Andrew Marr says "abortion safer then birth, but obviously not for babies"

[darleneconnor]

I'm to have just heard this on his BBC1 show this morning.

He was reading out the newspaper headlines. One was "abortion safer than birth", which he quoted then quipped "but obviously not for babies".

Now I'm not what I'd call pro-abortion but I still think this was a very inappropriate thing for him to say. Firstly using the terminology 'baby' instead of 'foetus' or 'embryo' is very loaded. He is taking a very biased stance on a sensitive political topic- I thought the BBC were supposed to be neutral????

Abortion is only 'safer' because it's legal. Abortion in a country with no legal route is highly unsafe!

If anyone is interested article here

Oh edam, it's a bit much to imply Andrew Marr is an anti-aborti

Oh edam, it's a bit much to imply Andrew Marr is an anti-abortionist and then complain about inaccurate language!

You can perfectly accurately and rationally say that birth is less dangerous for a baby/foetus/bunch of cells/whatever, without any implication for your pro- or anti-abortion status whatsoever.

Less dangerous than abortion, of course I mean.

Northern - childbirth in countries where there is no adequate medical care is also very unsafe. Thank God we have both legal abortion and a health care system in this country.

Oh what lalalonglegs said really

silly flippent comment from Marr but hardly a pro-life statement

Agree it was insensitive and ill-advised, but I imagine it was just a quip that popped into his head and was 'out there' before he could stop himself. Who knows whether it represented what he actually thinks? It must be tough, actually, always having to steal yourself from expressing bias and opinion, when you do a job like that on live a live medium. I'd be rubbish.

Agree with Fellatio.
Daft thing to say, but just a quip.

Maternal death rates are 1 in 7 in Somalia. It is unthinkable, really.

weve all made winks about HIS private life havent we?

no bias,you are interpreting incorrectly.maybe to prove a pov that you think there is bias?i suppose if you look hard enough you'll find bias and offence in anything

Really don't know what you're talking about Gretchen!

But have a

Accurate but a bit insensitive. A case of need for engaging brain before opening mouth.

"abortion safer than birth", which he quoted then quipped "but obviously not for babies".

Is this passive aggressive behaviour? I think I've got it now.

Well, it's blunt but true I suppose. Yes it's tactless and not very pc, but I'm all for free speech and not being shocked. Although I will admit it could have been handled a bit better by the supposedly unbiased bbc.

If it makes a difference I am pro-choice, it's a woman's body and her life, she should have the options to do what she wants.

what about the pychological damage having an abortion does to some women? it maybe physically safer but it can effect a person for years.

That a legal, early abortion is safer for a woman than going through with a pregnancy and giving birth has always been true. And it's something that intelliget, pro-choice doctors have often used as the justification for performing abortions - that the woman's life/health are at risk from continuing the unwanted pregnancy.

what about the psychological damage having a baby you don't want does to women? and what about all the women who are not "damaged" at all by having an abortion.

The attitude that all women must be mentally tortured and destroyed by an abortion is paternalistic and insulting.

or a baby Andrew marr doesnt want

Patient - I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I didn't complain about Andy Marr. His strikes me as a throw-away remark rather than an anti-abortionist rant.

I was responding to a post where someone said women who have miscarriages at 12 weeks talk about losing babies, as if that justifies anti-abortionists somehow.

think point of article was suggestion that pregnant women should be explicitly told that abortion safer than going through with pregnancy and birth...?

as for marr's comment, slightly flippant but true surely???? don't find it that shocking myself, think bbc has far more than that to worry about. and as fo gadaffi comment, again true imho.

pro-choice btw if it makes a difference.

In New York recently I saw an anti-choice poster, "Having an abortion changes your life".
I really wanted to write on that poster: Not as much as having a child does!
The five years since having my dd has changed my life beyond recognition. The abortion I had at 17 really did not impact me, apart from making bloody sure I did not get pregnant again until I was ready.
Yesterday I was marching through Philadelphia because in the US the House of Representatives have voted to remove funding from Planned Parenthood, despite the fact the federal funding they recieve is kept seperate from the money that does go towards the abortions they provide for women who could not otherwise afford them.
However you view the fetus/baby in an early pregnancy, the choice should be there for every women whether they want to carry that child to term or not. To not have that choice will not enhance the existence of anyone, be they women, man or child.

gretchen do you have a point to make because I'm getting seriously confused if you do?

And are people actually arguing that it was a pro life statement?

I think the point she is making is that AM, while married, allegedly had a baby with a journalist and then apparently spent lots of money to ensure newspapers couldn't report on it.

Bloody hell

You mean there are actually two people in the world who would sleep with him?! Thank god for beer goggles.

(and yes, I know it's not big, or clever to judge him on his looks ... but I am neither)