Nadine Dorries campaigns for 'a woman's right to know'

Abortion will be on the Commons' agenda today as Tory MP Nadine Dorries MP introduces a Ten Minute Rule Bill concerning terminations of pregnancy (BBC and Nadine's own blog).

The Conservative backbencher declares herself to be in favour of a woman's right to choose but wants a reduction in the number of abortions.  The TMRB has no chance of becoming law but Nadine Dorries is committed to using other parliamentary opportunities, including Westminster Hall debates, to draw public attention to the issue as part of a concerted, long-term campaign. 

Today's TMRB enjoys the support of former Tory leaders Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard.  It has three components:

1. A reduction in the abortion time limit from 24 to 21 weeks.  The 21 week limit reflects the latest scientific evidence on foetal sentience (the unborn child's response to pain and sound) rather than viability (the unborn child's likelihood of surviving outside of the womb).  The image on the right is of an unborn child of 24 weeks.  More images and a movie can be seen here via the orange/ brown link on the Create Health website.
2. A full-informed consent to abortion after a cooling-off period - 'a woman's right to know'.  Nadine Dorries: "Such a cooling-off period is necessary, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy or not is one with which the woman concerned will have to live for the rest of her life. It is imperative that this decision is fully considered, and that all the necessary help and advice is available for her to make an informed decision. This part of the bill is designed to enforce a woman’s right to know.  There is no pressure on a woman to decide either way. The woman does indeed have the right to choose. The cooling-off period gives her this time to reflect on her decision. It is also a time when parents, partners, boyfriends etc will have to stand back and give the woman time to reflect."  This is at the heart of the TMRB and where introduced in other parts of the world has produced significant reductions in the number of terminations.
3. Timely access to abortion once a woman has made a "fully informed and empowered decision" to terminate her pregnancy.

Download brief PDF guide_to_Nadine_Dorries'_TMRB.

Endnote: 187 to 108 MPs reject Nadine Dorries' attempt to amend abortion laws - BBC

Comments

[Richard]

Good idea which will probably have the support of the majority if the polls are anything to go by. Unfortunately though this is an issue where so-called progressives who believe in "power to the people" suddenly decide that the people can't be trusted because they hold a different view.

[comstock]

I'd hate to see abortion become the political football it has become in the US but this seems a genuine attempt at a compromise in one of the thorniest moral issues.

I've always considered myself 'choice tolerant' rather than 'pro-choice', because I am personally opposed to abortion, but it isn't me who has to carry this baby, care for this baby, hold together a possibly violent relationship with it's father.

I think it's significant this bill is from a woman MP. I'm only half joking when I say perhaps we should apply a form of the 'west lothian question' here, with only women MPs voting :D

After all, I'm just a man...........

[bee]

why is that image title baby?

[Our Lady of Sorrows]

"why is that image title baby?"

Well what does it look like to you? A blob of jelly?

[TomTom]

After all, I'm just a man....

So was David Steel when he put forward the Abortion Bill on behalf of home Secretary Woy Jenkins back in 1967.............should it be declared invalid because Lord Steel is still a man, or are men unconnected with children and reproduction ?

[comstock]

So was David Steel when he put forward the Abortion Bill on behalf of home Secretary Woy Jenkins back in 1967

There wern't many women MPs back then.

or are men unconnected with children and reproduction ?

Of course not, but we can't get pregnant as far as I am aware!!

[Jonathan Mackie]

and neither can women unless their is a man involved in person or in spirit!

[Jonathan Mackie]

opps their should read there

[More to the Point]

What a load of nonsense. Why not call this bill, "Women: you're not up to taking swift decisions"? And as per usual, it's accompanied by the habitual dishonesty of the anti-abortionists. Oh yeah, they want 'time to reflect', that's all, nothing else. Why? Your considered reflection is that it's in all circumstances absolutely the wrong thing to do. Admit it. Yet another feeble, disengenuous effort.

