Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The Right to Choose

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 September 2007
FIRST Minister Alex Salmond has called for a national debate on handing powers over abortion law in Scotland from Westminster to Holyrood.
The First Minister - who personally supports a reduction in the abortion time limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks - says his "national conversation" about Scotland's constitutional future should include a review of the laws on terminations.

Control over abortion law north of the Border was controversially retained by Westminster when the Holyrood Parliament was set up. UK ministers argued that the same laws should be applied in England and Scotland.

But now Salmond has openly declared he wants to see renewed discussions about where the power should lie. The First Minister has ruled out the SNP Government pressing ahead with reform, insisting he does not want to create an "arm wrestle" with Westminster over such a controversial issue.

Aides have made it clear they would not start moves for change until there was a cross-party consensus.

But the SNP says that if they and other parties can agree, an independent commission should be set up in Scotland to consider the law, and whether it should be devolved.

A spokesman for Salmond said: "His personal view, which [public health minister] Shona Robison first advanced before the election, is that an expert commission would be the best way to examine the issue.

"A commission would also reflect the consensual approach we are taking to Government, developing the debate about the powers of the Parliament on different issues within the national conversation."

Last night the Liberal Democrats indicated they also supported discussions about devolving the abortion laws to Scotland.

A party spokesman said: "Given all the discussion about more powers that are ongoing, I am sure abortion could be part of that."

The moves come as the bitterly controversial issue of abortion is set to return to the political agenda when the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill is discussed at Westminster.

Pro-abortion groups are calling for the abolition of the law which compels women wanting an abortion to have the approval of two doctors. Anti-abortion groups, meanwhile, want to see the age limit for abortions reduced.

In Scotland, the number of abortions soared to a record 13,081 in 2006, compared with 12,603 in 2005. The latest Scottish Government figures show 62 women had terminations between 20 and 24 weeks into their pregnancies last year, up from 46 in 2001, a rise of 35%.

Salmond has previously explained he backs a lower age limit following advances in medical science which have reduced the age at which a foetus is 'viable'.

He told Scotland on Sunday: "My own position on abortion, which I believe must be an issue of conscience for members of Parliament, is that I would probably vote to tighten the time limit in accordance with recent advances in medical science.

"I believe the issue should be kept well away from party politics, and, indeed, party instruction. Shona's suggestion to have an independent commission is a sensible and constructive possible way forward."

His spokesman added: "Alex was at Westminster the last two times abortion was addressed, and was very disappointed by the chaotic and ill-informed nature of much of the debate, based on a series of amendments, and the conclusion did not necessarily reflect what people were trying to vote for. A more studied view would be a better way forward."

The move last night immediately raised claims that Salmond was acting under 'pressure' from religious leaders. Salmond met Catholic leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien and discussed the issue over the summer.

He is also close to party donor Brian Souter, the tycoon who led the campaign to keep Section 28, the law banning the promotion of homosexuality, and bankrolled the SNP's election victory earlier this year.

Professor Bernard Crick, an honorary fellow of Edinburgh University's politics department, said: "In proposing an independent commission, I suspect that the SNP are playing for time because of pressure from the cardinal."

However, Salmond said he is highlighting what he sees as the constitutional anomaly of Britain's abortion laws, pointing to how, in the 1970s, political leaders had envisaged that abortion would be controlled by a Scottish Parliament.

In an interview with the Scottish Catholic Observer this summer, he said: "Abortion is one of the issues - the only issue I can think of - which was in the legislation of '79, but not '97."

A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives did not rule out keeping abortion in Westminster last night, saying the party wanted to see a general discussion about the future powers of the Scottish Parliament, without separating individual issues such as abortion.

A spokesman for the Scotland Office said: "The Government takes the view that it would be wrong for different policies to apply north and south of the Border and that the balance of the argument favours consistency on this sensitive issue."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 September 2007 9:34 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Abortion
 
1

49th State,

Highlander Heritage Room 22/09/2007 23:25:04

Gee-wiz, what a miserable lot of politicians there (and here) who would legislate the value of life in such a vulgar manner. Shame on them all. Let's all live- including babies.

2

Eric D,

Glasgow 22/09/2007 23:35:24

"..62 women had terminations between 20 and 24 weeks ".
Abortion should be last resort not something that can be done over lunch break. I'm will Salmond on this one.

3

somerferg,

oz 22/09/2007 23:37:37

Well in my opinion this issue should be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament - no surprise there then. My biggest concern is involving the people who will be most affected by any changes to the law at all stages of the discussion and keeping those who would not be affected by changes out of the discussion. This may not be a particularly palatible subject for most people however it is a fact of life and it sure as h@ll beats the alternative which is a return to backstreet abortions.

4

GW,

Aberdeenshire 22/09/2007 23:41:10

There are two separate issues here - what the abortion limit should be and who should decide. Whatever our view of the former, surely everyone who believes in the principle of devolution must support the Scottish Parliament having the say.

5

Jock MacSprog,

22/09/2007 23:44:52

Good ole Alex, never misses a chance to pretend that Scotland is a country.

6

,

22/09/2007 23:46:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 988976, Article id was mapped to record!
7

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

22/09/2007 23:54:04

It is deeply disturbing Alex Salmond should headline grab with this issue rather than doing some real work.

It is nauseating really, it is not his top priority and the UK has good procedures already.

Again, I can only stress how appauled I am that the man would stoop this low rather than get on with some real work. Distasteful in the extreme.

8

Darryl Matheson,

Elgin, Morayshire 23/09/2007 00:11:28

How can any sensible person think it is a good idea to devolve abortion power. Yes, the limit should be reduced but if a woman can simply cross the border to have their unborn child killed, where their happens to be a longer limit, they will do exactly that.

9

Guga II,

Rockall 23/09/2007 00:20:48

This is just one of the many powers that should be transferred to the Scottish government. They all will be, eventually, when we are finally out from under the jackboot of English colonialism.

In any event, it is up to the Scottish people to decide what the rules are for abortion in Scotland, and AM Squared's worries that people might cross the border are irrelevant and can easily be overcome by legislation. His raising the religious card is also despicable. However, he can't seem to help himself bringing his unionist/loyalist background into purely political discussions.

10

scotto voce,

glasgow 23/09/2007 00:33:45

There are at least 2 separate arguments in this piece (leaving aside some of the nonsense posted thus far).
1; should abortion law be devolved and 2; what ought to be the limits on legal termination? The logic of devolution suggests the answer to '1' is yes. Why was it reserved in the first place? I suspect because Donald Dewar, amongst others, knew the insidious influence of organised religion in Scotland and the ways in which a relatively immature legislature could be unduly influenced by the church(s)/businessmen/ busmen/.......... thereby skewing the national debate.
The second question - re viability and term limits - is entirely separate from the first - which legislature makes the decision. Which is why I worry that our First Minister is disingenuously conflating the 2 - being qouted giving his views on 20 or 24 weeks. That's quite irrelevant to the sovereignty of parliaments argument. So why go there, Alex? This piece - if true - will worry many of us SNP voters who hoped for a progressive, secular and ' independent' (in its widest sense) government.

11

Boy Wonder,

23/09/2007 00:35:25

I agree with #14. It is a woman's right to choose. My partner has very firm views on abortion and gets very heated on the subject. I know when to leave well enough alone. I hope the MSPs do too!!!

12

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 00:47:35

Abortion is murder

13

,

23/09/2007 00:51:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 989077, Article id was mapped to record!
14

Guga II,

Rockall 23/09/2007 00:59:05

#17 AM Squared. You are from Northern Ireland. You stood for election, and failed, in Northern Ireland. Yet you say you don't have a unionist/loyalist background.

As for wee Eck talking to a Cardinal, I'm quite sure he will be, or already has, talked to the Moderator of the Church of Scotland too. I think it is quite obvious that he will talk to a lot of people about this, from all religions and walks of life. Or are you trying to say that he has only talked to a Cardinal?

You will also note that he has stated that he doesn't want this to be a party issue. In other words he is thinking of having a free vote in parliament.

Your simplistic anti-SNP attitude, like that of your employers, is a joke, and is seen as a joke by most posters on these fora.

Incidentally what are your views on abortion? Are you willing to state them quite unequivocally? To save you asking, I think that it is a matter purely for the woman involved, and not for any interfering politicians or religious people to be involved in.

15

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 00:59:25
16

Winged Messenger,

23/09/2007 01:02:35

AM2

"Is that really the level of discourse that the SNP’s so-called “national conversation” was intended to promote?"

You mean, this level: "Salmond's obvious use of such an emotive issue to gain political support from a particular religious community is deeply distasteful."

Just what special powers of divination do you possess that you can call this an "obvious use of etc."? Just what special position of moral superiority do you have to condemn the actions of anyone (not just Salmond, but anyone) who raises the issue of abortion in the context of political debate (where it surely must be raised)?

Again, you accuse others of casting stones when it is you who is casting them - when it is you who, from your very first comment, are dragging the whole thing down to a crass and cretinous level.

This thread is inappropriate for that kind of thing, which is why there'll be no further comments from me in response to your infantile attempts to smear the SNP.

One thing: this issue is not exclusive to religion or any religious group. I'm not religious, and my opinions on this issue matter as much as anyone's and are just as strong. This issue falls under the realms of ethics and is only a religious issue inasmuch as religion falls under the realm of ethics.

17

Porty Nat,

23/09/2007 01:05:09

Well, some lawmaking body has to decide what the legal framework should be, even if it's only to leave it exactly as it is. So why shouldn't that body be the Scottish Parliament?

Oh, and AM2. Although I know you never miss a chance to find fault with the SNP, even to the point of self-parody at times, I couldn't care less about your political background. That said, I hope you're not trying to suggest that the First Minister shouldn't be meeting with figures like the Cardinal, or that it's somehow illegitimate for him to discuss such issues?

How about trying to create a little more light and making a little more effort to cut down the heat?

18

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh born and bred 23/09/2007 01:06:07

A Baby is fully developed at about 12weeks, then it is a case of Grow, Grow, Grow, in my books to abort at 24weeks, is 'pure-and-simply' Murder!
I am NOT against abortion, or for it!
Radial rethinking should take place, as we NOW know Soo much about about 'the-Baby-in-the-Womb'
Some places in America, now have Laws, about a Pregnant Woman drinking to much Alcohol and she will be redeemed as being 'unfit' to be a Mother, her RIGHTS will be removed and her Baby in her Womb no matter what gestation, will be given top priority over the Mother.
While I disagree with this 'Nutty' Law, a woman has got Rights to her and her's alone Body, she has to be left alone to decide what action to take on a wanted or unwanted Pregnancy.
Question is! Do we have the Right to take that away?
Do we have the Right to bypass Mummy and give her unborn Baby, 'top-priority'?
This whole Subject is 'NO-PLACE' for the Men!, not even Government!, 'Alex Salmond' hand this over to the Women and let them decide whats 'Wright-and-Wrong' Let them 'Our-Women' make the guide lines on Abortion, as they and 'ONLY' they Knows whats best!

19

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 01:34:21

It should be in the Scottish Parliament's power to decide this. Simple as that.

20

Mercutio,

Falkirk 23/09/2007 01:49:44

All this AM2/ Guga stuff is boring how does someone on Rockall know so much about another poster. Little Dick above is at least to the point.

21

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 01:51:04

It should not be a matter for choice, next thing partial birth abortion ill be common place in UK

22

,

23/09/2007 01:57:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 989177, Article id was mapped to record!
23

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 02:17:05

Guga Scotland will NEVER be independent in this global rule of authorities powers and all the other Global Togetherness cr** that is pervading the world.

ABORTION IS MURDER

24

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 02:22:50

I don't think there's anything wrong with abortion.

25

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 02:27:52

http://www.silentscream.org/

32 did you watch this???

26

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 02:31:48

#32...trolling. Go to sleep.

27

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 02:31:52

yeah, so what?

28

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 02:34:43

you did not watch it .................... LIAR

29

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 02:42:41

I've seen it a hundred times already first time round you jokers tried this emotional blackmail stunt.

30

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 02:47:26

#33 The Fife Flyer
You know the saying 'convince a man against his will, he's of the same opinion still.'? I don't think directing people to a movie featuring a termination taking place is going to change people's attitudes towards abortion if they already hold a strong view-and most adults hold strong views one way or the another. I actually think that filming a termination of pregnancy is quite offensive and disrespectful to the potential child involved-who didn't give consent to either the end of its life or the filming of it and shows what lengths anti-abortion groups are willing to go to in their crusade. I think that in doing so they lose credibility in their claims for the moral high ground.

31

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 02:59:18

#30 Guga.
The Scots are colonists too, ask the Northern Irish.
The Plantation of Ulster was not one of our finer moments either.........There's none of us got completely clean hands so maybe it's time to cut our 'bad English neighbours' some slack in the name of harmonious living and moving forward and stop pretending that we Scots were a totally downtrodden nation. Some of the worst of the treading on the Scots was done by our own kith and kin, if you care to check out our history.

32

The Forgotten Princess,

Blacksburg 23/09/2007 02:59:35

In the article above, and through each comment posted so far, not one word was mentioned about education, birth control, or focus on morals, which could prevent at least some of the unplanned pregnancies. There are some cases these suggestions would not apply to. But wouldn't it be better if at least some of the unplanned pregnancies did not happen to begin with?

33

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 03:07:03

Suzi B thank you for your post, all I want to do is to show what is involved, abortion = a word, easily said,

Its a bot like saying after and IED in Iraq two were killed and three wounded, killed is the end, however until you have seen a wounded soldier, legs missing, gut cut out in huge sections, deaf, eyesight damaged, burns, plus the mental wounding then you cannot relate the word wounded to reality.

If one woman sees that movie, and makes the choice to give birth then it is worth it.

34

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 03:09:01

37 you've watched it hundreds of times, ............. you need help then, Bl***y infantile troll,

if you have seen it what is the last thing you see???

35

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 03:21:56

I haven't got the necessary plug in, but I assume it's the film showing the unborn child a still of which is shown at the top of this page?
And allowing for some exaggeration, yes I have seen this many, many times.

36

49th State,

Lochbouie World WIde Clan 23/09/2007 03:26:03

#42
I agree with Fifer. First, abortion is the ending of an innocent life and secondly, Politicians making prophet off of abortion is sickening.

37

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 03:26:40

hmm that was weird. my post just disapeared.

Suffice to say, I've seen the one of the baby in the womb in high definition.

38

49th State,

Lochbouie World Wide Clan 23/09/2007 03:29:47

How can a true blue Scot be any better than an Islamist murderer if he supports abortion - its done done in the same spirit. The Spirit of this Age.

39

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 03:35:24

Think you'll find killing each other is what we humans have always done. Nothing particularly 'islamic' about that.

40

49th State,

Lochbouie World Wide Clan 23/09/2007 03:36:48

# 47

Killing is morally acceptable to the Islamist as abortion is to the western Liberal.

41

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 03:40:04

Everyone agrees that killing other humans is morally acceptable, 49.

42

,

23/09/2007 03:44:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 989274, Article id was mapped to record!
43

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 03:48:21

Just you go off on a rant about islam if you like. Don't know what it's got to do with this subject though. clearly you're obsessed by it.

44

Scottish Unionist,

23/09/2007 03:48:26

Another law to get from "London".

Same old nationalist agenda. The honeymoon is over.

45

Guga II,

Rockall 23/09/2007 03:49:15

#46 I presume you (and all the other anti-abortionists on this forum) are a vegetarian, otherwise you must condone the killing of animals.

Human beings, despite their arrogance, are just animals. Moreover, nobody has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

If you are a believer in some particular mythology or another, that still does not give you the right to try and force other people to follow your particular beliefs.

Also, comparing someone who believes in the right for individual women to choose whether they have an abortion with suicide bombers is utter garbage, as is your idiotic attitude that all followers of Islam are murderers. The Christian religion is no stranger to mass murders.

