Ok, I'm instinctively against this change (I like a workable fudge, compromise, imperfect world etc etc, shame to throw that away) but I think claiming Labour is politicising it is wrong - it suggests they are only doing this to skewer the Tories/Reform, which is obviously not the case given the issues it's going to cause them.
A blind spot for the right is they can't imagine lefties doing something a bit mad out of pure principle. I think this is an example, along with assisted dying etc etc. They are governing on instinct.
Which probably means they are doomed but there you are.
This is arguably the equivalent of the Tories outlawing abortion altogether when they were in power.
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
Boris needs to issue a statement here, basically saying he would have drawn the line at 24 weeks and nothing would have persuaded him otherwise. Either that or the Kemi repudiates him and expels him from the party. Things could get ethically muddy for the Tories very quickly if they want to go down this path but aren't careful.
No, this amendment effectively decriminalises abortion up to birth, this was not a vote on reducing the 24 week abortion time limit
The man on the street will just hear that the Tories want women prosecuted for having an abortion, while their previous leader paid for his mistress to have one. Unfair perhaps as there's a lot of nuance in all this, but there are risks if the British Right want to use this issue as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir.
The man on the street will see Labour has legalised murder of a baby until birth with no consequence if done by a pregnant woman. Those risks should be taken, this amendment is morally wrong
The man and woman on the street mostly won't hear about this at all. Remember how little news most civilians consume. It will fire up the online social conservatives, but they're not exactly floating voters.
Only an idiot would raise the issue at PMQs, for example...
That could land either way. An extremely high risk move from Badenoch. Either picks up a genuine, deep concern of ordinary people everywhere (including possibly me), or comes up across as terminally online yet again.
I don't think people will like a British Conservative railing against abortion. We're still too my home, my castle, and the whole debate leaves a sour taste. She will have to do it with a great deal of tact.
Ok, I'm instinctively against this change (I like a workable fudge, compromise, imperfect world etc etc, shame to throw that away) but I think claiming Labour is politicising it is wrong - it suggests they are only doing this to skewer the Tories/Reform, which is obviously not the case given the issues it's going to cause them.
A blind spot for the right is they can't imagine lefties doing something a bit mad out of pure principle. I think this is an example, along with assisted dying etc etc. They are governing on instinct.
Which probably means they are doomed but there you are.
Ok, I'm instinctively against this change (I like a workable fudge, compromise, imperfect world etc etc, shame to throw that away) but I think claiming Labour is politicising it is wrong - it suggests they are only doing this to skewer the Tories/Reform, which is obviously not the case given the issues it's going to cause them.
A blind spot for the right is they can't imagine lefties doing something a bit mad out of pure principle. I think this is an example, along with assisted dying etc etc. They are governing on instinct.
Which probably means they are doomed but there you are.
Ok, I'm instinctively against this change (I like a workable fudge, compromise, imperfect world etc etc, shame to throw that away) but I think claiming Labour is politicising it is wrong - it suggests they are only doing this to skewer the Tories/Reform, which is obviously not the case given the issues it's going to cause them.
A blind spot for the right is they can't imagine lefties doing something a bit mad out of pure principle. I think this is an example, along with assisted dying etc etc. They are governing on instinct.
Which probably means they are doomed but there you are.
Labour MP Stella Creasy - campaigning to change abortion law in Britain - says it's a pre-emptive move amid the global rise of the right-wing.
Hmm. Have Reform been making lots of noise about abortion? It strikes me as the kind of thing Farage studiously avoids.
Can’t say I’ve seen anything from them on this (but who knows what’s going on with their grass roots).
Labour MPs simply saw this as a chance to sneak in profound change to abortion laws without a moment of public debate. That’ll be a nice excuse for the next government, no doubt.
What an exemplar of catastrophe. A masterclass in how not to build a railway. And yet some people still defend it, and want it to steal money from transport projects that actually make economic sense, like the Bakerloo line extension or Crossrail 2.
Proof yet again that government does the wrong projects, for the wrong reasons, cocks them up and sticks with them even when it's obvious they should be put out of our misery.
London, London, London, London.
I'd be more inclined to listen these criticisms if the cash wasn't being re-directed to filling potholes in Islington.
Ok, I'm instinctively against this change (I like a workable fudge, compromise, imperfect world etc etc, shame to throw that away) but I think claiming Labour is politicising it is wrong - it suggests they are only doing this to skewer the Tories/Reform, which is obviously not the case given the issues it's going to cause them.
A blind spot for the right is they can't imagine lefties doing something a bit mad out of pure principle. I think this is an example, along with assisted dying etc etc. They are governing on instinct.
Which probably means they are doomed but there you are.
Labour MP Stella Creasy - campaigning to change abortion law in Britain - says it's a pre-emptive move amid the global rise of the right-wing.
Pro or anti the move that seems like a strange motivation for it. If the right wing rise again in the UK they can just change it right back if they want.
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
Boris needs to issue a statement here, basically saying he would have drawn the line at 24 weeks and nothing would have persuaded him otherwise. Either that or the Kemi repudiates him and expels him from the party. Things could get ethically muddy for the Tories very quickly if they want to go down this path but aren't careful.
No, this amendment effectively decriminalises abortion up to birth, this was not a vote on reducing the 24 week abortion time limit
The man on the street will just hear that the Tories want women prosecuted for having an abortion, while their previous leader paid for his mistress to have one. Unfair perhaps as there's a lot of nuance in all this, but there are risks if the British Right want to use this issue as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir.
The man on the street will see Labour has legalised murder of a baby until birth with no consequence if done by a pregnant woman. Those risks should be taken, this amendment is morally wrong
The man and woman on the street mostly won't hear about this at all. Remember how little news most civilians consume. It will fire up the online social conservatives, but they're not exactly floating voters.
Only an idiot would raise the issue at PMQs, for example...
That could land either way. An extremely high risk move from Badenoch. Either picks up a genuine, deep concern of ordinary people everywhere (including possibly me), or comes up across as terminally online yet again.
I don't think people will like a British Conservative railing against abortion. We're still too my home, my castle, and the whole debate leaves a sour taste. She will have to do it with a great deal of tact.
She will 100% go on the unspoken thing
Abortion isn't trending on twitter and I can't see it popping up as anywhere else. Might all change tomorrow, but international events are looking potentially spectacular.
I wonder what irans super secret surprise is? Could it possibly be sod all?
The buttons will be pressed, but nothing will happen — probably.
Thus far they appear to be windbag pussies rather than any sort of threat. Thdy havent even closed Hormuz, thats basic stuff
Closing Hormuz would be one of their very last resorts, because it would also mean the end of their own oil exports (I googled it & they're currently exporting 2 million barrels per day) & also definitely draw-in the US into the conflict.
Interesting analysis from the NY Times about why the Russians aren't doing much to help Tehran.
The likely reasons are a combination of: - Russia doesn't want a fight with Israel and the US - It doesn't want to alienate Saudi & the UAE, with whom it has warm relations - It can't send a lot of military equipment to Iran, because the equipment is needed for the Ukraine war - Russia also doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
Boris needs to issue a statement here, basically saying he would have drawn the line at 24 weeks and nothing would have persuaded him otherwise. Either that or the Kemi repudiates him and expels him from the party. Things could get ethically muddy for the Tories very quickly if they want to go down this path but aren't careful.
