MP's want to wafle and kill the next generation.

MPs call for abortion law reforms
Merely because people have a social agenda and try to portray it as science means nothing. Science can not indicate morality. I guess these MP's would legislate that if the baby survived an abortion than it was perfectly acceptable to do Scientific Research on the child. No matter what they say the reason for the laws is because no one is certain of the facts of the life of the child in the governement and they are trying to cover their backsides.
But it is a child!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no reason why women seeking an abortion should need the approval of two doctors, a group of MPs has said.

A report by the Commons science and technology committee found the requirement did not serve a useful purpose and might be causing delays.

MPs also rejected calls to lower the 24-week legal limit for an abortion in England, Wales and Scotland.

They said although survival rates for babies born at 24 weeks had improved, they had not done so below that point.

Not all members of the cross-party committee agreed with the report's findings, however.


We have focused on the science, and have done so rigorously
Phil Willis, committee chairman

Conservative MPs Nadine Dorries and Bob Spink published their own separate report, claiming they had been misled on survival rates and also on the question of whether foetuses could feel pain.

The main report also called for more involvement by nurses in early abortions.

Nurse role

It said nurses and midwives with suitable training and professional guidance should not be prevented from carrying out all stages of early medical abortions, which involves the use of drugs, and early surgical abortions.


HAVE YOUR SAY
One doctor alone should not be allowed to sign away a potentially viable human life
Nicky, London

Send us your comments

There was no evidence such a move would compromise patient safety or quality of care, the committee's report found.

It recommended just one doctor should have to sign a consent form, rather than the two currently required by the Abortion Act - a change proposed by the British Medical Association.

It went on to say there was also no evidence to suggest women, who chose to do so, should not take the second of two pills required for an early abortion at home.


The report should have reflected the differences of opinions which exist and allowed MPs to draw their own conclusions
Minority report submitted by MPs Nadine Dorries and Bob Spink

Committee chairman Phil Willis said: "Abortion is a complex issue. As a science and technology committee, we have focused on the science, and have done so rigorously.

"In our inquiry we have attempted to sift the evidence on scientific and medical developments since the last amendment of the law in 1990 and since the 1967 Act."

MPs 'misled'

He urged all MPs and the public to study the evidence and their conclusions.

The matter will now be debated in the House of Commons.

Pro-choice and anti-abortion MPs are expected to table amendments to the forthcoming Human Tissue and Embryos Bill in light of the committee's findings.


This pragmatic and sensible report provides a valuable reference point for anyone who is thinking seriously about how modern abortion care should be provided.
Ann Furedi
British Pregnancy Advisory Service

Conservative MPs Nadine Dorries and Bob Spink said MPs "have been misled in this report on two major issues: pain and survival. Two areas where experts strongly disagree and there is no clear consensus on either issue.

"The report should have reflected the differences of opinions which exist and allowed MPs to draw their own conclusions."

Labour MP Jim Dobbin, chairman of the all-party Pro-Life group, said the committee had "ignored key scientific developments" and criticised its failure to consider ethical, as well as scientific arguments as "deeply worrying".

"The imbalance of witnesses also skewed the outcome of the evidence presented," he said.

Still controversial

Marie Stopes International welcomed the committee's report as "a victory for science over thinly-veiled ideological hokum".

Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, a major provider of abortions, said: "This pragmatic and sensible report provides a valuable reference point for anyone who is thinking seriously about how modern abortion care should be provided."

But Michaela Aston, a spokeswoman for anti-abortion charity Life, was angry that MPs rejected lowering the 24 week limit.

She accused the committee of "following a predetermined ideological agenda that owes very little to a careful consideration of the facts".

BBC health correspondent Branwen Jeffreys says abortion remains intensely controversial after 40 years and the figures have continued to rise.

In 2006 there were almost 200,000 abortions in England and Wales with a further 13,000 in Scotland.

Our correspondent says the vast majority were early abortions - 89% were carried out before 13 weeks and just 2% after 20 weeks.

