[Please be aware before reading this that the person posting has posted this on numerous other sites and is not being factual in their description of the abortion procedure. See here for more details - Mata]

so what if i am posting on various forums?

Tony Blair has always voted for late-term abortions, and
Tony Blair supports partial-birth abortion.

Partial-birth abortion is a horrifying procedure wherein an abortionist incompletely delivers a baby, leaving its head within the mother. He then penetrates the base of a late-term baby's skull so that he can suction out its brain (thereby collapsing its little head) prior to full delivery. Evidence confirms that these unborn children experience profound pain during these procedures.

a surgical nurse who observed first-hand this gruesome procedure at abortion clinic, recounted the immense revulsion she experienced while participating in a partial-birth abortion:
"The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his feet were kicking. Then, the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, in a startled reaction -- like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall."

Partial-birth abortions are performed by the NHS. The NHS Medical terms for partial-birth abortion are "dilation and evacuation" and "D&E".

The Antenatal Screening Web Resource

I get the feeling the "Vote Conservative!" slogan was missing from the end of that post.

Of course, I would be more worried about the person who'd be willing to have that done to their child....or the docter who'd actually be willing to do it over someone who supports it. Interestingly, I've never heard of this before.

Edit: oooh, lookit!

Edit 2: and also

Ok, actually read up on this one and it seems to be only an issue in the US, the tpoic about it on the BBC website was about how they banned it in America but there seems very little discussion about it in the UK.


Taken from here

I actually find myself agreeing with Dubya on this one...which is sorta...worrying.

Can you provide a source to confirm this?



Can you confirm this?



Reflexive movements don't prove anything. Corpses move too. Doesn't mean they're in pain.

I second this post:

http://www.billybragg.co.uk/forums/index.p...ndpost&p=106645

I find it very hard to believe that and doctor would perform such surgery lightly, and even harder to believe that Blair would favour such a procedure when less drastic actions were available. I don't like the man for one moment and I'm not about to vote for him, but this doesn't mean that I believe he would compromise his morals in this way. His Christian faith can be a strength and a weakness, but I think on this issue it would guide him towards rejecting such a procedure unless there were heavily mitigating circumstances.

Any reason why we are getting told a load of bull about what a late term abortion is exactly.

This sort of thing makes me livid with anger, its emotional blackmail.

Here is the truth, from a reputable site
http://www.bpas.org/images/pdfs/39539%2014%20Weeks.pdf
The fetus is terminated using drugs in a humane manner in all cases before the actual removal of it from the womb.

To be quite honest lynn's post have made me a lot more likely to vote for Blair cause he's at least got the courage to support an unpleasasnt but vital medical procedure, so whatever your post was supposed to make me think its failed.

Thanks Bele, I've added your link to the initial post.

I am doubtful if any of the other leaders are against necessary procedures, even if they are unpleasent, when they are medically justifiable.

Beleraphon, the source you provide is biased, BPAS was set up as a charity in 1968 to provide an affordable, high-quality abortion service. The source treats abortion very lightly, stating only the concerns of the mother's physical well-being, and it doesn't detail the death of the fetus. I don't discount your position, only that website.

Did you click on the link and read the site?

Its linked to via the BBC and via the NHS direct site, that makes it fairly accurate in my eyes.

It details that the fetus's heart is stopped chemically in all surgical abortions, not stabbed in the head as the first post suggests.

Anyway, it looks like we have been spammed by some half wit. Its started an interesting debate though I guess.

I mean, in general I'm pro-choice, but more than that I'm pro contraception, abortion shouldn't be needed very often if reliaible contraception in used, which means that when it was needed it would be for a very good reason and not because of an avoidable accident.

There is partial-birth abortion in this country, and
Tony Blair supports partial-birth abortion.
Check his voting record. I can assure you he supports abortion up to birth and on demand for any reason.
The procedure is horrific.
People need to be told about the truth.

Tony Blair's voting record since becoming Prime Minister

Don't see any votes on abortion for either side... maybe he was waving the flag for putting babies on spikes or whatever before he became PM, but saying somebody "has always" done something when they haven't done it for eight years seems a bit of a stretch.