46

Boston John,

Best we can hope for is purgatory 23/09/2007 03:52:25

You are right #1, nothing is sacred. Abortion kills babies. No amount of denial or political maneuvering changes the fact behind the act. It is too late to plead ignorance of the facts. We know exactly what we are doing. Our country’s laws allow us to do it. People addicted to sex outside of marriage want the right to do whatever they want for their own sexual pleasure and then destroy any life that may arise as an unexpected and unwelcome consequence. So, we kill babies because their conception takes the focus off SELF, and self is all we are interested in. The advance of modern science is so fast that on a daily basis, so much evidence is now available via uterine technology and video that no-one can logically claim any longer that a foetus is not a baby. The internet age allows indisputable evidence that babies in the womb are fully human from the moment of conception. Neither politicians nor pro-abortionists will debate the science of life in the womb any longer, that debate was won by the Pro-life movement, but rather debate when we can exercise the “right” to kill our own children. What the "weeks" debate really amounts to is at what point we can kill babies "before" rapid progresses in science shows us more evidence of babies in the womb who are sentient and capable of emotive responses. If science says babies start thinking and feeling at 28 weeks, as it did a decade ago, then we can kill babies up to 28 weeks. If the science says 20 weeks in their mothers’ womb, as it does today, we can kill them right up to 20 weeks. That is to say, we can and will continue to kill beings that are less sentient or emotive than we are for as long as we can. It the selective genocide that Hitler and the Nazis preached and practiced only on a scale he could only have hoped for. This leaves us with the bare reality that selfish people put themselves first when choosing abortion over life and ignore the scientific evidence that a baby is being murdered. W

47

49th State,

Lochbouie World Wide Clan 23/09/2007 03:52:58

# 53
Guga II, actually I eat meat, much of which I hunt and kill myself. I like in "no-where" Alaska, it's still a way of life here. I think that humans do not live by instinct alone, though, are are therefore, seperate from the animals. We can act nobly and morally - like when we were more civilized

48

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 03:53:32

53,

Guga,

Do you agree it is right or wrong that a viable being is killed to please a womans wish to not be inconvenienced?

49

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 03:56:57

54 great post ..................

50

49th State,

Lochbouie World Wide Clan 23/09/2007 03:57:18

# 56 Fifer
Are you Irish?

51

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 03:58:49

G'day my fellow scotchmen

If we had no abortion, how to we operate our latter day eugenics programme.

Abortions for the poor and young mothers from the estate.

IVF treatment for the single middle class 40 something mum.

Tell me that isn't eugenics? No babies for the healthy nubile poor = good, More babies for the knackered used tubes of the rich. Unnatural.

I think it's disgusting, obvious in the case of rape things are different.

52

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 04:01:27

I'm amazed at the complimentary photo showing a cute, smiling baby that heads this item. I would say placed deliberately to provoke & upset people.
Also, if you read the figures, it's a small number of women who have such late terminations. We don't know their circumstances.

53

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 04:01:39

'Tell me that isn't eugenics? '

So what if it is? What do you fear from words?

54

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 04:08:30

yane see post 21 ............so you think since it is such a small number its ok then and what circumstances do you think deserve abortion? Downs babies? Cleft lip babies?

55

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 04:14:16

So how would you like to have been born with downs syndrome FF?

56

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 23/09/2007 04:16:02

Is it not time for the Scottish Office to dust off their desks, and allow EVOLUTION to guide Scotland, to her inevitable future.

57

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 04:18:06

#62 No, I'm not saying "it's okay then". I am saying that it is a small number c/f the time of most terminations (well here in Aust. &, according to the article, in Sc. as well). I am only guessing but I reckon the women who had them wouldn't have been feeling "it's okay then" either.

58

Conan,

Craighouse 23/09/2007 04:21:31

As a general proposition, can we not agree that it would be better to not kill babies in Scotland?

59

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 04:25:43

#66 Conan - I can't believe you are not aware how provocative that question is.

60

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 04:29:42

66 yes!!!!!!!!!!

61

Conan,

Craighouse 23/09/2007 04:39:30

Well, Yane in Oz, sometimes what's needed is a wee bit of provocation to bring people's minds back to reality and start doing the right thing.

I, as a grizzled old crabby adult who's been clinicly dead twice, lost three toes and was born with only a little more than average brainpower, can personally stand some provocation, but I'm not so sure a baby being provoked by a pair of forceps has the same tollerance.

62

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 04:47:08
63

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 04:47:49

#69 That's okay then. So, I don't have tae take you seriously.
I'm not falling for yer brainpower claim - I'm sure you've got a few trumps.

64

steve077,

23/09/2007 04:48:11

The time limit and all other matters about abortion should be decided by women. Until Men give birth they have no right to decide upon these matters.

Only the woam who wants the abortion has the right to decide weather she wants it. This includes the father who has no right until men give birth over the unborn child.

It is women who undergo the process and only they have the right to decide upon it

65

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA 23/09/2007 04:51:11

54. Boston John,

Sir,
For all those against abortion, let them adopt the babies.

Here in the States it costs $220,000 (£110,000) to raise a child from birth to age 18.

Anyone know why Dragonhead is missing from this thread.
Could it be that in his country CHINA the CCP force women to abort no matter how far along they are.

GC

66

Conan,

Craighouse 23/09/2007 04:54:46

#72 - absolutely right - the woman should be able to kill the baby any time she wants, for any or no reason, and that's that.

Oh, how about the baby's 'right to choose' (life)?

67

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 04:58:58

China's a good case in point. Were it not for the 'one child' policy and the consequent widespread use of abortion, the country would have massive problems due to over population.

68

49th State,

eight ball, just in front of corner pocket 23/09/2007 05:07:45

#74
In most cases a woman made a "choice" to not have protected sex, or to have sex at all. The preganancy is more of a consequence, not a choice. Furthermore, Most of the abortions here in the USA are performed on women that are repeat customers, that is to say, a few have the many abortions.

# 73 As for the cost of raising kids, so what. It give ya something to live for when the wild oats are all gone.

69

49th State,

eight ball, just in front of corner pocket 23/09/2007 05:11:38

The problem China is causing for itself is that there is a growing imbalance of the sexes there. The one baby policy is going to harm that land some day.

Many Chinese babies are being adopted here in the USA, I know one little Chinese lass that has six fingers on her right hand. Makes you wander what's in the water over there, too.

70

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 05:13:35

You're right, there is an imbalance, and that is going to create problems.
But they'd have even bigger problems had they not taken steps to reduce their population size.

71

49th State,

eight ball, just in front of corner pocket 23/09/2007 05:17:26

The Chinese will probable just murder all the peasnats again when thier population raises to high and they run out of rice.

72

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 05:20:48

number 73, and is $220,000 not a small price to see a daughter graduate, a son make his first touchdown a daughter take her first steps, a son smile at his mum, a daughter take her dads hand ..................

73

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 05:23:09

#79-Such a racist post, but not surprising from you. That's an attitude I've found to be quite common amongst anti-abortionists for some reason; they seem to value fetuses more than they do living human beings.

74

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 05:24:01

#80 It is not either/or - women do all that & want to do all that & they sometimes have abortions.

75

whatsyourname,

23/09/2007 05:29:04

#27 Simple as that ? women have a right over there own body no one else not even the govermnt and that is for you to#70 who are when you start walkin in other folks shoes some one might pay heed

76

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 05:32:11

Yane ......... what in your opinion is an acceptable reason for an abortion?

indeed as a woman what in your opinion is an unacceptable reason for an abortion?

77

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 05:34:14

83 your post makes little sense just in from a night out, .......??

78

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 05:44:18

#84 Well, first, I just can't feel okay about telling someone else what to do about such a big thing.
I don't know what kind of strengths & weaknesses another person has & so I just couldn't tell them - "you must go through with this" (a pregnancy). But I also feel very sorry for women who are forced to have terminations by the State.

79

whatsyourname,

23/09/2007 05:57:55

# 85 try walking in some one elses shoes that of a women whom may want an abortion,what if you wanted a vasectomy and it was up to the goverment or your next door neigbour what you do with your body is your own buisness right.

80

Conan,

Craighouse 23/09/2007 05:59:44

But, Yane, its not about 'feelings'; yours, mine, the mother's. Its about the life of the baby, surely?

You say 'you can't feel okay telling someone else what to do about such a big thing'.

OK, that's fine.

But, as a society, we do tell all manner of people all manner of things and what to do or not do about them all the time. Why should the killing of babies be any different?

Can we tell the mother not to kill, or have the baby killed, by abortion? You say - no?

OK, then can we tell the mother not to kill, or have the baby killed, by her abuse of drugs or alcohol during pregnancy? You say - ?

How about can we then tell the mother to not kill, or have the baby killed, by engaging in - for example - professional boxing, wrestling, sky-diving, deep sea diving, car or motor bike racing, mountain climbing, stunt aircraft flying, or whatever else that is high risk, during pregnancy? You say - ?

What do you say, Yane?

And, aren't you happy to be able to say anything - because you too might have been a victim of a mother who wanted and had done an abortion - and that was okay - because at the time society just didn't feel okay about telling someone else what to do about such a big thing?

81

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 06:11:59

87, lets see now a vasectomy a wee cut and tie and I walk out of the hospital next day

on the other hand an abortion, a wee snip and hose out and of the two living things involved only one walks out .

I see a difference ..................

82

whatsyourname,

23/09/2007 06:14:26

#88 your just ranting and raving about something you know nothing about #85 is right

83

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 06:18:27

#88 Yes, I know words like " feel okay" & "feelings" & "such a big thing" might seem weak but I don't think the ideas I'm trying to express are so weak.
I know that there is what goes on in your own life & the lives of those nearest & dearest to you & then there's Government Policy - or as you put it "as a society".
I say that you should not tell women that they must have a child if they think/feel, or physically, cannot.
You can advise them of stuff but it's ultimately up to them.

84

frhugh,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 06:22:05

As usual, a lot of highly emotive posts on such an emotional topic.
But can we get two things stright-;

1 - This is not just a religious issue.
2 - Think about the term 'unborn child'!

There are many many other phrases used, but 'unborn child' is at least accurate.
The unborn child is not an 'unliving child', or 'a potential human being'
The simple scientific fact is that the unborn child is a living human being with potential.

85

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 06:27:01

'The unborn child is not an 'unliving child', or 'a potential human being'
The simple scientific fact is that the unborn child is a living human being with potential.'

So it's not a 'potential human being' its a ' human being with potential'.

phew!-Glad we got that sorted out!

86

Mikey,

23/09/2007 06:28:00

Abortion is a dodgy issue and at times, I've been on both sides of the fence. I've come to the conclusion that this is nobody's business but the woman involved, but if we must legislate, we must be able to say, 'would this foetus survive outside the womb if it was born right now?' There is no other issue. No religious, no moral, no nothing! 'an this foetus survive outside the womb?'

If it can, then it cannot be aborted.

As to Alex taking this on, why should we have a system of Scottish law that only applies to some things and not others? Are we not mature enough to think for ourselves? I'm sure the churches would be out promising fire and brimstone, but are we not mature enough not to fall for the mythologies?

This is what happens in a real government, folks. You have to decide on the bad bits as well as the good!

87

Sonare,

Scotland 23/09/2007 06:31:58

From the Silent Scream Website,

.....I just wanted to write a quick note to say thank you. I was supposed to have an abortion today and I was up all last night researching abortions on the internet. I came upon your site and couldn't stop thinking about it. It had a profound effect on me.

I still went to the clinic and went through the blood testing and watched their video....then came the ultrasound; I begged the nurse to let me see my baby; I felt that I had to see. As soon as I saw my child on the ultrasound I knew I couldn't do it.

The clinic can absolutely NOT convince me that that living child inside me wasn't going to feel anything. I saw the heart beating, and he moved his little hands (almost like a wave). I think god intervened and sent me a message that I was about to make the biggest mistake of my life.

My nurse was very compassionate (which I thought was odd) I asked her for a picture of my baby and she explained that she wasn't allowed to do that. She also explained that she wasn't supposed to show me the ultrasound screen either. Well, she broke the rules and gave me a picture anyway.

Thanks to the nurse at the clinic and to your video I made the right decision. I'll be having the baby in 7 months and am looking forward to meeting my little miracle in person.

Thank you a million times over,
Erica

88

49th State,

Toe caught in the vaccuum hose 23/09/2007 06:33:36

Well, there you have it folks. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, will we ever be able to stop the black-hearted pro-abortionists, who see life as mere amino acids from killing the innocent?

Here is a toast to those of us who fight for the defenseless, whose spirits are unique in all the universe. To Life!

89

Conan,

Craighouse 23/09/2007 06:37:35

Interesting debate. I am willing to accept that i have this wrong, but ....

The folks who advocate the end and banning of the death penalty seem to be the very one's with the greatest enthusiasm for abortion. Why is that?

Likewise, those who advocate the death penalty be retained and used are typically not in favour of abortion.

The arguement used against the death penalty by its deractors is that it is too final and does not allow for the possibility that the condemned bay be yet shown to be innocent, or at least less guilty - and therefore it is best to err on the side of safety and life and not kill the condemned.

Yes, even I - Conan - could agree with this, even I.

But, can you 'pro-abortion' folks not see the same logic in your flawed arguement? Can you not accept that it would be far better - indeed, it may well be the morally and ethically right thing to do - to afford the baby the same level of consideration and thereby not kill the baby?

Or, are you too deeply embedded in your point-of-view that there is no way back?

90

Mikey,

23/09/2007 06:38:35

I see the septic fundies and their Scottish acolytes are at it again!

To them I say, if you were able to travel back in time and, with knowing what you know, were present at the birth of Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot or OBL or GWB, would you not advocate abortion? Or is the saving of lives only for foetii?

91

49th State,

Toe caught in the vaccuum hose 23/09/2007 06:45:43

# 98
Mikey that arguement is way too weak, it's all hypothetical. Kick it up a notch, this logic of yours just wont work here today. Life is about potential, nurture and nature. Those evil men had really bad childhoods.

92

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 06:48:25

#97 Conan - I have never in my life met a "pro-abortionist". There was an incredible (Scottish) man who lived & worked here in Aust. called Dr. Bertram Weiner who fought the Vic. cops to make abortion safe & legal. It used to be "underground" & made a lot of money for corrupt officials. He wrote a book called "It isn't nice."

93

frhugh,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 06:49:26

Glad you took the time to think #93

94

Conan,

Craighouse 23/09/2007 06:52:04

With all due respect Yane, I am surprised, but you are seemingly avoiding each and every question posed and instead telling me about some nonsense.

I do think this debate deserves better, don't you?

95

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 06:55:27

Which question have I avoided?

96

49th State,

Toe caught in the vaccuum hose 23/09/2007 06:57:00

Thanks to all for your comments on this issue. I am going to bed now - with a clear mind - and I hope all you can rest easily, too.

I am very thankful for my three kids and that I have enough guts to raise them come hell or high water.

'Night, all.

97

howyoudoingboy;,

23/09/2007 07:04:08

#13 Guga II, Rockall


Many thanks Gugga II you are a true 'Brit' there's a medal in the post.

Scramble for the seabed: or how Rockall could be the key to a British oil bonanza

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/22/oilandp...

98

whatsyourname,

23/09/2007 07:07:24

#95 what an intresting story I never thought they would do an ultersound of a fetus that is 2months old when you had made up your mind for abortion and here the fetus had hands you could see at 2 months its not even the size of your thum I think your fetus is older than 2 months old and they gave you a picture ?

99

Conan,

Craighouse 23/09/2007 07:07:56

#103;

Interesting debate. I am willing to accept that i have this wrong, but ....

The folks who advocate the end and banning of the death penalty seem to be the very one's with the greatest enthusiasm for abortion. Why is that?

Likewise, those who advocate the death penalty be retained and used are typically not in favour of abortion.

The arguement used against the death penalty by its deractors is that it is too final and does not allow for the possibility that the condemned bay be yet shown to be innocent, or at least less guilty - and therefore it is best to err on the side of safety and life and not kill the condemned.

Yes, even I - Conan - could agree with this, even I.

But, can you 'pro-abortion' folks not see the same logic in your flawed arguement? Can you not accept that it would be far better - indeed, it may well be the morally and ethically right thing to do - to afford the baby the same level of consideration and thereby not kill the baby?

