Senior Tories promise to vote for lower abortion limit

The Daily Mail lists some of the senior Tories who are backing all-party efforts to reduce the time limit for abortions:

• David Cameron favours a cut to 21 or 22 weeks (from the current 24).
• Chris Grayling favours 20 weeks and told the Mail: "If we are in a position where babies can survive at 23 weeks, then 24 weeks is utterly unacceptable."
• Liam Fox: "I am going to vote for a reduction to 20 weeks. Our laws are much too liberal."  During the Conservative leadership race Dr Fox, a former GP, called for a 12 week limit: "I think that a society that actually aborts 180,000 unborn children every year is a society that needs to be asking a lot of questions about itself… For me it's a simple personal belief. It says, thou shall not kill, it doesn't say, thou shall not kill unless Parliament says it's OK."
• William Hague is going to support a lower limit.
• David Davis also is thought to favour a lower limit.
• Andrew Lansley favours a reduction to 22 weeks but also favours a more liberal regime for earlier abortions: "If a woman needs an abortion, then it must be better for that to be an early and medical abortion, rather than later and surgical."

The campaign for twenty weeks is being led by Nadine Dorries MP.  The campaign's website lists twenty reasons why the abortion limit should be reduced to twenty weeks.

Not all Tories are on Ms Dorries' side of the argument.  On her blog she described how John Bercow described her views as "antediluvian" and "prejudiced".  She also writes this:

"Late surgical abortions mean that a baby is dismembered in the womb, and removed limb by limb, head often last.  Professor Anand, incredibly well respected and acknowledged as the world's leading expert in foetal pain, believes that a foetus feels pain as low 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."

ConservativeHome wishes her every success with her campaign and we are proud that most senior Tories are on her side.

Comments

[Richard]

Perhaps Mr Bercow might like to take a look at a poll taken a while ago (I'm sure it was linked to on here at some point) showing a majority supporting a reduction in term limits. Surprisingly (or maybe not), women were more keen than men.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Do we not need to consider how many women out there who have had abortions are also voters?

More than 6 million abortions have been performed since abortion was legalised.
If you reduce the limit to 20 weeks then in practice noone will perform an abortion if you are thought to be more than 18 weeks pregnant.

Also with waiting times etc you cannot be more than 16 weeks pregnant to be sure of falling within the 20 week limit.

WHAT ABOUT WOMENS RIGHTS????

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Oh and one more thing. Its interesting to see the list of senior politicians you published are all men!

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Editor you have got me rattled now!

"ConservativeHome wishes her every success with her campaign and we are proud that most senior Tories are on her side."

Your statement is making abotion a party political game! It's irrelivent what party someone belongs to!

Keep party politics out of the womb!

[oldschooltory]

This is just another step towards trying to turn the Conservative Party into the Republican Party (UK Branch).

[Jennifer Wells]

"Its interesting to see the list of senior politicians you published are all men!"

But Tiffany: Nadine is a woman!

Are only gay people allowed to have an opinion on gay rights, fathers on fathers' rights, Scots on Scots' rights?

Of course not!

Abortion is a human rights issue of concern to all of us not just women.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

Jennifer Wells:

But should it become a party political issue?

"ConservativeHome wishes her every success with her campaign and we are proud that most senior Tories are on her side."

This is another authoritarian measure following on from Boris Johnson's ban on alcohol.

What next? Bring back fox hunting?

[Jonathan M. Scott]

Nadine Dorries is right in her campaign; at least she is a true Conservative, unlike the LibDem/ConDem Berk-ow.

The 6 million abortions reminds us that the abortion holocaust is on a similar scale as the murder of the Jews 60 years ago.

I disagree with Andrew Landslide on liberalising early abortions (Why is a frontbencher making this statement? he ought to resign). The 1960s abortion laws were not supposed to be 'on demand' but in extreme cases - it is essentially on demand now.

[James]

But I agree with Tiffany that abortion must remain a free vote, and must remain seperate from Party politics.

It should be irrelevant how many 'Tories', senior or otherwise, vote one way or the other.

The only issue is how many MPs (regardless of Party) vote one way or another.

The last thing we want is a drift towards 'yes this is a free vote, but look how all the shadow cabinet are voting - we'll be watching how you backbenchers vote...'

[Peter Harrison]

Tiffany - I don't think that the statement above makes this a party political issue. It merely states that most senior Conservative MPs agree with this site's views on this subject. But I agree that this must not become a party political issue. It has always been a matter of conscience and it should stay that way.

Women's rights are important but, like any rights, they have to be balanced against the rights of others. In this case, the rights of the unborn foetus are also important.

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden all have a shorter limit than the UK. In most of these countries, the limit is only 12 weeks. Some have provision for abortion after the limit, but generally only if the woman's life is in danger. This is not, in itself, an argument for shortening our limit but it does indicate that shorter limits are workable, despite your concerns.

I will admit to playing devil's advocate here. I do not have a strong personal view on this subject due to the lack of reliable, dispassionate evidence. I lean marginally towards shortening the limit but, if I had to vote on it, there is a good chance that I would end up sitting on my hands.

[Poetry in Motion]

ARGH... the science on this is loony and the arguments emotive and sensasionalist

[torylady]

weird, I just read up A send-up of nadine dorries here

Personally, I dont' think Dorries is one of our best assets. She is one of the least dignified members of parliament (and that's saying somethign) and terrible at putting her case forward without insulting those who disagree with her.

I am not surprised she is leading this campaign. The divisive and highly personal issue of abortion is the sort of area where her superior morality complex flourishes.

[James]

"What next? Bring back fox hunting?" - actually, yes. I believe there is a pledge for an early vote on this.

"I disagree with Andrew Landslide on liberalising early abortions (Why is a frontbencher making this statement? he ought to resign)" Why on earth should he resign for expressing his PERSONAL opinion on what will be a FREE VOTE. That's the point behind free votes - there is no 'Party line'

[Louise Bagshawe]

It's an emotive subject and I'm not going to get drawn into a long debate, so this will be my only post.

But I do want to say that a)of course this must always be a free vote issue and b)by no means do even a majority of women support late abortions.

It is simply nonsense to claim that a 20 week old and later baby is part of your own body. They kick you awake while you're sleeping, they hiccup, the pregnant woman is well aware that the baby is independent of her. If it were part of her own body it wouldn't be such an almighty hassle!

I've never believed in demonising any woman who has an abortion or in slinging mud at pro choicers. They're doing what they believe to be right. But like the first post on the thread suggests, a Guardian poll found large support amomgst women for a reduction in the late abortion limit - and that support rose amongst mothers who'd given birth.