No, this amendment effectively decriminalises abortion up to birth, this was not a vote on reducing the 24 week abortion time limit
The man on the street will just hear that the Tories want women prosecuted for having an abortion, while their previous leader paid for his mistress to have one. Unfair perhaps as there's a lot of nuance in all this, but there are risks if the British Right want to use this issue as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir.
The man on the street will see Labour has legalised murder of a baby until birth with no consequence if done by a pregnant woman. Those risks should be taken, this amendment is morally wrong
The man and woman on the street mostly won't hear about this at all. Remember how little news most civilians consume. It will fire up the online social conservatives, but they're not exactly floating voters.
Only an idiot would raise the issue at PMQs, for example...
Roman Catholics, Muslims, evangelicals will be firmly opposed to this amendment and given the current dire Tory voteshare making some inroads with them would make sense. Especially taking some of the former from Labour, on a respect for human life and a viable foetus platform would be a sensible move from Kemi
I'm a bit bemused about this aborting vote. It seems to have come out of nowhere.
Maybe I have such severe Trump Derangement Syndrome that I am not properly focussed on UK politics?
It's such a completely stupid thing to do as well, importing a completely toxic argument from the US into our politics. The question has been settled for decades and now it's not. The thought of someone aborting a full term pregnancy is absolutely abhorrent. Functionally there's no difference to between a term pregnancy and a 1 week old baby. I mean our first was born 10 days late and our second was 3 weeks early. It seems completely immoral that fully functioning babies can be killed and it carries no punishment.
I very rarely have opinions on these matters but this feels like end stage liberalism to me, effectively legalising the killing of functional babies is completely wrong and what was previously seen as a workable compromise between traditional views and liberal ones has now been smashed by Labour completely out of nowhere. People who are celebrating this have got something wrong with them in their heads. I can't imagine many things worse than decriminalisation of abortion past 26-30 weeks. Thousands of perfectly healthy and happy babies will be murdered and somehow this is a good thing for society?
There are moments where a person becomes less and less connected to the culture and country they are part of, I think this is one of those moments for me. A society which is happy to kill full term babies is a society that is sick. I'm not religious, I'm in favour of abortion under the previous rules but this is a step too far and the thought that people are celebrating the decision makes me wonder what has become of our culture.
Again - I am utterly bemused. Where did this vote come from? Usually when there is a vote of conscious about a tricky moral issue then we have months of newspaper debate and episodes of Coronation Street exploring the nuances.
This feels like a hijack.
But I confess I really don't know. Maybe I have just not paid attention?
It came from the Carla Foster sentence in June 2023.
It’s such an edge case that really it doesn’t matter as most people will discover they are pregnant well before the time limits and Covid was a significant part to that particular case.
Carla Foster was rightly convinced of an aborant crime. She had been aware of her pregnancy for at least six months when she lied to obtain the abortion of a healthy baby which was easily capable of life outside her womb (it would have barely classed as premature had it been born). If she didn't want it, she could have given it up for adoption - it wasn't like she was even going to have to carry it much longer to get to term.
Her behaviour was morally disgusting, she should be doing ten years for murder, not the trivial 35 days she actually spent behind bars.
The idea we should change the law to allow people to act like her with impunity is simply wicked. And of course, it will mean more callous late term abortions of healthy babies like hers.
(I'm particularly passionate about this as my wife is currently about 24 weeks pregnant. We can see and feel the baby move. I've seen it wiggling around on ultrasound. My sister had one born at the same number of weeks as Carla Foster's baby - I held her, cuddled her, she curled up to sleep in my arms. She's now a precocious little four year old. The idea that my sisters little girl could be murdered for the atrocious crime of being the wrong side of a layer of skin is not modernity, but barbarism.)
People like that have lost their way. However much sympathy they invite for the circumstances of the mother, she is ending the life of a healthy viable child. It should still be a crime, and the usual arguments in mitigation should still be available.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
So this is one of those non-crime crimes. That still leaves open the question of what happens if the late term baby is delivered alive instead of dead. The mother doesn't want the child. Who will take it into care immediately? Is the mother still not committing a crime if she induces death after delivery? How will the remains be dealt with? Does it go into the organic waste recycling bin for collection next week?
If a child is born alive then anyone who kills it is committing murder (including the mother). I am fairly certain that is clear in law.
Also, it is not a non-crime. A person or persons aiding a woman in terminating a pregnancy would presumably still be committing a criminal offence. For example, if a doctor was doing this sort of thing on the side.
I understand that the poor woman has to do this alone. But I don't see how a DIY abortion can be all that safe for her and surely, the later she leaves it the less safe it becomes. But anyone who helps her out is liable to prosecution.
Recipe for disaster, I'd say.
And, so the logic of that is that medical assistance ought to be provided.
Which is why legalising is better than decriminalising.
We have now created a situation where a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant would be turned away by an abortion clinic but allowed to have a solo abortion at home with nothing more than an internet tutorial.
If they wanted an abortion that badly they would have done it anyway. The difference is now they don’t have to deal with the stress and anxiety of a possible prosecution.
Do you ever wonder how the baby feels? Because there is no doubt that a full-term baby at 39 weeks is conscious and sentient and ready for life, and eager to be born, with a personality forming inside its expectant little limbs, all it needs is to be eased into the air so it can yowl
Unless of course the mother decides fuck it and they crunch in a metal tube into the baby's skull, as the baby tries to be born, and they vigorously hoover the brains out of its skull and then chop up its entirely healthy limbs in the birth canal, because THAT is late term abortion, THAT is what happens
My guess is the baby might be less keen on this law change. But that's just a thought. No need to trouble yourself
Well that’s a real shame for the baby but until it is born it is not born. It’s not for men (or anyone else) to tell a woman what she can do with it (in my view).
Too bad your mother didn’t do that with you.
Well if she had done I wouldn’t know otherwise
You wouldn’t know about it up until (at least) six months, so why make birth the threshold? Why not allow it for three months after?
We have to draw a line somewhere. Personally I am pretty content with the current limit i.e. the first trimester but I don’t think women should be criminalised for ignoring this (up until birth). To be frank the (new) law aligns pretty much with my moral opinion.
I don’t think it is murder until the baby takes its first breath outside the womb. That’s just my own personal opinion.
Interesting. I thought the law regarded an injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn baby as murder.
I don’t really know the details of what the current law is. I am giving my personal opinion.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
Who supplied you with the abortifacient pills that you took?
I got them on eBay six months ago.
So why does the label say “prescribed by Dr Pete at MexicanPete.com”?
No, but the purveyor can suggest he did his due diligence and as I was within 24 weeks when I bought them, so it was perfectly legitimate for him/ her to supply them to me. Besides it might have been a transfrontier shipment.
I hope you have your KYC paperwork complete and detailed records of the time and date of conception to support that.
@PippaCrerar I wish people would read the detail: the framework of access to an abortion – including the need for two doctors’ signatures, and the time limits at which terminations can be carried out – will *remain the same* and doctors who act outside the law will still face the threat of prosecution.
The issue is that the women - almost always vulnerable as a result of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation or women who have given birth prematurely - will no longer be at risk of being thrown into cells.
Woman goes to back alley abortion clinic at week 37 - "I did it myself" murdering doctors get away with it.
What woman, unless mentally ill, is going to carry a foetus for 37 weeks in order to abort it ? And where is she going to find these murdering doctors ?
