Reducing demand for abortion


by Rumbold
7th June, 2011 at 12:59 pm    

Yesterday, a meeting was held to oppose Nadine Dorries’ agenda, which includes female-only abstinence classes and further restrictions on abortion. Campaigners also wanted to further liberalise abortion services in Britain, particularly in Northern Ireland. A number of interesting points emerged from the debates (I didn’t attend), but what it is notable is that debate on abortion tends to focus almost exclusively on the supply side; at what point can a woman have an abortion, what she needs to go through to get it, and so forth. This is understandable, but it does polarise the debate, since on one side you have people who believe you are killing a human being and on the other people who feel you are interfering with a woman’s right to choose.

These positions are unlikely to change, but there is a way to please both sides, and that is reducing demand for abortion. To do this you first have to work out why women have abortions. Though there can be a number of reasons, two of the most common are not using contraception and women being pressured into sex. Therefore the way to deal with this, as Cath Elliot pointed out a while ago, is to increase contraceptive use amongst men and help women escape domestically violent situations. Thus you have less unwanted pregnancies and so less demand for abortions.

Who could object to this? Campaigners for liberalising access to abortion don’t actually enjoying the thought of abortions, so a reduction in demand wouldn’t be seen as a bad thing, as well as rescuing more women from abusive relationships. For those who genuinely think it murder, they should also support a plan that would see a reduction in the number of abortions. The only people who would object are the misogynists, who see abortion as a way to control women, and view sex education and promoting contraceptive use amongst men as immoral, but they wouldn’t be able to hide behind the excuse of protecting the unborn anymore.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Science,Sex equality






48 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : Reducing demand for abortion http://bit.ly/jzFf8Q


  2. Amelia L

    Blogged: : Reducing demand for abortion http://bit.ly/jzFf8Q


  3. smileandsubvert

    Reducing demand for abortion http://pulse.me/s/8kr1




  1. earwicga — on 7th June, 2011 at 2:45 pm  

    You assume for the men not using contraception that any resulting pregnancy is actually unwanted. I wouldn’t assume the same.

    I don’t think this bit is accurate:

    ‘which includes female-only abstinence classes’

    Dorries plans these lessons for both boys and girls. The problem isn’t really that kids are taught abstinence, but that if this was enacted then it would be the ONLY legislation covering sex education. And all the obvious problems wrt Dorries obviously.

  2. Rumbold — on 7th June, 2011 at 3:38 pm  

    Earwicga:

    You assume for the men not using contraception that any resulting pregnancy is actually unwanted. I wouldn’t assume the same.

    For large numbers of teenagers/young men, they do not want to get their girlfriends pregnant- they just don’t want to use condoms.

    Dorries plans these lessons for both boys and girls.

    I read this was to be for girls only. Do you have a link? Thanks.

  3. earwicga — on 7th June, 2011 at 5:06 pm  

    Google is your friend Rumbold. Dorries is on record as saying it abstinence ed should be for all. And I simply don’t believe your assurance that young men care that their partners don’t become pregnant. Virility rules throughout large swathes of society. But perhaps you have evidence that machismo is dead?

  4. Sunny — on 7th June, 2011 at 8:33 pm  

    Virility rules throughout large swathes of society. But perhaps you have evidence that machismo is dead?

    The two are not the same. Just because men may see themselves as virile doesn’t mean they want to get lots of women pregnant.

  5. earwicga — on 7th June, 2011 at 9:35 pm  

    They’re not necessarily opposite either Sunny. And I think there is a social class implication too.

  6. Don — on 7th June, 2011 at 11:52 pm  

    earwicga,

    Perhaps you could lay out your thesis a little more clearly. Please expand.

  7. KJB — on 8th June, 2011 at 12:36 am  

    We are talking about teenage boys here, not men. Teenage boys, and boys younger than that. So please can we have some evidence for the assertion that they are looking to become fathers, Earwicga? I don’t think that ‘realising that I wanted to have the baby’ after getting a partner pregnant counts.

    You assume for the men not using contraception that any resulting pregnancy is actually unwanted. I wouldn’t assume the same.

    You are the one who made this claim, therefore the onus is on you to prove it.

