Best Of

Reading the abortion discussion I feel very conflicted, as birth and issues around it have, at one time or another, featured in our family's discussions.

First of all, eldest son was two months premature which meant, back in the 60's, two months isolation from his mother. He survived and his poor start doesn't seem to have affected him either intellectually or socially.

Secondly, fast forward twenty something years, our daughter, his younger sister was pregnant with her first child, and was told, fairly late in the process, that 'there appears to be something wrong with the baby; do you want a termination?" And I clearly recall her telling us that she could 'hear' the baby telling her that it was fine 'don't hurt me'. She didn't, and the child was perfectly normal, and indeed now has a doctorate.

However, in her late 40's and suffering from MND her contraception failed and she became pregnant. She was advised to have a late termination and did so. We were told the foetus appeared to have 'issues' and might or might not survived. Our daughter died of her MND when the baby would have been about a year old.

Fairly late in my pharmaceutical career I had a post which required me, sometimes, to make up 'balancing feeds' for premature babies, who were, one way and another short of various minerals due to abbreviated foetal development. At least one of these babies still has challenges, thirty years later, although I believe he has quite a demanding job.

I don't feel therefore that there's a simple answer to this matter unless it be to ALWAYS let nature take it's course, which would, equally, have lead to considerable problems in the last case. Thou shalt not kill/but do not strive/officiously/to keep alive seems to be a thought plus cheap, easily available contraception and contraceptive advice.

Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday?
It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type

The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.

That is the case with Iran.

They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!

So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?

Considering Israel is our ally, no.

It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.

Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.

Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.

We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.

Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.

Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.

We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.

More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.

I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.

Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.

Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).

I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.

Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.

That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.

If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.