To ask pro-choice MNers to email your MPs? <this is not a request to vote on anything>

[EricNorthmansMistressOfPotions]

There is an article here about the proposed amendments to the health and social care bill which will force women to undergo 'independent' counselling before being allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy. The assumption is that BPAS and the like have a financial investment in encouraging women to terminate and as such their counselling is biased. The stated goal is to reduce the number of terminations per year by forcing women to delay between seeking and receiving termination, and having to undergo additional counselling (political bias unknown, though easily guessed at) prior to the termination. ND hopes that woman will change their minds during this enforced extended waiting period.

If you think this is a shit idea you can email your MP by clicking this link

This is not a request to vote on anything at all

The mere fact that she wants to give abstinence classes for girls and not boys says a lot about her ideology, surely.

Personally I love the idea that "sex abuse" could mean anything other than abuse. And that abusers will respond to "No".

It would be great if coercion of teenagers by their peers was recognised and treated as child sex abuse, though. In reality it isn't.

Chandellina, if you really are interested, this is the context:

It was in the context of her Abstinence Bill in May this year. I believe she said the Just Say NO comments on the Vanessa Show discussing her Bill.

She is a disturbing woman, who believes herself to be a champion of women and young girls. If you watch the Youtube footage she actually says this. She couldn't be more wrong. Chris Bryant MP gives her a good rebuttal.

(Sorry for the off topic)

I love the idea that if a woman does not want to be sexually abused she has to say no to all sex, does anyone else think that is from the same family of thughts as "oh well, it was not rape rape as she was not a virgin"?

Gosh this thread reminds me of when I was pg, 19 at Uni and went to see 'Life' as they called themselves a pg advisory clinique. The woman showed me pictures of babies, a fetus, abortion instruments and so on. I knew my own mind though and went ahead, I am pretty 'bloody' minded. In the NHS hospital I walked into theatre where they had the instruments covered under a green towel, there was no comforting, it was harsh reality.

Pro life have no business involving themselves in this, pregnancy counselling hardly gets the pom poms out and cheers for terminations.....they are there for women and women only.

Chandilla, I've just spent a scary hour or so over on Nadine Dorries blog. I've seen nothing on there that calms my fears about the woman. I've gone and read the articles she complains about as well. She makes all sorts of unsubstianted claims which are constantly picked up by commentors as being without any basis in fact.

I'm a big fan of evidence based treatments. Nadine Dorries can provide no evidence at all for her claims and on that alone, her ammendments should be thrown out.

Chandilla, bullying? Go and look at the way BumbleyMummy treated Michelle on the other thread.

going back to something the lovely bumbleymummy said further up-- she accuses me of not wanting to 'face the reality' of my pregnancy becausse I would have objected to counselling and compulsory scanning (bleurgh).

What offensive idiocy. And how dare you speculate on my personal views about my pregnancy and its existence.

My argument is precisely that I, like most women, am not ignorant of biology. I knew perfectly well that the embryo inside me (I was 7 weeks pregnant when I had the abortion) would most likely develop into a fetus and then a baby. I chose not to let this happen. Just as I have chosen at other times to prevent conception altogether with a similar lack of regret.

I did not need a lecture from a pro-lifer or a picture of my cute ickle embryo to come to this decision. I had already made it. Delaying my procedure, wasting my time with guilt-mongering rubbish, and subjecting me to unnecessary medical procedures on top of this would have been an invasion of my body and privacy which should be unconscionable.

tbh if we all do start getting subjected to compulsory scanning and ultrasounds I suggest whistling or going 'lalalala' all the way through. If i had a dd I'd be suggesting that. But vulnerable women without support may be prone to taking on the guilt the pro-lifers want them to feel.

break.....bum mummy is one of those prolifers that would like to see the cluster of cells have more rights than the woman.

indeed, Posie. The level of invasiveness and depersonalisation of women who have/have had abortions on her posts is shocking. Makes you realise that for a lot of people when pregnant you really are just the 'incubator'.

And she never answers why the accidental 'baby' resulting from a one night stand deserves more rights, in her eyes, than a pregnancy reuslting from rape.....it comes down to whether it's the woman's fault that she's pg as whether she 'deserves' a termination. It's the ultimate judgement.

There are people who are totally anti-abortion on these boards. They would not treat individual posters who have been open about their abortions in the way BumbleyMummy has. This is not about her views it's about her conduct.

I don't want this to become a huge attack on pro-lifers generally. There are regular posters on these boards who hold those views, and though I completely disagree with them on this issue, I think they are reasonable, compassionate people.

Some people do have very interesting views on that PP.

the fault argument re. conception is truly repulsive...as if a woman who has been careless deserves to be punished with an unwanted baby, and the baby thereafter to be punished by being brought up by a trapped woman. Ghastly.

bumbley - how informed should 'informed' be?
OK, you think a woman should look at a scan or picture of an embryo at 12 weeks, so she can see it's baby-shaped and has a heartbeat.

