« Tories are 14.2% ahead in ConservativeHome's Poll of Polls | Main | David Davis seeks stronger regulation of CCTV »


You are completely right. Unborn children will be alive in a few months because of Nadine Dorries. Women who have seen videos like the one you post above and who have seen the scans in the Daily Mail will realise what is growing inside them.

You are a lifesaver Nadine. You are a lifesaver.

I bet my MP abstains, she's been absent on every single one of these votes so far.


I entirely agree with A.Viewer. This comes so close to a crucial By-election in a Labour heartland we have a very good chance of winning. Whatever the media says the Conversative Party still has a big image problem. Bringing up issues like this can only undo the fantastic work that has been done by the party to change this.

Watching David Modell's 'In God's Name' on Channel 4 last nights showed how the extreme christian right with Homophobic and Racist Views are influencing policy makers. The interview with Nadine Dorries at the end was frightening as she admitted how closely she worked with these groups.

I know if I was a disaffected Labour voter in Crewe who watched this I might think again about switching to the Tories.

Well done, Nadine. 'Fully informed consent' is long overdue so women considering abortion can come to a considered view. However the increasing evidence on foetal pain and the viability of unborn babies younger than 24 weeks will hopefully lead MPs to vote for a reduction in the upper limit on terminations.

Hmmm... I am very uneasy with the stance this website takes on this issue - almost willing the abortion debate to be pushed into the fore US style, in a way that we have thankfully avoided.

Anyone who watched Dispatches last night will have seen how Nadine was taken in by someone who can only be described as a religious extremist - whilst I have sympathy for a reduction to 20 weeks she must avoid allying herself to extremists

The last two comments are as unethical as they are out of touch.

Unethical because the timing of by-election shouldn't decide one's ethics.

Out of touch because most voters and most women support a lower time limit.

Considering that the government target waiting time is three weeks, the 10 day cooling off period is a complete red herring. What you actually want is the informed consent bit where, by “informed”, you mean subjected to arbitrary moralising.

I watched Dispatches - Nadine got a lawyer to draft her amendment for free.
Speaking as a lawyer, smart move.
The same lawyer also drafts amendments for Labour MPs.
I have nothing but admiration for the way this woman has had both the courage and bravery to fight her corner. I wish we had more MPs of conviction.

Great video at the top of this post. I hope everyone will watch it. It makes Tim's point about what Nadine has achieved by simply having this debate.

Reading A. Viewer and Tory Member reminds us that "Conservative" does not equte to conservative, and never did.

What the HFE votes tell us is that we need a serious realignment of UK politics. There are clearly two real "parties": one is traditional, socially conservative and patriotic. The other is atheist, liberal and supranationalist.

The sooner this cleavage is formalised in our political system, the better for all of us.

Don't we have enough unwanted children in this country? How is it a positive thing to force women who have got as far as 20 weeks but are still determined that they do not want a child, to have the baby?

"I strongly disagree with assessment of Nadine Dorries campaign. In my experience it has alienated precisely the demographic the party has only recently succeeded in re-engaging"

Polling evidence does not support that contention.

"Don't we have enough unwanted children in this country? "

How do you know that?

Well there are certainly vast numbers of feral children lacking parental guidance in London. I'm not concerned at the issue of 20-24 week-old foetuses being aborted frankly.

The idea that the unborn life of a child whom its mother wishes to abort is something I'd seek to preserve against her wishes is not one I'd rationally conflate with the evidence I see around me.

I'm sure once science becomes sufficiently advanced even younger foetuses might become viable, but it doesn't change my view.

I'd recommend everyone to watch the debate from now.

Ian Duncan Smith is making an extremely good speech on the subject of the need for a father figure.

Frankly the way the pro-life lobby has succeeded in distorting plain facts (children born at 20wks have the odds against them of becoming surviving to become fully functioning humans) is shameful. There is no case to lower the limit

It actually makes me less likely to be voting Tory as we seems ever more drifting into the extremes of the Neo-Con US style right wingery with this sort of moralising.

"Well there are certainly vast numbers of feral children lacking parental guidance in London"

It doesn't mean they're not wanted. It simply means they're badly brought up.

"It actually makes me less likely to be voting Tory as we seems ever more drifting into the extremes of the Neo-Con US style right wingery with this sort of moralising."

But, were you ever likely to vote Tory in the first place?

Or is this going to be like one of the Boris Johnson threads, where all sorts of "Conservatives" used to post saying they couldn't bring themselves to vote for him?