To me social justice is about compassion for the poor, the sick and the vulnerable. I think the best pro-life arguments are not demonstrators abusing women on their way into an abortion clinic, but the pictures in the Daily Mail of babies smiling in utero, hiccuping and sucking their thumbs. As science tells us more about the amazing capabilities of infants in the womb, including the ability to feel pain and react to their parents' voices, the desire for late abortions will vanish.

Women only abort because they believe the unborn baby is not a person, just a potential person. To win the argument, pro-lifers should concentrate on showing them otherwise. Good luck to Nadine and all MPs from all parties standing up for the voiceless on this conscience issue.

[Editor]

I agree that it should remain a free vote issue but Sam and I are simply expressing a ConservativeHome view that a lower abortion limit can't come quickly enough.

[Norm Brainer]

"The 6 million abortions reminds us that the abortion holocaust is on a similar scale as the murder of the Jews 60 years ago."

*speechless*

I'm not even jewish and find that offensive.

I still don't see a reason for the drop in limit? I'm not saying there isn't an argument in favour of reducing it, but being able to survive at that time isn't one.
This seems to be changing policy based on what the pope says rather than reason.

...and isn't bringing back fox hunting the opposite of this - doing that is giving back freedoms as opposed to removing them like the tube booze ban and reducing abortion limit

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

"Bring back fox hunting?"

Yes, David Cameron made it quite clear that the first thing a new Conservative Government will do is to legalise fox hunting again.
Anything else would be a slapp in the face of many of our most staunch supporters.

[passing leftie]

Late abortions are performed rarely and for very, very good reasons. This is the thin end of the wedge, chipping away at women's reproductive rights. The scientific arguments for this change are very week, and the real agenda is almost, without exception, religious. It's simply rationality vs irrationality. Even the religious arguments are weak on their own terms.

The BMA paper on 24-week survial is very clear:
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Abortiontimelimit

And their ethical position paper is also salutory:
http://www.adobe.co.uk/products/acrobat/readstep.html

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Otherwise I agree with Louise Bagshawe.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

@Buckinghamshire Tory & Norm Brainer
"...and isn't bringing back fox hunting the opposite of this - doing that is giving back freedoms as opposed to removing them like the tube booze ban and reducing abortion limit"

So there are Pro lifers on here that object to a foetus being torn limb from limb. Yet they think it is ok for a defenceless cuddly fox to be torn limb from limb!

Hypocrisy!

[Richard]

Does anybody else think the hysterical shouting of Miss Dangerfield has "troll" written all over it?

[SophieW]

"So there are Pro lifers on here that object to a foetus being torn limb from limb. Yet they think it is ok for a defenceless cuddly fox to be torn limb from limb!"

Ms Dangerfield, I'm not sure how a fox can be equated as having equal rights to a human as you imply here.
Furthermore I don't believe any person who looks at foxes outside the environment of a child's story-book can consider them 'cuddly.'
Using emotive language like this detracts from the issue we are considering here, i.e. a lowering by 4 weeks of the abortion limit. Only you decided to bring up the subject of fox-hunting. I don't believe it has any relevance to this topic.

[Norm Brainer]

@Tiffany Dangerfield
not sure if you were calling me a pro-lifer or anti-hunter?
I'm pro-hunt and ambiguous on the abortion thing... instict puts me against the bill as I'm generally pro-liberty - I see no reason to change it, but I don't know why it was set at 24 weeks in the 1st place!

I'm sure the religious types will see foetuses above beasts and treat them differently.

[Sean Fear]

"Does anybody else think the hysterical shouting of Miss Dangerfield has "troll" written all over it?"

Undoubtedly.

I too wish Nadine Dorries the best of luck. I suspect she won't succeed this time, but when we win the next election, we should get a reduction through quite easily.

As for Bercow, well, no surprise there.

[Chris Wyremski]

Good Grief Tiffany Dangerfield!

What must it be like to be such a morally illiterate individual? How can you be so empty of humanity as to regard vermin on the same level as an unborn person? I suspect that if people could read this wall post in centuries to come, they would quickly conclude that it was written at a time of great moral confusion in which the forces of good were very weak.

Tiffany, how can you not see the sheer wickedness of what you're saying?

[CJH]

"I too wish Nadine Dorries the best of luck. I suspect she won't succeed this time, but when we win the next election, we should get a reduction through quite easily."

Well Sean, if the Conservative Party wants to turn this into a Party political issue and restrict the right of women to control over their bodies, as you seem to hope by your statement above, then it will lose my support.

[Terry]

Tiffany would presumably be happy if ConHome expressed an opinion she agreed with. You have to come down on one side of the fence or the other (more or less), and I agree with ConHome about the need for a much lower limit. I would personally go for an outright ban and try to divert the saved resources into anything which could make things easier for women who might otherwise have gone for abortions.

[Bishop Hill]

Are't there going to be bigger issues for the next Conservative government than marginal changes to the abortion limit? The issue has every chance of being the party's "fox-hunting issue" - one where they spend months of debate sidelined in an issue which is not high on most people's agendas.

Sort welfare, sort education, sort the bureaucracy, sort defence, sort crime, sort pensions, sort the economy, sort the EU.

Then, and only maybe then, take a look at abortion.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN AND COMMENTER'S IP ADDRESS BANNED FOR SUSPECTED TROLLING.

[Sean Fear]

"Well Sean, if the Conservative Party wants to turn this into a Party political issue and restrict the right of women to control over their bodies, as you seem to hope by your statement above, then it will lose my support"

Not a party political issue. Merely that the election of a Conservative government will shift Parliament's centre of gravity to the Right, when it comes to free vote issues. If that's unacceptable to you, fair enough.

[Paul]

"If you banned abortion it would lead to a dissproportionate increase in the population of council estates. Is that what you want.

You may find it objectionable BUT IT IS THE TRUTH"

That is an unbelievable comment Tiffany, if you begin to argue from that position, then you are on the path of population control, possibly involving the extermination of those considered unproductive. The comparison to Nazi Germany becomes rather apt.

[North East Tory]

"I would personally go for an outright ban and try to divert the saved resources into anything which could make things easier for women who might otherwise have gone for abortions." Terry.

What absolute rubbish is that?? An outright ban is absurd, in a modern and civilized society, no one, not even MPs should dictate what a woman can and can't do with her own body. A woman, and importantly that also includes females I would consider to be "girls", should NEVER be forced by the state to do something with her body she doesn't want to do, especially something as life changing as having a child. I personally have no issue with the 24 week limit, but I appreciate the argument for lowering it.

