Abortion is linked to poor mental health
faintsmile1992
Feminists and other pro-choicers are not only anti-child but also anti-woman.

If people didn't have innate instincts to bear their offspring except in an extreme situation, then the species would have died out. It makes perfect sense in Darwinian terms that overriding the most basic female instincts will often lead to psychological damage for women.

Why do so many Darwinists oppose the religious right, and then support policies which make little or no evolutionary sense?

[spoiler]
1st September 2011
Women who have abortions 'face double the risk of mental health problems'
by Steve Doughty

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2032431/Women-abortions-face-double-risk-mental-health-problems.html

Women who have abortions are at risk of severe mental health problems, according to a study.

The research found that those who undergo abortion face nearly double the risk of mental health difficulties compared with others and that one in ten of all mental health problems was a result of abortion.

The findings are certain to cause major controversy at a time when the pro- and anti-abortion lobbies are already in the midst of a vicious row playing out in Parliament.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries, backed by Labour’s Frank Field, has put down an amendment to a Health Bill which would require women seeking abortion to first see an independent counsellor.

Miss Dorries said in yesterday’s Daily Mail that she is subjected to ‘constant vilification and near-daily death threats’ over her stance on abortion.

At present organisations which provide abortion offer counselling, but critics say the advice can be biased and influenced by the fact that many make a profit out of the terminations they carry out.

The study comes with the endorsement of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which published the research by American academic Priscilla Coleman in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

Professor Coleman has been the frequent target of pro-choice campaigners in the U.S. for her insistence that abortion is linked to poor mental health.
But while critics have doubted her methods, they have failed to damage her academic reputation, and publication in the peer-reviewed British journal is a signal that the psychiatric establishment is now taking seriously the possibility that abortion is a cause of anxiety, depression, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide.

Three years ago research published in the journal first questioned the assumption of abortion campaigners and providers that terminating a pregnancy reduces rather than increases the health risks to a woman.
Professor Coleman’s study was based on an analysis of 22 separate projects which together analysed the experiences of 877,000 women, of whom 163,831 had had an abortion.

It said: ‘Results indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure.

‘Overall, the results revealed that women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81 per cent increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10 per cent of the incidence of mental health problems were shown to be directly attributable to abortion.’

The study said that abortion was linked with a 34 per cent greater chance of anxiety disorders, and 37 per cent higher possibility of depression, a more than double risk of alcohol abuse – 110 per cent – a three times greater risk of cannabis use – at 220 per cent – and 155 per cent greater risk of trying to commit suicide.

Professor Coleman added: ‘There are in fact some real risks associated with abortion that should be shared with women as they are counselled prior to an abortion.’

She added that the political heat of the row over abortion means researchers should try to set aside their own beliefs. Her own research was intended ‘to produce an unbiased analysis of the best available evidence addressing abortion as one risk factor among many others that may increase the likelihood of mental health problems.’

The findings were seized on by anti-abortion campaigners. Philippa Taylor, of the Christian Medical Foundation, said: ‘It is imperative that women are made aware of the real risks of developing mental health problems post-abortion.

‘We welcome this rigorous, extensive and most timely research,’ she added.
[/quote]

The sort of people who support pro-choice
faintsmile1992
Telegraph article about opposition to Nadine Dorries
faintsmile1992
September 6th, 20:01
Its good to see a sensible article about the proposal made by Nadine Dorries to try and limit abortions. "Predictably, the row over pre-abortion counselling has escalated into a nasty culture war." - and this is precisely why this is so important.

Read this paragraph and tell me why one sick feminist bitch who should be spared the death penalty or the mental asylum.

"Their bravado, as they admit to having had one or more abortions, sounds as coarse and unconvincing as the boasts traded in the boys’ shower at a secondary school. “It took me longer to decide what worktops to have in the kitchen” writes one, “than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being … I didn’t want another child, in the same way that I don’t suddenly want to move to Canada or buy a horse.”"

[spoiler]
Monday 05 September 2011
Abortion reform: a modest proposal gone awry

A modest proposal by MP Nadine Dorries to offer independent advice to women seeking an abortion has led to angry protests, death threats – and the stifling of a once-in-a-generation debate. How did it come to this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/sexual-health-and-advice/8739589/Abortion-reform-a-modest-proposal-gone-awry.html

A modest proposal. That was how Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, saw her suggestion for independent abortion counselling. Why could a woman considering a termination get advice only from the same organisation that would carry out the procedure? Dorries thought this smacked of vested interest: abortion providers in this country receive £60 million a year from the NHS for their services.