I started off pro-life, but read Dorries' work and have changed position.

This is not intended to be offensive, but a statement of fact. She is, by a long shot, the least able politician I have ever come across.

It is manifestly clear that there is no evidence on increasing viability at earlier stages.

I think this approach amounts to theocratic bullying, Tim. Shame on you.

The Party is getting increasingly hijacked by Christians and I find it troubling, to say the least.

This site is getting increasingly hijacked by liberals and I find it troubling.

"But, were you ever likely to vote Tory in the first place?"

"This site is getting increasingly hijacked by liberals"

I don't know why people seem to believe anyone who supports abortion is not a Tory.

I would like to dismantle the welfare state, cut taxes, and numerous other right-wing policies, but I don't see the connection between that and forcing people to have children they do not want.

The BEST way to reduce irresponsible behaviour is to make people more responsible for their behaviour by reducing the size of the welfare state. That will reduce the number of abortions far more than gestures like this one.

I sincerely hope Nadine Dorries loses her vote tonight.

We are Conservatives, not Republicans and we don't need illiberal measures like the ones she and Edward Leigh are proposing.

Pro-Choice Tory: "I think this approach amounts to theocratic bullying, Tim. Shame on you."

Please show me evidence of "theocratic bullying".

This is a free vote, not a party political issue. Nadine raised the amendment as an MP, the representative of her constituents, if they are unhappy with her move they will vote her out. The Conservative Party's behaviour throughout the debating of this Bill has been a shining example of the strength and splendour of our democracy - the same cannot be said for the Labour Party.

If you disagree with her, then disagree with her - but what is a ll this nonsense about Republicans etc.

I think this thread illustrates what a difficult and divisive issue this can be, but if politicians and elected MP's like Nadine can't tackle this subject, then who can? Abortion remains a moral/ethical, and yes religious issue, but you have to legislate on it. They do on the continent at 13 weeks, so why is the UK so different?

You don't have to be a Christian, or a Conservative for that matter, to believe that a situation where a baby's life is being saved in one room, whilst the life of a baby the same age is being ended down the road, is wrong.

This vote is about ending this situation and has little relevance in the overall debate.

Hopefully enough MPs will see that the current situation is intolerable, and vote to change it.

Discussing these issues is exactly what democracy is about and being an elected representative means taking decisions, sometime difficult ones. Nadine has been willing to speak out and should be applauded for engaging the issue not told she is a "medieval relic". Incidentally as to whether this does or doesn't play well politically, firstly it is a free vote issue but secondly I think it has no bearing and if anything a reduction in the upper limit has support across the demographics.

I'm a staunch and lifelong paid-up Tory. I campaigned for Major, Hague and Howard and voted for Cameron in 2005. I'm a Eurosceptic, I believe in lower taxes, I believe in supporting families and I'm particularly keen to see a Davis-run Home Office.

There are two issues, ever, on which I've substantially disagreed with a Cameron position. One was on grammar schools. The second is on 20 weeks.

I strongly support the government's positions on the embryology bill. I support 24 weeks. I support hybrid embryos. I appreciate the logic of requiring a 'male role model' but I'm unclear as to how this will help in practice.

I find many of the supposedly pro-life positions naive -- more concerned with the cuddly stuff ("Save babies!") than the intangible, ugly, hidden reality (the alternative -- the prospects and fate of a new life, its mother and all those that life will interact with over the 70, 80, 100 years).

As a lifelong carer for a family member, it's struck me that people will get very riled up for people with singular, clearly-diagnosed disabilities which you can sell on a bumper sticker, but anything messy or unsure or unattractive or complicated often gets shoved aside. Most people are happy with a binary world -- kill or save babies, help or abandon blind people. But so much in this world is complicated, messy, ugly, cruel.

I find most of the arguments against aspects of this bill flimsy, based on lurid sensationalism, distorted false emotion, or simply out of touch.

I don't think badly of Nadine, whose blog I enjoy from time to time, and I understand she's well-intentioned. To the extent that it makes people who don't have to abort consider the consequences, I'd be tempted to agree that it's something of a success. And I'm not one of these people who would boo her for raising it at all. But personally, I think she's dead wrong on this issue.