Or, are you too deeply embedded in your point-of-view that there is no way back?

Notice the question marks .... those squiggly things with a dot at the bottom?????

100

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 07:08:49

I don't see what the problem is. I don't see the point of bringing human beings into the world that aren't wanted.Someone alluded to the amount of money children cost. Of even greater significance is the amount of energy and time they take up. Unless someone if fully committed to that , I don't see the point. I don't think it's fair on the child either.And why should a woman have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, the agony of child birth, and the emotional trauma of giving a child away rather than a simple operation to remove the fetus early on?

101

Mikey,

23/09/2007 07:13:10

#98,

I disagree that the arguement is too weak. It's an arguement that can be applied easily. It's like you're anti abortion, how come you're pro death penalty?

The majority of people who are anti abortion just haven't thought through what their beliefs actually mean! It's like all these clinics that were bombed in the US. How can you claim that there is a 'right to life' and then end the lives of others? Muddled thinking!

102

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 07:18:57

#110 the thing about a lot of these 'right to lifers' is that they feel that way not because they particularly care about human life, but because it's a kind of totemic ideology for them.

103

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 07:26:26

It's doubtful what rights the father should have.
A father should not be able to coerce a mother to give birth to a child that she does not want.

104

An Australian,

23/09/2007 07:29:24

Another platform for Scotland's right-wing culture... Abortion law should be completely relaxed--it should be entirely up to the woman to decide what happens to her body, not politicians or priests. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But not agreeing with abortion does not give you the right to impact on other people's lives through legislation. Scotland COULD lead the way on this and make a more liberal decision... but then it could do so in a lot of significant ways.

105

Yane,

Melbourne 23/09/2007 07:30:06

#108 Ha! ha! Och yer quite the comic!
Right, I answered the first question "the greatest enthusiasm for abortion" by saying - I don't know anyone who has this enthusiasm - who is "pro-abortion."
Are you wanting to do a shift on this topic to one on the death penalty? Yes. Well, maybe the people who want to abolish the death penalty & also want access to safe abortion are concerned with the life of the people who are already here.
The second part of your question - flawed logic, showing the baby the same level of consideration, I've been trying to say that no, we should think of the woman's life. You say that what I was telling to was irrelevant nonsense but the history of the matter I do think is important. I wrote the title of Dr. Weiner's book because he didn't think it was a "nice" option. Honestly, Conan, women will move hell & high water sometimes to avoid going through with a pregnancy.

106

mona,

23/09/2007 07:32:52

Salmond should stop playing politics on such a sensative subject,is there no depths he will sink too!

107

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 23/09/2007 07:38:20

#97 Conan

You put some of the issues clearly. But are you not missing another? For some, it's not an issue of whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether the community at large has rights over what happens to the foetus a pregnant woman is carrying. From this persepctive, the capital punishment issue isn't relevant.

Another paradox might be that those who advocate individual freedom in other areas (e.g. the right to carry a gun in the States), are often against the freedom of a woman to decide whether to give birth or not.

I'm no supporter of abortion, but I certainly don't want to tell a pregnant woman what she should do or not do. The argument that women should have control of their bodies is a strong one.

108

whatsyourname,

23/09/2007 07:43:51

#112 That statement is very easy for a MAN to make - if you were in a position that you had to squeeze a watermelon out of your penis and have no money to support the child and no child support because the men dont always take care of their children and you wouldn't be able to further your education or afford schooling being that every last dime you did get would be spent on diapers and formula having no sleep for days and can't barely walk cause your penis is split right in half and the partner that got you pregnant is out doing it to someone else rather than helping out-but had been quite promising of a future during conception of course... all of this and there may be an option of waiting til you are in a better position to do all this-would you want to have that option available-or have to suffer alone with a baby and no support at all? which of these pictures sounds FAIR?

109

eric,

Lothian 23/09/2007 07:48:11

The inividual should chose,As long as we dont let Religion istick its nose in,Otherwise we will have even more single mothers on benefits in Edinburgh.

110

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 07:51:11

the 'babys' human rights to life are minimal.

111

howyoudoingboy;,

23/09/2007 07:55:40

#120 eric,
..
You are ill...Please seek treatment advocating abortion to save paying out on benefits..is sick...It also takes two to create a baby...a child..a human being........

112

whatsyourname,

23/09/2007 07:57:16

#112 What about the situations of women getting pregnant from being raped or drugged or failure of a contraceptive...or getting molested by a family member and getting pregnant or the preist getting a nun pregnant-you call not going througha pregnancy of this sort murder? ultimatley it is the woman who is responsible for the child as the man can always walk out the door quite easily and forget it even happened with no regrets but it is the woman left with the mess to clean up after them - she should have the choice of what situation a child is born into...it should be out of love and a comfortable family environment rather than an 'anything goes' attitude-ultimatley it is the child that suffers born into an unplanned unloved and unwanted atmosphere...why should the woman and the child be suffering because of some guy that is just looking to get laid?

113

pressure,

scotland 23/09/2007 08:02:52

Further proof that scotland is here to serve Salmond. not the other way round. He will use anything to get himself more powers. No matter the consequences.

114

mona,

23/09/2007 08:10:29

124. My thoughts exactly.

115

Helen,

23/09/2007 08:28:16

The Fly Fifer #18.....if abortion is murder then surely lots of other things can be defined as murder. I'm a pacifist and a vegetarian and my definition of murder is fairly broad. Having said that, I'm fully aware that abortion is an emotive issue and people hold strong views on it. I don't like abortion and I doubt very much whether many people do, but I acknowledge that it happens and that no-one makes the decision to have an abortion lightly. I've never found myself in the position of having to make such a decision so I'm not about to pass judgement on anyone else who has. As a Christian I believe that life is sacred and a gift from God, but there are lots of unacceptable ways of killing people which don't get the same publicity as abortion. When I was at school in the 1980s I was banned from wearing a CND badge on the lapel of my school blazer because 'it's political', yet was told that I could not opt out of a 'careers' talk from the armed forces. Killing is killing whatever way you look at it.....

116

,

23/09/2007 08:34:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
117

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 08:48:54

The only person who has the right to make this decision is the woman involved. If she doesn't want to have an abortion then she doesn't have to have one. Make no mistake, if a woman finds herself pregnant with an unwanted child she WILL terminate it - it's just a case of where. At the moment it's in hospital, under medical care. Removing her rights will simply push things back to pre 1967. And we certainly shouldn't be taking advice from some cardinal who hasn't a clue. Keep this matter entirely secular.

In addition, for those women who DO end up having the baby to a father who clears off - I'd make sure he was tracked down and forced to pay to bring the wee soul up - even if it meant taking the money off his pay at source.

118

Garry Otton,

RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM 23/09/2007 08:55:26

The Dutch have a teenage pregnancy rate 7 times lower than Scotlands and kids start having sex later. THEY TEACH SEX IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS. Its a headline that your Eddie Barnes, the entrenched superstitionist of the Catholic persuasion would have contributed gleefully to while he penned fiction for the Scottish Daily Mail before joining Tom Brown, Gerald Warner, Hamish MacDonnell and other hopelessly sexually-repressed religionists contributing to your one-sided broadsheet. It's also a headline Catholic militants, Souter's fundamentalists and religious cronies like Alex Salmond would baulk at. I'm anti abortion too. And not adverse to Scottish independence. But on religionists' terms? Forget it. NO WAY!

119

albanman,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 08:56:02

As far as I can tell, there isn't anyone in the medical profession who would deny that the embryo/feotus is alive. The fact that the feotus has its own heart, brain, organs and blood would indicate that although it is dependent on the mother, it is not only alive but is a separate life. The question is whether or not it is a human life.

It is argued that the foetus is not truly human because it is: (a) incapable of living independently of the mother (b) incapable of such things as reason (c) not fully formed. Theses are ridiculous arguments. Even after birth the human child is dependent for several years...and interestingly enough, many often return to that dependent state late in life. Is the 3 year old child or the 85 year old nursing home resident less human? If mental ability is how we judge human-ness, then what do we do with the millions who are severely mentally disabled, or even the less-academically gifted chidren in schools; are they sub-human?

And, what about the issue of potentiality? The teacher, the coach, the parent all (should)encourage children to reach full potenial. We accept that development is not compartmentalised, but a continuum. I believe that a foetus is a human being in the process of development - just an earlier stage of where I am now at my age of 54. I have grown/developed all my life and will continue to do so until I shuffle off this mortal coil. Therefore, I would hope that even those in favour of abortion would say that a foetus has the potential to be human. Surely, to cut short this potential human life is a mistake.

Let me be clear - not for one moment will I say that women have abortions lightly. Yet, part of growing up is facing the consequences of what we have done (something which society seems to urge us to avoid). This includes accepting that, if we engage in unprotected sex, pregnancy may occur. It's not easy; being responsible is never easy, but it is one of the marks of being mature. Woman who are

120

inoui,

Bordeaux 23/09/2007 08:59:38

Sex education was taught when I was in school in Scotland. Already a political issue in England(UK) so let the Scottish people decide for themselves, quite right Alex

121

albanman,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 09:01:48

No.128 It is not religion that is the problem. The problem is the narrow-mindedness of fundamentalism, which can be found in all types of people: religious, secular, scientific, academic atheistic et al.

122

Richard M,

Bexhill, England 23/09/2007 09:08:03

Can it make any sense that there are different limits in Scotland and England, in all probability lower in Scotland, forcing Scottish women to travel hundreds of miles?

123

Teary Ennui,

23/09/2007 09:08:53

There is of course a debate to be had about time limits but it should be borne in mind that the objective of groups such as the Roman Catholic church is to do away with all abortion.

If they achieved this then their next target would surely be methods of contraception which operate post-fertilisation such as the "coil" (IUD) and "morning-after" pill.

But then they don't really like contraception at all....

124

de bono,

23/09/2007 09:17:51

Clearly, abortion rates are at scandalous levels in the UK.

Any effort to address this in Scotland is positive. So well done again Alex.

Of particular concern is that currently around 90% of babies with handicaps like Down’s syndrome are aborted. Such a high abortion rate on so-called “inferior” babies highlights the prejudice against disabled people still rife in our society.

There are cases of doctor’s supporting the termination of un born babies with hare-lips and club foot.

There needs to be more rights for un-born children.

125

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 09:17:56

#129 Albanman
It seems to me that the only person being forced to take responsibility for their actions here is the woman. Unless I missed something at school, it takes two people to make a baby. Never mind all of that emotional stuff you said about men understanding (your 3rd last paragraph) - the ones who have cleared off take NO responsibility for their part in the creation of the baby and generally don't give a monkey's. FORCE them to pay for the upbringing of the wee thing. Take the money off their pay at source.

And another thing, Albanman - if you don't agree with abortion that's fine - DON'T EVER HAVE ONE!

126

neko,

Warsaw 23/09/2007 09:22:34

I salute Cardinal O'Brien for this move, but I would have to question why the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and all the other christian leaders do not stand side-by-side with the Cardinal and publicly stand up for something. I know that the other leaders do outstanding work, and much respect is due for this good work, but it is about time we stood as one on some issues and lobby together, behind closed doors and publicly.

Furthermore, as far as I see it, it is the duty of all christians to reject the political parties that are for the status quo, notably Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

127

de bono,

23/09/2007 09:25:52

Aborting any baby because it has a disability is abhorrent.

But aborting a baby for an impairment that can easily be corrected is an alarming reflection of society’s attitudes to physical impairment.

It is essential that legislation that protects the rights of disabled people extends to the disabled baby in the womb.

128

Jay Kay,

Burntisland 23/09/2007 09:29:22

Having an abortion is one of the most daunting times in a woman's life. Not only can it affect her body physically but emotionally it can be devastating. There are many reasons why women and couples come to us in order to ask about an abortion and in many cases they have very valid reasons of which some would turn your stomach. It has always been a very delicate subject and i find it interesting that the majority of posts here are from men who have taken a political view on this. Doctors should not be biased and they must make decisions that they know are best for the couples or woman involved. It is not done to suit a political agenda. However despite this legally all medical requirements are govered by law and without them no treatment would be provided. even organ donation has to be govered by our parliament as we are under very strict rules about organ retention etc.The reason why rules are changed or updated by medical and political staff is that our knowledge of the human body is ever increasing and we have to adapt with these changes. "I would probably vote to tighten the time limit in accordance with recent advances in medical science."
So although you think Mr Salmond should be occupying his time with other "more important" issues mr Salmond is legally obliged to aide in our medical institutions and abortion is no different. there are many opinions regarding abortion but the most important thing to realise is that very few of you understand the reasons why women may have to take this action and therefore you cannot judge every case the same. Although this article makes it sounds as though Mr Salmond has been made to address this issue due to religious leaders, i would imagine that there is alot more to this than the article suggests and i would imagine Mr Salmond is in talks with professors and doctors who address these issues in order to provide a more accurate idea of the situation and additionally to provide legal prot

129

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 09:32:14

Guga II (13): "They all will be, eventually, when we are finally out from under the jackboot of English colonialism."

This is wonderful! When discussing Scottish nationalism with friends last week, there was some scepticism that any Scots might view England as a brutal oppressor. Fortunately Guga II's contribution has come to my rescue -- many thanks, Guga II!

130

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 09:38:00

de bono (137): "Aborting any baby because it has a disability is abhorrent."

Do you really believe it's that simple? Read the description of Edwards syndrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome

Would you honestly class the parents and doctors who decide to abort such a tragic foetus as abhorrent? What would you advise if a friend or relative had just learnt (via amniocentesis) that their child was so afflicted?

131

BrianMcC,

Scotland 23/09/2007 09:48:06

Suppose it makes sense that Alex Salmond wishes Edinburgh to control abortion:

1) the Nationalists want to control all areas within Scotland and abortion is just another one;
2) the Nationalists believe they are standing up for all in Scotland and therefore the human being before birth is another Scot;
3) Scotland has always had a more traditional rational approach to the post-modern ultra-individualism that is so strong within middle-class England and therefore the 1967 destruction of the laws protecting human beings before birth are seen as English laws (yes, David Steel is Scots but deeply influenced by particular strands of English thought).

132

,

23/09/2007 09:50:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 989751, Article id was mapped to record!
133

de bono,

23/09/2007 09:52:11

142, on the whole, yes.

That is an extreme and rare example.

Society needs to be supportive of carers.

Do you think that down syndrome babies have less rights to life and to lead a fulfilling life?


In moral terms, should a couple/a woman have the right to abort a down's syndrome baby?

Tell me what you think.

134

mona,

23/09/2007 10:00:32

My eldest daughter was born with a congenital heart defect, we did not find this out until she was 18 months old,when I fell pregnant with my second daughter I was scanned at 16 weeks and told I should have the baby aborted as it had the same heart defect,well 21years down the line both my daughters are fit and healthy, you see the hole they had between their atria closed up of its own accord, thank god I didn't listen too that doctor!

135

de bono,

23/09/2007 10:01:05

genuinely medical reasons for abortion are rare.

Most abortions involve killing a perfectly viable human being for social reasons.

true?

136

Publius,

Girvan for the weekend 23/09/2007 10:04:00

Scotland would be ill-advised to have different abortion laws from England. At present Irish woman often cross the seas for an abortion because abortion is easier in GB.
If Scotland had different abortion laws from England there would be a cross-border trade in women going across the border for an abortion. There might even be purpose-built clinics in Gretna or Carlisle depending on which country had the more liberal rules. Scotland would be ill-advised to

137

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 10:04:40

de bono (145): "142, on the whole, yes."

Wee, at least you're consistent. Clearly we have different axioms.

"That is an extreme and rare example."

It is, but moral principles unable to deal with such cases are half-baked.

"In moral terms, should a couple/a woman have the right to abort a down's syndrome baby?"

I would say yes, as do more than 90% of mothers according to the following literature survey:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/65500...

138

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 10:04:51

Alex has picked probably the most emotive subject to tackle here.

It is without question the right of the mother to decide whether to abort or not but surely she must make that decision when presented with all the facts (with conscience in other words).