She joined forces with Frank Field, Labour MP for Birkenhead, and tabled two amendments to the Health and Social Care bill that would secure women the right to state-funded counselling from an independent provider.

These outside organisations would include those with religious affiliations and none; the counselling would remain optional. Who could object, Dorries reasoned, to such a sensible and “pro-women” proposal?

The petite blonde MP may be feisty and a great operator, but in thinking her amendment would slip under the radar, she was being naive. Once termination of pregnancy is involved, temperatures rise and the most sensible citizens lose their heads. Predictably, the row over pre-abortion counselling has escalated into a nasty culture war.

Divorce, homosexuality, abortion: barely more than a generation ago, these explosive social issues divided the country, ruined lives and ended careers. Nowadays, it is easier to get a divorce than open a bank account; while even the crustiest social conservatives have come to realise that homosexuality is a fact, not a scandal. Jeremy Thorpe would not have had to conceal his sexuality in the modern Lib Dems – he could have flaunted it. Edward VIII’s abdication would be inconceivable now. Indeed, the current Prince of Wales married a divorcee to general approval.

But while no one would wish to resurrect the Vera Drake-era of backstreet abortions and the gruesome use of knitting needles in DIY attempts at termination, abortion remains the one social issue where the consensus is neither clear nor set in stone.

Given that 60 per cent of Britons are pro-choice, the panicky insecurity of the pro-choice faction seems odd. Given that that there is not the slightest prospect of abortion being criminalised – or even seriously restricted – why do its supporters show all the tolerance, nuance and perspective of Animal Liberation fanatics besieging a research laboratory?

What fuels their sense of urgency that leads to such personal venom directed against the likes of Nadine Dorries. The polarisation is manifest. The pro-choicers divide the public arena into “us” (for whom abortion is always a right, end of story) and “them” (everyone else). They have accused the MP and former nurse of manipulating statistics, lying about findings, self-promotion and even (oozing sisterly sympathy) of letting herself go and having “a rumpled face”. She has been compared to an annoying insect and a Sarah Palin-style Mama Grizzly. She has received abusive phone calls, green-ink letters, and enough death threats to suggest that American-style violence risks engulfing the debate.

Now, she is under pressure to reveal how her campaign is funded: pro-choicers suspect her of being in bed with the religious Right. Dorries denies the allegations: “I have not received a single penny from anyone. In fact, I’m broke!” She admits to being “shocked by the animosity – it is beyond reason and acceptability.”

What the acrid smoke of the battlefield disguises is a big shift in the terms of the debate. Yes, most Britons are pro-choice, but this support is qualified: allowing a termination at 24 weeks when babies survive outside the womb at even 20 weeks fills most (57 per cent) women with misgivings. The latest generation of medical students feels this dilemma so strongly that they are refusing to carry out terminations at 24 weeks.

It is no longer just the squabbling and ineffective religious campaigners who object to abortion on demand, no questions asked. Science, demographics and disability campaigners have undermined the old nostrums of the debate.
Scientific progress, in the form of obstetric 3D ultrasound scans, has allowed 21st century expectant mothers to study the development of the foetus inside the womb. This routine procedure, unthinkable in 1967 when the Abortion Law came on the statute books, has afforded parents many a coochy-coo moment, but also the alarming realisation that the pro-choice mantra about “it” being just a blob of jelly was way off the mark. Ultrasound images reveal that as early as nine weeks the curled-up embryo is recognisably human; by 22 weeks, parents can wrangle over whose profile the baby – not foetus – has inherited. They can start shopping for blue or pink baby clothes.

The grown-ups see a miniature human throb and wiggle and even smile on the screen before them. Conversely, they can also see the foetus register pain: at 20 weeks, prodding by a sharp object induces the same contorted features that express a toddler’s misery. Suddenly, abortion at 24 weeks seems a great deal more troubling.

All the more so when a baby at 20 weeks can now survive outside the womb. In 1967, when David Steel MP pushed through his private member’s bill, he set the upper limit at 28 weeks, as the foetus was not deemed viable before that age. In 1990, when the abortion law was last amended (amid similar hysteria), the limit was set at 24 weeks. At the time, the national survival rate at 23 weeks was less than 10 per cent. Today, more sophisticated incubators and resuscitation equipment as well as new drugs to assist the baby’s breathing, have increased considerably the survival rate: a study conducted by University College neonatal unit found that more than 43 per cent of babies survive at 23 weeks. Yet despite this much-vaunted progress, more than 2,300 babies between 20 and 24 weeks are aborted each year: how can a system countenance that a medic in a ward saves a premature baby, while down the corridor in another ward, premature babies are being killed?
This waste of life must particularly incense the more than 50,000 couples in Britain affected by infertility. For these would-be parents, the wilful destruction of a life they are desperate to conceive, seems cruel and profoundly unjust. The pregnancy that fertile women take for granted, and then terminate, fills the frustrated mother on her fourth IVF cycle with resentment, not sympathy.