    Rumbold:
    I think the elephant in the room here is Catholicism, particularly since you mentioned Northern Ireland. Remember that Catholicism effectively forbids condom use (the Pope’s recent semi-U-turn on this being unclear, and unlikely to change long-standing social tradition) whilst also being anti-abortion. A destructive combination if ever there was one, as the rate of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa would attest. Religions in general, despite their prominence, ought to have 0 to do with this issue as it is effectively ‘outside their jurisdiction.’ Most refuse to countenance sex outside marriage, which teenage sex is overwhelmingly likely to be, so they don’t really have any right to influence policy on the matter. Judge – sure, but influence? No.

    Better relationship education is a must here also. One very prevalent idea that needs to be challenged, for example, is the ‘I have to sleep with him to keep him’ chestnut, which is related to ‘I have to do whatever it takes to keep him happy,’ and the truly delusional ‘Having a baby will keep us together’. Boys should also not be made to feel like their worth is so dependent on sexual prowess and experience. I really hope that friendship will get a lot more airtime. Real friendships – whether with boys or girls – are the key, as The Inbetweeners has shown us!

  8. Rumbold — on 8th June, 2011 at 8:34 am  

    Earwicga:

    Having been a teenage boy myself, once upon a time, I have come across plenty of teenage boys who want to have sex, but none to my knowledge who want to be fathers. That is not to say they don’t exist, but the vast majority of teenage boys who don’t use condoms do so because they don’t want to use them.

    KJB:

    I agree that Roman Catholic teaching on the issue presents a problem- however it shouldn’t mean that this strategy won’t lead to some benefits (not that you were saying it wouldn’t). And other religions can be vague if they want, by encouraging condom use without differentiating between sex inside and outside marriage.

  9. gorilerof4b — on 8th June, 2011 at 8:39 am  

    If we want to find the most effective way to frame this debate, I propose we don’t use the word ‘demand’ (as if abortion is a commodity) and instead use the word ‘need’.

    In a context of sex inequality, access to abortion is a necessity. We need access to safe, early abortions on demand with no need for the signature of two doctors or mandatory counselling from an impartial provider. These sorts of stipulation only create delays in the process when often the woman wants and needs to act as soon as she knows she is pregnant. For example, I visited my GP as soon as I knew I was pregnant (well under 8 weeks, more like 4) and was made to wait until I was 12 weeks for an abortion on the NHS.

    If we want to appeal to those on the right, we need to frame this debate in terms of values they can subscribe to. Talking about abortion as if it is a commodity we consumers ‘demand’ does not help our pro-choice cause at all. Frame it as a (sometimes – perhaps often – unfortunate) necessity, as a matter of freedom from state interference (via unnecessary obstacles to access), as a matter of freedom and autonomy, as a matter of responsible or prudent conduct, and we may get the daily fail readers on our side.

  10. Rumbold — on 8th June, 2011 at 8:53 am  

    Gorilerof4b:

    If we want to find the most effective way to frame this debate, I propose we don’t use the word ‘demand’ (as if abortion is a commodity) and instead use the word ‘need’.

    I disagree. ‘Need’ is too vague and open to attack. A woman might say she ‘needs’ an abortion, and an anti-abortion activist would say she doesn’t ‘need’ one. ‘Demand’ is simplier and less open to challenge.

    Frame it as a (sometimes – perhaps often – unfortunate) necessity, as a matter of freedom from state interference (via unnecessary obstacles to access), as a matter of freedom and autonomy, as a matter of responsible or prudent conduct, and we may get the daily fail readers on our side.

    I agree with this bit- we should talk about freedom from unecessary state interferance.

  11. tangled — on 8th June, 2011 at 11:36 am  

    Don’t you sometimes find this Scum Manifesto lite, radical feminism pose more than a little tiring, earwicga?

    Most of us got over the angry student moment after Fresher’s Week. I feel for you.