Partial-birth abortions are performed by the NHS.

Tony Blair is a hypocrite

Sorry, what was that you said about his voting record? Can you show me where Tony Blair has voted in favour of allowing partial-birth abortions? I mean, personally I'm behind reducing the limit to 20 weeks (I agree with a Conservative Party policy, I feel unclean) but it seems your argument has some holes in it.

Yes, of course they are. Sometimes these things are necessary to preserve the life of the mother or to prevent massive suffering by the child in life. Call me crazy if you like, but I think that those are pretty good justifications for abortion. I know that this is a controversial issue, but I am 100% convinced that the doctors involved would take all possible measures to make sure that other options were pursued and that the minimum amount of suffering occurs.


Most likely, but I don't think I've ever seen evidence of him contradicting himself on this issue. You apparently have, so would you like to give us the links to it (somewhere other than an anti-abortion site, preferably) so we can see it ourself? Or would you like to continue to make unsubstantiated claims?

As a side note, these forums generally don't respond very well to preaching. Telling us what to think will not get you far, whether this is on religion, politics, sexuality, or even views on films! You will get a better response by giving us the evidence that has persuaded you and allowing us to make up our own minds.

I personally don't like abortion, but I can see that it has a necessary function not only for society but for individuals. Every person is different, and not every person wishes to bring a new life into a world like this one, especially if that child is going to face even greater challenges than most people. I believe in the right of parents to choose, because they are the people that have to live with that decision on a daily basis for the rest of their life. If they are given the options honestly and openly, without bias in either direction (as far as possible) then I think that they are likely to make the best decision in their circumstances.

So once again, please remember not to preach at us. We are capable of making our own minds up and do not take kindly to other people telling us what we should think.

Of course I read the site, I read through and understand that yes, the procedure is not as it was detailed in the first post, nor did I ever actually believe the first post. However, I still stand by my reasoning that a site created by people who are pro-choice is going to be biased as much as people who are anti-choice creating a site would be biased.

There is only one reference to death, and much of the site is devoted to how the procedure will affect the woman, rather than the child/fetus.

The first procedure details makes no mention of chemical use to kill the fetus/child, and furthurmore, the child/fetus is referred to simply as "the pregnancy".

Overall, I think that the site deals lightly with abortion, and doesn't take into full consideration how dangerous the procedure is to the fetus. There is a 100% death rate. And yes, I realize that I am anti-choice (I don't like using the phrase "pro-life", because it implies that the other side is "anti-life", which, of course, is not true) and thus guilty of the same bias that I accuse the web site of, however, remember that I do accept all the factual information that is given, I do not discount it out of hand just because I don't like their message. I simply disagree with the manner in which the information is presented.

Sorry pgrmdave, this is a topic I feel very strongly on, and the site did describe abortions in sufficent detail to deliver the message that the fetus is killed in late term abortions, of course in a very early abortion you just have a bundle of cells so I think its fair to call it a pregnancy.

At least its not scare mongering and horror stories like the pro-life sites.

Refering to a collection of developing cells or fetus as YOUR UNBORN BABY all the way through a description of how a pregnancy is ternimated would be fairly stupid wouldn't it?

Yes abortion is nasty, but I support abortion and the rights of women, I support late term abortion as well. All the sites I've looked at (NHS, BBC, Family Planning Services etc...) are very clear that they are not 'on demand' as quoted, they are after full consultation and carried out by a qualified medical practitioner.

The site that lynn posted was the National Right to Life site - based in Ohio USA, far more biased than the sites I used to research my infomation.

Or would you prefer going back to a society where such a procedure was carried out illegally, in the dark, outside of the law and medical help where a woman who has for one reason or another- that you couldn't be bothered to find out about, would be persecuted and prosecuted for aborting her pregnancy, on top of the suffering that she would have already gone through, because that is what would happen.

Or will you give up you job and look after the children who should have been aborted, either unwanted kids in council care or children so badly handicapped they need every last tiny thing doing for them?
I doubt it, you'll howl and protest from your little moral tower, but not see the reality of your actions.