Medical breakthroughs have turned the IVF industry into a booming £500 million-a-year business. Its experts can satisfy baby hunger, but also help couples to use termination as an editing tool: would-be parents can get rid of the flawed specimen – or in cultures that prize only boys, the perfectly healthy but disappointing girl – and keep only the designer baby that matches their expectations.

No one knows how many of these abortions were because of disability or deformity; but we do know that of the 189,574 terminations carried out in England and Wales last year, 2,290 were because of disabilities (including even the cosmetic and easily remedied cleft palate). This attitude to the disabled, once uncontroversial, sits uncomfortably on contemporary consciences. Tireless campaigning to make mainstream society see disabled citizens as full members of society has had a side effect: 76 per cent of young people find abortion because of abnormality “ethically distasteful”.

Feminism or faith? Life or liberty? Individual choices or social constraints? The debate over abortion can be couched in lofty principles and snappy slogans (“Keep your rosaries off our ovaries”). But in fact the pro-choice campaigners who have vented their fury at the Dorries-Field amendments in the print media, the blogosphere and the airwaves have driven the issue away from grand ethical considerations to a narrow ghetto of personal anecdotes and survival manuals. Their bravado, as they admit to having had one or more abortions, sounds as coarse and unconvincing as the boasts traded in the boys’ shower at a secondary school. “It took me longer to decide what worktops to have in the kitchen” writes one, “than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being … I didn’t want another child, in the same way that I don’t suddenly want to move to Canada or buy a horse.”

Such displays of callousness may be for show; or perhaps they point to the feminist’s rejection of vulnerability as another word for “victimhood”. In this light, women with unwanted pregnancies are not a vulnerable group but an empowered one that with the click of a finger can dispense a pill that will clear the problem growth.

If pro-choice arguments do not wholly convince, this is in part because party politics is playing a role. Labour’s Frank Field, who co-authored the contentious amendment, has been spared the feminists’ rage.

The Tories have been determined not to look like the Nasty Party, who persecute vulnerable teenagers desperate to get rid of their unwanted baby. Nor did the Cameroonians want to resurrect toxic memories of Back to Basics, John Major’s ill-fated attempt to show off the Conservatives’ moral fibre.
For their part, Labour has felt compelled to flex its muscle after suffering the humiliation of May 2010. The party’s leaders have seemed incapable of fighting their corner over the economy, health and education; only Labour’s feminist legacy seems intact. Any nip and tuck to the abortion laws would put at risk even this achievement – and must be resisted fiercely.

It seems unlikely that the Commons will vote for Nadine Dorries’s amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill this week. Last Sunday’s revelations in this newspaper that the Department of Health had agreed to give Dorries’s plans the green light triggered a media about “tightening of the abortion laws”. The furore frightened David Cameron into yet another U-turn: the government would not support the Dorries-Field amendment when it came up for a vote in the Commons.

Coalition politicians may have been cowed by the strident pro-choice campaign, but their frantic flapping cannot obscure the change in public attitude. Profound changes have affected medical process and ethics; too many people, conscious of this, find the original premises of the abortion laws no longer hold.

The debate is far from over. Nadine Dorries may have lost her battle but the pro-choice hardliners are losing the war.
[/spoiler]

Study finds that off-licences sell alcohol! Amazing!
faintsmile1992
Well alcohol doesn't teleport into teenagers hands, but why single out teenage drinkers? Why not put the blame on, say, parents setting a bad example? Alcohol abuse among most age groups is in fact deliberately promoted as a cultural standard, and also a result of so many people wanting to shut out the awfulness of this country.

Alcohol is a hard drug more damaging to society an marijuana, and taking drink out of the hands of teenagers will be useless unless the police also take it out of the hands of the adults making it respectable.

[spoiler]
Off-licence 'link' to underage drink hospital cases
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14783570

The number of off-licence premises in an area is statistically linked to the number of underage drinkers admitted to hospital for alcohol-related problems, a study suggests.

The research for campaign group Alcohol Concern relates to 2006 to 2009 and is for England, excluding London.

On average for every two stores per 100,000 of population selling drink, one under 18-year-old sought treatment.

The report says the government may need to control off-licence numbers.

It also argues authorities must be given powers under the Licensing Act to refuse applications on the grounds of local health considerations and calls for improved analysis of alcohol-related hospital admissions.

