I gather, Malcome, you have a done a bit of reading up (from what I noticed on the "What Can Be Done With the Work Shy" thread, and are a bit more clued up now.

To be fair to the pro-abortionsts, one good thing to come out of the industrial scale of abortions we have these days is it reduces crime.

Wow.

Just........wow.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Come now, Helen, now you're just being a dick.....

Who is Malcome?

Who are the "pro-abortionsts [sic]"? I've never heard anyone expressing a 'pro-abortion' argument. Can you name one please so that I can look them up and form some idea of what on earth you're talking about?

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

It's another troll who only knows what they can look up on Wikipedia, and can't get their heads round the fact that many of us here have been educated from, you know, books and stuff...


Oh, and a patronising turd with it.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

I think that what LR may be referring to is Leavitt/Dunbar in "Freakonomics", where they pointed out the correlation in falling crime rates 16 years after the areas examined legalised abortion - this was all in the USA. The implication being that had abortion remained illegal, the scum mountain would be coming of age and out nicking stuff. They never got born, thus no crimes were committed by them 16 years down the line.

While I have great admiration for Leavitt and Dunbar, this was one case study where they fixed one one possible factor, to the exclusion of others. I also know that abortion is a much bigger issue in the States than it is in the UK, so they may have been trying to make some sort of political point.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

I was also educated by a patronising turd.

Good for you. It wasn't me, was it?

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

I doubt it.

It doesn't have a stand as such, but it's keen to keep the 'issue' or the 'debate' on the news agenda. That is itself not a neutral position. Yet another article on the subject today:

Women who have abortions 'face double the risk of mental health problems'

It's ironic because the Mail loves the idea of individual responsibility and people being allowed to make their own choices. Here, though, it questions that position, or rather opens it up to debate. Indeed, on abortion, it queries the very idea that people (in this case, women) can make 'correct', rational choices, pointing to emotionally charged circumstances and the impossibility of obtaining independent, value-free advice. Does it want the same kind of 'debate' about, say, free schools? Of course not.

That report was fisked by Ministry of Truth some time ago. Dodgy methodology and a person with an agenda.
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2010/11/17/dorries-abortion-risk-plethora/

I actually looked into that British Journal of Psychiatry report Dorries cited in the Mail yesterday about abortions leading to a 30% rise in mental health disorders. Not quite as clear cut as she represented it (quelle surprise!) http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/193/6/444.abstract

I think that what it boils down to is the Mail loves the idea of men having individual responsibility. Women, it thinks, should put up and shut up.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

Good article in todays Guardian about Nadine Dorries and her underhand tactics. She wants impartial evidence based abortion advice to be taken away and replaced by evangelising dished out by catholic charities, under the auspices of promoting mental health.

Especially odious is her repeated claim that abortion organisations push people into abortions as they make more profits. As they're all not-for-profits with charitable status her argument is nonsensical. This from the woman who won't admit that she has something to sell.

Dorries is an idiot. Pure and simple. All that harridan's missing when she stands up in Parliament is a tatty shawl wrapped loosely around her shoulders that she can clutch dramatically whilst delivering yet-another sermon of The World As Little Dorries Sees It. She's as complex as trifle when it comes to being subtle, that's for sure.

_________________
You couldn't make it up...that's what Littledick's for!

Listening to her now. What a bastard. I hate watching politicians corrupt evidence to try to push an agenda.