Very much agree with your take on this, Mick, and with Joanne's analysis, but whether any of the larger parties will actual set out a policy in support of the pro-choice position remains to be seen.

Hey, uh, thanks for the mention. *blush*

I await the bitchfest.

"there is a conspicuous and almost entirely unanimous consensus amongst all of Northern Ireland's political parties"

Are most parties actually pro-choice or am I misunderstanding you?

"Are most parties actually pro-choice"?

Just the opposite, maca.

I believe the only (sort of) openly pro-choice parties are the Greens and the Alliance. Though I'm sure other parties have at least a few pro-choice (or at least not totally against abortion) members, but clearly not enough to make a difference right now.

"Just the opposite, maca."

Yeah I was wondering. I thought i'd just stepped into another dimension or sumthin.

Unfortunately, Joanne, "a few pro-choice members" do not a party policy make.

There remains a distinct lack of a public debate.. The court case was necessary simply to force the Department of Health to clarify the legal position.

Your article is a rare example of someone prepared to raise the issue.

SEA stood on a pro-choice ticket.

Let's not forget Eamon!

SEA Foyle Election Manifesto

We will campaign for the rights of women, including the Right to Choose. We want to galvanise opposition to sexism, sectarianism, racism, homophobia, and discrimination against people with disabilities or on grounds of age. When we use the word "equality" we won't just mean Catholics and Protestants having equal shares of what the current system can offer.

(More detail in the article )

It all begs the question as to where this political conservatism springs from? And what is blocking a wider discussion on this undoubtedly hihgly controversial subject?

Religion Mick. Although People in NI's devotion is waning there is a huge moral inertia that has to be overcome.

Also, I think NI attitudes towards women in general still have a long way to go. I mean, women themselves are at the front of the anti-abortion movement, so if even women aren't supporting other women's choices, why should we expect men to? Of course religion is a part (and probably the base) of it, but it's way, way more than that now and it will take a long time to change.

That's a fair point, Davros, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Northern Irish society has been fixated, or forced to fixate, on one issue for the last 30 years - to the detriment of every other issue.

There's also the problem of the increasingly vocal, and increasingly well funded, anti-choice lobby who, as well as trying to put pressure on public representatives, are now importing intimidatory tactics from similar groups in the US - as Joanne points out in her article.

Joanne - Part of the problem is that gender stereotypes through mythology adapted and adopted for political and religious convenience have
placed women into a hugely disadvantageous position.

14

Oh, I should mention I've been talking with someone who's been involved with the Derry-based Alliance For Choice for a long time. There's a possibility of a Belfast group being set up that would focus much more on grassroots pro-choice activism (since the FPA has fairly limited resources to do so and is focused much more on the legal side of things and providing information for women). If anyone is interested on being informed/involved with this if/when it happens, drop me an email at joanne@journalesque.co.uk. Thanks!

"Part of the problem is that gender stereotypes through mythology adapted and adopted for political and religious convenience have
placed women into a hugely disadvantageous position."




Put down The Da Vinci Code and step away from the computer...




(Only joking. You're right of course, though I'm not entirely comfortable with allowing religion to take all of the blame - it is people who've chosen to allow things to continue as they are and it is people who have to decide to change it.)

Ack, sorry about those huge gaps - looked OK on preview.

People keep talking about this da vinci code.

The religion was an add-on to some extent. Politics and religion are difficult to seperate. I'm listening to a fascinating discussion ( Plug here for Community dialogue) between Jeffry Donaldson and Brian Lennon S.J.

The Mythology is interesting. Ireland at various times has been a fatherland and a motherland. Even the feminine role model assigned to Ireland has varied - Hag, whore , ravaged maiden. All negative.

BTW - The discussion is about an hour long.
From Jan 2003.

Finally an issue on which i can agree whole heartily with Dr Paisley.

Abortion is murder.

Is that an absolute Patrick ? No exceptions? Even the Morning after pill is murder ?

I suppose an issue as difficult as this will always leave an absolute position as seeming heartless, but I do have a problem with the morning after pill due to what it represents.

That said, I don't slavishly follow any churches line on morality and I support the use of artificial contraception. I simply can't bring mysself to support those who would destroy a tiny life rather than put up with nine months of discomfort before offering their child for adoption so it could be cared for by people desperate to have a child.

It's an impossible issue really. I tend to draw the line after the "morning after pill" but one can argue a "black and white" type case i.e. it's either right or wrong, no exceptions.

Thanks Patrick. What I'm getting at is where we draw the line. I too am uneasy at the idea of abortion as a form of late contraception, but would you oppose abortion for medical reasons ? Such as where it puts the life of the mother at risk ?

Davros,
As far as I know, the position of people like Ian Paisley is that abortion is only to be used if the life of the mother is in danger.

Had a quick search of the Assembly website and there was a debate on the issue.

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports/000620.htm

Will, we discussed that abortion debate in the Assembly a while back. I'm interested to hear what Patrick says as I thought the SF Party line was to support abortion in certain circumstances.

I don't think thats a fair reflection of SF party line, although I would admit that I would be much more anti-abortion than many in the party.

Sinn Féin, to my understanding, broadly oppose abortion and believe it to be a bad thing, but in very limited circumstances would allow a woman the right to choose, perhaps in a case of rape.

There are those within the the party who would prefer to be more pro-choice and others with more strict anti- abortion views. It's an extermly difficult issue and one which many of us feel very strongly about. What it is, and should not be, is a political football which many tried to use it is before last November's election as an attempt to batter SF on the pages of the Irish News.

Patrick, I'm not trying to get you to speak out against Party policy here or trying to trap you in any way. I'm interested in what you have to say as an individual, especially as you are of a more modern generation than most of our politicians.
I support the SF policy on abortion.

I know it's a difficult one on Party terms. In some ways I think it's an issue that strikes at the heart of NI attitudes - across the divide.

I think Caoimhghín O´ Caoláin made an excellent point (in italics)

Caoimhghín O´ Caoláin said there was a variety of views on abortion held in the party. However, the party had agreed to oppose the referendum and this stance was backed by all its elected representatives who would be actively campaigning for a No vote.

"The Constitution is not and never has been the place to deal with the complex issue of abortion," Deputy O´ Caoláin said.

