Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion

First topic message reminder :

A number of Conservative MPs have criticised Jacob Rees-Mogg's views on abortion, some expressing vehement disagreement while others have gently espoused their more liberal stances.

On Wednesday, Mr Rees-Mogg, who is tipped to one day take over from Theresa May and become Tory leader, said he disagreed with abortion in every circumstance, including in cases of incest and rape. He also said that because he is a Catholic, he disagrees with same-sex marriage.

Margot James MP said: "Agree with @TimesOpinion about Jacob R-M who I like very much; but his views on pregnant women are utterly abhorrent"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/tory-mps-line-disagree-jacob-rees-moggs-utterly-abhorrent-views/


Religious beliefs again, at the forefront of idiocy.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:


Doctors would not recommend her for one. A woman has to talk to certain medical professionals before they're put forward for a termination.

So there are circumstances where you think an abortion should not be performed.

Its illegal in the UK to abort a baby because its the 'wrong' sex.

Doctors are not concerned about a womans morals, I don't think they could make a judgment on whether she can be given an abortion on how she has gotten pregnant, sleeping around etc...they are more concerned in how the pregnancy can affect her or her baby if it continues.

If the pregnancy is less than 12 weeks all women have the right to an abortion......if her Dr objects to abortion he will refer her to one who doesn't.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course it is.
Just because someone is an irresponsible idiot doesn't mean she has to have an unwanted child.

she doesnt have to have it, she can give it up for adoption

That would be her choice.
Doctors are not there to deal with a persons morals, they are there to deal with their health.

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

and only then after intensive scrutiny.

i don't think "i fucked ten men in a gangbang and now im pregnant but its getting in the way of my party life so i want to abort it next Friday lunch time so i can get out drinking for the evening" is really an acceptable reason to abort  

She's morally corrupt if she thinks like that but I don't remove her right to not have a baby.

more of the morally corrupt are on your side of the argument.

there is no such things as "accidentally" getting pregnant, its either rape or its consensual, either way sex leads to pregnancy.

its pretty simple really, if you engage in sex then you do so with the understanding of what the risks are, if you arent prepared to accept the risks, then don't have sex, or learn to enjoy anal.

why is it that if a person drinks and drives and kills someone, we send them to prison, but when a women drinks and fucks and then kills her baby we celebrate women's empowerment??

why is it that we have entire centers and parts of the NHS dedicated to ending the lives of unborn children, but suddenly come over all shy and morally outraged about a terminal patient in eternal pain that wants to end their life to the point where we send them to prison for even trying and anyone else who tries to help them??

we either value life or we dont, we cannot call ourselves moral when we values some lives higher than others.

some of the the arguments for it being a women's choice are valid, but the be-all-and-end-all "her body her choice" is a bullshit,what about the child's choice??

perhaps instead of trivializing and normalizing abortion we should treat it with the seriousness it deserves,we are talking about ending life after all. maybe if we took it a bit more seriously, people would be a bit more serious and responsible in their approach to sex.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So there are circumstances where you think an abortion should not be performed.

Its illegal in the UK to abort a baby because its the 'wrong' sex.

Doctors are not concerned about a womans morals, I don't think they could make a judgment on whether she can be given an abortion on how she has gotten pregnant, sleeping around etc...they are more concerned in  how the pregnancy can affect her or her baby if it continues.

If the pregnancy is less than 12 weeks all women have the right to an abortion......if her Dr objects to abortion he will refer her to one who doesn't.

and how would the doctors know the reason for abortion was because its the wrong sex??

abortion is an industry, its big business, its a fucking drive thru, no questions no judgement.

women who support any and all abortion have effectively handed power to men in the quest to empower women.

i bet rednecks,Muslims and men form all sorts of misogynistic cultures are celebrating women's empowerment more than the feminists are.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Its illegal in the UK to abort a baby because its the 'wrong' sex.