Almost all are permitted on the grounds that pregnancy would damage the physical or mental health of the woman. Only 1% of abortions are carried out on the grounds that the child would be born with a serious disability.

Bias: Public 'backs easier abortions'

I want to know what they define as the public. If they mean a percentage more than one person that we can find any thing to be supported. I am sure I can find someone to argue that we should all be able to drive any speed we want, or that there child sexual abuse or murder in general should be encouraged. In fact going by the statistics of these events the number might be rather significant. Can you imagine "Public demand ' Amnesty for all Murders."
The Math less you missed it were
35%+17%= 52%(probably some said bot making it more like 50%)
52 percent is is not in any shape the Public. A large percentage of the public but the way it is written is to indicated most 75% - 90%. The theory goes that people don't like to stand out and so want to fit in so buy saying "the public" people will naturally want to join the majority. This article isn't about the news its about swaying peoples opinions, or social engineering. Its about what most reporters decry against the government. But then who said they were not biased.

*** I note with interest that there was no Author.
__________________________________
Women should not have to gain the permission of two doctors to obtain an abortion in Britain, a slim majority of respondents to a survey have said.
Some 35% said one doctor was enough and 17% said permission should not needed at all, an independent poll carried out for the group Abortion Rights found.
A total of 83% of the 1,000 people polled saw abortion as a woman's right.
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act.
Under the terms of the law, a woman must obtain the permission of two doctors before she is allowed a termination, which can be carried out up until 24 weeks.
The poll, which was carried out over the telephone by the market research group GfK NOP, is said to be the first to ask the public their thoughts on the "two doctor" rule.
The findings mirror those of a Marie Stopes International poll of GPs published earlier this month.
It is time for a law that trusts women to make the abortion decision
Anne Quesney
Over half of family doctors questioned said they thought the agreement of just one professional should be enough for an abortion in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.
Both surveys follow a resolution at last summer's British Medical Association conference calling for abortions to be approved by just one doctor.
"The public clearly feels that the legislation is now out of date," said Anne Quesney, director of Abortion Rights.
"It is time for a law that trusts women to make the abortion decision and remove the need for two doctors' permission to access the procedure - a process that can lead to delays for women at a difficult time."
'Formality'
Broken down into age groups, the figures suggested that the youngest and the oldest have the most reservations about abortion, with 18% of 16 to 24-year-olds and 16% of the those aged 65 and over rejecting the right to a termination.
If there was more information and more discussion of the issues - a greater engagement with abortion - we would see attitudes change and numbers go down
Josephine Quintavalle
However, the majority in both groups supported abortion access.
Anti-abortion campaigner Josephine Quintavalle said the figures reflected the public's lack of understanding of what an abortion entailed.
"If there was more information and more discussion of the issues - a greater engagement with abortion - we would see attitudes change and numbers go down.
"The two doctors rule is frequently just a rubber-stamping exercise which no-one should support.
"We need to see doctors taking the time to talk through matters with the woman, not just signing off piles of forms before a patient's name is even written on the top."

Child Porn & "Every Child a wanted child"

I find it ironic that the argument for abortion is "every Child a wanted child. So we will kill the ones we don't want has fallen on its face when we look at the mass abuse of children today in our world. People trafficking is horrendous, even worse, it seems is some of the Child abuse/Porn that distributed around the globe. The US which is one of the major advocates for the “every Child a Wanted Child” is also the largest provider at 51 % of the total.

“In a recent report, the organisation said that 51% of child abuse content was
traced back to the US and 20% to Russia. This compared with less than 1% of
potentially illegal content that appeared to be hosted in Britain.”

It should be no surprise that the child is disregarded as insignificant. Now that Children are discarded, and only those that are “wanted” are allowed to live, the next step will be to remove those people from society who are not wanted. Sounds something like Nazi Germany.
I think I will start to do research on politicians who obstruct laws that would increase the prosecution of Child Porn/Abuse including Abortion. I guess I will have to start with Nancy Pelosi as she seems to want to suppress anyone who will disagree with here.

