Well, yes, you’d rather expect Ann Furedi to say this, wouldn’t you?

Some of the failings found at MSI have no implications for safety. The batch signing of abortion forms, for example, has no clinical significance – it is simply a legal requirement that all women have their abortion request legally authorised by two doctors.

Flagrant breach of the law isn’t a problem.

Because.

28 comments on “Well, yes, you’d rather expect Ann Furedi to say this, wouldn’t you?

  1. So this is just paperwork, even where it’s part of the statutory exemption to murder.

    What about other bits of statutory paperwork – a tax return, for example, or cattle movement records, or employee health & safety records?

  2. I’m sure when the law was first written the intention of “legally authorised” meant more than a doctor saying “Whatever” and carelessly rubber stamping a piece of paper.

  3. Makes me think of the anecdotes about Che Guevara rapidly signing off on piles of execution warrants with gay abandon…

  4. WKPD:

    In 1982, she married Frank Furedi, the founder and then leader of the British Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).

    … She has also contributed to Spiked Online … For that magazine, she has written in support of women legally choosing sex-selective abortion.

    Furedi is the Vice-Chairman of the Governing Body at MidKent College.

  5. “Abortion today is an extremely safe, straightforward procedure”

    Not for the child being killed it isn’t! And that’s where you have to get yourself to believe in abortion by choice: the denial of the humanity of the unborn child. Because if you accepted it’s humanity you would be acknowledging murder wouldn’t you.

  6. Even people like me who accept that abortion probably needs to be legal under a tightly-controlled set of circumstances recoil at the idea that it is something to be fetishised or celebrated.

  7. I’m someone who thinks abortion should probably be legalised (but the term lowered). But doctors signing treatment for patients they don’t know and haven’t seen? Isn’t that pretty unethical?

  8. I’m on my phone so can’t really reaserch but didn’t the report also condemn them for poor hygiene and pushing people with learning difficulties in to getting an abortion?

    If memory serves that’s quite an indictment.

  9. The fastest way to get very bad laws changed is to break them. The question is whether this is a very bad law. We’d still have the same laws as 40 years ago for the bottom bandits if people didn’t break them and just campaigned politely. Imv, of course.

  10. Feminism’s celebration of abortion has the air of a death cult. Yet, within tight legal limits, I think abortion should be a matter for the individual conscience, because the conceptus cannot plausibly be granted the same value as an independent human being. An acorn is not an oak tree; and a potential human being is not an actual human being. Of course, that is not to say that a potential human being has no value, which seems to be the feminist position.

  11. Theophrastus – “I think abortion should be a matter for the individual conscience, because the conceptus cannot plausibly be granted the same value as an independent human being.”

    Why not? You seem to be saying that we cannot make abortion illegal because we cannot make abortion illegal. The foetus is in every sense of the word a unique individual. It is also in every sense of the word human. Why not protect it as you would any other human?

    “An acorn is not an oak tree; and a potential human being is not an actual human being.”

    That is question begging. The foetus is not a potential human being. It is a human being. Just one that cannot complain yet. You do not avoid the issue by dishonest definitions.

    The issue is not whether the acorn is an oak tree or not – something that seems to define value as adhering to the oak tree in its mature form alone. The issue is whether destroying an egg of an endangered Osprey ought to be illegal or not. It will not help you if you go to Court to argue that the egg is merely a potentially endangered species.

  12. dearieme – “In 1982, she married Frank Furedi, the founder and then leader of the British Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). … She has also contributed to Spiked Online”

    Spiked Online writes some good stuff. But no one should forget that they are a nasty little Trotskyite splinter group with some very unpleasant beliefs indeed.

    And an even nastier history. They started out Spiked Online because their previous magazine, Living Marxism, I kind you not, lost a libel suit when it claimed there were no mass killings in Bosnia during the civil war.

  13. It’s this conflation with abortion as taking a pill or having an injection at a couple of weeks of gestation as being morally indistinguishable from inducing labour at 8 months and cutting a foetus’s spinal cord on the way out that really, really irks me.

