Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Why do they even give air time to these people

Well still coming down from cloud nine that was the weekend...  But I just wanted to post this whilst I remembered...

Coming back from work today there was a news story on the radio.  Their is (almost) a new govement in power today.  A right coalition, I'm not overly happy (and can't vote yet) but that's immaterial.

No, what caught me today was a report about a 'Catholic' (in quotes as I am not sure how affiliated they actually are) calling for the banning of abortions.  By sending faked pictures of 10 week old fetuses to various political parties.

Now, I don't want to get into the whole discussion about whether it should be banned or not.  However, their reasoning (outside of forcing people to live to thier ideals) for wanting it banned are just stupid.  They say that if you stop the killing of millions of unborn children (with 16 million people in Holland just how many abortions a year so they think people have???) then you can transfer the carers of those having the abortions to other wards and 'TADAH!' you have solved the staffing crisis in hospitals in one swoop.

I mean, seriously!  So let's start with the care of the woman having children they don't want for whatever reason and the phychological effects of that, lets forget pre-natel, and ante-natel care.  And the extra child care needed (I was in hospital enough as a child).

And lets get onto the really bad part of looking after those that go to back street abortionists and all the care that they will need after that.  I was shocked that the news sender actually bothered to give these people air time!

Sorry, rant over, normal service shall be resumed soon...Oh, and of course the fact that it wouldn't save tat many staff in the first place in the grand scheme of things.  Let's not forget that one.


  1. Since when did we have "a news" service?
    They all have agendas and are nothing more than propaganda machines.

    Like the ads for makeup done by trickery which now have to say on screen "made with trickery" the "news" should have an on screen warning!

    Why is news so rarely good news?

    Caroline xxx

  2. Stace,

    1st of all,let me say how happy I am for you that you still haven't descended from cloud 9!

    Now, about those anti-abortion crusaders. Ignorance abounds! We have them here too, and they are relentlessly arrogant in their ignorance. Everything is black or white to them. First of all, they have no concept of the inherent autonomy of the individual in personal matters. Secondly, if they had ever read Dickens, they might have at least some concept of what kind of horror will be revisited, if all unwanted children are forced to be born. Thirdly, Dickens depictions were mild in comparison to the horrors, that some of today's unwanted kids have to endure. That is, if they even survive!

    Melissa XX

  3. I am convinced that if abortion was banned, a lot of anti-abortionists would change their minds after knowing someone who'd had a backstreet abortion. A vote for them is a vote for septicaemia.

  4. Well, it's a very complex and emotive subject...

    I don't condone the catholic view on this, which is based on a total rejection of all artificial birth control.

    But personally I think it's a sad reflection on our society that, with the availability of free pre-impregnation birth control methods, there is still such a huge demand for abortions.

    Surely by now they should be last resort operations based on clinical need?

    Over here they were brought in during the 'sixties to counter the obvious dangers of back-street abortions and so were a vital, albeit distasteful. answer to a major problem.

    But the idea put forward at the time was that society would also educate people. and make available free Family Planning. that would drastically reduce the need for abortions.

    Although both sex education and Family Llanning clinics were brought in (to the shrill objections of the main religious bodies), the rates of abortion INCREASED.

    That has to be a staggering failure on the part of western governments and our societies.

    It's obviously true that the medical cost of abortion is FAR higher than any other method of birth control. I have no idea if any government has officially costed it per annum, but condoms, caps, coils and packets of the pill come in a LOT cheaper.

    Abortion also has a moral and ethical dimension that many, including myself, find troubling.

    So to recap, I'd rather there was far less reliance on it than there currently is, and I think we as a society have failed in the original INTENDED motive, which was to reduce the reliance on it.

    A ban would be insane, but I feel we need to try harder to reduce the number of abortions, rather than see it as just another BC option.


  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Opps.. too many typos.

    Let's try again.

    And I hope folks don't think I am being narrow-minded on this.

    The view I espoused, on the necessity of reducing the demand for abortions, has been the official view of EVERY UK government's Department of Health, since abortion was legalised.


  7. Chrissie, I agree that fewer abortions is a good thing.

    However, the consequences of forcing women to carry children they do not want or cannot carry or should not carry are often far more costly, both emotionally and financially, than offering assistance in terminating the pregnancy.

    Whatever the case, letting anyone force their religious morality on anyone else in this country continues to horrify me more than any number of abortions.

  8. Wow, that got some discussion...

    Caroline Let’s start with the bit I find least controversial... In the world of Big Brother et al I think that all news has to be bad news otherwise people just are not interested in anything as it is not sensationalist. I remember watching the news on 10 and they always finished in a high. Sometimes a very trite high I'll admit but it was a nice way to end...

    Melissa, thank you! Long may it last! (Says she hopefully)

    Melissa and Jenny - I agree completely with your points.

    Chrissie... Yup, very complex and very emotive - and like most emotive subjects I think that it polarizes opinion and turns into a kind of religion more than serious discussion.

    I really do not think that you are being narrow-minded at all here. I wonder whether the education deals with the right issues – and so has no impact at all on the abortion rates. My Sex Ed (in Science class) was when I was 14. Both too late (some of my class mates knew all too well the facts of life by that point) and too limited. Purely mechanical and mainly about plants; I think human reproduction took up about 2 lessons. That is 135 minutes, very much in the too little, too late category.

    Maybe it would be an idea to introduce relationships, impact of having a child, what the dangers (of diseases, not of children) are and what you can do to reduce the possibilities of either. Maybe it would be good to take it out of Science classes, and put it into a discussion type class. Maybe it would be good to do it before the first 6 or 7 kids become parents...

    I think there would still be a call for abortions, but it should be a last resort, and not a form of birth control.

    Gin Pretty much covers it there I think :) And Hi!