The report says: "Effective harm prevention therefore not only requires targeting education, information and support at an individual level among young people but control of the concentration of alcohol outlets at a community level."

Government strategy
The data, analysed by Dr Nikki Coghill at University of West of England, is based on the 214 out of 293 local authorities that published relevant information. Alcohol Concern said the findings were "sufficiently robust to draw strong conclusions".

The findings suggest that nearly 10% of the 19,367 alcohol-specific hospital admissions for under-18s were directly attributable to the concentration of off-licence premises in a local area.

Alcohol Concern chief executive Don Shenker said: "It is a sobering thought that the numbers of off-licences in any one area has an impact on under-18s drinking and ending up in hospital.

"It is a failing of the current system that so many licences are being granted without due consideration to young people's health."

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, said: "This research further underlines the need for a comprehensive alcohol strategy from the government, which tackles the affordability, promotion and the availability of alcohol."

The Department of Health, which is due to publish a new alcohol strategy later in the year, said it had already taken action to tackle problem drinking and was working to introduce a tougher licensing regime.
[/spoiler]

Abuse of the Scottish countryside
faintsmile1992
Camping is a great way for people to have a cheap, environmentally friendly holiday and to get close to nature. But sadly, careless people are ruining the privilege of legal 'wild camping' that exists in Scotland.

As most of the damage has really been caused by carelessness and not by vandals with chainsaws, maybe schools should teach respect for our own nature and our own countryside, instead of promoting globalist environmental propaganda.

[spoiler]
National park may extend Loch Lomond crackdown
By Christopher Sleight
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14752865

The "success" of a camping and alcohol ban on east Loch Lomond is to be used as a model to tackle problems elsewhere in the national park.

Laws designed to deal with the effects of "irresponsible camping" are in force along a nine-mile stretch of the loch.

The National Park Authority is now looking for "solutions" to similar issues around the five lochs of Voil, Earn, Lubnaig, Venachar and Achray.

Anglers are one of the groups being targeted, as well as lochside campers.

Police said in some cases anglers were bringing chainsaws to cut down trees to use as firewood.

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park has formed a "Five Lochs" partnership comprising police, community councils and landowners.

It has already met once and will convene again in October to discuss how to clamp down on anti-social behaviour and environmental damage at the lochs.

Seasonal camping by-laws and an alcohol ban were introduced between Drymen and Rowardennan in June after the measures were approved by the Scottish government.

Ch Insp Kevin Findlater, who represents Central Scotland Police and Tayside Police in the Five Lochs group, said the laws had transformed the "disgraceful" state of the lochside.

He told BBC Scotland that it was time to turn attention to other lochs, with anglers being the largest groups in some areas.

"The majority are families trying to enjoy themselves and there are one or two tents with individuals drinking and causing the problems," he said.

"Whereas the people on Loch Lomond are trying to hack down trees with wire saws, some of these fisherman are turning up with chainsaws. They're more organised.

"There was even one with a lawnmower which was used to prepare the area for his tent. This was in a farmer's field."

Other issues include littering, fires and cars blocking roads, he said.

The chief inspector, who has policed the Loch Lomond area for almost 30 years, said this sort of behaviour led landowners to "question" the access rights enshrined in the 2003 Land Reform Act.

He would not speculate on the measures that could be introduced to control the problems, but added: "The Land Reform Act does not give rights to fish or hunt."

Loch 'hotspots'
Grant Moir, head of conservation at the national park, said anglers were not the only group being targeted by the park.

"It's more looking at what the management issues are around the lochs - some are fishing, some are camping," he said.

"It's not as concentrated as east Loch Lomond but we have some hotspots, for example Loch Lubnaig.

"We're trying to take some of the things that have worked in east Loch Lomond and see what we can do in other areas. It's the same model."

Mr Moir denied the park were attempting to drive people away and said the Loch Lomond by-laws were actually encouraging people to return to the area.

The Scottish Anglers National Association told the BBC it welcomed the Five Lochs project, saying "sensible" management was needed to stop the "bad practices" of some anglers.

But others have expressed concern at this latest move by the authority to control how people are using the park.

Outdoors writer Peter Macfarlane argued that the Lomond camping ban was not working, with rangers simply picking "easy targets".

"I've seen a ranger move on a young French couple who were hiking and then ignore the huge family tent with people drinking outside camped in the ban area," he said.

"I've got no problem with them policing it properly. There's a local community on east Loch Lomond, people live there. But the rest of the park is more sparsely populated - they can just go and deal with it.

"It's going to give the impression to the public that it's some kind of policed, closed community. It's the wrong way to go about it."
[/spoiler]

Are eagles a threat to children?
faintsmile1992
It is true these claims about eagles carrying off children are alarmist, but there is actually respectable photographic evidence that eagles are capable of lifting more than they're supposed to be capable of.