Very late term abortions, which are extremely rare, will be down to a threat to the life of the mother combined with the unviability of the foetus - something not impacted by this change in the law.
Here's an example of the shock I am seeing and hearing
This guy is a slightly grunpy middle aged centrist, lives on a houseboat in north London, lefty in some ways, bit crusty in others. Also a pro photographer
"What the actual fuck just happened? I heard no talk of it, nobody demanding it, no debate and then suddenly, boom, you can murder a baby as it’s born. I totally agree with being allowed an abortion as the law was, but killing a full grown baby? Who wanted this? It’s terrifying"
Yes, he sounds every bit the centrist, ranting about how Britain is now a Muslim country.
I went through the first part of his account. The only time he got close to anything controversial was when he criticised the UK government for putting Yvonne Fletcher at risk (stationing her outside the Libyan embassy knowing they had guns and had threatened to shoot civilians)
Mainly it’s pretty dull stuff. What are you seeing?
I'm a bit bemused about this aborting vote. It seems to have come out of nowhere.
Maybe I have such severe Trump Derangement Syndrome that I am not properly focussed on UK politics?
It's such a completely stupid thing to do as well, importing a completely toxic argument from the US into our politics. The question has been settled for decades and now it's not. The thought of someone aborting a full term pregnancy is absolutely abhorrent. Functionally there's no difference to between a term pregnancy and a 1 week old baby. I mean our first was born 10 days late and our second was 3 weeks early. It seems completely immoral that fully functioning babies can be killed and it carries no punishment.
I very rarely have opinions on these matters but this feels like end stage liberalism to me, effectively legalising the killing of functional babies is completely wrong and what was previously seen as a workable compromise between traditional views and liberal ones has now been smashed by Labour completely out of nowhere. People who are celebrating this have got something wrong with them in their heads. I can't imagine many things worse than decriminalisation of abortion past 26-30 weeks. Thousands of perfectly healthy and happy babies will be murdered and somehow this is a good thing for society?
There are moments where a person becomes less and less connected to the culture and country they are part of, I think this is one of those moments for me. A society which is happy to kill full term babies is a society that is sick. I'm not religious, I'm in favour of abortion under the previous rules but this is a step too far and the thought that people are celebrating the decision makes me wonder what has become of our culture.
Again - I am utterly bemused. Where did this vote come from? Usually when there is a vote of conscious about a tricky moral issue then we have months of newspaper debate and episodes of Coronation Street exploring the nuances.
This feels like a hijack.
But I confess I really don't know. Maybe I have just not paid attention?
That’s kind of my reaction too.
They should have dealt with this through guidance to the CPS
What an exemplar of catastrophe. A masterclass in how not to build a railway. And yet some people still defend it, and want it to steal money from transport projects that actually make economic sense, like the Bakerloo line extension or Crossrail 2.
Proof yet again that government does the wrong projects, for the wrong reasons, cocks them up and sticks with them even when it's obvious they should be put out of our misery.
How to waste more than £2 billion.
"The report will also say that the previous government spent £2 billion on the two legs of the project between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, before scrapping both, and that HS2 Ltd spent more than £250 million on two failed designs for a new station at Euston."
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
The Gin taking hold it seems. A typically silly attempt to rabble rouse a l'American. A sensitive and difficult topic turned into a political football because that's what happens in the US.
Its Alf Garnett masquerading as an enfant terrible- the poison of the hard right in all it's crass nastiness.
And you know what? It won't work.
There’s no apostrophe in “its” when it’s possessive
I'm a bit bemused about this aborting vote. It seems to have come out of nowhere.
Maybe I have such severe Trump Derangement Syndrome that I am not properly focussed on UK politics?
It's such a completely stupid thing to do as well, importing a completely toxic argument from the US into our politics. The question has been settled for decades and now it's not. The thought of someone aborting a full term pregnancy is absolutely abhorrent. Functionally there's no difference to between a term pregnancy and a 1 week old baby. I mean our first was born 10 days late and our second was 3 weeks early. It seems completely immoral that fully functioning babies can be killed and it carries no punishment.
I very rarely have opinions on these matters but this feels like end stage liberalism to me, effectively legalising the killing of functional babies is completely wrong and what was previously seen as a workable compromise between traditional views and liberal ones has now been smashed by Labour completely out of nowhere. People who are celebrating this have got something wrong with them in their heads. I can't imagine many things worse than decriminalisation of abortion past 26-30 weeks. Thousands of perfectly healthy and happy babies will be murdered and somehow this is a good thing for society?
There are moments where a person becomes less and less connected to the culture and country they are part of, I think this is one of those moments for me. A society which is happy to kill full term babies is a society that is sick. I'm not religious, I'm in favour of abortion under the previous rules but this is a step too far and the thought that people are celebrating the decision makes me wonder what has become of our culture.
Again - I am utterly bemused. Where did this vote come from? Usually when there is a vote of conscious about a tricky moral issue then we have months of newspaper debate and episodes of Coronation Street exploring the nuances.
This feels like a hijack.
But I confess I really don't know. Maybe I have just not paid attention?
That’s kind of my reaction too.
They should have dealt with this through guidance to the CPS
That's a pretty good argument.
As I said earlier, I'm agnostic on this law change. I'm not convinced by the hyperbole opposing it, or the entirety of the case in favour.
The issue has been widely debated; the specific change in the law (along with any potential unintended consequences) has not.
The IDF are a conscripted force which will include a number of Israelis with differing viewpoints. Some will have this sort of view of Palestinians. The issue will be whether the IDF can sanction or want to sanction those who cross the line.
I'm a bit bemused about this aborting vote. It seems to have come out of nowhere.
Maybe I have such severe Trump Derangement Syndrome that I am not properly focussed on UK politics?
It's such a completely stupid thing to do as well, importing a completely toxic argument from the US into our politics. The question has been settled for decades and now it's not. The thought of someone aborting a full term pregnancy is absolutely abhorrent. Functionally there's no difference to between a term pregnancy and a 1 week old baby. I mean our first was born 10 days late and our second was 3 weeks early. It seems completely immoral that fully functioning babies can be killed and it carries no punishment.
I very rarely have opinions on these matters but this feels like end stage liberalism to me, effectively legalising the killing of functional babies is completely wrong and what was previously seen as a workable compromise between traditional views and liberal ones has now been smashed by Labour completely out of nowhere. People who are celebrating this have got something wrong with them in their heads. I can't imagine many things worse than decriminalisation of abortion past 26-30 weeks. Thousands of perfectly healthy and happy babies will be murdered and somehow this is a good thing for society?
There are moments where a person becomes less and less connected to the culture and country they are part of, I think this is one of those moments for me. A society which is happy to kill full term babies is a society that is sick. I'm not religious, I'm in favour of abortion under the previous rules but this is a step too far and the thought that people are celebrating the decision makes me wonder what has become of our culture.
Again - I am utterly bemused. Where did this vote come from? Usually when there is a vote of conscious about a tricky moral issue then we have months of newspaper debate and episodes of Coronation Street exploring the nuances.
This feels like a hijack.
But I confess I really don't know. Maybe I have just not paid attention?
That’s kind of my reaction too.
They should have dealt with this through guidance to the CPS
That's a pretty good argument.
As I said earlier, I'm agnostic on this law change. I'm not convinced by the hyperbole opposing it, or the entirety of the case in favour.