Sinn Féin spokesperson Joan O'Connor said the party was not pro-choice or pro-abortion but accepted the need for abortion in certain circumstances.

I think Joan O'Connor is being disingenuous. There is no real way to limit abortion once it is introduced. If you make rape a legitimate ground then those who want abortion will claim to be raped. If you make it the mothers health then pro-abortion doctors will stretch the definition to include the risk of suicide.

Let's be honest. you either have abortion or you don't.

My own view is that it is the killing of another human being and I would have nothing to do with it. But I accept that other people don't see it like that and the question is who gets to decide. It has to be the mother.

Also I don't see what difference it makes if our abortions take place here or in England.

The onlly thing I would like to see is the extension of a "woman's right to choose" to cover the option of marrying the father of the child but I don't see that proposal going down too well in progressive circles.

Henry, you wouldn't sanction abortion even where there is a clear-cut risk to the mother's health ?
Again, I'm not Henry-bashing here, I'm trying to clarify where you stand on this.

Henry94

The onlly thing I would like to see is the extension of a "woman's right to choose" to cover the option of marrying the father of the child but I don't see that proposal going down too well in progressive circles.

The option to marry is already available to all adults in both NI and the ROI (provided they are not already married).

Henry94

My own view is that it is the killing of another human being and I would have nothing to do with it. But I accept that other people don't see it like that and the question is who gets to decide. It has to be the mother.

If you view abortion as the killing of another human being, why are you in favour of allowing people to choose to kill another human being.

Presumably you oppose giving people the right to kill humans that have already been born. So do you favour giving them the right kill humans who haven't been born?

"There is no real way to limit abortion once it is introduced"

I agree here. Very difficult to draw the line and it's open to abuse.

Part of the problem that we have to factor in, while not condoning , is the reality that abortions will always occur - and that the more restrictions we place on legal abortions the more women will feel driven to have illegal abortions.

willowfield

There are two views in society on the humanity of the unborn child. To me it is very obvious which is correct but I don't feel able to impose that view on women who don't agree with it. For me it is a philosophical question but for them it is often a crisis in their lives. Who am I to tell them that my view should prevail over theirs.

This is not a satisfactory answer but it's the best I can do.

"the more restrictions we place on legal abortions the more women will feel driven to have illegal abortions."

But which doesn't necessarily mean we should relax those restrictions. Maybe it needs to be tackled in other ways, better support for unexpectant mothers, change it atitudes towards teenage pregnancy etc etc. Ya think?

Henry94

There are two views in society on the humanity of the unborn child. To me it is very obvious which is correct but I don't feel able to impose that view on women who don't agree with it. For me it is a philosophical question but for them it is often a crisis in their lives. Who am I to tell them that my view should prevail over theirs.

What about the woman who stabs her husband to death because he has been abusive and believes she is justified? Do you feel able to tell them that the view that murder is wrong should prevail over her crisis?

If society as a whole views the unborn child as a human who cannot be killed, then why is it wrong to impose that view in law in the same way as other views about the sanctity of life are imposed in law?

Also, can you explain your point about marriage? In what way do women not have the choice to marry the father?

I agree entirely Maca. I'm not arguing for NO restrictions on abortion. I would oppose that as much as I would oppose legislation outlawing ALL abortions.

We could do with more female input here.

Willow

"What about the woman who stabs her husband to death because he has been abusive and believes she is justified? Do you feel able to tell them that the view that murder is wrong should prevail over her crisis?"

Careful because that's not a million miles away from a group of people who feel they are discriminated against, denied jobs, education or equal rights and decide to take up arms to defend themselves.

...just trying to show that it's not black and white, it's very difficult to define what it right or wrong.
The woman who stabs her husband - it's still murder.

The woman who stabs her husband - it's still murder.

How do you know?! Depends on the circumstances!

I'm talking about a case when it is murder, but the woman believes she did the right thing.

"I'm talking about a case when it is murder, but the woman believes she did the right thing"

Which is what i'm talking about, i'm taking your example. It's still murder even if she did what she (and probably many others) thought was the right thing.
The problem is law is pretty much black and white (imo) but we are not. In our eyes she might be right, in the laws eyes she's a murderer.

Which is what i'm talking about, i'm taking your example. It's still murder even if she did what she (and probably many others) thought was the right thing.

And does Henry have a problem with that? That is the question.

"We could do with more female input here."

What's the point? It's not going to stop all of you trying to decide exactly how much control I should be "allowed" (gee, thanks) over my OWN FUCKING BODY.

Ahem. It is nice to see at least a couple of pro-choicers though. More than I'm used to.

joanne

There is another life involved. That's why there is an issue and a debate. I hope there is more to your position than sloganising.

willowfield

i What about the woman who stabs her husband to death because he has been abusive and believes she is justified? Do you feel able to tell them that the view that murder is wrong should prevail over her crisis?

I think a trial is called for in such a case and the jury would have to decide if there is a reasonable self-defence justification.

ahem.. I think that's a reasonable reaction to the suggestion that a political party would "allow a woman the right to choose" in certain circumstances.

The result of saying "Abortion is murder" is the criminalisation of every woman who, because of the current legal position here, makes the decision to travel to a country that has chosen to address the 'difficult' problem of legislating realistically on this issue.

Difficult or not, that problem should be addressed here. Exactly how resistant, even to an open debate on the topic, some are can be seen by the length of the court battle to force a clarification on guidelines by the Department for Health on this issue.

willowfield

Also, can you explain your point about marriage? In what way do women not have the choice to marry the father?

He might not want to. If we are to put the right to choose above the right to life why not put it above the right to walk away from your responsibilities?

If a woman is to have the right to choose why should we restrict the range of her choice?

peteb

If the issue is to be decided here it would have to be either by a vote of the assembly or by referendum.

I favour referendum because the parties are afraid of the issue.

Henry

A referendum on the issue would be a few years off.. however much it is needed. An open debate is the starting point, but the sloganising of the pro-banning lobby is designed to prevent that debate taking place.

Sorry Joanne. There are other women whose thoughts might be worth consideration- or is it only women who agree with you who should be encouraged or allowed to express an opinion ?

Is this only a woman's issue ? I tend to think it's an issue for all of humanity. But then what would I know , I'm only a man.

Henry94

I think a trial is called for in such a case and the jury would have to decide if there is a reasonable self-defence justification.

