
Tough decision: Department of Health figures show that in 2006, 947 women had their fifth abortion and 192 were on their sixth
Campaign leader Nadine Dorries, a Tory MP and former nurse, will argue for her amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill when it is debated on Tuesday.
Attacking the high number of repeat abortions, she said: “Abortion has moved from a resource that women turn to in an emergency and a point of crisis to becoming a form of contraception.
“This has been brought about as a result of an ill-conceived notion that it is just a minor procedure with no side or lasting effects – but this is not the case.”
The Department of Health figures show that in 2006, 947 women had their fifth abortion, 192 were on their sixth, 110 had their seventh abortion, while 54 had their eight, ninth or tenth abortion.
In total, more than 3,800 women clocked up at least their fourth termination.*
There were also 82 teenagers who had their third abortion.
You just have to wonder about how any woman can have multiple abortions, They must be incredibly callous or be incredibly convincing with the self talk that says that a foetus is not in fact a a person at all until an arbitrary point in it’s gestation. To my mind those who see abortion as just another form of contraception do us all a disservice. In an age and a society when effective contraception is cheap and readily available there is no excuse for such behaviour.
I am reminded of the quote from Oscar Wilde’s “The importance of being Earnest” which goes something like this :
“to lose one parent is unfortunate, but to lose both is just carelessness”
I can quite understand that a woman may need to end one pregnancy during her life time but my sympathy and understanding becomes exponentially less with each subsequent termination, to the point that I think that perhaps repeat offenders should in fact be neutered…
Cheers comrades
8)


Iain
You said:
“You just have to wonder about how any woman can have multiple abortions, They must be incredibly callous or be incredibly convincing with the self talk that says that a foetus is not in fact a a person at all until an arbitrary point in it’s gestation.”
Can I suggest a reason which is equally troubling but less critical of the woman involved? Many of the woman probably are intellectually disabled. Some woman with intellectual disabilities do not understand the consequences of having sex, the need to use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy or have the capacity to consent. Despite this men have sex with them and make them pregnant. It happens in Australia and if you talk to carers of intellectually disabled woman it is a real problem.
The old way of dealing with it was to sterilise a woman to prevent pregnancy but that is now seen as inappropriate and insensitive to the woman. In the past sterilisation of disabled women had eugenics overtones. But like most good ideas it can go too far: there are heartbraking cases of parents applying to courts to be able to sterelise their disabled child and being told that it cannot be done.
Rudi
That is a good point Rudi, and indicative of the problem of privileging a “rights” agenda over a practical necessity that is obvious to carers.
In my opinion, you can’t make a judgment that the first abortion is alright and maybe the 3rd but the 4th and ones there after are not. If a foetus is nothing but a couple of cells, what does it matter whether it’s the first couple of cells or the 5th. If you accept, like i do, that abortion is killing an unborn baby, then the first unborn baby cannot be of lesser value than the fifth.
I am Not saying that the some one should get a free pass for the first abortion MK, what I am saying is that under our laws it is permissible and I would personally argue against it in most circumstances, but when it comes to women who chose to have multiple terminations we should be less willing to accept the excuses and offer greater approbation each time she does it.
Right on, Iain. I think the Nazis had a policy of forced sterilisation too, and it sure worked for them.
I assume you’ll also be ‘neutering’ the males who contribute to multiple unwanted and aborted pregnancies? It takes two to tango, after all.
Mark
dare I suggest that your comment invokes Godwin’s law? :roll:
But when a woman has half a dozen or more abortions then she clearly has more of a commitment to killing the unborn than ever being a mother and offering sterilisation would be a better option than repeated abortions.
As always, you duck the question, Iain.
Mark
you did not ask a question, you made a statement. :roll:
A quick clue, Iain: look for the sentence that ends with a question mark (?). Those are called ‘questions’.
Mark that is a statement; punctuation marks do not magically make such things a question by their addition.
Absolute crap.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Question-Marks-Correctly
Give it a read and get back to us, Iain.
“…dare I suggest that your comment invokes Godwin’s law?
Where’s there’s smoke, there is usually fire…
:-)
Sounds like a question to me Iain. I mean, Mark even stuck a question mark on it!
Admittedly its a loaded question because it has the added inference that if you are being fair and even-handed to both sexes you’ll have to answer ‘yes’ to it.
