Saturday, November 06, 2010

Nadine Dorries MP on informed consent for abortion

Forward to 22:20 to hear the speech by the Hon Member for Mid Bedfordshire.

Last year there were 200,000 abortions performed in the UK: that amounts to 572 abortions per day.

It is a boom industry, with some companies making many millions of pounds from the taxpayer through NHS referral.

Right across Europe, there is legislation requiring informed consent, and these countries have significantly lower abortion rates.

Presently, the Government only funds abortion providers if the abortion proceeds. And yet it is these same providers which are entrusted to counsel vulnerable and often emotional women before the procedure is carried out. There is no requirement in law for women to be informed about the alternatives, like adoption.

Incredibly, if any of us were referred to a hospital for an in-growing toenail, we would be provided with more information about the process than women are for abortion.

Do we really care more about ingrowing toenails than we do about the murder of unborn babies?

Ms Dorries' reasoning is unarguable.


Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

We must turn the clock back.

We must go back to the pre-1967 legal position.

It is perfectly feasible.

In Britain the Left-liberals argued that there were 100,000 illegal abortions per year prior to the passage of the liberal abortion law in 1967. However, Dr C.B. Goodhart at Cambridge put such vague claims to rest.

He first demostrated that the number of maternal deaths due to abortion (a figure hard to distort very greatly) was far too low to support the figure of 100,000 illegal abortions per year.

He then proceeded to calculate the rate of illegal abortions in Britain as a whole from the known rate of abortions in one particular locale, where very liberal access to abortion prevailed even under the old law (which did give discretion to the physician to certify that health was at stake). Even allowing for a generous measure of illegal abortion in that one locale, he still came to the conclusion that there could not have been more than about 20,000 illegal abortons per year for the whole of Britain before the enactment of the 1967 law.

In the first full year of operation, of abortion, on the NHS – the figures for maternal deaths rocketed.

In other words, back-street abortionists with their coat-hangers were doing a far better job than NHS physicians.

Refs: CB Goodhart, The Freqency of Illegal Abortions, Eugenics Review 55 (1964): 197:200

CB Goodhart, Estimation of Illegal Abortions, Jounal of Biosocial Science 1 (1969): 236-245

6 November 2010 at 15:09  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

Completely agree; it's absolute madness that info isn't standard. Had no idea.

6 November 2010 at 16:58  
Blogger Chelliah Laity said...

Your Grace
It is a reflection of the times we live in. That which is cosmetic is more valued than that which is to do with soul, life and depth.

6 November 2010 at 17:53  
Anonymous Justin Hinchcliffe said...

Your Grace, can I ask what role the Anglican community has taken in respect to campaigning against this evil? How many Anglican churches stock pro-Life material, have a pro-Life rep andc how many priests preach about how abortion is a mortal sin? Or is it leaving all this to Rome?

6 November 2010 at 18:06  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Hi Your Grace.

It seems a comment that I made on a previous thread was uncalled for and made in ignorance of facts. When I skimmed over the details of what she was saying, it seemed at first to me that she was in fact making abortion more legitimate. I apologise and can now understand where she is coming from.

I am an emotive person, and this is a disability which I confess to have. But Nadine has an anoying capacity to send out mixed messages and I wish she could focus a bit more.

Anyway. You are correct here in saying that Ms Dorries' reasoning is unarguable. I am against abortion per se, but I am reasonable enough to understand that it is like the poor, in that it will always be with us. When we mature as a race of beings, which seems a slow process by all accounts, we will eventually grow up and out of our ignorance.

The future will undoubtedly unfold into reality as time moves on, it is unstoppable. Something I have faith in is the fact that one day we will in fact treat life with universal respect all across the globe. One day. And it seems to me that what Nadine is saying, and the points that she raises are a sign that we are almost ready to open up and examine the sad truth about abortion rates and our attitudes towards terminating potential human beings.

The right Honorable lady who spoke after Nadine talks about the lack of self esteem as a cause for high pregnancy rates in young people - this lack of self esteem is caused by the overall message that our modern life style sends out about values. What should we value as young people, how should we behave in light of what is bombarded into our minds with prolific images and media bites of sexual promiscuity and violence? "High quality education on relationship and sex", indeed, but where do young people get their education from regarding these things? "we need to tackle these issues in an holistic way and an effective way", indeed - and what better way to do this than by setting examples, by defining values in every aspect of our culture. Listening to the right Honorable lady read those lines from her script does not convince me that we are nearly ready to take honest and realistic measures that would address the very serious amoral position we find ourselves in with regards to the systematic destruction of human life.

In my own mind I feel that we should be in a better place than we are now. We have come a long way only to find that we are progressing materially even though life in general gets more difficult and complicated, and inwardly we are still children faltering at the edges of adolescence. We will eventually get there and grow up in the end, these things seem to happen in bursts. I hope that what I am hearing is a break in the voice, a little tell tale sign that the man is coming through.