Doctors are not concerned about a womans morals, I don't think they could make a judgment on whether she can be given an abortion on how she has gotten pregnant, sleeping around etc...they are more concerned in  how the pregnancy can affect her or her baby if it continues.

If the pregnancy is less than 12 weeks all women have the right to an abortion......if her Dr objects to abortion he will refer her to one who doesn't.

and how would the doctors know the reason for abortion was because its the wrong sex??

abortion is an industry, its big business, its a fucking drive thru, no questions no judgement.

women who support any and all abortion have effectively handed power to men in the quest to empower women.

i bet rednecks,Muslims and men form all sorts of misogynistic cultures are celebrating women's empowerment more than the feminists are.

A Dr can only know what he is told obviously.

Since the 60's abortion is a lot easier to legally get in the UK.....its a far better option than seeking out illegal back street abortionists pre 1967.

The pill empowered women a lot more than abortion on demand ever has...many women who seek abortions don't sleep around, there are many reasons not just loose morals where a woman may need an abortion.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So there are circumstances where you think an abortion should not be performed.

Its illegal in the UK to abort a baby because its the 'wrong' sex.

Doctors are not concerned about a womans morals, I don't think they could make a judgment on whether she can be given an abortion on how she has gotten pregnant, sleeping around etc...they are more concerned in  how the pregnancy can affect her or her baby if it continues.

If the pregnancy is less than 12 weeks all women have the right to an abortion......if her Dr objects to abortion he will refer her to one who doesn't.

No, they do not, only on certain grounds. We don't have abortion on demand in this country.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

she doesnt have to have it, she can give it up for adoption

That would be her choice.
Doctors are not there to deal with a persons morals, they are there to deal with their health.

It's often nothing to do with health. I think abortions should be paid for, unless there's something very wrong with the baby.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Its illegal in the UK to abort a baby because its the 'wrong' sex.

Doctors are not concerned about a womans morals, I don't think they could make a judgment on whether she can be given an abortion on how she has gotten pregnant, sleeping around etc...they are more concerned in  how the pregnancy can affect her or her baby if it continues.

If the pregnancy is less than 12 weeks all women have the right to an abortion......if her Dr objects to abortion he will refer her to one who doesn't.

No, they do not, only on certain grounds. We don't have abortion on demand in this country.

If a woman has to only meet ONE condition the time factor (under 24 weeks) would be the only criteria that she need fulfil in order to get an abortion.
Sounds like abortion on demand to me however its wrapped up in red tape.

"What criterion needs to be met if you want to proceed with an abortion?

In order to be eligible for a termination one (or more) of the following conditions must be met:

That the pregnancy has not exceeded 24 weeks
The continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, more so than a termination
There is a substantial risk that if the child is born they would suffer mental or physical abnormalities
That the abortion is necessary to prevent permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3782462/uk-abortion-laws-termination-rules/

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

That would be her choice.
Doctors are not there to deal with a persons morals, they are there to deal with their health.

It's often nothing to do with health. I think abortions should be paid for, unless there's something very wrong with the baby.

So you don't think abortion should be available on the NHS unless there are severe complications?

That's the mindset of the pre 1960's.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, they do not, only on certain grounds. We don't have abortion on demand in this country.

If a woman has to only meet ONE condition the time factor (under 24 weeks) would be the only criteria that she need fulfil in order to get an abortion.
Sounds like abortion on demand to me however its wrapped up in red tape.

"What criterion needs to be met if you want to proceed with an abortion?

In order to be eligible for a termination one (or more) of the following conditions must be met:

That the pregnancy has not exceeded 24 weeks
The continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, more so than a termination
There is a substantial risk that if the child is born they would suffer mental or physical abnormalities
That the abortion is necessary to prevent permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3782462/uk-abortion-laws-termination-rules/

The clause about 24 weeks is not a separate one, so being under 24 weeks pregnant is not a ground in itself.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's often nothing to do with health. I think abortions should be paid for, unless there's something very wrong with the baby.