Hey, hey, this is a thorny topic but there's no need to get nasty...


I should point out that, unless you live in Sedgefield, voting for or against Labour because of Tony Blair's views on abortion is exceedingly pointless. Whatever Blair's views may be, Labour has none on this matter. When a vote is taken on abortion, the whip is not enforced, and all members are permitted to vote with their consciences.

Funny how most pro-life people are so secure in their beliefs that they have to misrepresent/lie to people to make them start to think as they do which is obviously to only right way.

I can see the point you're trying to make here dave. However, they are describing a medical procedure and when it comes to stuff like that, they're not going to tailor what they say so as not to upset someone.

And I know for a fact that in every pregnancy, if you ask your midwife to try to save the child over yourself - they will explain that they will always place the life of the mother over the child. Sad but true.

http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/haskellinstructional.pdf

This is a far more detailed explanation of what happens. It is not biased in either direction, as far as I can tell.



Of course I don't want that to happen, I simply think that the alternative is worse. I don't really think that this logic holds true , especially if you look at it from my point of view. If, as I believe, abortion is morally wrong, then we must try to restrict the number of abortions. If abortion is not wrong then your idea makes a lot of sense, because it helps people, and coming from your POV I would have to agree. However, I think that it is best to not allow abortions in most cases. I am not an extremist on this issue, I understand that there are some cases in which an abortion is not only logical, but moral. However, I think that an abortion is killing a human, and so I cannot justify it in most cases. Again, I am not an insane anti-choice person, I simply believe that life begins at neurological activity, and must be afforded the respect that we give all life.

Said activity begins at approximately 22 weeks, an event called "quickening". So surely abortion before that point is not murder?

I've heard differently, that activity, though rudimentary, is present as early as three weeks.

From ReligiousTolerance.org, an unbiased site (on that page they're examining one argument rather than taking a position themselves).

I've never heard that neurological activity begins before the fifth month. Can you provide a source?

In the book Consciousness: a user's guide, I don't have the book on me right now, but once I get home, I'll post the quote.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm

From the site you provided. It shows the controversy over whether or not a rudimentary neurological system can feel pain, however, I think that it supports the idea that a fetus can fully feel pain, and fully react to stimuli, by the 24th week, at the latest, in all cases. However, the fetus will feel some before then, if I am interpreting it correctly, and different fetuses will develop at slightly different rates.

I think one of the reasons that I'm pro-choice is that it gives people the option to keep the baby or to have an abortion. Pro-life views only argue one side, and I can't help but think that that is naturally going to lead to a greater bias.

Yes, I do put the rights of the parents above those of the growing baby. That baby may be capable of feeling pain, it might not. I don't know, and I doubt that neurological studies are going to be answering this question any time soon. I think a more relevant point is as to whether a momentary pain is bettter than a whole childhood of being resented or unwanted. I see this in the same way as euthenasia: if it is clear that this person is going to suffer unduly then a choice needs to be made about the way forward. I believe that the choice does have to be made by the parents and that they should be given as much support as possible in making the right choice for them.

This said, I would personally prefer the child be born and put into adoption with a family that desperately wants the child, but this is not an ideal world and late-stage terminations are not usually done for the same reasons as early ones, the reasons are generally far more pressing. If it comes to the choice between a life that is already with us or a life that may have great difficulty surviving birth or its early life, then I know where my choice lies.

I've been talking about complex cerebral activity, not pain, which is felt by most things, including all those creatures which we generally consider not to have rights.

Complex activity begins at around 22 weeks, which is the current UK limit on abortions (and for that very reason). I favour moving the limit back to 20 weeks to allow for foetuses that may be developing quickly.

But even if we think pain is the important factor - I think it's an odd qualification, but okay - that still doesn't justify being opposed to all abortions, especially since something like 95% of them (I'm half-remembering figures, that may be wrong but it's definitely the vast majority - happen in the first trimester, well before there's anything that could possibly feel pain.