[Michael McGowan]

Seems like a sensible move to me. Only the usual pro-abortion fundamentalists will object.

[comstock]

and neither can women unless there is a man involved in person or in spirit!

Well, obv, but there is, to me at least, a fundamental difference between the sexes...women possess the equipment to carry, give birth to and feed a baby and I do not.

The two sexes may be equal but they are not the same.

[Peter]

In a perfect world I'm hoping that everyone would be against abortion. As we not in a perfect world we have to have it but under restriction. I saw some stats on the Matthew Wright program that says that 97% of abortions are done within 12 weeks so to me the term limits should be.
Indangerment to the Mother, no limit(as it is know).
Deformation, 28 weeks(back form the current no limit).
Rape/Incest, 18-21 weeks(from 24).
Economic/Social, 12 weeks(from 24 weeks).
Know what do people think of that?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

As a member of a pro-Life organisation, I have just recieved the following info:

Nadine Dorries’ Ten Minute Rule Abortion Bill: Mrs Dorries is Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire. She wrote to Conservative colleagues saying that she had drawn a slot under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure and would be introducing a Bill to limit abortions – seeking “a middle way”. She decided that the “pro-choice and pro-life groups had ghettoised the arguments into two intractable positions” and she was seeking “a middle way”. She decided to reduce the upper limit for abortions from 24 weeks to 21 weeks. When Robert Keys MP wrote protesting that her Bill would make little difference to the numbers of abortion – but would penalise the most vulnerable women, she replied in less than an hour to assure him that women presenting with foetal abnormalities would be able to continue to terminate up to birth under ground E of Section 37 of the 1990 Act. But she added that her Bill would stop 3000 abortions annually.

A Cowardly Little Bill: It was, in fact a cowardly little Bill in which she failed to face up to the controversy regarding the right to life of disabled babies and it would certainly not stop anywhere near 3000 abortions as Mrs Dorries claimed.

The Arrogance & Rudeness of Mrs Dorries: In her letter to colleagues Mrs Dorries showed herself to be hopelessly out of date. She used the age-old pro-abortion argument that to “understand the issues fully, one (had) to be a woman and one who had been pregnant”! Even the most extreme pro-abortion Labour MPs dropped that argument getting on for twenty years ago! She is also extremely discourteous: for example she made no contact with Jim Dobbin, Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group until almost the very end.

Pro-Life Groups United: She met with a number of representatives from pro-life groups and succeeded in uniting everybody… against her Bill! When finally Jim Dobbin met with her he made it quite clear that she would not get the support of the All-Party Group for the Bill in its present form.

Lack of Research: One of the most frightening problems in relation to Mrs Dorries was the fact that she very obviously had done no thorough research. The number of abortions prevented by her Bill would be far, far lower than the 3000 she claimed.

The Main Reason For Opposing The Bill: The main reason for opposing her Bill, however, does not relate to the number of abortions it would stop. It relates to the fact that it would give the pro-abortion lobby the opportunity to achieve their long-held aim – to amend the present law to make abortion a woman’s right that no doctor could oppose –unless the pegnancy was over the limit of 12 weeks, or 14 weeks, or even 16 – 18 weeks.

Additional Detail

Nadine Dorries’ Abortion (Amendment) Bill

In her statements Mrs Dorries has made it quite clear that she aims to lower the upper limit for social abortions – and only social abortions - from 24 weeks to 21 weeks. (We presume that as the Bill allows social abortions up to 21 weeks, 21-week abortions would continue.)

England & Wales

The official Abortion Statistics for 2005 show the following:

22 weeks 539 abortions
23 weeks 336 (Note From The Government Statistical Service:-
24 weeks and 0 days gestation is included in 22 – 23
weeks)
____
TOTAL 875

We do not know how many of the above total (875) were carried out on Ground E (for disability). As Mrs Dorries clearly intends to ban only social abortions this would lower the number of abortions that would be affected by her Bill.

