Anyway…

Re: information for women re: abortion – isn’t that what I’ve been arguing? (can hardly remember now – this has been going on for days and I’ve been in and out of consciousness for a lot of it).

My whole person has been yearning for people to understand that the basic mission of Abortion Rights is to make sure that people (MPs) have the latest data on the realities of abortion (or no abortion) for women, and that they understand that the likes of Dorries peddle utter crap. There is no scientific evidence, for example, that babies are surviving at 24 weeks in any greater numbers than they were years ago. The hand of hope photo is rot – compelling, I grant you, but rot. None of this would matter, I guess, except that MPs trot around parliament telling each other that babies survive at 24 weeks, etc, when in fact they don’t. Sticking to the facts would help enormously. That’s what I’ve been saying.

At least – I think that’s what I’ve been saying. I got all caught up calling Lee a halfwit in the middle there – not a bad way to kill the middle of the week, I have to say, but kind of off piste.

Back to work now.

I’ll be back.

Isn’t all information mediated and filtered? It just depends on whether this unfairly biases the outcome or not.

To give an example the BBC is perpetually under attack from all sides for not providing accurate information/not providing full information/not providing correct weightings to the information it provides (and therefore providing no/no helpful conclusions).

I accept that it is a difficult job to find the correct balance, but not to try leaves you open to attack from your opponents. If the best you can do is to not be unfair, then this is far better than trying and failing to be fair.

As for the tweed/dyed hair reference, I picture you as a Vivienne Westwood figure of incongruity, which I kinda like (the anarchist perversely announced her support for the Conservatives, now that’s hilariously subversive!). If it’s done well the effect can be far more funky, you just gotta keep the twinkle in your eye while you do it.

Good points, which deserve a response. Don’t agree with you, but you deserve a response. Got a few meetings this morning, but will be back with you.

I would start off by pulling you up on this one, though:

‘how you expect women to be able to accurately make up their own minds without giving them the resources to create informed consent I don’t know – if it is a choice between being patronised or neglected it’s a no-brainer to switch-on your brain before you make your mind up.’

What makes you think women can’t inform themselves? There’s something so patronising in this – it’s as though you’re saying that if someone doesn’t tell women what to think and/or actively hands them information, they’ll never work it out for themselves or inform themselves. You must stop seeing us as vessels.

And anyway – what sort of information would this ‘well rounded’ information be? I can’t picture it. If you go to your GPs’ requesting an abortion atm, they give you factual information about the procedure – how long it takes, what it involves, what aftercare is all about – and how to access it. What would they give you for the well-rounded picture you refer to – a couple of articles about single mothers being forced to work for benefits and a nursing bra catalogue? I don’t know exactly what sort of literature you have in mind.

Anyway – back soon. Meanwhile, I think you need to give me a few points for getting over the fact that you called me tweedy earlier in the week. That was rought, man. I mean – TWEEDY.

And I’m completely against Dave Cole on this one. A free vote is a way to examine the fine print of the choices on offer and therefore enables every voter to make a more accurate statement of their views rather than to be forced to say things they don’t fully agree with. On issues of such emotive power, it is just not good enough that laws are formed by hide-bound generalist party views.

Kate, I think you need to go back and reread the quote of mine you cited. You are talking all theory while I was trying to return us to practicalities: I did not talk about WHAT is right and wrong, but WHEN it is – eg is a termination at 39 weeks acceptable, if there 20 medical opinions in favour? Are involuntary terminations ever acceptable?

No serious debate, let alone one on the acceptable limits of individual freedom, was ever successfully held in a vacuum, so how you expect women to be able to accurately make up their own minds without giving them the resources to create informed consent I don’t know – if it is a choice between being patronised or neglected it’s a no-brainer to switch-on your brain before you make your mind up.

I also feel it is a bit off to say that the side you are politically opposed to shouldn’t recieve equal airing in order to give a fair hearing. I can almost hear you patting a patient on the head saying “rest assured, comrade sister, by dawn we’ll have finished machine-gunning the vile dogs which did this evil thing to you. So you can be free to do it all again, if that’s your will.”

I agree that we should all form our own views, but this is best done by being able to recieve a fully-rounded set of different perspectives. Just as I think your political view would be more convincing were you able to consider all alternative standpoints than your own.