No, no, you misunderstood. The question is based on the premise that the killing is murder according to our current law.

If you are happy to permit the killing of unborn humans (murder in your eyes) on the basis that some women think it is justified, would you also be happy to permit the killing of born humans (murder) because some women think it justified?

He might not want to. If we are to put the right to choose above the right to life why not put it above the right to walk away from your responsibilities?

You mean the woman would have the right to compel the father into marriage??!

If a woman is to have the right to choose why should we restrict the range of her choice?

Because marriage is a voluntary union to which both parties must consent!

peteb

You can't have this debate without sloganising from the extremists on both sides. But a referendum would be won and lost in the centre.

Davros

It was a reasonable reaction to the suggestion that a political party would "allow[my emphasis] a woman the right to choose".

Henry

Once the debate begins that's fine.. as long as whatever centre ground there is gets heard. But as I said, the sloganising from the pro-banning lobby is preventing any debate from beginning.

willowfield

You mean the woman would have the right to compel the father into marriage??!

I think it would lead to a dramatic reduction in the abortion rate.

Because marriage is a voluntary union to which both parties must consent!

In an ideal world yes but shotguns have been involved from time to time.

If you are happy to permit the killing of unborn humans (murder in your eyes) on the basis that some women think it is justified

I'm not one bit happy about it but I don't see sending to England as an honest solution.

would you also be happy to permit the killing of born humans (murder) because some women think it justified?

No. But I don't think anyone is calling for it. There is an issue of mitigation but that's all.

I don't agree Pete. The rant was aimed at a perfectly innocent remark about the lack of female participation in the discussion.

Where was the remark about a "party" deciding ? We live in a democracy. Democratic decisons are taken which limit our freedoms - male and female - why should this be different ?

For example - It's against the law for another party to help a person - male OR female - to exercise the ultimate control of their " OWN FUCKING BODY "

When to die.

Frankly that sort of ill-tempered outburst is counter-productive to Joanne converting people to her point of view.

Davros

The comment that Joanne, and I, referenced was made by PS in his 11.09am post -
"Sinn Féin, to my understanding, broadly oppose abortion and believe it to be a bad thing, but in very limited circumstances would allow a woman the right to choose, perhaps in a case of rape."

It's an emotive issue but that is the remark that Joanne was responding to.. even though it may have been better to separate your comment more clearly from that response.

Henry's point comes into play in this... in that, with the political parties frightened of addressing the issue, it is up to individuals to begin the debate and not to adopt party political lines.

"What's the point? It's not going to stop all of you trying to decide exactly how much control I should be "allowed" (gee, thanks) over my OWN FUCKING BODY."

Well we are entitled to a FUCKING opinion. ;)
The issue is not with your body but with what's inside your body. A childs life is the most precious form of human life and we all have a duty to protect it, it should not be just your decision.

Well my input in this argument is that I think it is a huge insult to Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom not to have to same laws as the rest of the UK.

The fact that abortion is still illegal is an embarassment. You can buy the morning after pill over the counter in any chemist, you can armfuls of contraception free at family planning clinics but you can't get abortions...its long overdue.

Its a womans choice what she does with her body, not to sounds like a feminist madwoman but men really have no right to comment on this issue, they will never be in the situation where they might have to have an abortion and therefore do not understand anything about it.

Henry94

I think your proposal for enforced marriages might fall foul of the Human Rights Act!

Regarding my other point, I'm challenging your reasoning behind accepting (albeit reluctantly) the murder of unborn humans while not accepting the murder of born humans.

Your argument for accepting the latter rests on the subjective views of some women (the murderers in your eyes - and forgive the emotive language, I'm being literal) who believe it is OK to murder unborn humans. Logically, then, you should accept the murder of born humans if some women believe it is OK.

Or, turning the reasoning round, if you accept that society is correct to impose its views on murdering born humans (i.e. it is wrong) on to those individuals who might not agree, then why would it not be correct to impose its views on murdering unborn humans on to those individuals who might not agree? (Assuming, of course, that Irish society's view is that killing unborn humans is wrong.)

Pete - 'to allow' has many meanings and in the context in which Patrick was writing , I think it was an over-reaction. He was after all trying to clarify party policy in response to being asked a question. Possibly I shouldn't have asked the question as it was off on a tangent.

Davros

considering PS opening comment I don't think asking for clarification on his position as a party member was off tangent.. but I'd suggest that that opening statement of belief had a detrimental effect on the tone of the thread.

maca

"A childs life is the most precious form of human life and we all have a duty to protect it"

Actually the legal position is that where the woman's life is at risk from the pregnancy it is her life, not the child's, that takes precedence.

Its a womans choice what she does with her body, not to sounds like a feminist madwoman but men really have no right to comment on this issue, they will never be in the situation where they might have to have an abortion and therefore do not understand anything about it.#

As no woman can ever be a father, how can women by the same token disenfranchise men ?

On the one hand men are castigated for NOT taking responsibility, but on the other hand they are to be deprived of any say ?

Davros

Look at it from a womans point of view - I could get up getting pregant tomorrow - the guy can freak out and run away, he was no ties whatsoever but I cannot run away because its my body.

This may sound extreme but I do believe men have no commitment to their children and should therefore be denied rights to them.

example

if I sleep with my b/f tonight and he doesn't use any protection then I am the one whose life is potentially destroyed not his.

willowfield

Your argument for accepting the latter rests on the subjective views of some women (the murderers in your eyes - and forgive the emotive language, I'm being literal) who believe it is OK to murder unborn humans.

It really rests on an acceptence that my view is also subjective and that the question of when life begins is not an open and shut one. I think my view is based on the facts but it could (must) have been influenced by my Catholic upbringing.

So who decides. I think every woman must decide for herself even if I think they are wrong.

Tut Rebecca - that's a step back to the dark ages ... YOU should take responsibility as well for contraception. The days were women were little fluffy bunnies who let men take all the decisions and responsibility are long gone.

The time for a woman, as with a man, to make decisons is surely before conception?

Part of the problem men have is that we are treated as second class citizens when it comes to our own children. There's an assumption that we are ALL heartless and disinterested that's just as offensively sexist as the old days when women weren't allowed property rights etc. There was a well publicised case where a marriage broke up and despite the man being desperate to have his child, the woman had an abortion in order to punish him.
A woman being able to have an abortion against the wishes of a partner with whom she freely agreed to have sexual relations is just as wrong INO as it would be for a man to be able to FORCE a woman to have an abortion against her will.