I'm also interested in exactly how he would stop the need for abortions by spending money? That suggestion betrays a lack of understanding of the whole topic.

Abortion laws should always be Pro-Choice. All I can say is thank God Terry isn't in Parliament.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[Grammar School Advocate]

On another topic, Editor, did you notice this from Michael Gove yesterday in Hansard?

"In the debate on grammar schools, some people sometimes take the view that intake determines how good a school is, and that if we manipulates that, we fix everything. The view is taken by some on the extreme left and by others who are stuck in the past."

[Hardcore Conservative]

There is no such thing as unconditional “women’s rights” as some have implied. The right of the foetus to live should be balanced against the rights of the mother. That is what was intended when abortion was first permitted legally and this is still the case.

It was never intended to be just a form of contraception for those who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions. It was the safety net to enable woman who had been raped, who were likely to be seriously psychologically or physiologically damaged by giving birth, or who were unlucky enough to be carrying a seriously handicapped foetus, to have the choice to abort their pregnancy in a medically supervised environment.

As it is hard to make an ethical case against abortion, unless we as a society hold that all human life is sacred (and we don’t), then we have a duty to examine our current laws on this subject and determine if they are just and ethical in the light of advancing medical technology.

The bra burning we can do without – it helps nobody.

[Richard]

"What absolute rubbish is that?? An outright ban is absurd, in a modern and civilized society, no one, not even MPs should dictate what a woman can and can't do with her own body."

Tell that to the Irish. A few years ago I saw a map of the world with shading colours based on how strict the abortion laws were. Ireland was red (most restrictive). Countries like Iran were purple (less restrictive).

[Richard]

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02map.htm

Further to my previous post.

[Stewart]

Abortion is an act of violence which kills an unborn child - I think we all really know this. It is remarkable how many people will tolerate it as part of a wider package of beliefs and stances with a degree of discomfort - especially when confronted with evidence.

Some people mistakenly assume that abortion is the lesser of two evils - and the denial of the obvious in favour of the convenient continues.

Gandhi once commented that "An error does not become truth by reason of its multiple propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."

[archie wedderspoon]

The conservative party exists to conserve things - and I see very little inclination to do that among those among you who favour abortion. I think a real conservative should be instinctively against abortion in any circumstances.

[CJH]

"It was never intended to be just a form of contraception for those who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions."

Well thank you for spouting your patronising rubbish, Hardcore Conservative. I take the contraceptive pill (something some of the religious anti-abortion whack jobs would also like to see banned) and I use condoms, but I recognise that these are not 100% guaranteed effective. If I accidentally end up pregnant in spite of these precautions, you can be sure I will be having an abortion. I do not want children, I will never have children, and you know what? Opting for the abortion IS taking responsibility for my actions.

[David Gold]

I do agree, abortion should not be a party political issue and I regret Conservative Home's comment about Nadine's campaign. Abortion is a highly emotive issue and one which must remain for individuals to take a view on. The line taken by 'senior Conservatives' should not be an indicator of how more junior MPs should be expected to vote - even when said senior MPs happen to be right.

[MagicAldo]

Editor, you should perhaps also explain to us why the great majority of the Shadow Cabinet voted for the Bill on Second Reading last night. Given some of the elements (animal/human embryos, removal of the need for a father), why was this so? And how do you feel about what Ken Clarke said last night:

"I am a social liberal, who is on the social liberal side of most of the arguments".

"You'll find that the socially liberal majority in the Commons is enormous, entirely in line with the opinion of the citizenship at large".

[Hardcore Conservative]

To CJH.

Good for you and you are right no contraceptives are 100% effective but they almost are for pregnancy prevention. There is doubt over their effectiveness against certain STD’s though.

There are plenty of young woman who do not use contraceptives, because they know if they become pregnant (and many do) the NHS will bail them out with an abortion on demand. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish behaviour.

If you feel that this is patronising, well tough. It happens to be a fact whether you chose to agree with it or not.

[RK]

"Yes, David Cameron made it quite clear that the first thing a new Conservative Government will do is to legalise fox hunting again. Anything else would be a slapp in the face of many of our most staunch supporters. "

No, DC said that the Party will allow a FREE VOTE on foxhunting - not that we would legalise it.

[Editor]

David Gold: "I do agree, abortion should not be a party political issue and I regret Conservative Home's comment about Nadine's campaign. Abortion is a highly emotive issue and one which must remain for individuals to take a view on. The line taken by 'senior Conservatives' should not be an indicator of how more junior MPs should be expected to vote - even when said senior MPs happen to be right."

Just to repeat: I don't support a whipped vote. ConservativeHome is an independent website, and like any protagonist in the public square it's not unreasonable that we express a view and Sam and I support what Nadine Dorries is proposing.

MagicAldo: What do you want me to say? I'm with the majority of Tory MPs (who voted) on the Embryology Bill - not with the shadow cabinet majority.

[CJH]

"There are plenty of young woman who do not use contraceptives, because they know if they become pregnant (and many do) the NHS will bail them out with an abortion on demand. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish behaviour."

Because of course the man has no responsbility in this, after all, why should a man be expected to think about contraception? No, it's all down to the "amoral, irresponsible and selfish" women. Never mind that the majority of men I've slept with have tried (unsuccessfully) to persuade me to do it without a condom because, according to them, it feels better. No, it's entirely the woman's fault.

[ACT]

Yeah, you're 'independent' to your tip-toes. From you personally taking lolly from Francis Maude when he was party chairman, to covering up what the 'voice of the grass roots' actually said before the last conference, you're the very dictionary definition of independence. See also: self-righteous; self-satisfied; unconvincing.

[Hardcore Conservative]

To CJH:

I said in my original post:

“It was never intended to be just a form of contraception for those who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions”.

“Those” means men and women, but of course through your anti-male red mist you probably never even considered this could apply to both genders. Men are also quite keen to see abortion as a form of social contraception. I am not making excuses for them either. Why did I say that it is all the womans fault?

Plenty of women feel that abortion is a form of contraception and use it as such with no qualms whatsoever, and in some cases have terminations on a regular basis. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish. No amount of bra-burning and ranting will change this fact. Nice try all the same.

If you wish to debate with me then kindly read my posts properly.

[Jennifer Wells]

ACT: You are probably the most nasty person who posts here. Please go away.

[Norm Brainer]

"There are plenty of young woman who do not use contraceptives, because they know if they become pregnant (and many do) the NHS will bail them out with an abortion on demand. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish behaviour."

That's no reason to ban abortions though is it?!
Banning them to reduce the numbers is like putting tape over the warning light!