It seems apparent that medical science doesn't quite have all the facts to present yet so therefore doesn't caution come into it?

Of course, caution can be applied both ways i.e. abort just in case, don't abort just in case. This is applying pressure to many women who may not have the capabilities to make the correct choice.

139

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 10:09:13

What about the rights of the father?

I think if a man wants it aborted and the woman doesn't he should get a 50% discount on payments made to her.

There are too many women trapping men that way.

140

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 10:11:50

bud of ayr (44): "ABORTION SHOULD BE MADE COMPULSORY IN ENGLAND ANYWAY. IT WOULD CHEAPER AND MORE ECOLOGICAL THAN NUKING THE . . ."

Most enlightening. Of course, you're probably wrong that it would less expensive for we English to have compulsory abortion: the NHS is _much_ more expensive that 100 fission/fusion bombs.

141

Publius,

Girvan for the weekend 23/09/2007 10:12:09

#128 Garry Otton. Most European countries have lower teenage pregnancy rates than Scotland regardless of how well or badly sex education is delivered in schools. They also have lower rates of teenage drunkenness, drug use and violence against the person. This suggests that as a nation we are not very good at bringing up our children. Perhaps we need a national conversation about brining up children, rather than a national conversation about which parliament makes abortion laws.

142

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 10:14:01

#154 melgibson..........
I'm sure that does happen in some cases but I think you'll find that then are considerably more men who are just looking for a good time, get the woman pregnant then clear off.

143

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 10:15:49

#144 Bud
Yawn! Don't people get tired of being racist towards our nearest neighbours? I get bored to death with unintelligent 'us and them' people because they so rarely have anything other than redneck responses to the issue of nationalism. The Australians have managed to forge a way for themselves beyond their colonial past, can't we do the same? Nationalism doesn't mean that you have to believe that we are the only nation of worth, you know. It's a big world out there, Bud, and we ain't the centre of it-we need to work a lot harder than we are doing if we want to stop tugging our forelock.

144

de bono,

23/09/2007 10:15:59

Fairfax. As I understand it you believe that children with down syndrome have less right to life than children without.

True?

Couldn't open your link. What is this about? That 90% of 'mothers' think that aborting down syndrome babies is always acceptable?

Be clear.

145

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 10:17:59

# 157

I think the woman helps get herself pregnant. Blaming it all on men is wrong. I wish women had to more responsibility for the financial concerns of motherhood.

The fact that dad has to work and provide and hand over all his hard earned is wrong.

146

ddmc,

23/09/2007 10:18:12

its a womens body so it's her choice simple as that, its not a decision taken lightly by most pregnant women.

#140 makes good points

Similar to how US politics has gone, Salmond is trying to get the religous vote, politics & religeon dont go well together, & is used to deflect attention from more pressing issues like killing 000000's of people for a war based on oil

147

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 10:23:36

# 161

It's also the man's baby. He can be forced to provide for the baby for a lifetime if the women wants to keep it and has no access rights.

Whereas the woman is never forced to provide the baby to the man if she does not want it. She is just allowed to murder it with no input from the dad.

148

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 10:24:26

de bono (159): "Fairfax. As I understand it you believe that children with down syndrome have less right to life than children without."

I believe that foetuses with Downs syndrome have less right to life than children without. Once a Downs syndrome child is born, I would not support legal enforcement of reduced rights.

"What is this about? That 90% of 'mothers' think that aborting down syndrome babies is always acceptable?"

The link seems to be fine. It is merely a literature review whose primary statistical finding is that more than 90% of Downs foetuses are aborted. I would infer from this that their mothers do believe they have the right to abort Downs syndrome foetuses.

149

Teemackell the Scribe,

23/09/2007 10:25:24

144. bud of ayr, AYR / 10:50am 23 Sep 2007

Is there an election coming? Bud is clearly a plant of New Labour's "dirty tricks" brigade.

The same lot had a concerted letter-writing campaign before the 2005 election-later exposed in a Channel 4 documentary. They are now taking to cyberspace.

One, masquerading as a hyper-Thatcherite, appeared in Herald posts last week and completely hijacked an agenda of comment on a letter from recent Labour candidate critical of Gordon. Bud's agenda is "bash the Nats"-by pretending to be a racist Nat.

150

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 10:28:07

#160 melgibson...................
No it's not! I'm obviously not talking about a couple who make the decision to have a baby, make their own decisions about how they will manage that and decide who will look after the baby and who will earn the money required etc.. Of course it takes two people (if you didn't know that I'm not taking time to explain it to you here!!) - I'm talking about the men who get the woman pregnant then clear off, paying nothing at all. I'll bet some of them are also against women making their own choices about abortion, too!!

151

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 10:29:45

ddmc (161): "its a womens body so it's her choice simple as that,"

Taken to its extreme, this would imply that you believe a woman should have the right to abort a healthy foetus one week before term. Is this your view?

152

de bono,

23/09/2007 10:32:03

Fairfax - it is good that you are honest.

You believe that unborn children down's syndrome have less rights to be born, to experience family, love, friendship, nature, human fulfilment.

The fact that 90% of down's syndrome babies are aborted now means that society, like you, does not take on the responsibility of care that comes with disability and special needs.

How can this not be described as Eugenics and Fascism?

What is the difference Fairfax?

How can certain categories of people have less rights than others, through no fault of their own.

I'd be grateful for an answer.

153

mona,

23/09/2007 10:32:21

164. when men go through 9 months of heartburn, wanting the toilet all the time, morning sickness, and pain like you cannot imagine,not too mention all the trips too doctors,anti-natal classes etc; then they will have room too talk,until then shut up!

154

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 10:33:05

Teemackell (167): "Is there an election coming? Bud is clearly a plant of New Labour's "dirty tricks" brigade."

Perhaps Guga II is also an upper-class MI5 agent in London . . .

More seriously, Occam's razor suggests that a minority of Scots really do hold views of this form: there's no need to postulate dirty tricks.

155

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 10:36:06

mona (175): "then they will have room too talk,until then shut up!"

It would be fairly easy to simulate the pain and discomfort of pregnancy for males via controlled torture. Would you extend rights of discourse to such men? You probably also meant "ante natal" classes, rather than "anti natal", unless this was deliberate black humour; it was excellent if so.

156

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 10:40:14

# 177

That's a stupid argument. Here is the male equivilan, women dono produce testosterone and therefore develop weaker muscles, they should not beallowed in sports/the police/fire rigade/ army /construction until they learn how to develop muscles and until they do they can shut up on equal employment.

The father will have to live a lifetime of pain knowing that his child was murdered.

Men have no rights in the country regarding their chilren, I would like to see that changed.

157

de bono,

23/09/2007 10:41:31

how about answering my serious question fairfax?

158

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 10:48:39

de bono (174): "How can this not be described as Eugenics and Fascism?

What is the difference Fairfax?"

It is eugenics, certainly. I fail to see why you believe it to be fascism, since many non-fascist states have obviously accepted this in practice, including almost all western democracies.

"How can certain categories of people have less rights than others, through no fault of their own."

To take another extreme example, consider the following dilemma. Suppose a hospital has two patients with kidney failure and must decide which of them should be given the only available kidney (let's assume it's a perfect match for either patient). Patient I is 80 years old, has heart problems, and is senile, whilst Patient II is 25 years old and otherwise healthy. Would you maintain that the transplant committee has no right to choose between them?

159

drake's drum,

North Britain 23/09/2007 10:50:44

Alex Salmond on his knees to Rome already - what a surprise!
The old adage still holds true: 'Home Rule is Rome Rule'.
Scotland is becoming the most stifled, over-regulated, and under-performing 'small country' in the world. The instincts of Rome are to control, restrict, ban and limit - especially freedom of speech.
We'll soon be back in the hills as Covenanters to preserve freedom!

160

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 10:51:34

#178 Melgibson...............
Actually women DO produce testoterone, only not as much as men do. You are right that our muscles are not as developed as yours are but we make up for that in being able to multi-task and being more intelligent!!

161

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 10:56:33

# 183

"we make up for that in being able to multi-task and being more intelligent"

I have never heard a more sexist and unscientific comment in my cream puff.

Men would never dream of even making that claim to be more inteligent than women as it is sexist and we would be chastised, sacked or fined. It is sad that women feel comfortable being sexist like you are. It is worse you are seldom punished for it.

162

de bono,

23/09/2007 10:57:36

Fairfax. You lack logic.

The fact that non-fascist states have certain practices does not peclude that these practices are fascist.

What I mean by fascist (and it is a complex word) is that society condones the oppression of particular categories of human beings.

On this basis, the belief that is is acceptale to terminate the life of an unborn down's syndrome child just because it is not 'perfect' is fascist.

How do you feel about that?

Your dilemma has no parallel with the abortion of down's syndrome babies. Having a down's child will not threaten the life of a woman anymore than any other baby, in fact, having a down's child is far more likely to enrich a woman's life.

163

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 11:02:33

#184 melgibson....................
But it's OK for you to ban women from everything because we've not got muscles?

164

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 11:05:58

#189 karinm
;-)

165

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 11:07:35

# 187

It is a scientific fact women are weaker and I am not precluding them for anything. Women's weakness precludes them from a very few number of jobs, but rightly so.

Women are more inteligent is unscientific, a load of rubbish and sexist carp.

#188

"For a woman to be successful and compete in a mans world they have to do everything twice as good as men"

This is rubbish, in fileds where women can't be bothered going into such as Engineering, they are offered twise the level of grant/sponsorship as men and are virtually guaranteed a job because of positive discrimination created by diversity tagets.

Please note there are no targets and incentives to break into other male dominated areas such as sewage labours.

So I can honestly state you have it easier than men.

166

The central scrutinizer,

00 23/09/2007 11:10:58

I just had a flashback to a warmer feeling.

167

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 11:11:56

de bono (185): "Fairfax. You lack logic.
The fact that non-fascist states have certain practices does not peclude that these practices are fascist."

If the term "fascist" is used so loosely, then I see little point in its use. Why not simply say "evil", since that's your intention.

"On this basis, the belief that is is acceptale to terminate the life of an unborn down's syndrome child just because it is not 'perfect' is fascist.

How do you feel about that?"

It does not bother me that, by your definition, this act is fascist.

"Your dilemma has no parallel with the abortion of down's syndrome babies."

Your original question was "How can certain categories of people have less rights than others, through no fault of their own." I have given an example where your view that assigning equal rights to all leads to a moral problem. You seem to be unwilling to give your views on my dilemma example.

"Having a down's child will not threaten the life of a woman anymore than any other baby"

You have missed the point of the dilemma here. However, since you maintain that all have equal rights, any threat to the mother's life is presumably irrelevant to you, for otherwise you would be assigning different rights to different individuals.

168

jennie,

inverness 23/09/2007 11:16:46

Those who preach against abortion usually support the death penalty - still legal in how many US states, Boston John? are you campaigning against the deaths of sentient people there? They also - e.g. George Bush - support the war in Iraq which has to date killed hundreds of thousands of equally sentient beings.

I'm a mother of four who has also had several miscarriages - many pregnancies terminate themselves - one abortion and one child who died in the womb and had to be aborted.

No man can ever understand what it is like to carry life in your body and nurture it to adulthood - or not; nor the depth of the eternal pain that the death of a wanted child causes; nor the depth of the pain and fear that the knowledge of an unwanted pregnancy causes.

So let women deal with the the lives and deaths of the children we conceive and all the unimaginable, to you, physical and emotional pain that entails.

To try to promote the sanctity of the embryo while simultaneously allowing torture of sentient, untried and unconvicted human beings in Guantanamo Bay is completely hypocritical - and yes, I know that Islamic fundamentalism is as opposed to women's rights as Christian fundamentalism. You're as bad as each other.

169

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 11:23:25

#194

This is emotional rubbish.

Para 1 you are referring to fundamental religious reasons for not wanting abortion. And an "eye for an eye" as religious reasons for death penalty. Let's write this one off as a logical disconnect shall we.
People with small feet are often illiterate and therefore women can't read as well as men is the cliche they use to teach children to avoid this logical disconnect when they make a statistical point.

Para 2 Okay, you have experience.

Para 3 Men can't nurture a life into adulthood? Daft nonsense. Men make great parents. Men understand the pain of the death of an unwanted child, even worse when the mum murdered it in the womb without needing his consent. Men also feel pain at an unwanted child, it often means never seeing it and paying for the mother and child for the next 18 years.

Para 4 Rubbish

Para 5 see para 1

170

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 11:23:28

3 AM2

the person starting, immediately on this thread, to overtly politicise this is you, as Winged Messenger points out. Salmodn has called for a debate. I disagree with his reported preference. But as I am not going to ever have an abortion my views should be secondary - it should be left to women and their doctors withing the legal parameters in force,

Fife Flyer - if you think it is murder, don't have one. In the meantime don't try and impose your own religious/ personal morality on everyone else. As Jay Kay pointed out there are many reasons, personal, tragic, individual why a woman may chose a termination. As you are not in a position to sit in judgement, leave it to the individual, their medical advisers and their conscience.

171

de bono,

23/09/2007 11:25:06

'If the term "fascist" is used so loosely, then I see little point in its use. Why not simply say "evil", since that's your intention'.

No, I mean fascist. I'm talking about a social phenomenon.

'It does not bother me that, by your definition, this act is fascist'.

Does it bother you that an unborn child with down's syndrome only has a 5 or 10% chance of experiencing life?

'I have given an example where your view that assigning equal rights to all leads to a moral problem. You seem to be unwilling to give your views on my dilemma example'.

This article is about abortion, not kidney transplants. The only parallel I can see in your example is where the continuation of a pregnancy will endanger the woman's life. In that case, the moral thing to do is almost certainly to abort.

'However, since you maintain that all have equal rights, any threat to the mother's life is presumably irrelevant to you, for otherwise you would be assigning different rights to different individuals'.

Fairfax, do you think that some people shoud have more right to be alive than others?

172

mona,

23/09/2007 11:25:39

183. GO GIRL!!

173

Southern Cross,

23/09/2007 11:26:39

#18: "Abortion is murder"

Not according to the Bible: Exodus 21:22 clearly states that whilst causing the death of a pregnant woman is murder, the loss of an unborn child is a purely civil matter for which compensation should be paid to the woman's husband.

Can't get any clearer than that.

174

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 11:30:51

3 AM2

on the subject of "despicable" - you say that Salmond calling for a debate on abortion is "distasteful".

You have yet, to my knowledge, used any adjective as strong as "distasteful" to describe the ruination of Iraq and the resultant deaths of 100,000 civilians. Cholera is now starting there due to destruction of infrastructure. One US senator has described the whole misadventures as "infanticide masquerading as politics". This is truly distasteful. Your attempts to politicise this issue, while suppirting carnage in other countries, is extremely distasteful.

175

The central scrutinizer,

00 23/09/2007 11:32:43

One thing is for sure you can't go back to where you came from.

176

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 11:33:17

#195 melgibson..................
You really just emphasise the point that men should not be allowed EVER to force their opinions on women in this matter. You haven't got a clue!!!

177

mona,

23/09/2007 11:33:34

MEL. you really have a chip on your shoulder,nay more like a bolder!!!!

178

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 11:36:40

#202

I am not asking for men to able to force their opinions on others.

More like I am asking for men's opinions to be sought and considered before an abortion is made.

I must say your female response is typical, much like sexist men of the 60s you need to be educated that the other sex are just as important and capable in emotional spheres too.

179

The central scrutinizer,

000 23/09/2007 11:47:01

Going by some of the above we know now where the word scream evolved from.

180

Aiken Head,

23/09/2007 12:01:51

In Scotland, the number of abortions soared to a record 13,081 in 2006, compared with 12,603 in 2005.

That is an increase of around 3.7%. Soaring is not the word. Surely a more sensational term is appropriate - skyrocketing perhaps! We have a right to expect more exciting reporting from this august organ.