To me there is an element here that part of the debate is predicated upon the assumption that women aren't able to take responsibility for their own actions.

This equality business should cut both ways.

Henry

"So who decides. I think every woman must decide for herself even if I think they are wrong"

Leaving aside the relevance of whether you or any one else thinks they would be wrong, for that choice to be available the legislation needs to be changed.

One word, Davros - vasectomy.

Irrelevent to the issue pete.

peteb

Leaving aside the relevance of whether you or any one else thinks they would be wrong, for that choice to be available the legislation needs to be changed.

That should be done if a referendum is passed.

No Davros, it's not irrelevant.. it was flippant, though.

Henry

Yes, of course, but since we're only at the beginning of a debate on this issue it makes sense for our personal prefernces for the result of such a referendum to be made clear.

Pete
"Actually the legal position is that where the woman's life is at risk from the pregnancy it is her life, not the child's, that takes precedence."

What about other cases where there is no risk?

Rebecca
"but men really have no right to comment on this issue"
Rubbish!
As a father of a child I have every right to comment on his life, before and after he is born.

"I do believe men have no commitment to their children..."

Rubbish!!!
Does a married man not have commitment in your opinion? And can an unmarried man not be as committed?

"I am the one whose life is potentially destroyed not his"

That fact that you think you're life would be "potentially destroyed" is worrying. That's one help of a negative way to look at it.
Not confident you could cope or what?

I would vote a reluctant yes. Unless the pro-choice side annoyed me too much during the debate.

apologies, "one hell of"

Maca

My comment, as you know, was in response to your claim that

"A childs life is the most precious form of human life and we all have a duty to protect it"

I was pointing out that that statement is not an accurate representation of even the current restrictive legal position.

The 'other cases' are what the current debate is about.

Henry

A definite 'yes' for me.. in case that was unclear in any way. (I think the pro-banning lobby are much more likely to annoy.)

Getchya Pete.
Fair point. Though I do think a childs life is the most precious...

You are, of course, entitled to that opinion, maca.

The debate has raised an important point.

Should abortion legislation only be voted on by women ?

Should Gay legislation only be voted on by gays ?

Should ethnic minority legislation only be voted on by members of the ethnic minorities ?

Davros

Should sectarian legislation only be voted on by unionists?

That's funny Henry :)

Joanne has complained biterly about this thread on her weblog. In the past, I've complained about how Joanne presents her arguments. My position on abortion is...

Of course, my position is irrelevant, as I'm male. As both female commentators have so eloquently put it - the issue has nothing to do with men. Their bodies, their rules. So listen carefully to the extremely, rabidly, militantly and unapologetically pro-choice female, who argues by listing expletives and throwing her toys out of the pram the second the argument doesn't go to her liking. What she says is the de facto statement on matters of the uterus. We are but poor Y chromosome bystanders. Disagree, and you're a brainwashed zealot, don't ask questions, don't vary from the party line.
Is it any wonder the pro-life campaign has it so easy?

It's irony here is, in one single thread, among all the usually pro and anti background noise that accompanies every single debate on slugger, that the most damage done to the argument was the silly histrionics of one girl.

If it's an argument only for women (and where are the women here anyway?), then please get a better candidate. You may only allow women's opinion in the debate, but in the end it'll be both women and men who make the decision.

Joanne says about this debate And it was all going so well until the 'lifers decided to join in...about what I expected really.

Are we to take it that the debate should be confined not just to women but to pro-choice women. It could hardly be described as a debate then.

According to herself this thread is a "train wreck", we are "trolling" and this site is "fucked". We are "ridiculous, obnoxious and hateful people" and "control[ing] the tone of almost every single discussion"

She obviously does not seem to understand some basic facts; abortion is a very important subject and like any subject we are all entitled to express our opinions. We DO NOT have to agree with what she says and we can in fact make up own own minds on the matter. If she is unable to deal with challenmges to her opinions then she simply shouldn't post anything on such topics.

challenmges = challenges in english

maca

quite simply, no I don't think I could cope with a child at this point in my life, I can barely keep myself organised! I don't think its fair to force someone to give up all the things she is doing because she had an accident with contraception one day.

You can tell me thats its possible to have a child and still do all the stuff I want to do but the simple fact is that its not. If I were to get pregnant this week, I might as well kiss goodbye to my degree as well as the next 20 years of my life to bring up the child. Its not fair to force that on someone.

Rebecca
"quite simply, no I don't think I could cope with a child at this point in my life,"

Give yourself more credit. If you had to manage you would.

"I don't think its fair to force someone to give up all the things she is doing because she had an accident with contraception one day."

It's a fact of life. Accidents happen and you should deal with them. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's not always right to take the easy way out.
If I have an accident with the car and kill someone I would be forced to deal with it. Ok, a bad analogy but I hope you get the point. We take a chance we deal with the consequences.

"You can tell me thats its possible to have a child and still do all the stuff I want to do but the simple fact is that its not."

A 21 yr old friend of mine has 2 kids, 4 & 1, is essentially a single mother, never finished school but now started back to school last september.

Another friend in Ireland finished her degree in Athlone while looking after her 4 year old.

It can be done. It takes guts and hard work but it can be done.

"Its not fair to force that on someone."

As I said, it's harsh but accidents happen and we must deal with them.
Personally I think abortion is cheating a child out of potentially a great life and a mother out of one of the best things a human can do in life.
And as I said there are other options, abstinence [;)] adoption, fostering, family help...

Though that's just my own opinion...

maca

I have a huge amount of respect for women who could do that, I'm just saying I don't think I could and I don't want to put myself in the situation that I would have to.

It another major inequality between men and women, women are expected to be superwomen type amazing creatures while men get away with anything.

Typical society

Rebecca
"I have a huge amount of respect for women who could do that, I'm just saying I don't think I could and I don't want to put myself in the situation that I would have to."

As I said give yourself more credit.
I'm sure you'll do your best to avoid ever ending up in such a situation but should the worse happen to you (rape for example) I hope you'll make the "right" decision. It's not an easy one.