Plus... it's not easy. I had a friend who had to have one (wasn't mine!) and it still involved many sessions and a few weeks wait - She's not gonna be careless again, that's for sure.
She hadn't realised the pull-out method was ineffective and hadn't realised it was gonna be difficult to abort.
Do they teach anything in schools anymore?!

You can't not teach people about it and then ban abortions when they get too high because they don't know better!

"Abortion is an act of violence which kills an unborn child"
No, it isn't.

@CJH .. totally agree, apart from it's usually the woman who doesn't want the condom!

[John]

Reading the heartless comments referring to abortions I think of the words of Robert Burns: "Man’s inhumanity to man make countless thousands mourn", it seems to matter not that a baby is injected with a lethal injection of potassium into its heart and then dismembered, it seems to matter not that a foetus feels pain as low as 18 weeks but it does seem to matter that the mother that likely engage in sex without bothering to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is given the right to kill the baby and prohibit any rights of that unborn human being.

I have no objection to the removal of a foetus below 18 weeks or the termination of life when that life will likely be intolerable but I do raise objections to abortions on the grounds of convenience.

It also seems to me that some Tories are more concerned about damn fox hunting than the distress and pain given to a human foetus or baby and in that rhetoric we can see the ugly face of the "nasty party", transfixed with fox hunting and void of humanity.

If a woman has two abortions of a healthy baby then that woman should rightly also lose her right to have ovaries moreover I would say she was given a large brain by mistake, since for her the spinal cord would fully suffice.

I for one am proud of those senior Tories and ConservativeHome.

The compassionate part of the Tory party.

[CJH]

Perhaps you'd care to look again at what I quoted you as saying Hardcore Conservative?

"There are plenty of young woman who do not use contraceptives, because they know if they become pregnant (and many do) the NHS will bail them out with an abortion on demand. This is amoral, irresponsible and selfish behaviour."

Excuse me if I don't see you're singling out women as "amoral, irresponsible and selfish" as inclusive of men. Perhaps if you wish to be seen as inclusive you should try to avoid the gender based insults.

[Hardcore Conservative]

To Norm Brainer:

You are another one who does not read my posts properly. Where did I say that abortions should be banned?

What I said in my original post was:

“As it is hard to make an ethical case against abortion, unless we as a society hold that all human life is sacred (and we don’t), then we have a duty to examine our current laws on this subject and determine if they are just and ethical in the light of advancing medical technology”. This is not the same thing as saying we should ban abortion!

As a medical ethicist I could not make an ethical case against abortion given the society we live in. In order to make such a case we would need to hold as a society that ALL human life is sacred and we should never kill or allow people to die. But we do. (Patients in persistent vegetative states, terminally ill patients, anencephalic infants etc are often given a helping hand to die, whether through an act of commission or omission).

What I can and will continue to do is make the case that abortion is undertaken to freely and question the moral legitimacy of killing (because that is what we talking about) a viable, healthy foetus for social convenience, after a time when it may survive with skilled intervention. This is a legitimate debate that needs to be had by any civilised society,

[Norm Brainer]

I think I thought I was quoting someone else and I may have gone a bit exageratitive and said ban instead of curtail.
You mention that it's "killing ... a viable, healthy foetus for social convenience"
Are you referring to abortions at 18/24 weeks, or any abortion?

[Hardcore Conservative]

CJH:

It is a pity you consider my comments (based on seeing this in my professional work on a regular basis) as “gender based insults” but these are facts. Stop trying to misrepresent what I am saying. My original post set out the legal and ethical position of abortion.

The truth always hurts and trying “the men are always the oppressors and women are the oppressed” tact simply won’t cut it anymore in today’s modern society.

Both men and women rely on abortion as a form of contraception and both the man and woman has to take responsibility for this. If a woman gets pregnant seven times by seven different blokes and has seven terminations rather than use contraception, then I think it reasonable to conclude that the woman is acting irresponsibly etc, especially as my taxes are paying for it!

The argument that bra-burners advance for abortion on demand is that my “body is my temple” etc, well start taking some responsibility for it then. The woman can always say NO.

[Chris Wyremski]

The only form of violence that is never shown on television and very rarely shown in print is an unborn child being aborted. We all prefer not to know, so that we can pretend that we are still a lawful, moral country. The idea that innocent life can be legally ended for the convenience of others or for an alleged societal good is a nonsense. It’s not that I have defaulted against abortion, I just cannot bring myself to support such a grisly procedure. Many of these pro-choicers would quickly come to the same conclusion that I have if only they had a look at what they are supporting.

[Frankland Macdonald Wood]

I agree with Archie Wedderspoon that a real conservative would be predisposed against abortion in principle. I am a convinced atheist, a realist and a pragmatist. I remember the original debates on the Steel Act and thought then that it would lead into being a huge 'industry of death' rather than a facility for those who had psychological, clinical or legal reasons for a termination at a very early stage. It is obvious that the position in Britain now is an actual 'Service on Demand' and as such quite insupportable from a 'Health Service' at public expense. The present situation must be an affront to anyone who has given real study to the philosophical ethics and politics that underly a society that could feel 'comfortable' with such a national position. To effectively have 'Abortion on Demand' suggests a very unhealthy society indeed. As so often in modern Britain, the so called 'rights' of one class of person are being considered not just as 'more important' than those of the victim (and yes the children killed are children and they are victims and they are killed: if words have any meaning at all)but complete superiority to those of the victim. That is an amazing position for a society to have reached when it cannot apparently stomach fox hunting, capital punishment of murderers or decent citizens having any properly registered gun at all. This is a society with very warped senses of morals, ethics and values: But then the news every day would suggest that to be the case!

[Hardcore Conservative]

To Norm Brainer:

The ethical arguments are numerous but essentially we are looking at two sub-groups of abortion. There is the abortion say on medical advice where a mother is carrying a foetus that has no hope of long term survival, where to give birth may endanger the mother, or terminating the pregnancy may be the only way to save the mothers life. This is easier to justify ethically. Personally I think that it is unlikely that this will ever be time limited.

The difficulty and controversy arises when dealing with termination for so called “social reasons”. Some eminent ethicists hold the view that life is not in fact sacred and abortion can be justified at any time, with some even going as far to suggest that infanticide may also be justified under certain circumstances, because the newly born child holds no moral status.

Not surprisingly many do not share this view and most agree that at some point terminating the foetus on purely social grounds probably cannot be morally justified, but they have difficulty agreeing at what point the cut off should be, in other words at what point does a human life actually begin: when the first cells clump together, at the point when the foetus first feels pain?