181

WHBS,

Leeds 23/09/2007 12:05:15

I moved to England from Edinburgh 40 years ago and until very recently, have never heard any anti-Scottish feeling voiced. However, on a couple of occasions recently, I have heard comments about the Scottish Parliament along the lines of "our politicians can't vote there but 'they' can in Westminster. It's all wrong"
Reading the anti-English claptrap above makes me ever so slightly ashamed of my roots.
On the subject of Scottish Abortions - what is the point? If abortion becomes easier in Scotland, the English will just pop up North to have it done - and vice versa. I can't understand the motives of Salmond.

182

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 12:06:15

#204 melgibson....................
By telling someone that they are unable to make a certain choice when you personally will never be in the same position (possibly a bit like women telling all men of 25 that they MUST have a vasectomy whether they want one or not - maybe not a great analogy but it's about as good as I can do!!), IS imposing your opinion on someone else. The men you are talking about are the ones who have also stuck around and I agree that surely a wife would discuss the situation with her husband. There's something far wrong if they didn't talk about such important matters.

And of course some men are terrific fathers (I actually never said otherwise!) - mine was!!! But then he never cleared off and left my Mum to it. I don't need to be educated at all - I'm not an "ist" of any kind and I can't be bothered with politics in any form.

No-one is saying that women should have an abortion - only that they should have a choice.

183

Paul W,

England 23/09/2007 12:08:18

I've just looked at the quality of the debate on this thread.

Are you really certain that you want the power to decide north of the border?

184

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 12:09:14

But that's 13,000 people who thought abortion was acceptable enough to actually have one. So even taking these people alone, there's a large number of people who clearly DON'T have a moral problem with abortion.

185

morris,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 12:15:12

3


Salmonds job is to gain support for his party from every possible quarter. Maybe New labour should have tried doing what people wanted .Thats why we elected them after all,and why we removed them also!

Since when was being popular with a section of the electorate a bad move?
This is an emotive subject ,yes,it always has been,but there is a clear need to re examine the age/development limit and he is attempting to bring this under Hollyrood which can only benefit Scotland.You cannot argue against local control without a reason, and you dont have one!
What is distasteful is that YOU use this to discredit Salmond ,when he can only enact change where he gets support ,and all he has asked for is the right for Scotland to decide what is right for Scotland. The problem is you start with the conclusion you wish to reach then redesign the facts to accommodate your political bias. Try starting with an open mind and a fair judgement and maybe somebody will listen to you. At the moment you are losing ground daily,and no wonder!

186

morris,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 12:17:32

209
Ive just looked at the arrogance of your comment The answer is YES .More so now!

187

Media 1,

cape town 23/09/2007 12:21:02

Religion and abortion have nothing to do with oneanother, but there is similarities.

Both are destructive as well as personal choices.

If a person wants to believe in an invisible entity who once upon a time murdered Egyptian babies and destoryed crops in a genocidal rage, then that their perogative.

And if a mother wants to abort the life of what could be a beautiful human being, then that is also her perogative.

I hate the word god, I detest religion and I deplore the message of hate, division and dishonesty that churches and preachers seduce their flock with, whilst raping them of their hard earned cash. But people are people and some of them think different to me, so good luck to them.

I dont like the idea of abortion and I would not be able to live with myself if I was responsible for aborting a fetus at any stage. But people are people and some of them think different to me, so good luck to them.

188

morris,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 12:25:14

207

The whole idea of devolution is Scotland decides whats right for Scotland .If people come across the border then It means Scotland has provided a service to some of England's residents which England could (and its debatable that she should) have provided.How can more choice be a bad thing,The debate over abortion (an emotive subject)is for the individual concerned to decide, but the debate on whether Scotland should be denied the right to choose because England does not like it or agree is OUT OF ORDER!

189

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 12:26:56

de bono (197):"Does it bother you that an unborn child with down's syndrome only has a 5 or 10% chance of experiencing life?"

It does, but it would bother me much more if the 90% of women who decide to abort Downs syndrome foetuses were forced to carry them to term.

"This article is about abortion, not kidney transplants."

I have already explained the dilemma's relevance once. You have expressed the opinion that all have equal rights to life. I have given an example where this view leads to a moral dilemma. I think you're trying to avoid the uncomfortable logical consequence of your view.

"Fairfax, do you think that some people shoud have more right to be alive than others?"

Yes. As I've argued above, assigning equal rights to all can itself lead to moral problems. My kidney transplant dilemma above illustrates this, but medics are faced with ethical problems of this type on many occasions. To take an abortion-relevant question of this form, let's return to the unpleasant consequences of Edwards syndrome. Many medics support euthenasia for such tragedies, whilst others support non-intervention (e.g. no resuscitation). Your wish to assign equal rights to life to all implies that you view such medics' decisions as morally wrong.

190

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 12:27:27

209

Thanks for your well thought and out, incisive contribution on the subject

191

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 12:27:56

Glad I'm not an unborn child in todays society. I would fear for my life if the decision as to whether I lived or died boiled down to a single persons "choice".

If it was my choice, as an unborn child, I would surely want input from my father and the best medical practitioners (of mind and body). However, as an unborn child, I have to choices, nor right to life. Only my mother can make that decision for me at present.

192

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 12:28:58

208

No, having thought about it, your're right. We'd be better off leaving our law making up to pompous, patronising oafs south of the border like you

193

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 12:30:09

no choices, nor right to life, even.

194

The central scrutinizer,

999 23/09/2007 12:33:56

And don't forget about the
"abortion boat in international waters"

195

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 12:45:42

#217
Seriously, why should Fathers get an input?
Their input should be restricted purely to an 'advisory' role.
Otherwise you'd have the prospect of women being forced against their will to have children by men.
Surely wrong.

196

Hambo,

23/09/2007 12:47:19

#17
"Oh, and your anti-English racism is showing again. It’s been a while since you called the English “war-mongering, neighbours from hell”, but now we have talk of what you call the “jackboot of English colonialism”. Now that’s what I call despicable."

Those comments seem pretty accurate to me.
BTW Could you have a word with your colleague Eddie Barnes and ask him to answer my questions in his forum:

"Eddie Barnes
Why did you blame the train crash in Cumbria in which an elderly woman died as the responsibility of the SNLA?
Why has no correction or apology been made for this 'mistake'?
Why are you a paid agent of MI5?"

197

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 12:49:32

#221

You already have men forced to have children against their will?

Is that wrong?

198

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 12:52:24

Because, 221, we are supposed to be living in a equal, tolerant and enlightened society. Otherwise, the role of fathers, once again, is reduced to nothing but a sperm donator and cash facility.

However, as I highlighted before, it is the mothers decision that is final, but, in my point of view, done with all the facts and opinions presented in order to make an informed choice.

Seriously, I don't think it's right that a child should be aborted because it's an "inconvenience" but that's another story.

199

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 12:58:29

I think men should be allowed a virtual abortion. Where if they register legal documents withint the legal time limit for abortion they can wash their hand of the damn thing as well.

That would level the playing field, where men can also throw human life away like used tissues.

200

Senga Jean,

Scotland 23/09/2007 13:00:16

BEWARE OF TROLLS PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO WOULD OFFEND OUR NEIGHBOURS> THEY ARE UNIONISTS IN SNP CLOTHING>>>PARTICULARLY MELGIBSON ETC

201

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 13:00:56

'You already have men forced to have children against their will?'

Sorry, but could you just describe where men are forced to have children against their will?

202

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 13:02:43

# 226

I am hardly trolling. If a man files legal papers saying he doesn't want the child and the women does then everyone is a winner, surely?

The women gets the choice and the man is not tied to a machine for 60 hours a week for the next 18 years to pay for a child he never sees and keep a women who sleeps with other men and doesn't care a toss for him.

203

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 13:02:52

I think he meant forced to look after children financially against thier will.

204

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 13:04:02

# 227

"but could you just describe where men are forced to have children against their will?"

Its leather and is a rectangular shape of about 3 inches by 8 and has a fold down the middle, could quite easily fit into a back pocket.

205

Upbeat,

23/09/2007 13:04:41

The implication of this apparent desire, for Scotland to be able to debate the issue of abortion, is that someone somewhere, high up in the SNP presumably, disagrees with the general consensus now in force in the UK.

If everytime someone in authority in Scotland disagrees with some accepted norm of modern society,passed by the UK parliament, we are to have our own debate here in Scotland this shows a wholly skewed set of prioroties indeed.

The current Abortion legislation in the UK is a careful compromise between a whole range of valid viewpoints.

To think that any debate in Scotland would balance all the conflicting viewpoints is some better way is simply a diversion from the real business of moving the infrastructure, industry and wealth of Scotland forward.

There are only so many hours of government time in any Parliamentary session. Why the SNP wish to spend time gazing at the emotive issue of abortion, when there are so many other pressing problems for them to consider, is a mystery known only to them.

206

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 13:04:57

#229

Precisely, a woman can say I can't afford this baby and don't want it.

A man can say I can;t afford this baby and don't want it and is told you must pay for the mother too.

So unfair

207

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 13:09:48

It's ok melgibson, it's our fault for being born male and being born with penises. A burden all us males have to carry.

Be thankful though, that if it wasn't for men, the whole of society would collapse (i.e. no cash cows, or should I say bulls, nobody to take the rubbish out, nobody to blame and so on and so forth).

Makes for interesting debating, eh?

208

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 13:10:34

Senga Jean (226): "BEWARE OF TROLLS PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO WOULD OFFEND OUR NEIGHBOURS> THEY ARE UNIONISTS IN SNP CLOTHING"

You mean the delightful Guga II is a secret unionist troll! Say it isn't so . . .

209

Paul W,

England 23/09/2007 13:12:20

#212, 216,

I was being a little tongue in cheek, but Guga et al start the debate from the presumption that the rules on abortion law are part of English Imperialism.

When the abortion laws were introduced in the UK Scotland was over represented in the UK Parliament. Scots almost certainly debated the subject and voted on it. Go back to Hansard and look at the debates and votes and see which way your MPs voted - Labour RCs will have voted against just about every clause and amendment that allowed abortion.

If you want the control of the debate north of the border it actually doesn't matter to me. What matters is that we have a common set of laws throughout the British Isles. It has been suggested that Scotland should have a different law to England. It was also pointed out that this would lead to cross border traffic in young girls as happened between Ireland and Great Britain after we liberalised the law over here. It was suggested, by Guga, that there would be controls to prevent this. The moment I read that post I questioned the point of the exercise recalling the poor Irish girl raped by her uncle who was forceed by the Papists to keep the child.

It might only be less than a hundred young women per year, but if there are Scots who seriously suggest that they should be compelled to remain in Scotland against their will rather than have an operation that they might desperately need for psychological reasons then there is something wrong (freedom of movement laws will prevent such barbaric acts, or are you going to have a Scottish border police force?). Look around the world and stop pretending you are independent of other people's laws, you make few of your own without Brussels' approval.

In any event, I suspect that the debate will become academic after the new constitution, sorry treaty, is ratified. At that stage the EU will start to harvest powers, such as the right to decide on abortions, under human rights provisions.

210

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 13:14:27

218 was for 209, apols to 208!

211

Richardinho,

23/09/2007 13:18:13

'I think he meant forced to look after children financially against thier will.'

you mean forced to look after their own children against their will? OOh the agony!

212

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 13:23:22

#237

This is the point, women are not forced to look after their own children. They can murder them if they want.

213

The central scrutinizer,

998 23/09/2007 13:27:03

238
no they can't

214

de bono,

23/09/2007 13:37:20

Fairfax.

We disagree.

I believe that a Down's Syndrome child has the right to be born and to live - on an equal basis with any other person.

I do not believe that anyone should have the right to abort an unborn child with Down's Syndrome on the basis of this 'imperfection'.

I think your views are fascist views.

Our society has the resources to look after children with down's syndrome so that they can live fulfiling lives and form part of fulfilling relationships with others. If a woman/couple abort an unborn baby on this basis, I believe this to be wrong.

Of course there will always be conflicts in rights ethics. Rights ethics are insufficient in themselves - in addition to protecting rights, a good society needs virtues. Generosity, care, kindness, sacrifice etc.

The vision of a just society that you have presented is abhorrent.

215

Col. Blimp IV*,

23/09/2007 13:41:37

On the face of it, "it's a womans right to choose" is a fairly reasonable assertion, I once believed it to be the only logical one.

However the passage of time has led me to believe that it is more complex than that.

At what age is it acceptable to take another's life? -

Determining the number of weeks it takes for a foetus to become viable does not provide the answer, because we all know that it takes many years before a human is capable sustaining his/her life without assistance. In many cases this is never achieved.

Their are numerous reasons why a woman may wish to terminate a pregnancy, other than a threat to her own health or life, no need to list them.

In these cases Abortion :The pro's -

(1) No need to put up with the inconvenience of pregnancy.

(2) No need to bring up a child she/they are unable or unwilling to look after.

The cons -

(1a) There is a bigger picture to be considered, once done there is no way to turn back time and the potential psychological harm that can be done to the mother is incalculable and cannot be foretold.

(1b) Nobody and nothing is infallible but there are many forms of contraception some of them retrospective. Perhaps better education is required.
One of the principle opponents of abortion is particularly culpable here.

(1c) At the risk of sounding judgemental should we as a society support the wishes of the foolish/selfish against those who cannot defend themselves.

(2) There is no need, there never has been, although I do not doubt that the adoption service should be improved.

(2b) I accept that there is a stigma and psychological consequences attached to giving up a child for adoption but see (1b).

(2c) See (1c).

216

Paul W,

England 23/09/2007 13:41:56

#218, Of course no laws in Scotland have been made by English MPs acting alone, as you well know.

The debates in the UK Parliament involve MPs from all parts of the union and all are able to submit amendments or suggest changes at the committee stage. Many laws are almost certainly drafted by Scots and with the Scots in mind as you can see by the final parts of most statutes where it highlights the slight differences between various parts of the union - types of courts where powers are enforced, titles of those who enforce powers etc etc. Can you point to a law in UK Parliamentary history which involved all Scots MPs opposing the law, but it being passed in any event? (I'm leaving myself wide open here as I don't know the voting figures on every statute, but then I don't suppose anybody else has bothered to find out either.)

Prior to setting up Holyrood Scots were over represented in the UK Parliament, so it is always arguable that many of the laws that I am now compelled to abide by are the result of Scots votes. Scots MPs have ensured that my daughter will have to pay tuition fees that the majority of English MPs opposed.

The debate started with people attacking the English as if there isn't a diversity of opinion south of the border. Some people who want the power moved north might find themselves bitterly disappointed when the gestation period is reduced to 16 weeks on the say so of the churches.

Anyway, as I've said many times before on threads here, it's all irrelevant when you have committed yourselves as a country to being an ineffective little province of the EU with no say over anything.

Why should you be allowed to debate abortion when you can't debate haddock quotas?

217

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 13:52:22

de bono (240): "I think your views are fascist views."

Presumably you mean that my views satisfy your partial definition of fascist in post 185: "What I mean by fascist (and it is a complex word) is that society condones the oppression of particular categories of human beings."

Your views imply that you would deny legal abortion to the 90% of women who currently terminate foetuses with Downs syndrome. These women might well view your views as fascist oppression; but then one man's fascism is another's law enforcement, perhaps.

218

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 13:58:24

242

If you don't like being goverened by Scots MPs votes, you shoudll campaign for English independence or an English parliament. Otherwise stop bleating on here about a constitutional set-up you were no doubt happy for Scotland to endure for generations.

219

de bono,

23/09/2007 14:04:25

Correct.

I think that it should be illegal to abort an unborn down's syndrome child if this is the only reason for the abortion.

You believe that human beings with Down's Syndrome are worth less than those without and that you have the right to deny them life itself.

That, in my view, is straightforward facism.

220

Jock MacSprog,

23/09/2007 14:04:26

Hmmmm, who were the two biggest SNP financial supporters at the last election ? Tom Farmer and Brian Souter. And what do these two men have in common ? They wouldnt happen to be 2 of the most high profile Roman Catholics in Scotland would they ? So is it time for Alex to pay the piper ? Sounds like a deal was done.

