 a comment on a point you make,that being ‘Although many antagonists both on and off this blog have a right to their cherished view and the right to see abortion recriminalised through social and political activity.
First of all it is not a view of those who work for the pro-life movement-it is a belief.
It is a view of the pro-abortion movement.
Those working for the pro life movement see it as a destruction of a humam being, hence the pictures they show as it is said in the ‘abortion rights’ campaign.
The pro-abortion movement see it as a ‘view’ and a right to abort an unborn child.
Why do we see all the anger from those who oppose the pictures shown of a baby being aborted.
If they really didn’t believe that it was a baby why are they so angry.
 They have made up their minds on the issue. It’s inflammatory, upsetting, and unnecessary. Making your point should not involve unnecessary confrontations with your antagonists in public. Women seeking a medical abortion are potentially in a very vulnerable and delicate position and this is the last thing that they want to see. Ethical and professional pre-abortion counsellors, doctors, social workers, nurses, and all other hospital workers, do not behave in such a manner to their patients/clients. It would be unthinkable! Respectful debate is what is required; not harassment.
This seems to me to rather confused. Presumably the claim that all rights and rules need to be balanced with competing rights of others is in some sense absolute?
Granted! To say that there are absolutes or aren’t any absolutes; is an absolute in itself. I suppose there are several things that can be called absolutes, in human experience. Namely, life, death, matter, gravity, light, time, God, finiteness, infiniteness, space in all of its dimensions, logic, and pure mathematics, are my most likely candidates for absolutes.
Some of them cannot be defined as in ‘life’, ‘death’, or ‘God’. I am sure there are others that could be added to this list. What about the human will, evil, or love? They are indefinable, but are they absolutes? These are philosophical questions. Are there any Philosophers in the house?
Granted again! I am not a professional philospher.
John, take a look in http://www.Rachels Vineyard.UK.You may then show a little more sympathy towards the mothers who have aborted their babies in the past.Read the 100s of testimonies of those women who have suffered when they realised the full truth of what they did with, the help of people who have a vocation to save life.
I dont believe you really have any idea of what you are talking about. To me it seems as though you are allowing your ignorance to overcome your intelligence! Especially in a matter which I believe you know nothing about.Like so many others who need to wake up to the destruction of a baby.
Speak to some nurses who have witnessed this, not just looking at posters. This is reality we are speaking about here-not just photos.
Remember the horror of the young children throwing things over the motorway bridge, and the police asked them what they were doing. They said’ We are throwing little people away.
They were taking them out of a bin outside an abortion clinic.
Thats horror stories John -more than pictures.
Why must we hide the truth.Sometime these things need exposing. We are supposedly living in a civilised society today!
I believe the links are: http://www.rachelsvineyard.org.uk/ for the UK, and http://www.rachelsvineyard.org.au/ for Australia. I do have a lot of empathy for anybody in distress; regardless of whatever they have done or have happened to them.
What you have to accede to is the latest scientific research on the question of the post-operative psychological effects of medical abortions on women. Just such research has most recently been released in December 2011 by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges in conjunction with National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, London, and authorised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
If you are academically trained or you love to wade through a quite lengthy document, go to http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/images/stories/induced%20abortion%20%26%20mental%20health%5B1%5D.pdf. The entire document consists of approximately 250 pages. If you would prefer a more civilised summary, as I would, go to http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/442/1/.
“If they truly care for women’s mental health, they will focus their attention on reducing rates of unwanted pregnancy through better access to contraception and comprehensive sex and relationships education for all young people.” (http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/442/1/, accessed on the16th January 2012).
Barring any future revisions through future scientific studies of a similar quality, this study cannot be ignored, downplayed, or maligned by opponents of medical abortions. The study’s authority is impeccable, as it has emanated from the highest medical circles in Britain.
John, the evidence here is impressive. But do you think that it goes the other way too, i.e. that a claim that the mental distress of a pregnant woman can be relieved by abortion has no merit.
Is this a claim of the above study?
John, we agree that we respect each other’s right to our own opinions – and, I think, those of the Church, on this blog. But we are entitled to criticise all such opinions, in particular if they are incoherent or do not take account of all the facts.
You say “I will always be opposed to the recriminalisation of medical abortions, providing such abortions are scrupulously conducted according to all existing legal and medical regulations.” I have three points on this.
1. Abortion remains a criminal offence in UK (as previously noted), unless done in conformity with the exceptions provided under the 1967 Act (and its subsequent amending Acts). So ‘recriminalisation’ may not be in question.
2. Do you think that, currently, in the UK, abortions are scrupulously conducted according to the law? I suggest to you that the law is widely ignored. This is because of the widespread view (which you appear to share) that women are entitled to an abortion if they ask for one. “The opinion of two doctors in good faith” is frequently ignored (two doctors may sign the forms – they don’t necessarily read them). This is sometimes justified (‘scrupulously’?) on the basis that, overall, abortions have a lower death rate (for the mother) than live births. Your wish that the current law be respected is no more realistic than mine that it should be changed.
3. In any case, law needs a moral justification. Capital punishment is legal in several US states – that is the law, but it isn’t necessarily right. It is not enough to support strict observance of the existing law – you need to explain why it is just. You accept the possibility of changing the regulations “via the agency of the latest medical, social, and legal research” but I don’t understand by what criteria you would judge the relevance of such research, or how it should influence changes. From what you have said so far, I would infer (perhaps unfairly) that you may even think the law should be further liberalised, at least in some respects, to conform with current practice.
I think you overlook that to profit from abortions you do not have to operate in the back streets. There is money to be made from providing such services openly, indeed to the National Health Service.
It may not be impossible to ‘recriminalise’ abortion. Poland has – do you accept that as a democratic country? (so has Hungary – though not so democratic, perhaps).
I agree with you that it is important to understand the arguments used by pro-abortionists. But to understand is not necessarily to sympathise. If you feel that there are such arguments that are not getting enough attention on this blog, let us know what they are.
That it is not a claim of the study is perhaps an indication that the people who conducted the study were blind to the inference (why?). Personally, I’m not sure that the evidence is impressive. It has been criticised – reference to follow when I can recover it.
1. What I mean by recriminalisation is for the legal exceptions to be recriminalised.
2. Where is your evidence that medical abortions in the UK are done without regard to the regulations in question? Point me to proper observational studies that support your view. I don’t want anecdotal evidence. Even if you could provide me with these studies, what has that got to do with me? It is the job of the public service within the UK’s Department of Health to look after these issues.
3. It is not for me to judge the relevance or otherwise of new research impacting on the regulatory framework of medical abortions.
I promised some time ago to provide some academic criticism of this study. I refer you to http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/abortion_and_mental_health_science_vs_politics, where you will find comments by Professor Priscilla Coleman (you’ll have to scroll down a bit, as the comments are in the middle of a discussion of Professor Coleman’s own article). I