May I ask what safeguards and support you propose for the individuals who are faced with decisions of life and death like this? Or do you really think an abortion should be available in an off-the-shelf home-pack from a supermarket?

Lee:

‘Maybe it’s just a straw the broke the camels back moment, but I had a lot of respect for Kate, and also for Jennie, so for them to talk this much shit is personally disappointing.’

Well – that might be because you and I have never had a dialogue through comments before that I can remember. Maybe you had a lot of respect for me because you’d never locked horns with me before. Is that another way of saying that a woman is great until she opens her mouth?

I JEST.

KIND OF.

Anway – what shit are you referring to, brother? I simply responded strongly to your observation that any abortion vote would necessarily be emotive, because free votes are only used on issues where conscience is a big part of the picture. That was a fair point for you to make – I simply disagreed with it.

I’m with Dave Cole when he says that he takes a rather more cynical view of free voting, and sees a free vote really as a free pass to anyone who doesn’t want to show themselves on a particular issue. Next thing, though, you’re writing lines like ‘can’t the fuck a man express himself,’ or something similar. You also seem to use the term ‘feminist’ in a rather negative sense – as in ‘these feminists are trying to stop me.’ How about you stop thinking of me as a feminist and just think about me as a woman? Nobody’s trying to stop you saying anything – go for your life, I say. I’ve never deleted a comment or tried to shut down a debate in my life. Fill your boots, mate.

Anyway – to get past all this, why don’t you just pretend I’m a man? Plenty of people have asked if I’ve got testicles, anyway, so I really don’t mind if you start calling me Pete, or whatever. I’m quite serious, tbh – I’d be interested to know if that makes you feel less cornered. It doesn’t seem to be the strength of the observation that causes you a problem – rather, the fact that someone who describes themselves as a feminist is making that observation.

Anway – Dave Cole is also right when he says it’s time for you and I to move on, so let’s finish up the fight here. You’ve got my email address, so pick it up there if you want. Everyone else is getting bored with this.

Thomas says:
‘Rather than perverting the discourse by arguing about ‘abortion rights’ we’d be better served by examining under which circumstances and conditions it is right or wrong. In this I think the amendments propose a serious debate about the process by which we decide the acceptable limits of individual freedom.’

Interesting statement, Thomas, my man – I’m not so interested in what’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. This is mainly because there’ll never be agreement on what is right and wrong while the pro-choice lobby believes that what is right is what is right for a woman, and the anti-choice lobby’s whole thesis has been to turn attention from women and put the emphasis on what is right for the child. That being the case, I’d like us to stick to the numbers – ie, that women die in their thousands in countries where there is no legal abortion, that there is no evidence at all that would support a reduction in the time limit, here, etc. Tis in the numbers we find the most sense.

I’d be interested to know how you think, though, that these latest amendments – imposing a cooling-off period, pushing anti-abortion literature at women – could possibly lead to a serious debate about the process by which we decide the acceptable limits of individual freedom. No serious debate about freedom ever took place within such confines. Those amendments, by their very nature, represent a rather patronising limiting of free choice. One can almost feel one’s GP patting one on one’s head and saying – ‘there, there, dear – how about you read this nice book about babies…’

I mean – come on, guys. Women can make their own choices – they read, they write, they develop their own views on abortion – they don’t need to be handed some girly little pamphlet at the 11th hour with a picture of a lovely baby on it, or whatever. Come on. You need to start thinking of us as people similar to yourselves – strong minded, informed, and adult. We form our own views. We find being patronised just as awful as men do.

Lee – I think the person who said above that you seem very quick to accuse a woman of feminism so that you can put yourself in a position to criticise that woman as a feminist, rather than a woman, got a hole in one, if I can put it that way. When I read you in threads, I always get the feeling that you don’t mind talking to women until such time as they disagree with you, which is the point at which they stop being women and start becoming feminists in your mind – and as feminists, become acceptable targets in your view. Sure, I’m a feminist, but in my mind women generally are. I don’t see a difference between being a woman and being a feminist. It’s interesting to me that you see such a divide. You are amazingly defensive on women’s issues. Nobody’s trying to shut you up – I’m genuinely interested in all views and see this as an excellent forum to debate them. My own views are strong, and I absolutely accept that everyone else’s are, too. I simply disagree with you on the notion of allowing for the emotive aspect of abortion in parliamentary vote. You’re entitled to your view to the contrary, though – so why do you feel that you’re being silenced? What is it in a strong response from a woman that so angers you? You have the same response to Laurie. It’s interesting.