Should it be explained to her that the fetal heart is only a blob of contracting tissue at that stage and there is no circulatory system or blood yet?

Should it also be explained that there is nothing yet that can be considered a brain, as neural cells are only starting to migrate out from the neural tube and won't form any connections with each other until around 23-4 weeks? And that EEGs showing brain activity, the absence of which is used to define death, don't happen until around 24 weeks?

Should it be explained that only from the side does it look at all like a baby - the face is still two separate halves that won't join for many more weeks?

Looks can be deceiving.

Should this legislation get through, I hope BPAS and Stopes will split into two organisations, one for counselling, one for other work, and carry on as before - just like the breweries did by creating pubcos when they were prevented from owning so many pubs. Only with much better effect!

Another danger of going down the anti-abortion american style route, which in my opinion is what this is the slippery slope to, is that mor ena dmore women in America are being charged with murder if the pregnancy results in the death of the foetus. In one case a young woman tried to kill herself, she survived but te baby did not. She is in prison awaiting a child murder charge. Why do we think going down this route is better for women?

This is very much the American approach. It's a side-on attack which, rather than concentrating solely on overturning legislation or tightening the time limits, tries to make it more difficult for women to actually access abortion. They've done very well in America. Roe vs Wade still stands yet there are states where there are huge areas without abortion services. And not just that, access to eg the morning after pill has been seriously restricted. The latest attempt I read about was to use building regulations and the provision of toilet facilities to prevent clinics from operating legally. If it weren't so serious it would be funny.

I'm back! I can see I have a few posts to catch up on :)

Kelly
"So we shoud not tell women who want to be pregnant about the risks, but should tell women who want an abortion about the risks."

Actually Kelly, i thought that is what you were saying - that woman who are trying to decide between abortion and continuing pregnancy should be told the risks of pregnancy as well as the risks of abortion. Are you now arguing for telling women who want to be pregnant about the risks of pregnancy even if they don't want to know them? The difference between that and abortion is that abortion is a medical procedure - so you have to tell them the risks. Same as having a c-section. Why are you bringing wanted pregnancies into your argument? I'm not really sure what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make by using that.

Kelly, you also seem to be arguing about using counselling that is biased from the other side and I have said a few times that I think the counselling, if offered, should be completely impartial. So you are arguing over something I haven't even said!

Evenless - not sure what issues you have with my conduct on another thread but if you had some should have raised them at the time. Unless you have an issue with the way I have conducted myself on thi.s thread then I don't see how your comment is relevant tbh.

MyGoldfish - don't jump to conclusions. Not everyone who is pro-life is coming from a staunchly religious viewpoint. |If you read my posts I made it clear from the start that I was talking about independent counselling so your assumptions are completely unfounded. If you want to argue with me at least know what you are arguing with me about. Also, I do live in the UK. The abortion laws don't apply throughout.

More to follow...

TRAP laws in America:

The laws, often called "targeted regulation of abortion providers," or TRAP laws, are an increasingly common legislative maneuver to limit access to abortion by redering it tough, if not impossible, for providers to comply. The rules actually specify the temperature rooms should be and the measurements of toilet facilities.

Kansas has become the first state to effectively make the legally protected right to obtain abortion services moot.

breaktime - another pro-choice twister of words. I ASKED you, I did not accuse you.

Posie, actually I would prefer equal rights - I've said that before. I'm sure NarkyPuffin could find a quote for you from the other thread. She seems to like bringing it up.

I also find it ridiculous that you talk about me being insensitive when most of you completely ignore someone on this thread who has talked about how she has regretted her abortion and keep insisting that those type of women are just fictional, not worth worrying about, providing counselling for to perhaps prevent it happening. Honestly, you are so hypocritical - if it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

More to come then I really have to make dinner...

Bumbley,
If a woman is not capable of making the decision to have an abortion without having counselling (no other medical procedure requires this), then by the same arguement they are not capable of making the decision to continue with the pregnancy without counselling. Pregnancy may be natural, but it is still one of the most riskiest things a woman can do, and is far more dangerous than an abortion. Women are either capable of making a decision about whether to continue their pregnancy or not, or they are not. Claiming that a woman who seeks an abortion somehow becomes less intelligent than wwhen she seeks to maintian the pregnancy makes no sense whatsoever.
Everywhere in the UK abortion is legal if the mother's life could be in danger and that includeds from mental illness as a result of continuing with the pregnancy, she is a victim of rape, the foetus is deformed, or the woman has learning disabilities.

notcitrus - I'm not sure how much detail they go into tbh. Do you think it would be better or worse to give more detail?

You see this all as a bit of a fun joke, don't you bubbley. All this "Tada! I'm back" "OOh back later". If our country followed the laws that you would put in place it would cause immense suffering. And you just couldn't care less.

kelly not northern ireland?