Blog Binge

It’s been a long time since I’ve blogged. Work, sick sisters (who are fully recovered now – thanks for all your caring comments), socialising and that common blogger complaint – the editor that lives in your psyche and tells you not to post that crap, have all contributed to my radio silence.

However, I have been fairly up-to-date with my reading of other blogs. Unfortunately many of the blogs that I once looked forward to reading have fell into disrepair – Richard Waghorne, Fiona deLondras, alt tag, Gavin, Disillusioned Lefty while I have began to read some newer ones – Cedar Lounge Revolution, Fatmammycat and Semperidem.

So here’s a little binge – a compilation of posts that I have clipped over the last few weeks….

It will come as no surprise to regular readers that I disagree with the lowering of the age of consent or the recent case of the couple who fought over their IVF embryos in the High Court. Cedar Lounge Revolution has a good post on embryo research, even though I disagree with them - especially in light of the news that umbilical stem cells have been used to grow mini-livers, currently used in drug testing.
The other heart wrenching case involving parents fighting over children was the Baby Ann case – Sarah Carey had a good post on it.

I’m not that big a fan of David McWilliams, and wasn’t overly impressed with his tv series – Sarah wasn’t either. And An Spailin Fanach highlights the case of the celtic tiger mums who can’t “bake” Rice Crispie buns.

Rainy Day by Eamonn Fitzgerald is one of my favourite blogs – his posts on “Lord Baker” and “In the Well Below the Valley” are typical.

Irish Eagle links to an article that I found thought provoking – John O’Sullivan on how dictators are judged – Pincochet bad, Castro not quite so bad (Well, Gerard Depardieu’s certainly fond of him).

David Quinn and Richard Dawkins had a fantastically robust debate about God on Ryan Tubridy in October – transcript and mp3 here. While Quinn beat Dawkins there in my opinion, Damien Mulley links to YouTube video of Dawkins having a go at a Christian college student.

There was a “storm in a 32AA cup” as infactah blogger, Colm put it. He summarises it, but essentially it’s about female bloggers. I won’t go into my I’m-not-a-feminist-and-therefore-don’t-care-if-women-blog diatribe again (but you know I’m thinking it).  I appear on the pro-female version of the expert list under Health as a student doctor. Thankfully I’m a student no longer.

Which brings me onto my must-read-every-day blog – NHS Blog Doctor – I’m just after filling out my IMO survey on the role of doctors in Ireland. The HSE is planning to implement a “hospital at night” policy similar to the 1 run rather unsuccessfully by nurses in the NHS. Dr Crippen produces a frightening read  - especially about nurse practitioners - useful in small doses but very dangerous when they turn into “quackitioners” – prepared to be scared when you read these posts - quackitioners; what New Labour is doing to the NHS and a houseman’s tale.

The Democratic party’s performance at the recent midterms, while unsurprising, disappointed me a little – however this article perked me a little – Jonah Goldberg on the GOP - The GOP came to power in 1994 promising lean government, and became the party that needed to unbuckle its pants and loosen its belt two notches after every lobbyist-paid meal. The GOP once had the reputation of being able to run government like a business and wars like a finely tuned machine. But under compassionate conservatism, government became a faith-based charity….. It's to the Republicans' electoral advantage to take positions that shock the conscience of Rosie O'Donnell. It's also true that the Iraq war is unpopular; that's because it's not going swimmingly. If it were otherwise, Iraq would be a political boon to the GOP. Now, you might say, "Yeah, and except for the brief unpleasantness, Mrs. Lincoln had a wonderful time at the theater." But it is not the conservative position to botch wars. And contrary to the slanderous codswallop you've heard for the last year, conservative principles do not require flooding New Orleans. While we're on this point, corruption and cronyism aren't core planks in the conservative platform either. Rep. Don Sherwood (R., Pa.) lost his seat because of an alleged personal scandal, but I can assure you there's nothing in the works of Edmund Burke that says a good conservative should try to strangle his mistress.In other words, just as Democrats insisted, the GOP's drubbing had more to do with incompetence and scandal than program and ideology. Indeed, if the conservative base hadn't been disgusted with Republican management, and if so many Democrats hadn't run as social conservatives, the GOP might have done just fine in this election.Republicans lost because they behaved like self-indulgent politicians, not purists. Conservatives care a lot about ideas, so that's where we'll try to assign blame. But the ideologues aren't to blame. The Republicans are..
And Richard Delevan lays out the bad news for the Irish when the Dems win.

And to probably the most important current affair recently – Britney’s underwear, or lack thereof = Cathy Young links to a Hit & Run post by Kerry Howley on vaginofascism. As she said - Appeasement is futile; the only proper response to vaginofascism is total war.

Embryo Custody Case Starts in High Court

But will probably go further.
Here’s a few previous posts about this case –

The More You See The Less You Know
More on the IVF Case (my title-creativity just gets worse and worse)
Never Promised You A Rose Garden (Just about adult vs embryonic stem cells.)

Knowing Your Enemies is Sometimes More Important

than just voting for someone you agree with.
The
New York Times has a summary article on the Pennslyvania Senate Race between current Republican senator Rick Santorum and Democrat contender Bob Casey, Jr.
I've posted on this race before - both are pro-life candidates.
For liberals, Bob Casey's father, governor Robert Casey Snr attempted to answer the question "How can we justify with our experience in this country - our tradition, our heritage, our history - how can we justify writing off the unborn child in a country which prides itself on leaving no one out and no one behind?". So in carrying on that tradition, the Democrats think they have a winner in Bob.
But Rick Santorum is more than just another pro-life politician - he has been a leader for the pro-life side in the Senate and the ease at which hardened pro-choice activists have backed Casey is telling.
I hope ordinary pro-life Pennslyvanians look at those who they disagree with (Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Kate Michelman) and then weigh up their choice. When Barbara Boxer says that a pro-life candidate winning is actually a pro-choice victory, you've got to open your eyes.
Some Irish pro-lifers in the past, most noticeably in the last referendum, were unable to do so. This led to the bizarre picture of Dana, failed politician turned Irish dancer clapping and claiming victory alongside her natural enemies in the debate.
Her shortsightness and lack of political judgement was not just her downfall but a set back for pro-lifers here. She is still blissfully unaware of her blunder as she dances for Mna na hEireann in trousers to some naff popsong.
Those in Pennsylvania for whom abortion is an issue that decides their ballot will hopefully pick the candidate with the proven record on pro-life leadership. That said, I would dearly love to see Democrats for Life become a more mainstream part of the Democrat party. Unfortunately as history as shown here as well, pro-choice liberal parties have a remarkably small tent when it comes to abortion.

