Stopping men from debating abortion is an act of oppression not liberation...

****

So abortion is a contested area. But do people really think they can shut down debate because:

The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups. Debating abortion as if its a topic to be mulled over and hypothesised on ignores the fact that this is not an abstract, academic issue.

Nobody, not a single soul, thinks abortion isn't intensely real for women faced with the choice. But to prevent half the population from discussing the subject because they don't have a uterus is an act of oppression not liberation. Yet this is precisely what Niamh McIntyre and her friends did - they shut down a debate because the protagonists, for and against abortion were both men.

The truth was that the debate wasn't about Niamh's uterus - it is utterly selfish of her to believe it was. And, if she didn't want to hear two men debate abortion, she could have read a book, gone to the pub, had a swim, played chess or a myriad of other choices. What she chose - preventing others from speaking - was the act of suppression, the very thing feminists are supposed to contest.

....

Abortion: why it's not a simple as it seems to some folk....

****

I used to think things were simple. You remove barriers to people’s rights and they behave like grown ups. And for most of us this is true, most of the time, under most circumstances. But let’s paint a little picture, tell a story – one that’s only too real for many young women.


A 17 year-old girl gets pregnant. She know who the Dad is but isn’t in a relationship with him any more, she’s going out with a different bloke who isn’t all than keen on his woman carrying some other man’s child – especially when that man is the spotty Darren from Eccles Street.

Now the girl – let’s call her Carol – tells her Mum and her best friend Shazza that she’s going to keep the baby. They’re happy with this, just as they’d have been happy if Carol had chosen to have an abortion. Happy in her choice and supported by friends and family, Carol trogs off to tell her boyfriend – we’ll call him Karl. Who hits the roof. And Carol.

 The police are called. And, because Carol’s pregnant, unmarried and under 18, social services get involved – after all Carol has decided to keep the baby and that is the proper concern of social services.

Social services tell Carol that, because of her circumstances and her boyfriend’s violence, it’s very likely that the baby will be taken into care straight after birth. Understandably Carol’s pretty distraught and confused. She thought she was going to have a lovely baby to care for but instead she’s become just breeder – having a baby for somebody else.

 And Karl’s on the phone, on Facebook. Begging forgiveness saying he’ll not hit her again. So she goes to meet him. And he says again that she should get rid of the baby.

So she goes to the doctor…

I’m making no moral judgments here about abortion merely pointing out how ignorant it is to say abortion is as simple as this:

…if a woman seeks an abortion within the first 24 weeks of her pregnancy, it is surely then a matter for her alone, subject only to medical advice and approval.

That may be a stripped down description of the law. It may be the case for some women – even for many women. But the reality out there is that plenty of ‘unwanted’ pregnancies are simply not that simple. Young women don’t arrive at the decision to terminate on their own (with their doctors) but do so after speaking with mum, with friends and with others involved in their life. This may not fit that simple picture but it is the real world - and we should deal with the real world rather than one stripped of social interaction where decisions are taken in isolation.

Is it really such a bad thing to say that the NHS should make impartial counselling and advice available to young women in such circumstances? Is it such a bad thing that women contemplating termination should receive the information about their options allowing that “informed choice” the law speaks of?

Personally I don’t think so.

.....

Dr Harris and the sexual health debate - a tale of judgemental intolerance

****

The Government has announced the membership of its Sexual Health Forum including the anti-abortion charity, Life but dropping the British Pregnancy Advice Service. Apparently this is a truly terrible thing:

...former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris said Life's presence could prevent the panel from functioning properly.

He told the newspaper: "When you have an organisation campaigning against the law and against current policy on sexual health, which is pro-contraception and about ensuring that abortion is a choice, then the risk is that you prevent the panel being given access to confidential information."

Quite why this is I don’t know but it reveals – in a man who lays claim to the mantle of “liberalism” – a considerable degree of intolerance. Who is he to say that one or other view on any issue should not be represented to ministers? But then Dr Harris has a bit of a track record of such judgemental intolerance, for example in condemning anti-abortion GP, Tammie Downes:

The Guardian reported that Liberal Democrat MP and noted abortion and euthanasia campaigner, Evan Harris, denounced Dr. Downes to Health Minister Dawn Primarolo and asked for an investigation.

And, as a member of the BMA’s ethics board Dr Harris tried to:

...remove the legal right of doctors to refuse to refer for or arrange abortions.

None of this makes Dr Harris wrong – there is a genuine debate to be had about abortion and I am willing to listen to the arguments for and against the status quo, tighter controls or liberalisation. Sadly, Dr Harris wants Government to only receive advice from those who share his view that abortion should be much easier to obtain. As with so many on the left – and Dr Harris certainly isn’t what I would call a liberal – the intention seems to be to close off the debate and to characterise those who take a different view as brainwashed religious zealots.

What concerns me most in all this – and I worry far more about the issue of “mercy-killing” than I do about abortion – is that by closing out the debate, Dr Harris directly contradicts his own oft-stated belief in free speech. By saying that only pro-abortion views should be presented to the Government’s deliberations about sexual health is to deny access on the basis of prejudice rather than to promote free speech.

....

The Friday Fungus - Ergot!

When I set out to talk about my fascination with mushrooms I didn't envisage straying into the wider reaches of the myco-world. But talking about good food without talking about moulds (or molds) is to miss out on some of the magic that fungi bring to our lives! Without moulds and yeasts we wouldn't have Stilton or Roquefort, we wouldn't have risen bread or beer and we'd be dropping dead from diseases we currently treat with fungus-derived anti-biotics.

Until a few day ago I know little beyond the fact that moulds and yeasts existed and were very important parts of the overall ecosystem.

In "Importance and Significance of Molds and Yeast The Basic Features, Habits, and Characteristics of Mold and Yeast", Prof. Donald Reinhart observes that...

"...fungi have happy lives in dark or light places as they digest simple organic foods like paper, cardboard, glues and starch. They are helpful when they digest logs, twigs and leaves, produce antibiotics or help make cheeses."

So moulds are a good thing? Well yes and no - as well as the good guys helping us with getting drunk, turning milk into cheese and treating our ailments, there are also bad guys. These problem moulds include ergot, mildew, athlete's foot and the carcinogenic Aspergilla moulds.

Ergot (Claviceps purpurea) is especially interesting since it illustrates both the good and the bad of fungal moulds - it is the cause of lethal (and madness-inducing) ergotism, the source for LSD and a valuable resource for pharmaceutical research. Plus many ergot derived drugs have a profound sexuality-enhancing effect - not a surprise since ergot was (rather riskily) used as a sexual drug from ancient times. The fungus was also used to promote miscarriage - in effect for abortion.

Ergot is also suggested as a factor behind episodes of mass hallucination such as the Salem Witch trials as well as underlying the origins of revolutionary actions (e.g. The Great Fear in France).

So there you are - ergot, one little mould that infects rye, millet and sorghum has had a really profound impact on human history, health and questionable song lyrics!