The issue has been widely debated; the specific change in the law (along with any potential unintended consequences) has not.
My take on it is that an MP who cares very deeply about this issue saw their chance to change the law and took it. You could argue that this isn't the optimal way to deal with such an emotive issue but backbench MPs have very few opportunities to directly impact legislation so I can't blame her.
I got a bit upset with Leon and a few others last night because I really despise the idea that politicians are always some kind of sinister cabal trying to ruin the country by stealth. MPs sometimes really do just do things because they believe in them. I think that regardless of what you think of the specific issue, yesterday Parliament did it's job well. A backbench MP crafted an amendment on an issue they really care about and did a good job of lining up support behind it. The government remained neutral as it should on matters of conscience. MPs from multiple different parties voted on either side depending on their own beliefs.
While Nostradamus seems to predict the end of the world almost every year according to his fans, there are a number of separate independent predictions for something catastrophic happening in late June/early July - or more specifically on July 5th.
It seems this event will happen in the sea between Japan and Philippines and cause extensive disruption across SE Asia.
Watch this space - and check your travel insurance if heading that way in next month.....
While Nostradamus seems to predict the end of the world almost every year according to his fans, there are a number of separate independent predictions for something catastrophic happening in late June/early July - or more specifically on July 5th.
It seems this event will happen in the sea between Japan and Philippines and cause extensive disruption across SE Asia.
Watch this space - and check your travel insurance if heading that way in next month.....
Isn’t there an elderly,blind woman somewhere in the Caucasus or the Stans who keeps predicting doom and gloom too ?
While Nostradamus seems to predict the end of the world almost every year according to his fans, there are a number of separate independent predictions for something catastrophic happening in late June/early July - or more specifically on July 5th.
It seems this event will happen in the sea between Japan and Philippines and cause extensive disruption across SE Asia.
Watch this space - and check your travel insurance if heading that way in next month.....
Xi isn't the type of person to do anything crazy, unless Taiwan itself does something crazy like declaring independence.
Here he is talking about the Mid-East conflict. Note the very careful & diplomatic choice of words:
Chinese leader Xi Jinping has said he was “deeply concerned” about a spike in tensions in the Middle East after Israel’s attacks on Iran, in his first comments on the conflict.
“We oppose any act that infringes on the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries,” Xi told Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, in a meeting Tuesday.
“All parties should work to cool the conflict as soon as possible and avoid further escalation of tensions,” Xi said, speaking on the sidelines of the China-Central Asia Summit in Kazakhstan.
I realise that there is some truth in the header that Phillipson has been no good. I'm certainly no fan. But I would point out that is true of every education secretary of the last eighty years, with perhaps three honourable exceptions, two of whom were hurriedly moved on before they could do any more showing up of their predecessors.
It is not a role where even very able politicians do well. Heck, even Thatcher's tenure was on her own admission a disaster.
While Nostradamus seems to predict the end of the world almost every year according to his fans, there are a number of separate independent predictions for something catastrophic happening in late June/early July - or more specifically on July 5th.
It seems this event will happen in the sea between Japan and Philippines and cause extensive disruption across SE Asia.
Watch this space - and check your travel insurance if heading that way in next month.....
Xi isn't the type of person to do anything crazy, unless Taiwan itself does something crazy like declaring independence.
Here he is talking about the Mid-East conflict. Note the very careful & diplomatic choice of words:
Chinese leader Xi Jinping has said he was “deeply concerned” about a spike in tensions in the Middle East after Israel’s attacks on Iran, in his first comments on the conflict.
“We oppose any act that infringes on the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries,” Xi told Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, in a meeting Tuesday.
“All parties should work to cool the conflict as soon as possible and avoid further escalation of tensions,” Xi said, speaking on the sidelines of the China-Central Asia Summit in Kazakhstan.
The problem is that that is what Xi says, not what he does. For example, “We oppose any act that infringes on the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries,” is rather offset by the help China has been giving Russia wrt Ukraine.
And China could easily stop NK from delivering all that military material as well. My suspicion is that China is encouraging NK to give it.
While Nostradamus seems to predict the end of the world almost every year according to his fans, there are a number of separate independent predictions for something catastrophic happening in late June/early July - or more specifically on July 5th.
It seems this event will happen in the sea between Japan and Philippines and cause extensive disruption across SE Asia.
Watch this space - and check your travel insurance if heading that way in next month.....
Xi isn't the type of person to do anything crazy, unless Taiwan itself does something crazy like declaring independence.
Here he is talking about the Mid-East conflict. Note the very careful & diplomatic choice of words:
Chinese leader Xi Jinping has said he was “deeply concerned” about a spike in tensions in the Middle East after Israel’s attacks on Iran, in his first comments on the conflict.
“We oppose any act that infringes on the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries,” Xi told Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, in a meeting Tuesday.
“All parties should work to cool the conflict as soon as possible and avoid further escalation of tensions,” Xi said, speaking on the sidelines of the China-Central Asia Summit in Kazakhstan.
The problem is that that is what Xi says, not what he does. For example, “We oppose any act that infringes on the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries,” is rather offset by the help China has been giving Russia wrt Ukraine.
And China could easily stop NK from delivering all that military material as well. My suspicion is that China is encouraging NK to give it.
I think he probably is worried about Iran. Not because of principle, but because of the catastrophic impact an oil shock would have on his career.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
The Gin taking hold it seems. A typically silly attempt to rabble rouse a l'American. A sensitive and difficult topic turned into a political football because that's what happens in the US.
Its Alf Garnett masquerading as an enfant terrible- the poison of the hard right in all it's crass nastiness.
And you know what? It won't work.
There’s no apostrophe in “its” when it’s possessive
a nation on edge holds its breath as the former host of celebrity apprentice huddles with his advisors, the wrestlemania ceo and the former co-host of fox & friends weekends
I'm a bit bemused about this aborting vote. It seems to have come out of nowhere.
Maybe I have such severe Trump Derangement Syndrome that I am not properly focussed on UK politics?
It's such a completely stupid thing to do as well, importing a completely toxic argument from the US into our politics. The question has been settled for decades and now it's not. The thought of someone aborting a full term pregnancy is absolutely abhorrent. Functionally there's no difference to between a term pregnancy and a 1 week old baby. I mean our first was born 10 days late and our second was 3 weeks early. It seems completely immoral that fully functioning babies can be killed and it carries no punishment.
I very rarely have opinions on these matters but this feels like end stage liberalism to me, effectively legalising the killing of functional babies is completely wrong and what was previously seen as a workable compromise between traditional views and liberal ones has now been smashed by Labour completely out of nowhere. People who are celebrating this have got something wrong with them in their heads. I can't imagine many things worse than decriminalisation of abortion past 26-30 weeks. Thousands of perfectly healthy and happy babies will be murdered and somehow this is a good thing for society?
There are moments where a person becomes less and less connected to the culture and country they are part of, I think this is one of those moments for me. A society which is happy to kill full term babies is a society that is sick. I'm not religious, I'm in favour of abortion under the previous rules but this is a step too far and the thought that people are celebrating the decision makes me wonder what has become of our culture.
Again - I am utterly bemused. Where did this vote come from? Usually when there is a vote of conscious about a tricky moral issue then we have months of newspaper debate and episodes of Coronation Street exploring the nuances.
This feels like a hijack.
But I confess I really don't know. Maybe I have just not paid attention?
That’s kind of my reaction too.
