Harry’s Place

Ever considered that the law is different in Northern Ireland on such matters from in Great Britain because (a substantial majority of) the population of Northern Ireland have a different view on this topic from the mainstream view in (far more secularised, far more addicted to the culture of death) England?

I would say the fact that the law in NI in this area reflects public opinion in NI is an extremely positive thing. I sincerely hope this campaign fails, and indeed that abortion legislation in GB will be tightened up ,too.

Parliament gets to have a say in this? Damn. You should turn it over to a council of lawyers like we Americans did.

No Act of 1861 has any democratic legitimacy.

The first one-adult-one-vote election for the UK House of Commons was in 1950 and the first election in which a majority of the adult population were entitled to vote was in 1919. All legislation that is older than that requires a fresh justification.

Venichka’s point about opinion in Northern Ireland has something to it. However, if this amendment is voted on, it will be the first time that the democratic UK House of Commons has voted on abortion in Northern Ireland.

Venichka:

I don’t see why that’s a strong argument. There are undoubtedly pockets in England, Scotland and Wales that given the choice would outlaw abortion. But Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom parliament evidently believes that a woman has a right to an abortion under more lax circumstances than those in Northern Ireland. Consequently the law should cover the entirety of the United Kingdom.

Abortion is wrong.

A woman who is raped

Surely, if you’re raped there are chemical remedies which a woman may take within the first few days after an assault (not that these are morally acceptable either)…

This is a weak justification for changing legislation.

or the victim of incest has no right to an abortion

Victims of incest must be an extremely neglible statistic…hardly grounds for the overhaul of an important piece of legislation…

nor someone carrying a pregnancy where severe fetal abnormality is diagnosed

If an embryo can be created despite ‘abnormalities’, can any scientist state conclusively that the child would not contribute something…love perhaps?

This is the most perverse justification for abortion. ‘Denature’ a ‘collection of cells’ on the grounds that it would be crueller to allow an ‘imperfect’ life…

Would the MPs supporting the campaign allow other lives to be ‘denatured’? Murderers? Castration for rapists? What about unwanted kittens in a sack, drowned in a water butt…would MPs support legislation promoting these ‘heinous’ acts I wonder…

So women in NI travel to the mainland to have an Abortion.

…and?

The main point here concerns the putative devolution process…

The people of Northern Ireland appear to be quite grown up the last time I looked: grown up enough to decide whether buggery, sodomy and abortion are important issues or not.

Why have MPs in NI and waste space at Stormont if Westminster, and MPs who head constituencies far removed, can just bulldoze over the feelings of the local people…

It comes as no surprise that Diane Abbott is behind the amendment…

She mentions equality as if this were really the issue. Many manual workers who have paid taxes and NI all their natural lives in her constituency would like equality. They’d like the right to be paid as much as her and receive the same perks and benefits as she receives. Many of her constituents are furious about her continued harassment of the police over ’stop and search’ and the victims in her own constituency who never achieve ‘equality’.

No. No. No.

Myself and my friends, the Zaydi tribesmen of London, will be confronting Ms Abbot tomorrow, during our march (10am, the Island, Ilford). We will make it plain that under no circumstances can the right to mutilate and kill unborn humans be imposed against the wishes of the good people of NI.

There are clearly too many Baal worshippers in parliament. If Ms Abbot wishes to desecrate the innocent wombs of the good women of NI as some sort of pagan sacrifice to her Satanic overlord she should come out and say so…not let this perverted ritual be debated in the confines of Westminster under the auspices of an ‘amendment’.

Let her show her true colours…there are plenty of anti-Baalist campaigners in Dalston and they’d love to know her stance on this matter.

If she chooses to recant her Baalism, let us hope she calls the following number: 0800 BLESSED BE HIS NAME. She can be sure of a friendly and loving welcome.

Shalom

foetal abnormalities in Yemeni English and in British English so I’m told

Perhaps opposition to having the 1967 Abortion law being applied to Northern Ireland will at long last unite both Protestants and Catholics! (or at least the more traditional believers). If not abortion, then perhaps opposition to gay rights can bring Ian Paisley and the Catholic bishops together!