As for my feelings for the party... I'd be lying if, for the space of a heartbeat, I wondered if the party isn't the right place for me. But the comments on these threads are heartening. And besides, where else am I going to go? I don't believe in PR, the Euro and immigration amnesties like the LibDems. I don't believe in ID cards, fat government and the monstrous programme of waste and tax advocated by Labour. I'm an ardent, passionate Conservative. But just this once, I'm in the strange and alien position of rooting for Brown...

I fully understand Abe's sense of alienation from the Party when he sees some of its leaders articulating pro-life, pro-marriage opinions.

But he should also acknowledge that there are many others who feel equally alienated when they hear Conservative MPs articulating pro-abortion, anti-marriage views - John Bercow, to take one example.

The relationship between Nadine Dorries MP and her anti-abortion backers:


Dorries is increasingly lacking credibility. In Parliament she's known as 'Mad Nad' - you can see where it comes from...

We're a broad church, with differing views on ethical questions. But no one seriously doubts that people who vote Conservative, are party members, and MPs, are more likely to be socially conservative than people who vote Labour or Lib Dem or belong to those parties. No one could really dispute that our members and voters are more likely to agree with Nadine Dorries than with John Bercow on this issue.

Which is why I'm a bit sceptical about some of the comments here.

Tim -

This site's strength should used to lie in recognising that the Party is a broad church. You always had weird views (backing Liam Fox is simply inexplicable) but the site was a place where Tory activists could discuss things.

However, I think it is troubling that you laud this as a conscience issue on one hand, and are planning to stigmatise those of our MPs who exercise their consciences to vote against your preferred line. Those atheists in our party are just as principled and as Tory as the evangelical God-botherers. I assume that will not be the line you intend to take, especially as you seem to regret the lack of politicisation of the issue.

As an aside, this argument has been painfully embarassing for those of us who believe in the Enlightenment. There is a case for reducing the limit, but it is clearly not based on foetal viability but on common or garden ethics.

There is simply no evidence of improved survival rates below 24 weeks. Nadine Dorries' hectoring "analysis" is just bad maths. As I said, she is not up to the task. Iain Dale's claim that foetuses of under 20 weeks survive is simply wrong.

Yup.. totally agree with abe on this one... and the other comments above.
Before the debate I didn't really have an opinion but thought it probably sounded reasonable to reduce it.
After seeing Nadine's comments that seem to be mostly emotionally or politically based, and other arguments, I would like it to stay as 24 - It's weird agreeing with Brown!

"Those atheists in our party are just as principled and as Tory as the evangelical God-botherers."

It also shouldn't be assumed that it's just atheists who are anti the reduction in the time limit. I'm a practicing member of the Church of England and I certainly don't accept that the science makes a case for a reduction from 24 weeks.

Don't try and compare this to the U.S. where the anti-abortion lobby tries to go about their businees in completely the wrong way by removing funding, and making abortion as hard as possible in all circumstances.
Nadine has conducted a noble campaign, and getting any sort of a reduction would be a success not just for the babies that it would save, but for the wider message it sends that abortion is not contraception.

Also let us not forget that this is a non-party political issue.

Abe & Pro-Choice Tory---excellent pieces. You are both absolutely right. A lot of people in the Party want us to go the way of the Republicans, which would just be suicide, but this is a politics aside issue. Good to read your views that I agree with

"Following today's vote we'll be publishing a guide to how every Tory MP voted."

Can I ask why that is deemed necessary on a free vote?

I have to agree with this comment from Prochoice Tory.
"However, I think it is troubling that you laud this as a conscience issue on one hand, and are planning to stigmatise those of our MPs who exercise their consciences to vote against your preferred line."

To honest, it smacks of that abhorrent use of the abortion issue in American politics, I don't want to see it giving succour in our political system.
Lets take the politics out of this and trust our Parliament to do the right thing. I am really angry that Gordon Brown has insisted on a three line whip for the final reading, we are doing the right thing, lets not put this kind unfair and unnecessary pressure on our own MP's.

I actually would prefer to see the abortion limit lowered ideally to 20 weeks, but 22 weeks would be preferable to the present limit. I would also like Nick Palmer's amendment to be successful too.

How is seeking a modest reduction in the time limit at which abortion takes place "going the same way as the Republicans"?

Are the French, Germans, and Swedes just like the US Republicans, because they have more restrictive abortion laws than we have?

WRT religion, it shouldn't be assumed that anyone who wants more restrictive abortion laws is a Christian, as I'm sure Justin Hinchliffe will be happy to testify.