"It another major inequality between men and women, women are expected to be superwomen type amazing creatures while men get away with anything."

Many women are superwomen, and fair fucks to them, they're better able to cope that I would be.
But I think you are too unfair on men. Just my own op..

It another major inequality between men and women, women are expected to be superwomen type amazing creatures while men get away with anything.

I would be interested if you would address the point I raised about the apparent double standards Rebecca.
example

if I sleep with my b/f tonight and he doesn't use any protection then I am the one whose life is potentially destroyed not his.

You want to have a sex life - fair enough.
So Why is the onus on contraception 100% on your partner ?

If women want to be consistent, They should be controlling their own bodies BEFORE conception.

I know feminists who would rip you to shreds for that one Rebecca and who could, with some justification, say that you are letting the side down - if you aren't fit to make decisons about protecting yourself then you aren't fit to decide about having an abortion.

Reading that again it came out too like an attack on you personally Rebecca - apologies and much grovelling. Sorry.

Joanne,
"What's the point? It's not going to stop all of you trying to decide exactly how much control I should be "allowed" (gee, thanks) over my OWN FUCKING BODY."

I think we have to differentiate here between pro-choice and abortion on demand.

Your comment would lead me to think you are in the abortion on demand camp. The problem with this is that as you say it's your body and you make the decision.

I say problem because you seem to believe a foetus has no rights whatsoever as long as it is inside a woman's body. The logical progression of your arguement is that life begins at birth.

Would you countenance abortions right up until birth? Do you not find the idea of an abortion after 36 weeks, for example, as barbarism rather as a human right to do with your own body as you will?

George

There's no need to invent a position for another poster for you to argue with.

Let's keep it to the pro-choice argument.

Explain what you mean peteb,
there are disagreements between those in the pro-choice movement between those who believe in abortion on demand and those who wish to limit the conditions under which abortions can take place just as there are disagreements between those in the pro-life lobby as to whether life begins with conception or when the fertilized egg implants itself in the womb.

What part of my post didn't you understand, George?

What position am I inventing peteb?

I wasn't going to jump into this debate because I'm not from Northern Ireland, but it seems that there's a whole other viewpoint here that's not being put forward and I think it may be a better argument for abortion than Joanne’s point of view.

I'm pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. In fact, my arguments for pro-choice legislation are probably more in line with Henry94 than Joanne. Yet I've campaigned many times for a women's right to choose because I feel very strongly that our society needs that right.

Currently when a woman chooses to become a single mother, she is accepting challenges that other women do not have to face. Childcare is tougher, getting an education is harder, and even meeting partners is difficult (my husband admits that if I’d had a child when we met, he would have been far less interested in a relationship). I doubt that I would have been able to finish my PhD if I’d been a parent, and I know that the parents that do complete PhDs have a much tougher time of it than I did. That doesn’t mean that I would have had an abortion if I’d become pregnant, but it means that it would have been a tough personal decision to accept these challenges and bring up a child in a low-income family. Yes, being a single mother is possible, but it’s not easy.

It seems that before we can make a decision for another person that forces them to follow a difficult path, we should be looking at ways to make that path less difficult. We should be trying to reduce the number of women who choose to have abortions by providing free and high quality childcare so that women can still pursue all their education goals. We should be working to change social stigmas that persist in assuming single mothers are bad mothers or immoral. We should be providing financial and emotional support. We should be educating our youth and providing birth control to prevent pregnancies. Maybe if we did this less women would feel a need to have an abortion, and then we’d be helping the mother and the child. Right now attitudes seem to be missing the point, thinking only of the existence of the future child, rather than the welfare of the family.

I believe that we need the right to abortion in our society because we do not take care of our single mothers and their children. Until we change our attitudes and accept that these things happen and we should support all members of our community, we are being judgemental and, I believe, unchristian, in denying women the right to choose. For all those who’ve said here that a child’s right to life is the most important thing, I’d ask, “what have you personally done to improve the life of a child born to a single mother or young family?” I think that’s even more important. Rather than banning abortion, I think the moral thing to do is to permit it, but work to make society a place where it’s not necessary.

(I want to clarify one point on which I do disagree with Henry94, I do not agree that a foetus is a child while in the womb in the first four months of pregnancy. Up until 20 weeks, the foetus cannot live outside the womb. It has the potential to be a person, and that is very valuable, but it in itself should not be accorded the rights of a human being. I know this is the most contentious issue surrounding abortion, but I do believe that until it can survive on it's own, it is part of the mother and thus abortion is not murder but must be categorized in a different way).

Well peteb,
any chance of an explanation?

Trish,
I believe the UK has reduced (or is in the process of) the limit on abortion from 28 weeks to 24 weeks so would you advocate reducing it by a further four weeks?

Also, do you believe abortion on grounds of foetal abnormality should be considered even after 20 weeks? Or do you feel that is too close to eugenics?

George

allow me to slightly rephrase my comment in order to make the point clearer - There's no need to ascribe a position to another poster for you to argue with.

Why so cryptic? What position did I ascribe? Could you be a bit more specific. I don't know what you are going on about.

George, I think this is what peteb means by off topic - discussing the exact point at which life begins. We should probably stay on the topic of abortion, assuming it's early in the pregnancy.

(And personally I'm really unsure of where the limit should be for abortions. That requires medical knowledge of when a foetus is viable outside the womb and the potential difficulties of premature babies, things I'm not qualified to comment on. As for cases of fetal abnormality, again, I just don't know what would be the right decision, and prefer to send prayers that the people who have to make such unbelievably tough decisions can make the right choice, whatever that may be.)

Trish,
I think it's important to remind Joanne that we have moved on from the "Free abortion on demand" as a central tenet of women's liberation, namely a woman's need to control her own fertility if she is to participate in society on equal terms with men.

For me the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" are no longer the parameters of this arguement just as it is no longer left versus right or feminist versus anti-feminist.

Virtually everyone now accepts that there are circumstances when abortion may be legitimate but there there are fewer and fewer voices like Joanne's arguing that it is a woman's absolute right to choose abortion.

I cite abortion on grounds of abnormality and the belief of many, myself included, that a line must be drawn at a particular gestational limit.

As you have pointed out, medical advances have now made it possible to save infants at gestations when foetuses can be legally aborted.

I don't think Peteb meant I was off topic although I don't know what he meant.