A couple of generations ago it was easy to withdraw to the comfort zone of stating that a foetus could be aborted up until the time where it couldn’t survive outside of the womb. Of course with the advance of medical technology the premature foetus (baby) can and does survive from a much younger age. The other problem is that with the advancement of non-invasive imaging, we can now observe foetus behaviour within the womb and this does not make for comfortable decision making. Foetuses demonstrate awareness of their surroundings at a much earlier gestation period then was previously thought. (It has even been suggested, although this will be some way off but is entirely scientifically feasible, that abortion will not be an option as we know it in the future, if the mother does not wish to continue with the pregnancy the foetus will be removed but natured and sustained artificially, and then given up for adoption).

This is what has prompted the debate, but of course it becomes emotional and heated and impedes the hard decisions that have to be made. I think the abortion limit for the viable healthy foetus will eventually be lowered, though not necessarily this time round, but a decision at what point the limit kicks in will have to be based on scientific and ethical consensus, and what the public will tolerate. I think that is likely that the limit will come down to around 20 weeks, because 24 weeks is increasingly being seen as unacceptable.

The question has often been asked: “if a mother had a transparent womb and could see her foetus would she still be so keen to abort at 24 weeks”. This would takeaway the emotional distancing that can occur. It is always much harder to carry through a decision when you are looking at the person, face to face, who your decision affects. That is of course if you consider a 24 week old foetus a person!

[CJH]

To Hardcore Conservative:

"The truth always hurts and trying “the men are always the oppressors and women are the oppressed” tact simply won’t cut it anymore in today’s modern society"

Now who's putting words in people's mouths? In both the posts that you have reacted to by being insulting I simply quoted your own words. And since you did, in fact, specify women as being "amoral, irresponsible and selfish", calling it a gender based insult is perfectly valid.

Oh and as to:

"If a woman gets pregnant seven times by seven different blokes and has seven terminations rather than use contraception, then I think it reasonable to conclude that the woman is acting irresponsibly etc, especially as my taxes are paying for it! "

Presumably you'll be able to back this up with facts demonstrating that multiple abortins in this manner are a frequent occurrence? Not your opinions, statistical data from studies.

[Norm Brainer]

Yes, if you're talking about lowering abortion because you feel the foetus is sentient at 24 weeks then it sounds like there is a discussion to be had.
I just disagree with those that say that any (social) abortion at any time is bad without looking at the reasons then use extravagant lanuage such as "violent murder of the unborn child" when it's really only 6 cells... it's like people who say "drugs are bad" without specifying which drugs and how much etc.

Yes, science at some point will be able to produce a child from an egg and a sperm without a womb.... but I'm not sure about the "will be" in this statement... 'could' yes... 'will'/'should'.. no

"that abortion will not be an option as we know it in the future, if the mother does not wish to continue with the pregnancy the foetus will be removed but natured and sustained artificially, and then given up for adoption"

I too am also not sure about the 7 abortions thing. From what I've heard...any woman having to go through one will be more careful next time and even if they aren't they'll go get the morning after pill if there's any chance of having to have another!

[Sean Fear]

Personally speaking, I struggle to see how anybody who considers themselves a Conservative could be happy with the current practice of abortion in this country.

[Philip]

I, too, wish Nadine Dorries and her campaign well.

She's in line with the majority of public opinion who are increasingly uneasy about the huge number of abortions that take place in this country. While most European countries have a cut-off date of 12 weeks for killing unborn children (obviously still too late), (and even in socially liberal Holland it is 13 weeks) that we in this country are still arguing about 24, 22, or 20 weeks is just incredible. Why is this? Is it that we have less qualms about disposing of inconvenient human beings than they do? Anyhow, most abortions happen earlier in pregancy, but at least any reduction in the time limit would be a step in the right direction, hoping it's not accompanied by easier early abortions.

As for Mr Bercow, I cannot see why his Association continues to put up with him - not just regarding this issue, but on other issues too where he takes a pretty non-conservative line. Assuming he's economically liberal, perhaps he'd be more at home in the economically liberal "Orange Book" half of the Lib Dems, who are also wedded to the sterile pro-death, everyone do as they please (particularly if it's bad) social liberalism that he seems determined to preserve.

[Philip]

I meant to add that at least while we are not officially a pro-life party, with MPs being given a fre vote on such issues, the voting intentions and record of Conservative MPs and front-benchers demonstrates we are the most and most consistently pro-life 'main' party.

[StevenAdams]

Why on earth is being anti-abortion in some why 'real Conservatism'? Hmm?

Where in our ideological foundations or philosophical base is that stated? I get so annoyed listening to people on this site who seem to have some kind image of themselves as the righteous mouthpiece of Cons the world over; well sorry, but this topic - moreso than most others - shouldn't and isn't party political.

I'd far rather hear the argument, than just silly statements such as 'any Con MUST think this'.

[Hardcore Conservative]

There is very little statistical data on the numbers of woman who have multiple induced abortions as CJH probably knows full well, otherwise she wouldn’t have asked for it. Most abortions are kept private and data is not readily available in this country at least. What is available though is studies dealing with the complications in women who have undergone multiple induced abortions. Go onto Goole Scholar and see for yourself.

I grant you seven abortions is an extreme example but there are women who do undergo two or three abortions in their lifetimes for social reasons after getting pregnant by different blokes, especially now that medical abortion is so easily available. I and my colleagues see it and however much CJH rales against me, it doesn’t change what is happening. This is not some made up opinion it is called the real world. The rest of CJH rants do not warrant any further response.

Norm Brainer, the whole point of the ethical debate is to re-examine whether we should continue to terminate viable foetuses, and as I have alluded to the question is when does a moral life begin? Is there such a thing as sanctity of life within our culture?

As a society we should stop hiding behind fancy terms such as termination and abortion and use terms such as killing as we do in ethics. It brings the issues much more sharply into focus. When we intentionally end a life (even if it is a few cells) we kill the thing whose life we are ending. So we are killing when we abort a foetus, the dilemma is, are we happy and comfortable with this? If so, why? If not, then why?

There is a debate to be had, and that is why Parliament is having it, (and hopefully the House of Lords can have it as well, where there are some very wise heads and experienced ethicists) just as further debates will be had when it becomes possible to take a viable foetus from a womb and allow it to develop with the support of medical technology, rather than kill it. It may be decided that killing is still the preferred option, but then the debate is likely to centre around the time limit again.

[CJH]

"There is very little statistical data on the numbers of woman who have multiple induced abortions as CJH probably knows full well, otherwise she wouldn’t have asked for it. Most abortions are kept private and data is not readily available in this country at least."