Note: At least in Britain the legislature, parliament, made the decision about Abortion instead of here in the US where the Supreme Court made the decsion in the power grap known as Roe Vs. Wade.

Another reason to give Diane Abbott a hearty pat on the back. I’m in dangerous of reconsidering my view of her if she carries on in this impressive manner.

“When it comes to abortion rights, Northern Ireland women are effectively second class citizens: they don’t have the same rights as women in England and Wales and Scotland and they even have fewer rights than women in the Republic of Ireland,” she said.

Exactly.

Anti-Abortionists are almost always woman haters who can’t stand women having control over their own bodies.

meant to say “the power grab known as Roe vs. Wade.
(Sorry for the mistake.)

Venichka

Because a majority of the population of Northern Ireland may be against liberalising its antiquated and cruelly ambiguous abortion laws does not invalidate the reason for doing so; equality of rights for all British citizens. A majority of NI’s population may have been oppsed in the 1960s and 1970s for civil rights for the Irish/Catholic/nationalist minority; was that a reason for not granting them.

Similarly a majority may have been against the legalisation of gay rights in the 1980s until Strasbourg struck down the Victorian law which punished gay sex with life imprisonment.

You talk of a culture of death in secularist Britain; was not the sordid thirty odd year ethnic and sectarian conflict in NI a “culture of death” engaged in by paramilitary organisations some of whose respect for unborn life did not extend to life after birth.

Ever considered that the law is different in Northern Ireland on such matters from in Great Britain because (a substantial majority of) the population of Northern Ireland have a different view on this topic from the mainstream view in (far more secularised, far more addicted to the culture of death) England?

Have you any reason for asserting that the “vast majority” of people in Norn Iron think like that? I mean, moral and religious (NB this is not the same as sectarian) issues tend not to get much of a look in; nor does anything else beyond the old sectarian headcount.

I suppose though that if Dev could look into his heart to know what the Irish people thought, it’s possible that you too, Venichka, can look into your heart and know what the people of Northern Ireland think, but I’m somewhat sceptical.

Especially since, if you were to look at voting patterns in NI, a casual observer might conclude quite a number of voters weren’t quite free of the “cult of death”.

My own guess, and this is nothing more, is that there are a lot of people on both sides of the Irish border who are happy abortion is illegal but, thanks to Ryanair et al and various court rulings, easily, if not freely, available. It’s a cop out, sure, (or an Irish solution to an Irish problem, if you prefer) but it keeps the religious hardliners quiet and gives women a certain de facto reassurance.

abortion equals Baal worship equals satanism

stand for abortion stand for eternity in isolation from ‘I am’

stand against abortion and join ‘I am’ for eternity as part of a loving, platonic relationship

Baal is evil

‘I am’ is good

Call ‘I am’ now, 0800 BLESSED BE HIS NAME, he’s waiting for your call!

Actually the fact that all the NI MPs agree on something is almost reason to listen to them, even if they are wrong as they are here. Actually from a moral, not legal, point of view is it right to pass a piece of legislation against the wishes of the community (as expressed by their representitives) when it only applies to that community?

Given that abortion isn’t a devolved issue and is a conscience vote anyway I guess some more secularism will be enforced over there.

That last was a tongue in cheek remark for those of you that don’t get it.

If the reporting on the EU Treaty vote was anywhere near right, it may be difficult to get the Irish to recognize a woman’s right to choose:

“The bitter divisions caused by the treaty were visible at the count in ugly scenes involving the finance minister, Brian Lenihan, and members of a radical anti-abortion campaign group known as Coir, which opposed the treaty on the grounds that European law could supplant Irish bans on, among other things, abortion – a scenario the Irish government consistently said was impossible during the campaign.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/13/ireland

Regards,

Inna

If the reporting on the EU/Baalist Treaty vote was anywhere near right, it may be difficult to force the anti-Baalist Irish to recognize a Baalist’s right to make a woman choose:

