Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 12 13

News

The Dorries amendment will be a free vote - keep the pressure on

324 replies

WilsonFrickett · 01/09/2011 11:23

Lots of press today saying that the govt has decided to vote against ND's ridiculous amendment. While this is good news, it will still be a free vote, with individual MPs able to vote as they please. If you were thinking about emailing your MP on this issue please still do so - the result isn't a foregone conclusion.

From the Guardian article:

...a combination of the unpredictable intake of new Tory MPs, split between social conservatives and modernisers, the number of Roman Catholic Labour MPs, and the high degree of nuance of the amendment make it extremely unclear which way the vote will go.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/downing-street-uturn-abortion-proposals

OP posts:

Report

bumbleymummy · 02/09/2011 11:53

Even though their counselling has been shown not not be that good on occasion or not offered at all in some instances Kelly? At the very least, surely you would want better counselling? Are you afraid of any change? Even one that might be for the better?

kelly2000 · 02/09/2011 11:54

Goldfish, I agree I think the Tories should expell her from the party in my opinion she really comes across as unhinged with a massive persecution complex. She seems to threaten people with the police or legal action at the drop of the hat.

bumbleymummy · 02/09/2011 11:55

Goldfish, well she brought the same point over here too so I'm sure we could address it again goldfish. Although I was pretty sure we covered it enough on the last thread!

MyGoldfishIsEvil · 02/09/2011 11:56

Bumbley, the problem with waiting for something to be set in stone first, is that it is then, well, set in stone. And so can't then be countered, except by another change in the law. So, if it's all right by you, we will continue to object to BPAS and Marie Stopes being prohibited from counselling women.

You can call it speculation and jumping to conclusions all you like. It is still a valid reason for objection.

smallwhitecat · 02/09/2011 11:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Empusa · 02/09/2011 11:56

No one is opposing impartial.

What you are (repeatedly) ignoring though, is the context of Dorries plans. If someone who supported a woman's right to chose what happens to their own body had suggested it, then there could be no ulterior motive.

You cannot know about Dorries and not realise there is an ulterior motive (unless you are feeling particularly ingenius anyway)

Aside from that, if it was about impartiality then they'd be campaigning for improvements to the existing system, not trying to tear it down.

If they honestly thought Marie Stopes et al were biased, they'd be after an investigation.

bumbleymummy · 02/09/2011 11:57

oops - only meant to use one goldfish!

Empusa · 02/09/2011 11:57

"This conflict of interest point is so much my arse. Does it not occur to these braying idiots that if you are going to accuse (a) registered charities and (b) medical and nursing professionals of acting unethically and potentially breaking the law, you might need a shred of evidence first? "

Exactly. But they know it isn't there. They are just hoping that if they say it often enough people will believe them.

kelly2000 · 02/09/2011 11:58

So you agree that the change MIGHT only be for the better. If even its suppoters admit they are not sure if the ammedments are better, you do not have no hope of convincing those against it. Marie Stopes provides impartial advice, that is good enough. beides the fact that Dorries is sinlgling out women seeing abortions for special treatment, yet forgetting about women seeking to stay pregnant shows it is bias. She even admits she intends her proposals to decrease abortions which also shows there is a presumption of bias against abortion in the counselling.

Empusa · 02/09/2011 11:59

"Even though their counselling has been shown not not be that good on occasion or not offered at all in some instances Kelly?"

I've had some bad things happen through NHS services, should we tear the NHS down?

bumbleymummy · 02/09/2011 12:00

I haven't said we should wait for it to be set in stone. I have said it isn't set in stone yet so express your concerns and ask for it to be amended so that it does reflect what you want rather than just opposing the whole idea because you are worried it leaves gaps that could be exploited. In principle, it's not a bad idea but it could be made better/clearer.

JosephineB · 02/09/2011 12:00

The proposals are NOT about making impartial counselling available.

The proposals are that the counselling should be provided seperately from abortion providers.

As such, the proposals are NOT about ensuring better counselling is available - which I am fairly sure there is no disagreement about.

kelly2000 · 02/09/2011 12:01

I also notice with Dorries that she is quite careful to only accuse abortion providers generally of acting illegally. She does not name them specifically as she knows she could face legal action. If she had any evidence against them she would a) share it and b) have no fear of naming them outside of parliament (where you have protection from legal action even if you slander someone).

smallwhitecat · 02/09/2011 12:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MyGoldfishIsEvil · 02/09/2011 12:04

'oops only meant to use one goldfish'

Thats ok, it's not the only nonsensical thing about your posts.

Empusa · 02/09/2011 12:06

"She even admits she intends her proposals to decrease abortions which also shows there is a presumption of bias against abortion in the counselling."

On that, as we saw at the end of the last thread. Some people think good counselling should mean less abortions.

Which is flawed. As far as I'm aware good counselling should mean that the right decisions are made for the person/people involved.

The right decision for some will be to keep a baby, but the right decision for others will be abortion.

So good counselling doesn't = less abortions.

bumbleymummy · 02/09/2011 12:06

"Marie Stopes provides impartial advice, that is good enough"

I don't think 'good enough' is 'good enough' when people are being let down. If it could be improved then it should be.

I don't really see the issue with 'decreasing abortions' as long as the women involved are happy with their decision. This does not mean persuading them to have a baby they do not want but allowing them to discuss/explore other options that may allow them to keep a baby that they are not sure they want to abort but may feel that they have no alternative.

bumbleymummy · 02/09/2011 12:09

I see you are keeping up the tone up there Goldfish, very nice. I suppose I shouldn't really expect more from you and then I won't be disappointed.

Empusa · 02/09/2011 12:10

"I don't really see the issue with 'decreasing abortions' "

Because it is based on this bizarre idea that there would be less abortions if counselling was better.

Which is flawed. See my previous post.

bumbleymummy · 02/09/2011 12:11

"As far as I'm aware good counselling should mean that the right decisions are made for the person/people involved. "

Yes, and this COULD mean fewer abortions. Particularly if women are currently complaining about the counselling, saying they feel let down and saying that they regret their decision. I know it's a difficult thing for you all to face but there are women who have had abortions that they regret and they have said that they wouldn't have had them if they had access to proper counselling.

bumbleymummy · 02/09/2011 12:12

"Because it is based on this bizarre idea that there would be less abortions if counselling was better.

Which is flawed. See my previous post."

See my previous post.

Empusa · 02/09/2011 12:13

"Yes, and this COULD mean fewer abortions."

It could equally mean more.

There are also people who've regretted not having abortions. And would probably say the same wrt counselling.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

JosephineB · 02/09/2011 12:14

'I don't really see the issue with 'decreasing abortions' as long as the women involved are happy with their decision.'

Has anyone said otherwise? The point is that you cannot predict that a change in counselling WILL lead to fewer abortions (which is what ND is claiming) and also pretend that your counselling is going to be impartial. it's illogical and exposes NDs not so hidden agenda.

MyGoldfishIsEvil · 02/09/2011 12:16

Yes, nonsensical is such a rude word.....lowers the tone.

kelly2000 · 02/09/2011 12:17

Have a look at Dorries blog. It is entry after entry making he rlook in my opinion unhinged. She slags off Alice Thompson as she did not like Thompsons profile on her and makes several unpleasant assumptions about her, she also makes false claims about abortion causing mental illness, she accuses Evan Harris of being a abortion and death zealot and of leaking false information to the guardian, she claims the guardian lies about her and abortion, she claims the government is not doing a u-turn and this is the guardian misreporting (no mention of the BBC there then) etc.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 12 13

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.