MPs to vote on abortion limit cut

i read this and i will admit i was pleased, to see the abortion time limit being considered for review:

MPs are to vote on the emotive issue of cutting the abortion time limit on the second day of debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

On Monday night a cross-party attempt to ban hybrid human animal embryos was defeated on a free vote, by 336 to 176.

MPs will now debate the abortion laws and decide on changes in a free vote.

An amendment to the government's bill has been put forward to reduce the upper time limit on abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks or less.

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo insists there is no evidence requiring the abortion laws to be changed.

She told BBC News: "There is no science that shows us that the survival rates have changed since we took the decision to have the time limit at 24 weeks."

There comes the point when that baby has rights which are of equal parity to the mother's

Nadine Dorries
Conservative MP


How MPs voted on embryos
Q&A: The issues explained

She also said the government wants to protect the right of women to choose.

However, David Jones, a professor of bio-ethics, said research on the survival rates for extremely premature babies was "disputed".

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, who put forward the amendment to change the abortion laws, said she believes the right of a woman to choose has its limits.

She said: "If a baby feels pain as part of a barbaric abortion process - which is what happens post-20 weeks - and if we know that baby could live if it was allowed to be born, then there comes the point when that baby has rights which are of equal parity to the mother's."

Catholic ministers

Previous attempts to force a vote on lowering the abortion limit have been defeated, but as there is a free vote on the issue, an unknown number of MPs may choose to stay away, or abstain.

That increases the chances of those campaigning to lower the limit to 20 or 22 weeks, who claim to have the backing of 200 MPs.

MPs are also set to vote later on the role of fathers in IVF.

Existing legislation requires IVF clinics to consider the "welfare" of any child created.

That currently means considering the need for a father.

However, the new bill says this should no longer be the case.

On Monday night a cross-party attempt to ban hybrid animal embryos was defeated.

Roman Catholic cabinet ministers Ruth Kelly, Des Browne and Paul Murphy voted for a ban, while Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron both opposed it.

And a bid to ban "saviour siblings" was voted down by 342 votes to 163.

Ethically wrong?

The votes followed two impassioned debates in the committee stage of the bill, aimed at updating laws from 1990 in line with scientific advances.

Mr Cameron, along with the prime minister, has backed the use of hybrid embryos as a means to develop treatments for cancer and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

They also both support the creation of "saviour siblings".

However, the majority of the Tory shadow cabinet, including shadow foreign secretary William Hague and shadow home secretary David Davis, backed the unsuccessful attempt to ban hybrids.

Ex-minister Edward Leigh, who led the fight against the creation of hybrid "admixed" embryos, said they were "ethically wrong and almost certainly medically useless".



-----------------

should the time limit be reduced, what do you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7409696.stm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i voted for it to be left to both the mother and father because in a partnership they should both make the decision but unfortuantly its not legally inforcable so in reality it should be down to the women and her doctors.

LA i was watching an episode of SVU the other day and did you know that in the US a father is forced to pay for a child EVEN if the mother used deception to concive against his wishes. Its tandamount to rape in my opinion and yet he is still forced to care for a child he didnt want

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that abortion is wrong and gross to tell you the truth. Late term abortions can be extremely gruesome and by then the baby is alive. I think they should only be performed in emergencies otherwise why not just let it live and put it up for adoption?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

then why did he not use a condom? To many men leave birth control to the women, its almost has if they feal less of a man using a condom,

 

LA can i ask you something. You have a partner right? (i think you do anyway)

Do you make decisions as a couple or as an indervidual when it comes to sex and children?

If you tell your partner your on the pill would he belive you?
If you use condoms does he hide them from you so that you cant tamper with them?

There have been cases of women taking fertility drugs and telling there partner they are on the pill or poking holes in the condoms (which BTW you can do with a pin through the wrapper and i doubt anyone could find pin holes in the dark)

Flip the situation for a second and say your husband told you he had a vesectamie because he KNEW you didnt want kids but he did. What would you concider this to be?

 

that would never happen because friday 13th january 2006 at 11:30 i had an hysterectomy, i was before that sterlized to avoid me having any children, so there has been no dishonesty.

and my husband lieing about having a vasectomie would never happen because we trust each other a lot, sure women lie about being on the pill to trick husbands, i am not one of them

and yes we do make joint decisions has a couple about not only sex, children but everything.

 

can you please post a link to some of these cases. Are they rampant or are they one in millions.

 

It's completely arbitrary to base the legality of abortion on "viability" (or "survival rates") in the first place. Sure, a fetus that is born at 24 weeks, if cared for with the best and most expensive available technology, has a relatively decent chance of survival...so what? The theory, arising in the U.S. in the Supreme Courts cases, is that the State has a greater interest in the life because it has the ability to keep it alive...

If a mother changes her mind one day after week 24 starts does she have the right to have the fetus taken out and put into those machines and under that care? No. So much for the enhances State's right theory...if the State wan't to exercise it's rights, it should be allowed to do so by caring for the child, not by demanding the mother do so, as that's not consistent with the theory giving them the right.