Even if Mrs Dorries’ Bill were to prevent abortions at 21 weeks this would add only a further 700. Again, we do not know how many of these were carried out for disability (Ground E).

The number of abortions carried out at 24 weeks in 2005 was 38 – all of which were on grounds of disability (see below). These, therefore, would continue under Mrs Dorries’ Bill.

Abortions In Scotland

In 2005 – 62 abortions were carried out in Scotland between 20 and 24 weeks gestation. Five were carried out after 24 weeks. There is no further breakdown published. These figures include abortion on the grounds of disability.

Abortions For Disability of the Infant (Ground E)

In 2005 a total of 1,918 abortions were carried out on ground E alone or with any other. 137 of these were carried out at over 24 weeks gestation. In the official statistics there is no breakdown by gestation for abortions on the grounds of disability before 24 weeks. However, we consider that a high proportion of Ground E abortions would have been carried out in the later stages of pregnancy (from about 18 weeks) which one should take into account when considering Mrs Dorries’ Bill.

To see whether we can obtain any clearer figures Rob Wilson, MP for Reading East, who visited the RTL stand at the Conservative Party Conference, has agreed to table a number of parliamentary questions for us. We will publish the answers in the next RTLNews.

The Real Danger of Mrs Dorries’ Bill

We have to be clear that if somebody introduced a Bill which would save lives – we would consider it very seriously. However, there are two dangers to Mrs Dorries’ Bill. One is the very obvious hardening of attitudes towards the disabled that she clearly accepts. Another of our concerns is that she has not taken into account the danger of possible amendments to it, which could well be passed and would be disastrous.

The most obvious example is the Labour Party Policy (supported completely by the Government) to change the law to legalise abortion as a woman’s right up to 12 – 14 weeks (some Labour MPs including Government Ministers want it up to 16 – 18 weeks) with one doctor allowed only to confirm the stage of pregnancy. No doctor – no matter how pro-life – would be allowed to do anything else.

A big majority of Labour MPs would support such an amendment as would at least half the Lib Dems. There are also quite a number of Conservative MPs who would agree (e.g. Crispin Blunt). In addition, in 1990 when abortion up to birth was legalised quite a number of Conservative MPs supported a clause to allow abortion as a woman’s right up to 12 weeks with one doctor allowed only to confirm the gestation. These included Tim Boswell, Kenneth Clarke, Robert Key, Douglas Hogg, Andrew MacKay and others.

With the big majority that the Labour Government holds, together with the Lib Dems, and some Conservatives – the chances are that we would lose the vote.

I know that abortion virtually on demand is practised at present, but at least we can protest at the manner in which the law is abused. However, if the law were amended to make abortion the legal right of every woman, the situation would become far worse; we would have no grounds for protest and there is no doubt that the numbers would increase. In addition, for many years leading pro-abortionists have argued that abortion should be a personal matter between a woman and her doctor and there should be no requirement to report the operation. Thus pro-abortionists would fight to prevent the publication of abortion statistics. One only has to see the manner in which the Department of Health (under Patricia Hewitt) now suppresses the statistics for abortion on the grounds of disability, to foresee what would happen if abortion was legally made every woman’s right.

If we were confident that we could defeat any vote in a move to change the law to allow abortion as a woman’s right – it would be worthwhile to fight to lower the upper limit for abortion. As things are, we stand to lose far more for women and their babies than we would gain.

[comstock]

She used the age-old pro-abortion argument that to “understand the issues fully, one (had) to be a woman and one who had been pregnant”!

I think that was quite a good argument, personally.

51% of the population is far better qualified to speak on this than you or I, Justin.

(on which note I'll shut up and let some of them speak)

[Andrew]

That picture has been CGI'ed, which doesn't do their argument any favours. Having said that, I agree the limit should be lowered to 20 weeks, or whatever the survivable age is. At that point the foetus clearly crosses the line between dependant parasite and independant life.