So you don't think abortion should be available on the NHS unless there are severe complications?

That's the mindset of the pre 1960's.

So what? Why should abortions be paid for by the tax payers? Unless there is a risk to the health of the woman, they should pay for it themselves, and I don't mean some daft risk of them being a bit "upset".

Why don't they just develop a pill which women can buy over the counter? They might as well for all the law is followed. Perhaps they should just train pharmacists to do injections of methotrexate or something - women could just pop in and have an abortion in their lunch hour.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If a woman has to only meet ONE condition the time factor (under 24 weeks) would be the only criteria that she need fulfil in order to get an abortion.
Sounds like abortion on demand to me however its wrapped up in red tape.

"What criterion needs to be met if you want to proceed with an abortion?

In order to be eligible for a termination one (or more) of the following conditions must be met:

That the pregnancy has not exceeded 24 weeks
The continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, more so than a termination
There is a substantial risk that if the child is born they would suffer mental or physical abnormalities
That the abortion is necessary to prevent permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3782462/uk-abortion-laws-termination-rules/

The clause about 24 weeks is not a separate one, so being under 24 weeks pregnant is not a ground in itself.

I have read a few sites Rags, and its unbelievably easy for a woman to get an abortion here....as long as the woman is less than the stated time.

I do agree with abortion, I don't agree that without serious threat to the woman or baby they can be carried out as late as 24 weeks...its too late, many babies can survive then.

I don't agree with you that abortions should have to be paid for, I don't think that's the answer.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The clause about 24 weeks is not a separate one, so being under 24 weeks pregnant is not a ground in itself.

I have read a few sites Rags, and its unbelievably easy for a woman to get an abortion here....as long as the woman is less than the stated time.

I do agree with abortion, I don't agree that without serious threat to the woman or baby they can be carried out as late as 24 weeks...its too late, many babies can survive then.

I don't agree with you that abortions should have to be paid for, I don't think that's the answer.

Yes, I know it's easy, which is why I don't get why they bother having a law at all because the law is being broken IMO. I don't like the attitude of some people in this thread - like an unborn baby is something to be chucked in a bin because the careless and negligent woman can't be bothered with it. Why should they not pay for their own negligence?

Raggamuffin wrote:Why don't they just develop a pill which women can buy over the counter? They might as well for all the law is followed. Perhaps they should just train pharmacists to do injections of methotrexate or something - women could just pop in and have an abortion in their lunch hour.

There is already the morning after pill....it works for up to 5 days after unprotected sex.

Syl wrote:Odd that a thread about abortion only has (so far) males contributing.

My view is the only male who should have a say in whether abortion is valid or not are the male members of medical team who may be dealing with her case.

If the laws concerning abortion were ever to be changed or modified, people like him, who makes his decisions on religious rather than humanitarian grounds, should be exempt from voting.

As for this post, if you think his views are abhorrent and not valid, maybe you should take a look at yourself. I find your views quite abhorrent so maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why don't they just develop a pill which women can buy over the counter? They might as well for all the law is followed. Perhaps they should just train pharmacists to do injections of methotrexate or something - women could just pop in and have an abortion in their lunch hour.

There is already the morning after pill....it works for up to 5 days after unprotected sex.

I mean after that. In this throwaway society, it seems that an unborn baby is just another piece to rubbish to some people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I have read a few sites Rags, and its unbelievably easy for a woman to get an abortion here....as long as the woman is less than the stated time.

I do agree with abortion, I don't agree that without serious threat to the woman or baby they can be carried out as late as 24 weeks...its too late, many babies can survive then.

I don't agree with you that abortions should have to be paid for, I don't think that's the answer.

Yes, I know it's easy, which is why I don't get why they bother having a law at all because the law is being broken IMO. I don't like the attitude of some people in this thread - like an unborn baby is something to be chucked in a bin because the careless and negligent woman can't be bothered with it. Why should they not pay for their own negligence?

