Tuesday, June 05, 2007

MPs trying to limit choice again

Old Trix was rather fuming the other day when she heard the comments by Cardinal Keith O'Brien that the abortion laws were responsible for the equivalent of 'two Dunblane massacres a day" and that we should all stop the "wanton killing of innocents."

I think people should stop killing innocent people but a foetus isn't an 'innocent person'. It's a foetus until it is born and the rights of the woman carrying that foetus should be paramount. It's her body, it should be her right to choose and that's that.

I read today that the new darling of the Tory Blog Boys, Nadine Dorries, thinks that abortion should be limited to 21 weeks instead of 24 which I see as a little unnecessary.

But Ann Winterton wants all women who ask for an abortion to have compulsory counselling on the grounds that women who have abortions are more likely to suffer from mental health problems.

I don't really think that's a good idea. If a woman wants counselling, then it is available, but making them have it, and then wait a week before any treatment is basically trying to make them not have an abortion. Also, surely the earlier a woman has the abortion, then the less traumatic it is for her, and the easier the operation is.

Julia Millington, political director of the Pro-Life Alliance, backed moves in the Winterton bill for counselling and a cooling off period as a means of encouraging more women to rule out an abortion.

Most abortions are carried out in the first trimester, according to Marie Stopes which is the best time to have one if you are going to have one. So why would the anti lobby want to delay that? Anything to stop a woman having an abortion, I suppose, regardless of what the woman wants. It's only her body, after all....


I was trying to be nice and rational about this, but having read the blog of that bloody woman Nadine, where she says:
The Abortion Act of 1967 was based on lies and more lies. It was an appallingly drafted piece of legislation which, under intense pressure from the abortion rights lobby, allowed the present day situation of abortion used as a form of contraception to occur.

I can't.

The Abortion Act of 1967 was a piece of legislation which gave a woman some degree of control over her own body. It doesn't go far enough, in my opinion. I think it an insult that a woman needs the signature of two doctors before she is allowed an abortion, that a GP can decide not to refer a woman because they disagree, and that they can delay a woman getting the treatment. Be a doctor, do your job. However, any sanctimonious bitch who thinks that someone would have an abortion as a form of contracteption should not hold any position of power in this country or any other. How can anyone think that having someone poking around with your insides, scraping them and then bleeding for the best part of a month, endless prodding and scans and tests is 'a form of contraception'? You ever had sex, lady?

Some people do get pregnant and don't want to be. And that's not because they're sluts and whores who are going to hell, it's because they are fertile. Contraception fails, regularly. I have a few friends now who have fallen pregnant when they were using contraception. Some now have children, some don't.

Who are you, Ms Dorries, to decide over the future of their bodies? Decide over your own, please, but not mine, not my sister's, my friends' or anyone Else. Just bugger off with your sanctimonious religious clap trap and let the rest of us live our lives.

I don't believe in god, I think religion is just another form of politics when people were stupid enough to be convinced of all sorts and science wasn't around to prove otherwise. I do believe, however, the statistics which show that when you make abortion illegal the number of abortions carried out don't fall, but the number of women who die from them do.

A woman with an unwanted pregnancy will do everything she can to get her body back and as a decent society we should make sure that is done safely and effectively.


Little Black Sambo said...

"It's a foetus until it is born and the rights of the woman carrying that foetus should be paramount. It's her body, it should be her right to choose and that's that."

So now we know. It's a pity the Cardinal hadn't read that before saying what he said; he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.

Budgie said...

No, it is not her body. The foetus is biologically separate - the DNA proves it. Being concerned about the mother's body but not the baby's body is total hypocrisy.