Ministers fight to keep late abortions secret

[financeguy]

Ministers fight to keep late abortions secret - Telegraph

Ministers fight to keep late abortions secret
Late abortions of "less than perfect" foetuses are the subject of a secrecy row with the Government.

By Beezy Marsh
Last Updated: 10:26PM GMT 06 Dec 2008

It centres on mothers who opt for termination because their unborn babies have been diagnosed with conditions such as club foot and cleft palate.

Doctors say such conditions can usually be corrected by surgery.

The Information Commissioner has ordered the release of the figures, but the Department of Health is resisting, claiming that disclosing the data could lead to women who have late abortions being identified.

While abortion is only legal in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy if carried out on social grounds, "Ground E" of the 1967 Abortion Act makes it legal to abort a foetus which has a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality, right up to birth. There are continuing concerns that the law is being flouted to weed out "less than perfect" babies.

Prof Stuart Campbell, the leading obstetrician whose 3D-scan images of babies "walking in the womb" at 12 weeks led to calls for a lowering of the 24-week limit for social abortion, said last night: "It is a disgraceful situation for this data to be suppressed.

"This is not about whether one agrees with abortion. These statistics used to be published, now they are being withheld.

The Labour Party is, of course, the party of transparency and human rights for all (except for those dratted foetuses.)

I sometimes wonder, do supporters of abortion on demand ever ponder to think where the policy they advocate leads?

We could probably, all of us, be adjudged to have some disability or other, depending on how one defines 'disability'.

For example, my eyesight is not exactly 20-20, perhaps if my mother wanted to raise a airline pilot she could have been allowed to abort me as I did not fulfil the required template?

A parent who wished to raise a child who would excel in sports but was not that bothered about the child's intelligence could abort a child who did not fit those characteristics - another parent who wanted to raise the next Einstein but was not bothered if the child had poor physical co-ordination could do likewise.

Whither the Brave New World of designer babies?

 

[pgv]

The amount of late term abortions carried out is extremely low and this article is dripping with pro-life bias. The abortions have to be okayed by a doctor - is it likely that many doctors are going to allow a late term abortion on the grounds of 'cleft plate' often?

 

[financeguy]

The amount of late term abortions carried out is extremely low and this article is dripping with pro-life bias. The abortions have to be okayed by a doctor - is it likely that many doctors are going to allow a late term abortion on the grounds of 'cleft plate' often?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mengele was a doctor.

 

[pgv]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mengele was a doctor.

As was Harry Hill


But bald comedians and dead SS officers bear little relevance to the 'story' at hand.

 

[financeguy]

As was Harry Hill

But bald comedians and dead SS officers bear little relevance to the 'story' at hand.

To spell it out, would you really want to have your life, your very existence, the decision to terminate you or to allow you to live, in the hands of a doctor (except perhaps if you are terminally ill with no living relations, but that's a whole other debate)? Babies, er sorry, I mean foetuses with minor (and correctable) disabilities such as cleft palate, etc, are not sick, why should a doctor be allowed to decide if they live or die?

I have nothing against doctors, I have several close relations in the medical profession, but my point is that doctors, like anyone else, can be good or bad, corrupt or honest, ethical or the opposite.

I wouldn't trust myself enough to make those decisions, you must have a remarkably optimistic view of human nature. Actually, that's typical of leftwingers.

You simultaneously have an enormously idealistic view of human nature in theory, but, also, hate humanity in practice, the extreme wing of the environmentalist movement being a case in point, the support for late term abortions among the left being another.

 

[Vincent Vega]

To spell it out, would you really want to have your life, your very existence, the decision to terminate you or to allow you to live, in the hands of a doctor (except perhaps if you are terminally ill with no living relations, but that's a whole other debate)? Babies, er sorry, I mean foetuses with minor (and correctable) disabilities such as cleft palate, etc, are not sick, why should a doctor be allowed to decide if they live or die?

I have nothing against doctors, I have several close relations in the medical profession, but my point is that doctors, like anyone else, can be good or bad, corrupt or honest, ethical or the opposite.

I wouldn't trust myself enough to make those decisions, you must have a remarkably optimistic view of human nature. Actually, that's typical of leftwingers.

You simultaneously have an enormously idealistic view of human nature in theory, but, also, hate humanity in practice, the extreme wing of the environmentalist movement being a case in point, the support for late term abortions among the left being another.

As all too often, the debate is rather about how left-wingers are all that and right-wingers are all this way.

The article itself makes one point clear:

"Ground E" of the 1967 Abortion Act makes it legal to abort a foetus which has a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality, right up to birth.

The doctors who carry out such procedures for these reasons stretch the law. Of course that is unacceptable. So either the law has to be more clearly defined or observance has to be enforced.

