Look at the bigger picture
In recent months I’ve been reading a fair bit about feminism and attending feminist events in London. ‘Third wave feminism’, as it is being dubbed, is attracting a lot of interest, and the vitality at these events is very awe-inspiring. I have no trouble calling myself a feminist – the view that women should have complete equality in all spheres of life and be fully free to make decisions about their bodies and their lives (hence my strong support for abortion). This view, incidentally, is also a central tenet to Sikhism, the most feminist of all faiths.
But I’m interested in all this for a bigger reason. This blog is mostly about race and religion-based issues in modern Britain. It is about how we can all live together. But the point is this. Any discussion of racial equality cannot take place without understanding how other factors affect people. How their gender affects them, how their opportunities are affected by poverty (class) and even by their legal status (immigration).
At a recent event I went to, Laurie Penny talked about how the issue of abortion is frequently about money, because the rich women can easily afford it but its the poor women who face problems. In addition to these class issues, a lot of women who now face problems in our society are non-white immigrant women being made destitute by govt organisations.
You can see what I’m getting at. Feminism is like a jigsaw piece that is part of a larger struggle for social justice generally. The problem I had with race relations ‘experts’ like Lee Jasper was mostly that class and gender did not feature into their discussions – it was black v white and that’s it. But the most vulnerable people in our society now are immigrant women – not rich ‘activists’ on £100,000 a year. And they are sometimes let down by the system but also by non-white men themselves, when they face domestic violence.
In other words, race relations is dead and looking at inequality only from a race or gender perspective is short-sighted. People have to start looking at the bigger picture that incorporates gender, race, class and sometimes even religion.
This is why I focus a lot on domestic violence and issues like abortion here – they are not outside our discussions about identity and being Britons. I also feel too many ‘political bloggers’ focus just on one area like Westminister politics or green issues or feminism or religion or race or whatever, without understanding or looking at how all this fits in together. Political bloggers should be writing about abortion – it is the most politically important debate of our time now. The environment cannot be left just to the environmentalists – its an issue that affects us all dammit.
Anyway, I’ve been working on a campaign, launching this weekend called: Coalition For Choice. This is a pro-choice campaign and we aim to build it into a long-term lobby group aiming to defend and extend women’s rights to abortion. This weekend, if everything goes to plan, there should be some big fireworks on this. The fun has just started. Please go and sign up to the mailing list and write to your MP about it!
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Culture, Race politics, Religion, Sex equality
Well hello chaps (and chapesses). Hope you are all well, and enjoying the latest opinion polls.
I don’t make a habit of posting here much nowadays, but abortion is an important enough subject for me to break that taboo…
My point is this: Your campaign is laudable, extremely laudable, and essential, but lose the partisanship, old bean.
By plastering “LiberalConspiracy.Org” banners all over your website, you’re telling us “South Park Conservatives” (haha, I so love that term) that we’re not welcome. And stopping lunatic theocrats like Nadine Dorres (oh how I hate that woman!) isn’t a party political issue at all.
Let me repeat this: Abortion isn’t a party political issue. Its about allowing women control over their own bodies. Dorres and chums would take that control away from women. And that is simply unacceptable.
“In recent months I’ve been reading a fair bit about feminism and attending feminist events in London.” You really live, don’t you!
Heh excellent term!
How do you define being a free agent? There is an interesting documentary about this subjectFlying: Confessions of a Free Woman, which I watched on Sundance channel that dwells about the modern female life, a real “Sex in the City” serial about a 40 something New Yorker struggling to comprehend her “free” lifestyle. The director not only turns the camera on herself, but also passes the camera to various women facing the same issues around the globe. This is a really intriguing take on culture expectations and other female topics. The movie will continue to air on May 12, and May 15.
I liked the big picture stuff. You’re right to want to be seen as more than just a politically active British Asian person. But then you go and link this piece to abortion.
This is where Morgoth and I swap places. I’m a labourite by instinct but I have problem with abortion. How can anyone be FOR abortion.
OK, so you are careful to specify pro-CHOICE. But I’m pro-choice too, up to a point. It’s nothing to shout from the rooftops though. It’s nothing to be proud of.
Abortion is a form of murder — it just happens to be a negative that society has decided is outweighed by other factors, which is not unreasonable. But the more we know about early life — the ability of foetuses to smile for example — the harder that decision gets.
So what exactly does this lobby mean when it says it wants to extend abortion rights. Can we be specific? What, abortion as a lifestyle choice? Abortion up to any point before birth?