“The bitter divisions caused by the erection of an 80ft owl effigy in the centre of Dublin were visible at the count in ugly scenes involving the pro-Baalist finance minister, Brian ’son of Baal’ Lenihan, and members of a radical anti-Baalism campaign group known as Coir, which opposes Baalism on the grounds that Stasi-Baalist law could supplant Irish bans on, among other things, abortion – a scenario the cryptoBaalist Irish government consistently said was impossible during the campaign but negated to inform the Irish public over its subjugatio to Baalism and its naked pro-Baalist aganda.”

http://www.guardianofBaal.co.uk/worldisnotenough/2008/jun/13/soontobeBaalistireland

Regards,

Inna Baalisma Sayyun wa yahudiyya haqqun, Leader of the Baalist People’s Alliance

I’m not saying I agree with it; but I do think it’s better to play the hand you’re dealt rather than the hand you Wish you had been dealt.

Makes for better strategy. (Sometimes)

Regards,

Inna

I agree that no woman should be expected to carry to term a child that has been forced upon her. As the father of a Downs syndrome man, you cannot expect me to agree with the definition of “severe foetal abnormality” which includes an unborn child with a hare lip, or some other correctable condition. (note. foetus is the word chosen by the pro-abortion lobby to dehumanise the life in the womb). Both divorce and abortion are in existence because of the “Hardness of Humanity’s hearts”, and any abortion law should take the failings of humanity into account.
I am unsurprised that none of the pro-abortion posts make any mention of the right to life of the unborn child.
A thought to finish with. Since the 1967 Act, as many pregnancies have been terminated in the UK as Jews were gassed in Nazi Germany. That was legal under Nazi law, just as 6,000,000 deaths have been legal under UK law. Is being legal the same as being morally justified?

Abortion Rights are not a devolved issue, neither are they in Scotland.
Whether public opinion in either place differs from the opinion of the UK as a whole is not really the point.
Public opinion, it may be argued, was not in favour Civil Partnerships in NI.
Scottish opinion may be more anti abortion than English, but its not a devolved issue.

Venichka,
What polling is there on Abortion Rights in NI?
Is there a variation in casees of rape or incest, fetal abnormality, the first three months?

Well, I know this doesn’t exactly answer your question, but I do think this is quite revealing:

All the Northern Ireland parties with MPs at Westminster oppose moves to extend abortion rights.

And frankly the differences between those four parties are, in some ways, far wider than those between the two main parties in England, or even between the four main parties in Scotland.

Morgoth: “Anti-Abortionists are almost always woman haters who can’t stand women having control over their own bodies.”

Good job you put that ‘almost’ in there. There are plenty of women opposed to the ‘abortion on demand and for contraception/trivial matters’ that we have today too, you know…

They may have opposed Civil Partnerships too.
But its not a devolved issue either.

Surely some confusion here…

Nobody wishs to force women in NI (or anywhere else) to have an abortion. We are talking here about the right of a woman to terminate her own pregnancy. Thus, whether 1% or 99% of NI population support it is completely immaterial.

“Good job you put that ‘almost’ in there. There are plenty of women opposed to the ‘abortion on demand and for contraception/trivial matters’ that we have today too, you know…”

And thankfully, they never, ever, ever, have to take advantage of these wonderful social and medical advances. Their opposition can be heartily lived every single day of their lives.

Now, if they’d just leave the rest of us alone to enjoy abortion on demand and contraception in OUR lives, wouldn’t the world be a wonderful place?

“A thought to finish with. Since the 1967 Act, as many pregnancies have been terminated in the UK as Jews were gassed in Nazi Germany. That was legal under Nazi law, just as 6,000,000 deaths have been legal under UK law. Is being legal the same as being morally justified?”

No, obviously.

Is a grown human the same thing as a foetus (or an ‘Unborn Holy Angel of Peace’, as the anti-choice brigade would probably like them renamed)?

And the answer is also “no, obviously”, so the only thought I’m left finishing with is what the hell kind of messed up mind do you have to have to try and compare a woman who has an abortion with a genocidal race-supremacist operating a fucking gas chamber?