[Michael McGowan]

It's not a particularly good argument at all: men have a role in conceiving children and a voice on these issues.... which the pro-abortionists go out of their way to suppress while dogmatically asserting that unborn children have no rights in the debate either. You complain about abortion becoming a "political football" but isn't your real goal the standard "progressive" goal of shutting down debate on a very complex ethical issue?

I am always amused that abortion is so ardently supported by members of the Tory Party who would be utterly hostile to capital punishment. Ethically, their stance is totally incoherent.

[Londoner]

Regarding the man's right to a view: approx 50% of foetuses are male.

Regarding Justin Hinchcliffe, might it not be more honest to allow "social abortion" up to, say, 8 or 10 weeks but combine that with much more stringent health tests above that time regarding either severe disability of the baby or genuinely high risk to the life of the mother? I accept that drafting these grounds to stop them being abused, as under the present law, would be difficult. I am not defending the morality of "social abortion" at any stage but we have to accept that the present law is no impediment and that what I propose would be an improvement after the 8 or 10 weeks. I also respect the pro-lifers' support of the unborn child who is severely disabled but I just don't think you will get the support you would need to change the status quo in that regard.

It strikes me that the opening up of a debate on these lines as a result of this Bill would be welcome and that the Bill itself, whilst timid, might do a little good.

[Peter]

Michael totally agree with you on the connection between Abortion and Capital punishment but we do have to put in the link of being in a inperfect world. Always liked the comment from Reagan in 1966 as governor of Calfornia(when he signed his state Abortion bill) when he said that the Deformation option was only done in Nazis Germany. I wouldn't go as far as that but you have to question people who support "on demand".

[Annabel Herriott]

I have just scrolled down on this thread.
Comments so far.
Comstock 4
Richard 1
Bee/ Our Lady of sorrows. Possibly female.
TomTom 1
Jonathan Mackie 1
More to the point 1
Michael McGowan 1
Justin Hinchcliff A complete essay.

Now as far as I can see, that makes 2 for the ladies, and 10 for the gentlemen.

Remind me again, who is that that gets pregnant????

[Peter]

So what is your view Annabel on the subject?

[deborah]

I've always considered myself 'choice tolerant' rather than 'pro-choice', because I am personally opposed to abortion, but it isn't me who has to carry this baby, care for this baby, hold together a possibly violent relationship with it's father.

My personal view is similar to Comstock's. I have children and know how intensely aware I was of the foetus, from just a few weeks. I doubt I could ever seriously contemplate abortion.
But then again I can't really imagine how it must feel to be raped and then discover you're pregnant and faced with the prospect of carrying the baby (a permanent reminder of that violation, a part of him deep inside you) to term.
I would not wish to impose my prejudices on anyone faced with that choice.

This bill seems like a move in the right direction.

[Michael McGowan]

Annabel, you are welcome to contribute.....we would appreciate your view. Problem is that no-one can be compelled to contribute, be they male or female....

Peter, surely the incoherence stems from the fact that the Ken Clarkes of this world take the view that (a) it is always intrinsically wrong for the criminal justice system to take life, even after due process (on the whole I agree); but that (b) it is quite OK for doctors to extinguish sustainable life, with next to no due process. (a) and (b) are ethically irreconcilable yet these people often howl down anyone who dares to point out the massive moral flaws in their position.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Or those who oppose fox-hunting, yet support the abortion lobby.

[Jonathan Mackie]

Remind me Annabel how women get pregnant? This hijacking of social issues as 'women only' is becoming all pervasive and nafarious.

Justine - I didn't read all your post but I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are an opponent of abortion. I am comfortable with you having a view and expressing it, but the manner in which the pro-life movement wish to impose their views on others is distasteful.

I doubt (in fact I know) no women takes a decision to abort lightly, but that they should have that right is irrefutable. The alternative is back street abortions where the foetus would go through more 'pain' and the women through a more torturous process. An increase in children in care (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) and unwanted children.