Yes; I expect you still eat chicken, dave, without very many qualms. Without making this too much of a philosophical issue, if pain is simply an electrical response to a stimulus to warn a body that it is in danger, and there is no consciousness to perceive this response in terms of the emotional aspect--hurt, terror, innate fear of mortality--are there grounds to call the 'pain' immoral? Argueably, something can have a 'painful' stimulus response without perceiving the pain.

lynn, I might be more inclined to listen to an arguement for putting restrictions--even small ones--on abortion, if pro-lifers were not so given to resorting to emotionalism and broad, insubstantiated comments. With respect, if you would defend your position with evidence, you might find we may actually take your position seriously.

I place a greater value on human life than on any other life form, which is why I don't have a problem with death of other animals if it is to benefit humans. And I wonder if you would carry that logic through completely. There are those who believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that human children do not become self-aware until a few months after pregnancy, so it would be okay to abort them AFTER they've been born. I think, though I do not know that I can prove, that a fetus that can feel pain has connected neurons enough that it is able to think, in a very basic manner. All of thought is simply stimuli-response, pain is a basic stimul-response that is in the same manner as all other instincts that humans have.

I had a hell of a time finding information on fetal brain activity when we went through the 'can the baby/fetus feel pain' debate in the other abortion thread.

http://sesd.sk.ca/psychology/Psych30/Ejour...development.htm

This is the link I posted there. It seems fairly unbiased as far as I can tell, the University doesn't say Christian or anything blatant. I shall try to find more later, but I need sleep before research.

Mata:

Not that this is an argument for or against abortion by itself.. but when did people become so helpless? Adoption is an option like you said and people should be capable of either getting their act together or giving up said child, should they become pregnant and give birth. Obviously, many aren't judging by the numbers of abused and neglected children. I just don't think that circumstance should be an excuse for abusive behavior. Enough parents that didn't have abortions (for whatever reason) and not remotely an excuse. Not that I think you meant it as such or anything like that, Mata.

I suppose it just troubles me to have such a large decision made (in part) on the presumption of parental incompetence and inability to not abuse or hurt their children, instead of responding more fiercely to child mistreatment and such. Part of this is probably due to just getting back from work (drug rehab center) and hearing about the 16 or so women drug addicts and the multiple children that most of them have in foster care because of abuse and neglect. Some of them have even had abortions, to add to the irony. >_o Its just disturbing that we can do a lot to enforce abortion rights and access, but do so little to help or protect those children from so much misery.

Most of the abused children that I know don't wish that that they'd never been born to be spared the pain of their lives, though I'm sure there's some exceptions. heh. I'm feeling cynical about humanity today it seems.

Your theory of mind is, I think, somewhat suspect. It seems strange to say that "all thought is response to stimulus". That removes any concept of free will, for one thing. We normally think of the mind as causing things, not merely being caused.

Secondly: you would favour completely outlawing abortion because of something you "think, but do not know you can prove"?

After glancing about the topic (sorry, I really don't want to read the whole thing) I've decided to throw my two cents in, yeah?

My position: I am pro-choice but I am not pro abortion, dig? I'm not a fan of abortion, but it's a bit of a necessary evil and I support the rights of a woman. On the issue of its legality, I believe that it's much like alcohol. Should the government make abortion illegal, then it'll be prohibition all over again. You can't go back on this sort of thing.

As for lynn's story, that's bull. I've read it on countless uncreditable right wing Christian fundamentalist sites and I'm beginning to get sick (and desensitized!) to that story.

As for Blair, it's not my place to comment, as I'm American. However, I must say that it's a 'to each his own' kind of thing in my humblest of opinions. If you disagree, then don't vote for him, but you have absolutely no right to villafy anyone who feels that way or votes such as they have no right to villafy you.

All points covered? I hope so.

