For all practical purposes, I am a child of the 1970s. Against my parent's wishes, and certainly in a fashion way beyond my mother's comprehension, I did as a result embrace the women's liberation thinking of that era. Influenced and educated as I was by fortunate choices of girlfriends at that time, equal pay, equal rights for women, the right to abortion on demand and, in a very real sense, the right to women's liberation in both the home and workplace became not just slogans, but matters of lived experience, shaping my everyday domestic and working life.
I have not one moment's regret about that. Nor have I ever had reason to change my mind on any of these issues. The example provided by my parent's generation and which I witnessed in the power relationship between my parents, was wrong. This is a world where all should be equal and where discrimination between men and women should simply not exist, any more than misogyny should.
The threat to women's rights in the USA, represented by the threat of reversal of Roe v Wade, with consequences that would inevitably flow well beyond the borders of the USA, is therefore alien to all I believe in. It is, quite simply, a woman's right to choose whether to carry a child, or not. This feels like, because it is, a matter that is beyond question. But men are questioning it.
The challenge to abortion rights is not mainly from women. Of course, there are exceptions to that, but this is a male-driven agenda, to reclaim power over something that is not theirs to control.
It is, also part of the fascist agenda, in which misogyny is deeply implicit.
Both are ideas alien to me. Neither should be in any way acceptable in. the 21st century. I do, of course, accept the right of men to have an opinion on this issue: I am expressing one right now. But I do not accept the right of men to in any way impose that opinion on women.
Have we really not learned this as yet? If not, we need to be very worried.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If you watched the documentary film ‘ Roe v Wade’ on Netflix, you ‘d see some of the odious characters behind this reversal in U.S. too many of whom are men. And some of the underhand methods used to get their ‘message’ over are quite disgraceful.
This has been coming for some time and the fact that some of the pro-life lobby are actually murderers themselves – willing to kill healthcare practitioners – is even more ghastly and the pro-life lobby should be seen as a terrorist organisation in my opinion (I bet it would be if the killers were wearing a veil and praying to someone called ‘Allah’ and not going to their nearest evangelical church – typical American sanctimonious hypocrisy and double -standards BTW).
The way the Pro-life lobby has invaded politics is purely to my mind Neo-liberal in nature – they have captured mostly Republican politicians and turned it into a populist movement. It’s a heady mixture of Fascism and religious based sexism.
And all the politicians free-riding on this (like Ted Cruz euughh!!) should be deeply ashamed. I think that the Republicans are hiding behind the abortion issue because they know that Neo-liberalism is technically a busted flush with more and more American people unable to afford healthcare and the American dream. So it will be people like the Mexicans and other South Americans plus now America’s own female population where the battlefield for votes will be held. So much for american democracy and the ‘shining city on the hill’.
But what is worse about these ‘pro-lifers’ who think that killing is a good way to make a point is if only their passion were aimed at dealing with the poverty and inequality of their country instead of abortion which is a deeply personal issue.
And it is the state of the U.S. that causes these decisions to be made in the first place – poor education (sex education too), poor underfunded sexual health services, problems with access to these services – morals rather than services befitting a religious State and huge inequality that affects sexual behaviour.
It’s an absolute mess and right ugly too. I hope that Roe v. Wade is somehow upheld.
I agree with much of this – there is a streak of fundamentalist religious zeal here, an unholy alliance between evangelicals and Catholics, which seems to be driven by fear of – and desire to control – women’s bodies.
The next item on the list will be same-sex marriage, to which the US Supreme Court as presently constituted could apply a similar legal analysis, and that could be followed by other minority rights that have been developed in recent decades but without explicit constitutional protection.
As a male I can only express a man’s view it is this:
I begin with a fundamental right that I will go to war to protect. I own my body. It is a right that existed from the moment I became a viable life form. Nobody has any rights to my body except me or by my expressed voluntary permission of authority. No Government, no religion, no employer, no parent, no child – absolutely no other entity can claim ownership or any part thereof. Any claim to a right can only be logically valid if it is universal. If it is not a right it becomes a privilege granted to or withheld from an individual by the owner of the right (to my body). My right gives me the ability to use or abuse my body in any way and accept the consequences. If I do not own all rights to my body I am a slave. We know where that leads.
If I am correct, then the principle applies to every single woman on the planet. That would include the right to seek abortion. Any diminution of woman’s right to make choices about her body and it’s treatment diminishes my rights to my body.
Nobody should assume I will relinquish any part of my right peacefully it follows that I will not deprive anyone else of that right.
I don’t feel comfortable allowing abortion where the child would be capable of surviving outside his/her mother – say, at 24 weeks. That really does feel like killing a human being deserving of protection. Yet this is on the table.
No it is not
For what it is worth, I support a woman’s autonomy – whether to have sex, and with whom; whether or not to use contraception and what form (but please do if you don’t want to risk pregnancy); and whether to continue with a pregnancy. Each is a deeply personal choice, and I doubt the termination of any pregnancy done lightly. Pregnancy and childbirth put heavy physical burdens on a body, and continuing with a pregnancy is inherently risky, not to mention the impact on the mother’s life afterwards. The political weaponisation of this issue in the US is obscene. If the Supreme Court overturn Roe v Wade, it is going to lead to women dying who could have lived if they had received the medical care that they wanted and needed.