It is convention, in properly considered debate, that the person making the claim provides the evidence to support it. You raised the question of a woman having seven abortions as a result of being impregnated by seven different men, it's up to you to provide the proof that this sort of situation is a frequent occurence.

"I grant you seven abortions is an extreme example but there are women who do undergo two or three abortions in their lifetimes for social reasons after getting pregnant by different blokes, especially now that medical abortion is so easily available. I and my colleagues see it and however much CJH rales against me, it doesn’t change what is happening. This is not some made up opinion it is called the real world."

If you imagine I am going to take an appeal to authority based on no supporting evidence whatsoever as a valid argument you are sadly mistaken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

[Hardcore Conservative]

CJH for the last time kindly read my posts properly.

I did not say that a woman having seven terminations was a FREQUENT occurrence but it does happen. Do you honestly think, for example, that some women who work as prostitutes do not undergo multiple abortions during their “career”, or those with the morals of Vicky Pollard. Get Real!

I have worked with these people and see what happens to them first hand. I have nothing to prove to you.

I am through debating with you as you are unable to advance any congruent argument in support of your position, which appears to be that you can behave how you like and to hell with everyone else.

[CJH]

So rather than provide any supporting evidence whatsoever we're expected to take your word for it Hardcore Conservative? I think not. You've offered no proof of your assertions, you've been repeatedly insulting about women who have abortions, and when you're challenged to actually back up what you're saying you announce you're taking your bat and ball and going home. Huge amount of credibility you've got there.

[Hardcore Conservative]

CJH you are right I should not have taken my toys home so I will give you an opportunity to explain yourself.

Given that your womb belongs to you and on-one else (and this is an argument advanced in favour of abortion – it is my body and you cannot tell me what to do with it – a position I respect incidentally, hence why I have taken my stance), why is it that you do not feel that you are responsible for what happens to it during and after sex? How can you be in charge of your body and not take responsibility for what you do to it? The male in all this only takes part with your consent and is not in charge of your body.

I have tried to explain the ethical arguments around abortion and I posit that a person in charge (of their body) is a person responsible and accountable. Please explain why this is not so?

[Hardcore Conservative]

CJH

A little more information for you. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service analysed data from 2003 that showed 181,582 terminations were carried out in England and Wales. Among these some 57,241 - 32 per cent - were on women who had already undergone a termination at least once. In one case a woman had undergone six terminations in a 12 month period.

Marie Stopes International surveyed General Practitioners last year on their attitudes towards abortions. During this survey it was revealed that some GP’s were happy to refer women for their first and second termination of pregnancy but were unhappy at referral when the woman wanted a third, fourth or more termination of pregnancy. This strongly suggests that the findings of the BPA are still valid.

Hope this data is of use in your deliberations.

[CJH]

I'm intrigued by the suggestion that a woman opting for abortion is not taking responsibility for her body during and after sex. According to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, almost 60% of women seeking abortions were using or attempting to use contraception. Things go wrong, abortion is one of the options that can be taken as a result. How is that an indication of a woman not being responsible for her body? Is it really better for another unwanted pregnancy to be brought to term and the resulting child abandoned to the social care system? I would say that is the less responsible path for a woman who knows she does not wish to raise a child.

98% of abortions are carried out within 20 weeks at the moment. 89% take place within 13 weeks, and 68% in under 10 weeks(1). However, a 2007 survey of GPs showed a significant minority who feel that there should be no requirement for GPs with a conscientious objection to declare their position(2). How many people here know their GP's stance on the issue? I don't know what mine's view is, and the time I am likely to need that information is if I am in need of an abortion and therefore time is of the essence.

BMA guidelines state that the conscientious objection should be made known and GPs should refer patients to an alternative doctor if they have such objections. However, there have been reports of GPs refusing to do this, which causes delays in the procedure as the woman has to find an alternative doctor and thus the abortion will be performed later in the pregnancy.

The NHS guidelines say there should be a maximum of three weeks between a woman seeking abortion and the procedure being carried out. However, the average waiting time ranges between 2 and 4 weeks, and waits of up to 5 weeks have been reported (this figure has dropped substantially in recent years; in the late 1990s there were reports of delays of up to 10 weeks).

Reasons for late abortions vary, but examples can be found on the BPAS site. (3) It can be as straightforward as the woman not realising she is pregnant, particularly if she usually has irregular periods, is coming up for the menopause, or (as occasionally happens) periods continue during the pregnancy.

According to a 2006 Ipsos MORI poll(4), 63% of people polled agreed a woman should not have to continue a pregnancy if she doesn't wish to, and 59% feel abortion should be legally available to any women wanting it. On the subject of abortions post 20 weeks, those polled were divided into two groups. One group was given minimal information and asked their view on abortions post-20 weeks - 48% agreed that the limit should be 24 weeks. Interestingly, the numbers agreeing that abortion should be allowed up to 24 weeks rose to 54% in the group that was given greater information about the circumstances in which it might be necessary. Appeals to public attitudes on the 24 week limit claiming that the majority want it lowered therefore fall flat - the majority, it would seem, accept 24 weeks if they have the facts.

We also have the situation at the moment where women still have to obtain the permission of two doctors to be able to have an abortion, which ties back to the view on non-disclosure of conscientious objections. In the US model, women have the absolute right to terminate in the first trimester. The longer the process to get an abortion agreed, the later in the pregnancy it will be performed and, potentially, the more expensive it will be for the NHS.

I was pleased to see that the vast majority are performed in the first trimester in the UK, but was rather more alarmed to discover that in 2006 only 30% of abortions in England and Wales were non-surgical, compared with 51.9% in Scotland.(5) Not only are non-surgical abortions less invasive (obviously) than surgical procedures, it is vastly cheaper. It has been suggested an increased use of non-surgical methods of abortion could save the NHS in England up to £30million.(6)

Finally, the science is against the lowering of the 24 week limit on viability grounds. No doubt you will have seen the reports in the BMJ of the study showing that there had been no improvement in the survival rates of premature babies born at 23 weeks over the 12 years of the study.(7) The conclusion drawn by the authors of the study is that the limits of viability for premature babies have been reached. None of the babies born at 22 weeks survived; in the period 1994-99 58% of those born at 22 and 23 weeks died in the delivery room, this percentage increasing to 63% in the period 2000-2005. The argument for the reduction in the abortion limit to 20 weeks on the grounds of viability immediately falls flat in the face of the science.

All major health organisations in the UK oppose the lowering of the abortion limit from 24 weeks, including the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the FPA, Marie Stopes International and BPAS. This is based on the scientific evidence available. Why then do MPs imagine they know better than the professionals?