221

Paul W,

England 23/09/2007 14:05:12

On the issue of Downs Syndrome babies, and indeed all babies that might need a lifetime of care, they grow up.

I have a friend who is a widower, but old. He can be seen regularly with his Downs Syndrome son going around our town. The son is an adult and quite old I believe for Downs Syndrome (40s). When the father dies that son will not be able to live on his own. His quality of life will die with his father since nobody else is likely to take him into his home. He will then eke out his final years in an institution. He is alive now and we can't go back, but the lad has not had the best of lives and has only been fortunate to be the son of a prosperous family. Had he been born poor, which is more often the case, then life would have been harder for the family and the child for 40+ years.

It is easy for people to condemn others for the decision they make, but the people who have abortions rarely do it lightly and they are best placed to make their own choice.

I live with the consequence of my unmarried 19-year old daughter's decision not to have an abortion since she hasn't yet moved out. I'm okay with the decision, but I am the one who is ensuring that she has a roof over her head and somewhere for her baby to sleep. I have little space and, as I'm between contracts, little cash. Other people would not be so tolerant if they had to support and house other men's unplanned offspring (and he's half Jock) and other fathers might have pushed their daughters into an abortion. It is easy for people to say that my daughter shouldn't have had an abortion, but I'm the one who's out of pocket (the dad pays less than I do!).

The law must allow individuals to make their own decisions on such important matters within reason.

222

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 14:07:07

242

Getting a bit off the topic, but I can point to many laws which were opposed by the overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs (61 out of 72) and enacted in Scotland. The abhorrent and immoral decision to spend billions on Trident weapons of mass destruction and place them in Scotland was opposed by the overwhelming majority of Scots MPs, but Scotland is to be used by Westminsetr as an ongoing dump for WMDs.

223

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 14:10:23

#240 de bono
Then never have an abortion. No-one is forcing this course of action on anyone. If you disagree, don't do it. Not everyone feels able to have a such seriously disabled child though, so they too should have a choice. You seem to be quite focussed on children with Downs Syndrome. Perhaps one consideration for potential mothers of these children (given that the vast majority are older mothers) is that they worry who will take care of them when they (the parents) die. I believe there are also varying degrees of disability within the condition and not all of them are easy to look after. I'm sure the women concerned don't take these decisions lightly and could probably do without the rocks of critisism being thrown at them.

224

Col. Blimp IV*,

23/09/2007 14:11:34

242. Paul W - "Can you point to a law in UK Parliamentary history which involved all Scots MPs opposing the law, but it being passed in any event?"

How about the one that forces your daughter to pay tuition fees?

People born in or residing in Scotland, who's raisons d'être
is ensuring that Scotland remains part of a unequal incorporating Union with England or anywhere else for that matter.

Should not under any circumstances be confused with Scotsmen/women.

225

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 14:11:44

I think the major point in the story is that in the Late 1970's Westminster government back then thought that a Scottish devolved Parliament could handle abortion legislation because abortion wasn't such a big issue because it was a rare decision to make BUT over those 18years the abortion rate is significantly higher due to a number of changes within society than it was in the 1979. This made abortion a bigger subject, which means naturally it can't be transferred to Holyrood cause then we'd have something that's big looking by the amount of time the media spend talking about it.

When in reality it's part of health and it's part of the Legal system both of which are devolved to the Scottish parliament. Though I believe the subject is more of a health thing as the woman who go through the procedures are effected by the procedures even if they have no drought in their mind that this is the right thing to do. It's quite evident that there is little support for woman who have abortion. I cant help BUT wonder what goes through the head of a woman who has more than 2 abortions, and yes there is many young woman who have had about 3 abortions, do they relate the fetus to an unborn child or do the just see it as a thing that need to be corrected. I don't think its about the woman being cruel or heartless BUT more about Society being sc$%^ and losing sense between natural and unnatural, plastic or plain fantasys. Like with a large percentage of weans not knowing that chips come for tatties.

Personally I don't believe in abortion unless theirs special circumstances and the woman's right in this subject, to choices are "sex or no sex", "protected sex or unprotected sex" This is not just the choices of women BUT also the choices that men have to in the subject. These two choices are also important to prevent the epidemic of STI's, that is very relevant these days.

#8. Jock MacSprog: Never heard of the power of positive thin

226

,

23/09/2007 14:15:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 990164, Article id was mapped to record!
227

Col. Blimp IV*,

23/09/2007 14:16:35

242. Paul W

Probably a bad example as the bona-fide Scottish, Westminster MP's probably abstained, the matter being none of their business.

228

Paul W,

England 23/09/2007 14:20:39

#245, I'm not bleating.

I was happy with the former set up, it is only since Holyrood was established that I think the English MPs should meet to debate in Grand Council those matters that Scots have now reserved to themselves. Where the matters are those for the whole of the UK then I'm fine with the Scots MPs to vote in the way that they have always done.

You have your white elephant talking shop and you are welcome to spend your taxes on an EU regional assembly. Parliaments have sovereignty, and you don't - if your assembly was worth tuppence you'd be able to decide how many haddock you can catch, but you'll never be able to do that again.

I'm too busy trying to get out of the EU to worry about our own constitutional arrangments. That will come later if we haven't been fully integrated in the next few weeks.

What about my point that the EU will seek to take control over abortion once the 'treaty' is ratified? Debate it if you dare.

80% of your laws are made in Brussels, not London (German figures). Don't knock the English, listen to what the Poles are saying. They wouldn't sign up to a day of action against the death penalty because abortion wasn't included. Google if you don't believe me.

The Pope opposes abortion. The ITS group in the EU Parliament does as well - le Pen, Mussolini and our own fraudster Ashley Mote. By the time you have the debate moved up to Edinburgh it will be taken over by Brussels.

Salmond is the most Europhile of all UK party leaders. The power could be moved to Edinburgh earlier, but he will give it to Brussels.

229

de bono,

23/09/2007 14:23:06

JG - interesting points. You set yourself up as a defender of women. Honestly, you don't need to do this with me.

Like I said earlier, society needs to be more supportive of carers.

Of course abortion is a difficult choice for the vast majority of women.

However, both you and Fairfax are using a logic that ignores the following truths:

Unborn children have a right to life.

People with Down Syndrome should have the same right to life as anyone else.

I don't intend to have an abortion but I also think that I have the right to argue on behalf of the voiceless thousands who are aborted without any choice.

Or is that throwing rocks?

230

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 14:23:07

Col. Blimp IV (251): ' " . . . which involved all Scots MPs opposing the law, but it being passed in any event?"

How about the one that forces your daughter to pay tuition fees?'

As I recall, SNP MPs did not vote, but 43 Scottish Labour MPs did support the government, ensuring the success of a bill which did not affect their constituents; see

http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/tuitionfees/stor...

231

Media 1,

cape town 23/09/2007 14:26:42

Who the hell cares what the pope thinks?

The pope is a divider and a cheat, not to mentiion the head of a truly barbaric organisation. How on Earth he can put forward an opinion on abortion is beyond belief.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, thats her right. End of story

232

de bono,

23/09/2007 14:28:18

media 1, sing a new song.

You're a stuck record and a bore.

Say something meaningful and back it up with logic and facts.

That's a stupid last comment.

233

Maia,

Sydney 23/09/2007 14:32:26

I love the heading,"The right to choose". What about the right of the unborn child,--the right to live?
The safest place in the world for an unborn baby is supposed to be in his/her Mothes womb. Not any more.Why dont we call abortion by its REAL name, legalised Murder?Ripped from its Mothers womb, often in pieces. Its disgusting.God is not mocked . That Mother to be will never be happy again, and will always thereafter live with the thought,"What if?" If as the Chinese believe, the soul joins the body at conception, then we are dealing with the murder of a tiny human being, and its blood is on the hands of all who make this possible.

234

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 14:32:49

#256 de bono
I haven't set myself up a "defender of women" (I AM A WOMAN!!) but even if I had, what would have been so wrong in that? Don't you LIKE women? Don't you think women should have any rights or the ability to make choices for themselves? And bear in mind - those "truths" you mentioned are YOUR truths, not mine. I disagree with people who use abortion as a form of contraception but sometimes for the individual concerned, there is no other option. Remember - you choose what's right for you but allow others to make their own choices.

235

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 14:36:13

#248. Paul W: Life is for living NO MATTER how long it may be. What is wrong is when it's unnaturally ended (this isn't just abortion that is responsibly for this).

Did it ever cross your mind that your elderly friends reason for living is his son, it might sould bleak BUT I'm sure his son brings great joy in to his life despise his disability. So many elderly folk once their parenter has died hardly leave the house or start to eat less than they should and start down a sparrow in their mental health due to their grievances. This man has his son to keep things optimistic and encouraged him to leave the house and eat proper meals.

As for your daughter dose she no know the father of her baby's parents. Cause my parents have always told me that its important to be close to all your living Grandparents. You never now they might buy some of the stuff the baby need if the dad isn't in a well paid job. This is just a suggestion.

236

AmericanBoy,

23/09/2007 14:36:29

Can an American boy, born and bred, comment upon this volatile issue? I'm only 18, barely old enough to vote over here, but I can't let this pass by.

I am a foe of abortion, and justly so. I have seen pictures of aborted children that are purely sickening. I have seen pictures of children still living in the womb and I can't understand how someone can see it and not see a human being. Murder is WRONG, folks, and abortion is flat-out murder.

I'm an American with a lot of Scottish background and am fully supportive (as are thousands of others over here) of your quest for independence. If you remember, we had our own "misunderstanding" with the English back in 1776 :-) But please hear me: This issue of abortion has been a curse upon America. The idea of family has so radically changed, it's sickening. Human life is so cheap! America was founded under the principles that ALL people have value. It didn't matter if you were black or white (we fought a war over that one), male or female, adult or child, BORN OR UNBORN, you had worth and value.

When people talk about pro-choice, they're forgetting someone: THE UNBORN CHILD! Does that child have a choice? Can that child have any say about its future? I hear a lot of crap about children who will be born with physical impediments, how we should do them a "favor" and spare them from a life of Down-Syndrome, etc,. My question is this: Would they rather be dead? Would you? Which decision would you want your mother to make?

Here in America, we have (I'm not joking) hundreds of thousands of women who have had abortions and are haunted by it years after the fact. I know because I've spoken with some of them. Already some our state legislatures are taking steps to scale back abortion. About time, I say. We've had nearly 50 million children massacred through abortion since it was legalized in the '70s. I can assure you that this is not what America's Founding Fathers had in mind.

237

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 14:38:28

#253. mona: Who are you talking about?

Cause it looks like your talking to your self but forgoten to say what it was about.

238

de bono,

23/09/2007 14:41:18

What makes you think I am a man and what difference does it make?

I believe these truths to be universal - not relativistic subjective truths.

I don't respect someone's choice to do something which is wrong.

I think in nearky every circumstance, abortion is wrong.

I know very well all of the social and personal difficulties that surround abortion.

But it remains wrong.

Abortion Law is based on a utilitarian argument that by legalising it, back street abortions will not be necesary. I respect this reasoning to a large extent.

What is wrong is how easy it is to arrange an abortion. I also think that the concept of 'a woman's right to choose' is flawed.

This is mainly because of the rights of unborn children to actually be born and enjoy life.

Society still treats women like objects. Women themselves collude in this at times. Poverty is a significant factor in abortion.

Middle class people are quite happy to allow abortion on demand. This allows society to avoid a whole range of responsibities.

JG, don't presume to preach please.

239

Media 1,

cape town 23/09/2007 14:45:18

#259 de bono

I dont need facts. All I need to do is employ reason.

If a woman falls pregnant and wants an abortion, she has the right to do so. End of story!

15 to 20 years from now we will be cloning humans, there will holograms and other amazing technological wonders and abortion will be a thing of the past.

But for now its life as we know it, and in that regard its a womans right to abort.

240

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 14:46:53

Question.

Was the current abortion laws legislated to prevent back street abortions?

If so, why were back street abortions sought? Societies attitude to unwanted pregnancies i.e. born out of wedlock etc?

Surely, if that's the case, societies change in attitude to children out of wedlock etc nowadays is enough to prevent abortions full stop, no?

241

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 14:50:29

#265 de bono
From where I'm sitting it's you who is "preaching". I'm not trying to make you do something (or not do something) you don't agree with. As I've said ad nauseum, if you don't agree with abortion, don't do it. The fact that you disagree with it is plain and simply YOUR opinion (which you are certainly entitled to, as I am mine). Just have the courtesy to allow others to make up their own minds. I also couldn't care less whether you're a man or not - your tone just caused me to think that you didn't believe women should have the right to make their own choices.

You are right - poverty is very often a factor in the woman making such a choice and make no mistake - if she finds herself in that kind of predicament and considers that the only way is to have an abortion, she will have one. I'd prefer it took place under medical conditions than in someone's kitchen.

242

The central scrutinizer,

997 23/09/2007 14:54:08

Has this got anything to do with adoption law.

243

de bono,

23/09/2007 14:54:56

media blah blah blah

Dave, it is a puzzle after all these years of sex education etc that the UK has the highest teenage pregancy and abortion rates in Europe.

Brooks etc obviously failing badly.

People are embarrassed to say it but the problem is the commodification of sex and the general cultural climate in which people talk about their rights far more than their responsibilities.

244

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 14:56:19

267

Dave - No.

Congenital diseases which cause severe, debilitating symptoms and painful short lives of infants may still be a 'valid' reasons. Improved genetic foetal testing allows detection of more such conditions at a very early stage in pregnancy; various conditions which could put the mother at risk from progression of pregnancy toward full term; conditions which would give rise to miscarriage; all of these would be reason for abortion? Also, the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies?

A point not really much debated is that genetic testing, as the genome project continues, will give rise to the possibility of alot of information potentially being available to prospective parents about a healthy foetus - e.g eye colour, physical attributes, IQ indicators, even perhaps sexuality or personality traits (predisposition to illnesses, criminality, depression). In supporting a woman's right to choose thought will need to be given to how such information could be mis-used in termination decisions, or even in selection decisions for in vitro fertilisation etc.

245

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 14:58:07

271 ........... are you saying there is a gay gene???????????????

246

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 15:01:17

#267. Dave From Barra: Think the problem isn't just about nobeing married, it's a number of things i.e.:
*Changing Body image (NOT wanting to put on weight)
*Career goals (fear of being discriminated agaist due to pregnecy leave)
Underaged
Money (Sometimes the dad does a runner on the word baby, so thats only 1 wage)
On their own (No one to give them support of any sort)
They don't no who the father is!!!

They are others, BUT the first two I've written are possibly the two biggist reason for abortion.

247

de bono,

23/09/2007 15:02:19

JG. Thanks.

In nearly all circumstances, a choice to abort is wrong. It means taking a life away from another person.

Because of this a woman's right to choose is not the only factor that matters.


If women had more equality in economic terms and if our society had less pockets of deprivation, there would be less abortions.

But essentially, it is wrong to end the life of another person.

Why do think there are more abortions in the UK than practically anywhere else?

248

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 15:02:46

271

I think Hitler ran a similar exercise with his "Arian" project in order to create a super race. THe man was ahead of his times obviously.

249

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 15:05:19

Eve

Changing body image and career goals?? Jesus H.....

250

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 15:05:24

#269. The central scrutinizer: WHAT makes you think that?

Adoption NOT mention in the artcle unless I mist something when I read it!

251

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 15:10:29

#274 de bono
I think partly it's because our sex education programme is terrible. I don't see the point in telling 8 year olds the full story - if you've ever talked to them, they're not really that interested! Obviously if they ask a question answer it truthfully. I think (if I remember correctly Holland has the least teenage pregnancies?) we don't talk about it openly when the kids are older and I remember Claire Raynor once said that sex at 16 is legal, not compulsory (quite a good observation, I thought!!).

As I've said, you clearly strongly disagree with this, so DON'T do it. Women are quite capable (in the main) of making decisions for themselves - even really hard ones like this!

