Nadine Bloody Dorries

[aliceliddell]

Don't relax yet - she's at it again.www.morningstaronline.co.uk 'Termination of Personal Choice' (Can't get link to work fully, sorry). Good article warning of Cameron's support for Dorries and future threats.

UMS I suppose they're representing the ones that matter, and maintaining the natural order for the rest. La Dorries latest foray is another attempt to reduce time limits which has disturbingly wide support.

But Using - be reasonable, what bloody difference does it make? If you really want it, you can pay for it, and if you can't - tough because you weren't going to vote Tory anyway. So Ha!

But the problem is that he may well use some fairly unpleasant tactics to distance himself (eg 'frustrated' remark). But agree with the point on numbers and time limits, these are the usual points of attack.

of course not, Spoons, are you mad? You can't possibly know if you want a termination or a new pair of shoes, you silly girl! Now make your mind up, which is it?

"make it difficult to get an abortion quickly by forcing women to seek 'independent' counselling"

The amendment did not force women to undergo counselling but was to ensure that women were OFFERED independent counselling. Those women could then take it or not take it.

"make sure doctors can still conscientiously object"

Abortion is legal, but I can see no reason to compel doctors or nurses to perform procedures they object to.

Re: informed consent, there are not many procedures that have to be consented to in often stressful and emotional situations in a hurry.

Depends what you mean by "independent", though. But that's been done on many a thread.

When the likes of Dorries are equally vocal on the care of children who are born, particularly in difficult circumstances, then I may listen to what they have to say. Until then, I can only see their moves as anti-women,

spoons stop twirling your hair like a loon and make your mind up.

Aye put that bolshevik sense of entitlement away, you'll frighten the horses

Pfft

while i don't agree with everything in 'freakonomics', the link between abortion, and less street crime, is interesting.

if there were more abortions (according to freako), then there would be less children born into poverty, particularly to young (vulnerable) mothers. there would then be LESS children growing up in difficult situations, turning to crime, getting asbos etc etc. AND less people to vote against the Tories. You'd think they'd be encouraging abortions, particularly amongst 'certain' types!

(nb, v tongue-in-cheek about this, but there are stats to show abortion helps to reduce poverty, and indirectly, certain kinds of crime)

kick that was their original intention, as Keith Joseph made clear. But it turned out that middle class teenagers with A levels want to go to uni, but working class girls know they'll end up as housewives and mothers anyway, so they had babies, claimed benefits and ruined the modern world.

Abortion is legal, but I can see no reason to compel doctors or nurses to perform procedures they object to.

Because my taxes are paying their wages? It's telling that medical staff are generally only allowed to object to abortion and get away with it but not other medical procedures where they might equally have a moral / religious objection (eg blood transfusions)

If you have moral objection to certain medical procedures, don't become a nurse or doctor.

Breast implants are apparently 'morally' neutral.