George

What I meant, to spell it out, was that given the way this thread has developed, the ascribing a view to Joanne that an abortion should be available up to the point of birth was neither logical nor helpful.

The current position is that the legal restrictions here are much stricter than the circumstances you describe and it is in respect to those restrictions that a woman's right to choose is being denied.

Let's keep in mind that the Department of Health fought a 3 year court battle to prevent a clarification of the legal position in the form of guidelines to doctors.. not a change to that legal position.

George, while I'd love to think that it's true that "virtually everyone" accepts the need for abortion in some circumstances, that doesn't seem to be the case earlier in this thread. So perhaps discussing details of when abortion is acceptable is premature when so many seem to believe it's not.

I think George raised an important point in this debate and would be interested in Joanne's reply.

Trish also made important points, 100%b agree with her comments about single parents getting a raw deal , but I don't see how we can legislate allowing for different criteria depending on status of the mother in respect of being in a stable relationship.

There are so many different aspects of this debate.
I accept, as George put is , that here are circumstances when abortion may be legitimate
and that there needs to be full and open discussion as to what circumstances validate abortion.

I don't accept that abortion on demand can be justified as a whole by quoting specific examples when abortion would be accepted by a majority in a democracy as a legitimate alternative any more than quoting specifics where I myself feel that abortion is wrong - eg as a back-up for sloppy contraceptive practices or for convenience - would
prove that all abortion is wrong.

In the past few years we have been lucky in that we have developed very effective methods of birth control. They are not 100% and because of that people need to take responsibility for their own actions.They have to accept that IF they choose to have sexual relations there may be, as a consequence, a pregnancy.

There seems to be a feeling that there are "rights" issues. Rights are decided by society and
it's up to society to decide if a woman who has had consensual sexual relationship has a right to
demand an abortion for reasons of convenience.
The right to abortion for medical reasons exists.

Personally I don't think abortion should be available as a safety-net for poor judgement.

There is one last issue. If it was decided that abortion at the mother-to-be's discretion is an inalienable right, then how could we continue to employ medical staff who for religious or ethical reasons, feel unable to provide such a facility?
Denial of rights is against the law.

"I wasn't going to jump into this debate because I'm not from Northern Ireland"

Not all of us are from the North anyway and it's a world issue.

You make some very good reasoned points overall but wrt the 3rd paragraph of your 05:36 you seem to be saying that because many of these mechanisms are not in place we should allow abortion until they are in place. Did I read that right?
But that to me doesn't make sense. Rather than allow abortion i'd work harder to put these mechanisms in place.

"we are being judgemental and, I believe, unchristian, in denying women the right to choose"

Not all of us are christaian. And it can be argues that allowing abortion is unchristian itself. After all we are allowing someone the right to kill, to put it bluntly.

Rebecca Black

quite simply, no I don't think I could cope with a child at this point in my life, I can barely keep myself organised! I don't think its fair to force someone to give up all the things she is doing because she had an accident with contraception one day.

Would you consider adoption as an option?

maca,
I included the work "unchristian" because I hear religion used so often as a justification for banning abortion entirely. I also (see my 5:48 post) state that I do not belive that abortion is murder, hence I do not agree with your statement that abortion is "allowing someone the right to kill".

And no, I don't think that just working harder to put social services in place means that we can have a ban on abortion. It will take many years to create a society that doesn't judge single mothers and helps them acheive their goals. What we can do is legalize abortion and then work to make sure that less people need to make that choice. I do believe the choice should be there.

"Personally I don't think abortion should be available as a safety-net for poor judgement."

This sounds exactly like what I mean when I talk about society's views on single mothers. Teenage girls are dumb. I was one once. I made decisions that I regret now, but fortunately didn't have the longterm consequences that an unwanted pregnancy can bring. Your statement here implies that poor judgement on this issue means a woman should have to bear a child, that she's somehow at fault, or less of a moral person than someone like me who didn't get knocked up.

One in four women are raped during their university education. Are 25% of us loose woman that deserve to lose all these options? That 25% likely includes your sisters, your daughters, your mothers. Are they guilty of such poor judgement?
Most of those women do not report the rape, knowing that reporting a rape has horrible consequences on their lives. They wouldn't therefore qualify for an abortion if rape provided an exemption. Do they count? What about their rights to education, to respect, to not being judged themselves?

The laws around abortion are always going to be complicated. I'm pleased that this is turning into a good discussion though and I think that raising awareness is always positive.

This sounds exactly like what I mean when I talk about society's views on single mothers. Teenage girls are dumb. I was one once. I made decisions that I regret now, but fortunately didn't have the longterm consequences that an unwanted pregnancy can bring. Your statement here implies that poor judgement on this issue means a woman should have to bear a child, that she's somehow at fault, or less of a moral person than someone like me who didn't get knocked up.

Not in the least. Are you saying that there should be an IQ and age test to justify abortion provision?

One in four women are raped during their university education. Are 25% of us loose woman that deserve to lose all these options? That 25% likely includes your sisters, your daughters, your mothers. Are they guilty of such poor judgement?

"They have to accept that IF they choose to have sexual relations there may be, as a consequence, a pregnancy."

Please refrain from playing the rape card in order to try to stifle legitimate concerns.

Peteb,
I don't believe I ascribed such a view to Joanne's position and I'm sure Joanne can answer for herself. I also don't see where you have been given the right you have the absolute authority to know whether a comment is helpful to a debate or not.

I said the problem I see with the position that a foetus has no rights as long as it is inside a woman's body ("No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body) is that the logical progression of such an arguement is that life begins at birth.

I would like to hear Joanne's views on what limits she would put on a woman's control of her body, if any, when it comes to abortion.

I ask this in specific relation to abortions due to abnormality and late abortions. In other words, does Joanne have a bottom line and if so where is it?

George

That's not a logical progression.. it's reductio ad absurdum. There is no logic in leaping to a position whereby "a foetus has no rights".

As I pointed out, given the tone of the earlier posts on this thread I think it would be better for the debate if we were all more careful about the wording of our comments.

Asking whether there is a bottom line, for example, is a less inflamatory way to ask the same question.

There is, though, still the fundamental position that some posters are ignoring.. the questioning seems more concerned with what limits the pro-choice advocates would be satisfied with without acknowledging the current reality of the situation.. for example, the fact that 7000 Irish women go to Britain for an abortion each year.. (given time I'd hunt down the relevant figures for Northern Ireland too).