The More You See the Less You Know

The more we learn about genetics, embryology and the happenings of that dark, warm haven of the womb, the less we seem to be sure of.
I posted on the recent case involving a couple’s dispute over their IVF created embryos last week.
Sarah Carey has an article up about it today  - just 1 point about it –  she says -
If there was a genuine consensus that life starts from the moment of conception, the morning-after pill would be banned. When you see a blue line on the pregnancy test, the embryo is implanted and then, and only then, are you pregnant. If a fertilised egg doesn’t implant, you were never pregnant.
Implantation is even murkier than conception as (an arbitrary) starting point for human life. Because we’re never sure when that happens – blue lines on pregnancy test only kick in when BHCG levels rise to a sufficiently detectable amount.  
Ages ago, back when “the abortion debate” was happening in the boggersphere – I posted about when I thought life began. In one of the posts below, fatmammycat said “the egg I lose with every period has humanity too, but it is not a person” – absolutely true. Fertilise that egg with a sperm, you’ve still got something with humanity, but it is now a human being.
I’ll just paste what I said back then (‘cos I’m a lazy blogger)…
Without going in to a big birds-and-bees discussion, I want to explain the very basics of human reproduction – because believing foetuses are not human beings or are some other species is just mad, Ted, mad.Human sperm and eggs have only 23 chromosomes – they are not human beings, they are human. They’re not bovine or canine. Sperm and eggs go through a very complicated process where they started as primitive germ cells with 46 chromosomes and are cut up in different ways until they’ve 23. (This is not a scientific paper so excuse the generalisations! But remember meiosis from the Leaving Cert!)  They meet up and join and become something else entirely. This new “thing” is a zygote, a brand new human individual that never existed before – with 46 chromosomes. It immediately starts growing (by division) and making all kinds of human proteins etc which make up human cells which then starting migrating up, down and all over the place which over time forms various parts of the body (which is already male/female!) Embryo is the term used after 1 week, a foetus after 8 weeks, an adolescent after 12 years, a pensioner after 65 years – the substance of our humanity has not changed since we began our existence – at the end of the process of fertilisation.
What goes for foetuses, goes for embryos too.

Cathy Young has an interesting post (that I don't really agree with) about this.

More on the IVF Embryos case

I don't really know quite how to call it but that clunky title will have to suffice. I posted on the case here yesterday.
John Moloney, member of the 3 person subcommittee on the CAHR report said in today's Irish Times that "Clearly there are some recommendations that we are simply unable to comment upon because they centre upon the whole issue of when life begins, and that is not in the remit of our committee to decide on."
True.
The subcommittee does have 2 other interesting members - Fiona O'Malley and Mary Henry, neither known for their impartial stances on this issue.

The IT report ends with a quote from Berry Kiely from the Pro Life Campaign -
Whether or not the human embryo is implanted it has a dignity and value by virtue of its humanity and has a right to be cared for and protected from harm . . . We need a more open debate on assisted human reproduction in Ireland

The Examiner reports that the government is not planning a referendum this year to clarify the status of the human embryo under the constitution. That's not exactly surprising news, is it?

Irish Courts Will Have to Decide Who Owns Human Life

Yesterday’s Irish Independent reports on a case similar to the Johnson-Evans case last week in the UK.
An unnamed Irish couple are currently wrangling over their frozen embryos, created as a part of IVF treatment. They have since separated but the woman/mother wants to go ahead and implant the embryos, and hopefully give birth to them, while the man/father says no.
This sort of case is becoming increasingly prevalent and just seems so heartbreaking.
Fundamental questions need to be asked here, though.
Both parents consented to have the embryos created. The embryos are human embryos. They are humans that exist, suspended in a vial in liquid nitrogen in Rathgar. Hardly a dignified habitat and certainly not one we readily associate with the human condition – but they are human nonetheless. They’re certainly tiny but genetically complete humans with growth potential to become bigger humans.
It is very difficult to argue that embryos are not unborn, as per the constitutional definition – they have not passed through the final rite of birth – but yet they exist, and in the natural history/timecourse of their lives, birth is a future event. They are humans without birth (“gan breithe”) who need a change in their environment (implantation) to reach birth.
Are frozen human embryos less deserving of life, simply because they are suspended unnaturally at a fixed point in their life? Or because so many do not survive the unfreezing process? (40-70% don’t)
Who owns these human embryos? Who has the right to terminate their existence when they live in glass jars? The parents?
The mother, as is traditionally determined in cases of abortion – it is her physical relationship that allows her to make that decision. The father, a bystander in too many cases of unexpected pregnancy, now has a right to demand that children he created be destroyed because he doesn’t want fatherhood.
Has the state a right to compel someone to become a parent? But are they not already parents?
No reasonable person would argue that after a break up of a relationship that the father has a right to make his pregnant girlfriend abort, simply because he no longer wants fatherhood.
Should parents be allowed to renegade on the commitment they made when they created the embryos?  Are you allowed to withdraw consent for parenthood? Can you change your mind after new life has been created?
This case will bring back the questions of life’s beginning to the fore of public debate. The CAHR report will again be discussed. Legislation or referenda will again be mooted as possible solutions.
All these are important debates that have not yet been fully resolved. But in reality, human beings are created as a result of IVF. Perhaps the simplest solution would be follow in line with other countries like Italy or Germany, and only create as many embryos as will be implanted.
This would prevent cases like this. It would prevent the dilemmas faced by clinics with freezers full of embryos – some wanted, some waiting and more forgotten about  and languishing until the 5 year deadline is passed.
As for the case at hand, I really have no idea – I believe in character and that decisions over such important things as creating new people should be taken seriously – and that commitments such as this can not be readily dismissed, simply because one has “moved on”.
Human life is not a commodity – our humanity is not conditional on whether we are wanted or not. Those embryos have humanity, even if they have a father who wants nothing to do with them.
The Irish Independent provides Yes and No columns on this case.

Ever said anything to a reporter that you don't remember?

I feel like some dodgy politician. According to this United Press International article about the Blogs4Life conference, I told the reporter -
A number of international bloggers attended the event such as "Auds" (who also asked to remain anonymous), blogger of realitycheckdotie.blogspot.com and a student from Ireland who came to Washington for the first time this week.

According to Auds, the Irish media have not reported adequately on the issue. And with the recent emergence of political blogs, Auds predicts more anti-abortion bloggers will appear as more individuals adapt to technology with the introduction of broadband, she said.

I don't remember talking to a reporter , but I must have. I don't remember saying the Irish media have not adequately reported on the issue - I actually think they do report loads on it.
And I don't know if we need specifically pro-life bloggers in Ireland - just more bloggers. And more people who read blogs. And hopefully I'm right about broadband - which is little more than just introduced.

Kind of funny to read about yourself and not recognise yourself. As I asked in response to that "who are we?" meme - Am I Me?

Abortion - Kid Rock, Reasons for, Men and Adoption

I started replying to the debate at Colm Bracken’s post on infactah in the comments, but moved it here after it reached a certain word count.

There were a few things I wanted to reply to so here goes –
So starting with Sinead’s comment
I agree that abortion should never be used as a form of contraception, but anyone I know who has had one wasn't for something as glib as having their "lifestyle disrupted". What about contraceptive breakdown?
As a famous woman once said, if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortions would be like a lunchtime visit to the dentist.
And then her 2nd comment
Men should never be excluded from having a say on abortion and I don't doubt they are affected as much. However, until men have the ability to carry children, they can pontificate about abortion from the comfortable position of never having to have one. The last remark - as I pointed out - was not made by me, I was paraphrasing a quote (by Susan B. Anthony possibly?) and I think there is a certain amount of truth to it.
and her other comment
Also, no one has mentioned the number of women (6,000-7,000) travelling to the UK for abortions every year - any proposals on how we address this?
And then Colm
Yes, it's appalling that so many have to travel to the UK. But unless abortion on demand is legalised here, this will continue.I would really like to get my hands of information/data that gives us a better view as to why women feel the need to abort their pregnancies.
And PmcC’s final comment
As men it is much easier to say 'I am against abortion on demand' when you will never have to make the decision.

Okay, just cutting and pasting has taken me 10 minutes.
So quick points –
Abortion, contraception and lifestyle – most women who I know who have had abortions, had them because of contraceptive failure. That fact in itself, questions the wisdom of solely relying on contraception to reduce the abortion rate. But contraceptive failure leads to pregnancy which leads to lifestyle disruption, which is not a glib response but rather a reflection of why a woman feels she needs an abortion, as way of out of that disruption and “back” into her life, as she had planned it.
We all plan our lives to some extent or another and becoming pregnant has a funny way of tearing that plan asunder.
Studies into the psychological reasons and decision making processes for choosing abortion have found that it is the concept of life disruption, of loss of her own “life” or so perceived, plays a major role in deciding to have an abortion. (I can’t find the exact reference that discuss this concept at the minute but will look it up if you don’t trust me!) This is not a negative reflection on the woman who makes the undoubtably difficult decision to abort, but rather an insight to the turmoil she’s feeling. From a sociological perspective, it shows us how we can prevent the loss of life her child and the hurt she might experience, by addressing her needs.

As for Sinead’s possible Susan B Anthony quote – not only is it definitely not from her as this quote is – she was fervently pro-life, as were many of the early feminists and suffragettes –
Not only did she refer to abortion as “child murder”  she also said  - "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

And the men and abortion link – men too feel hurt from abortion.
Because of this blog’s obsession with music, I can refer you to a song about abortion from a man’s perspective – none other than the Kid Rock himself - Abortion, from A History of Rock (who I view as a guilty pleasure).
Kid Rock’s high school girlfriend, who he later married, underwent an abortion while teenager. His pain, guilt and frustration are expressed in the violent terms of his desire to commit suicide to meet his aborted son and his drug abuse to hide or numb these feelings.
“Living in the shadows of a man I've never seen dreaming like a lonely child, I know your brothers and your sister and your mother too, Man, I wish you could see them too”
“I'm dying in the shadows of this man I've never seen, I'll see you soon now where's my gun?”
“Let me open your eyes, Let me see who you are, I am you, you are me”
“You know you make me so lonely, I am so alone……and I will pray and then I'll cry”

In another life, I presented this very topic at a conference on abortion – men and abortion. I just have the paper references (but will look for the hyperlink references sometime tomorrow)

Men can have a number of positions in the abortion decision making process. They can encourage or support the woman to choose abortion; pressure her to abort; abandon her to make the decision alone; unsuccessfully oppose the abortion; or learn about the abortion only after it has been done.
The last option – of only learning about the abortion after it has happened, happens in 15-20% of cases – and this isolation can really intensify the fathers’ pain.
“They felt isolated from the decision and especially if they opposed the abortion - emasculated and powerless.” (Shostak A, McLouth G, Seng L Men and Abortion New York: Praeger, 1984)
1 small Italian study had some interesting findings - 90% of men reported fear, anxiety, and tension after the abortion with 20% being affected by long term painful memories. The effect of abortion on relationship is very deleterious with 50% of relationships suffering serious breakdown and in 16% of cases the final break up was attributed directly to the abortion.  (Schelotto G, Arcuri C.  “Supposing It Hurt Me Too? Abortion: the Anguish Experienced by Men”  IPPF Eur Reg Inf. 1986 Spring;15(1):25-34)

And this excellently written article on abortion from the male perspective sheds a very different light on abortion.  From that article –
By the time I turned 23, I had already denied five children their lives through abortions…

On the morning of the abortion, as my lover was being prepared for the procedure, she refused my hand, choosing instead to hold another woman's, her sister's. I felt useless and unwanted. It was only then I realized that abortion was not just like putting stitches on an open wound. Abortion itself was a wound - a wound that needed time for physical, psychological and emotional healing.
I don't think any state legislature should determine what a woman does with her body……for many of the women I have been intimate with, pro-choice was, I believe, a euphemism for pro-abortion. Their decisions to abort were rapid and seemingly made without real reflection. I was rarely consulted.
I am not taking a moral posture. My story is a personal meditation shaped by clinics, deep love I've known and concern about my sometimes-too-carefree attitude toward life.

I have loads more on this topic but am feeling the tumbleweed roll around my brain so will leave it at this.

So just the reasons why women have abortion.
Colm will be delighted, I’m sure, to find out that there’s mountains of research on that very question, including the Women and Crisis Pregnancy carried out in Trinity in 1998. (Not available online though)
The main reasons cited in this study for abortion were career, job-related and educational concerns, the stigma of lone motherhood, the needs of the child, financial worries and feelings of not being ready or not being able to cope.
Other international studies have echoed these reasons – so the reasons pushing women into abortion are roughly similar. In fact 1 of these studies found that 47% of women would not have had an abortion if she had support from her partner (Husfeldt C et al Ambivalence among women applying for abortion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1995 Nov;74(10):813-7)
I’ve the references for all these studies, if you’re interested. Or just obsessed with studies like me.

Just quickly on adoption, the Irish Women and Crisis Pregnancy Study found that most women felt that they would not be able to part with the baby afterwards if they continued with the pregnancy.  It was complicated and an unsure outcome compared to abortion.
Those who chose adoption felt that it was not necessarily the end of the relationship with child and that they were making a childless couple happy – which really should make us more aware and active in creating open adoption situations etc.
This view of adoption is again common in international literature – women tend to view it as a worse alternative than abortion, mainly because of the attachment they felt to the child and felt that the circumstances necessary to continue the pregnancy and give birth were not available to them.

Just another little bit more about abortion

In response to Fiona’s post.
Fiona said I discussed abortion and not legislation. The argument that abortion and the legislation of it, are in fact 2 separate arguments doesn’t make that much sense to me – for example, some people think all recreational drugs should be legalised. I don’t believe in legislation because I believe drugs are bad (simple argument here!) and damage both users and society. It is not sensible to say, well, actually I think using heroin is wrong, bad and stupid but I don’t mind the State legislating for it because its people’s own choice anyway, and sure, legislation doesn’t mean condoning when it’s all about choice.
And from my point of view, abortion legislation would legitimise the ending of another human being’s life. That, to me, regardless of where I stand on freedom of choice issues, makes abortion a special case.

Fiona says this point is only valid if “you accept that a foetus is a human being”. Believing that a foetus is not a human being is akin to wilfully believing that the earth is flat and revolves around the moon. It flies in the face of all scientific evidence about human embryology.
Most of the philosophical justification for abortion has been based on the concept of personhood, not humanity.
I can understand the argument that a foetus is not a person (even though I thoroughly disagree with the notion that we have to fulfil certain personhood characteristics set by philosophers/lawyers etc before we have any standing in the world), but I can not understand the “foetus is just cells” arguments.
Without going in to a big birds-and-bees discussion, I want to explain the very basics of human reproduction – because believing foetuses are not human beings or are some other species is just mad, Ted, mad.
Human sperm and eggs have only 23 chromosomes – they are not human beings, they are human. They’re not bovine or canine. Sperm and eggs go through a very complicated process where they started as primitive germ cells with 46 chromosomes and are cut up in different ways until they’ve 23. (This is not a scientific paper so excuse the generalisations! But remember meiosis from the Leaving Cert!)  
They meet up and join and become something else entirely.
This new “thing” is a zygote, a brand new human individual that never existed before – with 46 chromosomes. It immediately starts growing (by division) and making all kinds of human proteins etc which make up human cells which then starting migrating up, down and all over the place which over time forms various parts of the body (which is already male/female!) Embryo is the term used after 1 week, a foetus after 8 weeks, an adolescent after 12 years, a pensioner after 65 years – the substance of our humanity has not changed since we began our existence – at the end of the process of fertilisation.
As for the argument that somehow the zygote can’t human until the potential for twinning as passed, it makes no sense either – scientifically. Monozygotic twins are essentially natural clones. But this implies that a unified being (that’s human) had to exist beforehand, for the 2nd twin to clone it. If not, then neither are human.
But even if you are to accept that unique human beings exist only after the last stop for twinning, abortion still denies the right to life of that human being. Twinning will have happened well before a woman misses her first period.  
Anyway – that’s beside the point of these points that Fiona makes.
Fiona says that “In terms of advancing equality for women the prohibition of abortion tends, at the very least, to perpetuate inequalities between women where wealthy women can afford to go abroad for safe and clean abortions if they want them but poor women generally can’t and tend to suffer the dangers and difficulties of illegal abortions to a disproportionate extent.”
I do not accept this at all. If anything, abortion legitimises and continues the situations that leave poor women facing no choice but abortion. My point about abortion not always being safe was to illustrate that legalising something does not make it safe. Talking about illegal abortion in the Irish context is disingenous as we do not know enough about illegal abortion here to make an informed decision about it.

Disregarding the right to life of unborn children so that we can equilibrate the access to abortion among all social classes is not a good enough argument for abortion (even among socialists, I would imagine). Especially when the evidence available to us is pointing more and more in the direction of the universal harm that abortion does to women.

As for the arguments about the absence of debate on reducing crisis pregnancy and abortion rates check out this transcript from Prof Patricia Casey and Breda O’Brien from 2000 at the Joint Committee on the Constitution’s public hearings on abortion.

And on Saint’s arguments that the real victims (the foetus are inevitable victims) in this are the women coming back in the veil of secrecy. In serious need of supports. If abortion services were supplied in the state a better after care services could be provided and women would not be suffering in silence on this issue. Also in the state women could be allowed to see all the options or maybe after counselling more would chose adoption or to keep the child.
That’s just wrong. Several agencies provide post-abortion counselling already here (Life and Cura). In fact, this is one area where the Crisis Pregnancy Agency could really help women, and have failed to show leadership to date anyway.
Having abortion in Ireland is not going to reduce the number of abortions. It’s not going to reduce the number of women who need counselling after an abortion (we have no evidence, ancedotal or otherwise that travelling plays into any negative effects a woman might feel after an abortion – the abortion is why she needs counselling, not the trip abroad).
Arranging for a woman to have something that might potentially do her harm in Ireland, just so she can access services to deal with that harm in Ireland, makes no sense.

Nor does Saint’s other point about extreme cases in his poll. Changing the situation with regard to abortion legislation will not affect current medical practice in matters of life, death or otherwise. Irish pregnant women have access at the moment to all medical services they might need. Full Stop. There is nothing else that abortion can offer in this regard.
Saint’s post, which follows the debate, and his poll (which I still can’t find on the page) are worth a visit.

The Next Big Thing – Abortion Debate

Forget months, the Irish blog world year is now being measured in terms of “big debates” – we’ve had feminism and gay marriage – now we’re moving onto abortion (the really “divisive” one).
Fiona at Mental Meanderings has started off with a post on why she believes abortion should be legal. Richard at Sicilian Notes doesn’t think this issue should be discussed on blogs – I think blogs are as good a place as any to discuss abortion.
Well, I have already discussed abortion loads on this blog – and did so in a , rational, non-emotional, non-theological manner (Well at least I think I did!)
I’ve posted on most aspects of abortion at some stage or another.

In the last 2 weeks, I’ve posted 4 times about different aspects of abortion – Blogs4Life, a pro-life bloggers conference I called into last week in Washington ; Silent No More, a group of post-abortive women who I listened to outside the Supreme Court; Rethinking Abortion on the international experience of abortion; and the debate on Slate at the moment about abortion between Katha Pollitt and William Saletan.

In the last 2 months, I’ve posted on 2 new pieces of research linking abortion with negative mental health outcomes for women – here and here.

Before I start into the “abortion debate” proper – I want to discuss what Damien Mulley said on his blog –
Forgot to mention that from my blinkered view of this I have never seen any debate about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and how to create a society where unwanted pregnancies is a rare thing. There’s the Crisis Pregnancy Agency but they seem to also try and “help” women to change their mind about having an abortion. What do pro-choice people say about a group like this? Is it a front or a genuine organisation?
This blog has discussed exactly this point a few times – here and here – pro-life groups have been the very ones on both the national and international scene that have been agitating for creating a society where the need for abortion is reduced and women have better choices than abortion.

The Crisis Pregnancy was set up under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act. 1961, and governed by the Statutory Instrument No. 446 of 2001, Crisis Pregnancy Agency, Establishment Order, 2001.  The primary function of the Agency is to prepare a strategy to address the issue of crisis pregnancy, providing for:

• a reduction in the number of crisis pregnancies by the provision of education, advice and contraceptive services


• a reduction in the number of women with crisis pregnancies who opt for abortion by offering services and supports which make other options more attractive


• the provision of counselling and medical services after crisis pregnancy.

It was set up after the Pro Life Campaign in particular, made it a central part of their lobbying for a referendum to clear up the medico-legal limbo resulting from the X Case. This however does not make it a pro-life or a pro-choice group, but a governmental body charged with the very important responsibility to reduce the number of women who feel they need abortions.

Okay, the great abortion question.
I don’t think abortion should be legalised. I believe this for loads of reasons, none of which are irrational, religious or emotive. I don’t address Fiona’s point of legalising vs condoning, because, frankly, I believe that the embryo/fetus/unborn child is a member of the human family, and is deserving of the State’s protection at the very least. Legislation and condoning quickly becomes the same thing, in my opinion anyway.

Abortion ends the life of one human being – a human being that responds to painful stimuli at 16 weeks. That’s 8 whole weeks before the legal limit in the UK.

Abortion does not bring about greater equality for women. Abortion does not improve the aspects of society that force many women into abortion, like career or educational opportunities, or the difficulties of single motherhood or “feckless fathers”. (I just like the alliteration!)

Abortion does not come without a cost to women – a cost that is physical, mental and emotional.

Abortion does not advance the cause of human rights. It creates an arbitrary line (birth) after which human dignity and equality comes into force. Before that, a fully genetically complete, growing small human being is somehow less than the rest of us. Refusal to extend the most basic of all human rights, the right to life, to unborn human beings, makes the ubiquitous human rights language that we reference so many of our dilemmas to, negotiable and wholly dependent on social/cultural mores.

Abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. Ireland has no abortion as part of standard medical care – we have an exemplary record in maternal health care. There is no treatment that a pregnant woman may need that is currently denied to her.

Abortion is not a treatment for suicide. Women who are suicidal as result of pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, need full psychiatric treatment – the same given to any suicidal individual. In fact, one study showed a link between abortion and greater risk of suicide (a 6 times greater risk).

Abortion does not need to legalised to create a world safe from the dangers of illegal and unsafe abortion. While we have no information on the rates of illegal abortion in Ireland, it is generally assumed to be very very rare. Safe abortion is in many ways a little oxymoronic. Not only is it not without the standard medical risks and side effects of any procedure, it carries significant psychological morbidity. Safe abortion is not guaranteed – maternal deaths from legal abortion in the UK (page 28 of pdf doc) were 12 in the 14 year period from 1985-99, peaking with 5 deaths from 1991-93. My post about blogs4life carries the tragic story of a woman who died from an abortion (apologies – that story is emotional. I find I get emotional when I think about a young woman who died unnecessarily as a result of abortion complications. Check out the mp3 of 911 call made from the abortion clinic. A health care worker is more worried about the reputation of her clinic “no lights, no sirens” than her bleeding and unconscious patient – I get angry and disgusted.)

Abortion does not need to be legalised to be made rare. We need to do these things.

An interesting journal for all you feminists out there (now I sound like a late night radio host – “and this one goes out to”) is the Feminism and Nonviolence Studies Journal.
Unfortunately they’ve stopped posting their articles online but I find the Spring 1995 edition fascinating. Doris Gordon, founder of Libertarians for Life has an article in it.

I’ll end with a quote from an article entitled Compassion and Concentric Circles of Support.
Calling the fetus "unwanted" reminds them that history is littered with the corpses of people deemed "unwanted." Women's worth does not depend on men wanting them; we cannot have a double standard for our own children. Likewise, with the idea that "the child might be abused", the pro-life women imagine their friends who have overcome rape, battering, childhood molestation. They imagine someone telling them "Your life is not worth living; you should never have been born." Assertions that the child may be disabled make even less sense; surely we don't kill sick children, they think, we love them and care for them! Scoffing at the fetus's tiny size reminds the pro-life woman of her own small stature compared to most men; many a woman knows in her own body what violence at stronger hands is like. Because the fetus is small, weak, still growing, she is even more deserving of protection; she is the smallest fragile bud on our human family tree.
As with pro-choice women, masculine-style arguments based on principle seem irrelevant. Is this a woman's choice? What a horrible, bloody, humiliating choice! A woman who wants an abortion seems like an animal caught in a trap, trying to gnaw off its own leg--a terrible bid to escape a desperate situation by an act of violence and self-loss. The pro-life woman thinks, "Surely there's a better way to help her.”    

Is Abortion Bad?

I say Yes.

But check out the debate between William Saletan and Katha Pollitt at Slate.

Rethinking Abortion

I've posted a lot about abortion recently but these 2 articles are well worth a read.

First a poll from Sunday's Observer which finds that 47% of women believe the present 24 weeks legal limit for an abortion should be reduced and 10% want the practice outlawed altogether. 42% of the general population want the upper limit reduced which was split into a 36-47% between men and women.
Only 1 in 3 agreed that 'the current time limit is about right'.

Second in the Sunday Business Post, Geraldine Martin writes about the various activities of the current government that have angered pro-lifers.
She begins with the new technologies and evidence from abroad (including Silent No More which I mentioned below) and states
We are well placed in Ireland to take advantage of this debate. The Constitutional protection given to the unborn child should provide us with the space to discuss publicly the needs of women with unexpected pregnancies, the needs of the child and society’s obligations towards both.
I have posted on this phenonomen before - other countries with regrettably long and hard experience of the tragic effects of abortion on women and society are questioning abortion as an acceptable solution to offer women in crisis pregnancy.
Martin is correct - we should be doing more to meet the needs of women with unexpected pregnancies.

I can not un-choose, and I can not forget.....

and that is why I will be Silent No More.

While I didn’t actually go on the March for Life (yes, I’m just a lazy sod who doesn’t believe in marching) but I did however swing by the Silent No More demonstration outside the Supreme Court on Monday evening.
It was one of the most moving events I have ever been at. Any woman who has had an abortion, and regretted it, can speak – I saw about 10 women speak, including Dr Alveda King. She is Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece and she spoke about her involvement in the civil rights movement, and how she was campaigning for civil rights, she violated the civil rights of 2 of her children by abortion. One of her abortions was involuntary – her doctor told her she didn’t need to be pregnant and performed a D&C, without her consent. The second one was because the father of the child pressured her into it.
She spoke of her guilt and anger that persisted years after her abortions, her need for healing and how all her children would one day be together in heaven.

The title and first line was from one of the other women who spoke. Their stories were varied- they were of different ages – from 60s to early 20s; from different parts of the country, some married, more single when they felt they had no other choice than abortion, but their stories were the same. Their abortions wounded them and they found the promise of choice an empty one. And they vow to be Silent No More.      

Blogs4Life and Me

As I mentioned before I left, I attended the Blogs4Life conference in Washington last Monday.
Several of the others bloggers present have already blogged on it – many on the day of it, while I’m about 8 days late. And blogging is supposed to be about instant news media!
It was fascinating to meet so many bloggers from so many different roles, religions and backgrounds. Blogging is a much more potent force in American life than here and it was interesting to observe how strongly so many of those present felt about blogging as a personal ministry especially when the blogger was evangelical Christian. I don’t think Catholics, or Irish people for that matter tend to think about “ministry” in their personal lives – well I don’t anyway.

A few things stood out for me –
1. My blogging hero, Kathryn Jean Lopez, of NRO’s The Corner was due to attend (the main reason I attended at all!), but she couldn’t because she had the flu and telephoned in instead. She chatted about her blogging and how the Corner evolved (basically someone in an editorial meeting said they should try something new, and 2 million visitors a month later they’re one of the most respected blogs around) She was pretty cool and sounded really nice and down-to-earth.

2. The makers of A Distant Thunder, Jonathan and Deborah Flora, a new 35 minute film on partial birth abortion, spoke about their supernatural court room thriller. It looked kinda scary but very challenging – check out the trailer.

3. Charmaine Yoest, blogger and organiser of the conference, played a clip originally posted to the FRCblog from an abortion clinic in Kansas. It was a 911 call from an abortion clinic worker regarding a Christin Gilbert, a 19-year old with Downs Syndrome who had returned to the clinic after an abortion, bleeding. She was now unconscious and the clinic worker refused to tell the emergency operator what was wrong with the woman. She also requested that the ambulance use “no sirens, no lights”. Listen to it yourself here.
I was horrified to think that an abortion clinic worker could be so remiss in her basic duty as a human being, to delay 40sec on a 911 call while a woman lay bleeding and unconscious. Christin later died. May she rest in peace.
I disagree with the concept of Operation Rescue, a pro-life group who monitor abortion clinics and do street counselling – I feel that there are more democratic and reasonable ways to defend the most basic human right of all, the right to life, but they may have a role in a culture where health care workers at abortion clinic are more worried about their reputation than actually providing a professional and caring service.

Check out a few other Bloggers4Life = LaShawn Barber (who published a column that day at townhall about Margaret Sanger’s racist tendencies); Faithmouse, a cartoonist who was at the conference with his lovely wife and ProLifeBlogs, a pro life blog aggregator.
    

More on Abortion, Mental Health and Feminists

I posted a month ago on new research linking abortion to negative mental health outcomes.
Well, there's new research out this week saying the same thing, this time from New Zealand.
From the abstract
Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.

Also, OxBlog links to an exercpt from Meet the Press with Kate Michelman, the president of NARAL. She gives the pretty standard feminist party line on the issue...

But you can be absolutely anti-abortion, if you will, and pro-choice; believing that women ultimately, not the government, not Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, but women themselves must determine the course of their lives, and central to that determining the course of their lives is determining when and under what circumstances they will become mothers. Because the thing that most women want is to be successful at mothering. And the first ingredient is being able to determine when that time is right and not being forced by the government and by politicians or by judges to bear a child under circumstances of one—not of one’s choosing. So I...

MS. O’BEIRNE: Well, as Kate just explained, you cannot believe that there ought to be legal protections for the unborn and not be read out of the modern women’s movement.

Abortion and Mental Health

A new study from Norway followed 120 women following abortion (80) and miscarriage (40) for 5 years and found that while women who miscarried at more short term emotional reactions, women who had an abortion had more longterm and more atypical reactions including avoidance and feelings of guilt and shame.
After Abortion, a blog that focuses on this kind of research says that this particular study is getting more media coverage than other similar ones and Emily says she's gonna think about why.
My guess is that it's a reflection of the vast number of women who have had abortions over the last 30 years and how their pain, grief and mixed emotions have been the taboo of the sexual revolution. Hard facts on the emotional and psychological effects of anything, especially abortion, are difficult to find. Some pro-choice advocates refuse to accept that many women have anything but great joy following abortion. Regardless of these abstractions, women continue to have abortions, not knowing that emotional upheaval is a real possibility for many years to come.
The Telegraph have an editorial that everyone should read.

If we find this surprising, that in itself is a reflection of how imperfectly we understand abortion. The politicisation of the debate means that it is usually only unfashionable pro-life activists who point out its psychological dangers, and they are rarely given a proper hearing. Meanwhile, the Family Planning Association continues to insist that "there is no evidence to suggest that abortion directly causes psychological trauma".

The Oslo research exposes the absolute fatuity of that last claim. Abortion, like miscarriage, involves the loss of a baby; unlike miscarriage, the loss is the result of a conscious decision. And the operation itself, as Germaine Greer has taken to reminding her fellow feminists, is a gruesome one. No wonder that a fifth of women continue to feel depression, shame or guilt.

At this point we should stress that those feelings may be (and probably are) inappropriate. This newspaper has never offered a view on the morality of abortion per se. What is blindingly obvious is that women who are suffering as a result of an abortion need psychological help. Yet - in a society that offers counselling to anyone who has watched a distressing episode of EastEnders - such help is hard to obtain.

"We don't see that many women for post-abortion counselling," says the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. Why? Because they do not need it? Or because they have been assured that abortion is a mere "procedure", tantamount to contraception?

In the short term, more post-abortion counselling is needed. In the long term, the need for it should be reduced by a change in the law. The current limit of 24 weeks is appallingly high; yet Tony Blair, a practising Christian, has opposed efforts to reduce it even slightly. It is he, rather than women who have been pressurised into having abortions, who should feel ashamed.

Both Cura and Life in Ireland provide post-abortion counselling and both organisations have had to step up their services in this regard due to increased demand.

To continue the "Feminism debate"....

So far I’ve been called foolish, witless, bad mannered, complacent, poorly educated with suspect intelligence with stereotyped, ill-informed, fanciful ungrateful opinions.
Fair enough – maybe I am and more.
Beth at Brocilli for Breakfast, Maura at Babblogue and Fiona at Mental Meanderings have all posted about my post on female bloggers and feminism below.
While Sinead’s original post on female bloggers didn’t address feminism as such, I brought up feminism simply because I think discussing women and their role in a specific area and the need for more women seems irrelevant to me and also in this case, I hadn’t noticed female bloggers in either their presence or absence.
My 2nd post was only snippets of notes from a talk I gave (I apologise for spelling/grammar errors which I just noticed) to fill in time before I got round to sitting down and replying properly. (which I’m know doing at 2am on Sunday – how’s that for a dedicated blogger?)
I really don’t know how to start answering the above claims, so defining feminism comes first. (Warning this will probably end up being a very long post – and will probably still be called all the things above!)
Yes, there are many definitions of feminism and even more denominations of feminism for one to pick and choose from. Feminist Utopia defines core feminism as the “theory that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially.” By their definitions I’m probably a moderate feminist (This branch of feminism tends to be populated mostly by younger women or women who have not directly experienced discrimination. They tend to question the need for further effort, and think that feminism is no longer viable. They often view feminism as embarrassing (it's thought that this is the group most likely to espouse feminist ideas and thoughts while denying being "feminist"))
One book that formed my opinions on feminism was Christina Hoff Sommer’s book “Who Stole Feminism?”. In that she distinguishes between gender feminism (which is what I vehemently disagree with and is what my blogger critics would say I’ve stereotyped as all feminism) and equity feminism (about women having the same rights as men – the first wave of feminism) So I’m probably an equity feminist, then.
Another author whose book I’ve read on feminism is Cathy Young (Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality) and she’s just started a blog the Y Files – she discusses definitions of antifeminism. 1 given is antifeminist - someone who does not believe in the social or economic or political equality of men and women. I’m not an anti-feminist.
She includes an exercpt from the introduction to that book - Do I still consider myself a feminist? No, if feminism means believing that women in Western industrial nations today are "oppressed" or if it means "solidarity with women," as essayist Barbara Ehrenreich claimed on National Public Radio in 1994. Yes, if it means that men and women meet each other as equals, as individuals first and foremost; if we remember what British philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote more than fifteen years ago: "No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women."
And I believe we still need a philosophy to guide us on the journey of an unprecedented transition: a philosophy that is not pro-woman (or pro-man) but pro-fairness; that stresses flexibility and more options for all; that encourages us to treat people, regardless of sex, as human beings. If sentimental traditionalism won't get us there, neither will the gender warfare that would destroy our common humanity in order to save it. I don't know if this philosophy should be called feminism or something else. But the biggest impediment to its development is what passes for feminism today.
Cathy Young then calls herself a “dissident feminist” – I suppose I could be one of those.
Apart from the stereotyped i-hate-men-and-think-everything-is-an-oppressive-patriachrical-conspiracy strand of feminism there is another type – the type that implies that to be feminist, one must be pro-choice. I am pro-life – a belief that I am comfortable explaining from a human rights equality point of view or a feminist one. Pro-life feminism is something that is not popular among most women’s groups – so much so that pro-life feminists were excluded from NOW (and then went on to form Feminists for Life) and even recently in the US, members of Democrats for Life, were exluded from the Democrats party conference, because they did not subscribe to the pro-choice vision of woman’s rights. Pro-life, pro-woman feminism is something I’ve posted on before and included this quote - If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience. Of all things which are done to women to fit them into a society dominated by men, abortion is the most violent invasion of their physical and psychic integrity. It is a deeper and more destructive assault than rape.... Accepting short-term solutions like abortion only delays the implementation of real reforms like decent maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, high-quality child care, community responsibility for dependent people of all ages, and recognition of the economic contribution of child-minders." - Daphne de Jong
I did have 1 particular encounter with a well known Irish feminist campaigner during 2002 referendum on abortion which served to highlight how integral the right to abortion is to the understanding of feminism – she asked me if I was raped, would I keep the baby?. From my point of view, then and now, as a woman who has thankfully never experienced any form of sexual violence, I believe that I would keep the baby – I can not see myself ending the life of an innocent person, regardless of the horrific circumstances of his/her birth. In response to my yes, she told me “enjoy the rape”. I was completely stunned by her response.  It’s probably wrong to generalise from this one incident, but her callous response crystalised for me, how far away I was from mainstream feminism.
So in summary, rather than classify my fairly critical view of modern feminism into about ten million categories which would look something like “pro-life-Catholic-fiscally conservative-dissident-moderate-equity feminist” who likes country music, I don’t call myself a feminist. Yes I believe that men and women are equal, but at this stage of the game, I think that’s taken as a pretty much standard view for all members of democracies everywhere.
I did say below that I hate feminism – yes, I do – I hate the man-hating, women-as-victims form of feminism which will not rest until their idea of equality has been achieved (for every man everywhere in society there should be a woman).
I also hate 2 things in discussions about women in power –
First – that we need parity on company boards, governmental agencies etc and that anything less is sexist. I posted a quote before from Gerardine Jones, the joint managing director of Dolmen Butler Briscoe where she siad in the Sunday Business Post that “She has 'no time whatsoever' for the view that there should be a certain quota of women on public boards. 'People should be on the boards of public companies if they have the skill and experience to be there, and for no other reason."
Second – that certain women are refused the public acclamation for being a woman who got somewhere if she doesn’t sign up to a full feminist agenda  - and if she’s anyway conservative, she might as well be a man – I posted about this before as well - A woman is not a "sister", practically not even a woman, if she dares deviate from the narrowly defined politically correct views that a group of feminist dinosaurs have decided on. Condaleeza Rice is a case in point. Apparently she was sucked into the vast right wing conspiracy, was brain washed and is now paraded around as a "token" woman in one of the most important jobs in the world to prove that Dubya doesn't hate all women. Perish the thought that she just might be have a brain of her own and is willing to use it. This kind of independent thinking in a female is enough to make any sensible feminist reach for her smelling salts.
I do apologise for my sarcastic generalisations, but the above opinion about Condi was articulated to me by a feminist friend. This is also the reason why I mentioned ovarian opinions below – radical feminism is predicated on the notion that women have the same political opinions – this is why political parties have women’s groups and the National Council for Women feel they’ve a mandate (womandate? Wimmindate?) to produce pre-election manifestos on behalf of Irish women.
Beth in her comments below says that “Feminism is NOT about men-hating ball-breakers and shoulder padded macho managers; moreover, feminism IS about the ongoing battle for egalitarianism between the genders which at its very core seeks to provide those women who you refer to as those 'left behind to sweep up the glass fragments' of the ceiling smashers, with equality of pay, access to the judicial system, property rights and sexual rights amongst others. I am a feminist and proud to say so. I do not wear dungarees, doc-maartens, nor am I a lesbian. I have never once monologued about my vagina, nor do my opinions come straight from my ovaries”
Fair enough – but the battle for egalitarianism between the genders is pretty much over now in the Western world now that women can go to college (more than men do) and get jobs wherever they want. Women also have equal access to justice and property. Any inequalities in access  that apply to women must also to apply to men of different social groups as well. Equality of access is what we all must strive for, for everyone, but equality of outcome is totally different – we should not measure women’s progress simply on statistics or the ability to show parity.
Women get paid the same for the same work done. Is there any Irish company that operates 2 different payroll rates? It’s the same rate, despite the difference in average pay overall, considered to be caused by the fact that feminism won, so to speak. Women can now choose to work what hours they want and also choose to make lifestyle decisions that are relevant to them with regard to promotions etc. They can also choose to work in the home – something that our very own Mary Robinson (who, while I consider her radical, would not be viewed as a waaay-out-there radical feminist) finds very disturbing – she views it as a “cop out”. She believes that it is very worrying that young educated women choose full time motherhood instead of “seeking to have society adjust to let them continue to fulfil their potential”.
As a young woman who will soon be receiving bank statements with “Dr” as the title, I plan to take substantial time out of my career to become a fulltime mother, I don’t find Robinson’s view of my future decision that friendly. In fact her comments only make me want to distance myself even more from feminism.
As for Beth’s comment about sexual rights, that’s not something I’m going to get into now, mainly because I’m waiting for my copy of Feminist Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy to arrive from amazon (check out Wendy Shalit’s review and the Slate’s book club) and I’ll tell you all about my opinions on the sexual landscape for young women when I review it. Suffice to say I think that it’s fantastic that women can be as much as a Samantha or as a Charlotte as they want, but we must take responsibility for many problems (STDs, teen pregnancy, pornography and the ever increasing sexualisation of women everywhere) that the sexual revolution brought as well.
I agree with Tom Wolfe in today’s Sunday Times about the “de-moralisation” of sex”. Which is covered in his latest novel I am Charlotte Simmons (It’s a really good read, but deserving of the worst sex scene writing award which it won) . “It was going to all these colleges that made me realise that sex has been de-moralised. And I really don’t think de-moralised sex is as much fun as good old evil sex.” Wolfe inclines to the belief that sexual repression is one of the most distinctive things about human beings; removing it, therefore, threatens our humanity.
A new site, modestyzone has been  set up by Wendy Shalit (and I really recommend her book Return to Modesty) and is well worth a read for those feminists among you who are interested in thinking about a new sexual ethic!
So to sum up!
My identity as a woman has nothing to do with me being a feminist.
Yes, my life would not have been possible without the sacrifices of feminists before me. Yes, I realise that much of what I take for granted, both in my philosophy and the opportunities I’ve had, are thanks to feminism and to the women who called themselves feminists and often made sacrifices like not getting married, or worked climbing career ladders while someone else watched their children grow up. Thanks to them, I can choose to do the opposite (watch my own children grow up if I ever have any!)
Should this gratitude extend to my incorporating feminism into my identity as woman, as a citizen, as nobody’s girlfriend at the moment, as someone’s future wife, as a blogger who despite suspect intellectual credentials has opinions on everything?
I think not. As saint commented elsewhere Just because the feminist movement achieved freedoms doesn't mean that women most be adoring femenists. Correct me if Im wrong the aim of the feminist movement was to give women the choice to do what they wished including not liking feminism.
I’m not a feminist. This may make the hate-poster-child for all feminists everywhere, but I’m fairly happy with my position.
Many feminists would view women who don’t call themselves feminists as enemies from their own ranks, whose defection is leaving parts of the front unwomanned (unmanned!). They fear that in through these little gaps the darkness will seep back. Women of all shapes and sizes have headed off into the world, (or back into the kitchen) to do their own thing, and these greying trailblazers are left holding the flames of feminist righteousness, facing down the retraction of universal suffrage, or the demolition of the creche or some other unthinkable anti-feminist act.
While this must be lonely and bewildering for feminists of all stripes, they should be celebrating. Women who might have abandoned the feminist identity are unlikely to abandon the comforts of the modern world nor the fundamental principles of equality and justice (which are not exclusive to feminism). If the threat arises, they are highly unlikely to be so drugged on the excitement of homemade pasta or so obsessed with their new bundles of joy to forget to stand up against any backward moves; they are unlikely to be so caught up in the independent dream of the perfect career to suddenly turn around and demand to be barred from the boardroom.
Feminism has come so far that women can afford to not to be one. Women can choose to not be one.
I have. I’m not a feminist. And 2,500 words into my longest post ever, I honestly hope that you all think that I least have that right.

Kathy Sinnott on EU stem cells

I got this email from Kathy Sinnott (via a few friends) - It's worth checking out if you disagree with embryo stem cell research.

Public Consultation on proposed EU Commission Regulation on "Tissue Engineering" and "Advanced Therapies" - http://pharmacos.eudra.org/F2/advtherapies/index.htm#pb

The pharmaceutical industry strongly supports the proposed EU regulation, because regulations are legally binding across the EU and the companies would not have to comply with differing regulations (and bans) in Member States in relation to these products.
Serious ethical problems arise in connection with these regulations:
First and foremost, an embryo is a new human being. Embryo therapies including embryo stem cell therapy involve the destruction of new human life.
Secondly, both embryo stem cell therapy and xenotherapy (animal cells used in humans) have shown in trails to carry serious health risks.
Previously the EU Commission has held that decisions concerning the use/non-use of any specific type of human cells, e.g. germ cells and embryonic stem cells, are entirely under the competence of Member States. However, if the use embryo stems cells are included in these regulations then the EU will give recognition to the use of embryonic stem cells in countries like Ireland where it is banned.
The contents of the regulation which will be finalised after the public consultation process are critical to Ireland's right to protect life.
Since the regulation is based on Article 95 (internal market), the danger exists that Member States like Ireland will no longer be able to ban research with embryonic stem cells because it will be allowed across Europe as part of the EU's (open) internal market policy. In this way, embryonic stem cell research would be recognised "through the back door". Remember that Irish Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy is responsible for Internal Market Policy.
In your submission please stress that it has to be absolutely clear that Member States are not forced to accept products which contradict their ethical and legal position.
Also that adult (somatic) stem cell therapies are proving safe and very effective for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, the healing of muscles and organs, etc. Yet ethical adult stem cell research receives little funding. At present embryonic stem cell research which is both unethical and unsuccessful receives 95% of stem cell research funding.

Senior Conservative rethinks stance on death penalty

Republican Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, favourite target of left wing hate mongers, is reconsidering his stance on the death penalty. He says he was "inspired by the Pope's call to be consistently pro-life". Senator Santorum is a devout Catholic.

Senator Santorum is a staunch conservative, but he dirtied his bib with that conservative constituency over his support for liberal Republican Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Senatorial primary last year.

As an opponent of the death penalty, I welcome any new converts, especially from the Republican right. However, given polling data which shows him trailing to Bob Casey, a pro life Democrat, and another Catholic, I have my doubts as to the sincerity of his conversion.

Terri Schiavo - Ward Case redux

Anyone familiar with recent Irish constitutional jurisprudence will recognise that the Schiavo case in the US is a rerun of the Ward case here: a woman in a Post Vegatative State whose next of kin (in the Ward case, the woman's family, in the Schiavo case, the woman's separated husband) wants her to "die with dignity". In the Ward case, the hospice caring for the woman objected to this desire, since it involved starving her to death. In the Schiavo case the woman's family have the same problem.

The difference? The political reaction. In the US, politicians and pundits have reacted with dismay to the spectacle of a woman being slowly starved to death. Here, the starving and dehydration was not dwelt on, and only pro life groups and the aforementioned hospice reacted with the appropriate outrage. In the US, this saga has run and run for months; the issue was barely noticed.

It looks as though Terri Schiavo's husband will get his way. His wife has been denied food and water for over 100 hours now. The cultural left seem to think this is fine. It is actually barbaric, but at least there are still enough people to make a stand for life in that country. Unlike here.