I'm not saying that eagles are a realistic threat to children, just that I'm also sceptical about the counter-claim that they are entirely harmless.

[spoiler]
2 September 2011 Last updated at 18:21
Eagles and small child claims 'alarmist' RSPB says
By Steven McKenzie
BBC Scotland Highlands and Islands reporter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-14762183

The Scottish Gamekeepers Association has raised concerns about whether sea eagles could differentiate between children and their natural prey.

The comment follows an incident where a senior clergyman was injured by a young eagle as he tried to scare it away after it attacked one of his geese.

The SGA has called for a public inquiry into the impact of the reintroduction of the birds on the east coast.

RSPB Scotland has described the small child claim as "alarmist nonsense".

The Scottish government said it was not aware of any attacks by sea eagles on children in other countries and did not think a public inquiry was necessary.

In a letter to the Scottish government, the SGA warned that the attack on the Very Reverend Hunter Farquharson in Abernethy, in Perthshire, could be the first of many.

The association has asked for the formulation of an "exit strategy" if the sea eagles turn out to have an adverse effect on social, economic or leisure activities.

'Attacking people'
In the letter, the SGA said: "These creatures are being released into what is a comparatively densely populated area so they will come into contact with humans on a daily basis.

"That will instil habituated behaviour and remove what should be a healthy fear of humans.

"There are reports of buzzards which have obviously undergone this desensitisation and this has resulted in them attacking people. This could pose a serious threat in the future.

"Will these very large creatures differentiate between a small child and more natural quarry?"

The Perth-based SGA represents gamekeepers, stalkers, ghillies, wildlife managers and rangers.

Association committee member Bert Burnett said the group did not have a problem with sea eagles on Scotland's west coast.

He said: "As far as we are concerned these sea eagles seem to be doing fine and not posing a threat."

However, Mr Burnett said more consultation was needed on the release of the birds on the east coast.

He added: "Some might think this is gamekeepers making a fuss for some obscure reason.

"That's not the case. It is a genuine concern and it is a concern felt by other people out there other than gamekeepers."

On the micro blogging website Twitter, RSPB Scotland tweeted: "Alarmist nonsense from the SGA.

"Sea eagle could soon be eating small children. Surely ScotGov won't take this seriously."

Largest bird
A spokesman for RSPB Scotland said the Perthshire incident was unfortunate and regrettable but that the bird had reacted as other wild animals might do when cornered.

He said the SGA claim about eagles, the UK's largest bird of prey, targeting small children as ridiculous.

With a wing span of 8ft, the white-tailed sea eagle is the UK's largest bird of prey.

It was completely wiped out in Britain in the early 20th Century and only returned when a reintroduction programme began on the island of Rum in 1975.

Mull, Wester Ross and Skye also now have established populations.

In August this year, a new batch of 16 young sea eagles were released in Fife.

A Scottish government said the raptors were widespread in many parts of Europe, including densely populated areas.

A spokeswoman said: "We are not aware of any attacks by sea eagles on children in those countries."

She added: "We do not think a public inquiry is necessary.

"The National Species Reintroduction Forum, chaired by Scottish Natural Heritage and which includes the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, considers all matters relating to reintroduced species, including sea eagles."
[/spoiler]

Tories betray the unborn as well as vulnerable women
faintsmile1992
Straight after saying that there will be a free vote for MPs about wether to support Nadine Dorries' latest reasonable and modest attempt to protect children and the interests of vulnerable women, the "Conservative" government have told ministers to vote against her proposal to change the advice given to women seeking an abortion, in order to ensure that they aren't mislead.

Look at the paragraph below to read about how pro-choice cowards manipualate secular opinion by cunningly bringing religion into the debate, just to use the logical fallacy of false dichotomy, as though all opposition to abortion is religiously motivated and as though all religious people's opinions are invalid because they are rationaliised in religious terms, regardless of their pragmatic consequences (this is what philosophers call the 'fallacists fallacy'). This is a perfect example of how kneejerk anti-religious propaganda is often deliberate unreason dressed up as reason in order to mislead gullible people.

"There are no other stipulations about who those independent bodies could be. Pro-choice campaigners say they could be faith-based groups morally opposed to abortion, who will seek to persuade women that going ahead with one would be a sin."

Nietzsche understood that although people have rejected God, they still followed Christian-based secular morality rather than a real alternative. Nietzsche's criticism that Christianity creates guilt so that the churches may profit by offering a solution, surely also applies to the leftists providing abortions and also counselling so that they may cope with the guilt. People who do not criticise such secular hypocrisy and bullshit, actually possess no consistent framework by which to oppose religious bullshit.