"more pregnant women know more about the foetus growing inside them because of the re-emergence of the abortion debate. "

How utterly patronising and offensive. You think that women who face the decision to have an abortion don't find it hard?

Pro-Choice Tory: I hope ConHome remains a place where people of all views can have their say. I have not attempted to silence anyone. Just look at this thread.

ChrisD: A list of how Tory MPs voted is surely more important on a free vote where the party will be divided. On a whipped vote it is exceptional for our MPs to disagree.

"ChrisD: A list of how Tory MPs voted is surely more important on a free vote where the party will be divided."

Tim, I genuinely think that to add "Following today's vote we'll be publishing a guide to how every Tory MP voted." at the end of your article before the issue had been voted on was a mistake. I do think it brings in a political dimension and puts a much more subtle form of pressure on the Conservative MP's who to be fair have been given a free vote on this issue.
It is making the abortion debate political which is something I feel very strongly should not be.
Of course there will Conservatives going through different lobbies on this issue, but the fact that you see this as something that will divide the party rather than our MP's being free to follow their own convictions or concious speaks for itself.
On this single issue, I honestly do not think that I can hold it against my own MP (Libdem by the way) if it turns out that he has a different view.

I'm not religious, though to define me as atheist or agnostic would be inferring a degree of contemplation that I've never applied to the topic.

Nor have I thought much about the subject of abortion before, so I had no preconceived stance.

Having read the various material and opinions, the idea that a late abortion entails dismembering a distinctly human form (irrespective of its unviability outside the womb)is a horrendous one and should be contemplated with the greatest reluctance and only where the consequences of continuing to full term are of similar or greater levels of distress. Late stage abortion should not be an option on social or personal choice grounds. It must not by then be viewed as the post-facto contraception that "women's right to choose" seems often to imply

I totally disagree with "A Viewer" at 14.22 above, who attacks people I know in a totally personal, unfounded and ridiculous way. I know for a fact that those involved in the prolife movement have done so much good to help women.

There is no way you can describe people who believe in defending the rights of tiny babies, the right of women to have more information and support, and the right of the public to see abortion rather than have the truth withheld from them (isn't that an absolute right in a democracy?) as souless bigots.

As far as I am concerned, the Conservative party is a courageous party, when it defends the most vulnerable, when it seeks to help women, when it seeks to listen and respond to the evidence, when it seeks to have joined up thinking and apply the principle of protecting the vulnerable (as all people believe) to those who are just a little younger before birth, rather than believing in surestarts for every child only after a certain age.

I absolutely loved the moment when a certain MP asked for investigative journalists to investigate abortion. I believe in freedom of speech and getting away from the euphemisms of the pro-abortion movement.

To say as "A Viewer" does that the Conservatives support a smaller state and therefore should let abortion be a matter for individual choice completely ignores the point that every Conservative believes in some criminal justice system. We all believe that some actions should be banned in order to protect the rights of others.

Real freedom does not come from allowing anyone to do anything but protecting the most vulnerable to ensure their freedom.


On a slightly different subject:

The Daily Mail Online is reporting tonight that MPs have voted to scrap the need for IVF doctors to consider a child's need for a male role model/father etc.


What a nice little socialist utopia we are becoming.

There is no way you can describe people who believe in defending the rights of tiny babies, the right of women to have more information and support, and the right of the public to see abortion rather than have the truth withheld from them (isn't that an absolute right in a democracy?) as souless bigots.

Fiona, I have to ask:

1. Who is suggesting that information or support should be restricted?

2. Who is suggesting that the truth be withheld?

3. Do you know the difference between a foetus and a baby?


Not before time.

Dear Saltmaker

1. Information and support is not available on the NHS, through BPAS or Marie Stopes. On abortion providers websites and leaflets there is no information about the development of the baby or what abortion involves. Womem are not given sufficient support or alternatives to abortion. I know cases where mothers have felt pressurised by doctors into having a termination based on a diagnosis of disability.

2. The truth has never been shown on TV. All the TV channels have banned showing abortion. The case against censorship went to the High Court and Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no justification for banning images of abortion on the grounds that they were factual and not sensationalised. The House of Lords subsequently overruled the Court of Appeal judgement.

3. The difference between a foetus and a baby is before and after birth, it's a difference in terminology depending on your point of view of whether the baby is wanted or unwanted. The entity - the human being - is the same.

Abortion is a matter of personal conscience. Every individual case is different. Can't we leave it at that?

There are far too many people in this thread attempting to slur those that support abortion.