    And lumping the whole lot into one big, dishonest basket. “But what about cases of rape”? Who the ever-loving feck carries a rapist’s baby nearly to term and *then* goes for an abortion?

  14. bongo “We’d still have the same laws as 40 years ago for the bottom bandits if people didn’t break them and just campaigned politely. Imv, of course.”

    hmm so taking Wilde, sex with underage boys, and whatever they call the crime of hanging around public toilets looking for well.. are both still crimes.

  15. SMFS

    “The foetus is in every sense of the word a unique individual.”

    No, the conceptus at least is the blueprint for a unique individual, which is not the same as an actual unique individual.

    “It is also in every sense of the word human.”

    You are defining ‘human’ very widely and you have emptied the phrase ‘in every sense’ of meaning. It is your definitions that are question-begging and dishonest, not mine. The conceptus has no independence, no organs, no personality, no desires, no purposes. So it is not human – yet. It is a potential human. As such, it has great value morally, but not as much moral value as an actual human being.

    “Why not protect it as you would any other human?”

    It deserves protection, but not absolute protection. Because there are circumstances where its claims must be weighed against the claims of the mother (or another being).

    That said, abortion on demand or abortion as contraception do not accord the conceptus any value whatsoever. The claims of the woman are absolute in the feminazi death cult.

  16. Theo

    You are a very thoughtful and obviously clever person and so I genuinely ask you “with respect”.. with respect, when does.a potential person become a person.

    P.S. I see no potential for Richard Murphy here, so don’t go there.

  17. Theophrastus – “No, the conceptus at least is the blueprint for a unique individual, which is not the same as an actual unique individual.”

    If you do a DNA test on a three day old foetus, it will have a unique – and human – signature. It is not a blueprint. It is a unique individual.

    “You are defining ‘human’ very widely and you have emptied the phrase ‘in every sense’ of meaning. It is your definitions that are question-begging and dishonest, not mine.”

    On the contrary, I am defining a human very specifically. You can look at a human cell and tell it is human – as opposed to a gorilla or the like. A three week old foetus has cells just as human as yours or mine. There is no biological test, no objective test, which will show the foetus is not human.

    “The conceptus has no independence, no organs, no personality, no desires, no purposes.”

    At 4 weeks the organs are recognisable. At 12 weeks they are fully formed. By all means, lets ban abortions after some time between 4 and 12 weeks. It is not independent. Nor is Michael Schumacher. He is still human. At the moment he has no desires or purpose we can tell either. Still human. You do not know what a 12 week old foetus thinks and so you cannot conclude that.

    “So it is not human – yet. It is a potential human. As such, it has great value morally, but not as much moral value as an actual human being.”

    There is no rational definition of human that requires those things. But if you think it does, then anyone in a coma is not human and can be killed. Anyone who is asleep ought to be worried too.

    Saying it does not have as much moral value as an actual human being is begging the question twice over. It is an actual human being. And no one is comparing its worth to that of an “actual human being”. We are comparing its value to a woman’s desire to put off children for a few more years, or so she can go on holiday, or because she wants a promotion or some other trivial cause.

    “It deserves protection, but not absolute protection. Because there are circumstances where its claims must be weighed against the claims of the mother (or another being).”

    By all means let’s consider those circumstances. At the moment they are whatever whim passes through the mind of the mother. There is essentially no limit on abortion at all. Nor is any suggested. So the reality, whether you accept it or not, is that it can be killed any time right up to the moment of birth. Or not at all.

    “The claims of the woman are absolute in the feminazi death cult.”

    A death cult you are endorsing as you have no real basis to resist their demands at all.

  18. Ironman

    I don’t know. There is no watershed at which a foetus suddenly becomes an actual rather than a potential person. (At what point, does white become grey or grey become black?) The consensus in medical ethics seems to be that this point is reached when the foetus can survive independently of the mother, albeit with medical support, and that is an empirical matter. In general, I would say that the later a pregnancy is terminated, the greater the moral value of the foetus.

  19. SMFS

    If you do a DNA test on a three day old foetus, it will have a unique – and human – signature… I am defining a human very specifically. You can look at a human cell and tell it is human – as opposed to a gorilla or the like. A three week old foetus has cells just as human as yours or mine. There is no biological test, no objective test, which will show the foetus is not human.