[spoiler]
3 September 2011 Last updated at 10:51
Health ministers 'oppose abortion advice changes'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14772563

The government has written to all MPs to tell them health ministers will vote against a proposal to change the advice given to women seeking an abortion.

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has suggested abortion advice in England should not be given by organisations that carry out terminations.

The government says it is committed to making sure counselling is independent.

Some Tory MPs say they are angry at what they see as an attempt to put them under pressure during a Commons debate.

Downing Street earlier made it clear Prime Minister David Cameron opposed Ms Dorries' amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill.

However, a spokesperson said that no pressure was being applied to Conservative MPs to vote in a particular way.

The bill is due to be discussed by MPs in the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday but it is not yet certain that the amendment will even be heard, says BBC political correspondent Ben Geoghegan.

At present, women seeking an abortion need the consent of two doctors, which can be obtained through an NHS clinic or GP surgery, or at a private provider, such as Marie Stopes or the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), affiliated to the NHS.

In both cases, staff have a duty to provide counselling to the women who use them - and under Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' guidelines that advice should be impartial, objective and unbiased.

'Nothing finalised'
Ms Dorries' amendment - which is also supported by Labour backbencher Frank Field - would remove that duty from Marie Stopes and BPAS.

It says the NHS - specifically GPs - should provide "independent information, advice and counselling services for women requesting termination of pregnancy" - and it defines "independent" as an organisation that does not itself provide abortions.

There are no other stipulations about who those independent bodies could be. Pro-choice campaigners say they could be faith-based groups morally opposed to abortion, who will seek to persuade women that going ahead with one would be a sin.

While MPs are traditionally given a "free vote" on abortion, the Department of Health's letter to MPs says all health ministers are against the idea.

The Department of Health says it is looking to consult over the advice available to women seeking terminations and has not finalised any proposals yet.

It says any requirement to offer independent counselling would be in addition to what is already provided by GPs and clinics, not instead of it, and the government does not propose to strip abortion charities of their ability to provide advice.
[/spoiler]

"Conservative" David Cameron won't back abortion advice change', so he backs baby killers instead
faintsmile1992
For anyone who doesn't know, Nadine Dorries has proposed very moderate changes to our UK abortion laws such as the providing of unbiased anti-abortion advice to women seeking terminations and the imposition a 'cooling off period' like the one that has reduced the abortion rate in Belgium by encouraging women to think first about the child that they have already created.

The article, verbatim:

"The PM's office said he was sympathetic to Nadine Dorries' view that women should be offered independent advice.

But he was concerned the planned amendment to the Health Bill would prevent abortion providers like Marie Stopes from giving counselling as well."

There you go, Cameron cares more about the rights of businesses that terminate human life, than they do about unborn children and women who are left with mental health issues after a termination they weren't sure about.

Cameron is a cowardly hypocrite, as if he is pro-life he should make a stand. A woman who has an abortion and sees her child as 'just a bundle of cells', has more integrity than a 'pro-life but pro-choice' politician who refuses to stop what he himself sees as murders.

And of course counselling ought to be unbiased, if counselling is provided by people selling services, they will attempt to sway peoples decisions according to their own financial self interest. It does not take a great genius to work out that businesses like the Marie Stopes clinics cannot be trusted to give impartial advice any more than the tobacco industry can be trusted to protect people from lung cancer, and should indeed by banned from offering phony counselling.

This is a matter of life and death, not just for individual children but for the indigenous English people as well, and the "Conservative" party fail on both moral grounds and on those of collective interest.

[spoiler]
1 September 2011 Last updated at 15:21
David Cameron 'won't back abortion advice change'

David Cameron "cannot support" an attempt by a Conservative MP to change the rules on the advice that can be offered to women seeking abortions.

The PM's office said he was sympathetic to Nadine Dorries' view that women should be offered independent advice.

But he was concerned the planned amendment to the Health Bill would prevent abortion providers like Marie Stopes from giving counselling as well.

Ms Dorries claims such clinics have a financial motive to encourage abortion.

At present, women seeking an abortion need the consent of two doctors, which can be obtained through an NHS clinic or GP surgery, or at a private provider, like Marie Stopes or the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), affiliated with the NHS.

In both cases, staff have a duty to provide counselling to the women who use them - and under Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' guidelines that advice should be impartial, objective and unbiased.

Faith-based groups
Ms Dorries' amendment - which is also supported by Labour backbencher Frank Field - would remove that duty from Marie Stopes and BPAS.