You just can't abolish abortion. It is impractical and undesirable.

[Sean Fear]

That's very interesting, Justin, thanks.

Trying to argue that men shouldn't comment on abortion is like arguing that non-lawyers shouldn't comment on legislative changes.

As it happens, one consistent theme running through opinion polls is that women are generally more hostile to abortion than men are. Which is really not surprising.

[Annabel Herriott]

My view? I was a midwife in the 1950s, in the northeast. We had a "flying squad" then, a fast car, obstetrician, anaethetist, midwife, and a medical student. We carried 0 negative blood that can be given to anybody.
Life saving? yes. After we had pumped said blood into a woman dying after a backstreet abortion. We stabilised, then the ambulance took her in for surgery to clear her womb.
So you can see, it is a little difficult for me to have a purely philosophical view of abortion. The abortion act saved lives. The woman's. Medical advance has now ensured the survival of very premature infants, not all of them in good health, sadly. Cerebral palsy can be the long term outcome. Women themselves, have grown up with the abortion services as a fact of life, and both men and women have developed a somewhat cavalier attitude to contraception. The pill generation in fact.
We had no "pill". We did have the shotgun wedding, and we did have abstinence, at least until the bans had been called, even if we did not wait until the honeymoon. And we did have barrier contraception.
There is a very strong case for dropping the gestation period to that which is below medical science's ability to ensure a live baby.
There is also a very strong case for ensuring that Vera Drake does not arise from the shadows again.
The fact remains, that if a woman does not want to be pregnant, she will move heaven and earth to become unpregnant.
As I have seen merits and demerits of both sides of the argument, it is impossible to play judge and jury here.

[sjm]

Comment from a female who had an social abortion more than 40 yrs ago:

It was a sad and difficult decision, but it was the right one.

When Justin has spent 35 yrs caring for a severely disabled child, and is entering his sixties with virtually no support from Social Services or the NHS for said child, then he can lecture us all on the moral wickedness of aborting a severely handicapped foetus.

[Annabel Herriott]

Exactly, sjm, exactly.

[disillusioned activist]

Well here is a woman's view like it or not

Men do have an important part to play in the conception of a child ~as the old cliche says 'it takes two to tango' Yes they DO have a right to comment on the matter of abortion.

I have been opposed to abortion since my teens.I remember seeing at school a wonderful book of photographs charting the development of a baby from conception to birth. It was called 'The First Nine Months of Life' I can't remember the author's or phopographer's names but the pictures left a lasting impression,and the feeling that once a pregnancy was established it was wrong to terminate most of the time, and certainly not for social reasons

I later married had we had three much loved children (now grownup) There is no way that I would have denied them life.

ps I am Anglican not RC

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

SJM, better social services provisions are needed, not more terminations (killings).

[More to the Point]

"Only the usual pro-abortion fundamentalists will object" - say what you like about those of us who support abortion being legal, but at least we're open about it. Ask yourself why anti-abortionists have to hide their actual views behind smokescreens like this risible bill.

[TomTom]

It relates to the fact that it would give the pro-abortion lobby the opportunity to achieve their long-held aim – to amend the present law to make abortion a woman’s right that no doctor could oppose –unless the pegnancy was over the limit of 12 weeks, or 14 weeks, or even 16 – 18 weeks.

Well Justin I would go one further and make it a criminal offence for anyone to provide medical aid to any baby born within the abortion period.............that premature babies would receive no costly medical treatment thus freeing up ICU places for babies born after 28 weeks rather than ludicrous situations as with Charlotte Wyatt born in the 26th week of pregnancy by Caesarean section, weighing only 458 grams and five inches long and totally unviable

[Mike Christie]

A very interesting thread. Rather than join the debate directly, can I add the following thought to the debate.

Is there a link between the viewpoint of people like comstock and others who hold the point that women have a greater right to debate this issue and the number of men who fel at perfect liberty to abandon a pregnant partner?

