Advanced search

To have just emailed Jeremy Hunt

(64 Posts)
Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 01:16:39

and told him exactly what I thought of him and his anti choice views on abortion, using the word 'disgusted' far too many times for someone not from Tunbridge Wells...then to have emailed Dianne Abbott and thanked her for standing up for women's rights. Even though I am a Tory.

AuntieStella Sun 07-Oct-12 09:20:47

To answer the poster above: no he has no power to change it (it would require a change in the law). It is very unlikely that any one person could have sway over every single MP, especially on what would be an unwhipped vote. And more importantly, no, it's no part of the coalition Government's policy to make any changes to this law (no sign of any proposals, disavowed by those who matter, despite a couple of ministerial comments).

And the Health Service is about far more than the dates within which one procedure can be carried out, isn't it?

Panzee Sun 07-Oct-12 09:11:37

Well said leftwingharpie. Most pregnancies that are allowed to go to term result in a healthy baby. So by that reasoning no abortions should be allowed at all. It's really not the point.

bissydissy Sun 07-Oct-12 08:59:52

smoky chav
Of courses doctors and hospitals have ethical debates about whether to perform certain procedures. That's why hospitals have ethics committees.

Leftwingharpie Sun 07-Oct-12 07:08:50

I absolutely agree with what Fork said earlier - the abortion cut off date should not be linked to the fetus's potential to survive outside the womb if it's wired up to enough science. If we make that link, then as medicine advances, the window for abortion will reduce in parallel, until it might not exist at all, and women would have to carry babies to term from conception, regardless of the phsychological, physical, financial or social consequences, on the basis that with enough intervention, the newly implanted blastocyst could feasibly survive and develop in a mechanised womb.

bissydissy Sun 07-Oct-12 04:56:04


bissydissy Sun 07-Oct-12 04:54:00

A rouge weeks seems to have snuck into my post.....

bissydissy Sun 07-Oct-12 04:53:04

It weeks is clearly conservative nonsense and yes we need to beware of the example set by the US. To clarify a point made earlier the cut off for resuscitation in neonatal intensive care is 22 weeks (Not 24 as suggested earlier). surely it is an ethical debate based on the medical evidence. We have the science to do abortions at whatever date, the science to resuscitate after 22 weeks (although outcomes clearly not great) - surely we need to decide where we feel comfortable as a nation on an ethical level. But that is a debate which, if held, needs to be held openly, with the scientific evidence, evidence from those involved. Not one mans private opinion thrown out there willy nilly. I often have a private opinion about matters at work but I keep it to myself.

Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 21:30:01

Like your post Dawn smile
Think you are right Harpie I am rapidly going off the party I have supported for many years

Leftwingharpie Sat 06-Oct-12 21:20:29

Surely this is just a ruse to soften us all up for when they cut it to 20 weeks, hence the PM responding "oh nonsense nonsense... But now i come to think of it 20 weeks seems about right".

piprabbit Sat 06-Oct-12 20:53:46

The difference between Jeremy Hunt and the rest of us is that he is in a position to potentially turn his weirdy beliefe into legislation.

It reminds of the South African politician who didn't believe that condoms helped to prevent STIs such as HIV - and who actively worked to prevent people having the information and protection which might save their lives.

FreudiansGoldSlipper Sat 06-Oct-12 20:50:24

good on you

i do not want any changes to be made as the reasons why women have late terminations are very varied and it is not because they have had a change of heart often these women have to make a heartbreaking decision. sadly at times it is needed for them and imo women should always always have full control over their OWN body

DawnOfTheDee Sat 06-Oct-12 20:45:13

Jeremy Hunt also believes in homeopathy. So if you do have an unwanted pregnancy, just swallow a tiny amount of baby & it'll clear right up.

SmokyClav Sat 06-Oct-12 20:39:42

of course the decision should be made on medical evidence- it is a medical procedure.
What other procedure would you base on ethical debate? Oh, is it right or wrong to perform back surgery on this woman with scoliosis? hmm

seeker Sat 06-Oct-12 13:55:37

It might be an ethical debate for individuals- but it's a medical debate for legislators. Or should be.

xkittyx Sat 06-Oct-12 13:55:07

lavelle how can a fetus "breathe" in utero? Don't be daft. The first breathe is taken after birth.

gordyslovesheep Sat 06-Oct-12 13:47:56

it's a medical procedure - it's a medical debate - the rest is down to your own personal ethics, morals and beliefs - which are fine but have no place in deciding what is legal for other people to choose

he is a stupid man

PeshwariNaan Sat 06-Oct-12 13:27:20

It is a medical debate, end of story.

I'm from the US and you do not want the situation there at the moment re: abortion. It is absolutely vile. In some states it is to the point where rapes are being judged as "bad enough" or "not bad enough" to receive an abortion.

PeshwariNaan Sat 06-Oct-12 13:25:33

Well done you!

LonelyCloud Sat 06-Oct-12 13:25:02

OP, I suggest that you also e-mail your MP, you can find their contact details on this link:

Find Your MP

If the issue of changing abortion limits does come to a free vote, then IMO the MP you're in a position to vote for at the next general election is the one who's going to care most about your view.

Narked Sat 06-Oct-12 13:18:46

'it's an ethical debate, not a medical one'

No. It's really not.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Sat 06-Oct-12 13:06:48

I agree with him.

I don't think the decision should be based on medical evidence, it's an ethical debate, not a medical one. Timing for scans and screening are irrelevant because there is already no time limit on abortion for babies that have serious medical issues, and there is no reason why that needs to change.

Ponyofdoom Sat 06-Oct-12 11:07:42

Exactly Fork, why would someone put the life of a foetus over a woman? That is what I have asked him in the email. lavelle11 I think all women know what an abortion means and they have one because they are desperate and have no choice.

ForkInTheForeheid Sat 06-Oct-12 10:36:43

(grrr, must preview, Mr Hunt is referring to in his proposal, not proposing)

ForkInTheForeheid Sat 06-Oct-12 10:35:50

What really worries me about this "following the evidence" (re: foetal survival rates/whatever piece of "research" Mr. cunt Hunt is proposing) approach to abortion is that we have no idea where medical science is going to take us in the future. The focus on the foetus, rather than the mother, moves the argument away from the real issue, which for me is women's right to bodily autonomy.

I'm personally deeply uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion and am 99% sure I would never have one (barring life endangering situations). However that is my choice over my body and every single woman should have the same right to choose what happens to her. As uncomfortable as the idea of 20 week abortions might be (and let's face it, it is) the woman involved is not an incubator and the government/medical establishment have no right to treat her like one.

lavelle11 Sat 06-Oct-12 10:32:16

a baby has to grow ,breathe and live to get to 20 weeks or 12 weeks the only way you can stop this is by killing it. I feel for all the mothers who do not actually realise what is involved in abortion and suffer the consequences for many years after. God still loves them and their baby who they can meet one day in heaven if they choose. God Bless

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now