  12. Katy Newton — on 8th June, 2011 at 1:30 pm  

    Oooh, hmm. I don’t thing earwicga’s necessarily too far from the mark on the class front. The unlovely truth is that I spend a lot of time with people in the same sort of field and at the same sort of education level as myself, as do most (but not all) of the commenters on this site. The teenagers and young adult men that I dated as a teenager and know now don’t want to be parents, no, because they have plans for university and careers and not settling down too quickly. But if you are not in that sort of milieu, if you are one of the many teenagers in this country who *don’t* expect to go to university, and who are going to leave school at 16-18 and (if they’re lucky) get a job and start working, then actually you may well also want to have a family earlier. You only have to look at Love It! magazine (warning: your eyes will bleed) or look round your local supermarket to see that plenty of young men do start fathering early. I wouldn’t be assuming that they all got dragged into it kicking and screaming. I don’t know that I would put this down to machismo – I think it’s more likely to be a product of leading a much more adult life much more quickly than people who extend their education.

    I can also think of plenty of boyfriends I’ve had who weren’t ready to plan to have children, but would not have been happy at all if an accident had happened and I had decided to have an abortion.

    I don’t think that all young men want to have children out of a sort of general sense of machismo, but I think it’s a mistake to veer to the opposite extreme and say that young men never want their partners to get pregnant.

  13. Katy Newton — on 8th June, 2011 at 1:41 pm  

    Oh, also – I’m not actually sure why we’re suddenly concentrating on teenagers. The vast majority (75% at least) of abortions in the UK are carried out on women aged 20 or over. Astonishingly, the key to reducing demand for abortion (which I support, because abortion is a surgical procedure involving risks for the woman which like all surgical interventions should be a last resort) is largely about giving adults access to full information about birth control and teaching them how to use it properly.

  14. Rumbold — on 8th June, 2011 at 3:24 pm  

    Katy:

    I don’t think it is a class thing for the boys/men. In a previous job I worked with teenagers, most of whom were from poorer backgrounds. A few of the girls did see getting pregnant as a ‘career’, in the sense they believed it would leave them finacnailly secure through the benefits system, whilst others just wanted a baby. None of the boys ever expressed such sentiments. there is no culture that encourages boys/young men to become fathers quickly (such as playing with dolls), and those focused on sex don’t actually want their girlfriend to be pregnant.

    I can also think of plenty of boyfriends I’ve had who weren’t ready to plan to have children, but would not have been happy at all if an accident had happened and I had decided to have an abortion.

    But that is different from wanting to be a father, which was Earwicga’s point. You can be anti-abortion without wanting to impregnate every female you sleep with.

    Oh, also – I’m not actually sure why we’re suddenly concentrating on teenagers. The vast majority (75% at least) of abortions in the UK are carried out on women aged 20 or over.

    Partly because those are the habit forming years. If teenage boys were used to wearing condoms, they would be more likely to wear them when they become young men.

    We both agree that birth control should be one of the main focuses. For this to happen, more pressure needs to be put on men.

  15. douglas clark — on 8th June, 2011 at 4:54 pm  

    I recall some teenagers making life long commitments to each other and having children together at a relatively young age. I don’t think that was a class related thing although I do take Katy Newtons point about young men (and women) with educational and career aspirations. But that is different, and it is not related to class. It is about having a more mature attitude to what you want out of life and when you want it.

    I also recall some young men whose pursuit of sex had nothing whatsoever to do with the betterment of the species and had a lot more to do with their own attempts to be alpha males (in their terms).

    Generally speaking, the latter group were pretty self centred and a bit ‘devil may care’, especially as they would not be there for the consequences.

    It is pretty obvious that most men want sex. It is also pretty obvious that a lot of men would see the ‘unfortunate pregnancy’ as the result of a one night stand to be a consequence to be avoided, by them, at all costs. The latter does not appear to inform the former.

  16. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 4:55 pm  

    ‘So please can we have some evidence for the assertion that they are looking to become fathers, Earwicga?’

    Wasn’t what I said KJB.

    ‘But that is different from wanting to be a father, which was Earwicga’s point. You can be anti-abortion without wanting to impregnate every female you sleep with.’

    Wasn’t what I said Rumbold.

  17. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:00 pm  

    Absolutely Katy – I’m not talking about teenagers either. I am talking about men outside the range of Rumbold’s friends and work subjects though. And the children they produce, with having no intention of supporting, aren’t usually subject to abortion either.

    tangled – LOL! The day I call myself a radical feminist will be, well it’ll be never. And I bypassed that kind of student preferring to go shopping and clubbing :)

  18. douglas clark — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:06 pm  

    earwicga,

    You said:

    You assume for the men not using contraception that any resulting pregnancy is actually unwanted. I wouldn’t assume the same.