There are plenty of women opposed to the ‘abortion on demand and for contraception/trivial matters’ that we have today too, you know…

Like who?

Point to any, if they exist, and they’ll be brainwashed monotheists.

Don’t bring up that evil throwback Nadine Dorres either. Not sure the board could cope with all the bile I have reserved for her.

Good luck with your demonstration against Diane and Baal Achi Yehya! I’m sure you’ll win over the undecided with your considered arguments and sane demeanour. Blessed be your name!

Thus, whether 1% or 99% of NI population support it is completely immaterial.

Yeah, this is what I think. Assuming for argument’s sake that Ven’s right and a substantial majority of the population of Northern Ireland are opposed to abortion, that’s fine, and would presumably mean that a relaxation of the law would result in very few abortions actually taking place. But I don’t think it’s a conclusive argument for preventing women who want abortions from being able to have them.

Consequently the law should cover the entirety of the United Kingdom.

No, it doesn’t work like that. The UK does not have a unified legal system: obviously that of Scotland is almost entirely separate from that of England and Wales, while that of NI is a funny mixture. In many regards legislation for NI DOES take account of the fact that it is, effectively, in many regards, a different country from those in GB, with a notably different (and to my mind largely superior, but that is by the by) Weltaanschaung….. it may not make a great deal of sense, from a purely legalistic, formal text-based constitutional text or to those who seek to impose the legacies of 1789 upon the Six Counties, but, in practice, is it largely respectful to the populace therein.

Attempting to impose what may be regarded as acceptable in the intolerance murderous halls of “liberal England” (or some trendy and/or affluent and vaguely amoral districts of London) upon the denizens of Belfast, Limavady, Ballymena and Downpatrick against their will is not on. (I believe this sort of thing used to be condemned as “imperialism”)

“Attempting to impose what may be regarded as acceptable in the intolerance murderous halls of “liberal England” (or some trendy and/or affluent and vaguely amoral districts of London) upon the denizens of Belfast, Limavady, Ballymena and Downpatrick against their will is not on.”

No one is imposing abortion on anyone. If you’re so confident the denizens don’t want to have any, why do you care if it’s legal or not? If people don’t want them, they won’t have them.

Truth is, you know that some women want the right to make the choice themselves, and may choose differently to you. And that upsets you, and you’re not prepared to let them.

Ven.
Are you arguing that rights to IVF and contraception should be different in NI?

“Nobody wishs to force women in NI (or anywhere else) to have an abortion. We are talking here about the right of a woman to terminate her own pregnancy. Thus, whether 1% or 99% of NI population support it is completely immaterial.”

Applauds loudly!

If you think having an abortion is immorral, don’t have one. Simple.

Ah Harrys place. Home of liberal imperialism.

“If you think having an abortion is immorral, don’t have one. Simple.”

Not a very good argument in this case - it applies everywhere else in the social libertarian argument ( i.e. if you believe that gay sex is immoral dont do it) but not here? Why? The religious ( and others) who are opposed to abortion believe it to be murder, hence the argument is to them:

“If you think not murdering is immoral, dont do it”

“Like who?

Point to any, if they exist, and they’ll be brainwashed monotheists.”

Me. And I’m not even slightly religious.

It is possible to possess a moral code that has no basis in any kind of religion, you know….

“Now, if they’d just leave the rest of us alone to enjoy abortion on demand and contraception in OUR lives, wouldn’t the world be a wonderful place?”

No, not really. Even if you’re not religious, to treat the taking of a life with such callousness doesn’t bode well for our species.

Applauds loudly!

If you think having an abortion is immorral, don’t have one. Simple.

Also repeal murder laws. If you think murder is immoral don’t murder anybody.

Simpleton.

“No, not really. Even if you’re not religious, to treat the taking of a life with such callousness doesn’t bode well for our species.”

Well, I think watching sport on TV doesn’t bode well for our species, but whatcha gonna do?

just leave the rest of us alone to enjoy abortion

The callousness of this beggars my belief.