You’re a vegetarian right? Fucking ridiculous.
Funny thing is, we could probably be very very close to agreeing about the detail on abortion, but the way you pro-choice people talk about the issue as if it were so black and white is offensive.
Evening Morgoth.
Sunny:
I have to echo what El Cid said to a certain extent. I agree with your overall vision, but I can’t fathom why abortion is the “most politically important debate of our time now.” I am pro-choice, but am as uncomfortable with the average pro-abortion post on Liberal Conspiracy as I am with Nadine Dorris’ approach to it. The abortion debate is now at the stage that the immigration debate was at a few years ago. Two sides shrieking at each other while the middle keeps their head down. If people say anything along the lines of “abortion makes me uncomfortable because of the status of the foetus”, somebody will immediately turn up and say that this approach is an attempt to restrict women’s rights. It is not, but if you believe that the foetus is alive, then of course you are going to be uncomfortable about abortion- it would be weird if you were not. Abortion does not fit into the standard libertarian model, because it all depends on what status you assign to what is inside the mother’s womb.
Surely honour-based violence should be ranked above tweaking the abortion system (because that is all it is, a tweak), in terms of the most important issue?
El Cid – ‘Abortion as a lifestyle choice.’
Even if you could show me someone happy to boast about how they made abortion a lifestyle choice (which I very much doubt – that is a US Republican fantasy) it is none of our damn business. That’s the point – who are you, I or anyone else to make judgements? Who are we to look down our noses?
When there is talk of ‘extending abortion rights’ I take it to mean getting many, specifically meaning jupmed up religious types, to bug out. Religion needs to know its place, this is an acid test issue.
‘Abortion is a form of murder.’ The way you anti-choice people talk about the issue as if it were so black and white is offensive.
You forget to add ‘in my opinion’ at the end there.
How can anyone be FOR abortion.
My basic point is this: its irrelevant whither someone is FOR or AGAINST it – its not my decision, I do not and should not have power over a woman’s body to that extent.
The only person who can possibly make the decision to have or have not an abortion is the woman herself. Anyone else (even the father, yes), is extraneous to this.
Abortion is important to me as an issue because the right of women to have the choice is under attack.
No one is Pro-Abortion as such because no one wants to force women to undergo abortions. So please chuck that silly thought out of your heads.
We are pro-choice and that means allowing women to have that choice until 24 weeks, as it currently stands. The campaign is also about extending abortion rights so women can have access to abortions much earlier than having to wait around until it gets to 24 weeks.
The debate is rather simple… and I’m not sure why El Cid and Rumbold are tip-toeing around it. The Nadine Dorries campaign is completely full of rubbish, and next week we’ll be showing how.
Morgoth – yeah the problem is that not many of your Tory friends are doing anything on the issue.
Abortion does not fit into the standard libertarian model, because it all depends on what status you assign to what is inside the mother’s womb.
Yes it does – why don’t the woman’s rights trump that of the unborn kid every time?
Anyway, this is veering off the point… my point is we should look at the bigger picture and support women’s rights where and when.
Rumbold,
I’d have thought it could be seriously argued that the rights of the mother to decide are a libertarian issue of the first order. If you are sincere about the idea of personal responsibility, the decision whether to have an abortion or a child rests solely with the mother, and not with some instrumentality of bureaucrats. It would seem a reasonable ‘line in the sand’ where the State could be reasonably be asked to ‘butt out’ of involvement in private matters. Remember when we had a private life?
I am no happier than you are at the incidence of abortions in society, and I’d have thought that advocating compulsory sex education – no religious excuses – in schools should be high on the agenda too, preferably with free contracteption to everyone that wants it… Which, is yet another nettle that politicians are scared to grasp, lest The Daily Mail splashes them on the front page.
Sunny,
I hope your going to expand on this paragraph too:
I agree.
If you’d added nationality in you’d have had the whole shebang
Morgoth – yeah the problem is that not many of your Tory friends are doing anything on the issue.
I am not a member of the Conservative Party, nor have I been for a few years now. Abortion is one of the reasons I do not rejoin. There’s Big Tents and then there’s the field-sized marquee that would be needed to encompass both myself and the likes of Nadine Dorress.