    I think you ought to clarify that. It is perfectly obvious that if the man and the woman are trying for a baby then you are right. It is a wanted pregnancy.

    If the sex was just for fun then, no, I would assume that the resulting pregnancy was unwanted, or, at the very least unexpected.

    So, what did you mean, earwicga?

  19. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:24 pm  

    How can any pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex be unexpected douglas? *passes the thinking hat to douglas*

  20. douglas clark — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:30 pm  

    Because not all sex results in pregnancy earwicga. If it did then we’d be knee deep in children.

    How can any pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex be unexpected douglas? *passes the thinking hat to douglas*

    I knew loving Catholic couples that only became pregnant when they wanted to despite never using any form of physical contraception. It is all down to the rhythm method apparently, earwicga.

  21. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:36 pm  

    So they are practising a form of contraception douglas. They have both made an active decision not to conceive and are using a method to achieve that aim.

  22. douglas clark — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:38 pm  

    earwicga @ 19,

    How can any pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex be unexpected douglas? *passes the thinking hat to douglas*

    Would you care to explain how that clarifies your position? Which was what I asked you to do @ 18.

    To repeat:

    “So, what did you mean, earwicga?”

  23. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:40 pm  

    That your assumptions mean Jack douglas. Look at the stats for single parents.

  24. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:48 pm  

    Despite my criticisms though Rumbold, I do like your approach in talking about what leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Another strain of it would be to ask how many abortions wouldn’t be carried out if the economic circumstances were ok to carry on with pregnancy. The majority of abortions are requested by women who already have children.

  25. douglas clark — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:52 pm  

    earwicga,

    You say @ 19:

    How can any pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex be unexpected douglas?

    Just for reference: the rhythm method is unprotected sex.

    You then say:

    So they are practising a form of contraception douglas.

    Of course they are. But it is unprotected and a pregnancy arising from it would be unexpected. Which rather suggests you need to reconsider your line of argument.

  26. douglas clark — on 8th June, 2011 at 5:59 pm  

    earwicga @ 23,

    That your assumptions mean Jack douglas. Look at the stats for single parents.

    I have no idea what that means earwicga.

    Please try to clarify your own position. I have no idea what it is, and I suspect no-one else has either.

  27. Rumbold — on 8th June, 2011 at 7:42 pm  

    Earwicga:

    I am talking about men outside the range of Rumbold’s friends and work subjects though. And the children they produce, with having no intention of supporting, aren’t usually subject to abortion either.

    But that is a different point. You originally argued that:

    You assume for the men not using contraception that any resulting pregnancy is actually unwanted. I wouldn’t assume the same.

    My point was that I have come across virtually no teenage boys/young men who want to be fathers, as opposed to a number of females the same age who want to be mothers. And in my time I have worked with teenagers, people with mental and physical health issues and people on benefits. I also include my own peer group.

    Despite my criticisms though Rumbold, I do like your approach in talking about what leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

    Thank you. That is what I am trying to shift the discussion towards.

    The majority of abortions are requested by women who already have children.

    Interesting. Do you have a link for that?

  28. douglas clark — on 8th June, 2011 at 7:52 pm  

    Aw, Rumbold, earwicga really loves you…..

    Despite my criticisms though Rumbold, I do like your approach in talking about what leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

    How sweet. How utterly ingenuous.

    Not.

  29. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 8:22 pm  
  30. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 8:24 pm  

    ‘My point was that I have come across virtually no teenage boys/young men who want to be fathers’

    My point was nothing to do with teenagers, as I reiterated above. Please also reread Katy Newton’s comments. You also live in a privileged part of the country which has a bearing on the types of people you meet.

  31. earwicga — on 8th June, 2011 at 8:26 pm  

    And I’ll leave it there. It’s good to debate, but not with people who have no idea of their subject or how to take on board another’s argument or thoughts.

  32. Don — on 8th June, 2011 at 8:58 pm  

    It’s good to debate, …

    It is. You should try it sometime.

  33. Don — on 8th June, 2011 at 9:01 pm  

    Rumbold,

    I’m guessing Kingston-upon-Thames or Kensington.

