On Tuesday morning Mehdi Hasan was on a prime slot on the Radio 4 Today programme airing his, now well known, anti-abortion views.
It would be easy to dismiss his recent interventions on abortion as controversy for controversy's sake. But real women's lives are at stake in all this. And, as Mehdi seems to determined not to let the issue rest, is important to nail some of the misapprehensions behind his arguments and those of his new-found friends on the right.
He is, of course, entitled to be personally anti-abortion. There are numbers of women, who whilst they strongly support a right to choose, would not necessarily themselves exercise the choice to have an abortion. At the very least, many women who support a right to choose would find it a personally agonising decision. Nor do I argue that men don't have a right to a view on abortion. Furthermore they are welcome to try and persuade the women in their life on the subject. But Mehdi has gone one step further. As a journalist he has stepped into the public space to support the forces against a woman's right to choose.
Since publishing his column Mehdi has posed as a hapless victim. But, by lining up with anti-abortion forces, he is actually shoulder to shoulder with some of the most powerful forces in Western society. In Britain alone, he is siding with at least two major newspaper groups who campaign ceaselessly to undermine a woman's right to choose. The international anti-abortion group 40 Days for Life is currently praying outside no fewer than nine abortion clinics in Britain seeking to intimidate women from going in and giving out false information. The religious right in the Conservative Party is lavishly funded and on the offensive. And then there is the little matter of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church.
Mehdi argues that, although he supports the arguments of all these people, he is not actually calling for further legal restrictions. This is disingenuous. If your arguments reinforce one side in an important political fight, you cannot dissociate yourself from the practical consequences.
Mehdi insists on describing himself as pro-life. He apologises for using the phrase. But somehow he keeps on using it. So, by inference, the rest of us are death dealers. Or, as described in the quote from Christopher Hitchens he began his original column with, those in favour of a woman's right to choose are happy to: "Still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, break some bones and rupture some organs."
Mehdi has now apologised for quoting from Hitchens. But he has not apologised for framing the debate as a conflict between the rights of the unborn child and women's rights. Yet this is the classic right wing position and wholly dishonest. Mehdi doesn't seem to notice that the same people who agonise over the unborn child, often abruptly lose all interest in the child when it is actually born. The truth is that the real issue is women's rights over their own bodies. In the world of Mehdi's new right wing friends, men have absolute rights over their own bodies. But women? Not so much.
In defending his anti-abortion position Mehdi has frequently resorted to patronising putdowns. Often these have been directed at women, who had been offended by his remarks. He accused me of jumping on the right-to-choose bandwagon. Actually, I was marching to defend women's reproductive rights when Mehdi was in nappies. Which is presumably why he doesn't remember. But there is reason why I, and so many other women, feel strongly about a woman's right to choose. It is because any feminist, worth the name, knows that control over own bodies is ground zero for every educational, social and economic advance that women have made in the last century. Millions of women in poor countries around the world rely on the case being made that women are more than their reproductive function. Women's equality is based on the belief that we are more than walking/talking receptacles for the foetus.
But it is time to move our gaze from Mehdi Hasan and to the real threats to women's reproductive rights out there. There is no question, for instance, that by calling for 12 week time limits for abortions Jeremy Hunt has actually softened political opinion up for cuts in abortion time limits that are a little less drastic but equally have no basis in medical opinion. Marie Stopes is opening a new clinic in Belfast, which is already being threatened by anti-abortionists. And the "40 Days for Choice" campaign is trying to raise awareness of increasing intimidation by anti-abortionists.
Follow Diane Abbott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hackneyabbott
Abortion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abortion | Abortion clinics | Abortion information, advice and ...
Abortion Law | UK Abortion Law | Marie Stopes Clinics
Protesters at Marie Stopes private abortion clinic in Belfast
Decrease in number of Irish women travelling to UK for abortion
Uruguay Senate Prepares Final Abortion Debate
Abortion storm: Edwin Poots in the firing line as clinic row escalates
I particularly liked the reference to demonstrating for women's rights when Hasan was still in nappies.
The forces of reaction are at large in our society big time, and they seek to roll back the freedoms of the individual in service to their ideology. You see it happening all around. Having been alive for a good few decades now, I sometimes despair at people's willingness to thwart and censor those they do not personally agree with.
I can't believe we have actually criminalised freedom of speech and action to that extent. It's almost as if the enlightenment never happened. Anti blasphemy, anti offense legislation is simply a bully's charter by another name.
BPAS and Marie Stopes are registered charities. Therefore, they can and should exist on donations. Then taxpayers can choose whether or not to pay for abortions. I'm sure Ms Abbott is so passionate about giving women abortion on demand, she will happily donate half her income. The NHS can perform abortions for the (less than 5%) of cases of rape, incest and where the mother's life is at risk.
It seems to me that it is safer and easier to perform an abortion at 11 weeks - so instead of fighting lowering the limit tooth and nail, advocates of choice should encourage women to have abortions sooner rather than later, and suggest ways that the system can be improved along those lines.
It also seems to me that we should all be looking at ways to improve the lives of women, not just in terms of pay, but contraceptive advice and availability, childcare, and teaching boys to respect girls and girls to respect themselves from an early age.
See, you lose the argument right there. You are parodying her position and it does you no credit.