I just read that one in three women in the UK will have an abortion....that shocked me.

If you charge women that is denying poorer women, who may be a lot more careful sexually than richer women, access to a service just because they cant pay.
I would think its the poorer women who are most in need of an abortion anyway.....they may have a selfish bastard of a husband who likes to keep her pregnant.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Odd that a thread about abortion only has (so far) males contributing.

My view is the only male who should have a say in whether abortion is valid or not are the male members of medical team who may be dealing with her case.

If the laws concerning abortion were ever to be changed or modified, people like him, who makes his decisions on religious rather than humanitarian grounds, should be exempt from voting.

As for this post, if you think his views are abhorrent and not valid, maybe you should take a look at yourself. I find your views quite abhorrent so maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That's because you don't agree with abortion.....I'm sure you would deny all women abortion if you had your way.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, I know it's easy, which is why I don't get why they bother having a law at all because the law is being broken IMO. I don't like the attitude of some people in this thread - like an unborn baby is something to be chucked in a bin because the careless and negligent woman can't be bothered with it. Why should they not pay for their own negligence?

I just read that one in three women in the UK will have an abortion....that shocked me.

If you charge women that is denying poorer women, who may be a lot more careful sexually than richer women, access to a service just because they cant pay.
I would think its the poorer women who are most in need of an abortion anyway.....they may have a selfish bastard of a husband who likes to keep her pregnant.

What's wrong with poorer women having to be careful? I can't believe you even thing that's a valid argument. You talk as if having an abortion is the most normal thing to do. If she doesn't want to be pregnant, she can always leave her husband or say no to him.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
There is already the morning after pill....it works for up to 5 days after unprotected sex.

I mean after that. In this throwaway society, it seems that an unborn baby is just another piece to rubbish to some people.

I doubt any woman, apart from the incredibly stupid minority, have an abortion lightly.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As for this post, if you think his views are abhorrent and not valid, maybe you should take a look at yourself. I find your views quite abhorrent so maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That's because you don't agree with abortion.....I'm sure you would deny all women abortion if you had your way.

I didn't say I don't agree with abortion, I don't agree with abortion on demand, which is what you support. Why do you support any laws at all regarding abortion? Why not just say that women can kill their babies any time they like?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I just read that one in three women in the UK will have an abortion....that shocked me.

If you charge women that is denying poorer women, who may be a lot more careful sexually than richer women, access to a service just because they cant pay.
I would think its the poorer women who are most in need of an abortion anyway.....they may have a selfish bastard of a husband who likes to keep her pregnant.

What's wrong with poorer women having to be careful? I can't believe you even thing that's a valid argument. You talk as if having an abortion is the most normal thing to do. If she doesn't want to be pregnant, she can always leave her husband or say no to him.

Yes, but you have exactly the same views about women who are abused.....you never take into account the fact that many women are/feel trapped in a relationship.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean after that. In this throwaway society, it seems that an unborn baby is just another piece to rubbish to some people.

I doubt any woman, apart from the incredibly stupid minority, have an abortion lightly.

It seems they do - for all the wrong reasons. Being under 24 weeks pregnant is not a good reason, although you seem to think it is.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What's wrong with poorer women having to be careful? I can't believe you even thing that's a valid argument. You talk as if having an abortion is the most normal thing to do. If she doesn't want to be pregnant, she can always leave her husband or say no to him.

Yes, but you have exactly the same views about women who are abused.....you never take into account the fact that many women are/feel trapped in a relationship.

Oh rubbish. Don't try to tell me that women who want abortions whenever they feel like it are victims and feel "trapped".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
That's because you don't agree with abortion.....I'm sure you would deny all women abortion if you had your way.

I didn't say I don't agree with abortion, I don't agree with abortion on demand, which is what you support. Why do you support any laws at all regarding abortion? Why not just say that women can kill their babies any time they like?