It says the NHS - specifically GPs - should provide "independent information, advice and counselling services for women requesting termination of pregnancy" - and it defines "independent" as an organisation that does not itself provide abortions.

There are no other stipulations about who those independent bodies could be and pro-choice campaigners say they could be faith-based groups morally opposed to abortion, who will seek to persuade women that going ahead with one would be a sin.

The Health and Social Care Bill is due to be discussed by MPs in the Commons next Tuesday and Wednesday, but it is up to the Speaker, John Bercow, to decide whether or not to call Ms Dorries' amendment.

Downing Street said the prime minister may not be there for the debate, but if he was, he would vote against the amendment.

Number 10 also stressed that it was a free vote and no pressure was being applied to Conservative MPs to vote in a particular way.

'Conveyor belt'
Ms Dorries told the BBC she believed the prime minister would change his position before the vote when he saw "polling evidence" in the weekend newspapers.

In an article for the Daily Mail, Ms Dorries - a former nurse who has campaigned to reduce the legal time limit for abortions - has written that she wants women "to be offered genuinely independent counselling, so they can at least consider their options and not necessarily feel, at a time when they may be desperately vulnerable, that a termination is the only option".

"Under present legislation, doctors or pregnancy advisory services have no duty to offer professional, impartial help to women considering an abortion," the MP for Mid-Bedfordshire said.

"Moreover, most counselling is offered by the big abortion providers themselves, like the British Pregnancy Advisory Service or the Marie Stopes clinics, which are paid millions by the NHS to carry out terminations - and so profit from the process."

Ms Dorries has also written on her blog that "thousands" of women seeking abortions "feel they were put on a conveyor belt to the operating theatre the minute they stepped through the clinic door".

But she insisted her stance was not about religious belief, writing: "No organisation which is paid for carrying out abortions and no organisation that thinks it's appropriate to bring God into a counselling session with a vulnerable woman, should be allowed anywhere near the counselling room."

Consultation
The Department of Health says it is looking to consult over the advice available to women seeking terminations and has not finalised any proposals yet.

But it says any requirement to offer independent counselling would be in addition to what is already provided by GPs and clinics, not instead of it, and the government was not proposing stripping abortion charities of their ability to provide advice.

"The Department of Health wants women who are thinking about having an abortion to be able to have access to independent counselling," a spokesman said.

"Work is underway currently to develop proposals around counselling on which the department intends to consult externally."

The government also says all abortion providers are subject to a robust regulatory framework underpinned by good medical practice to ensure that women receive high quality care.
[/spoiler]

John Gray on Karl Marx and Capitalism
faintsmile1992
John Gray might be wrong about some things, but hes still right about a lot of things.

And more people should remember that Marxism and unrestrained free market capitalism are certainly *not* the only options that we have available.

[spoiler]
4 September 2011 Last updated at 00:27
A point of View: The revolution of capitalism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14764357

Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism but he was right about much of capitalism, John Gray writes.

As a side-effect of the financial crisis, more and more people are starting to think Karl Marx was right. The great 19th Century German philosopher, economist and revolutionary believed that capitalism was radically unstable.
It had a built-in tendency to produce ever larger booms and busts, and over the longer term it was bound to destroy itself.

Marx welcomed capitalism's self-destruction. He was confident that a popular revolution would occur and bring a communist system into being that would be more productive and far more humane.

Marx was wrong about communism. Where he was prophetically right was in his grasp of the revolution of capitalism. It's not just capitalism's endemic instability that he understood, though in this regard he was far more perceptive than most economists in his day and ours.

More profoundly, Marx understood how capitalism destroys its own social base - the middle-class way of life. The Marxist terminology of bourgeois and proletarian has an archaic ring.

But when he argued that capitalism would plunge the middle classes into something like the precarious existence of the hard-pressed workers of his time, Marx anticipated a change in the way we live that we're only now struggling to cope with.

He viewed capitalism as the most revolutionary economic system in history, and there can be no doubt that it differs radically from those of previous times.

Hunter-gatherers persisted in their way of life for thousands of years, slave cultures for almost as long and feudal societies for many centuries. In contrast, capitalism transforms everything it touches.

It's not just brands that are constantly changing. Companies and industries are created and destroyed in an incessant stream of innovation, while human relationships are dissolved and reinvented in novel forms.

Capitalism has been described as a process of creative destruction, and no-one can deny that it has been prodigiously productive. Practically anyone who is alive in Britain today has a higher real income than they would have had if capitalism had never existed.

The trouble is that among the things that have been destroyed in the process is the way of life on which capitalism in the past depended.