6 November 2010 at 19:11  
Anonymous She who refutes feminism said...

I generally avoid this sanguinary topic, but Mr. Singh's references to time afford the opportunity of mentioning some often-ignored points.

Our culture was different, pre-1967: sexual morality was respected, laxity was scandalous, and the disgrace of pregnancy outside marriage was 'a fate worse than death.' It is arguable that the advent and legalization of the birth control pill caused a change in perceptions. The subsequent 'revolution' emanated from mini-skirted, wig-wearing, disco-dancing, 'with-it,' Beatles singing, London. Apparently French thinking, in the form of Lacanists, also encouraged the trends.

Then, the burden for protection against pregnancy fell most strongly on women, who could no longer merely 'say no,' but had to prove to all and sundry that in doing so, or refusing to 'be on the pill,' they were not lesbians, or religious fanatics, or "inhibited (and frigid)," or imbued with whatever psycho-social inferiorities might stop them from 'doing what everybody else did.' And everybody else did, boastfully.

The key to alleviating the pressure on young women, and also to encouraging commitment from young men, still lies in the hands of family. Men are less cavalier when they witness material strength behind a girl who "thinks too much of herself." 'Twas ever thus: as some Harley Lyrics or Anglo-Saxon scribings reveal.

So if a girl 'gets into trouble' her first recourse should still be family. If that line of hope is absent or not viable, or if the fear of scandal is too great, then she faces a reality not encountered by the more fortunate. She also must do so alone, if the partner somehow melts away or encourages abortion. He will usually, especially if abortion is purportedly safe, clean, and free -on the NHS. To such a person, the emotional state of the mother ('hysteria' - by definition) is as irrelevant as it was when he first lied that he loved her.

Ultimately, then - I say it takes many more than two to set up the Tango. I say, also, that whatever the girl's decision: the baby is not the only victim; the mother is part of the sacrifice.

Further, though, the morality begins way before any point of delivery. The issue is complex and relative -because the production of progeny is more intensely personal than any other, but the product is, on every level, a social entity.

In light of those facts of what is euphemistically called 'life,' I support those who argue against legalised abortion. Abortion as a commercial enterprise (public or private) is especially abhorrent. I think stronger laws against it would help protect babies and young women, and would support the respectability of families. The power of British Law should restore human dignity to them all -the pill has obviously failed.

Yes. We must turn back the clock.


6 November 2010 at 19:38  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I think Nadine makes a good case for somthing that whilst not illegal has moral reprocussions . However her argument was about putting the alternatives forward to reduce abortion rates and not necessarily a direct anti abortion stance .
It is interesting to note that the dialogue is changing on this , for as well as abortion we have had euthanasia , all very much invogue when the new labour and liberal alliances were in sway .

I would point out that it is difficult to have an antiabortion stance without a christian belief which is perhaps why 200,000 abortions per year happen .

An abortion cures the angst of one aspect of an unexpected pregnancy , perhaps Nadine is making the case that if more was done to either adopt or make a way of living with the new birth for the woman , it would help the statistics or at least bring some care into one of the more taboo areas of modern life .

let us assume here ideas were successful and 50% of the women had there birth and only 30% of the 100,000 put there children up for adoption . Given the numbers in care and a cultural loss in the value of fostering (by its stanlist assumptions) 30,000 foster homes would be needed , somthing which despite the right motives of her speech she did not touch upon .

There is also the glaring anomoly of reducing the abotion statistcs , but not reducing the number of women who come into gps asking for one , this despite many years of school education and contraception being as available as soft drinks from a vending machine .

I appluade her for her stance and her warts and all approach and knowledge of the subject ,I would prefer a government that began to adress the broader problem , assuming it is women under 30 or teenagers who form most of the group she is refering to , and most via consentual sex .
Very soon science will have devloped long time birth control treatments , which typically is the route most governments take as it relieves them of any need to be moralistic , as it is taken care of via a medicene .

In a world of sex being used to sell all manner of things and its presenece in nearly every form of mass media ,and it having a very different value to times when church belief was all powerfull , will a reduction in stats change these young girls views ?? or will it be the case that most will make use of the current high availability of contraception and morning after treatments , which further mask the changes that society has undergone .

6 November 2010 at 20:07  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

This story is going to sound crass and horrible, and indeed it is, but it is fact and there is a point to telling it.

In my work I find myself being around young people, and at the end of the shift we all gather in a communal area awaiting the precise time that allows us to depart homeward without incurring any disciplinary proceedings. During this communal gathering there takes place the conversations of the working class man - invariably involving football, shagging, alcohol abuse, drugs, fast and expensive cars etc etc. It can be low point in the day.

