Ship of Fools: Stance of UK parties on abo**ion

Thread: Stance of UK parties on abo**ion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030799

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

Ok I know that any topic with abortion in the title is going to be potentially viewed as a dead horse but I am wanting to raise the issue of where different political parties in the UK currently stand on this issue and so I think it is too specific to be a DH. This is also an important topic at the moment as it is currently legal to 'terminate pregnancies' as late as 24 weeks.

It is quite difficult to gauge where parties stand as they are reluctant to take an official stance on the issue and alienate potential voters. The issue also cuts across party lines.

Nonetheless the article below suggests that some information can be gleaned. Jeremy Hunt believes that the abortion limit should be reduced to 12 weeks. This is obviously supported by Nadine Dorries of the Conservative Party. By way of contrast Yvette Cooper, clearly influential within the Labour Party, said that she was 'chilled and appalled' by the suggestion that the abortion limit may be reduced. This is quite a stark difference of opinion. It thus seems to me that there is more of a pro-life tendency within the Conservative Party than in the Labour Party. This may seem counter intuitive because the Conservatives are often portrayed as representing narcissists. Whilst people may disagree with a pro-life stance it is clearly altruistic to show concern for the issue of protecting life once it has been conceived.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9591141/Cut-legal-abortion-limit-to-12-weeks-Jeremy-Hunt-says.html

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Abortion is not and should not be a party political issue in the UK. Its use as a wedge issue in the US has done huge damage, encouraging Christians to vote for parties that oppose abortion but also tend towards racism, homophobia and economic policies that support the rich against the poor.

If you want to reduce the incidence of abortion, that's great. Improve sex education, contraceptive availability and encourage young men and women not to rush into having sex. Trying to ban abortion is shutting the stable door after the (dead in this case) horse has bolted.

[ 02. May 2015, 21:02: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Incidentally, imposing your moral values by law is not an altruistic act, and will not be felt that way by the women affected.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

My impression has always been that whatever a party's policy may be, some recognise that an individual may take a different view. Possibly the best known recent example is (Lord) David Alton, a Liverpool Liberal /LibDem MP between 1979 and 1997 and a Roman Catholic. He was often at odds with the party leadership, and that despite being Chief Whip for two years. His personal position was so strongly held that it forced the LibDems to abandon a pro-choice policy.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The thing is, Christians have a range of views on this (hence the DH nature of the discussion) and politicians of all parties almost certainly have a range of views on this, which is why no party will use it as a discussion point.

So I don't think any of the main parties could have a stance on it that would be a reasonable reflection of most of the candidates or supporters. My own party (The Greens) do support easier availability of abortion, but alongside better education and support for single parents. While I would struggle with a simple approach that made it easier to have an abortion, this multi-faceted approach makes sense to me.

So I think, in the UK, the issue is not a simple one. And we know how the party spokespeople like things that are simple (sadly they also choose them to lead the party sometimes).

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

So I don't think any of the main parties could have a stance on it that would be a reasonable reflection of most of the candidates or supporters.

This might well be correct as there is some evidence that most Labour supporters would be in favour of more restrictions on abortion.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/04/27/labour-and-lib-dem-voters-more-likely-to-support-tighter-abortion-laws-than-c onservatives-poll-shows/

In view of Yvette Cooper's strong opinion on the issue though it seems unlikely to me that this is reflected in the current Labour leadership.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Abortion is not and should not be a party political issue in the UK. Its use as a wedge issue in the US has done huge damage, encouraging Christians to vote for parties that oppose abortion but also tend towards racism, homophobia and economic policies that support the rich against the poor.

I must admit I thought that both mainstream parties in the US were now committed to racial equality; I'm surprised if that is not the case. As to whether it should be a party political issue in the UK the difficulty is that if there is no moral consensus on this issue within society then it is better for those who disagree with abortion to have less state involvement in healthcare. If there was more choice within healthcare provision it would be possible for an individual to align their ethical views with the policies of the healthcare provider that they select. The NHS has been used as an instrument to cut benefits bills by making abortion easy to access. The consequence of a failure to achieve consensus on any important ethical issue is that support for state run institutions is weakened.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I've never encountered anyone (until now, apparently) who thinks that the NHS should be privatised in order to reduce access to abortions. You want to try and explain how restricting abortions to wealthy people only is altruistic? The NHS isn't the Chinese government, they haven't been coercing or encouraging the termination of healthy pregnancies. They have been ensuring that women caught in a difficult situation can make a tough choice safely and with the right support, whatever that choice is. Try to limit abortion directly and what you will get is the return of the wire coathanger followed by sepsis and death.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

The word apparently was important of course because I didn't say that the NHS should be privatised I said that there should be a greater degree of choice with regards to healthcare providers and that is something that both Labour and the Conservatives have increased. As it happens I don't think that a woman's choice should be funded by the tax payer. I have known women who have terminated one pregnancy, funded by the NHS, conceived a few months later and decided to not terminate the next pregnancy. Paying for a woman's choice does not encourage responsibility when it comes to preventing a pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