They should have dealt with this through guidance to the CPS
That's a pretty good argument.
As I said earlier, I'm agnostic on this law change. I'm not convinced by the hyperbole opposing it, or the entirety of the case in favour.
The issue has been widely debated; the specific change in the law (along with any potential unintended consequences) has not.
So hidden guidance saying don’t prosecute this crime is preferable to a vote where our elected officials made a personal decision on whether it was a crime that should or should not be prosecuted.
Sorry but that is what you are suggesting so I thought it best to spell it out
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
The Gin taking hold it seems. A typically silly attempt to rabble rouse a l'American. A sensitive and difficult topic turned into a political football because that's what happens in the US.
Its Alf Garnett masquerading as an enfant terrible- the poison of the hard right in all it's crass nastiness.
And you know what? It won't work.
There’s no apostrophe in “its” when it’s possessive
And there's no decency in right wing cant.
Not this particular right wing cant anyway.
I didn't get Leon's apostrophe comment. There doesn't appear to be a possessive use of its in Cicero's post, and he also didn't use an apostrophe, when he should have, because he abbreviated 'it is'.
I am sure I'll be schooled any second because I've missed something obvious but oh well.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
The Gin taking hold it seems. A typically silly attempt to rabble rouse a l'American. A sensitive and difficult topic turned into a political football because that's what happens in the US.
Its Alf Garnett masquerading as an enfant terrible- the poison of the hard right in all it's crass nastiness.
And you know what? It won't work.
There’s no apostrophe in “its” when it’s possessive
And there's no decency in right wing cant.
Not this particular right wing cant anyway.
I didn't get Leon's apostrophe comment. There doesn't appear to be a possessive use of its in Cicero's post, and he also didn't use an apostrophe, when he should have, because he abbreviated 'it is'.
I am sure I'll be schooled any second because I've missed something obvious but oh well.
Yes, your looking at the wrong "it's"
Predictive text can introduce mistaken apostrophes into "its" even when it's typed correctly
Anyhow it is good to see that no-one chose to rise to the drunken trolling on display last night.
While Nostradamus seems to predict the end of the world almost every year according to his fans, there are a number of separate independent predictions for something catastrophic happening in late June/early July - or more specifically on July 5th.
It seems this event will happen in the sea between Japan and Philippines and cause extensive disruption across SE Asia.
Watch this space - and check your travel insurance if heading that way in next month.....
Isn’t there an elderly,blind woman somewhere in the Caucasus or the Stans who keeps predicting doom and gloom too ?
Meanwhile I see a Thai man has come forward who survived an air crash when most (not all) of the other passengers and crew were killed, who also had seat 11A.
I'm a bit bemused about this aborting vote. It seems to have come out of nowhere.
Maybe I have such severe Trump Derangement Syndrome that I am not properly focussed on UK politics?
It's such a completely stupid thing to do as well, importing a completely toxic argument from the US into our politics. The question has been settled for decades and now it's not. The thought of someone aborting a full term pregnancy is absolutely abhorrent. Functionally there's no difference to between a term pregnancy and a 1 week old baby. I mean our first was born 10 days late and our second was 3 weeks early. It seems completely immoral that fully functioning babies can be killed and it carries no punishment.
I very rarely have opinions on these matters but this feels like end stage liberalism to me, effectively legalising the killing of functional babies is completely wrong and what was previously seen as a workable compromise between traditional views and liberal ones has now been smashed by Labour completely out of nowhere. People who are celebrating this have got something wrong with them in their heads. I can't imagine many things worse than decriminalisation of abortion past 26-30 weeks. Thousands of perfectly healthy and happy babies will be murdered and somehow this is a good thing for society?
There are moments where a person becomes less and less connected to the culture and country they are part of, I think this is one of those moments for me. A society which is happy to kill full term babies is a society that is sick. I'm not religious, I'm in favour of abortion under the previous rules but this is a step too far and the thought that people are celebrating the decision makes me wonder what has become of our culture.
Again - I am utterly bemused. Where did this vote come from? Usually when there is a vote of conscious about a tricky moral issue then we have months of newspaper debate and episodes of Coronation Street exploring the nuances.
This feels like a hijack.
But I confess I really don't know. Maybe I have just not paid attention?
That’s kind of my reaction too.
They should have dealt with this through guidance to the CPS
That's a pretty good argument.
As I said earlier, I'm agnostic on this law change. I'm not convinced by the hyperbole opposing it, or the entirety of the case in favour.
The issue has been widely debated; the specific change in the law (along with any potential unintended consequences) has not.
So hidden guidance saying don’t prosecute this crime is preferable to a vote where our elected officials made a personal decision on whether it was a crime that should or should not be prosecuted.
Sorry but that is what you are suggesting so I thought it best to spell it out
As a temporary measure rather than permanent solution, absolutely. And it wasn't my suggestion; I was responding to StillWaters' post.
There's no reason the guidance need be hidden.
Bear in mind that a significant part of the problem the amendment is intended to address is the unnecessary investigation of miscarriages where there's no grounds for prosecution under the existing law.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
The Gin taking hold it seems. A typically silly attempt to rabble rouse a l'American. A sensitive and difficult topic turned into a political football because that's what happens in the US.
Its Alf Garnett masquerading as an enfant terrible- the poison of the hard right in all it's crass nastiness.
And you know what? It won't work.
There’s no apostrophe in “its” when it’s possessive
And there's no decency in right wing cant.
Not this particular right wing cant anyway.
I didn't get Leon's apostrophe comment. There doesn't appear to be a possessive use of its in Cicero's post, and he also didn't use an apostrophe, when he should have, because he abbreviated 'it is'.
I am sure I'll be schooled any second because I've missed something obvious but oh well.
Yes, your looking at the wrong "it's"
Predictive text can introduce mistaken apostrophes into "its" even when it's typed correctly
Anyhow it is good to see that no-one chose to rise to the drunken trolling on display last night.
It's my greatest bugbear concerning autocorrect. It often seems to 'correct' to include an apostrophe as a default, irrespective of context.
Interesting analysis from the NY Times about why the Russians aren't doing much to help Tehran.
The likely reasons are a combination of: - Russia doesn't want a fight with Israel and the US - It doesn't want to alienate Saudi & the UAE, with whom it has warm relations - It can't send a lot of military equipment to Iran, because the equipment is needed for the Ukraine war - Russia also doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons
I am saddened that my dad, who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act, died a few months ago and will miss the abortion vote today. The '67 Act was a mess of compromises to get the vote over the line and the reformers never wanted it to be the final say on the subject.
It would be a lot less messy to put something in the water to prevent women from conceiving.
I don't know what point you are making, Anne.
My dad's overwhelming professional concern was to give women (and men) the choice over their fertility.
Being anti-abortion is an honourable position to take imo.
Everybody entitled to their opinion but it should not be forced on others. You are not being forced to have one personally. People have lots of opinions but should keep their snouts out of other people's choices.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
The Gin taking hold it seems. A typically silly attempt to rabble rouse a l'American. A sensitive and difficult topic turned into a political football because that's what happens in the US.
Its Alf Garnett masquerading as an enfant terrible- the poison of the hard right in all it's crass nastiness.
And you know what? It won't work.
There’s no apostrophe in “its” when it’s possessive
And there's no decency in right wing cant.
Not this particular right wing cant anyway.