Last week during this end of day festival I was subjected to a conversation between a group of men of varying ages, and one particular young man aged 22 was boasting about how the times have changed. He was enlightening us about how the younger ladies are now picking up the boys and taking them home and indulging in instant and gratifying sex, and then departing the scene with all the grace of a sweaty rapist, leaving our young man to wonder "who was shagging whom?" "It's great!" he declares.

I just glaze over and wonder, silently, like a light hidden, trembling, under a bushel.

6 November 2010 at 20:43  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

What I also find objectionable is that all these abortions are claimed to be within the law.
As far as I can remember, the law was changed to permit an abortion when the mother's life was in serious danger, there was good reason to believe that the foetus was seriously deformed along with a few special cases such as rape.
I simply cannot believe that all the abortions taking place meet one of these criteria, but they seem to have been got around by doctors declaring that not having an abortion would have serious effects on the mother's mental health, something that I'm sure was never intended.

Certainly Nadine was right in wanting proper informed consent which is obviously not happening. You are right in saying that one gets far more information about minor procedures - I had an stomach endoscopy recently, it took the nurse about 15 minutes to tell me exactly what was to be done and the potential risks.

6 November 2010 at 22:50  
Anonymous ukFred said...

If Jared Gaites (above) is right, and we have no reason to disbelieve him, then surely the problem lies with the Church in all its denominations ceding the entire sexual arena to the world. The messagge that the Church too often portrays is "Sex is evil! Don't do it!" when what it should be saying is something along the lines of "Sex is wonderful. And when we have sex only within marriage, which is God's plan, it can be so much better than you would think." The Church also needs to improve its teaching on self-respect and self-worth for young people to help them avoid the temptations that the world will place in their way. We need to thank God for such sites as "the marriage", "The forum for legally married men" and "Christian nymphos" all of which honour sex within marriage from a Christian viewpoint.

7 November 2010 at 08:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't view the video because it uses dodgy Microsoft only technology

7 November 2010 at 10:36  
Anonymous philip walling said...

What sticks in the throat about abortion is that the Abortion Act was sponsored by David Steel.

Why is it that wicked things are often championed by sanctimonious, self-righteous types, telling us they know better than the accumulated wisdom of the ages, and it's all for the best?
And now it's clear how terrible the effect (200,000 babies murdered annually in the womb) will Lord [sic] Steel admit he was wrong and apologise?
I wouldn't put money on it.

Similarly with the contraceptive pill; its ready availability has done immeasurable harm to the dignity and power of young women and contributed more to the dissolution of the family and society than just about any of the other harmful things that have happened in the last fifty years - and God knows there have been plenty of those.
Will the C of E, that you champion so vociferously Your Grace, say unequivocally that abortion and contraception are wrong and tell us why?
Again I wouldn't put money on it.

7 November 2010 at 10:48  
Anonymous len said...

The very fact that you have to tell people that abortion is wrong is an indicator of how far our society has sunk morally, spiritually, and ethically.
We ,the public have been, and are being, brainwashed into believing whatever we are told to believe by whoever decides what we should think, and how we should act!.
The foundations of our society are being deliberately destroyed to make way for a 'New Order' where man replaces God and with the ensuing chaos that will involve.
It will only be a matter of time before God steps in before we totally destroy ourselves and our Planet.

7 November 2010 at 11:52  
Anonymous Justin Hinchcliffe said...

Doe His Grace not answer questions from his readers anymore? )-:

7 November 2010 at 13:25  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Justin Hinchcliffe,

This is His Grace's blog: he answers quantitaive questions to which he knows the answers. Not being present in every CofE congregation Sunday by Sunday, he cannot know 'How many Anglican churches stock pro-Life material, have a pro-Life rep and how many priests preach about how abortion is a mortal sin?'.

Perhaps if you Google it, you may be able to enlighten us.

As for 'leaving all this to Rome', it is widely known that the CofE is a coalition and has been since its inception: it therefore treads a via media on such issues.

7 November 2010 at 13:44  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

Your Grace, may I suggest you run a Dot to Dot competition.

Join the Dots Competition.

Once you understand the Communist Agenda, it's relatively easy to join the dots.

200,000 Abortions per year ( that's 4000 per week, 1 million every 5yrs, 7.2 millionsince 1970 )

That was our workforce, those children would by now ber raising their own families.

Instead our young women are told, 'it's only cells, it's a very simple procedure.

But even that is not enough, so now they are advertising abortion on TV.

Now they claim it's to stop teen pregnancies,
but this is the old problem reaction solution trick again,
first cause the problem, then impose the solution you always wanted.

sex education at school

But not even that is enough, mp's are toying with the idea of sterilizing our children.
sterilise British children

Meanwhile, another 50 million secretly invited into the EU to take our place.

They knew long ago British and Western europeans would not surrender sovereignty, so the decision was taken to ( stealthily ) replace us.

7 November 2010 at 20:49  
Blogger Penny said...

16 November 2010 at 10:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older