Why Nadine Is Wrong on Abortion Counselling

I agree that Dorries is pretty toxic and, I hope, unrepresentative of general Conservative thought. Thankfully it seems like the Government has changed its mind and rejected her proposal. There is nothing wrong in giving women the option of "independent" counselling in the terms she defined them but it is very wrong to do this to the exclusion of other forms of counselling which have helped many women in making a hugely difficult decision.

http://wp.me/p1kusD-5u

Nadine is incredibly toxic. I am a fairly left-centrist person politically. But I think she will do a lot of harm to your party, for a functional political system we need all sides to be sane, else we end up in the USA type political nightmare.
The other problem that she seems to represent is that she has a totally other agenda which is fairly obvious. To have her toxify the Conservative Party is not useful to the country, and only benefits the opponents of sane discourse. Political parties on all sides need to keep their lunatics at bay, and be functional.

What happened to the previous version of this article?! I posted a fairly long comment there which also seems to have disappeared.

If we were all well informed about the health (and emotional, psychological etc) consequences of decisions made regarding our body, then for sure, the need for advice would not be there.

But the fact is, we haven't a clue. That's why doctors are trained for more than six years - because it's bloody complicated.

That's why there's the need for advice. Not the political need to control. That's why you are wrong here, and not Nadine Dorries.

You may not like her and her religious views, but that's beside the point. Let's focus on what's being proposed. What is being proposed is that the number of bodies giving advice to women is increased from the current two, both of whom have a financial incentive to encourage women to say yes.

Since when has such manipulated choice been something that right wingers (and many liberals) are happy about? I guess since the proposal was put forward by Christians.

However, in fairness to you, you're in favour of uninformed choice - you don't think a woman should get any advice at all (there's no compulsion for advice in the proposed bill btw).

That's bad, and probably worse than the manipulated choice that currently women have when it comes to abortion.

It would be nice if misinformation wasn't being spread about something like this. It would be nice if people simply revealed why they want to preserve the status quo which manipulates women into saying yes on an incredibly important life choice.

I am sure Nadine is a delightful person, but I can't say I usually agree with her positions.

However, on this issue, it seems to me she has a point.

Jenny Stocks in the Daily Mail had an interesting article a few days ago [ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2031572/Abortion-Mail-writers-investigation-counselling-services-poses-disturbing-questions.html ] in which she posed as a pregnant women and went to various counselling services.

She found all the services deficient, but the Christian ones especially so. BPAS seemed to do the best.

Opposition to abortion is a primarily right wing issue in the US, but it does not break the same way here: there are quite a few here in the UK who support abortion as a way of keeping welfare costs down.

I think proper counselling would discuss all the options open to a woman, including the availability of state support is she chooses to keep the baby.

Equally, there should be an opportunity to discuss the moral issues. Even many people who support a legal right to an abortion think a foetus has moral standing, and that should be discussed if the woman wants to.

I personally want the number of abortions reduced (1/4 of viable conceptions is very high figure it seems to me), but want this to be done via better sex education at school and clear state support for single mothers.

I would also like there to be an openness in the UK to discussing the moral issues around abortion. Unfortunately there is no longer any agreed moral language in this country in which such discussions could be held.

I do not suggest the publically held moral positions in the past were always right - sometimes they were downright evil. The problem is deeper. With the failure of Christianity here (it has been suggested by some that Muslim kids at school are actually more able to use moral language than self-identified "Christian" kids), the subduction of working class communalism, and the self-abandonment of the upper middle class to consumerism, there really is no way here to suggest that an action is simply wrong or not desirable.

Ben Archibald seems to be dismissing a policy, solely because it has been proposed by ‘toxic’ Nadine Dorries.

As the law stands, women seeking an abortion do not have to have counselling, and many do not. They feel no conflict over their decision and view it solely as a medical procedure. For these women, the road to termination remains unhindered by the proposed amendment.

Then there is a second group of women. Those terribly conflicted about an unplanned pregnancy. It is these women which this amendment will help. These women should be able to have independent counselling from someone with no financial interest in the outcome. Someone who can explore the choices open to them: Abortion, adoption or keeping their baby. Women who find themselves in this position should not be pressured by anyone with an agenda on either side, but helped to come to a decision which is best for them. No woman should be ‘guilted’ into having a child she does not want; but equally, she should not be fast tracked into having an abortion which she may later regret. Even the most vehement ‘pro-choicer’ would agree with that. In this regard, the amendment is in fact a progressive realisation of women’s rights and their right to choose.

Of course we would all like to see fewer abortions, but this will only happen when there are fewer unplanned pregnancies. This only is achieved with more information about and access to contraceptives.