We have had a similar discussion before where you stated you DONT believe in abortion unless the baby was badly damaged......have you changed your mind?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Yes, but you have exactly the same views about women who are abused.....you never take into account the fact that many women are/feel trapped in a relationship.

Oh rubbish. Don't try to tell me that women who want abortions whenever they feel like it are victims and feel "trapped".

I don't remember saying "whenever they feel like it".....that's certainly not what I think anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I doubt any woman, apart from the incredibly stupid minority, have an abortion lightly.

It seems they do - for all the wrong reasons. Being under 24 weeks pregnant is not a good reason, although you seem to think it is.

Nope....I specifically said I think it should be around the 12 WEEK mark.
The 24 week limit is what the medical profession agree on.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say I don't agree with abortion, I don't agree with abortion on demand, which is what you support. Why do you support any laws at all regarding abortion? Why not just say that women can kill their babies any time they like?

We have had a similar discussion before where you stated you DONT believe in abortion unless the baby was badly damaged......have you changed your mind?

I don't recall that conversation. I said I think the law is fine but it's not being upheld. I don't think that a minor disability is a good reason, if that's what you mean, especially if the baby is the "wrong" sex.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It seems they do - for all the wrong reasons. Being under 24 weeks pregnant is not a good reason, although you seem to think it is.

Nope....I specifically said I think it should be around the 12 WEEK mark.
The 24 week limit is what the medical profession agree on.

But you think that the length of time is the only consideration which should count. You should find a better source than The Sun.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh rubbish. Don't try to tell me that women who want abortions whenever they feel like it are victims and feel "trapped".

I don't remember saying "whenever they feel like it".....that's certainly not what I think anyway.

It certainly appears to be what you think. You support abortion on demand, all paid for by the tax payers of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Nope....I specifically said I think it should be around the 12 WEEK mark.
The 24 week limit is what the medical profession agree on.

But you think that the length of time is the only consideration which should count. You should find a better source than The Sun.

Try the NHS site....its even more helpful for women who are seeking an abortion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I don't remember saying "whenever they feel like it".....that's certainly not what I think anyway.

It certainly appears to be what you think. You support abortion on demand, all paid for by the tax payers of course.

Its not what I think and its not what I have written.
Yes I support abortion, not on demand because the timescale should be taken into consideration and it should be lowered imo.
I would prefer education in schools any day rather than waiting till its too late, I would prefer girls to get themselves on the pill and boys to wear condoms....but unlike you I realise that an abortion is far better than having an unwanted pregnancy then bringing an unwanted child into the world.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It certainly appears to be what you think. You support abortion on demand, all paid for by the tax payers of course.

Its not what I think and its not what I have written.
Yes I support abortion, not on demand because the timescale should be taken into consideration and it should be lowered imo.
I would prefer education in schools any day rather than waiting till its too late, I would prefer girls to get themselves on the pill and boys to wear condoms....but unlike you I realise that an abortion is far better than having an unwanted pregnancy then bringing an unwanted child into the world.

It's exactly what you think and what you have written.

Abortion is a very complex issue....basically it should always be the womans right to choose...but within a specific time frame.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

and how would the doctors know the reason for abortion was because its the wrong sex??

abortion is an industry, its big business, its a fucking drive thru, no questions no judgement.

women who support any and all abortion have effectively handed power to men in the quest to empower women.

i bet rednecks,Muslims and men form all sorts of misogynistic cultures are celebrating women's empowerment more than the feminists are.

A Dr can only know what he is told obviously.

Since the 60's abortion is a lot easier to legally get in the UK.....its  a far  better option than seeking out illegal back street abortionists  pre 1967.

The pill empowered women a lot more than abortion on demand ever has...many women who seek abortions don't sleep around, there are many reasons not just loose morals where a woman may need an abortion.

