Discrimination

[Griffin NoName]

This is springing out of the legislation going through the UK parliament discussed in two other threads.

However, it is in itself a specific issue covered in an amendment moved by Ian Duncan Smith.

"The amendment to the Bill makes it a condition of IVF that there be both a father and a mother."

"The amendment to the Bill makes it a condition of IVF that there be a father or a male role model."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The voting went as follows:

"The amendment to the Bill makes it a condition of IVF that there be both a father and a mother."

   Ayes 217    Nos  292


"The amendment to the Bill makes it a condition of IVF that there be a father or a male role model."

   Ayes  222      Nos  290

This means the Bill currently remains as is to include "condition of IVF is 'supportive parenting'"

PHEW!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I watched the Parliamentary debate on these Amendments to the Bill, leading up to the votes.

Every single Member of Parliament who spoke, whether for or against the amendment, spoke in terms of fathers - father right's, child's right to a father, Eve only existing from Adam's rib, the Lord's intention, the father, the father, the father.

It was remarkable.

Mother was not mentioned at all at any point by any speaker.

Same sex male couples wanting chidlren were never mentioned once either.

Lesbians were mentioned frequently. Single parents were mentioned twice.

One female MP, (against the amendment) managed to speak only in tems of genderless parents, well done !!

There were few people in the debate. Clearly most only turned up to actually vote.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am very relieved that the majority of MPs avoided such a discriminatory trap and yet alarmed at those who give their discrimnation away so blatantly by revealing so clearly in the debate that the first Amendment was about Fathers, and not about Parenting.

[Griffin NoName]

Continuing  my series on discrimination.........

I have now sat through the entire 3 hour debate on the next batch of Amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Research Bill. Better attended than this afternoon's debate but still relatively sparse.

These Amendments all related to Abortion which has nothing to do with the Bill itself at all but were tabled by opportunist anti-abortion MPs.

They were all "new clauses" rather than changes to existing clauses in the Bill, which rather gives the game away.

The only real highlight of the entire debate was when the mighty Ann Widdecombe declared for the viability* and rights of the unborn child (which of course many others had done but not like she does) and then gave way ("giving way" is an arcane UK commons procedure) to a gentleman, whose name I didn't catch, who leapt to his feet and said "Oy Wot about the Woman's Rights? You never even mentioned the Woman."

One other nice line was a Liberal Democrat who pointed out his one year old grandchild wasn't independently viable - but that is hardly discriminatory

* debate on viability and rights of the unborn child will be continued in The Right to Life Thread


For those interested in the amendments and votes I can report:

reduce abortion limit to 12 weeks   Ayes 71    Nos 393
reduce abortion limit to 16 weeks   Ayes 84    Nos 387
reduce abortion limit to 20 weeks   Ayes 190  Nos 332
reduce abortion limit to 22 weeks   Ayes 233  Nos 304

Put in place information packs for parents of unborn child diagnosed with a physical or mental disability where they may consider abortion    Ayes 173   Nos 309

I should explain for any mystified nonUK readers, Ayes and Nos actually relate to whether the amendment gets another reading rather than directly to whether they are accepted or rejected. Since they were all Nos, the Bill proceeds to the next stage without having to wait for any further readings. The Nos are therefore in effect a rejection of the amendments. Why make things simple when they can be complex?

However, wait. No. We are not there yet. They've just declared a petition for changes to clause 3 and 4 of the Bill (mostly relating to what silly things the person wanting an abortion has to endure before being granted one......). The petition has been adjourned. I suggest reference to commons procedure here (a petition is different to a tabled amendment).

However, I am relieved. I feel I have spent a useful time defending women's rights by watching the debates and voting going on.



It is now 23:30 pm and everyone has gone home except one poor MP from Plymouth who is reading a petition out about some decommissioning of nuclear submarine problem. He appears to be reading it to an entirely empty House. He did say he was a new MP and hadn't yet understood about adjournments and giggled before he started. However he is droning on and on. I hadn't realised how futile an MP's life is.

Oh wait, excitement.... there is someone else in the House after all.... someone from the MOD is replying to the poor guy.