Brett, your flippancy about such an important matter as human life just demonstrates the moral degeneracy that the west has sunk into, and the loathsome set of “liberal” non-values (or rather indifference, contemptible, misleadingly named “tolerance”) that must be fought with every breath.

Let us turn back the clock.

Also repeal murder laws. If you think murder is immoral don’t murder anybody.

Simpleton.

Murder and abortion aren’t the same thing, can we get that clear. So your point here sort of fails.

“Is a grown human the same thing as a foetus (or an ‘Unborn Holy Angel of Peace’, as the anti-choice brigade would probably like them renamed)?

And the answer is also “no, obviously”, so the only thought I’m left finishing with is what the hell kind of messed up mind do you have to have to try and compare a woman who has an abortion with a genocidal race-supremacist operating a fucking gas chamber?”

“Unborn child” will do . “Unborn holy Angel of Peace” is as dehumanising as the subordination of “foetus” from a medical term denoting any unborn mammal into a PC right-on statement implying casual disposability to the unborn human. You obviously think that being anti abortion on demand is the province of religious nuts. The argument I am advancing is that it is possible to be against the profligate waste of human life purely because the unborn child is an inconvenience. In your strop, you may have missed that I am not against abortion per se, but I do consider the unborn child has rights as well as the mother, and the mother has responsibilities as well as rights. You completely ignore the position that, by the time an unborn child is recognisable as human, then it could well have limited human rights. You say that there is a difference between adult and unborn child. At what point does a maturing child have the same right to live as an adult?
The author of the 1967 Act, Sir David Steel, is on record as saying that he did not realise the consequences of the Act when he pushed it through Parliament and is appalled at the use to which it has been put. I repeat. No woman should be forced to carry an unborn child when it has been forced upon her.
What I am comparing is the casual disposal of human life because that life is inconvenient. What kind of a messed-up mind do you have to have to argue for the right to dispose of a human life because it is inconvenient for the mother? And what kind of messed-up mind do you have to have to deny the consideration of a right to life of an unborn human?

PS it’s unfortunate that any debate about abortion seems to end up dominated by one group of people who think it’s no more of a big deal than contraception, and their opponents who think it’s as big a deal as murder. Both are wrong, and not helpful.

Its not my job, as a man, to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. That’s the bottom line, and that is why I am pro-choice.

“The callousness of this beggars my belief.”

The callousness of the anti-abortion position, to women’s lives, beggars my belief.

“Unborn child” will do . “Unborn holy Angel of Peace” is as dehumanising as the subordination of “foetus” from a medical term denoting any unborn mammal into a PC right-on statement implying casual disposability to the unborn human.”

A human embryo/foetus is an unborn mammal. That’s not up for discussion, surely?

“You obviously think that being anti abortion on demand is the province of religious nuts.”

No. I think that religious nuts are heavily represented though.

“The argument I am advancing is that it is possible to be against the profligate waste of human life purely because the unborn child is an inconvenience. In your strop, you may have missed that I am not against abortion per se, but I do consider the unborn child has rights as well as the mother, and the mother has responsibilities as well as rights.”

I agree with that. She must ensure that if she has an abortion, it’s carried out in the most medically safe way possible, and must have it carried out before 24 weeks. She also needs two doctors to refer her, though I wish that were not the case.

“You completely ignore the position that, by the time an unborn child is recognisable as human, then it could well have limited human rights. You say that there is a difference between adult and unborn child. At what point does a maturing child have the same right to live as an adult?”

From birth, it has the same right to life. Pre-birth, it has extra protection from 24 weeks. How far back should we go? Ban the morning after pill? Ban blowjobs? Masturbation? I’m not merely being flippant - there are indeed people who believe that spilling seed is a sin against life.

“The author of the 1967 Act, Sir David Steel, is on record as saying that he did not realise the consequences of the Act when he pushed it through Parliament and is appalled at the use to which it has been put. I repeat. No woman should be forced to carry an unborn child when it has been forced upon her. What I am comparing is the casual disposal of human life because that life is inconvenient.”

I am pleased you recognise that forcing a woman to carry to term the product of rape may not be desirable.