I do agree with El Cid: framing your beliefs as “strongly supporting abortion” seems careless to me. I am pro-choice in regards to the first 3 months, but consider that afterwards a life is formed and anything that destroys it is murder. So, unless you believe that a life is formed the minute it’s out (after 9 months), but not a second before – then I would not claim that women should be “fully free to make decisions about their bodies”.
The big picture to me – and one which you will find an unanimous consensus – is that abortions are pretty bad for women and we should fight to reduce them. While we should fight for women’s right to terminate pregnancies in the first stage, at the same time we should encourage the government to enact measures to reduce the number of abortions.
There’s Big Tents and then there’s the field-sized marquee that would be needed to encompass both myself and the likes of Nadine Dorress.
That’s the funniest thing you’ve posted here Morgoth.
The big picture to me – and one which you will find an unanimous consensus – is that abortions are pretty bad for women and we should fight to reduce them.
And the fact is, that is EXACTLY what pro-choice people want. Read some of the literature and you’ll find plenty of suggestions by pro-choice advocates on how to help women in these situations – make it easier for them to access abortions earlier, and treat them like grown ups and also more sex education!!
the people who are anti-abortion are the ones making it more difficult for women to get access to abortion earlier on and focus on ‘abstinence’ rather than sex education.
C’mon guys, use your brains in this discussion.
Sunny
Race and gender issues were ALWAYS about class and social justice.
Glad to see you are beginning to discover this for yourself. Might I add, some of us have been waiting and nudging you long enough knowing full well that you are not one to be told. But you are getting there.
To imagine that pro-choice is about a woman’s right to choose is so shallow and naive. Its about letting the woman have the choice so the bloke could be let off the hook.
Get it right.
Yet, you didn’t mention either of them in your post, which is a glaring omission in my view when talking about abortion and the big picture. And I believe this omission is part of the larger point: your language is largely divisive and provocative, which is fine for a blog because it generates discussion (along with a few baits like requesting people who disagree with you to use their brains), but I would say it is less effective in a political platform.
We need people that are capable to talk about these issues without polarasing, and understanding that for some, the question of abortion and accepting it is a a complicated matter for ethical and religious reasons.
“toptoeing around the subject”…
you think it’s easy to decide when something is alive, human, and has rights? Use your brain mate, eh, think outside the box, rather than restrict yourself to inherited ideology.
For example, I’d be interested to hear why caviar might be deemed to have greater rights than a 23-week old human foetus.
“We need people that are capable to talk about these issues without polarasing, and understanding that for some, the question of abortion and accepting it is a a complicated matter for ethical and religious reasons.”
Thanks Ravi. I feel you’re spot on.
Sunny, if you want to build a grand coalition, then I would advise that you tiptoe carefully around the subject of abortion. You might find that most people agree broadly in practice. You don’t need to thump this tub too strongly to win over the female vote. I would wager that most women are as uncomfortable with the issue as I am.
“Abortion is a form of murder.’ The way you anti-choice people talk about the issue as if it were so black and white is offensive.”
Maid Marian, I was provoked. I was also careful to say “a form of murder” rather than “murder” (“Meat is murder” anyone?). But while we’re on the subject, define murder.
Lets be blunt, building a grand coalition is a figment of Sunny’s imagination.
Sorry – but whatever he is building is made of sand built on sand.
90% of it is sneering and attention-seeking. Yes I know that’s journalism (supposedly).
Sunny and Douglas:
You are both very intelligent people, but you seem to want to ignore the point that a person’s view on abortion is dependent on what status they assign to the unborn child. If you think that it/he/she is alive, then it is not clear at all. The debate then becomes whether one person’s right to life trumps another person’s right to choose. Personally, I think that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, and as Douglas says, this should go hand in hand with better sex education, as well as a wider distribution of contraception. However, I recognise that many people are uncomfortable with the issue, and I would not wish to attack them over an issue like this.
Sunny, as others have said, if you continue to dismiss anyone’s concerns about abortion as ‘anti-choice’, then the progressive coalition you are looking to build will be narrow indeed.
Does a foetus have rights? Where is that written?
Is a foetus considered human, by what definition?
Can a foetus survive outside the womb independently enough to be considered ‘alive’?
Refresh, sand built on sand?
Not necessarily.
Granted, the blog is fertile ground for the sneerer within. That’s the nature of the beast.
But as someone who, though middle class now, was born and brought up in the underclass underbelly of innercity London, I feel there is something worthwhile, modern, and within reach underpinning Sunny’s broad efforts to rise above racial, religious, ethical, and geneder differnces. I may not approve or agree always with how he goes about it. I might even sense a poncey public school hypocrisy or plain old bourgois naivety among some of my fellow commentators, which may repel me on occasion. But I still applaud the general effort. I know there is something there.