_____________________________________________________________

According to investigators in Austria, some 2,360 suspects from 77 countries downloaded horrific images of young children being sexually abused and raped.
They were believed to have been shot in Eastern Europe and uploaded to the web in Britain, posted on a Russian website hosted by an Austrian company.
Investigators say that in a 24-hour period they recorded more than 8,000 hits on the site from computer address in countries from America to Algeria and Macedonia to Mexico.
Some of the material was free but the Russian site was charging $89 (68 euros, £45) for access for a "members' only" section.
Routine
Experts have described this type of criminal activity as fairly routine. They say there has been a growth in technologically sophisticated pay-per-view sites. The sites are difficult to detect and close down because of they way in which they move around the world.

Foetal cells 'to treat strokes'

By Pallab Ghosh BBC News, science correspondent A UK company is applying for permission to transplant stem cells made from human foetal tissue into the brains of stroke patients.
Guildford-based ReNeuron has told the BBC it has convincing lab evidence that the cells could potentially regenerate brain cells damaged by a stroke.
It has applied to the US Food and Drug Administration to carry out human trials on 12 stroke patients.
However, opponents have said it is a "sick proposal".
We can provide a renewable source of cells in order to treat a large patient population Dr Eric Miljan
The ReNeuron team have successfully extracted stem cells from the developing brain area of a 12 week old aborted foetus.
These cells have begun to specialise into brain cells and have the ability to rapidly generate brain tissue.
According to Dr Eric Miljan, Reneuron's head of stem cell discovery, when the foetal stem cells were injected into the brains of rats in which a stroke had been induced their movement recovered.
Tests showed that blood flow and brain activity were restored in the damaged area.
Dr Miljan said: "We're very excited. There have been a battery of tests. There have been a series of animal safety experiments. And they work.
" We feel that we are ready to go into patient trials."
The company is to submit its research results to the FDA, and if the human trial is approved it could begin early next year.

Safety concerns
But the regulators will want to be satisfied that the trials will be safe and hold out a realistic chance of doing some good.
In particular they will want to look closely at a crucial part of the treatment which involves genetically modifying the foetal brain cells.
The researchers incorporate a gene called c-myc which is associated with normal cell division.
However, when there are abnormalities with cells the gene can be involved in the uncontrollable replication of cells and lead to cancer.
ReNeuron say they have safely harnessed this property by modifying this gene to make its action fully controllable.
They add the modified version of the gene so that it can cause a small number of foetal stem cells to multiply when a chemical is added. In effect, this provides a biochemical way of photocopying the cells.
The replication stops once the chemical is taken away.
Ethics case
Michael Hunt, ReNeuron's CEO, said: "We have proven with reams of experimental data that the system is fully controllable.
It's a sick proposal. It involves cannibalising an unborn child John Smeeton Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
"We have also shown that the cells we grow using this system show absolutely no abnormalities throughout the growth process.
"It is very important for us to be able to demonstrate these safety characteristics before moving our therapy forward into stroke patients."
Reneuron's idea is to produce unlimited quantities of stem cells from just one foetal tissue sample.
According to Dr Miljan, this makes their treatment potentially commercially viable and ethically more acceptable.
"We only take one single piece of tissue and for that we can grow up enough cells to potentially treat all eligible patients.
"And we never have to go back to that tissue again. We can provide a renewable source of cells in order to treat a large patient population."
Holy grail
Joe Corner, of the UK's stroke Association, said the research was "very interesting".
He said: "The Holy grail for stroke research has been to find a way of regenerating the damaged part of the brain.
"Until now its been thought that the damage was irreversible.
"Most treatments and therapies have relied on teaching the patient to use different parts of their brain through physiotherapy.
"But we are beginning to see some promising signs in potential stem cell treatments and ReNeuron's approach does seem very exciting."
However, John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, was completely opposed to the research.
He said: "It's a sick proposal. It involves cannibalising an unborn child.
"It's an unethical in every way - killing one member of the human race to help another. We are totally opposed to this."