Relatively unqualified as I am as a man to comment, for me the law does need to strike a balance between the rights of the woman and the right of the unborn child when it reaches the realms of viability outside the womb. I think the current UK law, which restricts abortion after 24 weeks, is in about the right place. I would relax the formal requirements below 24 weeks to reflect the reality, that abortion is in effect (and should be) available on demand. You could argue for a lower limit, but we need to think carefully how that fits with routine medical care in pregnancy, particularly 20 week scans. Perhaps this is more of a pragmatic choice, trying to balance two conflicting moral positions in a practical manner that can work in the real world, than an theoretically perfect moral one. Sorry, the real world is messy.
To help the debate, some numbers from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020
Around 200,000 pregnancies are terminated in the UK each year. In recent years the number has increased a bit from just below 200,000 to just over 200,000. That affects perhaps 2% or so of women of childbearing age each year: incidence peaks in the early 20s at around 3%. If it matters, about 30% are single, 50% single with a partner, and 20% married.
In 2020, about 85% were medical abortions (that is, in the main, drug induced – something like Mifepristone, which like any medical procedure is not without its own risks) and only 15% or so surgical. The balance has shifted substantially in recent years, from around 50:50 ten years ago.
Late term abortion – beyond say 20 weeks – is very rare indeed (note that the law restricts abortion after 24 weeks). 88% are done under 10 weeks, another 6% between 10 and 12 weeks, 5% between 13 and 19 weeks, and just 1% of the total after 20 weeks (around 2000). Very few after 24 weeks in 2020 – just 236 – and all for good reasons (risk to the mother’s life, or severe fetal abnormality). I suspect that cutting the limit to 20 weeks would not make much difference: most of the terminations after 20 weeks would qualify anyway.
The statistics for late abortion in the US appear to be similar – about 1.5% after 20 weeks – and for similar reasons. By that stage, the choice has already been made, absent a compelling new reason. Discussion of late abortion is a distraction from the real issue, which is whether women have the right to control their own body or whether instead the state can compel them to put themselves at substantial risk for 9 months.
Thanks
Andrew’s post above echoes much that is explored in the documentary ‘Roe v. Wade’ on Netflix – the pro-lifers have turned the exceptions (the abortions at longer terms) into the rule – they have portrayed that as the norm.
Very underhand indeed.
I watched Guru-Murty’s interview with a republican pollster last night and it was irritating in the extreme – this woman was more interested in what she believed in than the facts and how it impacted on anyone else.
Her belief trumped anything else. It was truly scary. Please tell me that Trump is not coming back!!!!!
Abortions will continue regardless, it is only safe abortions that will be banned. Yet another reversal of hard won Women’s rights.
I agree, entirely
So do I – abortion is not going to go away so why not do it safely and put the women first? Pro-life is avoiding death is it not? Women too believe it or not?!!
It is women in sexual relations that are the most vulnerable gender – it is they who are literally left holding the baby if there is mistake. What is so hard for some to get their heads around that?
It smacks of judgement to me – not pro-life.
On a personal level the earlier the abortion, the better for me.
But that is a deeply personal opinion about ME – it has nothing to do with anyone else – I would not enforce that upon another – I have no right as I see it as each abortion is it’s own individual case for a start.
The same people who are reveling in the cancelation of the Roe v Wade abortion rights legislation are quite happy to see the continuation of the death penalty in many US states, in some cases of later to be proved, innocent prisoners. Also no compunction about sending their young men and women to murder foreigners in illegal wars overseas, let alone supporting a massive nuclear armament industry which if put into use would mean the destruction and radioactive poisoning of the entire planet.
Well put.
Off topic but I’ll throw this in following on from your comments. Our government loves to create division, Brevit division was a great success for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the issue of capital punishment is put on the table again here.
The anti abortion lobby is also a pro-adoption one. The draft Supreme Court judgement complains that, since Roe v Wade, there is a mismatch between an abundant “demand’ for adoptable children and a “virtually nonexistent” supply. Three of the Supreme Court Justices are adoptive parents, and part of their case is that “demand’’ from rich infertile couples to take children from poor mothers must be satisfied, and that knowing that their baby will taken from them will compensate women for loss of access to legal abortion. It looks like the scandal that was forced adoption is about to return with a vengeance.
That sounds so close to Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” it sends chills down my spine.
They want their ‘adoptable children’ to be newborns taken from young white wonen who had the misfortune to become pregnant (however so) by some college youth. Not the ‘discards’ taken from their natural families (all too often for trivial reasons), who they would assume to be damaged goods. Or the non white babies and children. I’m sure they (the anti-choice brigade) will find any excuse to terminate parental rights before birth – if not codify as ‘unfit parent’ – if they can uncover the slightest evidence the young women concerned may have explored the option of abortion.
Back in the 90’s I knew someone who was ‘anti abortion’
He wanted to joiun one of the anti abortion groups but did the ‘due diligence’ in them first and found that the people behind these organisations were so apalling that there was no way he could be associated with them.
The second point, which @Pilgrim Slight has already touched upon is the lack of interest that the pro life lobby shows in ‘quality of life’ the silence from organisations like SPUC & Life over child poverty is telling, as is the absence of comment on the decline in the avalibility of ‘long term’ contraception in the UK – sterilisation, Depo Injections & IUD’s.
Finally of course why is the US so anti abortion – as in the UK it was once unregulated? Well, they are worried that the white community will be ‘outbred’ by the non white and in effect see white women as breeding machines to maintain a white majority.
The return of the Pharisees. They never went away.