I didn't get Leon's apostrophe comment. There doesn't appear to be a possessive use of its in Cicero's post, and he also didn't use an apostrophe, when he should have, because he abbreviated 'it is'.
I am sure I'll be schooled any second because I've missed something obvious but oh well.
Yes, your looking at the wrong "it's"
Predictive text can introduce mistaken apostrophes into "its" even when it's typed correctly
Anyhow it is good to see that no-one chose to rise to the drunken trolling on display last night.
It's my greatest bugbear concerning autocorrect. It often seems to 'correct' to include an apostrophe as a default, irrespective of context.
Liberal Democrats almost invariably become Liberal Democrat's.
It is perhaps revealing that the only Pber this evening willing to support the intellectually honest full legalisation of abortion is Barty.
Yet others are willing to hide behind the mealy mouthed unsatisfactoriness of decriminalisation.
I'm in general in favour of full legalisation, but it isn't correct to call decriminalisation mealy mouthed.
The analogy is with suicide and assisted dying. We no longer prosecute people for attempting suicide, but that doesn't mean we are encouraging suicide, and not doing things to try and prevent suicide. There is a clear distinction between not prosecuting people for attempted suicide, and making assisted dying legal.
That's a similar distinction to this change in the law over abortion. The law has now been changed so that we won't prosecute women for performing a late-term abortion, but that doesn't mean we're encouraging it. The change means it is easier to help such people with the aftermath, and that anyone at risk of making such a desperate position is not dissuaded from talking to people about it for fear of incriminating themselves
Here's an example of the shock I am seeing and hearing
This guy is a slightly grunpy middle aged centrist, lives on a houseboat in north London, lefty in some ways, bit crusty in others. Also a pro photographer
"What the actual fuck just happened? I heard no talk of it, nobody demanding it, no debate and then suddenly, boom, you can murder a baby as it’s born. I totally agree with being allowed an abortion as the law was, but killing a full grown baby? Who wanted this? It’s terrifying"
I've got a bad feeling that not many people are going to be talking about abortion tomorrow.
In the country? No. But in social media? Yes
And then it percolates down and out
Most people have more to bother them than the fact that a handful of women have an abortion after 20 weeks. Saddos on social media talk crap in any event and have no impact on real life, so no change there.
I am saddened that my dad, who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act, died a few months ago and will miss the abortion vote today. The '67 Act was a mess of compromises to get the vote over the line and the reformers never wanted it to be the final say on the subject.
It would be a lot less messy to put something in the water to prevent women from conceiving.
I don't know what point you are making, Anne.
My dad's overwhelming professional concern was to give women (and men) the choice over their fertility.
Being anti-abortion is an honourable position to take imo.
I think we can assume from that assertion that you are probably not a woman of child bearing (corrected to beating by autocorrect) age.
This discussion reminds me of the debates/arguments I had in the early days of my relationship with my now wife. She was at the time fiercely Catholic and anti-abortion.
It’s one of the nastiest political topics out there, I think because both sides seem to feel burning righteousness and anger on behalf of their cause. The right of a woman to have control over her own body and the right of a viable at or near-term baby to the chance of being born seem both to be irreconcilable absolutes. The one crumb of comfort is that we’re talking about something pretty rare in reality.
I think it’s regrettable it’s come up suddenly like this. I’m not entirely sure it needed to be legislated, if what’s really at stake is police over-zealously investigating vulnerable women. Could guidance have achieved this? I think the majority of the population feel the current term limits are about right.
But I also know it’s really none of my business. Because I’m a man, and we don’t have to deal with pregnancy or childbirth or being left carrying the baby of an abusive partner. Unless fathers were to be equally liable to prosecution as accessories in these cases, it remains an issue about women that should be settled by women.
Yeah blah centrist dad fucksake. You are a pathetic excuse. You have brains, use them
Take a stand: for once in your dismal little bourgeois life
The Gin taking hold it seems. A typically silly attempt to rabble rouse a l'American. A sensitive and difficult topic turned into a political football because that's what happens in the US.
Its Alf Garnett masquerading as an enfant terrible- the poison of the hard right in all it's crass nastiness.
And you know what? It won't work.
There’s no apostrophe in “its” when it’s possessive
And there's no decency in right wing cant.
Not this particular right wing cant anyway.
I didn't get Leon's apostrophe comment. There doesn't appear to be a possessive use of its in Cicero's post, and he also didn't use an apostrophe, when he should have, because he abbreviated 'it is'.
I am sure I'll be schooled any second because I've missed something obvious but oh well.
Yes, your looking at the wrong "it's"
Predictive text can introduce mistaken apostrophes into "its" even when it's typed correctly
Anyhow it is good to see that no-one chose to rise to the drunken trolling on display last night.
It's my greatest bugbear concerning autocorrect. It often seems to 'correct' to include an apostrophe as a default, irrespective of context.
It always does that for me when I write Lib Dem’s
After the first few times correcting it, sometimes three or four times, I just cannot be bothered now.
I am saddened that my dad, who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act, died a few months ago and will miss the abortion vote today. The '67 Act was a mess of compromises to get the vote over the line and the reformers never wanted it to be the final say on the subject.
It would be a lot less messy to put something in the water to prevent women from conceiving.
I don't know what point you are making, Anne.
My dad's overwhelming professional concern was to give women (and men) the choice over their fertility.
Being anti-abortion is an honourable position to take imo.
I think we can assume from that assertion that you are probably not a woman of child bearing (corrected to beating by autocorrect) age.
Still you got multiple likes for it
My assumption is that every person against the bill on here and social media are men of a very fixed viewpoint
I am saddened that my dad, who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act, died a few months ago and will miss the abortion vote today. The '67 Act was a mess of compromises to get the vote over the line and the reformers never wanted it to be the final say on the subject.
It would be a lot less messy to put something in the water to prevent women from conceiving.
I don't know what point you are making, Anne.
My dad's overwhelming professional concern was to give women (and men) the choice over their fertility.
Being anti-abortion is an honourable position to take imo.
I think we can assume from that assertion that you are probably not a woman of child bearing (corrected to beating by autocorrect) age.
I am saddened that my dad, who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act, died a few months ago and will miss the abortion vote today. The '67 Act was a mess of compromises to get the vote over the line and the reformers never wanted it to be the final say on the subject.
It would be a lot less messy to put something in the water to prevent women from conceiving.
I don't know what point you are making, Anne.
My dad's overwhelming professional concern was to give women (and men) the choice over their fertility.
Being anti-abortion is an honourable position to take imo.
I think we can assume from that assertion that you are probably not a woman of child bearing (corrected to beating by autocorrect) age.
Still you got multiple likes for it
My assumption is that every person against the bill on here and social media are men of a very fixed viewpoint
Well there are not many women here, and IIrC AnneJGP expressed concerns and reservations.
Interesting analysis from the NY Times about why the Russians aren't doing much to help Tehran.
The likely reasons are a combination of: - Russia doesn't want a fight with Israel and the US - It doesn't want to alienate Saudi & the UAE, with whom it has warm relations - It can't send a lot of military equipment to Iran, because the equipment is needed for the Ukraine war - Russia also doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons
The IDF are a conscripted force which will include a number of Israelis with differing viewpoints. Some will have this sort of view of Palestinians. The issue will be whether the IDF can sanction or want to sanction those who cross the line.