Now what using an aborted child as is unacceptanble, as there is no need for continued cell recovery a child that misscaried seems that it could work as well, with little ethical dilemas as that would be a donation like a heart donation.

Child in Utero not a mere piece of Tissue

This mioght require an outside view. In my test it loaded in Windows Media Player

Is it the parents or the states responsiblity for the child

Babies born at or before 22 weeks should not be resuscitated or given intensive care, a report says....However, research shows that many of these babies do not live very long, or go on to develop severe disability.
Earlier this month the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said it wanted a discussion over whether "deliberate intervention" to cause death in severely disabled babies should be legalised.
But the report recommends the active ending of the life of newborn babies should not be allowed, no matter how serious their condition.

So the question Really about whois responsible for the child. In the 19th century there were private orphanage's to take care of the children that were not being taken care of by the parents and this was not viewed as the states role. In the 20th century he state took on this role and now we have the state as guardian of the child, this is OK accept now its saying that the state decides first and the parents are tertiary to the parents decisions. The state will always take into its decision economy and needs of the state and relegate the life of the person to a low priority. This is why they say

However, research shows that many of these babies do not live very
long, or go on to develop severe disability.

A rational person would say 1. isn't life worth it and who is to judge if one is worth living or not, if we are reduced to that that puts us in the same boat with the Nazi's who decided that millions of lives were not worth living 2. Some will grow to be perfectly "normal" is that not worth it.
With the advancement of technology comes a great responsabilty. It is far to easy to value one life over another when looking at a balance sheet, but children are not numbers

Blind leading the Blind

Apart from any moral and ethical reasons, can you find some missing cases of logic. They all sound like politicians to me

Making emergency contraception more available has failed to reduce abortion rates, a family planning expert says.

The government said the emergency pill was not targeted at cutting abortions. (So what was it for?)

However, Professor Glasier, who is director of family planning at the Lothian Primary Care NHS Trust, disagreed, saying emergency contraception had been heralded as the solution to rising abortion rates by many experts.

....

About 6% of women use it each year, although the numbers buying it from chemists has almost doubled in the last year.

In the US, authors have claimed that 43% of the reported drop in abortions between 1994 and 2000 was down to emergency contraception, and that around 51,000 pregnancies were prevented by it in 2000/01.

But Professor Glasier, who was an advocate of emergency contraception in the 1990s, said: "Despite the clear increase in the use of emergency contraception, abortion rates have not fallen in the UK."

Contraception

In 1984, 11 women per 1,000 aged 15 to 44 had abortions, compared with 17.8 in 2004.

She said research had shown that women did not always use the contraception at the right moments because they were unaware they had put themselves at risk and as a result it had no impact on pregnancy or abortion rates.

She also questioned whether it was as clinically effective as it was claimed to be.

Professor Glasier added: "If you are looking for an intervention that will reduce abortion rates, emergency contraception may not be the solution, and perhaps you should concentrate most on encouraging people to use contraception before or during sex, not after it."

But Val Buxton, acting chief executive of Brook, a sexual health charity for young people, said: "Easy access to emergency contraception is an essential part of the picture, and abortion rates might be higher if it weren't for the fact that emergency contraception is more easily available than in the past."

Toni Belfield, of the fpa, formerly the Family Planning Association, said: "Emergency contraception is no substitute for correct, regular use of contraception. It is not, and was never intended to be, a panacea for abortion."

And a spokeswoman for the Department of Health said emergency contraception had never been heralded as the answer to rising abortion rates in the UK.

"Our policy has always been that safe sex, using reliable contraception on a regular basis, is the best way for women to protect against unwanted pregnancy."

Now the Question naturally should come to mind on this one question. Why. Has the culture communicated not merely by the morning after pill that one can "play" with no real consequences. Obviously this is true. The problem is there are consequences. Why did they not mention Abstinence as the only proven option? Is it because its there work and there social agenda?

I would say makes one wonder, but it doesn't actually.