To the person who asked why I’ve asked the Lib Dems to comment on this thread – to cut a very long story short, I indicated on one of Jennie’s stories about a week ago that I was very disilusioned with the Labour party (I’ve been a long time Labour voter) and was looking at the Lib Dems as a real alternative (Jennie’s story was about the Lib Dem presidency, which started things off).

I made the point, though, that I was finding it hard to pinpoint where the Lib Dems sat on a number of issues. Lib Dem members on this site were very responsive – Darrell even bothered to write a further post, so that we could discuss issues like Lib Dem tax policy in more detail – and did a lot of expanding on policy for myself and other readers. I appreciated the time taken by people like Jennie and Darrell and Matt to make those contributions and found those conversations useful.

I was as interested in the Lib Dem take on abortion law, because it is an area of legislation that I find very important. This isn’t about making the Lib Dems justify themselves, or defend I position I don’t like – indeed the Lib Dem Evan Harris is probably THE leading light in liberal abortion thought here at the moment, and, as I said in an earlier comment here, I have great respect for him as a campaigner and thinker on the topic. I’ve got another article coming up on outsourcing and the privatisation of public services, and I’d be interested in Lib Dem views on that as well – not with a view to putting the boot into them or somehow making them justify themselves, but just to see where they are. I may not like where they are – I’m just interested to know. Tory and Labour readers will also be welcome to comment – I’m just not really considering either as voting options at the moment.

Going now, but will come back to some of the points raised by others this evening. Cheers, Kate.

If ‘liberal’ and ‘left’ were interchangable terms then this might be a reasonable question, but they aren’t, so it isn’t surprising that this discussion has dissolved into a slanging match.

Rather than perverting the discourse by arguing about ‘abortion rights’ we’d be better served by examining under which circumstances and conditions it is right or wrong. In this I think the amendments propose a serious debate about the process by which we decide the acceptable limits of individual freedom.

There are plenty of extreme examples which could be identified as cases where individuals act against their own interests, just as there are examples of authorities acting without accountability – so, how many medical opinions are required to ensure the interests of mother and potential child are balanced fairly and how we measure and weigh this balance of competing interests are fundamentally PRACTICAL questions and are best served by free votes.

The removal of organised ideological theorising from such decisions prevents harmful dogmas from being imposed and spreading like a cancer.

In this I think any uncritical use of ideological terms (such as ‘feminism’) is actually damaging to our ability to reach satisfactory conclusions.

*snort*

You seem to make it one of your prime pasttimes.

If you found it in the slightest way possible to argue without being insulting, patronising, and hurtful, then perhaps I would change my mind, but as things stand, I really don’t see the point in opening myself up for further broadsides. You can find that as unsatisfying and ignorant as you like.

Mark: thanks.

* hug *

“Perhaps if you learned to really respect the right of others to hold a stance that displeases you, rather than just talking a good game, it might make for more inclusive dialogue.”

This just makes me piss my pants given the recent history on here. *I* should learn to respect that others hold a view that displeases me? Don’t make me laugh my friend. There are some on here that should learn to respect that others hold a view that is ENTIRELY IN LINE with what they believe but wish to have a full and frank debate, but they don’t get criticised by more than the severe minority. Interesting really.

Maybe it’s just a straw the broke the camels back moment, but I had a lot of respect for Kate, and also for Jennie, so for them to talk this much shit is personally disappointing. Ignorant, however, is entirely the appropriate word…and if feminists on here are going to continue to try to silence objective debate by using the “you’re not a woman” card then it’s about time that we started discussing the ignorance of the feminists that debate on here, by their own standards.

I accept that it’s very late at night, and weariness may be setting in, but is your journey really necessary?

Jennie believes that your style of argument makes it less likely that she will engage. She has the right to think that, and if you feel that this makes the debate less ‘satisfying’ from your perspective, then you’ll just have to live with it. Her decision gives you no right to bandy around words like ignorant as a means to try and draw her into an argument that she doesn’t wish to embroil herself in.

Perhaps if you learned to really respect the right of others to hold a stance that displeases you, rather than just talking a good game, it might make for more inclusive dialogue.