  34. douglas clark — on 8th June, 2011 at 10:39 pm  

    earwigca @ 31,

    No you don’t. It is quite clear that you have no concept of debate. It is your way or the highway.

    I have asked you to spell out your opinion and the best you can do is list other peoples opinions @ 29.

    What do you think? Try explaining yourself.

    Frankly, I doubt you can.

    You are taking the piss, earwicga, so you are….

  35. KJB — on 8th June, 2011 at 11:06 pm  

    Re Earwicga:

    This remark:

    And the children they produce, with having no intention of supporting, aren’t usually subject to abortion either

    is redundant. If young teenagers are irresponsible enough to produce children before they are able to look after them, I can’t see how/why would they be informed or responsible enough to seek abortion?

    That is not some kind of ‘class’ thing, btw – I know teenagers of middle and working-class backgrounds who got themselves into this position. It’s simply about being young and clueless.

    You also live in a privileged part of the country which has a bearing on the types of people you meet.

    So working-class people don’t live in London? LOL. London might be ‘privileged’ in certain respects, but that doesn’t mean everyone living there is.

    You have effectively claimed that young men want their partners to be pregnant, refused to clarify your ‘argument’ by simply denying what Rumbold and I said, denied that Rumbold could have any insight into the matter, then attempted to move the discussion onto a matter only tangentially related to this, i.e. non-teenage women having abortions.

    Then you made further snide comments.

    At the end of all of that, I’m none the wiser. What are you on about?

    gorilerof4b:

    This will sound tragically sad, but I have seen you on blogs before fleetingly and I always wanted to tell you that your name is awesome – and now I see that you are a pro-woman woman too? Eeeee! :D

  36. KJB — on 8th June, 2011 at 11:09 pm  

    Also, given what I was saying about Catholicism, condoms and abortion, I think it is apposite to post this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/philippines-birth-control-legislation-church

  37. persephone — on 9th June, 2011 at 1:02 am  

    I agree that demand sounds factory like. Its plain human rights like everyone else – there’s no need to create a special language for pregnant women and their human rights.

    Whereas I am for this right and for this to be early enough to avoid having to experience the early stages of an unwanted pregnancy (which must make the experience more traumatic) is there not another angle to explore – not the cause of but why are pregnancies unwanted?

    Pro lifers say abortion is a patriarchal ploy to control women by not adapting its domineering structure to include mothers. It takes away the biggest differentiator for women. It has to be taken away to remain equal and in so doing adapt to fit into a mans world. To be equal women cannot become or remain pregnant – society is still not factored equally for women with children. Mothers can be perceived as 2nd class citizens – bringing up children is largely done by women as an unsalaried unskilled chore and expected ‘natural’ duty.

    So who does it emancipate in reality: “Abortion on demand liberates men who want sex without strings, promises, responsibility, or the rituals of romance” (Gargaro). Is some of the cause the premise that a contingent of men know that unprotected sex is not the end of their (man) world.

    Quoting Greer:“The choice of abortion equips employers to not have to make concessions to pregnant women and mothers. Abortion only serves to support the idea that childbearing is solely a job for a woman and, now more than ever, men are exempt from being involved. In the case of an unwanted child it is a woman’s “duty to undergo an invasive procedure and an emotional trauma and so sort the situation out…What women ‘won’ was the ‘right’ to undergo invasive procedures in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies, unwanted not just by them but by their parents, their sexual partners, the governments who would not support mothers, the employers who would not employ mothers, the landlords who would not accept tenants with children, the schools that would not accept students with children. Historically the only thing pro-abortion agitation achieve was to make an illiberal establishment [patriarchal culture] look far more feminist than it was”

    Is the real question not what is causing unwanted pregnancies but why aren’t pregnancies wanted more?

  38. tangled — on 9th June, 2011 at 7:07 am  

    earwicga: men spend all their money on drink and drugs and inseminating (quite on purpose) women.

    Oh, and it’s a class thing.

    Fuck off.

  39. Rumbold — on 9th June, 2011 at 8:32 am  

    Don:

    Well, the borough of Hounslow. Which has some rich pockets, some middle income parts and some very poor areas. It also has quite a mix of nationalities/ethnicities (and is the home of Bhangraman from GGM).