“What kind of a messed-up mind do you have to have to argue for the right to dispose of a human life because it is inconvenient for the mother? And what kind of messed-up mind do you have to have to deny the consideration of a right to life of an unborn human?”

But you do it when you say that an unborn human that happened to be conceived by rape has less right to life than one conceived by accident, or drunkeness, or a foolish moment regretted immediately. I genuinely am pleased you hold that view, but you have to agree that in doing so you are prioritising the mental state of the woman (her desire not to have her rapists baby) over the unborn childs “right to life”. You clearly recognise the tensions between different people’s rights, and deprioritise a foetus’ right to life over the choice of the woman - if force was involved in conception (which obviously is not the foetus’ fault). Well, I just prioritise all women’s mental state over the unborn childs “right to life”, up until 24 weeks, which I accept as a fair and partly-scientific - if obviously to some degree arbitrary - compromise on the competing rights of two mammals (one born, one not).

But I will not apologise for using the word “enjoy” to talk about the availability of abortion. Legal and safe abortion has literally liberated women from potentially life-wrecking situations. Obviously it is not something most women take lightly. But it’s also not an unmitigating disaster, or something we should be ashamed of, and despite Lord Steel’s personal sensitivities, not all of us are wringing our hands. Many of us believe that access to legal and safe abortion has been a good thing for society.

Obviously not as good as if no child was ever conceived unless fully wanted, I’m sure we’d all agree on that, but given we don’t live in shangri-la, it’s the best alternative we have.

And anyone who compares women having abortions to nazi death camp guards, and compares abortion since 1967 to the holocaust.. well, they deserve to hear about the fact that most of the modern world ‘enjoy’ the benefits of this alternative. Because there is something deeply wrong with their moral compass.

“Its not my job, as a man, to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. “

Do you therefore regard it as your job to tell a man what he can or can’t do with his body?

Or is it ok if another woman tells a woman what she can or can’t do with her body?

“But it’s also not an unmitigating disaster, or something we should be ashamed of, and despite Lord Steel’s personal sensitivities, not all of us are wringing our hands. Many of us believe that access to legal and safe abortion has been a good thing for society. “

I think Hillary Clinton’s ‘Safe, legal and rare‘ is the most impressive, soundly based thing she’s ever said…

But its not legal in NI Julia.
Thats the point entirely.

“But its not legal in NI..”

That’s for the voters to resolve.

Abortion is wrong and should only be seen as a means of last resort.

It should remain legal, freely available and all, but it should not be championed as some sort of liberating procedure, as the hallmark of a women who’s ‘arrived’.

And as for the agrument that abortion gives women controle over their bodies?

Well, it’s no secret that many young women abort their child at the request of their boyfriends or live in spouses.

So can having an abortion always be considered a *choice*, when that decision was made under duress?

They do it to please the men, because nothing turns a man off ( irresponsible ones anyways) like a pregnancy.

Abortion may actually benefit men more than women because it allows women to remain ‘available’ so that they can engage in sex with men who probably aren’t even worth having sex with.

“But its not legal in NI..”

That’s for the voters to resolve.

Through the British Parliament, as Abortion has been resolved in the rest of the UK.
And as the voters have resolved Civil Partnerships and IVF.
Both of which cover the whole of the UK.

Well, I think watching sport on TV doesn’t bode well for our species, but whatcha gonna do?

Don’t be so flippant, Mr Locke.

Reproductive technologies are about to unlock certain key indicators determining whether a *foetus* will be gay or straight.

The same crowd, the ones who claim to be pro gay, but would abort a foetus simply because it had a hare-lip, will soon be confronted with women whose foetus’ will have been found to be ‘gay’.

Has it ever occurred to you that ‘gay’ could be the ‘New Hare-Lip’?

I understand the need for abortion in rape cases, and I understand cases of incest etc, but there is nonetheless something very dark and odious about the whole abortion issue.

It’s moved beyond issues of women’s rights, and is now mired in issues of profits for huge bio-medical companies who dissimulate their greed behind the figleaf of “a women’s right to choose”.