If we take the attitude that beyond a certain point men have a diminished right to comment on issues surrounding child-rearing, can we be surprised if some men feel a diminished sense of responsibility?

Society's attitude to human life and the sanctioned taking of human life, whether it be abortion, capital punishment, the deployment of troops or euthanasia is something that we all have an equal duty to contemplate and an equal right to comment.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"Well Justin I would go one further and make it a criminal offence for anyone to provide medical aid to any baby born within the abortion period.............that premature babies would receive no costly medical treatment thus freeing up ICU places for babies born after 28 weeks rather than ludicrous situations as with Charlotte Wyatt born in the 26th week of pregnancy by Caesarean section, weighing only 458 grams and five inches long and totally unviable", says TomTom.

Words fail me, you monster.

[RobD]

More to the point - I too believe in abortion being legal, to me this bill seems to define some sensible boundries given current scientific knowledge, could you elaborate on why you think it is a "risible bill"?

[More to the Point]

Like, I would have thought, everyone else with pretensions to a.) sanity & b.) decency I of course would like to see no abortions, beyond those neccessary for the health of the mother. But I can't bring myself to believe that the life that begins at conception instantly becomes a human being (when it patently is not), and accordingly that a fertilised egg enjoys the same right to life you or I do. So abortion should be legal, even for those recklessly and watonly using it merely as a form of post-intercourse contraception.

To answer RobD's specific question, I think that this bill is risible precisely because is supposes (as its transparent cover for its supporters ultimate end of criminalising all abortion again) that the women forced to 'wait' before they have an abortion will in that period 'come to their senses'. Quite the reverse - all it would mean in the real world is that 'older' foetuses would be destroyed. And since I, like you RobD, would cheerfully see the age limit for abortions reduced, in line with the medical advances made for sustaining premature babies, I really cannot see the gain in that. In other words, this bill is risible because - it's dishonest, ineffectual and patronising to those it affects to help (the idiot women who need 'time' to 'reflect').

[comstock]

Is there a link between the viewpoint of people like comstock and others who hold the point that women have a greater right to debate this issue and the number of men who fel at perfect liberty to abandon a pregnant partner?

Well I'd certainly disagree with that.

Being celibate on the grounds of acute ugliness :D it's not a situation I'm likely to find myself in, but I'd certainly fight to keep my unborn child alive.

That's not the same as saying I have the right to stop the woman having an abortion, anymore than I have the right to make her have one.

Of course you could say it's a man's job to 'stand by her whatever she decides', but thats easier to say than do..............

[Sean Fear]

"If we take the attitude that beyond a certain point men have a diminished right to comment on issues surrounding child-rearing, can we be surprised if some men feel a diminished sense of responsibility?"

An interesting point of view. Since many feminists consider fathers to be superfluous to child-rearing, they can't really be surprised if some men come to the same conclusion.

[Jonathan Mackie]

I think if I fathered a feminists child I'd want to be superfluous!! LOL

More to the Point - I have to agree, this idea that a period of reflection is all it needs for people to come to their senses is obscene. Such a period is designed to make the women repent, challenge her immediate thoughts.

It is a surrogate means of imposing anti-abortionists views. These people who can only see life as black and white and live some sort of moral code that only feckless people can't live up to.

[Sean Fear]

"I think if I fathered a feminists child I'd want to be superfluous!! LOL"

I suppose that even being aborted might be preferable to being a feminist's child.

[comstock]

Words fail me, you monster

says Justin, commenting on TomTom's proposals that we shouldn't try to keep babies alive before 28 weeks.

I think you are being harsh, Justin. One of my favourite folk singers, Vin Garbutt, who unlike me is hardline pro-life sang

A child with no liver deserves to be free, using ethics of old we can help her to be. Not by farming spare parts for her, using me

Surely it is more compassionate to let a child born before the limit of viability fade away peacefully rather than try to keep him/her alive using ever frankeinstein like methods, cloning, embryo research or whatever, if they have no prospect of any real quality of life.......