Which i guess why you don’t want to answer the question…you haven’t stopped to think that far ahead before you jumped on your soapbox… :|
C’mon Iain – surely men who father unwanted babies that lead to multiple abortions should likewise be neutered, hmmm? As Mark said, it does take 2 to tango.
Even if I were to accept that Mark’s statement were a question, which I don’t by the way.what exactly is he asking?
Mark’s statement makes the assumption that the man (or men) who have fathered these children have any say in the subsequent decision to abort those foetuses, and in British and Australian law the man has no standing whatsoever it is the decision of the woman to have multiple abortions and not her decision to have unprotected sex that is the issue here so put simply no man who is “responsible” can be held liable for the woman’s actions.
I find it hard to believe what I’m seeing here.
A sentence with a question mark at the tail is not a question.
Women are responsible for unprotected sex; the male plays no part in this.
Women are entirely responsible for terminations so they should be neutered.
Godwin’s Law or not, you sound like you’re broadcasting from Nuremberg in the 1930s.
Jesus, Iain.
How many women do you know who have abortions against the will of the father? How often do you think women are pressured into abortions by the father?
Which do you HONESTLY think is the more prevalent scenario?
I’m not buying into the abortion debate (which is a 50/50 argument all the way) but just to be pedantic, Mark’s “question” was at best rhetorical and it didn’t require an answer. A question is not made merely by the addition of a question mark, it’s made by the content of the words, which must seek an answer. If I said, “I assume you’re gay?” the meaning of the sentence is, “I assume you’re gay.” It does not mean, “Are you gay?”
Ray – Yes you’re being pedantic! ;)
While I can see where you’re coming from, as I previously said its a loaded question, not because it assumes Iains position from the outset. It’s more that its a given that Iain is not actually ‘gay’ in this case (he doesn’t seem to be suggesting that his position on neutering be applied to men). Mark kinda guessed this right first up – you’ll pick up on it after reading Iain’s blog long enough…! ;)
Although – to get back on topic – I’m still kinda curious as to why Iain you don’t think neutering should be applied to men? Seems a double standard to me, as well as sexual discrimination to say the least…
Rgrds,
PKD
.
(PS – Yes that is a question for Iain in my last paragraph above Ray! :))
Thank you for that Ray
PKD I have twice explained why my suggestion that repeat aborters should be considered harshly and the men responsible for fathering the children should not be sanctioned:
and here
Do I have to invent a third way of making this most salient point? :roll:
Iain, whether or not he has the RIGHT by law to demand or stop an abortion was not the questions. My questions were:
How many women do you know who have abortions against the will of the father? How often do you think women are pressured into abortions by the father?
Which do you HONESTLY think is the more prevalent scenario?
Keri how can you on one hand decry me citing my personal experience to justify my position and then demand exactly that here?
I know of a several women who admit to having abortions and none of them made a point of even telling the men they had been sleeping with that they they were ever even pregnant.so very often the will of a father is a very moot point indeed.
I decry you using personal experience ONLY to justify your point. Or rejecting scientific, analytical study because you know someone who is different.
Further question – if the law was changed so the will of the father must be consulted, would you then advocate men who were “repeat offenders” be neutered also?
If the father is complicit in the decision to kill an unborn child then I would have no problem with them being equally sanctioned for that decision, but not if they have no part in the decision to Kill the child
What if the women can prove that she was co-erced?
you are shifting the goal posts now Keri :roll:
As you did in the first place by suggesting that because the right of a man to choose is not entrenched in law he has no say.
Nah I did not move them on that occasion but I will admit to making the point more clear and visible, but really without a man’s opinion having any standing in law at best a man has his ability to persuade, but I think that you will find that in many cases he is never given the opportunity to even try as many women do not even tell the man that they are pregnant before deciding to kill that child.
“Many” cases, Iain? Care to change that to “some” in the face of another lack of evidence?
Keri your point is really just a semantic one and all I can say is “How long is a piece of string?”
Bullshit. “Many” indicates that a large proportion of men have absolutely no say in what happens. “Some” indicated that it happens, but is not the common occurence.
Two very different meanings.
Many= more than one
some= less than all
Hmm there need not be any conflict in using either terms interchangeably in my book
That wasn’t the context within which you used the word, Iain, and you know it.