Take this comment:

"I fully understand Abe's sense of alienation from the Party when he sees some of its leaders articulating pro-life, pro-marriage opinions. "

Who said anything about marriage? I am a very strong supporter of marriage. I believe it should be encouraged through various means.

Equally I believe that the party should not align itself with anti-abortionists, as I think it's wrong, and also a major mistake strategically, because it scares off a great number of normal centre-ground voters that the Tories are somehow fundamentalist.

The party isn't aligning itself with anti-abortionists. Its a free vote and anyway all people seem to be saying is that the upper limit should be reduced and better information provided. Many people of all backgrounds would agree with that.

Fiona: I admit that my description of Josephine Quintavalle of "Comment On Reproductive Ethics" (CORE) in my previous comment is exceptional, and I wouldn't quite apply the same epithet to either Nadine Dorries or Ms. Widdecombe.

JQ has devoted her entire life to opposing abortion, first as a "pregnancy counsellor" (who gave the same advice to every patient!) and then at CORE. "Comment On Reproductive Ethics" is nothing of the sort - it is an anti-reproductive science pressure group that does not have the decency to declare itself as such. It will speak of "protecting the unborn" and ensuring that science is "responsive to public sensibilities" when it cares about neither and is motivated only by the monomaniacal desire to insinuate into legislation the principle that each fertilised zygote possesses a soul from the moment of conception. This is CORE's motivation and this is the objective it conceals behind a fondness for quoting "research" favourable to its pre-conceived ideas.

I don't believe that the Conservative party should involve itself with this Christian Taliban. I believe that the concept of telling a pregnant women that The State knows better than that woman herself in choosing the most appropriate conduct for her circumstances is entirely incompatible with the principles of individual liberty that motivate the party.

Where does it leave the moral case for low taxation or opposition to ID cards when the party concedes that carrying a piece of plastic in one's wallet is an excessive imposition but being forced to bring a child you don't want into the world is a legitimate intrusion?

I consider that I am being true to the principles that motivate Conservatism when I oppose Nadine Dorries' amendment. I don't believe that the party is in the grip of Christian (or other moral) fundamentalists, but I recognise that this current exists and I recognise the damage it could do the the party if it becomes prevalent.

Some here have drawn the analogy between this circumstance and that in the US, where the Republican party is riven between "Ron Paul" libertarians and "Huckabee" Christians - I can't believe that anyone would wish to see the same fate befall the Conservative party.

So I respectfully oppose Nadine's amendment and the sentiment that motivates it, while acknowledging that there are a good many more things on which I agree than disagree with her.

The current abortion system works. It excites opposition only from a tiny minority of highly-strung individuals, who nevertheless succeed in making a disproportionate amount of noise. I recognise that pluralism in the party is a strength, but I worry that this noise will obscure
debate on issues that are more central to people's everyday lives.

I only hope that this issue will be raised again, and again, until everyone realises abortion is wrong (in most circumstances, and there are others options (adoption, fostering until mother can look after baby, etc.).

"Following today's vote we'll be publishing a guide to how every Tory MP voted." is an excellent idea, and not awful as some of you suggest. A fantastic way of stimulating debate, which we need in a pluralistic, progressive party.

We should see where our MPs stand on issues. After all they are representing us. How people vote in Parliament should be publicised.

I watched quite abit of this evenings debate. I would have gone for twenty weeks before, but would have ended up voting for the status quo.

There was never a chance of the limit being lowered when it was proposed by the likes of Tombstoners, Edward Leigh & Nadine Dorries.

It became very quickly "Right to Choose" v "Right to Life". I believe the limit could have been lowered with calmer voices proposing change.

"There was never a chance of the limit being lowered when it was proposed by the likes of Tombstoners, Edward Leigh & Nadine Dorries"

There was never a chance of it being lowered when you have a left wing majority of 200 or so in the Commons.

There's only one way of changing that.

A Viewer (23.01)

I disagree entirely with your views of that organisation and individuals and know both well enough to know you are wrong. In fact, I know for a fact that the organisation's views are based on peer-reviewed research and meticulous attention to detail surrounding adult stem cell research, tissue typing and umbilical cord banking. The same issues were raised in Parliament. They are a valuable contribution to the debate.

It doesn't help your argument to throw around insults about individuals or organisations and it is completely inappropriate where they are not available to respond. Please note that I have not insulted anyone whose views I disagree with. Let's stick to the issues.

