UK Abortion Act is not working as intended

[maldon_road]

Seems to have gone the way our old act went --- it was supposed to only operate where the health of the woman was affected but soon became abortion on demand in some places. A Parliamentary committee is looking at it and we can expect sparks to fly as the abortion antagonists rail at one another.

Abortion Act is not working as intended

The intentions of the 1967 Act (last amended in 1990) were to allow abortion in cases where it would prevent serious injury (which included severe mental suffering) in mother or child. It did not create legalised abortion or enshrine a woman's right to choose, as supporters of abortion on demand have often since complained. Two doctors were required to certify that serious harm would result if an abortion were not carried out.

Although in practice we seem to have abortion on demand - there have been some 6.7 million abortions conducted under the Act, and the figures are rising, to the point where they are running at 200,000 abortions a year and, according to The Lancet, almost one in three pregnancies in Europe ending in abortion - pro-abortion campaigners are clear that it is not a right....

The Act desperately needs attention, whether you regard a woman's right to choose to abort an unborn child as entirely her decision, or instead think that an unborn child has rights which are currently entirely disregarded.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorresponde...abortionact.htm

[maldon_road]

By Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor

This is an issue where the antagonists take no prisoners yet here we have a Prince of the Vatican talking about the need for "achievable and incremental improvements" in the current law in the UK. It would appear that political realties have come to the fore. Taking extremist positions do not seem to have worked so the Cardinal may have been reduced to the same position as the rest of us - being thankful for small mercies.

Whether we are pro-abortion or against it, now is a good time to look again at the values we hold most dear and the experience we have had since the Abortion Act was brought into law. The time has come for us to be honest about its consequences — personal, social and spiritual. I hope, too, we can begin a new discussion which gets beyond the slogans, in which somehow valuing and protecting human life is pitted against the claims of individual freedom. I want to ask if we cannot find another way of proceeding that enriches the common good – the good of us all.

I come to the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act with a deep sense of anguish, but also with hope. My anguish is over the almost 200,000 abortions now annually performed in our country and for the women who felt they had no other realistic choice. Nor should we forget the need for men to accept their responsibilities for the unborn child. We allow abortion up to 24 weeks and sometimes later. We use medical and scientific language to shield us from the violence of the act and the distressful aftermath for all concerned.

Abortions are sometimes performed for relatively minor disabilities, many of which can be corrected after birth – or even before. I think this has implications for the way we view disability. I wonder if we are seduced into a search for a mythical perfection which makes victims of us all? Such developments seem to me to run counter to our deepest moral sense of what is good and just. Surely, the Act never intended this situation?...

While upholding the principle of the sacredness of human life, I believe it is both licit and important for those in public life who oppose abortion to work and vote for achievable and incremental improvements to an unjust law. That is why I would support in any way I can MPs who take this stance and are pushing for a reduction in the upper time limit and opposing the removal of existing safeguards...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...0/28/do2804.xml

Edited October 28, 2007 by maldon_road

[RedDaVinci]

Seems to have gone the way our old act went --- it was supposed to only operate where the health of the woman was affected but soon became abortion on demand in some places. A Parliamentary committee is looking at it and we can expect sparks to fly as the abortion antagonists rail at one another.

Well, it sounded like a good idea in theory. Sort of a middle ground between the pro-life and pro-choice movements that a morally decent secular person could probably come to terms with.

A government really has its hands tied when it comes to philosophical issues like that. Finding a middle ground, as it seems, is their only realistic solution if they want to remain in power and to keep both sides as happy as possible.

You don't have to be associated with some church to have a problem with killing unborn children; we're not just talking about a doctrinal minority who is opposed to the pro-choice movement. In essence, you're likely to have a very rough 50-50 split of pro-choice and pro-life supporters...

But if the act is abused, and it is a very clear-cut one that includes the redundancy of having two doctors give a unique but agreed medical opinion... a law is being broken, one that threatens this middle ground. Given some thought, that middle ground is quite an important thing in politics... because we can't have people voting for philosophical issues; if there is no definite answer to a dillema, one can only be irrational in picking either side.

[Brain Candy]

The sad fact is that most of the people who want abortions are people who wouldnt be fit to raise kids in the first place, thus more people unfit to raise children for the next generation.