Don't both sides of this debate carry that risk? There's a lot of grey areas in this even among scientists, if I've understood past posts correctly. Not just the issue of how much pain a fetus/baby feels, but of when a fetus/baby becomes a life as we know it (as pregnancy goes on, ect). In the US at least, even the laws are contradictory. You can prosecute for the death of a wanted pregnancy for murder, but abortion is legal at the same time. I am not saying it proves my side or anything like that. Just that a lot of issues on both sides seem to be about definition in deciding what we believe is more important, such as the mother's wishes or the pregnancy. While there's certainly some viable points, that doesn't sound just like cold, hard facts to me, but a more complicated issue involving personal opinions.

You got me. I DON'T believe in free will. I believe in hard determinism, which, by necessity, destroys all idea of a 'free will'. If you believe in free will, then at some level, you need to accept that science breaks down in the brain...that doesn't make any sense.

So, how then, you ask, can I debate anything? We are all simply pawns of physics, so what matters? Well, determinism to real life is like physics to biology. All of biology can be taken down to physics, just like all real life can be taken down to determinism, but there is no need to do so.

How, then, can I actually ascribe value to a 'mind' when I don't believe in free will? Because there can be a mind without free will. Just like a computer can store a text document, our mind can store memories. Just like a computer can run programs, we can think. "Thought", in other words, does not require free will.


Once again, I am not in favor of a COMPLETE BAN on abortion, I simply think that MOST abortions shouldn't occur. There are some cases, I judge on a case by case basis, that I would agree with an abortion. However, I will ALWAYS choose to err on the side of more life, not less.

That's a good point. If you accept that killing a wanted pregnancy at some point is murder, then you must accept that the fetus has rights at that point, otherwise it would still be a part of the mother, and would be akin to cutting off the mother's hand, terrible, but not murder.

As promised, though delayed:



The book is called Consciousness: a user's guide and it is written by Adam Zeman, a consultant neurologist at Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, and senior lecturer in the department of clinical neurosciences at Edinburgh University.

I do not believe that constitutes personhood. I am not disputing the accuracy of your source, only its philosophical implications. From the details given, this sounds like an organism at a developmental stage no more significant than a lower animal.

I'm with Commie. I have to say that life begins when the baby it is feasible for the baby to live normally outside of the womb.

This statement confuses me, that an fetus must be able to survive outside the mother to be considered alive. Does that mean that anything which *requires* a symbiotic relationship must not be alive? Or is the case of a human different, or is the case of a fetus different? I don't see the difference, but maybe I simply don't think about it enough.

See, this is where you get into murky waters. By your definition, a severely premature baby (lets say born at 24 weeks) does not qualify as a person because it requires specific medical attention to survive. Babies born as early as 22 weeks can survive, although it's rare, and will require serious neonatal intensive care. At what point after they're born do they transition from a chunk of meat to a person?

Isn't 'medically aided life' covered by the term 'feasible'. The times of premature birth you're mentioning I believe are around the current final date for abortions.

Very true. That's exactly my point. A friend of mine in Seattle had a baby at 23 weeks. The kid was in intensive care for about 6 months (or more), but is now a healthy 3 year old. It's these kinds of borderline cases that are on the limits of the grey area surrounding the abortion issues.


Also, PWM's post used the phrase 'live normally outside the womb'. I don't class being stuck with numerous drips, on a ventilator and in an incubator 'normally'

Fair point, well made. I'm not going to get into semantics over the word 'normal'!

one thing I don't understand, and this is kinda spam kinda not. Is how can people say, they "don't believe in abortion, unless it's rape or something like that". That makes no sense to me, because to be pro-life would mean what it says. Another thing said by so-called pro-life people is that "It's not the baby's fault that the mother didn't use protection" But some of those same people say "if it's rape then it's okay". But it's not the baby's fault the mother got raped now is it? I just don't see how someone can be iffy and be pro-life. And this is not to diss people who are pro-life, that's their choice. But its the pro-life people described above that I don't understand.

And another thing, lynn said "people need to be told the truth" It's not like Blair is gonna kidnapp a pregnant 15 year old and say she needs an abortion when she's 28 weeks along, ya know? It's a choice, a choice that will help alot of babies not end up in trash cans, or on bathroom floors.