And one of those reasons will be misogynistic men from male dominated cultures forcing their wives to have abortions because the child is female

You can't pick and choose who gets an abortion and for what reasons.

If you support this abortion free-for-all, then it means that you support everything that goes with it, including the fact that in many cases it's the man who has the last say over what a woman does with her body.

If you're happy with that then fair enough , but if you're not??

Might be time to rethink your outlook

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

A Dr can only know what he is told obviously.

Since the 60's abortion is a lot easier to legally get in the UK.....its  a far  better option than seeking out illegal back street abortionists  pre 1967.

The pill empowered women a lot more than abortion on demand ever has...many women who seek abortions don't sleep around, there are many reasons not just loose morals where a woman may need an abortion.

And one of those reasons will be misogynistic men from male  dominated cultures forcing their wives to have abortions because the child is female

You can't pick and choose who gets an abortion and for what reasons.

If you support this abortion free-for-all, then it means that you support everything that goes with it, including the fact  that in many cases it's the man who has the last say over what a woman does with her body.

If you're happy with that then fair enough , but if you're not??

Might be time to rethink your outlook

Ita already been said that abortion is illegal in the UK just because the child is the 'wrong' sex.
So yes, in that respect you can pick and choose who gets an abortion ....or the medics can.

Not sure what you mean by 'abortion free for all'.....if you think supporting a womans right to choose amounts to a free for all thats your interpretation....not mine.
A woman doesnt just wander in off the street for a quick termination.
She is interviewed by two different doctors, who will need to ansure that her physical and mental well being will be at risk if she carries on with the pregnancy....she will also be offered counselling to make sure she is making the right choice .

Maybe its time for you to rethink your outlook of  what the outcome would be if women were forced back into seedy  illegal abortions.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

And one of those reasons will be misogynistic men from male  dominated cultures forcing their wives to have abortions because the child is female

You can't pick and choose who gets an abortion and for what reasons.

If you support this abortion free-for-all, then it means that you support everything that goes with it, including the fact  that in many cases it's the man who has the last say over what a woman does with her body.

If you're happy with that then fair enough , but if you're not??

Might be time to rethink your outlook

Ita already been said that abortion is illegal in the UK just because the child is the 'wrong' sex.
So yes, in that respect you can pick and choose who gets an abortion ....or the medics can.

Not sure what you mean by 'abortion free for all'.....if you think supporting a womans right to choose amounts to a free for all thats your interpretation....not mine.
A woman doesnt just wander in off the street for a quick termination.
She is interviewed by two different doctors, who will need to ansure that her physical and mental well being will be at risk if she carries on with the pregnancy....she will also be offered counselling to make sure she is making the right choice .

Maybe its time for you to rethink your outlook of  what the outcome would be if women were forced back into seedy  illegal abortions.

The reason terminations became legal was the amount of deaths due to back street abortions as you say.

With the variety of types of contraception available these days, plus the morning after pill also so easily available... It's quite surprising and shocking how many abortions happen here in UK...!

Tommy Monk wrote:With the variety of types of contraception available these days, plus the morning after pill also so easily available... It's quite surprising and shocking how many abortions happen here in UK...!

Couldnt agree more...presuming most unwanted pregnancies are from women who have had consensual sex.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:With the variety of types of contraception available these days, plus the morning after pill also so easily available... It's quite surprising and shocking how many abortions happen here in UK...!

Couldnt agree more...presuming most unwanted pregnancies are from women who have had consensual sex.

sad thing is, these women are ditching their unwanted babies but with the surge of sexual health problems and the way sexual diseases are mutating, some of them may end up with an incurable strain which would then affect their chances of having healthy babies in the future

A report from the Guardian 2016.

"The number of abortions carried out in England and Wales last year was the highest in five years, driven by growing numbers of women in their 30s and 40s who are terminating a pregnancy, official figures show.