I have been very struck by the message being sent to the electorate by the dominant headline in most of tomorrows newspapers.
Fathers are no longer required.
That is such a stark statement, and I think that it will feed into the very negative narrative about the government, particularly with male voters!
As with everything that Labour and Brown seem to touch these days, even a government victory (and they have turned the whole debate into a political fight) ends up turning into a negative message.
They have managed with the timing of the votes last night to create a very negative headline which has sidelined the even bigger story of the abortion limit remaining the same. And although I am disappointed at the outcome on that issue, I honestly don't think that decision dominating the papers would have been so harmful to them.
By allowing a free vote, the other parties will not come in for so much flak.

I am so desparately disappointed.

It riles me that people frame this debate with statistics. There are very "few" abortions-on-demand after 20 weeks, we say. But we are asserting that babies aborted after 20 weeks suffer considerable pain in the process. We've missed an opportunity to spare some babies pain and suffering - the minimising of which is surely an obligation of governments?

Very "few" babies survive at 20 weeks, we say. But how often, in other spheres do we hear the refrain that "if we can save just one life, it will have been worth it"?

I'm mindful of the diversity of views on this issue - but I am eager to vocalise my disgust at the use of figures and statistics, which have no place in ethics whatsoever. We're not talking about the balance of trade, we're talking about the sanctity/potentiality* of life.

(*Delete as appropriate according to your view.)

Dear Fiona,

1. Information and support is not available on the NHS, through BPAS or Marie Stopes.

I think it's an area of general agreement that access to information be improved. That's why I asked who is suggesting that it should be restricted.

Having said that, your answer isn't entirely true. Information and support is available through BPAS or Marie Stopes.

2. The truth has never been shown on TV.

The reason for this is taste and decency, not censorship. I don’t want broadcasters to show dismemberment in just the same way that I don’t want them to show cremation or natural decomposition.

At risk of crossing a line in decency myself, the fact is that although the images are gruesome, the fetus is dead and dismemberment is sometimes used to make its removal a safer procedure. The fetus could be removed intact but how would that improve things?

The entity - the human being - is the same

I disagree. I think the way you see this depends on whether you consider life and consciousness to be a biological process (which I do) or a biological and metaphysical process combined. As a biological process, until it has some degree of self awareness the fetus remains a collection of cells that is unaware of its existence. I cannot see how that could rationally have rights that trump the mother’s right to choose.

I notice that my earlier comment has been removed.

Can it please be reinstated, minus any phrases that the moderator fells will offend. I'm happy to provide the full text of it again if the site no longer has a copy.

No Need For Fathers , Abortion on Demand

As the title suggests , this is what the second part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill will create in the UK or at least solidify it . I am not a christian or jewish fundamentalist , so i dont come from an extreme relgious agenda ,its just i believe in a society where life is respected and fathers play an equal role . This will create a strong society and in the words of Iain Duncan Smith a leading figure of the right in the Conservative party and also an important member of the Centre of Social Justice a move from Breakdown Britain into Breakthrough Britain . This Bill encourages Breakdown Britain , and therefore it is my duty, whilst i cant vote on the Bill , to oppose it anway i can.

Firstly there is the abortion part of the Bill . Now i know of hardly anyone in the UK , who wants to take the dogwhistle of the American Religious right and call for an outright ban on Abortion. Much as i find Abortion horrid , i realise that it is needed to be legal , so we dont get the situation which we had in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s ,where woman got abortions through back door clinics and had their lives put at risk . However neither do i want a situation which we have today , where the abortion limit in this country is too high at 24 weeks ,and has encouraged an Abortion on Demand Culture , where Abortion isn't the last resort , but the first readily available option .Additionally Science has shown a foetus in the womb , has many human symptoms at 18 weeks , and can be born from this period. Recent research, such as that by Professor Sunny Anand from the University of Arkansas, has shown that fetuses are well enough developed to feel pain down to 18 weeks gestation. Surely all those mothers therefore must be in incredible distress , if they have an abortion after 20 weeks, it is a traumatic and unecessary operation . Furthermore the limit has created an abortion on demand culture , figures highlight this as the number of abortions carried out between 20 and 24 weeks has been rising in recent years. Lowering the limit to 20 weeks for normal babies will save almost 2,300 young lives per year. Science has made it possible to save lifes after 18 weeks , this is therefore why the limit should be reduced to 20 weeks , and that is why i am Supporting the Conservative MPS Nadine Dorries Amendment. After all the average Abortion time limit in the rest of Europe is 12 weeks . It seems a case to me of science advancing and the law not advancing with it . The 24 week abortion limit was created in 1990 , since then Britain has some of the highest levels of Abortion in Europe ,and technology has moved so lives from 18 weeks can be saved -if the limit was lowered it has been estimated over 2500 babies now being aborted could be saved . Im sure most people would agree that it is the Government's job to help save lives , not the other way round

