support for the following reasons:

* There is no public support for taking rights away from women.
* Abortion access in the UK is rubbish and many GPs abuse their position to deny abortions to women in need.
* The 24 week limit works - don't break it.

This kind of moralising and labelling of young women will achieve nothing but to lose votes. As a lifelong Conservative voter, seeing the party being to oppose the right to abortion is one of the few behaviours that could lose it mine.

[Anon]

"To begin with, some of Trent's data is twelve years old."

OK then, how about you show us some recent data to make your case instead of this emotive, unscientific nonsense that you keep producing?

[Unity]

The Trent study compares neonatal survival rates for two periods, 1994-1999 and 2000-2005, so yes, some the data is 12 years old.

Of the two single hospital studies Dorries routinely quotes as being authoritative, because they appear to support her arguments, the UCLH study uses data spanning 1980-2000, and the Hoekstra Study uses data spanning 1986-2000.

Should we be disregarding those studies as well because some of their data is 22-28 years old, Nadine?

[Jenny]

5 years ago, I had an abortion at 16 weeks. I'd been attacked and raped by my then boyfriend. Still in shock, the morning after pill never occurred to me. It was 8 weeks before I admitted to me that I was pregnant. In need of support, I went to the Doctor. I told her I was pregnant, and her first question was 'were you trying for a baby?' When I said I wasn't, her reply was 'You'll be wanting an abortion, then.' Completely matter-of-fact, no discussion, no attempt to find out if that is what I wanted, nothing. At 19 years old and very vulnerable and shy, I needed someone who would help me work out my choices, someone who would work through the distress of the rape with me. That rape isn't even on my medical file, since that Doctor didn't bother to ask the right questions or listen to me.

I regret every day that abortion, because although the 'solution' seemed, to a lonely and scared teenager, the perfect one, nothing could have prepared me for the pain of waking up without that baby inside me any more.

As I understand it, you're not supposed to be allowed an abortion 'on demand', there's supposed to be a good reason. Two Doctors (one of whom I'd never even met) signed letters saying I was poor and financially unsupported (I was in a full-time well paid job, and had a loving family, and what about tax credits? weren't they supposed to lift every child out of poverty?). This was completely untrue.

Counselling should be compulsory. That's not interfering with a woman's 'right' to 'choose'; that's GIVING her the right to choose since she'll know what the choices are.

If someone had counselled me, I'd have been able to tell my parents. The only reason I didn't was that I was worried they would be upset. If I could have got round that, I could have kept my baby.

[Charles Tannock MEP]

In my previouys life as a psychiatrist I ocassionally encountered the phenomenon of long term post abortion sequelae in the form of depression particularly in women who failed to have any more children either through later infertility or career prioritisation till it became too late to conceive and start a family, this was not widely recognised at the time but perhaps more so now. I fully suppport Nadine Dorries campaign to reduce the gestational limit for abortions to 20 weeks or even lower if possible and frankly cannot see any justification for late abortions beyond 12 weeks on purely social grounds (rape, incest, or severe malformations were the only ones traditionally allowed in this country). The 1967 Abortion act I believe was a British national tragedy not a point of pride as ever since the state has decreed unborn life to be something readily discardable and with no legal protection there has actually been a rise in abandoned and abused children, greater risk taking in sex and more unwanted pregancies..precisely the things the 1967 Act was supposed to prevent by effectively allowing for the first time in this country social on demand abortion (the 2 medical signatures barrier when I was in medical practice was a farce and all abortion clinics just roll out two tame highly paid doctors who would sign any demand for abortion with no questions asked!).
Good luck Nadine and lets restore tradtional respect for the unborn child and not allow the period when you are in your mother's womb to be the riskiest period of your life with a 30% chance of being terminated by your own mother!!

[Amy]

It is simply undemocratic to take away a woman's right to chose when the vast majority of the UK population believe that women should be able to use abortion services. It is extremely undemocratic for the Daily Mail and a selection of unrepresentative MP's to use their power to push their misogynist and unscientifically-backed views on to this population.

I have to say I am always shocked when I see a woman taking an 'anti-choice' stance when thousands of their sisters around the world die each year through the lack of safe abortion services. It is quoted by Women on Waves that one woman dies every 11 seconds because of the failure of many countries to provide proper abortion services.

In this country women and men have fought hard to legalise abortion and to protect a women's right to chose. It is wrong for the Mail and the Conservatives, who are renowned for their traditional (patriarchal), anti-immigration (racist) and pro-life (patronising and dangerous) views, to take away a woman's democratic right over her body.

[Fiona]

In response to Amy (17.46) :

The pro-life position is actually based on science - the baby's heart starts to beat at 21 days nd the baby is fully formed at 8 weeks, unlike the pro-abortion lie that the baby is only a bunch of cells. Abortion at 20 weeks is totally shocking - I wish it were not, but it looks (and in my view is) little different from infanticide, and how surprising is that when babies can be born at 21 weeks? I think it is incredibly shaky to base human rights on a matter of weeks - we don't do this for any other stage in anyone's existence, so why before birth?