More women are having multiple abortions, according to the annual statistics released by the Department of Health. Almost four in 10 terminations are now carried out on women who have undergone the procedure before. Fifty women had each had eight terminations, the figures revealed.

In all, 185,824 abortions were carried out on women and girls in England and Wales last year. That was 1,253 (0.7%) more than the 184,571 performed in 2014, and the largest number since the 189,931 carried out in 2011.

The figures provide further evidence that abortions are becoming less common among women under 30 and more so among women aged 30 and over.

“Since 2005 the rates for women aged 30 to 34 have gone up from 14.5 per 1,000 women in 2005 to 17.1 in 2015, and rates for women aged 35 or over have gone up from 6.8 per 1,000 women in 2005 to 7.8 in 2015,” the statistical report said."

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

And one of those reasons will be misogynistic men from male  dominated cultures forcing their wives to have abortions because the child is female

You can't pick and choose who gets an abortion and for what reasons.

If you support this abortion free-for-all, then it means that you support everything that goes with it, including the fact  that in many cases it's the man who has the last say over what a woman does with her body.

If you're happy with that then fair enough , but if you're not??

Might be time to rethink your outlook

Ita already been said that abortion is illegal in the UK just because the child is the 'wrong' sex.
So yes, in that respect you can pick and choose who gets an abortion ....or the medics can.

Not sure what you mean by 'abortion free for all'.....if you think supporting a womans right to choose amounts to a free for all thats your interpretation....not mine.
A woman doesnt just wander in off the street for a quick termination.
She is interviewed by two different doctors, who will need to ansure that her physical and mental well being will be at risk if she carries on with the pregnancy....she will also be offered counselling to make sure she is making the right choice .

Maybe its time for you to rethink your outlook of  what the outcome would be if women were forced back into seedy  illegal abortions.

Someone has never heard of Planned Parenthood it seems

Bandit only has 1 chilf.
Not surprised.
Who woman would want to be shagged by him twice?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not what I asked is it?

What about women who want an abortion because they baby's the "wrong" sex?

Doctors would not recommend her for one. A woman has to talk to certain medical professionals before they're put forward for a termination.

So there are circumstances where you think an abortion should not be performed.

I didn't say that.

I wouldn't want a baby born to someone who will think of it as the "wrong sex" it's whole life so an abortion would be the best thing for that unwanted foetus.

Whatever his views and beliefs - he has every right to believe this - it doesn't mean he can put a law in place to stop all abortions- its his right his belief just as everyone else has their own beliefs - its equality and nobody should be judging his beliefs .

+1

It does make you question which other abhorrent beliefs he holds, but at this juncture declines to share with his electorate.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Whatever his views and beliefs - he has every right to believe this - it doesn't mean he can put a law in place to stop all abortions- its his right his belief just as everyone else has their own beliefs - its equality and nobody should be judging his beliefs .

Who said he does not have a right to his beliefs?

Nobody has, what is being stated quite correctly, is the right to be critical of his beliefs.

Do you think that is wrong?

What if someone told you, that you could not be critical of beliefs, that conflict with yours?

I have made many points on here.

I now will ask one further on abortion.

Can anyone here say, and demand what a woman should or should not carry a living organism within her body?

I want you to think very carefully in how you answer.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Whatever his views and beliefs - he has every right to believe this - it doesn't mean he can put a law in place to stop all abortions- its his right his belief just as everyone else has their own beliefs - its equality and nobody should be judging his beliefs .

Exactly right.

I person is entitled to their views

smelly-bandit wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Whatever his views and beliefs - he has every right to believe this - it doesn't mean he can put a law in place to stop all abortions- its his right his belief just as everyone else has their own beliefs - its equality and nobody should be judging his beliefs .

Exactly right.

I person is entitled to their views

So are you against people being critical of peoples beliefs?

Are you saying we cannot condemn beliefs people have?

They are entitled to their beliefs, just as people are entitled to berate them for them.

Surely, you back that do you not smelly?