however as I haven’t read enough of MM’s comments to properly inform any view of whether or not he is a troll, I’m not in a position to take Jennie’s stance.

Also, considering the thoughtless vitriol thrown at me by some of the feminists on this thread I don’t think they can either necessarily or automatically be assumed to be blameless angels of the cause either.

Normally maybe, but given the amount of vitriol usually thrown at feminist bloggers on most places, I think MM should do more to understand Laurie’s stance than vice versa.

This is a bit patronising isn’t it thomas?

I don’t feel I need to justify myself in your eyes, but for your information I try not to be partial, so you can take previous comments as you find them.

As I keep trying to show, and with which I am in full agreement with Laurie on the point that binary opposition is fruitless, the progress of debate towards practical benefit is only possible by taking nuanced positions against the extremes.

As a result I find it natural, ironic and unhelpful that both sides are attempting to divide support for their positions along gender sympathy lines.

I am also very clear on my personal position towards abortion, that the legal definitions are insufficient, insufficiently accurate and cannot be otherwise since it relates to life pre-birth, and therefore adequate information must be provided in consultations and decisions made on a case-by-case basis. If that means that women are best served by devolving some of their rights to a more participative process (as is closer to the truth of current practise than has been presented above), then so be it, but women’s consent (as the directly involved party) remains the bar for action and should remain so.

I just don’t get the blinkered view that rights don’t overlap and are to be ring-fenced in order to protect the interests of those who hold them irrespective of any wider benefit - nor I am fooled by this diversionary squabble over the number of weeks which abortion remains legal, as it is an abstraction of the real humanitarian concerns.

In relation to the current question I don’t see that the real situation will be improved by making the proposed changes law, but I also don’t see that the pro-choice camp will have much longevity while it continues to advocate the status quo.

I hope all that puts me firmly in the liberal camp, and keeps me out of the right-wing, left-wing and conventionally central camps.

Apologising from one side of the debate isn’t enough to create equality amidst our differences, rather we need to find common ground on which we can agree - which is also the purpose of this site, so I’m not sure that moderating intervention isn’t called for or whether to tell you to lay of the wine while composing responses.

I think you are being incredibly insensitive in the way you are using your language and I’m not sure you are creating the impression you desire.

Matriarchy is as bad as patriarchy, so don’t fall into the same trap as your enemy that one is rank evil so the opposite must be perfect.

Laurie, you’ve started making excuses by misinterpreting what I wrote for your own purposes, which is to make a selfish and dishonest sham of your argument by playing to the gallery. Your original 24 reasons were a tolerable compromise under the current circumstances, but like I said, you can do better than that”

“pretend that womens domination of the reproductive sphere is an adequate recompense for any male domination in other spheres.”
What? Please point to the bit where anyone has said that. Of course it’s not, and you’d be an idiot to suggest it. Moreover, it’s a bit facile to talk about women’s “domination” of the reproductive sphere given the nature of the debate, no?

“a selfish and dishonest sham of your argument by playing to the gallery.”
Selfish? In what way. I have to way I’m not seeing any evidence of this particular accusation. What you’re presenting is a nebulous semi-argument seemingly based upon the idea that various parties not actually bearing the child in a case of unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason, apparently) have rights similar or equivalent to the pregnant party. For which you’ve provided no explanation or rationale. What Laurie is trying to do is address and disagree with your statements. Which is difficult because they make so little sense.

Who are the three parties here? I’m not sure I follow your meaning. So “one” is the fertile woman, who may or may not want an abortion. “Another’s” refers to- the foetus? The father of the child? Same problem with the “third-party”. Any expansion or explanation here would be nice.

As for your argument that…I don’t know, women should be denied reproductive rights in order for them to be able to empathise with biological males who can’t get pregnant?
Well, while I feel for your plight in not being able to carry and give birth to a little Thomas of your very own, I think it’s rather selfish (not to say COMPLETELY IGNORING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND BIOLOGICAL POSSIBILITIES) to be in favour of restricting reproductive rights on the grounds of encouraging gender empathy.
In fact, I suspect that your biological incapability of bringing a special new life into the world yourself is not, in fact, the most important factor in gender politics right now. You have plenty of advantages to being male which you could perhaps console yourself with. Such as being paid more, being more likely to be promoted, relative freedom from pervasive sexual harrassment, and NOT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT BEING LEGALLY COMPELLED TO BEAR AN UNWANTED FOETUS.
I apologise for harping on about this but:

“to speak plainly, your anger at the restraints placed on female reproductive capacity is something that every man has had to deal with since the moment”

To speak plainly, NO IT’S NOT. Because you just can’t bear a darling little sprog. You just can’t. It’s not like you could have one and be forced to keep it. It’s not the same sort of anger. Not only is it not similar in scale, it is not similar in political relevance. You might be sad that a particular situation can’t arise due to your biology. Very well, but if you do love children so much, adoption is always a possibility.

Furthermore, women being able to choose whether or not they terminate a pregnancy is not a matter, as a man, for you to deny. Because you don’t have to worry about that, bemoan the situation as you might. And unless you’ve got some radical information about the “rights of the unborn” to bring up, it’s really not your place to stand in the way of legal rights that you’ve already established beyond a shadow of a doubt DON’T AFFECT YOU IN ANY WAY.

What I’m proposing is radical systemic change, allowing rather than fearing women’s reproductive self-determination. Why does that equate to matriarchy? I simply want the right to control my own body, my own political, economic and social potential, as safely as modern technology allows me to, and I want that right for my baby sisters and for my children.