Incidentally, here's a final thought for you to ponder. Legally, women are entitled to refuse a caesarian up to full term, even if it means the death of the foetus or indeed both the woman and foetus. Do those of you who wish to restrict the rights of women to opt for an abortion agree with the above situation, or do you believe the rights of the foetus trump those of the woman and she should be forced to have a caesarian to save the life of the foetus?

(1) http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_075697

(2)Marie Stopes, General Practitioners: Attitudes to Abortion, 2007

(3)http://www.bpas.org/bpasknowledge.php?page=41

(4) http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/attitudes-to-abortion.ashx

(5)ISD Scotland, 'Abortions (Terminations of Pregnancy)'

(6)Armstrong N & Donaldson C, The Economics of Sexual Health, fpa 2005

(7)http://www.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wlu/RDAS-7EDHA2?OpenDocument&vw=wfmpress

[CJH]

I should have added on the BMJ study that of those in the premature 22-23 week catergory (in addition to 63% dying in the delivery room) only 11% survived a year after birth.

[Hardcore Conservative]

CJH At last some proper debate.

Let me say from the outset that I am not against abortion. I have already said that it is hard to make an ethical case against it in today’s society, where I have ethical concerns is in the number of abortions that are performed on “social grounds”.

“I'm intrigued by the suggestion that a woman opting for abortion is not taking responsibility for her body during and after sex. According to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, almost 60% of women seeking abortions were using or attempting to use contraception. Things go wrong, abortion is one of the options that can be taken as a result. How is that an indication of a woman not being responsible for her body? Is it really better for another unwanted pregnancy to be brought to term and the resulting child abandoned to the social care system? I would say that is the less responsible path for a woman who knows she does not wish to raise a child”.

My argument here is that women are taking responsibility after the event. I accept things can go wrong with contraception, condoms split very occasionally, and some medications such as antibiotics can inactivate the oral contraceptive pill. This is fairly rare though if proper care is exercised, but over 57,000 women annually have multiple terminations; there is something seriously wrong with this. Many career women for example see a termination as a form of birth control. If you were a captain of an aircraft and the first officer was flying with your consent and knowledge, you are still responsible for the aircraft. If something isn’t right the captain takes back control. Why is it different when having sex?

It is your body that is being used and you have to live with the physical and perhaps psychological consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and any termination that follows. In one of you earlier posts you made the assertion that if you were ever to get pregnant you would seek a termination, as simple as that. But would it be that easy for you to make this decision? Many women have to live with the guilt of this to the day they die and some even commit suicide after regretting their decision. In their wake they leave heartbreak and devastation among those left behind. Because, as you say, you always insist on contraception being used you have not become pregnant, and are unlikely to. This does tend to raise a question mark over the numbers quoted who claim to have attempted to use contraception but still end up pregnant.

Even if the 57,000 plus women having multiple terminations made the effort to take responsibility for learning how to use contraception properly after the first time or even exercised more restraint, would be a start. It would seem, however, that they don’t and this is not acting responsibly.

“Incidentally, here's a final thought for you to ponder. Legally, women are entitled to refuse a caesarian up to full term, even if it means the death of the foetus or indeed both the woman and foetus. Do those of you who wish to restrict the rights of women to opt for an abortion agree with the above situation, or do you believe the rights of the foetus trump those of the woman and she should be forced to have a caesarian to save the life of the foetus?”

The mother does not want to abort the pregnancy; she just does not want surgery and as with any surgical intervention the right of refusal is open to any competent individual. There are a number of issues: the competent mother has autonomy, the foetus does not. Forcing a competent mother to undergo a surgical procedure against her will is a more serious beach of her autonomy then denying her something, such as a termination. The right to autonomy does not trump all other rights though. While it may be morally wrong to force a competent person to undergo a procedure against their will, there is not necessarily a moral obligation to offer someone a procedure.

Much will depend on appeal to side-effects of the actions. If the woman concerned was competent to refuse to consent to the caesarean and the consequences of her actions affected only her and her unborn foetus, it could be argued that as an autonomous person her rights should trump those of the foetus. A position I could understand and agree with, an autonomous rationale person should have the right, all things being equal, in principle, to make irrational choices but not at the expense of everything else.

If she had a family who desperately wanted the foetus born alive and would be distraught by the mothers death, then I suspect the matter would be handed over to the courts for a decision. She may have a right to refuse consent for the procedure, but it does not necessarily mean that the refusal would be recognised.

An individual does not necessarily have the same moral right to insist on others doing something that they may find morally repugnant, such as carrying out a termination after so many weeks gestation for social reasons. We as society working to our moral norms are under a moral obligation not to harm others but not under one to actively help others.

The science surrounding the survival for premature babies is mixed and many do not survive at the moment, but some do. I do not agree that we have reached the limits of science, we probably never will. I suspect that the more premature babies that are dealt with the better the results will eventually be, but this is likely to take some time to achieve, years not months.

Overall, the situation is complex and that is why we have debates, ethic committees and politicians who are supposed to reflect the conscience of society. But is it not better to go for the prevention (act responsibly and take all necessary precautions) rather than the cure (termination)?

[CJH]

"I accept things can go wrong with contraception, condoms split very occasionally, and some medications such as antibiotics can inactivate the oral contraceptive pill."

But I think (I don't know this, I've not seen stats on the subject) it's still fairly uncommon to use more than one form of contraception. I only went back on the Pill last year, having last been on it at university, after I had a condom split at a really inopportune time of the month. It seemed the more sensible option (and cheaper) than relying on condoms and occasionally having to shell out £25 for the morning after pill. Plus there's the STD factor that the Pill can't cover. But many people still only use one form of contraception which carries higher risks than using multiple forms.

Anecdotal evidence from friends indicates condom failure is higher even than the offical figures suggest. Either that, or we're all particularly unlucky with the ones we buy. And many people don't realise that oral contraceptives can be affected by other medications or by illnesses. St John's Wort, for example, can impact its effectiveness, yet its use has increased due to its efficacy in treating depression.

"In one of you earlier posts you made the assertion that if you were ever to get pregnant you would seek a termination, as simple as that. But would it be that easy for you to make this decision?"

Yep. Already done. Because the idea of being pregnant is literally horrifying to me. It's not something I would ever be willing to put myself through. And again, while the sort of reaction I have is on the unusual side, it isn't as uncommon as you might expect. We're not all maternal (or paternal) creatures, and I know a fair few people who have the same reaction as me. After the incident involving the morning after pill, while I was waiting to discover whether or not it had worked (the pharmacist telling me it only has an 80% success rate was NOT reassuring) I was deoing the research into how easily and quickly I could get a termination.