And here's a tid-bit of odd knowledge I found in a bathroom stall at the mall. Did you know (in the US, I dunno about the UK) that you can drop your baby off at a church, a hospital, or a fire station. The fire station is what caught my eye. Imagine, a bunch of burly men being tossed a baby.

You can still leave a baby at a hospital in the UK but they always try and find the mother; you used to be able to leave them at church's but fire stations?

I am one of those people who is anti-abortion, but I'm okay with abortions in certain cases, rape being one of them. I think that bearing a rape child to term, and raising him or her, would be incredibly difficult for a mother, having a constant reminder of the rape, especially if it is a son. I think that it would be emotionally difficult to be raised, knowing that you were the product of a rape. I honestly think that in that circumstance, death may be preferable, for all involved.

Aislinn: Well, being able to see grey areas or unique circumstances doesn't make you not pro something. I'm personally for the death penalty, but I can definitely see cases and people to whom I wouldn't apply it. Its just part of being able to address an issue and all its variants logically. Rape is a hard one because the mother had no say in the pregnancy. She wasn't careless, active or even involved in a consensual sense. It would be like blaming someone for being in a car crash. Its also a horrific enough crime to begin with, that its hard even for pro-life supporters to look at that woman and say 'you must have this baby' with that non-consenting bit.

I see where you're getting at but I still don't understand it. The way I view the whole pro-life philosophy is that it's murder, that the baby has a right to live. I guess there are two type of pro-lifers; those that are religious and see it as murder. And those that thinking it should not be used as a form of "birth control". I guess the same thing applies to those of pro-choice too.

there's a lot of opinions about this issue on a broad spectrum. And yep, that includes pro-life people. To say that rape makes you squeamish or have a harder time before forceful doesn't really change your stance. Its just trying to pick the less horrific evil, without punishing the innocent. As both the woman and the baby are innocents in a rape situation, that just becomes a lot harder.

But then the baby is still as innocent as it would have been if the condom broke. You can been very careful with contraception and still get pregnant. If you argue that women who get pregnant accidentally through concensual sex ought to carry to term and then adopt if they don't want it then you must argue the same for rape victims, otherwise you are visiting the sins of the fathers onto the sons. You must remain consistent, either justify abortion before a time limit or condemn it utterly, don't just say "oh you can have it if you were raped".

Have you thought that maybe with that justification women could just pretend they were raped if they were desperate enough? It's hard to prove whether they were or weren't and private clinics only ask the most basic of questions.

And if you only make abortion only available to women who were raped then you allow backstreet abortions back in for other women; don't say that won't happen because it happened all the time before it was legalised - girls would sit in a hot bath and drink gin, make penny royal tea or stick a knitting needle up their cervix. Atleast legal abortions have a time limit and the risk to the mother is minimal compared to home abortions. With a home abortion the mother can die of infection, blood loss or rupture her womb. These can also render her childless in the future. Also a part of the baby can remain behind and continue to grow, it won't be a child it will be a blob of cells formed into a torso or a leg and can you imagine how horrific that would be? And if what's left behind doesn't continue to grow it will rot and this can kill the mother or cause her to become infertile. Or if the home abortion fails it's likely the child will be deformed or seriously retarded (gone off on a tangent here but I feel strongly about this).

It would be just as emotionaly crippling for a child to know that it's mother had never wanted it but the state had forced her to have it, as to know it was the product of rape.

So, this is a black and white issue? There can't possibly be any chance that morality is fickle, and has many shades of gray, or that the shades of grey can be due to differing circumstances. Either you are against every single abortion that can possibly happen, or you are okay with it. Yup. Just two choices. Pick your side, and remain consistant.




So, if something is illegal, people will still do it, but more dangerously, so we should allow it? How about applying that to any other crime. Theft would be much less dangerous if we allowed it. If we legalized rape, it would cut down on the violence. Let's legalize all drugs, so that we can stop the illegal drug trade. You are the fan of black-and-white consistancy, right?



Qualify this. Are you saying that children put up for adoption suffer the same emotional damage as knowing that they were a product of rape? I think that you are wrong, but I have no research backing me up, maybe you can provide me with the studies?