As I pointed out earlier, there has just been a 3 year court battle by the Department fo Health to prevent the publication of guidelines for doctors on when an abortion under the current restrictive legislation is allowed.

That's some serious resistance to any kind of discussion on the subject.

I certainly can answer for myself, but I really don't feel it would make any difference at this point. According to some people here, I have ruined the entire thread and the point of my article by having one minor (and it was minor compared to many of the statements in this thread) outburst that was in response to what I found to be massively offensive attitudes with regards to birth control/the morning-after pill and abortion in the case of rape. I was shocked and pretty horrified by the idea that some people here truly believe that a the life of a foetus is either equal to, or more important than, the life of a woman. Perhaps my one comment would have been better left unsaid, but I think I was perfectly reasonable in all previous comments and do not deserve to be judged and have both my article and all of my beliefs dismissed on the basis of one comment. Though I expect I made it easy for you to do that, and conveniently at the point where you were doing a perfectly good job of hanging yourselves on your own warped opinions. If I could kick myself for that, I would.

It would take forever to go through this thread and respond to everything I would like to, and unfortunately I have neither the time or the energy to do that. And despite what a few of the pro-lifers here have said, I really don't believe that you care what I think - or in fact what any women thinks. When a few females here have offered their opinions, you have simply dismissed them and twisted their words, so why bother? I think I made my position and feelings quite clear in my article and many, many times on my blog. I don't read Slugger on a regular basis (though I both like and respect Mick and Pete), and I don't intend to start now, but I felt I should say something just because it seems expected. Overall, I'm pretty disappointed by this thread and if I'd known it would get this kind of response, I'm not sure I'd have written the article at all. In fact, if I'm entirely honest, I don't even know if I want to be involved with pro-choice activism at all anymore. It is depressing and demoralising how much hate mail I have had in the last couple of days and I really don't know if I can be as much a part of this as I would like to be and still stay sane.

I will always be pro-choice, but I think I am done with the belief that I can change anything here. I'm sad about that, but there ya go. You win.

That's really all I have to say. If anyone has any specific questions or whatever, feel free to email me, but please stop with the spamming and trolling - you're not going to get a response.

Davros

"Please refrain from playing the rape card in order to try to stifle legitimate concerns."

Since 25% of women are raped during their university experience, I think this is a legitimate concern, rather than a unique circumstance. Sure, some pregancies are the result of irresponsible behaviour, but many aren't. We can't simply separate things into nicely defined categories. Sometimes we make bad decisions, sometimes others make bad decisions that affect us, sometimes it's a combination of the two. We can't separate these, so we need to come up with viewpoints on abortion that accept that there may be many different reasons for wanting to end a pregnancy, and many different reasons why conception happened in the first place.

Trish - please play fair in this debate.

I SPECIFICALLY excluded rape victims from my post.
Please don't use my comments about women who had consensual sex OUT OF CONTEXT.

Incidentally, where did you get the 25% figure ?

Joanne,
This is a discussion forum, where people discuss. The whole point is to tear apart issues, challenge people on their views and try to get to the root of some of these problems. You seem to expect people to listen to you and agree with what you have to say. Well wake up because we don't all agree and the fact that we may argue against your point does not mean that we are dismissing your point of view and certainly not your beliefs.

"but please stop with the spamming and trolling - you're not going to get a response"

The only person who "trolls" on Slugger has yet to take part in this discussion. Everyone else is just offering their opinions. Therefore your use of this term here is meant to be offensive.

If you are receiving spam mail then tell the spammers to stop, it's not an issue for Slugger.

"Incidentally, where did you get the 25% figure?"

You got in ahead of me Davros.

Joanne,
I've been prayed over and had holy water thrown at me at demonstrations against Youth Defence and the like.

However, standing alongside me were people who basically disagree with abortion but agree with the fundamental right of a woman to choose.

Speaking from an Irish perspective, the movement is a much broader church now than it was say in 1983 because people have discussed the issue (ad nauseum sometimes).

You would be surprised how many rational debates people have nowadays on this issue where people now say where they draw the line, how they feel on the eugenics issue, on late terminations etc.

It is not a black and white, pro choice pro-life issue.

Maca,

Since my article was posted here, I have been receiving quite extreme hate mail and anti-abortion propaganda to my email account and (to a lesser extent) as comments on my blog. As my URL/email address were never posted on the article, I can only assume that the mail is coming from people who either post or lurk here.

And I don't know about you, but in my experience "telling a spammer to stop" has never actually made them stop. Quite the opposite, I find.

I also don't believe I mentioned anywhere that I expected people to not discuss my article or disagree with my beliefs. In fact, in my first comment on this post I said:

I await the bitchfest.

I never expected anyone to agree with me. I'm too used to people never agreeing with me. However, I don't feel that the current tone of the thread is conducive to debate or discussion and I certainly don't see any roots being found.

Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems,
covering the period 1998 - 2000

Rape total per 100,000
Ctry 1998 1999 2000 1998 1999 2000

Ireland 292 218 7.87 5.81
Eng/les 7,636 8,409 8,593 14.56 15.96 16.23

Joanne

"Since my article was posted here, I have been receiving quite extreme hate mail and anti-abortion propaganda to my email account"

Sorry to hear that.

"and (to a lesser extent) as comments on my blog."

I didn't see hate mail or propanganga when I visited your site. You have a comment facility on your site so of course can expect comments and of course can expect that people will not agree with you on such a topic.

"As my URL/email address were never posted on the article, I can only assume that the mail is coming from people who either post or lurk here."

A number of sites apart from Slugger link to your blog. Your blog has an email address with an invitation for people to email you.

"I also don't believe I mentioned anywhere that I expected people to not discuss my article......."

You're earlier posts give a different impression.

"I don't feel that the current tone of the thread is conducive to debate or discussion and I certainly don't see any roots being found."

Well i've found it interesting and informative anyway.

Joanne

I think I was perfectly reasonable in all previous comments and do not deserve to be judged and have both my article and all of my beliefs dismissed on the basis of one comment.

I think we can all accept that. Most of us have made posts in the heat of the moment that, on reflection we would have changed the tone of. I know I have.