I've never watched the voting in Parliament before. It is totally nuts. Although all the amendments have been read and debated, each gets voted on separately. This involves much uttering of Order! Order! trooping in and out of the entire House, locking and unlocking of doors, and loads of Ayes-Nos-ing from all sides, seemingly repeatedly about the same question, followed by the final Ayes and Nos with numbers attached post voting. This takes between 10 and 15 minutes for each vote. So tonight's voting took over an hour. Everyone rushes along to vote and comes in and sits around, in between the rushing in and out bits, even though they haven't attended the debate, so the House is full for that hour. Clever !!! Perfect system for establishing that they get their beer vouchers?

I can't for the life of me see why MPs aren't clever enough to put their votes for each amendment in at one time. (After all, we voters cope with very complex local election forms with many choices. ) 

The only amendment that had the slightest chance of a surprise Aye was the 22 week one and that was obvious like months ago. It was a little kept secret that this was all about keeping the religious and moral fascists on board. This really has been an enormous waste of tax payers money. oh..... IMHO naturally

[Aggie]

It is now 23:30 pm and everyone has gone home except one poor MP from Plymouth who is reading a petition out about some decommissioning of nuclear submarine problem. He appears to be reading it to an entirely empty House.

Decommissioning?  I though they just waited until the subs were not seaworthy, and then sold them to Canada.

[Griffin NoName]

It is now 23:30 pm and everyone has gone home except one poor MP from Plymouth who is reading a petition out about some decommissioning of nuclear submarine problem. He appears to be reading it to an entirely empty House.

Decommissioning?  I though they just waited until the subs were not seaworthy, and then sold them to Canada.

I thought they just aborted them when they were no longer viable

Oh, hang about, that's what they do with OLD people isn't it?

[Aggie]

I thought they just aborted them when they were no longer viable

Oh, hang about, that's what they do with OLD people isn't it?

No, they sell those to Canada, too....   

(can't seem to find the article regarding large numbers of UK retirees moving to Canada, but it's out there)

[Swatopluk]

They keep longer in the cold I presume

[anthrobabe]

I thought they just aborted them when they were no longer viable

Oh, hang about, that's what they do with OLD people isn't it?

No, they sell those to Canada, too....   

(can't seem to find the article regarding large numbers of UK retirees moving to Canada, but it's out there)

we also have a decomissioned sub here in AR--- the USS Razorback -- for some reason Turkey was in posession of this sub (bought second hand to use for their navy post WW2-- seriously think that's it)-- anyway it was towed (will not sail under own power) from there to here.

Not as  as it would seem

The UK (and USA if I might add) way of 'doing business' -- resembles an Arkansas Razorback football game (USA style football, not real football, I understand this)--- plus you have masses of people seeming yelling nonsense while at it
hence the appropriateness of the
Woooo Pig Sooie yell for all events.

sorry-----

I am very glad that you are watching the goings on and giving us updates about womens rights and the nastiness that follows us to today via the 'majesty' and ignorance that is paternalism.

[Griffin NoName]

I am very glad that you are watching the goings on and giving us updates about womens rights and the nastiness that follows us to today via the 'majesty' and ignorance that is paternalism.

I'm sure it'll be fine as long as I keep my eye on it

Today the who voted for what information came out. Three Catholic members of the Cabinet voted for all the restrictions. Why am I not surprised!

Cameron (Beagle interest!) voted for no change except for fathers for IVF. It'd be nice to say this shows his true colours but I suspect it may have more to do with his involvement with his disabled child so I am going to be polite about it.

[anthrobabe]

I was once a person who was rabidly anti-reproductive rights, on all levels, no rights at all. I nver actively picketed anywhere-but my vehicle was plastered with 'pro-life' crap, I would shout about it to whomever would listen-and if they did not want to listen then I attempted to shout them down.
I am ashamed of this part of my past.   very ashamed
I was ignorant and was indoctrinated(yes it was entirely religion based) in this way of thinking throughout my childhood.
This is why ignorance and discrimination are so very dangerous-it is almost insidious how deep the paternalistic 'father knows best' thread runs deep and penetrates (pun intended) female life.
Fortunately I grew up and learned (am still learning) and discovered some facts for myself-- I am now almost rabidly the other direction- I say almost- I will never be a slave again to any type of slathering, raving doctrine or way of thinking. I am vocal, and I do stand up at reproductive rights rallies, etc. But I would not kill over it, at least I don't think I would.
Father (stand in for the most classic definition of white, male, creator from dust, adam and eve maker, 6 days and nights, judaeo-christian--God) does not know best--- and he has no business in the doings of women-- who in fact create life -yes the male produces sperm-- but we carry, feed, give a tremendous amount of our selves to that cell division that might or might not turn out to be something akin to Adolph Hitler or Maya Angelou. And we have to stop voting as if he does.

[beagle]

[Cameron (Beagle interest!) voted for no change except for fathers for IVF. It'd be nice to say this shows his true colours but I suspect it may have more to do with his involvement with his disabled child so I am going to be polite about it.

You won't lure me into this area. I have a strict policy of having no opinion on women and abortion, believing that the vote goes with the anatomy.   

[Sibling Chatty]

YES!!

Beagle has extreme WIN!!

AS I used to say in my days arguing with idiots...."When YOU have a viable uterus of your very own in your body, then you're entitled to an opinion. Otherwise, siddown and shuddup."

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

And we have to stop voting as if he does.

Hear! Hear!  The biological cost to the father is trivial. 

[Cameron (Beagle interest!) voted for no change except for fathers for IVF. It'd be nice to say this shows his true colours but I suspect it may have more to do with his involvement with his disabled child so I am going to be polite about it.

You won't lure me into this area. I have a strict policy of having no opinion on women and abortion, believing that the vote goes with the anatomy.   

YES!!

Beagle has extreme WIN!!

AS I used to say in my days arguing with idiots...."When YOU have a viable uterus of your very own in your body, then you're entitled to an opinion. Otherwise, siddown and shuddup."

Actually, having "no opinion" is dangerous, IMHO.  If, by that, you mean you try to ignore the situation or keep mum, no-matter-what.

More males need to speak out-- that males should have NO rights once the woman becomes pregnant.  Obligation- yes.  Rights? No. 

Slavery is illegal in the US.   So is harming one person to save another-- even if the harm is "temporary".   The "harm" MUST be voluntary.  That is a fundamental basic right.

Thus-- a pregnancy ought to be SOLELY up to the person who IS pregnant-- whatever she wants, with regards to that pregnancy's outcome, she ought to have.

Parents?  No rights, no say.  Ditto grand-parents of any degree of "grand-"

Biological father?  No rights, no say.

Spouse?  No rights, no say.  Legally married or otherwise.

A woman old enough to GET pregnant is old enough to decide.

Period.

.............

But, I'm a strict libertarian.... 

[anthrobabe]

The only thing I would add to what Bob said
is the fact that some women get pregnant when very young for various reasons and they are very verlnurable to the rhetoric of the anti-choice not really pro life movement, we've got to have mechanisms in place (besides and in addition to planned parenthood here in the usa) to catch these young women and help them understand the facts and allow them to decide and not from a ooooo lookey at the dead baby and you will go to hell and you are bad if you don't give this child holy life photos stand point. Then the abortion must be freely available--- and funded if need be.

Speaking of 1 year olds not being independantly viable--I have a 17 year old who is not as of yet completely independantly viable-- oh she would probably survive, but at what cost (where would she live? what would she eat? what would she have to do to simply survive?)--- that is not real and viable life affirming life, it is breathing and trying to go from minute to minute only.  This is also the cost to the mother- this thing does not pop out and go on it's merry way-- it is a sort of shackle, and one I choose freely or I would not have had my children.
Love happens after-- and sometimes it does not happen at all--- not all mothers love and want these little shackles they give birth to.

[Sibling Chatty]

having "no opinion" is dangerous, IMHO.  If, by that, you mean you try to ignore the situation or keep mum, no-matter-what.

What I mean is, you can THINK what you wish, you can even express your thoughts if the pregnant female in question ASKS for them, but until it's YOUR body, you're NOT gonna drive the bus or make up the route.

Much like I would want to have a chance to say "OK, your body, your heart surgeon, but I do think that the choice to do NOTHING while you have 99% occlusion of all the major blood vessels is a bad one."--it's ultimately NOT my body OR my choice.

Same thing for some guy that isn't pregnant and won't be. He has no vote on the matter and should, in a singular case at hand, STFU. Overall, he's entitled to a general opinion. In a specific case, unless asked, he needs to back off. WAY off. As in out of the picture and with his mouth shut.

[Griffin NoName]

I am pro-choice. ie. it's any woman's choice - I don't care what they decide. I dislike the view of Woman as Breeding Machine. If it weren't for ID, we'd all have a switch off button for use as needed or desired