Time for bed, said Zebedee…

I take great pride in the fact that until this thread I have tried to point out the flaws in feminist argument as little as possible. I am always one for objective argument and I’m not afraid to change my views. For you to accuse me of trying to essentially bully people out of a debate is laughable given the language used by various parties. Supposedly I am in the wrong by pointing out there is a greater and more objective world out there to consider, yet feminists that then close ranks and start bullshit like “You don’t know what you’re talking about, male misogynist” is acceptable. I really can’t get my head around the mentality of this place sometimes.

Jenny, you get upset because like other feminists you are guilty of the biggest thing you hate, and that is people that impose views regardless of wider more objective thinking. Like I’ve said to Kate, it’s amazing how you people can come on here and try and bully me and others out of an argument because we lack the genitalia to converse on such a subject, while you have little to no understanding of the counter-argument to which you’re fighting. You’re acting ignorant and you need to take a step back and understand this, because ultimately you’re only damaging your own stance with people like me, who ultimately want to support you tooth and nail.

I’m intrigued. why are the views of Lib Dems so important to you? Why are Jennie, Darrell and Aaron expected to provide a sense of what Lib Dems are thinking on the abortion issue? I think that you ask far too much of them.

However, if you need the opinions of a possibly unrepresentative group of Liberal Democrats (I’m not saying that they are, but they aren’t a significantly sized sample, are they?), why don’t I add mine – don’t worry, Jennie and Darrell will vouch for me.

I’m a liberal, and a Catholic. I have a pretty conservative set of personal values which I apply to myself, and a fairly liberal set of values I apply to others. I would rather see the number of abortions drop significantly, but there are far better ways of achieving that than the blunt weapon of tighter legislation.

The amendments which seek to make abortion more difficult are, for the most part, a fairly sneaky way to make abortion less accessible by bureaucratic means. I’ve never bought into the notion that women use abortion as a back-up method of contraception, or that it is a decision taken lightly, and that differentiates me from the forces of moral conservatism.

I’d rather make abortion less likely by improving sex education and encouraging the use of contraception by all, as well as providing better societal support for young, vulnerable women. Unfortunately, this is all so much harder than legislating to take away the rights of individuals to make their own choices (that’s sarcasm, for anyone who might not have noticed).

That’s my view. It has emerged from a range of influences, political, religious and social, and is no more or less than the perspective of an individual who happens to be a Liberal Democrat. Political parties are not monolitihic bodies where everyone agrees with every element of the platform, nor should they be. Given that, on a number of ‘free vote’ issues, such as the death penalty, homosexuality and abortion, politicians have tended to be more liberal than the population at large, I’m fairly comfortable with the notion that a free vote is an acceptable way of making the big moral decisions.

Finally, can I say how much I object to the suggestion that such an issue ‘separates the sheep from the lefties’. I’m not a ‘leftie’, I’m a liberal, and damned proud of it. And perhaps that just separates me from your leftie sheep. If you seriously want to build a coalition against those who wish to take away our freedoms, suggesting that we’re either for you or against you is hardly likely to build a winning one.

Not so much ‘liberal’ as ‘conspiracy’, and not a very good one either…

He’s not the only person I’ve seen do it on here, but he is the most tenacious, and he’s also the reason why I avoid commenting on any thread about female issues once I see that he has commented.

Cowardly? Undoubtedly. Keeps me from getting needlessly upset? You betcha.

I’ll let you get back to it, shall I?

Dave Cole,

I’m becoming more and more cynical about the electorate, I’m afraid. I blame the media.

I’m becoming ever more cynical about MPs. I’ve been thinking recently about the purposes of (for example) Ministers, particularly since Gordon Brown’s point relating to Cameron’s lack of experience at the helm. What are their responsibilities, what qualifications are needed / desired, and so on? In the sense of, what makes a former lecturer and current affairs editor a suitable candidate for the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer? What makes a former head of economics a suitable candidate for the post of Home Secretary? Was Prescott given the job of Deputy Prime Minister (something that by the way doesn’t exist in our constitution) because he is competent or rather because he has strong links to the Labour left? Why was Alan Johnson, who left school at 15 and was only ever a union official before he became an MP, thought to be suitable to be a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, a Minister for Higher Education, a Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, a Secretary of State for Productivity, Energy and Industry, a Secretary of State for Education and Skills, or a Secretary of State for Health?