Abortion, as many warned way back in the 70s, is just the thin edge of the wedge that could eventually lead to full blown eugenics and the confiscation/expropriation of human reproduction by the marketplace.

If a gay foetus can, through new whiz-bang technologies, be spotted, genetically ‘chased down’ and murdered, then what next?

But it’s also not an unmitigated disaster

Maybe a mitigated one, though.

200,000 abortions a year out of our population and when getting hold of contraception is as easy as buying a newspaper, is pretty fucking disastrous.

Does anyone actually know why the 1967 Abortion Act didn’t cover NI?

venichka

when did you decide personally to ditch vatican II?

“200,000 abortions a year out of our population and when getting hold of contraception is as easy as buying a newspaper, is pretty fucking disastrous.”

I would agree that this is very poor indication of our ability to use contraception, which is extremely useful in not only preventing pregnancy but - in the case of barriers - STD’s as well.

As a nation, we need to get better at using condoms.

Many of us believe that access to legal and safe abortion has been a good thing for society.

Gender selection abortions are very common in some countries, done to rid the parents of unwanted females. These societies also agree that abortion is a good thing.

200,000 abortions a year out of our population and when getting hold of contraception is as easy as buying a newspaper, is pretty fucking disastrous

Indeed. Abortion has become just another method of birth control.

Morgoth - Its not my job, as a man, to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. That’s the bottom line, and that is why I am pro-choice

If your woman decided to become pregnant with a child you knew you could not properly support, would you still keep your mouth shut?

ag.
I’ve tried and failed to find that out.

Heres some background from the BMA.

The law on abortion in Northern Ireland
The Abortion Act 1967 does not extend to Northern Ireland. The law on abortion in Northern Ireland is different and is based on the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 which makes it an offence to “procure a miscarriage… unlawfully”. The Bourne judgement of 1939, in which a London gynaecologist was found not guilty of an offence under this Act for performing an abortion on a 14 year old who was pregnant as a result of rape, was based on an interpretation of the word unlawfullyin this Act. The defence argued, and the judge accepted, that in the particular circumstances of the case, the operation was not unlawful since continuation of the pregnancy would severely affect the young woman’s mental health. In reaching this decision, the judge turned to the wording of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 which gave protection from prosecution if the act was carried out in good faith “for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother”. This formed the basis of the judgment and extended the grounds for a lawful abortion to include the mental and physical well-being of the woman. Whereas the law in England, Scotland and Wales is covered by the 1967 Act, Northern Ireland has been left with the task of interpreting this word “unlawfully” in the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act using also the 1945 Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) (under which the 1929 Infant Life (Preservation) Act was applied to Northern Ireland) with the precedent set in Bourne.

This judgment further clarifies the circumstances in which abortion is lawful in Northern Ireland. Doctors in Northern Ireland wishing to discuss particular cases or to seek advice on the law may contact the local BMA office. The BMA has policy supporting the extension of the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland (Annual Representatives Meeting 1985).

“Gender selection abortions are very common in some countries, done to rid the parents of unwanted females. These societies also agree that abortion is a good thing.”

Imprisoning people for their peaceful political belief in democracy is very common in some countries, done to rid the state of unwanted dissent. These societies also agree that prison is a good thing.

Is that an argument against prison in the UK, or an argument in favour of banning poor logic? You decide.

In many regards legislation for NI DOES take account of the fact that it is, effectively, in many regards,
a different country from those in GB, with a notably different (and to my mind largely superior, but that is by the by) Weltaanschaung….. it may not make
a great deal of sense, from a purely legalistic, formal text-based constitutional text or to those who seek to impose the legacies of 1789 upon the Six
Counties, but, in practice, is it largely respectful to the populace therein.

So if Birmingham gets a Muslim majority want sharia law or stoning for adultery, it’s all fine and dandy. Religious fascism disguised as cultural relativism is pure evil.
Venichka should embrace his faith based comrades in the MCB, sure he might give them some advice about how Muslim norms is a justification for eventually treating Muslim majority areas differently with regard to gay rights, free speech and sex equality.
Fucking unbelievable that anyone would question the legacy of 1789 or make its application subject to popular demands. Perhaps it may be explained how we should deal with similar arguments from Muslim organization arguing for the implementation of mild gender discrimination in Muslim majority areas.