And that's another point - until I actually had to use it I had no idea that the success rate of the morning after pill was so low. Sure, 80% is reasonably good odds, but that's not a certainty. So it might be that women like me have taken the morning after pill and still found themselves pregnant in spite of taking precautions to avoid it. I would be interested to know if there are stats on that too, since they have to have got the 80% success rate from somewhere.

And that brings up another issue, which ties into prevention. Do you have any idea how hard it is for a woman in her 20s to persuade a doctor to allow her to have her tubes tied? Anecdote != data and all that, but take the experience of a woman I know. Like me, she finds the idea of being pregnant completely repugnant. Unlike me, since her early 20s she has been trying to get a doctor to agree to let her have her tubes tied. At first she was told she was too young, come back when she's 30. So she waits. In the meantime, her 10 year long relationship breaks up, so when she tries again at the age of 30 the doctor again refuses. Why? Because at this point she's single and "what if she meets a man who wants to have children?" I don't know about you, but I find that response appalling. Again, her experience is not unusual. There needs to be a greater degree of flexibility in the medical profession surrounding the choices women make over their reproductive organs which will help with prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

"If she had a family who desperately wanted the foetus born alive and would be distraught by the mothers death, then I suspect the matter would be handed over to the courts for a decision."

Wrong, legally the courts have no jurisdiction in these cases. The decision rests with the woman alone.

"I suspect that the more premature babies that are dealt with the better the results will eventually be, but this is likely to take some time to achieve, years not months."

But the study carried out and reported in the BMJ was over 12 years, not months. In that time, in spite of the advances made in medical technology, there was no increase in survival rates of foetus' born at 22 and 23 weeks. In fact, the mortality rate at birth has increased. Also, just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean that we should. There's a difference between working to save a wanted baby that has been born prematurely at 22 or 23 weeks and genuine foetal viability at that stage of development. With the long term survival rates remaining so low the cases of premature babies surviving birth at 23 weeks should not be used as a justification for lowering the abortion limit to 20 weeks. It takes a huge degree of medical intervention for an 11% chance of living beyond 1. I don't consider that to be enough evidence of viability at 23 weeks.

[Hardcore Conservative]

CJH: This will have to be my final post on this subject.
“Wrong, legally the courts have no jurisdiction in these cases. The decision rests with the woman alone”.

Only if she is competent though. My angle on this is that if a woman knew she was going to die and leave behind a family who were distraught then the question of competence would arise. Some woman would be prepared to die for religious reasons (refusing a blood transfusion for example) and may well have the support of the family, but many refusing treatment in these situations are either scared of the procedure or depressed. That is why each case is taken on its merits, there is no such thing as a blanket right to die under these circumstances. The concern is for the mother not the foetus.

“But the study carried out and reported in the BMJ was over 12 years, not months. In that time, in spite of the advances made in medical technology, there was no increase in survival rates of foetus' born at 22 and 23 weeks. In fact, the mortality rate at birth has increased. Also, just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean that we should. There's a difference between working to save a wanted baby that has been born prematurely at 22 or 23 weeks and genuine foetal viability at that stage of development. With the long term survival rates remaining so low the cases of premature babies surviving birth at 23 weeks should not be used as a justification for lowering the abortion limit to 20 weeks. It takes a huge degree of medical intervention for an 11% chance of living beyond 1. I don't consider that to be enough evidence of viability at 23 weeks.”

Just a brief observation on this. I presume you are referring to the study undertaken by (Field et al, 2008). Although the study was published recently it looked at the situation up until 2005 but technology is moving on. In their study Field and his colleagues acknowledged that there was a 11% increase in survival rates for foetuses born at 24 & 25 weeks in the period 2000-2005 compared to 1994-1999. Only a couple of decades ago foetal survival rates were appalling for this gestation group. Now just below half survive.

International consensus now is that the human viability threshold is 22 weeks, with foetuses at between 23-24 weeks being treated on an individual merit basis (Pignotti and Donzelli, 2008). I have pointed out that I am sure that one day foetal viability may be lower than this but not for some time and until it is, the time limit is unlikely to come down by below say 20-24 weeks. Whether it should come down to 22 weeks and even 20 weeks now is a discussion I will leave for others to have.

My point is and still remains that while all of these statistics are interesting, prevention is still better than a cure. I find it hard to accept (I won’t accept) that even given the accidents and genuine mistakes that happen with contraception, over 57, 000 women having multiple terminations for example, is a shocking figure and exercising more care and restraint would prevent many of these terminations, that are not without clinical risk.

References.

Field. D. J., Dorling. J. S., Manktelow. B. N., Draper. E. S. (2008). Survival of extremely premature babies in a geographically defined population: prospective cohort study of 1994-9 compared with 2000-5. BMJ. May: 1-4.

Pignotti. M. S., Donzelli. G. (2008). Perinatal Care at the Threshold of Viability: An International Comparison of Practical Guidelines for the Treatment of Extremely Preterm Births. Pediatrics. 121: 193-198.

[Ruth Robinson]

All credit to Nadine in her campaign to reduce the time for abortions for 'social reasons'. Fortunately we live in more enlightened times than the 'Vera Drake' era that I grew up in.Then it was a big stigma for a girl to have a baby when she wasn't married. Pregnancy led to shotgun weddings and probably years of unhappiness. However, having an abortion is not like having a tooth out and young women who have an abortion as the most expedient way of alieviating an immediate problem often have years of mental agony regretting taking the life of their child, especially, as often happens, they then find they are unable to have a child when they want one. There are thousands of married couples out there who would dearly love to have a child but are unable to do so. All they can adopt, in most cases today, are ethnic minority or handicapped. More support should be given to the pregnant women to have their babies and if they still feel unable to cope, they should give them up for adoption.

It is quite disgraceful that a so-called civilised country can dispose of 100,000 potentially happy, healthy human beings into the incinerator every year just because they are socially inconvenient.

Over the last 40 years since the abortion reform bill was passed, about 4 million babies have been killed. Had they been allowed to live they would probably have all been useful, respectable citizens working and earning a living. Instead they have been discarded before they even had a chance of life and we are now having to import East Europeans and people from the four corners of the globe to keep the country running.

As Enoch Powell so memorably said in another context, 'those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad'.

As for John Bercow, he changes his mind with the wind. I remember him when he was in the Monday Club and wanted to be Minister for Repatriation. Now he's changed his mind and is all for ethnic minorities etc. Take no notice of him.