    You are confusing the origin of thing with the thing itself (aka the genetic fallacy).Yes, a conceptus is identifiable as of human origin, but that does not make it an actual human person (yet). Moreover, human DNA is at best only a necessary condition of being human: it is not a sufficient condition (see below).

    … Michael Schumacher…is still human. At the moment he has no desires or purpose we can tell either. Still human.

    Schumacher was a fully human person, with all the organs and behaviours, attachments and purposes, associated with being fully human. Like anyone in a coma, he has the potential to regain all or some of what made him human, and as such has the moral dignity of a human being. And sleeping is a human behaviour, after which we recover our full faculties. To be recognised as a human person, a being must have the form of a human person and behave like a human person. In the case of some hypothetical android, the absence of human DNA would be important, as it is necessary condition of being human – as are human form and human behaviour.

    You do not know what a 12 week old foetus thinks and so you cannot conclude that.

    A conceptus does not think and it cannot feel pain. By 12 weeks, a foetus can possibly feel pain but there’s no evidence that it can think.

    Saying it does not have as much moral value as an actual human being is begging the question twice over.

    How so? An acorn doesn’t have the same value as a mature oak tree. (Tree preservation orders aren’t placed on acorns). The law will punish you for taking two osprey eggs, but will (or should) punish you more for killing a breeding pair.

    “It is an actual human being.”

    There are three necessary conditions for human personhood: human form, human behaviour and human DNA. Jointly they are sufficient. A conceptus has only one of these. A foetus does not exhibit human behaviour and form until well into pregnancy.

    And no one is comparing its worth to that of an “actual human being”.

    I am. And most people accord greater weight to an infant than to a human embryo. Which is why women grieve more over a cot death than a miscarriage.

    There is essentially no limit on abortion at all. Nor is any suggested. So the reality, whether you accept it or not, is that it can be killed any time right up to the moment of birth.

    The abortion laws are too lax, and they should be tightened up – a lot. Late abortions, by the way, are rare. About 87% of abortions were performed at 12 weeks or less and 1.6% occurred after 20 weeks.

  20. Theophrastus

    Again I emphasise the respect I hold for you and your views.

    However, this: “The consensus in medical ethics seems to be that this point is reached when the foetus can survive independently of the mother, albeit with medical support, and that is an empirical matter”

    Which implies an unborn child’s humanity is dependant, increasingly so, on the quality of the outside medical intervention available to it. Which in turn can only be described as an appallingly arbitrary method for determining the most crucial question known to us.

    Sorry, that can’t be.

  21. Ironman

    Thank you for coming back to me.

    I don’t hold with the consensus among medical ethicists; but it is not fair to describe their consensus point as “arbitrary” when it is not capricious or mere opinion but a judgement based on the best scientific evidence.

    I would probably ban abortions after 8 weeks – when the embryo officially becomes a foetus – except in certain rare circumstances. Because, by 8-10 weeks, the foetus has a recognisably human form (which is one of the three necessary conditions I mentioned earlier).

    That a judgement is difficult does not make it arbitrary, let alone subjective.

  22. Theo

    The medical consensus is around the time at which life can be sustained. We are in a dark place indeed when the medical professions can extend this to mean when the child ‘becomes human’.

    It is indeed arbitrary, must be, because medical provision around the country and certainly around the globe varies. By this criterion humanity’s dawn must also vary. Now a couple of people on this blog may well think fundamental humanity differs around the globe, but I know you won’t hold to that.

  23. Ironman

    The geographical distribution of the relevant medical facilities might be arbitrary, but the viability limit is not arbitrary. It will never be lower than 21-22 weeks, because no foetus born earlier than that will ever have sufficiently developed immune, nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory etc systems.

    For my part, I would ban abortion once the foetus ceases to depend on its yolk sac and instead starts to depend on the placenta – ie around 8-10 weeks. And I don’t think that is an arbitrary limit either, because there are evidence and arguments to support it.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.