When people talk about the electorate in these discussions, it’s usually in a disparaging, patronising sense – a sense of, the electorate aren’t qualified, aren’t competent, are stupid, and decisions should be made on their behalf. It follows then that there should be some people making decisions on the electorate’s behalf – MPs. But it’s laughable, after watching debates or reading Hansard, to conclude that MPs are any better, other than their ability to get elected and progress up through the party ranks. Sure, some of them are very competent – others, such as Nadine Dorries are… not.

You wrote elsewhere,

MPs are elected to legislate and to scrutinise based not on the whim of the people, but based on easier access to more information, the time and will to process and use that information honestly, and to come to a reasoned decision.

It would be great if they did do that.

You idealist you.

Dave Cole, I think you misunderstand me. I think Lee @ 38 has it about right. And I think Burke had it slightly wrong when he said,

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.

I think one of the problems with our ‘representative democracy’, disengagement from formal politics, is because voters have a sense of great distance between Parliament and their more local needs and desires. It seems to me Parliament is (or should be) a “congress of different interests” and a “deliberate assembly of one nation”. In other words an MP should be looking after the interests of his constituents in a local and national sense, compromising or battling as appropriate. Indeed, “Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents” (Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament).

I’m becoming more and more cynical about the electorate, I’m afraid. I blame the media.

Kate & Lee,

GIve over, will you?

xD.

It’s amazing that you still can’t stand back and see the absolute divide in reality and your own opinion, UKLiberty has already pointed out the issue with your stance…again. I don’t mind people opposing me, female, male or otherwise. I just find it highly ironic that for a group of people that hate being told what you do or don’t think, you’re all so very quick to assume an awful lot about people that you *percieve* to be taking an opposite stance at you so that you can make some kind of aggressive response. God forbid you just sit back and be civil in debate, as many of us manage to do on a daily basis?

“and wonder if you’d dare to to place the word ‘feminist’ with ‘African-Caribbean’ in that sentence. Your dismissiveness of feminists is telling, methinks. Are we a galloping misogynist, just quietly?”

If we had a population of black people on here acting in the way that you feminists do, then yes I would replace it in that sentence. Thankfully any black, homosexual, (insert other minority here) commentators on this site know how to act civilly and respectfully, so I’ve never had to. Come to think of it none of them have had to parade about their “difference” from others in the debate to make a point either.

How about I put it this way, you’re clearly not religious (my assumption here), perhaps if you could live your life in the shoes of an anti-abortion Christian for just one day maybe you’d understand how *they* feel…

Precisely, but on the flip side MPs should be making decisions based on a wide range of things. the “facts and evidence” as Kate puts it, the mood of their constituency, their knowledge and expertise, and the opinions of other “experts”. If only the mood of their constituency were taken in to account they’d betray the process of representation…however to ignore it completely as well is an equal betrayal. Tough life being an MP, eh?

Nope – I don’t think a bloke can suggest that the facts are abandoned in the abortion debate and that MPs can be encouraged to run amok without the facts, and not expect a feminist to jump on his head. I’m getting the feeling that you just can’t stand debate with females – inasmuch as soon as one of us girls dares to oppose you, you accuse us of trying to shut down debate on the grounds that you’ve got a penis (am assuming this last?).

Debate away, I say – just don’t get yr frilly old knickers in a twist when a girl dares to answer you robustly. Trying to shut us up by saying we’re trying to shut you up is sexist, if you follow.

Have to do some work now, but will get back on your back later in the day. In the meantime, try lying down with a cool cloth on your forehead and breathe through your nose for a bit. You’ll be fine.

PS – I wonder if you’d debate black politics with such aggression and presumption? I look at this sentence of yours:

‘Can we have *one* debate about politics on here that even remotely touches on female politics without a feminist jumping out of their skin and accusing people of “not understanding enough”?’

and wonder if you’d dare to to place the word ‘feminist’ with ‘African-Caribbean’ in that sentence. Your dismissiveness of feminists is telling, methinks. Are we a galloping misogynist, just quietly?

Maybe you ought to find a minority of your own to belong to, and then you wouldn’t have to get in such a knot when you feel you’ve been caught out borrowing the politics of others’.

Just a thought.

Peace & love.

Back soon.

While this is true, and while this is certainly the bit where the abortion argument becomes a screaming match rather than a resolvable argument even between people who’re capable of rational debate, it’s not actually the basis for much of the debate as it’s argued (c.f. the current Christian/right-wing lies about survivability rates).