This is a major reason why we should reduce the limit - to before the sex of the child can be determined.
Don't want an abortion, don't have one.
You have NO RIGHT to treat a woman's body like your personal rental space.
NONE.
By banning all abortions we as a society must provide more funding to:
- provide education to pregnant teens and single mothers
- provide free or low cost daycare so these young women can work and support their families
- provide housing for pregnant woman who cannot support themselves
- provide housing, support, job training, education and life skills for women (and their children) fleeing domestic abuse and unplanned pregnancies due to rape
We must also ask ourselves:
- Are we prepared to jail women who have had abortions? Who will then look after the children they already have?
- Are we prepared to jail women who say they are thinking about abortion? Do we as a society then take their children from them after they are born? Who looks after the children they already have if they are in jail?
How much more in taxes will you willingly pay to end abortion? It is not a black and white issue that can be solved by just banning it. It will go underground - women will self abort - they will permanently damage their bodies and/or die. Will you then step up to raise the children they leave behind?
Just some things to think about.
Maybe we should consider that the real topic of discussion is not who has the right to abort or not, BUT maybe we should be concerned about our society's morality and value system....?
I read an article on abortion this is what the technician said: I practice anesthesia. During my training I witnessed one [abortion]. They broke the fetus' arms and legs then snapped the neck, but it took multiple attempts to snap its neck. Then they sucked it out. Never again.
Never again?
NOPE.
Two days later I saw a woman die on her seventh pregnancy, she was severely hypertensive and diabetic, but her birth control failed. her labour halted, a caesarian section was performed but her blood pressure never properly fell and she never regained consciousness.
Never again?
NOPE.
A week later, another teenager died from a botched abortion, after multiple transfusions, and a week her mother spent praying by her bedside. her mother never even knew who got her pregnant.
Shall I go on?
In every pregnancy , there is more that just a fetus, there's a WOMAN.
Anti choicers tend to forget that.
I won't.
Never again.
Take a look at the children who are battered and ill-treated (or worse) - they are generally the unwanted ones.
Every child should be wanted.
Are women and their children not to be seen or heard once the abortion has been prevented?
As a man I know that I will never understand how it would feel to find out I was pregnant, or what pregnancy and childbirth really mean to the person that's actually experiencing it. I am not qualified to form a relevant opinion on this subject and never will be. So I would urge all other men, like Mehdi Hasan to keep their mouths shut, because guess what? Women don't need YOU to make this decision FOR THEM. They do not need your protection, your innate patriarchal 'wisdom,' or any of those other euphemisms for your own unconscious urges to masculine dominance.
Of one thing however I am certain. The legality of abortion would never, ever come into question if men could get pregnant.
Of those who want the limit lowered, the majority only want it taken down to between 18-20 weeks. Interestingly, there isn't a great difference between people of different ages or different political affiliation.
The 'pro-life' movement (i.e. those who actively oppose abortion) are in a minority so small as to be politically insignificant. They may be louder and more vociferous, but otherwise there is no reason to suddenly make this an issue; it smacks of distraction tactics from the Tories and Hasan has fallen for them.
Why is Hasan not "entitled" to advocate a change in the law? Doesn't democracy entail that people vote on issues that don't necessarily affect them? Women vote on issues of frontline combat, childless people vote on schooling, and so on.
The fact is, the law does restrict a "woman's right to choose" after 24 weeks. Unless you support lifting that restriction, you too are opposing that right.
You are right in saying that Hasan can't dissociate himself from the practical consequences of the positions that he advocates. But, the same is true of the pro-choice side too.
I doubt that Hasan believes that men have absolute rights over their own bodies. For example, as a Muslim, he probably supports the mother's and father's 'right' to circumcise their son (note the great deal of input by women, among them Angela Merkel, during the recent controversy surrounding male genital mutilation). Besides, most people, including you, do support breaching an individual's self-ownership, when it suits you, e.g. taxation, jury duty, drug-prohibition.
Why should Hasan apologize for quoting Christopher Hitchens? And who are these "right wing friends", or are you simply using "right wing" as a synonym for 'incorrect' or 'immoral'?
There's so much hypocrisy on both 'sides' of this 'debate'.
That is the inevitable, illogical conclusion of a position based on no time-limit on abortion.
however the pro choice lobby dress it up, this is the realiy of abortion and women have the right to know what their choice involves. Women need to know that whether they like it or not their bodies will greave for their lost baby. Yes women should have the right to choose but it must be an informed choice with the opportunity for non judgementle councellin should they find they need it later.
The biggest study to date, which looked at data from 44 different studies, found conclusively that whether a women with an unwanted pregnancy has an abortion or goes on to give birth, her risk of having mental health problems will not increase. So despite the stigma of people like you calling women who have abortions selfish or murderers, most of them do not regret their choice, or, as you so oddly claim, find that their bodies greave.
What's more the vast majority of abortions are carried out at around 8 weeks, so why pretend that the reality of abortion is about 'switching off a developing brain'? Neural activity doesn't begin until around 35 days after fertilisation, and brain development takes much longer to complete. The latest scientific opinion suggests that foetuses are unconscious until around 20 – 24 weeks.
=LOL= Bodies don't 'grieve'. What a load of propagandistic rubbish.