Viability only makes sense because it happens to be nice focal point for people to fixate on and it happens to be midway between the other two most obvious focal points people take: conception and birth (though some, like the pope, think it a sin to even waste sperm, pre-conception, hence the condemning of contraception and "seed spilling"). It becomes an obvious (if contentious) compromise.

As such, the choice between 20 weeks and 24 weeks is also entirely arbitrary. It doesn't matter whether the viability statistics have changed, as it's all just an attempt to hit some hypothetical middle ground where, even though some people will be pissed on both sides, one hopes that the net effect of that will be minimized.

Unfortunately, the decision of the legislative compromise point is not even being made with that compromise in mind. It's probably being made based on MP's personal "gut feelings."

 

Orleander sorry no i cant give statistics because its not something i have to hand (actually i highly doubt it would be something ANYONE would have statistics on)

Still no matter how rare it is (even if we take your one in a million births as an example) i still belive its equivlant to rape or drink spiking. Yet there are no laws against it which i find highly odd.

LA thats wonderful that you trust him (though if you have had a hystorictomie that sort of trust would be quite easy) but you ignored the question. If you hadnt and your partner used decite to get around YOUR wishes what crime (if any) do you belive that would be equivlant to?

Fraud comes to mind as does sexual, so do the new drink spiking laws. It could be concidered common law assult (as he is shooting something into you you didnt concent to

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

So whats your opinion?

 

A man getting a woman pregnant and having to shell out child support is equivalent to RAPE!!!????

Asguard, what kind of man can't control his penis or where his sperm goes? They tell women "keep your legs shut" so a man should 'keep your pants on" Its just easier to make the woman responsible isn't it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the man just started the relationship honestly and said "I don't want children. I will not wear a condom. If you get pregnant, I will walk out on you and the child. I will not pay child support. Good luck finding me" I bet he won't have to worry about it.

Oh, I read that young men who are moderators on forums are heavily into gang banging small animals. I have nothing to prove it, but I know I read it somewhere.

 

What is rape?
definition: unconcentual sexual activity

If i give concent to have sex with you on the previso we use protection and you sabotage that protection then you have violated the terms of that concent.

So yes its rape
Its also FRAUD in that you lied
and possably common law assult as well

 

I actually just saw it on my soap opera

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe he watches the same one lol. He said we better wear protection. She said don't worry about it I have it covered. She went into the bathroom and poked holes through the package and came back with it. She wanted to get pregnant because he was rich and interested in another girl.

 

So ladies, am I over-reacting? Is a guy having to pay child support for a kid he doesn't want the same as rape? Is having to pay for twins equivalent to gang rape?

 

no its not the same at all, he liad down with her, got her pregnant and is pissed that he has to pay child support! oh well deal with it!

 

Ok orleander. I could really care less about your opinion to be quite honest. if it happened to me i would have the bitch charged with sexual assult and common law assult, fraud and anything else i could think of but thats beside the point

A guy punches holes in a condom, feeds you fertility drugs and then ties you up until your past the time where you can have an abortion because he wants a child and you dont. What do YOU call it?

If you delibratly sabotase birth control in order to FORCE your desires on someone else that is the same as rape. In no way am i talking about a situation where the condom breaks or they both decide to "risk it". Nor have i ever stated that i was.

 

Mod Hat - Lighten up

Mod Hat — Lighten up

(Lighten up, gotta lighten up, gotta lighten up right now ...)

Time to take a breather, people.

There is no specific rule against women fueling misogyny, no matter how ridiculous one might think such an outlook. Frankly, I'm not particularly keen to devise a platform for prohibiting our female members from denigrating themselves and their entire sex. In the meantime, while our administration delves into whether or not to revise our position on insults, they are still violative.

Carry on. And play nicely.

(... shine like the sun.)

 

Wow. So the equivalent to poking holes in a condem is all that? How about if he simply pokes holes in a diaphram? Needless to say, even if he did your outlandish soap-opera scheme, it still isn't rape. And you can cry all you want about what you would have the bitch charged with, but its not up to you is it? The law doesn't work that way.

Having to pay child support for an unwanted baby is NOT the same as rape. I find it worrisome that someone supposedly going into a medical profession has no concept of what rape really is.

 

I think abortion is ethically wrong and should only be performed in cases of nonconsensual sex and emergencies. However, I think women (and men) should be able to recognise this point themselves. If you don't want to get pregnant take precautions or don't fuck around. Male or female.

 

Sam and I, gasp, agree in most part.

I do not think, however, that rape is reason enough to pursue abortion. However, I'd be willing to permit it, as rape and medicinal reasons would reduce abortion to approximately 2 percent of what it is now.

 

so am i right in thinking, he thinks poking holes in condoms is the same has rape????

and he calls me a bigot!!!

rape is a violent nasty, evil, thing to do and to compare to sabotageing birth control to rape is also twisted and sick, but not rape, what if the couple were together for years, and the man has always said, "we'll have a baby somtime?" and he always says now isnt the right time? and the woman is seeing her baby clock reduce from day to day, should she not have kids because he's being selfish?