And who knows, maybe someone like Obama might get us a little closer to where I would like us to be. He needs to get a little bit dirty though — not bad dirty, but good dirty. Get some blisters on those hands.
You too Sunny.
Leon,
I am reluctant to be drawn into a discussion that could go on and on, when the sun is shining outside and my main point is simply to warn against treating abortion as a political football when it is clearly a very difficult issue.
However, I will at least honour you with a response to your last post.
Does a foetus have rights? Where is that written?
This is an ethical issue not a judicial one. I know my rights and it ain’t got anything to do with any constitution.
Does it say anywhere apart from a tree-hugging manifesto that a fish or donkey has rights?
Is a foetus considered human, by what definition?
Definition of a human? Hmmmm. Not easy. Surely you would agree at least that it is a HUMAN foetus? OK, you tell me, when does a human foetus become human.
Can a foetus survive outside the womb independently enough to be considered ‘alive’?
Ah I see, you’ve already tried with that inherited textbook answer. So what you reckon about this…
http://www.local10.com/news/11053141/detail.html
or do people like this live “independently”?
http://tinyurl.com/4ggdk3
This is the kind of rhetoric that leads us nowhere: a baby cannot live independently outside the womb anyway: it needs to be fed and taken care of, or the baby dies. And parents are put to jail for negligence if that happens… and nobody complains about the responsibility for both parents at that stage (BTW, if we start equating a human-being to its capability to live independently, I can assure you we will come up with pretty unpleasant scenarios…)
So honestly, I don’t see why some people feel that a few seconds before the baby gets out the womb there is no life, and as soon as it gets out it becomes a human being. As I am close to being a father, I can assert that there is definitely a living being inside my wife’s womb, that kicks and responds to sound. But that is besides the point when it comes to pro-choice.
The fact is, like myself, most people are pro-choice when it comes to the first period of the pregnancy, and guess what: that is when the vast majority of abortions happen. For that reason, it is unfair for anti-abortionists to show pictures of aborted foetuses in late pregnancies to attack the pro-choice movement, OR people who keep equating pro-choice to women’s right to abort at any point of the pregnancy, or this ridiculous idea (IMHO) that a rabbit only exists when it is out of the hat.
Thank you Sunny! Exactly, it’s about the bigger picture and how all these factors interact together.
Yes, we can look at these factors individually for analytical purposes; however, we know that ultimately their intimately intertwined. It’s imperative that we develop tangible solutions based on their complex interaction. Only then can we be effective in our activism.
Sunny, as others have said, if you continue to dismiss anyone’s concerns about abortion as ‘anti-choice’, then the progressive coalition you are looking to build will be narrow indeed.
Rumbold, El Cid, Ravi – people can have concerns about abortion if they wish. But let me try and summarise a few points:
1) If you don’t want abortions to happen, you’re perfectly allowed to not go through them in your family. But what gives you the right to impose them on others? A lot of abortion rhetoric comes from the view that society has a right over women’s bodies and decisions. After all – if we want to reduce the number of deaths in our society, why not ban all forms of firearms for a start? Why not reduce the speed limit to 30 across the country? Too much hassle for you? Even for the sake of 100s of 1000s of lives?
But, but, I thought you guys cared? I’m being facetious here for a reason. What gives you folks the right to force a woman to have a baby she does not want?
This goes to the heart of inequality – and race is a part of it. If you’re brown, you cannot help notice the amount of patrirachy in Asian families. Women are the bearers of izzat (dignity) which means they are restricted on what they can/can’t do while men are allowed free reign. Again its because Asian society wants to dictate how women should live their lives but subconsiously no one tells men how to live their lives.
Want to reduce deaths? Ban alcohol. Let’s see how that goes down.
2) Most people who want to deny women the choice for abortion aren’t really pressing for chages that would make abortions faster either. You want easier access to abortion right? After all, we want them to happen asap right? Well, then why is it that the anti-choice MPs like Nadine Dorries and Anne Widdecombe and others who keep tabling motions to make it harder for women to have access to abortion?
It is because they want to ban it entirely.
It’s not rocket science folks.
Ravi @ 26,
That’s good news. It is pretty obvious that the kid is going to grow up wanted in a loving, caring family.
