Rebecca Long-Bailey wants stricter abortion laws

Not Long Bailey but further proof of Labour's unelectability.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7894181/amp/Corbynite-MP-sparks-furious-row-blasting-40-years-Tory-rule-including-13-years-LABOUR.html?ico=amp_articleRelated

Funny how RLB manages to pick and choose. I seem to remember that the Pope has recently made a statement showing his concern about the whole transgender/self ID issue. yet RLB is very pro Trans rights.

Yet here we have her listening and agreeing (albeit not wholeheartedly) with the Catholic Church regarding abortion.

This is women’s rights being eroded in a pincer movement.

I will NOT be voting for her, nor any of the deputy leader candidates as they are all TWAW believers.

The all-male and (theoretically) celebate Catholic clergy can go and celebately fuck themselves. They could get together with the CofE teascosy hats and have a gangbang.

It would be better if RLB had spoken to RC women, both conservatives such as Caroline Farrow and reformers.

Long Bailey abstained on the Stella Creasey initiative on NI abortion rules which kick started the change.

I really can't see that she will ever be PM anyway. At the risk of shadowing their comments about the Tory party a vote by party members for her is turkeys voting for Christmas. It's depressing, they have the chance to elect someone normal who can make positive change. But no 🙄

I don’t know if she’s trying to mimic the US by getting the religious demographic on side. Problem is, we are not a religious country, so the religious demographic doesn’t have much influence here.

Absolutely Mockers.

My body, my choice. Not some man and his magic sky fairy that I don’t believe in.

God she's awful. But that seems to be a prerequisite for leading a political party these days.

@Goosefoot I've only just finished cancer treatment. I was treated at a specialist cancer hospital. I don't need you to explain to me what terminal illness can look like, or our relationship with mortality.

I disagree that euthanasia is worse than unalloyed end of life suffering. It can't always be overcome, and when death is inevitable, allowing people to die with more dignity and less suffering seems to be to have great value.

The key risk is abusive relatives or people in other way likely to benefit financially, which is why the courts should be involved, and the capacity of the person in question ensured. As to attitudes changing - I don't think there has ever been a time in history when people are so insulated against the reality of death. It's rarer in young people, we can extend life far longer, and most die in medical settings, if it's not a sudden death.

Allowing people the right to determine when life has become unbearable, when they are terminally ill, seems to respect both human dignity and bodily autonomy. It should be the right of the individual.

As a Roman Catholic and a Labour member, I can categorically say I am not voting for her. She is not what we need at all....unfortunately with Momentum now backing her it looks far too likely.

Yeah mockers. Let’s make sure the catholic priests are listened to

She will make sure the views of Catholic priests are heard? Well what has it got to do with them? Unless these are their children? (...which, now I mention it.)

Having watched The Magdalene Sisters then heard the stories about the dead babies in the septic tank, I am not inclined to hear the views of the RC Church on this subject.

intensicle if you disagree with the legality of smacking then you are stating that you agree with it becoming illegal.

To disagree with legality, is to endorse illegality.

Whether you would campaign or not isn't relevant, what is relevant is how you would vote if presented with the option to make it illegal in line with your position.

I took that to mean that she thinks termination of a disabled foetus should be more in line with that of a presumed healthy foetus, rather than unlimited.

It is currently legal to smack your child. I personally do not agree with this position. I’m not going to campaign against it.

Long-Bailey said: “It is currently legal to terminate a pregnancy up to full-term on the grounds of disability while the upper limit is 24 weeks if there is no disability. I personally do not agree with this position.”

"It is currently legal" + "I do not agree" = it should be illegal (criminalised).
Presumably, then, her position is that women should be criminalised for ending their own pregnancies by making such medical decisions illegal.
Because what women's rights really needs is more women in prison for exercising bodily autonomy, rendered criminals for not complying with the law's directives on what they must do with their uteruses.

Either you want women criminalised for their terminations, some or all terminations, or you don't.
The former is what abortion laws do.
The latter is what decriminalisation does.
It is possible to support decriminalisation, support full bodily autonomy, and still wish personally to reduce terminations.

I don't think adultery, for example, is something I want to see more of in society.
I certainly don't wish to make it illegal or criminalise it though.
Therefore I agree with it being legal, and would reject calls (of which there are none, this not being a matter of legislating female medical decisions, obviously) for it to be tightened up in law.

Should women ever be criminalised or punished for any medical procedure with their own bodies that is in their own best health interests?

That's the question politicians should answer.

There's no way that could be abused. It just means people die after tremendous suffering, when they could do so in peace. I will never understand how people vote against that option. Some diseases are exceedingly cruel.

Lots of people disagree that it could not be abused. Changes around this issue tend to change our perceptions around things like value of life and suffering, and lead to other changes. Often driven by courts. We can see that in other places where such laws have been passed.

Most people aren't keen to be cruel just for the sake of it, we all potentially could be in that position ourselves one day - life is a terminal disease - and many of us have people close to us who have suffered terminal diseases.

Do you mean this PerfectStorm?www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/11/mps-begin-debate-assisted-dying-bill

Another reason that I find her to be the worst of all the candidates. I won't be voting for her.
(Not a popular view in my local Labour Party -which I joined after the election-but I care not)

Crikey, Labour really don't ever want to win an election do they?

Hmm, look what happened to Tim Farron, due to his religious beliefs.

Has elective abortion been decriminalised then? I thought doctors were still using the mental health loophole?

She voted against people being able to seek High Court consent to end their lives if they were terminally ill.

There's no way that could be abused. It just means people die after tremendous suffering, when they could do so in peace. I will never understand how people vote against that option. Some diseases are exceedingly cruel.

The Catholic Church generally isn’t shy about making sure it’s views are heard when it comes to abortion. They’re generally the ones standing outside with a placard picturing a 12 week fœtus in one hand and rosary beads in the other.