Secondly, to talk about women's lives being at risk is irrelevant to the vast majority of abortions carried out in the UK for social reasons.

Thirdly, to brand the Mail and Conservatives as patriarchial is absolute nonsense. I'm a woman. I believe in women's rights. I also believe in the dignity of every human being regardless of age or gender. I don't believe anyone has the right to take away a human being's life and I wish the Labour Government would actually literally defend a surestart for every child, instead of presiding over an increase in abortions.

[ed]

My niece was born at 24 weeks and is simply a healthy, happy, attractive and intelligent bi-lingual girl of almost 5yrs today.

Her heart never missed much more than a beat from the day of her birth, there were amazingly few anxieties for the parents (my brother and his wife).

If 24 weeks is the frontier, I find all that health she's showing now and showed then hard to credit. I think that its the expectations of the system more than anything which limits survival rates fro premmies. Well, of course it is when you consider what technology can do today.

[Peter]

The facts say that 186,000 out of 200,000 abortions are done before the 13 week deadline. With this the debate should be one of what catergories the remaining 14,000 are in(they could be all in dangerment to the mother). With that fact we can then have a debate on what the limit should be if its has to be over 13 but at the moment nothing comes from the people who support a limit higher than this figure so they in turn I feel start away lose the argument, so hopefully we can get that quickly?

[Amy]

In response to Fiona and anybody else pushing that 'cutting the limit is backed by science' i suggest you actually look at the FACTS.

The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Royal College of Nursing and the Commons Science and technology Committee SUPPORT THE CURRENT LIMIT.

These are the people who actually know the facts. The reactionary MPs who support the '20 reasons for 20 weeks' campaign have distorted the scientific evidence to a discusting degree or are too ignorant to check the facts for themselves.

Put simply at this point in time cutting the limit on abortions from 24 weeks can not be defended on any scientific level.

Pro-choice remains THE liberal and defendable choice.

(by all means continue your pro-life campaigns through emotional blackmail and claims that your position is correct because you believe in an unproved God - but pretending you know about science is frankly ridiculous)

[Norm Brainer]

Amy... you seem to be pro-choice, but you still use the word 'Limit' as if the default position is that abortions are not permitted and the government then 'allow' you to abort up to 24 weeks, as opposed to them only being prevented after 24 weeks.

[Amy]

Historically abortions have been illegal and not untill 1968 was it finally put to the state to 'allow' safe abortions to take place. So yes the default position historically is that abortions are not permitted but that the government 'allows' abortions up to 24 weeks.

By using the word 'limit' it does not mean i agree with this historical view point, just that i recognise the hard work of legislators and pro-choice campaigners in passing the Abortion Act 1968. This act has been extremely unpopular in some sections of society and i am acutely aware that the right to have an abortion is under threat.

We must also be aware of the fact that this 'historical' position is not so historical in many countries today e.g. in nicaragua where catholic convert Ortega has banned all abortions. It is, of course, terribly sad that so often the fate of women in this world is in the hands of religious, patriachal male rulers.

I support the current 'limit' and being pro-choice does not mean i would support abortion up to 9months. It is important to note that late term abortions mainly affect exteremly vulnerable and desparate women e.g teenagers, drug addicts and women with learning disablities. It is the role of the state to protect these women.

[Rebecca]

For anyone interested badscienceblogs.com will lead you to several sites where medical professionals (and the odd lay commentator) examine the scientific studies that are appropriate to this debate. There are also comments following posts from various medical professionals- pro and con. The bloggers are obviously against the amendment but there's plenty of cold hard figures (as well as evidence that Dorries has been...disingenuous in some of her comments)

[Sunny]

Nadine Dorries "disingenuous"?? How dare anyone suggest such a thing?

Especially when she's publishing a picture in the middle of an article that is a proven HOAX.

Way to go rational, liberal Conservatism.

[Steve]

A woman's right to autonomy should be paramount and should never be trumped by a fetus' right to life.

With respect to Kylie, i have no objection to your choice to have a termination and i am disgusted in the response that was given to you. Its your body and your absolute right to do with it as you want. You should not have the burden of being forced to carry and go through the traumatic experience of giving birth.

What gives any of you people the right to refuse a woman the right to terminate her own pregnancy?? what makes your view more important then theirs??

Nadine has blown a load of hot air as to why she thinks her idea should be forced on us, and hoped that the dim-witted do-gooders out there support her. It would appear she has been successful.

Kylie i stand by your right to terminate a pregnancy and any other woman's right!!

With regards to the majority of Europe having a low time limit with respect to the sanctity of life, all i think of is the fact that the European Court of Human Rights found that a fetus has no rights under ECHR. So none of this right to life for a fetus malarky, and more of this right to private life and right to start a family...or not as the case may be!

[mike]

Can Nadine Dorries tell us her position on contraception?

I think you'll find she has some rather right-wing views on this subject.

Funny isn't it that anti-abortionists are always against those things that would reduce abortion - knowledge and access to contraception.

(Note, I am against social TOP after 14 weeks, but to achieve this equitably we must improve sex education and contraception access - like on the continent)