[Jonathan Mackie]

Sean - fantastic!

Surely the logic of pro-life Comstock and Justine is that science shouldn't intervene at all, either to abort or support?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Justine????????

[Jonathan Mackie]

Sorry mate typo. But the point remains, does the pro-life logic not suggest that modern science shouldn;t be used to support life if it can also be used to prevent it?

[Mike Christie]

Comstock, I may have misunderstood your viewpoint.

I think I've confused your agreement that women have a better understanding of some of the issues with the point of view that women have more of a right to debate the issues.

[Michael McGowan]

More to the Point, I don't need to disguise my real views on abortion. I don't believe in criminalising all abortion. However, I don't accept that, in an era when contraception is freely available and premature babies can be viably sustained earlier and earlier, a pregnant women has an unlimited right to choose. There comes a point in the gestation period when a foetus is definably a human being, not just a growth in the mother's womb.

[David Walsh]

Jonathan Mackie @ 13.51: "More to the Point - I have to agree, this idea that a period of reflection is all it needs for people to come to their senses is obscene. Such a period is designed to make the women repent, challenge her immediate thoughts."

I think that the idea of a period of reflection is a good one. Women facing the prospect of abortion are clearly in an incredibly tough position and taking time to consider the options can only be a good thing. Nobody is making a judgement as to the decision they ought to take, just allowing time for reflection.

If an individual has their mind made up on the matter, a few days delay is not going to alter their opinion. If they have not firmly decided though, surely it makes sense to allow time for them to come to a considered view?

[Jonathan Mackie]

David - the delay is already in the system. Unless you believe that you can march into a high street abortionist and have it done in your lunch hour.

There is absolutely no need for a statutory delay, unless you want to mess with the mind and emotions of the pregnant female. It is stealth mechanism for the pro-life groups.

Women who decide to have the pregnancy terminated will have considered a wide range and number of issues. On the whole they are more responsible than those who choose to go through with an accidental pregnancy which the father may not want or wish to support.

[bee]

how is TomTom a monster for not wanting to fund ineffective treatement. Rationing is a fact of life in every healthcare system in the world. I suggest you check it out.

We do not fund every costly treatment, nor does anywhere else. People die because of NHS lack of funding, on breast cancer drugs, etc - the line is drawn somewhere, the very elderly will not get hip replacements for instance, treatments that are very costly relative to their benefit are not funded either.

Why is it appopriate to spend £1m/year on the likes of Charlotte Wyatt when there are limited resources to go round, and she is severely brain-damaged, and had her parents stayed together, they would have had a poor quality of life until the day she died, tied to 24-7 care. As it happens they couldn't cope and gave her up, despite insisting that she had to be saved, which just goes to show how 24-week old foetuses who will have problems throughout their lives, really are not a good use of medical resources compared to live human beings.

[Mark Fulford]

Abortion law has to be decided by the path of least harm. Evaluating harm is always going to be grey, but we must not overstate the harm done by aborting a non-sentient embryo or foetus nor understate the harm done by becoming an unwilling mother.

Reducing the normal limit to 21 weeks in-line with a degree of sentience is sensible. Counselling to make sure that a woman understands the consequences of abortion is also sensible. A set-in-stone cooling-off period is clumsy.

I am always amused that abortion is so ardently supported by members of the Tory Party who would be utterly hostile to capital punishment. Ethically, their stance is totally incoherent.

OK, I'll rise to the provocation. I soberly support abortion because I seek least harm. In my morality that’s entirely consistent with opposing the death penalty.

"Ardent" better applies to supporters of the death penalty – but to be pro-death (penalty) yet pro-life truly does seem incoherent. Deep down I guess there's a desire to see wrong-doers get the full consequences, including women who have irresponsible sex.