[White Doors]

The sad fact is that most of the people who want abortions are people who wouldnt be fit to raise kids in the first place, thus more people unfit to raise children for the next generation.

Well if they knew they couldn't have an easy abortion, perhaps they would be more careful about getting pregnant in the first place. Abortion used as a form of birth control is morally disgusting in my opinion.

[Drea]

The sad fact is that most of the people who want abortions are people who wouldnt be fit to raise kids in the first place, thus more people unfit to raise children for the next generation.

So Brain Candy, you are pro-choice then? You believe abortion is good thing because it takes "unfit" parents out of the equation?

* welcome to MLW where you will find a diverse set of opinions.... ;-)

White, most women agonize over the decision to abort. It's not an "easy" decision, as you put it.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Drea

[M.Dancer]

So you are pro-choice then?

White, most women agonize over the decision to abort. It's not an "easy" decision, as you put it.

You have polled the attitudes of those who use abortion as birth control? Or are you using an outside source?

[Drea]

Do you seriously believe that women "enjoy" having abortions? That most women would choose to have to abort rather than take a little pill?

Please provide a link proving that women use abortion as a form of birth control. Use a news site.. not a prolife site please. Let's have a real discussion on real stats not some wild-eyed propaganda. M'kay?

And the women that do this -- is it not a good thing (as Brain Candy said) that they do not give birth? They are after all, unfit to raise children.

Either one wants to have unfit women have abortions or they want unfit women to raise kids?

Which is it?

[M.Dancer]

Do you seriously believe that women "enjoy" having abortions?

Do you seriously think that it what I suggested?

I asked how you knew their attitudes.

try again and answer the question.

[White Doors]

So Brain Candy, you are pro-choice then? You believe abortion is good thing because it takes "unfit" parents out of the equation?

* welcome to MLW where you will find a diverse set of opinions.... ;-)

White, most women agonize over the decision to abort. It's not an "easy" decision, as you put it.

I didn't say it was an easy decision. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the access was too easy.

Also, have you ever heard of adoption?

thanks

[M.Dancer]

Do some women use abortion as birth control? Well....do the math

In 2000, of women who obtained an abortion and whose number of previous abortions was adequately reported, 53% were reported to have obtained an abortion for the first time. Eighteen percent of women were reported to have had two or more previous abortions (Table 13).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

Of the handful of women that I know who have had abortions, at least half have had more than one.

You would think if getting an abortion was so traumatic, they would really go out of their way not to be the position to get another.....as well, it seems that women who get abortions suffer depression at a freqeuncy no greater than the norm....

[Peter F]

Any abortion is 'birth-control'. There is no abortion that is not birth-control.

Abortions are very effective in ending pregnancy. Condoms are useless at ending pregnancy. So is crossing of the legs. So is having wild unprotected sex.

Maybe someday you guys will figure that part out.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Peter F

[M.Dancer]

Any abortion is 'birth-control'. There is no abortion that is not birth-control.

Abortions are very effective in ending pregnancy. Condoms are useless at ending pregnancy. So is crossing of the legs. So is having wild unprotected sex.

Maybe someday you guys will figure that part out.

The only one questioning is a gal....

...hopefully one day you will be able to tell the two apart

[Drea]

Do you seriously think that it what I suggested?

I asked how you knew their attitudes.

try again and answer the question.

How do I know "their" attitudes?

I have an inside source -- myself.

I know of many women who have had abortions. Some deeply regret it, others not so much.

In my opinion abortion is a case-by-case issue. One cannot make blanket statements that "abortion is bad for all parties" because this is not true in all cases.

That being said, I believe if you cannot make the decision in the first three months you do not get to have an abortion. If you waffle for that long, you are too unsure. Those of us who were/are absolutely without-a-doubt-sure that we wanted an abortion made sure it was done as soon as possible.

In other words I believe that abortion should only occur within the first trimester.

Because I used a "personal example" I am now ready for the "she-is-unfit-because-she-had-an-abortion" insults to fly my way.

Have fun!

Edited November 29, 2007 by Drea

[M.Dancer]

One cannot make blanket statements that "abortion is bad for all parties" because this is not true in all cases.