I’m terribly sorry that you can’t clone yourself. I’m sorry that you and other good-hearted men have to check your privilege when it comes to women’s rights. I’m sorry that we have power you don’t have, but not sorry enough for one moment to let the hegemony stamp on my uterus.

It is childish to think that anything is absolutely controlled, and it is misguided adolescent wankery to pretend that womens domination of the reproductive sphere is an adequate recompense for any male domination in other spheres.

Matriarchy is as bad as patriarchy, so don’t fall into the same trap as your enemy that one is rank evil so the opposite must be perfect.

Laurie, you’ve started making excuses by misinterpreting what I wrote for your own purposes, which is to make a selfish and dishonest sham of your argument by playing to the gallery. Your original 24 reasons were a tolerable compromise under the current circumstances, but like I said, you can do better than that.

I’d be fascinated to find out what sources you have for abusive partners being “violent in all areas of their lives”, considering your hatred of unsources statements. Because as far as I’m aware, that’s simply not the case. I’d also love to know what certain “class/type of women” you’re referring to, as from here it looks like you’re making sweeping generalisations based on your own ill-defined prejudices. Which I’m sure can’t be the case.

Moreover, casual sex is not “compulsory”, but unwanted pregnancy can, believe it or not, occur in a variety of different sex/relationship configurations. There are plenty of reasons why even established or married couples end up having to deal with unwanted pregnancy through the aforementioned contraceptive failure. Nor should the aforementioned occurring as a result of casual sex prejudice the rights of the women involved, surely?

“Tough”, is not a useful response, really, now is it? Especially as the examples given are cases where the women in question are not aware they are pregnant until much later on. It’s hard to deal with the “consequences” of your actions if you don’t know what they are.

RE: Point 11, I think you’re missing the point that this isn’t a case of premature babies being “gassed”, it’s a case where the alternative to 22/23-week abortion isn’t particularly desirable in the first place.

While it is true that the choice to abort a pregnancy “imapacts (sic) on others - from the father/siblings all the way up to taxpayers who end up funding it”, I suspect you’re simply lacking any conception of scale here. That is to say, no matter what the father/siblings/taxpayer may think or feel about the whole thing, they’re not actually pregnant, are they? I mean, I’m sure the taxpayer will be awfully upset at the tiny percentile of a tiny percentile of his money that goes to the NHS being spent on running abortion clinics, but it’s not like he has to incubate an unwanted foetus, is it? Nor are the wishes of the father particularly relevant, the material, emotional, social and economic effects, let alone the actual effort involved, being far more pronounced for the prospective mother. Whose body it is. In the first place.

I mean, you’ve put your cards on the table here, for sure. I’d be interested to hear in what cases you’d like to make abortion illegal, seeing as you can’t get pregnant, have no empathy, have no idea of the realities of the situation, and no sense of proportion. Just to see the depths to which one can sink, you know?
However, if you’ve got any sources or other means of proof that you’re not talking reactionary piffle, please do present them, as maybe I’ve missed some logical and scientific gems, belieing as I do in a woman’s right to “a relic of 1970s feminism”.

Now, this is an interesting one and gets, I think, to the heart of the debate. Women’s reproductive capacity gives them immense power, and that is precisely why controlling that potential lies at the heart of patriarchy. Taking ultimate control over the future of the species away from women has been one of the keystones of patriarchy since abortion was first criminalised. That amount of power terrifies men when they worry that it might not do what they say.

You seem to be arguing that it’s only fair to allow men to control women’s baby-making capacity, since they can’t have babies themselves. I’ve encountered this view many times in men that I like and respect, often when they’re drunk and speaking, as you put it, plainly. It frightens me.

Because I don’t think we should have to subvert our political power any longer. And make no mistake, reproductive potential is political as well as personal -whatever you choose to do with it.

I’m not sure it is possible to defend one’s personal rights to the exclusion of anothers when it is in the face of a third-party’s rights.

I’m also a little worried by your description of what you call the ‘terrible hatred of female bodies and female decisions’, as though women belonged to some different species.

Politcally-speaking, it is impossible to create a reductive situation where all interests are represented by single groups, as although this may strip away the confusion and frustration caused by inevitable disagreements it also abolishes the joy and fulfillment that comes from partnership. And, to speak plainly, your anger at the restraints placed on female reproductive capacity is something that every man has had to deal with since the moment in each of our teen years we realised budding and cloning were messy longshots which would anyway create our nightmare doppelgaengers.

So, on abortion it is neither a matter simply for the woman in question or women in general, nor of just the progeny or the science involved, and to which no sane person will fall outside of the framework created by comparison to Nadine Dorries and Evan Davies at either end of this spectrum - wherever the majority may rest an unsatisfactory compromise will reside.

Yes, my reaction was undignified, remains undignified, and that’s because it’s a comment thread and I’m angry. When I write campaigning notes and articles I rein everything in, but actually I’m stunningly angry about this attack on my rights and the rights of every woman to control her own reproductive potential. This is an emotional issue, fantastically so, and that means that everyone’s allowed an emotional reaction - just as long as that reaction isn’t translated into law.

I think you are going overboard in an unfair characterisation of MattMunro. Maybe he is showing a slightly uncompassionate stance, but your unconsidered and undignified reaction counts unfavourable against your argument by showing you can slip into irrationalism too.

I agree he looks misogynistic on first glance, but I’d say his attitude is more opposed to the commoditisation of the heterogenous sex act - which may indicate either he has some cautious inter-relationship tendencies, he may be a homo-extremist, or simply have a bad body-image of himself - any of which may result in his opinion to create distinctions for himself.

It is true decisions can’t be safely made on a lack of evidence, but neither is that lack a certain disproof.

Must do better.