So you favour making pregnancy a punishment for being poor.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

I would not describe pregnancy as a punishment I would describe it as a choice (except where caused by rape). If someone is poor during pregnancy then I believe that there should be government support in place to support them. I don't believe that simply paying for one abortion solves any long term problem. If you see pregnancy which has resulted from consensual sex as a punishment then I don' think that we will find any common ground.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Abortion - often a morally grey area in specific cases - always seems to me to be an area where the parties' policies are opposed to their philosophical bases. left wingers should, in theory , support the rights of the weak, ie the unborn, whilst those on the right should be inclined towards choice. In reality the opposite tends to happen. Another paradox is that those keen to protect the unborn tend to be less keen to protect foxes being coursed. If only the two issues were as morally black and white in all cases as campaigners on all sides want us to think. Or as they themselves believe with their limited experiences.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In general, abortion is not a big political issue in the UK. There are some MPs/candidates who have (had) strong personal opinions that have formed part of their campaign. But, by and large, the proportion of the electorate who would consider it an issue to decide how they vote is very small.

The attitude IME seems to be that people will have strong opinions, and that will affect their decisions and advice if they were personally affected - eg: if they or their partner, or children, were considering an abortion. But, they're willing to live with their personal decisions and let others do the same without the government needing to be making laws about it.

Abortion is an issue over which no party is going to win a lot of votes by taking a particular position - and are likely to lose as many votes as they gain anyway. Therefore, it's not a political issue here.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Another paradox is that those keen to protect the unborn tend to be less keen to protect foxes being coursed. If only the two issues were as morally black and white in all cases as campaigners on all sides want us to think. Or as they themselves believe with their limited experiences.

I like this idea. MPs should vote on whether or not to kill foxes and embryos, or allow them to live. Could it be done?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Abortion is not and should not be a party political issue in the UK. Its use as a wedge issue in the US has done huge damage, encouraging Christians to vote for parties that oppose abortion but also tend towards racism, homophobia and economic policies that support the rich against the poor.

I must admit I thought that both mainstream parties in the US were now committed to racial equality; I'm surprised if that is not the case.

Well, neither party comes out and says they're against racial equality, and they both likely support equality in the narrowest legal sense, ie. no discrimination before the law.

But I think it's also well-known that many Republicans(and some Democrats)oppose things like affirmative action, court-mandated integration of school systems, and other forms of state-intervention intended to achieve social and economic(as opposed to simply legal) equality.

Which can be a respectable position, if you're someone with an a priori objection to state involvement in social relations. However, when Republicans get caught handing out stuff like this, we can probably assume that they are promoting something other than just the sacred inviolability of the private sphere.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's a Dead Horse, Makepiece. Read DH Guidelines here.

Particularly this.

quote:
If you want to discuss any aspect of those subjects, post your thread here.

Off it goes

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
(and Dead Horses Host)

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

Oh sorry I wasn't aware that the stance of UK parties on abortion had already been regularly discussed. I've seen loads of threads on PSA in purgatory why don't they get moved?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Please re-read the link I provided. After that, if you still want to discuss the ruling further, please start a thread in the Styx. That's the right place for such discussions

Barnabas62
Purgatory and Dead Horses Host

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

This candidate in Northern Ireland wants to limit abortion

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This candidate in Northern Ireland wants to limit abortion

Yebbut. She's not standing for a party. She's an Independent. And she has no chance of getting in.

Mind, she'll be no more use to those she desires to represent than the MP they've currently got and are almost certain to re-elect. It's a safe Sinn Fein seat, and they don't take their seats.

IMHO that's pointless dogmatism. I also can't understand why anyone votes for a candidate who has made it clear that they aren't going to do their job. But I suppose that's just MHO.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I suppose if you believe that the authority of the crown over your constituency is illegitimate then the only way to make that heard is to send a representative who will refuse to take the oath of allegiance. To elect someone willing to take the oath would be to acknowledge the authority of the crown in parliament over the 6 counties.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Incidentally, imposing your moral values by law is not an altruistic act, and will not be felt that way by the women affected.

Tangent perhaps, but aren't pretty much all laws, to some extent, an imposition of moral values on people who may not share them?

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Politicians aren't avoiding raising the topic because they're afraid that there is no consensus in the UK. They don't raise it because they know that there is a consensus: the vast majority of Brits believe that abortion should be available, on the NHS, up to at least 20 weeks. So there's no reason to mention it, unless you want to change the law, which would be an unpopular move. There are some people who disagree for faith-based reasons, and there are some politicians among this number. But the fact that it's possible to name every one of the outspoken pro-life politicians out of hundreds of MPs shows what a minority position it is. When pro-life politicians do pick a fight they know they'll never get an outright ban on abortion so they try to change details like how far into pregnancy it can be legal - but changing it even as far as 12 weeks wouldn't prevent the vast majority of abortions. Anyone who goes further than that will take a massive hammering in the polls and wouldn't be supported by their party anyway. It's individuals who try to bring these changes, not parties.

[ 05. May 2015, 11:20: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0