————————————————-
I’ve a view on all of this that owes quite a bit to the ladies on Liberal Conspiracy, Unity and some quirky ideas of my own.
It was believed that a foetus ‘quickened’, specifically when it started to move. That quickening was said to be when it gained a soul. We might nowadays view that as nonsense, however it had quite a lot of theological support in the Church for hundreds of years. I believe that we are still subject, rightly, to thoughts along the same lines. When a foetus starts to take on the, albeit almost cartoonish likeness to a baby, most of us are awestruck. Which is backed up by statistics, I think. 89% of abortions that take place in the UK happen in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. See here:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsandstatistics/publications/publicationsstatistics/dh_075697
Which leaves just 11% that happen after the thirteenth week.
Some of those are because there is a threat to the mothers life, or the child is expected to be born profoundly handicapped. In either of those cases an abortion can be sanctioned right up to term. Frankly, I think that this is right. It does not mean that a mother whose life is at risk, or parents who have had it explained to them that their child may be severely handicapped are forced to have an abortion, it simply means that that option is available to them. I doubt that many folk would disagree with that option being available. Although we may squirm a bit, I’d have thought it was a bigger burden for the parents, who clearly had no prior intention to consider that course of action.
So, you are left with the zone of, say, fourteen weeks, until the current limit of 24 weeks which are realistically elective abortions, excluding any cohort in the previous paragraph.
It is that area – elective abortions in the fourteen week to twenty four week limit – that is the true, for the moment, area of debate. And it is here that viability becomes the crux of the arguement. At least for pro lifers. If, they argue, it can be shown that one child could have survived below 24 weeks, then the arguement is theirs for the taking.
But it is not true. Viability is usually measured by ability to leave the hospital. Follow up studies show mortality at damn near 100% by age ten. And lives that were extremely limited in the meantime.
I can understand a committed mother who has an early birth taking the view that that’s the way the cookie crumbles – and I’d be hoping for a miracle for her, just like anyone else – what I am not at all sure about is that this is a rational arguement for anti abortionists to take. To be clear, the pregnant woman’s view’s ought to be the only one that count’s. It is, after all, her pregnancy, not yours or mine.
Rumbold @ 22,
I respect you too. Frankly, I’d rather spend time disagreeing with someone like you, than agreeing with some of my ain. Now that is bloody boring!
You are going to be horrified by the next bit.
Shh! I was too!
There is nothing that Morgoth has said on this subject that I disagree with. His point being anathema to your arguement, I think.
Hey! You’re supposed to be the expert on the private and the public spheres, are you not?
So many of the posts above miss the point! The important word in the ‘pro-choice’ argument is the second one: CHOICE. Choice does not necessarily enforce one mode of action or another, but does allow the possibility of more than one outcome, including that of a pregnancy going to full term. Choice is what the ‘pro-life’ argument precludes. This is the debate.
There are many subjects touched on in this post which would be well worth taken up further here, but sticking with the HFE Bill, the later abortions that other posters find so offensive would be far fewer if some of the archaic aspects of the present act were modified. Not least the requirement for 2 doctors’ signatures to allow the operation, something not required for any other medical procedure, something which can take time and difficulty to arrange, and timely access to which can rely as much on the lottery of access to sympathetic medics, private healthcare, or Marie Stopes. All this in addition to Sunny’s point above, that lowering the time limit has nothing to do with increased viability of foetuses outside the womb at 23 weeks, and everything to do with banning abortion altogether. Why else would the BMA, representing medics across the UK after all, say that there has been no improvement over the past decade of babies survival in this age bracket? To this list could be added access to contraception (it is improving – but the Emergency pill is not available over every pharmacy counter), development of better contraception (yeah – and not just aimed at women – it takes two). Can anyone really say what they would do until faced with the situation? Surely then there should be the choice, and the possibility of that choice, as early as possible.
As Marie Stopes show [http://tinyurl.com/4ynpqp], one third of British women will have an abortion in their lives; this is a situation that does not just affect ‘other people’, nor the decisions of the ‘mad, bad or sad’.
Ok, rant over. But to return to (the only slightly) lighter subjects of ‘feminism’ on this blog- could we expand the usual definition of ‘add women and stir’ to consider gender relations in general – as they are expressed through class, race, religion and sexuality – including the way in which men are socialised in relation to women, as much as women in relation to men? Phulkari is right about the necessity of understanding the intertwining of different forms of identity. But sticking to gender, we know a lot of what the mainstream media thinks of British/South Asian women, what about the experience of different styles of feminintities, or or men and masculinities? Understanding the ways these identities interweave could add a lot to improving their interrelations; more male feminists please?!