Maca: I tend to delete the comments that involve calling me a murderer and comparing me to Hitler. I don't like deleting any comments, but I don't see why I should tolerate that kind of thing in my own personal, paid-for space. Commenters who insult me to a reasonably acceptable level (such as yourself) I tend to just ignore.

Obviously my URL is public and linked to, but my article has only be linked to here. While I do already get the occasional nasty email, it's nothing close to what I've gotten since the article has been posted here. So I'm pretty sure that's where it's coming from. Not that I mind the article having been posted, and perhaps I ought to have expected such a response, but I didn't. Guess I asked for it really.

I don't see where any of my earlier posts suggested that anyone ought to agree with me. Even in my little hissyfit I never mentioned anything of that nature.

Henry94: Thank you.

"perhaps I ought to have expected such a response, but I didn't"

On just a subject as abortion expect a response and expect it to be extreme ;)

I'm sorry to see my comments have been seen as offensive, they weren't entended to be so.

Perhaps the word 'allow' wasn't the exact word I should have used, however I was merely trying to articulate the difference between my own position and my party's and explain what way they might treat this issue were they to be in government, in response to a question put to me.

Davros and Maca, the rape statistic comes from the United States and refers to women coerced to have sexual intercourse against their will, not to the number of reported rapes. More figures are given at the University of California Santa Cruz site. They state that in the United States 77% of women know their rapists and confirm that:

" In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw 1994)

In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 42% of rape victims told no-one and only 5% reported it to the police. (Warshaw 1994)

In a survey of college males who committed rape, 84% said what they did was definitely not rape. (Warshaw, Robin 1994 "I Never Called It Rape")"

I doubt that Northern Ireland is considerably better.

My point is simply that you cannot judge that the majority of women with unwanted pregancies made bad or immoral decisions and should have to live with the consequences. If you believe abortion is wrong I can accept that. But I feel I have to speak out when you assume these women somehow deserve their fate and can be judged as has been done here by some of the posters. I am disappointed that this attitude of disrespect for the mother has been expressed.

I am not able to participate further in this thread because I'm at a conference for work right now but I appreciate everyone listening to my point of view and hope that it'll at least make a couple people think.

I hope you will return trish.
I don't accept your figures for the UK.
I would respectfully suggest that some of those women who felt they had been coerced were in fact displacing from "I wish I hadn't slept with him" - which is a different kettle of fish entirely.

My point is simply that you cannot judge that the majority of women with unwanted pregancies made bad or immoral decisions and should have to live with the consequences.

WOW! Ignore what people say and reply to what you HOPED they would say!

Trish
"deserve their fate" ??
I don't think anyone even implied that, disappointing that you would come up with that conclusion.

Also
"In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape."

You first said 25% were raped. Either way it's a shockig figure if true but it is important not to leave out "or attempted rape". U have to be accurate in a case such as this.

Maca- it's 'Dworkin-lite'

Her published writings abound with anti-male slurs and attempts to blur the difference between forced and consensual sex. Here are a few of the obligatory quotes: "Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks"; "Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life..."; (Letters from a War Zone, 14); "In seduction, the rapist bothers to buy a bottle of wine" (Ibid, 119); "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman" (Our Blood, 20). At this point, Dworkin's defenders usually claim that such phrases are "taken out of context." One wonders what possible context could justify the assertion that male sexuality is characterized by "intrinsic contempt for all life." But take a look and decide for yourself whether the phrases I have selected are uncharacteristic of the essays from which they are taken.

Dworkin is often identified with the view that all heterosexual sex is rape. Given the phrases quoted above, it is not hard to see why. Nonetheless, she has complained that this characterization is a "slander."

I'm sure you've never been quoted out of context, Davros..

but let's be clear here - you're the only one who's quoting Dworkin..

and that's not the research that Trish referenced.

Many people say that abortions should be carried out for health risks. The exact wording of the English law is 'that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated'. In the UK only 6% of Abortions come into line with that law. 1% is due to rape or incest and the other 93% of Abortions are social abortions, abortions that will not have a serous health risk to the mother.

What's eating you Pete ? You been like a bear with a sore head past few days and I'm tired of your sniping.

The Dworkinesque attitude to heterosexual sexual intercourse is relevent in the context of "What constitutes rape? ".

I'm ALL for equality - and that means women take responsibility for their own actions - sleeping with someone that you regret the next day ? Don't blame him for seducing you or coercing you - take responsibility for your own actions. Rebecca was a case in point - if she gets pregnant it's ALL her boyfriend's fault because HE messed up ?

RAPE is a MONSTROUS crime. So is crying rape about consensual sex.

Davros

I am merely pointing out that when you say "Her published writing abound with anti-male slurs", after "Maca, it's [trish's references] Dworkin-lite", you are actually refering to Dworkin's writings and not the research.

I am sorry if you have a problem with that. But it's been a recurring theme in this thread that extreme views are being quoted in order to undermine a middle ground position.. it's not helpful to any case or to the thread in general.

Pete- "her published writings" is a direct quote.
If you had followed the link you would have realised
that I was showing the extreme to put the "lite" into perspective.

Petab

Agree that extreme positions are distorting the debate.

But few comments are more extreme that the claim that 25% of all women have been raped, and the implicit implication that about 25% of all men are rapists.

They get the figures by re-defining rape as bad sex or as any occasion where you have been pestered for sex.

Ask yourself this have 1 in 4 of your female freinds been raped?

And are 1 in 4 of your mates rapists?

The most dangerous implication of this is that it undermines the seriousness of rape.

DCB

The actual report should have been clarified as including rape or attempted rape, as maca pointed out, (and Davros has already questioned the criteria used)...

But you yourself are distorting those findings if you claim they can be extrapolated across the entire population (the survey explicitly restricts the findings to US colleges) or that the findings imply that 25% of ALL men are rapists - there is no logic in reversing the figures in that way.

I may have unfairly extrapolated, though I think that's the impression that the report is trying to make - 1 in 4 women have been raped.

But having being to uni and basing it on my own experiences I still think that it is total rubbish and the biggest distraction to any sensible debate.

Not only is it rubbish but it demeans rape

I agree to a great extent with DCB, just as I think the idea that "contraception should be the man's job and that abortion should be readily available for when men let women down with contraception" demeans women.