    Earicwga:

    Thanks for the links.

    Persephone:

    Is the real question not what is causing unwanted pregnancies but why aren’t pregnancies wanted more?

    Cost, career, lifestyle, age, no suitable partner, etc. I do agree that we should value pregnancy more though.

    Does abortion liberate men? Only the ones who would feel obliged to help raise the child if she/he was born.

  40. Ravi Naik — on 9th June, 2011 at 4:18 pm  

    I think the elephant in the room here is Catholicism, particularly since you mentioned Northern Ireland. Remember that Catholicism effectively forbids condom use (the Pope’s recent semi-U-turn on this being unclear, and unlikely to change long-standing social tradition) whilst also being anti-abortion. A destructive combination if ever there was one, as the rate of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa would attest.

    I find this argument somewhat contrived. If people gave a damn about what the Church says on sexual matters, like not using condoms, then they would practice abstinence or not have sex outside marriage which I presume is how HIV is spread, and where the majority of unwanted pregnancies happen.

  41. Don — on 9th June, 2011 at 5:46 pm  

    @40

    Ravi, isn’t that a rather false equivalence?

    Sex is a primal desire, wearing a condom is not.

    To demand that people abstain from sex except for procreation is simply unrealistic – within marriage the best anyone could hope for would be unfeasibly large families, outside marriage the urge will likely overwhelm piety at some point. Of course, guilt will kick in, but confession is there for that.

    To insist that condoms be eschewed is a rule easily accepted by many men who dislike them and now have a ready-made excuse not to use them. Particularly if they have been told that it does not offer protection from AIDS.

  42. Ravi Naik — on 9th June, 2011 at 6:08 pm  

    Ravi, isn’t that a rather false equivalence? Sex is a primal desire, wearing a condom is not.

    To insist that condoms be eschewed is a rule easily accepted by many men who dislike them and now have a ready-made excuse not to use them. Particularly if they have been told that it does not offer protection from AIDS.

    Don, I agree – and several studies confirm – that abstinence programs do not reduce teenage pregnancies.

    But my point is that screwing around is a far graver sin for Catholics (see adultery and fornication) than the use of condoms and other contraceptives, which the majority of Catholics use. It is difficult for me to accept that men who screw around are somehow influenced by what the Church says about condoms.

    In other words, if the Church suddenly starting promoting safe sex – would these men suddenly wear it?

    I still think what the Church says to be totally irresponsible and wrong, but I am not sure it has much effect.

  43. KJB — on 9th June, 2011 at 10:58 pm  

    It is difficult for me to accept that men who screw around are somehow influenced by what the Church says about condoms.

    Whether they are influenced by it or not is irrelevant, though. As Don pointed out, it is the excuse that is used for them to have very large families, and to screw around outside of marriage. See the article I posted above on the Philippines, and the Catholic clergy’s quotes in that. ‘Children are a gift from God,’ is a handy way of passing the responsibility for unprotected sex onto the women. Why worry about what your wife (or even a prostitute) wants? She should just shut up and take the wonderful gift from God. Arguing about whether the Church’s stances or people’s desires came first is a chicken and egg scenario.

    Yes, people are hypocrites, but the Church is a powerful, often reactionary social presence which does little to censure them. Their reaction to the child abuse scandal, for example, was hardly the work of a God-fearing, Christlike institution. It might not condone ‘screwing around’ but it’s not exactly forthcoming with humane, sensible measures to stop men repeatedly impregnating women or helping those with unwanted pregnancies either.

  44. KJB — on 9th June, 2011 at 11:01 pm  

    Rumbold:

    the borough of Hounslow [...] has some rich pockets

    Where?!

    Oh hang on, sorry, you said the BOROUGH of Hounslow… Yes. Chiswick. I’ll take central Hounslow over Chiswick (almost) any day!

  45. Daneyol — on 11th June, 2011 at 8:03 pm  

    “This is understandable, but it does polarise the debate, since on one side you have people who believe you are killing a human being and on the other people who feel you are interfering with a woman’s right to choose.

    These positions are unlikely to change, but there is a way to please both sides, and that is reducing demand for abortion.”

    Why should people opposing abortion rights be pleased?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.