And Mengele was no left-winger.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If some abortions are wrong, it does not follow that all abortions wrong.

 

[financeguy]

If some abortions are wrong, it does not follow that all abortions wrong.

Is that your considered response? Which abortions are wrong, I've never seen you argue any abortions are wrong before?

IIRC, you're on record here as supporting the 'rights' of parents to have designer babies, I suppose at least you are honest. Left wingers dress their elitism up with a bunch of nice talk about feminism, human rights, equality, etc.

 

[pgv]

If some abortions are wrong, it does not follow that all abortions wrong.

I think the key word here is 'some.' Judging by this article and it's inability to provide solid facts, it's even less than that.
But you know, okay. Let's get rid of abortion! Based solely on this! Forget the term, let's ban ALL abortion!

...

 

[pgv]

IIRC, you're on record here as supporting the 'rights' of parents to have designer babies, I suppose at least you are honest. Left wingers dress their elitism up with a bunch of nice talk about feminism, human rights, equality, etc.

I don't see what feminism, human rights and equality have to do with elitism here? 'Nice' talk? Well, it's ideal talk.

 

[financeguy]

I think the key word here is 'some.' Judging by this article and it's inability to provide solid facts, it's even less than that.
But you know, okay. Let's get rid of abortion! Based solely on this! Forget the term, let's ban ALL abortion!

...

Who, precisely, was advocating a ban on ALL abortions?

I'm considerably more right wing than the Telegraph, but even I wouldn't go that far.

 

[A_Wanderer]

A foetus is a potential human life, one that is dependent on the mother to be sustained, if it can survive outside the womb without terrible consequences it is a different ethical situation than the first few months of a pregnancy.

For instance, I think that abortions at 8 months where the life of the mother is not threatened and the foetus is healthy could be unjustified harm.

As far as arguing for designer babies, all I can say is that screening and selecting embryos could reduce the number of abortions for medical reasons, and that would be a good thing.

 

[financeguy]

I don't see what feminism, human rights and equality have to do with elitism here? 'Nice' talk? Well, it's ideal talk.

They don't have anything to do with elitism, but I perceive that some on the left want to get rid of whatever (limited) legal rights still exist for the foetus while claiming that they support human rights. Where is the equality and human rights for the foetus in all of this?

'Nice' talk? Well, it's ideal talk.

Feminism, human rights and equality of opportunity are all things I support, I just ask the question, why do these rights not extend to foetuses from the point of view of some on the left?

 

[pgv]

Who, precisely, was advocating a ban on ALL abortions?

I'm considerably more right wing than the Telegraph, but even I wouldn't go that far.

Well then we represent two ends of the spectrum, don't we financeguy? Although not quite, as I'd place myself over their with Marx and friends, and you're only as far right as the Mail, it seems.

 

[A_Wanderer]

A foetus is not a conscious human being, it has the potential to reach that point, the mother is conscious and should have sovereignty over her body.

 

[pgv]

The Mother's right is far greater and of more importance than the foetuses.

 

[financeguy]

Although not quite, as I'd place myself over their with Marx and friends.

and you're only as far right as the Mail, it seems.

I have occasionally seen articles in the Mail that smack of racism. I repudiate all forms of racism. As such, as an anti-racist, but one that is highly sceptical of multi-culturalism, I would probably position myself as slightly to the left of the Mail.

 

[financeguy]

The Mother's right is far greater and of more importance than the foetuses.

Why?

 

[pgv]

I have occasionally seen articles in the Mail that smack of racism. I repudiate all forms of racism. As such, as an anti-racist, but one that is highly sceptical of multi-culturalism, I would probably position myself as slightly to the left of the Mail.

You're a Compassionate Conservative then They do exist after all!

 

[pgv]

Why?

For the reason A_W stated above that post.

 

[financeguy]

You're a Compassionate Conservative then They do exist after all!

I do not have a problem with the label per se.

But unfortunately, the Bushies have destroyed the brand name of compassionate conservatism for several generations.

 

[martha]

I wouldn't trust myself enough to make those decisions,

I wouldn't trust you to make those decisions for me either.

 

[martha]

Why?

Becuase she's the living, breathing, human who is fully functioning in the world, who should be able to finally make the decisions she needs to about her body without some complete stranger interfering.

 

[martha]

Feminism, .... are all things I support,

I've yet to see any evidence to support this from you on any point. I'd love to see some. I really would.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Just as an aside, there's not much point being 'for' or 'against' multiculturalism. It's either that or war, given that the age of empires and modern commerce have bequeathed us countries (in what we like to call 'the West') where, often, many races mingle at close quarters. It's not 1700 anymore. I get that there are tensions within countries like the UK, but, anything and anyone that fans them unnecessarily is despicable in my view.

As for abortion, I'm staying out of this one.