I agree with that statement 100% I also agree that late term abortions without a medical reason are simply abhorrent.

I will say though while some women may have absolutely good reason to terminate a pregnancy, others do not but the defect in our system (not that it can be changed) is that it doesn't differentiate between the two.

[capricorn]

In my opinion abortion is a case-by-case issue. One cannot make blanket statements that "abortion is bad for all parties" because this is not true in all cases.

That being said, I believe if you cannot make the decision in the first three months you do not get to have an abortion. If you waffle for that long, you are too unsure. Those of us who were/are absolutely without-a-doubt-sure that we wanted an abortion made sure it was done as soon as possible.

In other words I believe that abortion should only occur within the first trimester.

Drea, I agree 100%.

I know quite a few women who have had an abortion. It appears to me that the further along a woman is in her pregnancy prior to the abortion, the deeper her guilt and possible resulting depression.

[Carinthia]

How do I know "their" attitudes?

I have an inside source -- myself.

I know of many women who have had abortions. Some deeply regret it, others not so much.

In my opinion abortion is a case-by-case issue. One cannot make blanket statements that "abortion is bad for all parties" because this is not true in all cases.

That being said, I believe if you cannot make the decision in the first three months you do not get to have an abortion. If you waffle for that long, you are too unsure. Those of us who were/are absolutely without-a-doubt-sure that we wanted an abortion made sure it was done as soon as possible.

In other words I believe that abortion should only occur within the first trimester.

Because I used a "personal example" I am now ready for the "she-is-unfit-because-she-had-an-abortion" insults to fly my way.

Have fun!

You won't get any insults from me.

[Peter F]

I will say though while some women may have absolutely good reason to terminate a pregnancy, others do not but the defect in our system (not that it can be changed) is that it doesn't differentiate between the two.

Any woman need not justify her decision to anyone but herself. There is no call to differantiate between good reasons and bad. There is no defect in the system as it is.

[Brain Candy]

Because I used a "personal example" I am now ready for the "she-is-unfit-because-she-had-an-abortion" insults to fly my way.

Have fun!

Please dont take anything i or anyone else says here as an insult. Perhaps i should have said "unfit" or "unprepared". I believe someone should be in a healthy stage mentally, physically and economically before having children and I have tremendous respect for women who go through an abortion when they know they just arent ready. I do however have a problem with parents on welfare and 2+ kids.

[M.Dancer]

Any woman need not justify her decision to anyone but herself. There is no call to differantiate between good reasons and bad. There is no defect in the system as it is.

God that is stupid. Bad reasons are just as good as good reasons?

So if a woman was on her 6th late term abortion, all on the gov't tab to boot...there's no defect in the system? Well, there would certainly be a defect in the woman, which you seem ready to enable.

[Brain Candy]

If it gets to that point maybe forced sterilization is an option?

[capricorn]

Any woman need not justify her decision to anyone but herself. There is no call to differantiate between good reasons and bad. There is no defect in the system as it is.

I know what you are saying. I don't see anything in your comments as advocating abortion as a means of contraception as someone is asserting.

[M.Dancer]

I know what you are saying. I don't see anything in your comments as advocating abortion as a means of contraception as someone is asserting.

No one has argued that abortion is contraception. Contraception prevents conception. Abortion prevents birth. Read back where he agrees that all abortions are birth control....and then he says if that is a womans choice no should even presume to question her lack of judgement.

[M.Dancer]

If it gets to that point maybe forced sterilization is an option?

The more abortions a woman has the more likely she becomes sterile. Darwinism in action.

[capricorn]

Read back where he agrees that all abortions are birth control....and then he says if that is a womans choice no should even presume to question her lack of judgement.

Dancer, I read PeterF's 2 posts on this thread. True, his view is that any abortion is a form of birth control. I tend to agree with him. In this day and age, any woman who does not want to get pregnant has all kinds of options to prevent unwanted pregnancy. IMO unwanted pregnancy is not excusable, except in the case of rape.

Sorry if I intervened in your comment to PeterF. It just seemed to me that you assumed that PeterF was advocating that multiple abortions were acceptable.

I absolutely reject that any woman should use abortion as contraception as a normal course. What I want is that after the second abortion, the state refuses to fund any subsequent abortion for that woman.