There should also in my view be made amendments to make Abortion less attractive . Alternative options such as adoption need to be given more credence . At the moment Adoption is to hard , for example it is crazy that a white family , can not adopt a black child and vice versa - stuff like this needs to be made easier so adoption can be chosen over abortion and a life saved.

Another part of the Abortion part of the bill i fundamentally disagree with is the abolition od the requirement that you need two doctors to advice the women having the Abortion before the decision is made, and secondly that a nurse instead of a doctor can perform the Abortion . Abortion is an incredibly hard decision ,and therefore independent advice is needed to be given ,and this is what the two doctors provide , there role shouldn't be removed. A nurse's job is not to perform difficult operations or procedures on patients , this is a doctor's ,giving the termination process over to a nurse to me reduces the importance we place on the actual carrying out of abortion.

Then there is the other Ludicrous part of the Bill , to make it legal for fathers not to be consulted with IVF treatment and to be involved in IVF treatment and for it to be made legally binding for lesbian couples to have IVF treatment in replacement for this, in other words a single mother or a lesbian couple could have an IVF with no father figure . Now im not opposed to IVF , i think it has been a great scientific breakthrough , which has meant many families have been able to have kids, which otherwise would have been impossible . However i do have a problem with fathers being cut of this important decision , this bill would remove the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the needs of the father. If this bill did the same thing in relation to the women ,there would rightly be an outrage, therefore there should also be with fathers being removed,they are equally important to a baby's life as the mother is. No Mother can replace the father , so therefore it is necessary for a father to have a say in IVF . There shouldn't be discrimation against fathers , the rights of the child to have a father should be paramount. Babies could be produced without any biological access to their father , they would have no right to the father , the role of the father wouldn't be recognised, and it would be hard for them to track down their fathers. Figures from the Centre of Social Justice have recently shown that whilst there are thousands of Single Mothers doing a great job , those who have a mother and father comitt less crimes,and are more likely to have a better quality of life . This is why the amendment made in the 1990 bill towards IVF talking about " the need for a father " shouldn't be removed. The Archbishop of York was right when he said The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, did not agree saying that the Government was seeking to put the 'right to be a parent over the welfare of a child'. He said the proposals would mean the 'removal by design of the father of the child'. Baroness Deech is right when she says removing the clause would 'ignore the contribution made by half of the human race towards the upbringing of the next generation'. 'I know that plenty of children are brought up well without two parents but in an ideal world you need a mother, which is implicit in the law, and a father". To me to sum up on my opposition to this part of the bill , it undermines the importance of the father ,and will lead to further social breakdown in Britain.

I have no problems with Lesbians , what they do in there private life is none of my business , they can get married for all i care. However it is my sincerely held belief ,that the best position for a child is to have a father and mother - it's called traditional parenting . This doesn't even have to be done through marriage. From my personal experience -my parents are divorced , i have benefited greatly from still being able to see my dad on a regular basis . I dont think Lesbian couples , unless there is a father figure should be allowed to bring up children , a kid with two "mothers" will become confused , the two women cannot play both the mother and father , it is simply not natural and detrimental to the child . This is therefore why i believe the amendment to make IVF much more open and easier for Lesbian couples should be voted down. For me it would be far better to keep the father's involvement in IVF there. This is why i back david Cameron in his stance when he says "Lesbian couples should be blocked from having IVF treatment unless they agree that a father figure would be involved in the upbringing of their child

Also for all those who say anyone who opposed the bill is a christian fundamentalist - is this what you see someone like Alan Beith a member of the Liberal Democrats - i think that proves how ludicrous the claim is .

I also am completely fed up with John Bercow in the last four years he has spent more time attacking his own side than the government.Why doesn't he just be done with it and join the Labour Party - it is clear he is only a conservative in name now .I have no problem with people like Nick Herbert etc , george osbourne etc who voted the way they believe - they unlike bercow haven't been underminign the Conservative party for the past few years.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker