I make this point time and time again but here goes: I really think we should stop calling them pro lifers. They’re better described, imo, as anti-abortionists.

We’ll be calling them ‘extinct’ when I’ve finished with them.

One point I’d have to make is that I dislike the pro-choice lobby’s description of itself as pro-choice, as it happens. I understand the reference to choice, but we’re really talking about being pro-abortion. Pro-choice seems a terribly watered-down, PC description.

Complete O/T but I just nipped over to Mad Nad’s to find she’s put up some sort of post about the teaching of history in which she she claims the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ came chronologically between Simon De Montfort and the Tudors…

Okay, so maybe, on Planet Dorries, the Hundred Years War and the Black Death count as enlightenment…

Always worth a trip to Nads’/outer space. Last time I went there, she & her daughter were conversing with the Lord. Thought He might have got into the comments.

Except that comments over there are closed, of course.

“I understand the reference to choice, but we’re really talking about being pro-abortion.”

I’m not sure about that – things which I’m “pro” are things that I’d like to see more of, whereas in an ideal world no woman would ever need to get an abortion [because contraception would be 100% reliable, nobody would ever make bad choices, nobody would ever rape anyone, etc].

If anyone were to propose a scheme to reduce the number of abortions without restricting women’s access to or funding for abortion [*] then I’d be in favour of it, and I’d've thought that nearly everyone pro-choice would also be.

[*] e.g. wider contraceptive availability in any country where they’re restricted; better sex education; programmes to discourage kids getting blind drunk; financial support that means no woman needs to terminate a pregnancy because they can’t afford to have the baby, etc…

@ John B:

I think you’ve got a point in saying that definition of ‘pro choice’ and ‘pro abortion’ and indeed ‘pro’ anything depends a bit on yr definition of pro.

My definition of pro abortion is based on a definition of ‘in favour of’ – as in, ‘entirely comfortable with.’ I am certainly pro abortion in that instance.

I am also very much in favour of easier access to abortion – allowing nurses to perform abortions, etc. I think that speaks of wanting development and some maturity brought to the environment in which abortions are carried out, so that’s a kind of ‘pro’ as well.

I’m very pro those things.

“My definition of pro abortion is based on a definition of ‘in favour of’ – as in, ‘entirely comfortable with.’ I am certainly pro abortion in that instance.”

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.

Fair points, Nick.

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.

“anti-coathangers”

That’s utter genius. I will certainly plagiarise.

by saying you are “anti-coathangers” which is a pretty good KO in favour of legalisation.

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

“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”

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.

Could you do a little logo/avatar for me, then, fellas?

Like, it would be a little picture of:

a coathanger
with a line through it

like anti-smoking signs
except

anticoathangers

Yo nick hold the horses – state regulation of childbirth? I’ve missed that – what’s that?

It is not there yet but watch it develop from plans… http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/publications/childrensplan/implement.shtml … through to control of free association … http://www.manifestoclub.com/hubs/vetting … until it finishes (even in so-called “progressive societies”) with… http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/Sterilization.html

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.

I’ll have a look at those links, Nick. The only point I’d make is that I doubt that this government is that organised. They can’t even see problems with the 10p tax abolition coming a year out – seems unlikely that they’ve organised themselves into the above.

Can u do an anticoathanger avatar?

I am not a graphic artist but I will see what I can do:) My email is nick at backlash-uk dot org dot uk if you can’t see it.

Instead of going round and round the abortion merry go round AGAIN people on both sides (pro-choice, pro-life) ought to work together to ensure that women dont end up having abortions because they feel they dont have any other viable option.

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.

Considerthis – Europe also doesn’t have the perverse financial incentives that generate high teenage pregnancy and single motherhood in the UK. That needs to be tackled as well. The Dutch system, for example, is actually quite harsh on single mothers, especially on those with no personal means of support. I am all in favour of enabling people to look after their own children, but not in forcing other people to pay for them.

Kate – I now have a very basic anti-coathanger sign (good use of a lunch break)! Where would you like it sent?

yo man,

k8 at hangbitch dot com

u r the king!

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

Nick – what do you mean exactly by “I am all in favour of enabling people to look after their own children, but not in forcing other people to pay for them.” I agree that a spate of teenage mothers is hardly a good thing for our country and would like to see incentives reduced, if thats whats causing this problem, but Europe’s approach is also based on a social system reliant on fairly generous tax payments and employer contributions that ensures women work and their kids are taken care of, in creche or whatever, through state funding. It also means that many women, esp those in scandinavia, can take up to 2 years maternity leave to look afer their kids on up to 90% of full pay. This may seem like getting other people to pay for it but it leads to a healthier, happier society and less messed up kids – unlike in Britain where we’re generating a new generation of little nutters…http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1381571.ece

Kate,

‘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.

Don’t mind using ‘termination.’ Hadn’t really thought about it.

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

“termination” to me sounds like a weird combination of wimp-out and Arnie…

hey, good point.

forget termination.

it sucks.

ConsiderThis – I neither consider a social insurance system to be necessary or ideal (although better than what we have in the UK at the moment I will acknowledge). Money for all that welfare for children needs to actually be generated from someone. I would rather leave it with those who earn it, by keeping taxes low and providing greater tax credit on those who have dependents (including non-working partners and children). I would also like to provide more ways of people saving tax free before they have children so that they are prepared to take some time out of work, as well as encouraging more social and collaborative means of paying for children’s upbringing.

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).