Interestingly, people always dub me as a feminist, but I do not consider myself one. I think my views are much more “humanist” in that there are various levels of exploitation and oppression, depending on the context, which are not always tied to gender (and therefore cannot be relegated to “feminism.”) which I care equally about gender focused issues. Take for instance child abuse of both sexes, or the abuse and enslavement of Desi workers in the Gulf States, some of whom have died working on construction sites. Along with this picture, we should add the debasement and violence against women working as maids who are sexually exploited and abused.
Re: abortion–
I’ve heard several wanker men who pompously talk about “pro-life” even in the event of rape. If only these men had their balls cut off would they know what it feels like for a woman to be violated in the most intimate sense, raped and then left with a repercussion (pregnancy) in which they had no saying.
Don’t get me wrong, I think people should be using condoms up the bazooka to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and I don’t think abortion is solely the decision of a woman (since the guy had a part in the pregnancy, he should be consulted with as well). But to decide what a woman does with her body is ridiculous. It is more of a moralizing and religious act than anything else.
Sunny, that was possibly the worst piece of intellectualising I have ever read from you. For a start you are mixing up the indirect with the direct. Nuff said, except please remember that this is a bigger vote loser than a vote gainer (especially when there is plenty of room for compromise in practice).
For the record, I’ve got three kids and I would pull my hair out if number 4 was on the cards. But I just can’t see myself or the missus ever going for the nuclear option — for that is what abortion is. And if my daughter, God forbid, was ever to get preggers while still at school. I would be blunt to her about the likely repurcussions and help her in whatever way she wanted and support her 100 percent. I also honestly don’t know what I would advise if she sought my opinion. That’s real.
Douglas, at least you tried to tackle the issue head on. It’s a tough one. I would just direct your attention to the story links I supplied in #25.
Desi Italiana, I think there are very few of these wanker mean you speak of. You have to be very religious indeed to think that a raped woman has no right to abort.
Finally, two articles from The Observer today which I think interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/11/health.medicalresearch
What do you think I find annoying about the way this story was written? Could it be the abortion-related spin perhaps, that charged yet irrelevent lead paragraph and headline? Yes it is. It exemplifies what I mean about abortion as a political football. Apart from that it is an interesting read.
And going back to an earlier point made by Rumbold about what is or is not the “most politically important debate of our time”, there is this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/iraq.humanrights
El Cid:
“Desi Italiana, I think there are very few of these wanker mean you speak of. You have to be very religious indeed to think that a raped woman has no right to abort.”
Speak for Britain– in the US, we have one too many. Bobby Jindal (nee Piyush) campaigned on no abortion under any circumstance. Most of the progress that has been made in terms of sexual reproductive choices, birth control access and proliferation, etc has been overturned by our administration. Scarily, there are many of these wankers in centers of decision-making and power.
Sorry, but nobody here defended the anti-abortionist view. What is at stake is a pro-choice view that can reach consensus among most people, instead of a radical pro-choice narrative that alienates a good number of people.
Race is not a part of it: culture, community and family values are. You will find some white cultures that adhere to similar patriarchal values, and some brown cultures that are more liberal. Since you brought up this context, I find an inconsistency here: you have been vocal in PP against Asian abortions when it comes to selecting the sex. So, when it comes to Asian women, do they have to come out with a good justification for not wanting a baby, but for Western women is enough – as you stated – to just not wanting it?
Sunny:
As Ravi says, none of us want to ban abortion. We just want you to recognise that if people believe that there is life in the womb, you should not just dismiss that view as ‘anti-choice’ or ‘telling women what to do’. A good comparsion would be with homosexual acts, which were decriminalised around the same time. Homosexual sex is fine because it involves two consenting adults, and hurts no-one. Abortion is problematic because if you believe that the foetus is alive then you will probably want to protect it.
Personally, I recognise that plenty of women have abortions even when it is illegal, so there is no point in banning it. Nor do I see the logic in forcing a woman to stay pregnant if she does not want to, because then the child will grow up in a loveless house.
The debate over twenty four or twenty weeks is largely irrelevent, as only 1.84% of abortions take place in this window anyway. As Ravi says, the focus should be on ensuring that women can have abortions very early on.