Negative return

Defenders of capitalism argue that it offers to everyone the benefits that in Marx's time were enjoyed only by the bourgeoisie, the settled middle class that owned capital and had a reasonable level of security and freedom in their lives.

In 19th Century capitalism most people had nothing. They lived by selling their labour and when markets turned down they faced hard times. But as capitalism evolves, its defenders say, an increasing number of people will be able to benefit from it.

Fulfilling careers will no longer be the prerogative of a few. No more will people struggle from month to month to live on an insecure wage. Protected by savings, a house they own and a decent pension, they will be able to plan their lives without fear. With the growth of democracy and the spread of wealth, no-one need be shut out from the bourgeois life. Everybody can be middle class.

In fact, in Britain, the US and many other developed countries over the past 20 or 30 years, the opposite has been happening. Job security doesn't exist, the trades and professions of the past have largely gone and life-long careers are barely memories.

If people have any wealth it's in their houses, but house prices don't always increase. When credit is tight as it is now, they can be stagnant for years. A dwindling minority can count on a pension on which they could comfortably live, and not many have significant savings.

More and more people live from day to day, with little idea of what the future may bring. Middle-class people used to think their lives unfolded in an orderly progression. But it's no longer possible to look at life as a succession of stages in which each is a step up from the last.

In the process of creative destruction the ladder has been kicked away and for increasing numbers of people a middle-class existence is no longer even an aspiration.

As capitalism has advanced it has returned most people to a new version of the precarious existence of Marx's proles. Our incomes are far higher and in some degree we're cushioned against shocks by what remains of the post-war welfare state.

But we have very little effective control over the course of our lives, and the uncertainty in which we must live is being worsened by policies devised to deal with the financial crisis. Zero interest rates alongside rising prices means you're getting a negative return on your money and over time your capital is being eroded.

The situation of many younger people is even worse. In order to acquire the skills you need, you'll have to go into debt. Since at some point you'll have to retrain you should try to save, but if you're indebted from the start that's the last thing you'll be able to do. Whatever their age, the prospect facing most people today is a lifetime of insecurity.

Risk takers

At the same time as it has stripped people of the security of bourgeois life, capitalism has made the type of person that lived the bourgeois life obsolete. In the 1980s there was much talk of Victorian values, and promoters of the free market used to argue that it would bring us back to the wholesome virtues of the past.

For many, women and the poor for example, these Victorian values could be pretty stultifying in their effects. But the larger fact is that the free market works to undermine the virtues that maintain the bourgeois life.
When savings are melting away being thrifty can be the road to ruin. It's the person who borrows heavily and isn't afraid to declare bankruptcy that survives and goes on to prosper.

When the labour market is highly mobile it's not those who stick dutifully to their task that succeed, it's people who are always ready to try something new that looks more promising.

In a society that is being continuously transformed by market forces, traditional values are dysfunctional and anyone who tries to live by them risks ending up on the scrapheap.

Looking to a future in which the market permeates every corner of life, Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto: "Everything that is solid melts into air". For someone living in early Victorian England - the Manifesto was published in 1848 - it was an astonishingly far-seeing observation.

At the time nothing seemed more solid than the society on the margins of which Marx lived. A century and a half later we find ourselves in the world he anticipated, where everyone's life is experimental and provisional, and sudden ruin can happen at any time.

A tiny few have accumulated vast wealth but even that has an evanescent, almost ghostly quality. In Victorian times the seriously rich could afford to relax provided they were conservative in how they invested their money. When the heroes of Dickens' novels finally come into their inheritance, they do nothing forever after.

Today there is no haven of security. The gyrations of the market are such that no-one can know what will have value even a few years ahead.

This state of perpetual unrest is the permanent revolution of capitalism and I think it's going to be with us in any future that's realistically imaginable. We're only part of the way through a financial crisis that will turn many more things upside down.

Currencies and governments are likely to go under, along with parts of the financial system we believed had been made safe. The risks that threatened to freeze the world economy only three years ago haven't been dealt with. They've simply been shifted to states.

Whatever politicians may tell us about the need to curb the deficit, debts on the scale that have been run up can't be repaid. Almost certainly they will be inflated away - a process that is bound to painful and impoverishing for many.

The result can only be further upheaval, on an even bigger scale. But it won't be the end of the world, or even of capitalism. Whatever happens, we're still going to have to learn to live with the mercurial energy that the market has released.

Capitalism has led to a revolution but not the one that Marx expected. The fiery German thinker hated the bourgeois life and looked to communism to destroy it. And just as he predicted, the bourgeois world has been destroyed.

But it wasn't communism that did the deed. It's capitalism that has killed off the bourgeoisie.
[/spoiler]

?

Log in