252

Charles Linskaill,

23/09/2007 15:13:46

~263. AmericanBoy, Very good input from you 'well-done'
~265. de bono, "Society still treats women like objects. Women themselves collude in this at times."
Such a TRUE statement, no-matter what anyone says to the contrary

253

Col. Blimp IV*,

23/09/2007 15:19:38

#257. Fairfax

You are right, though I did correct myself at#254.

I do not consider the gang of 43 to be "Scottish" MP's in that their allegiance is to the British Labour Leadership's agenda, not their Constituents as is patently obvious in nearly every action or inaction that they perform.

254

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 23/09/2007 15:23:08

What an old dinosaur in South Africa?

255

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 15:29:08

#276. Dave From Barra:

Body image is a big thing these days, what with the epademic of obesity threatening to take hold in Scotland and many other developed countries. Naturally it is those who don't have the problem with being grossly over weight that are discussed about the fact of gaining weight to have a child. Some women who look after their bodies, don't want to have child to grow inside them and stretch the skin, give them a saggy stomach and see that the unborn child will destroy there figure. We live in a very vain world, these days.

The media focus on obesity and shows positive stories associated with pictures women, who have lost weight. These women stories normally start with them talking about that their weight problems came about after they had their child/children. Some people believe everything they read and whats missing is their diet and daily level of physical activity.

Career goals: More women having successful careers and NOT wanting a child to come and stop there progression to the top of the business scale. This is NOT the woman's fault BUT is societies fault as some women get depromoted after taking time out to have a baby rather than being able to compete at the same level they were at before. For all the company that employes them know that it could be the father that's the primary carer of the child after its born BUT society stinks.

256

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 15:34:16

# 285

This career argument is hilarious. Men have never been able to enjoy a family life and had to put their careers first for decades, you can't have both by the very nature of demands on time.

I think the problem is the women want the world and are not prepared to make the same sacrifices men do.

257

Catharine,

Winnipeg, Canada 23/09/2007 15:35:54

Take the "moral" and the misogynistic "religious" crap out of the debate -NO ONE but me has any right to have a say over my biology. When men can get pregnant and carry the parasitic life-form to term, then they canmke their own choices. My body, my choice. End of discussion.

258

de bono,

23/09/2007 15:42:12

Catherine, sad that you think a baby is a parasitic life form.

259

BJGlasgow,

23/09/2007 15:43:38

#243 Just because you don't want religion to have any place in politics doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you. There are many people who have a religious background and who want their church leaders to speak out on these moral matters. What right have you to silence people?

#247 I don't know if Brian Souter would be happy to be called a Catholic. He belongs to an evangelical Protestant Church. Tom Farmer is certainly a Catholic. Please try to get your facts correct before you make this sort of allegation.

260

Cobaidh,

A real inconvenient truth! 23/09/2007 15:45:45

In Scotland, the number of abortions soared to a record 13,081 in 2006, compared with 12,603 in 2005.
Keep it up Scotland and the country will be taken over by imagrants that love their children as well as the lands. I dream of a time when a clan had value that goes way beyond convenients and a beating heart was a treasure....

261

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 15:51:56

#289 BJGlasgow
Religious leaders speak in church, politicians speak in parliament. If you want to hear the church leader's opinion go there. Just because the Pope (or whoever) says something, it doesn't mean it's right. The parliament should be completely secular - decisions on things medical should be taken under advice from medical people.

262

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 15:59:23

karinm,
I get your drift, but why a 2' rod?

263

Home again,

Fraserbirgh 23/09/2007 15:59:57

Alex Salmond is right in calling for a national debate - if, in fact, legislation on the subject of abortion is needed.
Abortion is a woman's ow choice, not to be decided by ANYONE else be it politicians or religious leaders.
Personally I believe that legislation bringing the time limit to 20 days is a positive and needed thing; and personally I would not myself have an abortion unless it was the result of rape.
Politicos and religious 'leaders' - stay out of it! A woman can make up her own mind.

264

Catharine,

Winnipeg, Canada 23/09/2007 16:00:26

288. Nothing sad about the truth. "an organism that lives on or in another organism , known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment" - how does a feotus differ from that description? Just because it is parasitic, doesn't mean it can't be wanted or loved, just understand that without the host, life wouldn't be possible, so the host is the one who should be allowed to choose. Simple.
Cancerous cells are living, growing, evolving - should we blindly revere them, too?

265

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 16:01:31

#286. melgibson2@snp.org.uk: That is a very sexist thing to say are you living in the 13th Century by any chance?

What sacrifices do men make?

I'm confused a man can have a child/ children and still do successful in career BUT a woman CAN'T. The problem being that the woman doesn't choice when the babies born and is going through exhausting Labour which can go on for hour, theoretically a man could sleep through the birth of his child and doesn't need to be present BUT the mother has to be present because it's her body.

A woman having a baby doesn't really effect her more than dad after the baby's is born and shes recover from the birth. Providing that they are living together. If they are Not then it makes things more difficult BUT this is the 21st Century Men have to share the resopcnabilty of having children with the mothers of their children.

266

BIG EYE,

Paisley 23/09/2007 16:04:11

If our society does not value life then it values nothing.

Let's have the debate!

267

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 16:04:47

272 Fife

No. There is research ongoing in that area and many other areas stemming from the completed sequencing work on the human genome. There are certainly genes which pre-dispose to higher risks of certain diseases. There is much speculation on the likelihod of genetic factors in high IQ, creativity etc. There are certainly genetic determinants in physical characteristics. There may be genetic factors in pre-disposition to behavioural traits. My point is that genetic diagnostics has moved faster than ethical, moral or legal considerations in this area (is true also for potential use of such information in insurance or other areas of life). Today it is legal for a woman to have an abortion at 20 weeks without stating a reason in absolute. In the near future would we be less comfortable if the reason was based on a genetic test which showed the likelihood of a low IQ or other "aesthetic" factor vs a real, serious congential defect?

268

Home again,

Fraserbirgh 23/09/2007 16:08:28

Goodbye, Cardinal too bad you can't agree with the human rights of women as set out by Amnesty Internation...they know much more about the subject than you do!!
The 'Right to Life' is only given by a woman - if she wants her body to provide life, then she will; if she chooses not to provide life, then she should should have a few days only - 20 - to decide. Cardinal, the Catholic Church has lost credibility what with the mission schools where kids were mistreated, including sexually, and where the higher reaches of the Church were guilty of coverups and leaving paedophiles in place. Face it, you are a political organization - the Catholic Church - very rich and powerful and scared to death of losing those riches and power. Go read a book; you have lost your blind followers.

269

de bono,

23/09/2007 16:08:54

JG - do you really think that medics should decide moral issues?

You can't escape the fact that religion has formed this society to its core: the way you think, the assumptions you make, the rights you enjoy, the good and bad things in society - deeply influenced by religious ideas.

Medical ethics is about life. Therefore requires wider input than just medical information.

The whole debate about whether a foetus is a person is both a medical and a moral question, as this example shows.

One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.
To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

The violinist represents the baby, and you - in the hospital bed - play the role of the mother. If you think unhooking yourself from the violinist is acceptable, but aborting an unwanted foetus is not, what are the moral differences between the two cases? In both situations, you could save a person by bearing a burden for nine months.

270

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 16:09:27

271 - Dave, that wasn't anything near my point, as I think you know. I was talking about terminations in cases of severe genetic disease that would result in certain neo natal death for a baby or a very short life-span of weeks or months, and where that life would be lived in agony. I was not talking about terminations for genetic conditions, (relatively) less severe like Downs or Cystic Fibrosis where of course with advances today individuals can live fulfilled, happy lives.

271

de bono,

23/09/2007 16:10:12

295, that's just silly

272

Catharine,

Winnipeg, Canada 23/09/2007 16:18:09

295 - ummm, no, it's biology.

273

Tiree,

Canada 23/09/2007 16:20:08

If the Nazi's had been doing what we have allowed with abortions they would have been hung for that alone.
We see the mess China is in because of it's one baby policy and the subsequent abortion of millions of female infants. There is now a huge market for abducted girls, for forced marriage, throughout China, with prices as high as 600 pounds for an abducted 'bride.'
The free-wheeling mess of abortion on demand has led to the disgusting atrocity of partial birth abortions which is surely an absolute crime against humanity and a perversion of all that should be considered sacred in the rights of a human being.

274

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 16:21:37

#297. BIG EYE: Fair point!!!!

BUT I think it's a bit harsh to relate it to abortion, cause the big problem is there could be a missing link between Fetus and Baby. Folk could mistakenly think of the fetus as being just a bunch of cells and NOT as a living thing.

I've heard of some thinkers in the world have written staments which high light there being a problem with soitey in the way we rename things i.e. cattle, cow, renamed BEEF in the shop. This is claimed by some to create a missing link between the cow you see in the feild and the beef that you buy in the shops. I belive it has be mentioned in the pass that the link between baby and fetus has been blured.

275

JG,

Fife 23/09/2007 16:22:42

#302 de bono
Read what I said again - "under advice" from medical people. I certainly don't think that the misogynistic church should be making decisions on behalf of women in ANYTHING.

If I decided to have a baby I wouldn't have to lie in a bed for nine months!!! Whew - that's some analogy. Have you been to the pub or something? The point about a foetus is that medical people don't agree with the church (Catholic) about when it becomes a baby - the church say it's when the egg is fertilised by the sperm. In your scenario I (as the "donor") would have had a crime committed against me (abduction) with no choice. I can choose what to do in the pregnancy situation.

276

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 16:25:40

#300. Methalions : Concratulations on the big 300

Lang tine no hear!!!

ARE You for or against?

Pist, I was watching the Labour party confrence and they are playin that song "move on up" before they went off air. I wonder what that songs supose to make us think!!!!

277

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 16:27:57

de bono (302): "The violinist represents the baby, and you - in the hospital bed - play the role of the mother. If you think unhooking yourself from the violinist is acceptable, but aborting an unwanted foetus is not, what are the moral differences between the two cases?"

One substantial difference is that the violinist cannot be easily duplicated. A callous mother might take the view that the foetus can be readily replaced by another in merely a few months: it might be in her interests to wait. To take a Darwinian selfish gene view, one reason for abortion might then be the woman's wish to optimize the relatively small number of children she is likely to bear over her fertile life.

278

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 16:33:35

307 Tiree

more emotive, wild language and comparisons.

I support a woman's right to choose. I think each abortion probably is a tragedy. I think there should be less abortions (I am not sure how we can achieve this) , but that they should be safe and legal.

You cite partial birth abortion - yes, it looks horrible. It is rare, and usually used in situations where there would be significant danger to the life of the mother (or where the foetus is not viable) in proceeding to full term pregnancy. Such painful decisions should be left to the woman and her doctors. If you hate abortion, don't have one - but don't impose your private moral or religious views on every other woman, whose personal situation you cannot know.

279

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 16:35:16

313 - AM2 - not enough mince in the bait to attract you no doubt

280

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 16:38:01

AyrshireScot (298): "In the near future would we be less comfortable if the reason was based on a genetic test which showed the likelihood of a low IQ or other "aesthetic" factor vs a real, serious congential defect?"

I agree that it's only a matter of time until genetics and bioinformatics provide fairly good methods for, say, choosing the "best" fertilized egg from a small batch of 30. However, the very existence of such technology implies that we don't have to wait until the relatively late stage of abortion. It would be just as easy to fertilize in vitro, possibily with several fathers, then to choose the optimum mix. All of this could be done only a few cell divisions after formation of the zygote; this is the utopia/dystopia suggested in the film "Gattaca".

281

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 16:38:54

313 - AM2 - and it wasn't "bait". just an accurate description of your squalid attempt to politicise this issue and throw muck at the SNP. You have stooped to yet another low, impressive for a bottom scraping lobster of such depths as your self, in trying to use this issue, as you do just about any issue, to try to smear the SNP. Yet again you have left a silvery trail of slug-like vile posts across this thread about racism etc on what should be a non-party politcal discussion.

282

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 16:42:30

318 - Fairfax - yes, but most likely genetic diagnostics will be used (as they are today) on conventionally conceived foetus's (this being cheaper than in vitro) - the worry is that we have had little debate to date on what appropriate limits should be on such testing on how such information is used? The dividing lines in congential disease can be arbitrary - is Downs or Cystic fibrosis a 'valid' reason for abortion vs SCID or Tay Sach's disease? Is pygmyism vs short stature? What type of tests should be allowed and what type of information usable in selection in vitro or in vivo?

283

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 16:51:23

Catherine (295): "Just because it is parasitic, doesn't mean it can't be wanted or loved, just understand that without the host, life wouldn't be possible, so the host is the one who should be allowed to choose. Simple."

I agree that a foetus is technically a parasite, but why do you believe that rights rest with the host alone: why are you being host-centric? After all, the parasite in this case provides a benefit to the host, in the sense that it propagates the host's genes.

284

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 16:52:44

The abortion pill is possible the most saftist way to do it, BUT it's more effective between 8 & 12weeks.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/birthcontrolandcontracepti...

I think after look at these 2 website that abortions at 20weeks is a step in the right direction BUT I think it needs to be earilyer and only done useing the Mifepristone and no of this operation stuff. So maybe 12weeks as a limit is somthing that the goverment should work too in the long run.

Oh look at the baby!!! It's so cute!!!http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontypes/

The fetus at 20weeks is sucking it's thumb.

285

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 16:57:12

322 - AM2

you make baseless accusations of manipulation of the issue to win support from a religious community, and use "deeply distasteful" to describe it. Yes, like a chimpanzee with faeces, you are trying to throw muck,as usual.

I can appreciate the disconcertion of fantatical unionists such as yourself at ascendency of the SNP, but this does not excuse your monumental opportunism and cheapness in seeking to use every issue for purposes of smear and fear. try and gather up what remains of your clearly panicking and anxious faculties and stop this childish behaviour.

286

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 16:57:16

oppis in comment #327, I was look at a site from outwith the UK cause here they the abortion pill is called (or the one they use here is called) Mifegyne (RU486)
http://www.btinternet.com/~DEvans_23/ab_meth.htm

287

inter alia,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 16:59:29

Really, really interesting discussion. Must admit I was shocked when the abortion numbers were first given.

288

mick3,

USA 23/09/2007 16:59:58

How have decisions of such a private and personal nature become the business of the State? Will it next require healthy males to offer body parts to those needing a donor?

Well, we all know, don't we? It's the religions, these modern mythologies that are one and all based on male domination. And look where that's gotten us. Get religion out of government and you'll have a government that is rational and just. Or at least far more just.

Control over one's own body is a basic human right. Who except the religiosos would say differently?

289

Col. Blimp IV*,

23/09/2007 17:06:04

#320. AyrshireScot

I believe spina bifida is a condition that can be tested for. I find this particularly alarming as the degree of disability this causes is vast.

I had no Idea that my wife suffered from this condition until there was a minor inquisition regarding a botched epidural, that she should never have been given in the first place.

290

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 17:06:21

#328. karinm: Video type about what?

When I was at School the only two types of videos we got where Career or DRUG orentated.
Think the School though we'd be bunch of druggies.

291

de bono,

23/09/2007 17:06:38

306. If you took the time to read the biology of the development of the foetus, you would realise that the comparison with a parasite is in accurate and misleading in a number of respects. Also, cancer cells do not develop into human beings in the way the ova and sperm do.

Yes, JG, the point is that you can choose what to do in a pregnancy situation. But the question is the morality. The moral status of a person and an unborn child are compared here.

Fairfax. An unborn child can not be duplicated either. Each is a unique, individual.

The way biotechnology is going (and views you support on aborting babies with down syndrome) is informed by a utilitarian and pragmatic rationality in which some people will be deemed more valid than others. This is a dystopia - an even more callous and cruel society in which marginalisation and stigmatisation will exclude many.

Commerical interests will dominate. Parents will strive to afford the latest genetic improvements for their children. The exercise of consumer preferences for offspring options will be the prelude to the technological control of human evolution. Humanity will bifurcate into genetic ubermenschen and untermenschen.

292

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 17:10:05

Methalions (334): "Is it not DISGRACEFUL that a potential chicken tika masala is destroyed before the fluffy chick has had a chance to roam freely breathing in God's clean air?"