When does something become alive?
Douglas:
Well, we have to find some things to disagree about, otherwise what would we do all day? Abortion can never be clear-cut, because it depends on what status you assign to what is in the womb. If you think that it is not living, then aborting it is fine. If you think that he/she is alive, then the debate becomes whether the mother’s right to choose trumps the child’s right to life.
Ravi:
Excellent point. After all, the chief minister of Punjab called it “murder”.
Many thanks, Douglas.
i think i might be one of these “south park conservative” people – albeit it sounds fairly close to the 80s term “republican party reptile” coined by p.j. o’rourke. is there a “progressive” equivalent? someone who thinks of themselves as progressive but detests say, the likes of madeleine bunting. perhaps “south park liberal”?
incidentally, i’m neither “pro-life” nor “pro-choice”. i’m “pro-mother”.
b’shalom
bananabrain
oh, and “pro-father”. and “pro-family” and “pro-baby”.
b’shalom
bananabrain
and i forgot “pro-population reduction”. otherwise the planet will no longer be able to support us.
b’shalom
bananabrain
ha ha @ pro-population reduction. Amen to that.
Ravi you say: What is at stake is a pro-choice view that can reach consensus among most people, instead of a radical pro-choice narrative that alienates a good number of people.
What’s the difference as you see it?
El Cid @ 34,
I am well aware of the stories that you pointed to at 25.
On the specific point of viability prior to 24 weeks, I am particularily exercised by an article from the Observer Magazine, that, frustratingly, I cannot find on line. The article, in brief, was to do with a ward in a London hospital with an enviable record for dealing with premature babies. They undertook a survey of the outcomes of their achievements – their achievements are up there as superhuman – and, with one exception, the prognosis for a child born below 24 weeks was frankly abysmal. Whereas their success rate with premature babies at 24 weeks and beyond was remarkably good.
It is that sort of general reality that exercises me, not the miracles. The miracles could be put down to errors in conception dates, or they could be the exception to the rule, I do not know.
El Cid,
I, too, have three kids – although they’d all like to pretend they are all grown up now
You said this:
Yup, that is real.
and i forgot “pro-population reduction”. otherwise the planet will no longer be able to support us.
Likewise myself. We have to operate on policies that over the long term reduce the human population on Earth to only a couple of billion or so.
I’m adding my tuppence late I know. Just to respond to the question of the rights of the foetus – at least one of the main human rights documents to my knowledge includes the unborn child (sorry, no time to look up which one, but I have read this and was surprised, which is why I remember it), so you do have a conflict of the right of the unborn human and the right of the woman. There is no qualifier, i.e. the question remains if the right of the foetus is equal to that of the woman or not. The pro-life/pro-choice debate wouldn’t be so heated if it wasn’t so darn difficult.
And there is also the issue of abortion rates being so very high in spite of sex education and the very liberal access to abortion in the UK – this should be worrying for everyone, no matter their stance. I am very pro-choice, but would really like to see a reduction in abortions rates. And in spite of the low levels of abortions from 14-24 weeks I feel it’s important to try our best to avoid such late abortions.
but how is this to be achieved? it seems to me with my cynical hat on that this is in direct contradiction to human rights, specifically:
a) the right to have as many children as you want
b) the putative “right to life” of the child if you believe in that
there are also numerous practical considerations including:
a) religious objections to various forms of contraception
b) actual ethnic biodiversity. for example, the jewish population is actually falling rather than being self-sustaining, so it’s hard to see how a case for more contraception would be made
in a lot of ways it also implies that a lot of medical research would be better off not happening, so people continue to die earlier, of disease or of poverty, or various other things which one might argue are natural mechanisms for preventing overpopulation.
what, realistically, ought we to do? and, yes, you can all scream at the pope if you like but it isn’t actually going to help.
b’shalom
bananabrain
cartside, I agree the level of abortions is high, but sex education isn’t as great as it could be!
Rumbold: As Ravi says, the focus should be on ensuring that women can have abortions very early on
um, that’s what I’ve always argued! If you guys are pro-choice, then its a matter of how many weeks. Then its a question of why settle on the particular date.
I am arguing for extending abortion rights so that women have access earlier on in their cycle. What are you guys actually disagreeing with?
Kittyhawk – good post!
El Cid – For a start you are mixing up the indirect with the direct.
Which is the indirect and which the direct? And why? Also… if someone else is having an abortion, how does it affect you?