Thats exclusion of Israeli citizens with Palestinian or arab roots from the shelters to be clear. The late archbishop Tutu called this correctly over a decade ago.
Worth noting the proportions of abortion by time in pregnancy:
- Up to 8 weeks (so within 4 weeks of the earliest time you find out you're pregnant): 80% - Up to 12 weeks: 93% - Up to 19 weeks: 98.6% - Up to 23 weeks: 99.9%
Quite so. And the 0.1% after 23 weeks are mostly for legitimate medical reasons.
It's a storm in a teacup, provoked by the usual suspects on here tonight. The law on abortion hasn't changed in any significant way. The only impact is that in the tiny number of cases where a woman, out of desperation, induces an abortion outside the legal time limits, that woman won't be subject to criminal prosecution - although she will have still behaved illegally, technically. That's all.
So, she can now kill her baby without fear of prosecution, right up to the time of birth. Is that right, or not?
Yes. Loads of women get pregnant in error, and think "I don't want this baby". So obviously they wait until as late as possible to abort it when it's a really difficult thing to do, rather than having an abortion as soon as they can once they realise they're pregnant? You're clueless.
That's not an answer. Under this new Labour law, can this mother-to-be now kill her baby without fear of prosecution, right up to the time of birth?
Simple Yes or No
Did you miss the first word of my post? I think so.
So it is Yes: Under this new Labour law, this mother-to-be can now kill her baby without fear of prosecution, right up to the time of birth
The reaction on X to this new abortion law is total shock, horror and shame
Wow
Of course, X is not the UK or the world. But, hmm. This could pan out very badly for Labour
If the British Right are to benefit politically from the abortion issue - and I'm not convinced it's particularly fertile ground - then they'll need to work out a way of addressing the Boris factor. Otherwise it will appear to many as so much cant.
To be fair to Boris any abortions his partners or wives had were well before 24 weeks
Boris needs to issue a statement here, basically saying he would have drawn the line at 24 weeks and nothing would have persuaded him otherwise. Either that or the Kemi repudiates him and expels him from the party. Things could get ethically muddy for the Tories very quickly if they want to go down this path but aren't careful.
No, this amendment effectively decriminalises abortion up to birth, this was not a vote on reducing the 24 week abortion time limit
The man on the street will just hear that the Tories want women prosecuted for having an abortion, while their previous leader paid for his mistress to have one. Unfair perhaps as there's a lot of nuance in all this, but there are risks if the British Right want to use this issue as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir.
The man on the street will see Labour has legalised murder of a baby until birth with no consequence if done by a pregnant woman. Those risks should be taken, this amendment is morally wrong
The man and woman on the street mostly won't hear about this at all. Remember how little news most civilians consume. It will fire up the online social conservatives, but they're not exactly floating voters.
Only an idiot would raise the issue at PMQs, for example...
That could land either way. An extremely high risk move from Badenoch. Either picks up a genuine, deep concern of ordinary people everywhere (including possibly me), or comes up across as terminally online yet again.
I don't think people will like a British Conservative railing against abortion. We're still too my home, my castle, and the whole debate leaves a sour taste. She will have to do it with a great deal of tact.
She will 100% go on the unspoken thing
Abortion isn't trending on twitter and I can't see it popping up as anywhere else. Might all change tomorrow, but international events are looking potentially spectacular.
Majority don't give a hoot about it. It si a personal individual thing and being misrepresented by swivel eyed halfwits.
@PippaCrerar I wish people would read the detail: the framework of access to an abortion – including the need for two doctors’ signatures, and the time limits at which terminations can be carried out – will *remain the same* and doctors who act outside the law will still face the threat of prosecution.
The issue is that the women - almost always vulnerable as a result of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation or women who have given birth prematurely - will no longer be at risk of being thrown into cells.
Woman goes to back alley abortion clinic at week 37 - "I did it myself" murdering doctors get away with it.
What woman, unless mentally ill, is going to carry a foetus for 37 weeks in order to abort it ? And where is she going to find these murdering doctors ?
Very late term abortions, which are extremely rare, will be down to a threat to the life of the mother combined with the unviability of the foetus - something not impacted by this change in the law.
Why change the law then? The only reason to change the law is to permit women to get abortions of healthy babies after 24 weeks, either by deception or backstreet abortionists.
If they didn't think this change would have any effect, they wouldn't have changed the law. Ergo, they did so more healthy babies could be aborted late in their terms.
In political terms, I will never under any circumstances vote for anyone who voted for this amendment, regardless of party flag - of you voted for it you are morally defective.
While Nostradamus seems to predict the end of the world almost every year according to his fans, there are a number of separate independent predictions for something catastrophic happening in late June/early July - or more specifically on July 5th.
It seems this event will happen in the sea between Japan and Philippines and cause extensive disruption across SE Asia.
Watch this space - and check your travel insurance if heading that way in next month.....
Xi isn't the type of person to do anything crazy, unless Taiwan itself does something crazy like declaring independence.
Here he is talking about the Mid-East conflict. Note the very careful & diplomatic choice of words:
Chinese leader Xi Jinping has said he was “deeply concerned” about a spike in tensions in the Middle East after Israel’s attacks on Iran, in his first comments on the conflict.
“We oppose any act that infringes on the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries,” Xi told Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, in a meeting Tuesday.
“All parties should work to cool the conflict as soon as possible and avoid further escalation of tensions,” Xi said, speaking on the sidelines of the China-Central Asia Summit in Kazakhstan.
The problem is that that is what Xi says, not what he does. For example, “We oppose any act that infringes on the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries,” is rather offset by the help China has been giving Russia wrt Ukraine.
And China could easily stop NK from delivering all that military material as well. My suspicion is that China is encouraging NK to give it.
Unless he defines Ukraine as part of Russia. He’s happen to intervene in Tibet for example or Taiwan
I'm a bit bemused about this aborting vote. It seems to have come out of nowhere.
Maybe I have such severe Trump Derangement Syndrome that I am not properly focussed on UK politics?
It's such a completely stupid thing to do as well, importing a completely toxic argument from the US into our politics. The question has been settled for decades and now it's not. The thought of someone aborting a full term pregnancy is absolutely abhorrent. Functionally there's no difference to between a term pregnancy and a 1 week old baby. I mean our first was born 10 days late and our second was 3 weeks early. It seems completely immoral that fully functioning babies can be killed and it carries no punishment.
I very rarely have opinions on these matters but this feels like end stage liberalism to me, effectively legalising the killing of functional babies is completely wrong and what was previously seen as a workable compromise between traditional views and liberal ones has now been smashed by Labour completely out of nowhere. People who are celebrating this have got something wrong with them in their heads. I can't imagine many things worse than decriminalisation of abortion past 26-30 weeks. Thousands of perfectly healthy and happy babies will be murdered and somehow this is a good thing for society?
There are moments where a person becomes less and less connected to the culture and country they are part of, I think this is one of those moments for me. A society which is happy to kill full term babies is a society that is sick. I'm not religious, I'm in favour of abortion under the previous rules but this is a step too far and the thought that people are celebrating the decision makes me wonder what has become of our culture.
Again - I am utterly bemused. Where did this vote come from? Usually when there is a vote of conscious about a tricky moral issue then we have months of newspaper debate and episodes of Coronation Street exploring the nuances.
This feels like a hijack.
But I confess I really don't know. Maybe I have just not paid attention?
That’s kind of my reaction too.
