The reason I am opposed to statutory maternity/paternity pay is that I regard it primarily as a middle class wheeze. What it implies is that because someone COULD earn a lot of money in a skilled job, they deserve to be paid that money (or something related to it) regardless of whether they choose to do the job or have a child instead. In other words, it is saying that middle class people need to be compensated MORE by statutory means for having children than other people. It is not surprising that these sort of ideas are popular because they tend to be developed by middle class academics and policy wonks, and supported by middle class journalists in relatively large media organisations.

Of course, I am not opposed to employers offering voluntary maternity/paternity pay to keep experienced employees working for them and offering more flexible work to people with families. I just don’t think it should be forced by government regulation as that will only introduce inefficiencies that large companies and the public sector will be able to shrug off but that could ruin small businesses (notice how Sweden’s main generators of wealth are big corporations whereas we are little more diverse than that).

forget termination.

it sucks.

Sounds wetter than ‘abortion’ though, don’t u think? - like, more evasive.

‘choice’ might be a bit wet as a form of description, but so is ‘abortion’ (it’s also not technically accurate). Why do you avoid using ‘termination’?

answer: for the same reason as the preaching dictatorship wants to appear as a positive force - by twisting the language you use.

k8 at hangbitch dot com

u r the king!

i will put it on the story when i return from work

Compared to most of the rest of Europe, British women find themselves in a pretty financial pickle when it comes to pregnancy, with a combination of non-secure jobs, lack of affordable childcare, and paltry maternity leave ensuring many are left to choose between poverty and their children.

There are many good reasons for women choosing to abort, from foetal abnormality to the health risks to the mother. But financial hardship should never be one of those reasons. It is equally responsible for the fact that many many british women have fewer children than they’d like or simply miss the boat altogether. It is this, not abstract principle, that we should really be talking about.

Can u do an anticoathanger avatar?

Essentially, once it is realised that equal outcomes cannot be created by providing mere procedural equality, the government will want to start having some say in the “inputs” to the system. In other words, which children get born in the first place.

I am sure you will think this is crazy but taking a parallel, look at how amazingly quickly state institutions have moved from tackling “passive smoking” to discussing “passive drinking”. So long as the same logic is always applied (more equality, more fairness, a safer world) then essentially all forms of human behaviour can become a subject for government regulation.

Like, it would be a little picture of:

a coathanger
with a line through it

like anti-smoking signs
except

anticoathangers

Nah, I don’t have a subtext that I know of:)

Pro-abortion could mean you are in favour of a woman’s choice to have an abortion, or that you are just in favour of more abortions generally (and there are organisations out there that do!). You could even be in favour of abortion AGAINST the wishes of the potential mother if you are pro-abortion. In that sense, pro-choice seen in context is actually less ambiguous than pro-abortion. Far from being toned down, it is actually necessary to get the point across.

I think this might become more important in the future as there is a growing movement towards state regulated childbirth. The beginning of it can be found in the new law which will allow the state to control who is allowed to look after children, even informally. Assuming left-liberals want to stay on the right side of this development (i.e. against it!), then pro-choice is the correct line to take. The woman’s right to choose can be threatened from both sides.

That’s the most worthwhile thing you’ve said here so far Nick. Not to put you down or anything… ;-)

That’s utter genius. I will certainly plagiarise.

Except - don’t you think that ‘pro choice’ is just a bit… wet? Like - not telling it like it is, and somehow taking a too-easy refuge in cottony language? Everyone knows what an abortion is, and what the word abortion means. Describing yourself as pro choice doesn’t necessarily endear you to the other side… nor does the other side pull its punches when it comes to rubbing the world’s nose in it. Nadine Dorries was last seen publishing photos of foetal surgery on her blog.

are you saying that women ought to tone the language down a bit - is that the subtext of your argument? I don’t think using language like ‘pro abortion’ is harsh, just entirely facts-based… I don’t think a woman abandons her human aspect if she uses language like ‘pro abortion.’ I like children, too. I even like most people. That doesn’t stop me wanting to call an abortion an abortion.

Pro-choice strikes me as a relatively succinct way of getting the liberal position across. You can get people with moral qualms about abortion (such as myself on occasion) by saying you are “anti-coathangers” which is a pretty good KO in favour of legalisation.

The problem with saying pro-abortion in the sense of being entirely comfortable with it, is that you are unlikely to unite people around it. Many people feel that an abortion is preferable only as the least worst option. An aggressive slogan like “pro-abortion” isn’t going to win them over which means you will be preaching to the choir. Most people like children! And there are some right weirdos out there who don’t, like the “Optimum Population Trust” that you want to keeo your distance from.