And yes, NI should either get out of the union or conform to the same
moral regulations as does the rest of the nation. Abortion is not a devolved issue, more than whether stoning for adultery should be imposed locally.

Reader;

Is abortion always a good thing for society? The underlying argument seems to have gone right under your feet.

“Is abortion always a good thing for society? The underlying argument seems to have gone right under your feet.”

Not all abortions would be good for society (or necessarily the individual having it). For example, if every single pregnant woman had an abortion, that wouldn’t be good as it would depopulate the society.

If practically every female foetus was aborted, that wouldn’t be good as it would lead to a gross imbalance in sexes that would probably cause social problems later on.

But is abortion in the UK as it is practiced a good thing for society? Absolutely, yes.

I can see why people might have a discussion about things like whether abortion on grounds of gender or sexuality is a good thing or not (it’s not, in my view), but that’s not really relevant to what’s happening in the UK or the discussion about the UK 1967 act.

That’s probably why it went under my feet - because we were discussing the UK. And Xylo’s logic was appalling.

So if Birmingham gets a Muslim majority want sharia law or stoning for adultery, it’s all fine and dandy. Religious fascism disguised as cultural relativism is pure evil.

That’s where progressive politics eventually leads, Lc, so don,t complain.

It was the progressives all those years ago who kicked-off the current round of cultural relativism, and they did so with great enthusiasm and with nary a thought to any potentially unpleasant or UNEXPECTED consequences.

You reap what you sow.

The only way you can now roll back and refuse the inscreasingly strident Muslim demands is by countering their theology with that of Christianity.

But Christinaity is evil and misogynistic, and homophobic and bigoted and…you know.

The mechanics of this slow transformation are so simple and so apparent, I’ve difficulty understanding why people don’t see it.

You erase a culture’s religious identity, you wipe the slate clean in the silly belief we’re all post-Christian and ‘progressive’, and then you watch, perplexed and stupified, as a violent, misogynistic, homophobic, Bronze Age cult, 10 times worse than Christianity, takes its place.

John.P.,
I might agree with your position that Christianity is the antidote to Islamic supremacism, were it not for the reality, that conservative Islam and Christianity often make for strange bedfellows on common issues such as gay rights, sex equality and blasphemy. I can attest to the fact that many Christian conservatives like Dinesh D’Souza would rather ally themselves with traditional Muslims in countering homosexuality and feminism.
In the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark every so-called Christian party with parliamentary representation supports dhimmitude, respect for Muslim feelings and unrestricted immigration pandering to Islam as an” abrahamic” faith.

If your woman decided to become pregnant with a child you knew you could not properly support, would you still keep your mouth shut?

What is she going to do? Cut holes in all my condoms?

I’m in the bizarre position in this thread of being outflanked…from the right….by Venichka.

But Christinaity is evil and misogynistic, and homophobic and bigoted and…you know

Correct. Glad you’re finally realised that, John.

In the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark every so-called Christian party with parliamentary representation supports dhimmitude, respect for Muslim feelings and unrestricted immigration pandering to Islam as an” abrahamic” faith.

Fading Lutherans looking for a boost.

One of the biggest opponents to London’s proposed mega-mosque, slated to be built next to the olympic venue, is none other than Alan Craig, leader of the Christian Poeple’s Party

One of its biggest proponents is the oh-so atheist Red Ken.

And what do you think lay behind the Pope’s VERY public conversion of Magdi Allam, ex-muslim veteran of the Haj, last Easter?

Was it a shot across Islam’s bow?

Most of the overtures being made by The Catholic Church, for instance, towards Islam are in fact clever entrapments which encourage prominant Muslim scholars, ALL of whom are arrogant and boastful, to make very loud public statements of principle, statements of principle which we know won’t be respected, so that the gap between Islam’s word and deed, its bald-faced hypocrisy, can be laid bare for all to see.

They took the bait.