Surely ‘women who want heterosexual sex but don’t want a baby’ is as definable a group as ‘gays’? There are people who are definitely members, people who are definitely not, and some in the fuzzy edges.

Treating the two groups so differently looks difficult to justify from first principles.

soru

That would be an interesting species, but it would not be our species. As a counter-example, let us imagine that it was impossible to relieve childbirth with anaesthesia in any way. A woman in such a society could nevertheless be politically equal to a man, although she would risk painful death in the most terrible circumstances as a matter of routine. I personally would be dead in such a world.

But given that anaesthesia is available, to deny it for religious reasons, such that women experience a level of unneccessary suffering which no man has ever to confront, is a matter of political rights limitation. And it’s sexist. To say ‘men are banned from using anaesthessia in childbirth’ is meaningless. This is medicine that only women need.

Similarly in a world where abortion is possible, to ban it for religious reasons would cause unnecessary pain, death, and lifelong suffering – of a sort that no man ever has to face. Or it would require lifelong celibacy from all women – because nobody knows if a particular pregnancy will kill them.

A gay man forced to be celibate by law would be horribly oppressed, and I believe would be excluded from full respect and political involvement, because sexuality is part of one’s intimate selfhood. Similarly a woman barred from medical treatment which exists and is needed for reproductive health is denigrated, excluded, and suffers and/or dies.

Your example of a world in which no abortion is possible is not a good one, because then nothing would be withheld for women in an invidious way. Lets try a different example. Suppose a cure were found for AIDS. Then suppose we passed a law restricting this cure to men only (or to heterosexuals, or to persons who were infected after being raped). So women (or gays, or non-rape victims) having AIDS could continue the burdensome treatments now available but men (etc.) could immediately be free of the disease forever. Perhaps this law would be passed because the citizens in the majority felt that the women with AIDS should be punished for their sexual activity (not too dissimilar from the effort by some to restrict the administration of the newly proven vaccine against the human papilloma virus). Obviously these afflicted persons would still be able to vote, to advocate politically. But would you assert that such a law preserved the human rights and dignity of those affected?

Bearing an unwanted child IS a form of stigmatization, especially in societies and social strata where unmarried sex is seen as a heinous sin. Surely you are aware of the issue of honor killings in Turkey and elsewhere.

On the other hand, any group deliberately stigmatized (such as gays or racial groups in some societies) is clearly disbarred from political equality by such discrimination.

Let me reiterate that I am a supporter of choice. That doesn’t stop me from being astonished by the way in which many on our side conduct their arguments. In particular, in claiming that abortion opponents by the mere fact of their opposition necessarily disrespect women as such or deny their equal status, some pro-choice advocates simply wave away the moral complexities, the deep convictions of their fellow citizens, etc. Whatever else they do, someone who believes that some right-to-life considerations outweigh some reproductive rights is not, by the mere fact of taking that view, showing disrespect for their female fellow citizens. To misrepresent their view as doing that shows a lack of commitment to engage in reasonable dialogue with one’s fellows.

I assume that many campaigners in other countries feel equally strongly, but they limit their demands to whatever looks attainable.

http://snipurl.com/k10q

said:

“19 SPUC, however, maintains that the provision of abortion cannot be regarded as being a service, on the grounds that it is grossly immoral and involves the destruction of the life of a human being, namely the unborn child.

20 Whatever the merits of those arguments on the moral plane, they cannot influence the answer to the national court’ s first question. It is not for the Court to substitute its assessment for that of the legislature in those Member States where the activities in question are practised legally.”

The EC (EU treaty was not in force in 1991) has no competence to decide about penal law of the Member States. Therefore, the Court can not decide that abortion is illegal in Great Britain, where the Member State has decided that it is not. The revers e would also be true. The EU can’t go ahead and say that abortion is legal if a Member State legislates otherwise.

Therefore, the participants of that conference seem to be out of luck. There is no way the EU could legislate on the question under current rules.

I would also strongly oppose any proposals to change these rules. The EU already has enough legislative competences. There must be substantial rights of legislation left to Member States. And penal law is certainly one area that is strongly influenced by different cultural and religious backgrounds.

Not so. It was overturned on the grounds that there was a risk that she would commit suicide. The Irish Supreme Court did not uphold a right to travel. Such a right was established subsequently, by referendum.

I don’t think you have done more than to assert that reproductive rights are not relevant to political equality. The arguments made by women to the contrary have been many and various over many decades, if not centuries, and I am sure you have heard them. You may disagree with them, but you have heard them.

Now, to my eyes this is a pretty clear description of abortion as murder but feel free to tell me otherwise. You simply fall into the second camp (of largely rational secularism) where it becomes a matter of determining at which point after conception a human life is formed. I have sought to reduce the debate to its key points – one side says its murder (simple, clear). The other side (that’s you) creates endless debate and argument which all effectively centres on saying otherwise until point x has been reached. Of course, as soon as you nominate point x (which you personally have not done) you fall into the trap of having to defend point x + y e.g. 12 weeks? What about 12.5 weeks? What’s the difference? This is because pregnancy is a contiguous process which in each case progresses at a varied rate. In short, nothing you have said helps reconcile the positions I’ve outlined. Which is what I was after.

Finally, you may note that I have not ever outlined my personal position on the subject.