What is amazing and toxic is the hate and mindless opposition from the left.

Nadine Dorries has done a lot of people a great service.

The truth and honesty may be toxic to the left ( and lets face it it often is ) but the right should embrace it.

Anyway the days of worry about 'the brand' are long over. Times are tough again - made worse by the 13 wrecker years of Labour - the public want clear direction. Nadine stands for those sort of things - which is why the left are so aggressive and abusive towards her.

No civilised society can allow abortion demand. If the mother's life or mental health is threatened, if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the foetus is severely deformed or ill, then abortion is fair enough, but because the condom broke? No, I'm sorry, but no. Life, by definition, begins when a new human being is created and that is at conception. Gender, height, build, eye colour, hair colour, nose shape, jawline, personality are determined at conception. A unique individual who will never exist again is created at conception and so mut by definition have the right to live. This doesn't actually mean forcing women to give birth or become mothers because they can have a caesarean and the child can be put up for adoption. We all have the right to control our own bodies, but we also have responsibilities regaring the consequences of using our own bodies, men and women.

These amendments are not about the rights and wrongs of abortions, they are about counselling.

The disturbing part of the amendments is that it takes counselling away from the clinics, giving it to "independent" groups.

Nadine's second amendment is as follows:

"Iinformation, advice and counselling is independent where it is provided by either a private body that does not itself provide for the termination of pregnancies; or a statutory body."

So, professional trained, experienced and qualified counsellors working at Marie Stopes/BPAS are to be banned but religious based groups without any professional counsellor training would be acceptable.

Nadine has said that no religious groups would be involved but that's not what the amendments say. It also doesn't stipulate that any private body should be licensed or professional trained.

It's definition of independence is lacking and ill-planned. That is why they should be voted down, or preferably withdrawn to leave an important Health Bill to be debated fully in the 2 days allowed.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the moral arguments about abortion, it is unarguable to say that it is a drastic procedure with many inherent risks to the woman, not only physical but also psychological.

Surely it is wise to ensure that women seeking abortions without the full facts about such procedures should be provided not only with accurate and pertinent medical information about what it is that they're considering, but also information about the personal consequences that might occur. Too many women have had abortions in the past only to bitterly regret it and be tortured by the knowledge in later life.

Counselling should be provided to ensure that women have the opportunity to make a fully informed decision about what they are doing.

As for Dorries' suggestion that such counselling be provided by those who aren't actually offering the abortion procedure itself, well that seems eminently sensible to me. Whether or not Marie Stopes or BPAS or others are non-profit or not, those providing the counselling from such organisations do have a personal interest and it is a conflict of interest for them to advise a pregnant women who may not necessarily be of a settled opinion about what she wants to do. Their interest is vested because they are employed by these organisations and therefore their livelihood is dependent in some part on abortions being offered and they clearly do not see a problematic issue with abortion since they are working for such a provider in the first place. To these people abortion is a solution which is a given, rather than what it should be, with the law in its current state: that being a possibility for a woman, not necessarily an automatic or preferred choice.

Independent counselling wouldn't remove personal bias from counsellors, but it does mean that their interest becomes less vested and would enable them to offer more dispassionate advice that is based on the woman's need rather than, by even the slightest amount, their own position.

Like Dorries or not, the suggestion is a sensible one when if you're willing to take personalities out of the equation.

Paul Halsal gave us a review of the Jenny Stocks Daily Mail article on her visit to six different abortion counseling services:

"She found all the services deficient, but the Christian ones especially so. BPAS seemed to do the best."

Was he referring to a different article? Having just read it myself, the writer clearly identifies Choices, a christian associated service, as the best of the six.

She sums up the consultation:
"Although it’s impossible to say whether every CareConfidential counsellor would be as balanced (the organisation is not a member of BACP), it was the first session I left feeling equipped to make my own decision. Had I really been pregnant, I would have considered keeping the baby, without feeling pressured to do so."

Actually she was not at all impressed with the BPAS session.

As a nation we are on borrowed time because of our toleration of our lax abortion law. It is an offense against fatherhood. If these many children aborted over the years could find a voice, I suggest it would look to us something like rioting on our streets. A young woman was interviewed and asked why she was with the rioters and she said it was "just to show them that we can do it". I paraphrase, but what I heard was that she felt an angst inside against she knew not what. She is experiencing the feeling of abandonment of a father along with all the others who were on our streets. Is this not the root cause of all our nation's trouble with the so called social breakdown? Abortion is the abandonment of children. Their brothers and sisters feel it.

Let us repeal this great mistake of an Act of Parliament, and insist on adoption of unwanted babies. Then soon our school teachers may find they have an easier time of it because the children will know they are valued by their nation.