You've forgotten their evolutionary history. Remember those seemingly harmless omelette ingredients are merely feathered dinosaurs: they're all theropods. It's your duty to eat their abortions, in memory of all those proto-hamsters eaten by their ancestors in the Cretaceous, a mere 65 million years ago. Perhaps we should found a new society to remember this: the Royal Society for the Punishment of Birds.

293

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 17:13:06

de bono (338): "Fairfax. An unborn child can not be duplicated either. Each is a unique, individual."

That's correct, of course; I should have been more precise. From the point of view of the mother, foetuses cannot be distinguished until after birth and, in this sense only, are readily replaced.

294

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 23/09/2007 17:14:27
295

Not A Unionist or Nationalist,

Dundee 23/09/2007 17:15:36

I am not sure of this to be honest.

If abortion laws are different in one part of the country compared to another then all that will happen is that those who want an abortion will go to the place that is easiest to get one - as happens in the USA now.

I as a Catholic look at this move with suspicion - has it been raised with genuine concern for the foetus or is it just another maneuovere to pit the Catholic Church against the Labour Party?

The cynic in me tells me that it is the latter - I just hope I am wrong.

296

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 17:18:20

#335. Methalions: Can't help if I'm going through another Broddie patch in my life, it appears to happen now and again, I have no control over it. Possible a sign I need to do something, leave the baby till I'm in a steady and loving relationship.

It's NOT easy when you've got less than 15years left of fertility. Can't help IT the biological clock is ticking.

297

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 17:20:05

336 - Col B

I'm not advocating abortion based on the outcome of genetic testing - if anything, the reverse, or at least more the need for much more consideration in this area. Neural tube defects like spina bifida cause varying degrees of symptoms depending on where they occur - its an example of an area of potentially arbitrary and judgemental reasons for a termination.

298

Col. Blimp IV*,

23/09/2007 17:24:13

#338. de bono

Yes there was a sci-fi film with that scenario "Gattica"

Unsettling how, improbable though they may have seemed at the time they were made.

Many of them are quite close to todays reality.

I look forward to the day when McSprog, AM2, Mel and co are contestants on the Scottish produced version of "Running Man".

299

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 17:25:28

#334. Methalions: All of a sudden Barn eggs apear to be more humain NOW!!!!!

May be thats why they suggest you store your eggs in the fridge these days.

If you feel sorry, instead of putting your eggs in the fridge put them in a warm place like an incubatour, you might get 6 chickens out of it or 6 rotten eggs.

300

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 17:28:40

346 - Col B

you mean slithering man?

301

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 17:29:54

346 - Col B

or the "Running Sheep"?

302

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 17:32:20

353 -

Aye aye to that. If only we could get him to hold still long enough for the Col to charge upo and zap him? grrrrr

303

Col. Blimp IV*,

23/09/2007 17:34:06

#348. karinm

It depends on how serious the BBC are about this increased funding for programmes made in Scotland.

304

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 17:35:33

356 Methalions

aye, we would have AM2 with a bottle of gin, a hot bath and a coat hanger charging in

305

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 17:35:37

#346. karinm: Scary!!!

The closeted we got to the subject of abortion at school was a poem. It was a very sad poem, which should things from the unborn fetus perspective.

It wasn't graphical about the procedure it self it was more about the emptiness, secrecy and some sort of betrayal from the fetus point of view (if it had one of course).

306

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 17:35:53

358 - apols, that was a bit tasteless

307

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 17:38:46

#302 de bono.
What you are forgetting is that at the end of the 9 months hooked up to the violinist he will get up and get out of that hospital bed and go on to live independently of you. With the baby you would get up after the 9 months and spend the next 18 years nurturing and paying for it. I don't think your analogy was enough to make me sign on for motherhood if I wasn't so inclined!

308

Col. Blimp IV*,

23/09/2007 17:39:32

#354. AyrshireScot

I seem to remember there is a big electrically charged guy on a motorbike in Running Man.

I don't think AM2 would fair as well against him as Arnie did.

309

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 17:43:18

363 - Col B

no, he would be babbling away with a selective quote of audience polling data about why he should live in an attempt to dissuade his attacker, squealing about how attempts on his life were inspired by nationalist racism, defending himself with a sheaf of papers with out of date quotes, before being mown down and silenced forever.

310

Not A Unionist or Nationalist,

Dundee 23/09/2007 17:43:45

"#353. karinm / 6:30pm 23 Sep 2007 AM2 really gets on my nerves the way he politisizes every subject and turns it into a SNP vs unionist subject."

It is not just the likes of AM2 who are suspicious of Salmond's motives here.

I have a real nagging doubt that this has been done exactly for political reasons.

311

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 17:44:22

#351. karinm: Well look at it this way:

1) Fried eggs are NOT healthy

2) NOT all feritlised become chickens

3) Write to the producer to voice this complaint cause their the only people who can right this wrong.

4) Write to the Scottish Consumer Council Or go bigger and go to the EU one BEUE and may be the EU as a whole will take notice of it.
http://www.beuc.eu/Content/Default.asp?PageID=824&Lan...

312

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 17:45:53

#357. Methalions: What!!!!!

313

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 17:49:54

#367. Not A Unionist or Nationalist:

Is that Wendy nagging?

314

BonnyBird,

23/09/2007 17:51:48

I can only hope that we have the sense to stop this up chucking crap 'about look at the baby sucking its thumb' and go take a reality check.

Ask the right question, how many children are under supervision orders because of their dangerous and unpredictable home situations. How many children are in care, how many children there are in orphanages. On the medical side for every child that is born 25 weeks and under how many survive and in what condition.

Too many people think that they have a right to a voice .... no you don't

The question is simple - do you need an abortion yes / no

If no then thank your lucky stars that today, you are not in the situation were you will have to consider it and feel compassion for the woman who does.

If yes then the last thing you need is a bunch of arses who are not in your situation and have no understanding of what is going on in your mind. Their ignorance in thinking that they have somehow aquired a right to some kind moral high ground and a right to tell you what to do with your body is total ignorant crap.

No one has the right to interfere in your decision. And by the way if we are getting in to the realms of what God thinks then EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE should just shut their mouths because no one know Gods mercies.

315

thomas,

midlothian 23/09/2007 17:53:33

am2 as usual makes a mountain out of a molehill.
people squeal to have their rights, including having sex.
if as a result of this act the female becomes pregnant, thats when the trouble begins.
was it consensual?
the resulting baby or babies have now to be catered for .do we hear people shouting about their collective responsibilities?
there-in lies the problem. who is responsible, and for what. if society were more responsible for their actions, this issue would not matter.
because alex salmond wants scots to have a say on their future, it is not anti english or anti unionist, more sensible,if you are the politician in charge of scotlands interests.

316

Not A Unionist or Nationalist,

Dundee 23/09/2007 17:54:22

#371 If you mean Wendy Alexander - I can't stand the woman.

I have a nagging doubt as it is rare for any politician to make a decision/announcement without some sort of political calculation being made.

That goes for Nats, Labour, Tory, Lib Dem . . . .

317

Media 1,

23/09/2007 17:57:54

There really is no point debating abortion. At the end of the day its up to the pregnant woman to decide what she wants to do. If she wants to abort then thats her choice, end of story.

Nobody can tell the man he MUST ejaculate inside the female. Its up to the man to decide if he wants to ejaculate inside the female.

318

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 17:59:40

373 - Bonny bird

Well said. Amen.

319

Not A Unionist or Nationalist,

Dundee 23/09/2007 18:00:14

#376 But what happens if our abortion laws are different from the rest of the UK's? If ours are tighter women go over the border - if they are less tight we have an influx of people coming in for abortions because it is easier.

Look at Ireland where many women cross the Irish Sea each year to have an abortion here. In my opinion that makes what is a difficult decision even more traumatic.

At least with a UK-wide policy there would be less need for women to travel to get an abortion.

320

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 18:00:55

#341. The Fly Fifer: Don't think much of their atmept to offer support to women who have had abortions in the past.

The fact that they mention that, they probley though about killing them selfs is too strong languae to say to these women espasly if they are what they claim to be devistaed for years and decades about their dession.

I'd think it was best that women who had abortion went to see a coniseler not read things that might make them feel worse. I'm relived that they don't screutanise them though.

321

melgibson2@snp.org.uk,

23/09/2007 18:09:28

#379

You are right of course no-one forces the man to ejaculate in the women, but if he choose to ejaculate on her face and she gets pregnanent anyway?

I think ejaculation is perhaps non-consequential.

322

thomas,

midlothian 23/09/2007 18:10:07

381 i was hoping that good sense would rub off in the english parliament, and the people living there would adopt a more disciplined attitude to life.

323

Dunnie,

Canada 23/09/2007 18:11:21

373 - BonnyBird - as Meths said, very well said.

Reading some of the other rabid postings reminds of the morbid fascination one has watching a snake slowly swallowing a frog.

You can't believe what you are seeing but you continue to do so.

324

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 18:11:29

#372. Methalions: From what time scale?

I've heard that that cow meat and meat from other large animals such as pigs, was once demend as being unedable. Where as the meat from rats, rabbits and other small animals where seen as palitable. This was Ironicaly round about the time in the history books where they have digramms of succleing pigs cooking on the fire. The meat was very unedable. (Medievil times, thats when it was or was it the middle ages, my history isn't to good)

Meat from larger animals only started to be edable once man had worked out way how to prepare and cook it properly.

325

Dunnie,

Canada 23/09/2007 18:14:05

#383 -

Meths - Well said yourself.

326

thomas,

midlothian 23/09/2007 18:14:09

381 not a unionist or nationalist.
if women were given their proper place in life, none of this would be an issue.
the best coach on the planet is your granny.
should you listen to some other advisor, then failure on your part or, what we now have will result.

327

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 18:15:04

#378. Not A Unionist or Nationalist,:
No one said you have to like the person who is nagging at you!

328

Caora Dubh,

Dachaigh 23/09/2007 18:21:47

The article is not about the rights and wrongs of abortion, but about whether the laws controlling abortion should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly. The problem with devolution is that Scottish abortion laws might well become different to those of the rest of the union, in which case many women might be forced to travel to receive the treatment they desire. Irish women have been travelling for years to the UK for just such a reason. This is bad, because it puts a woman in a strange environment without the support of her close family and/or friends, at a time when she is under considerable stress. On the other hand, one supposes that women would travel to foreign countries anyway, if so inclined. Perhaps someone should conduct a survey among Scottish women as to whether they wish to have the laws devolved?

329

howyoudoingboy;,

23/09/2007 18:23:18

If men were made 100% responsible for for their babies. The number of women wanting or needing an abortion would fall to almost zero.

330

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 18:23:46

#384 Mel Gibson

'I think ejaculation is perhaps non-consequential.'
What the @@@@??
I beg to differ! Each time someone ejaculated inside
me without benefit of contraception I ended up pregnant, which I would argue makes ejaculate very much consequential! Numbnuts!!!!

331

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 18:32:25

#383. Methalions: Correct me if I'm reading your post wrong (It does happen now & again) BUT you appear to be aiming most of the comment directly to one religion. ODDLY Reminds me of a Cathlic who resents the faith, they were brought up to belive in. (I've been paly with a few & they totaly have that tone on the subject)

Personaly I'm no member of any church and belive that religion is important and everyones religion should be respected.

These people are entitled to an opion on anything they want to just like anyone else, if they no nothing about the subject and aren't willing to learn they'll just look fullish. And everyone has the right to make an eejit out of them selfs wance in a while.

It's called being human!!!!!!!!

332

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 18:32:41

#394 Karinm
Wasn't that a classic piece of social commentary too!
I loved that part of the film where she was popping out a baby while smoking a fag at the kitchen sink amidst the tons of other kids! Her only comment was 'oh, will you get that for me love' to one of her older kids as she carried on with the dishes!

333

Not A Unionist or Nationalist,

Dundee 23/09/2007 18:34:50

"#390. Eve, Scotland / 7:15pm 23 Sep 2007 #378. Not A Unionist or Nationalist,:
No one said you have to like the person who is nagging at you!"

My wife's name is Angela - and she does not nag . . . . .
.
.
.
. . . checks back . . .
.
.
.
.
. . . she's gone . . .
.
.
. . . often!!

334

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 18:35:18

383 - Meths

you missed the in built divisiveness of organised religion in their mutually exclusive mythologies. You missed the retardation of scientific advance by organised religion. You missed the stultifying misogynism of most organised religions. You missed the wilful and deliberate obstruction of the teaching of science by alot of orgnaised religions. Apart from that...

335

Not A Unionist or Nationalist,

Dundee 23/09/2007 18:37:03

#400 He knows exactly what he is doing by picking an issue that deliberately puts a wedge between the Catholic Church and the Labour Party.

336

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 18:38:11

#297
Oh Karinm, so cruel! To make him feel inconsequential!
I agree the ejaculate comment was toooooo much info, but hell, we've been encouraged by Fife Flyer to watch an abortion taking place on film so I kinda thought we might have got past the point of good taste! Anyway, I have three kids-you know how I got them!

337

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 18:40:16

400 - Am2

as are you, my muckle unionist.

338

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 18:41:36

Oops, I mean Karinm at #397 of course!
And your comment at #404 may not be too far off the mark!

339

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 18:44:10

#411
No definitely no blue tongues, just muckle teeth apparently.

340

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 18:44:20

#393. Suzi B: Don't think MelGibbsin and media1 see much action in the bedroom, judging by media1's comment you think he was either really naive or some kind of super being, who can always over come natural instincts.

What about pre-ejaculation, I've heard that fuiled that can contents sperm is some time comes out before, and a man has no idea he's doing it.
That apparently get some women pregnant.

341

thomas,

midlothian 23/09/2007 18:44:32

rabbie burns comments were the best;
that hackneyed judge of human life;the preacher and the king, observes; the man who gets a wife he gets a noble thing!
but how capricious are mankind, now loathing, now desirous, we married men how oft we find the best of things will tire us.
womens lib ya bass!

342

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 18:45:34

413 - AM2

god, mince by proxy now, is that your game?

343

Suzi B,

23/09/2007 18:47:54

#416 Eve. Yes, it's a well known phenomenon in Edinburgh, its known as getting off at Haymarket but the sperm going all the way to Waverley. Sorry, that was also a little distasteful!

344

Not A Unionist or Nationalist,

Dundee 23/09/2007 18:48:10

#413 The real issue issue for me is not abortion but the fact that so many get pregnant in the first place.

But then it would not be politically opportune for Alex Salmond (or any politician for that matter) to stand up to Cardinal Keith O'Brien and tell him that their attitude to contraception does not help matters on bit.

345

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 18:49:15

413 - AM2

ps - i called you a bottom scraping lobster, and your comments squalid. I did not call you sick or despicable. I merely said something about your comments, in refernce to someone else's use of depsicable. Your inexactitude is becoming as compulsive as your diversionary bleating.

346

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 18:49:39

#391. Caora Dubh: I say YES the powers should be devolved to Holyrood.

As the artcle points out they were going to do it back in 1979.

The only 2 thing thats changed in the subject matter is the number of abortions being carreid out and the way the media deals with the delicate subject.

347

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/09/2007 18:50:10

Nearly 400 comments with none removed!
Shows what a 'passionate debate this is! although the last few comments are drifting a bit!

348

Eve,

Scotland 23/09/2007 18:52:30

#400. AM2: Thought you weren't talking to AyrshireScot the day, was it worthi it for the big 400. Or did you just change your mind?

349

Fairfax,

23/09/2007 18:54:34

Col. Blimp (345):"I look forward to the day when McSprog, AM2, Mel and co are contestants on the Scottish produced version of "Running Man"."

This is not a healthy fantasy. Further, if you see your opponents as the contestants, do you really want to associate your own side with the repressive, duplicitous police state running the game? Surely this particular fantasy is an own goal . . .

350

AyrshireScot,

23/09/2007 18:56:06

428

Its just the same old unionist mince. They say they will ignore you, then pollute the thread with mincey epithets aimed at you. they say they won't rise to the bait, then the compulsive, nervous build up of bile bubbles over.