They should have dealt with this through guidance to the CPS
That's a pretty good argument.
As I said earlier, I'm agnostic on this law change. I'm not convinced by the hyperbole opposing it, or the entirety of the case in favour.
The issue has been widely debated; the specific change in the law (along with any potential unintended consequences) has not.
So hidden guidance saying don’t prosecute this crime is preferable to a vote where our elected officials made a personal decision on whether it was a crime that should or should not be prosecuted.
Sorry but that is what you are suggesting so I thought it best to spell it out
Not hidden guidance
But clear guidance that these situations are very difficult and often accompanied by mental illness and there should be a high bar to undertaking a prosecution
Comments
Labour MPs simply saw this as a chance to sneak in profound change to abortion laws without a moment of public debate. That’ll be a nice excuse for the next government, no doubt.
I'd be more inclined to listen these criticisms if the cash wasn't being re-directed to filling potholes in Islington.
Either way, it’s not true.
https://x.com/i_iratus/status/1935069323342561330
00:27
Israel begins wave of attacks on Iranian capital
The Israeli airforce says it has just now begun a wave of attacks in the Tehran area."
https://news.sky.com/story/israel-iran-live-latest-tehran-tel-aviv-netanyahu-trump-13382979
This is an interview with her from 10 months ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_KhI-8n15s
The likely reasons are a combination of:
- Russia doesn't want a fight with Israel and the US
- It doesn't want to alienate Saudi & the UAE, with whom it has warm relations
- It can't send a lot of military equipment to Iran, because the equipment is needed for the Ukraine war
- Russia also doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/world/middleeast/iran-russia-relationship-analysis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Pk8.IZpw.Oyg-aqYhldvd&smid=url-share
Her behaviour was morally disgusting, she should be doing ten years for murder, not the trivial 35 days she actually spent behind bars.
The idea we should change the law to allow people to act like her with impunity is simply wicked. And of course, it will mean more callous late term abortions of healthy babies like hers.
(I'm particularly passionate about this as my wife is currently about 24 weeks pregnant. We can see and feel the baby move. I've seen it wiggling around on ultrasound. My sister had one born at the same number of weeks as Carla Foster's baby - I held her, cuddled her, she curled up to sleep in my arms. She's now a precocious little four year old. The idea that my sisters little girl could be murdered for the atrocious crime of being the wrong side of a layer of skin is not modernity, but barbarism.)
And where is she going to find these murdering doctors ?
Very late term abortions, which are extremely rare, will be down to a threat to the life of the mother combined with the unviability of the foetus - something not impacted by this change in the law.
Mainly it’s pretty dull stuff. What are you seeing?
They should have dealt with this through guidance to the CPS
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0wr7nw7wxo
A non-paywalled source.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ve84tHbYq8w
As I said earlier, I'm agnostic on this law change. I'm not convinced by the hyperbole opposing it, or the entirety of the case in favour.
The issue has been widely debated; the specific change in the law (along with any potential unintended consequences) has not.
Witnesses describe ‘horror’ after Israeli forces fire at Palestinians waiting for aid trucks
At least 59 people killed and hundreds wounded in Khan Younis as they sought food supplies, says Gaza health ministry
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/17/dozens-killed-in-gaza-waiting-for-food-trucks-says-health-ministry
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/17/not-for-you-israeli-shelters-exclude-palestinians-as-bombs-rain-down
The IDF are a conscripted force which will include a number of Israelis with differing viewpoints. Some will have this sort of view of Palestinians. The issue will be whether the IDF can sanction or want to sanction those who cross the line.
I mean I know he’s both American and a bit thick, but even so…
I got a bit upset with Leon and a few others last night because I really despise the idea that politicians are always some kind of sinister cabal trying to ruin the country by stealth. MPs sometimes really do just do things because they believe in them. I think that regardless of what you think of the specific issue, yesterday Parliament did it's job well. A backbench MP crafted an amendment on an issue they really care about and did a good job of lining up support behind it. The government remained neutral as it should on matters of conscience. MPs from multiple different parties voted on either side depending on their own beliefs.
While Nostradamus seems to predict the end of the world almost every year according to his fans, there are a number of separate independent predictions for something catastrophic happening in late June/early July - or more specifically on July 5th.
It seems this event will happen in the sea between Japan and Philippines and cause extensive disruption across SE Asia.
Watch this space - and check your travel insurance if heading that way in next month.....
Here he is talking about the Mid-East conflict. Note the very careful & diplomatic choice of words:
Chinese leader Xi Jinping has said he was “deeply concerned” about a spike in tensions in the Middle East after Israel’s attacks on Iran, in his first comments on the conflict.
“We oppose any act that infringes on the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries,” Xi told Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, in a meeting Tuesday.
“All parties should work to cool the conflict as soon as possible and avoid further escalation of tensions,” Xi said, speaking on the sidelines of the China-Central Asia Summit in Kazakhstan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/17/israel-iran-conflict-attacks-live-trump/#link-BAQY3DREXRFRXKLD7XBOKOIWRM
I realise that there is some truth in the header that Phillipson has been no good. I'm certainly no fan. But I would point out that is true of every education secretary of the last eighty years, with perhaps three honourable exceptions, two of whom were hurriedly moved on before they could do any more showing up of their predecessors.
It is not a role where even very able politicians do well. Heck, even Thatcher's tenure was on her own admission a disaster.
And China could easily stop NK from delivering all that military material as well. My suspicion is that China is encouraging NK to give it.
@ndrew.bsky.social
a nation on edge holds its breath as the former host of celebrity apprentice huddles with his advisors, the wrestlemania ceo and the former co-host of fox & friends weekends
https://bsky.app/profile/ndrew.bsky.social/post/3lrtgqjq3bc2k
https://bsky.app/profile/mortenmorland.bsky.social/post/3lruclzstz22s
Sorry but that is what you are suggesting so I thought it best to spell it out
I am sure I'll be schooled any second because I've missed something obvious but oh well.
https://x.com/aaronjayjack/status/1934979319350407351
Predictive text can introduce mistaken apostrophes into "its" even when it's typed correctly
Anyhow it is good to see that no-one chose to rise to the drunken trolling on display last night.
There's no reason the guidance need be hidden.
Bear in mind that a significant part of the problem the amendment is intended to address is the unnecessary investigation of miscarriages where there's no grounds for prosecution under the existing law.
The analogy is with suicide and assisted dying. We no longer prosecute people for attempting suicide, but that doesn't mean we are encouraging suicide, and not doing things to try and prevent suicide. There is a clear distinction between not prosecuting people for attempted suicide, and making assisted dying legal.
That's a similar distinction to this change in the law over abortion. The law has now been changed so that we won't prosecute women for performing a late-term abortion, but that doesn't mean we're encouraging it. The change means it is easier to help such people with the aftermath, and that anyone at risk of making such a desperate position is not dissuaded from talking to people about it for fear of incriminating themselves
NEW THREAD
Still you got multiple likes for it
After the first few times correcting it, sometimes three or four times, I just cannot be bothered now.
If they didn't think this change would have any effect, they wouldn't have changed the law. Ergo, they did so more healthy babies could be aborted late in their terms.
In political terms, I will never under any circumstances vote for anyone who voted for this amendment, regardless of party flag - of you voted for it you are morally defective.
But clear guidance that these situations are very difficult and often accompanied by mental illness and there should be a high bar to undertaking a prosecution