Womens rights and the Tories...This article makes interesting reading....

[redadmiral]

lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2281390,00.html

But not surprising, alas
Edward Leigh has "form" on women's issues anyway, he is always ready to tell us what to do with our bodies and lives
Thanks for the link redadmiral

What about Ruth Kelly - she voted with Leigh.

The truth is a greater number of the public agreed with reducing the limit to 20 weeks than did keeping it at 24 weeks. There is something of a democratic deficit as Parliament is not now representative of voters' wishes.

I don't know if the majority of voters wanted to reduce the limit. I'm not sure if parliament is meant to be representative of voter's wishes in every case - hasn't parliament's resistance to bringing back the Death Penalty been against the wishes of the majority of voters, and IMO thank god it has.

I though they were voted in to take decisions on our behalf, not do exactly as we want. I'm not that political, so feel free to correct me.

Fair point Swedes, but at least Ruth Kelly's views are in keeping with a very profound personal faith that she is open about. Edward Leigh may well also be RC, of course.

I didn't think from the statistics given that it was only Tory voters who wanted to bring down the limit, just the vast majority who ddi were Tories, which is more worrying in a way than individual cases in either party, bearing in mind the fact that they might get in next election.

Redadmiral. Personally I don't find anything at all worrying about Parliament acting in line with the people it represents.

I can see how it's worrying if it's not in line with your personal politics and beliefs.

I don't understand why, if people believe that women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies, there is a limit at all? Why is 24 weeks acceptable and 28 or 36 not? I'm genuinely puzzled by people who are very insistent that it is the woman's choice being prepared to accept a 24 week limit.

Swedes, yes, TBH I think that is generally how it works.

I think the thrust of the article really was that maybe some people have been lulled into a sense of security by Cameron's touchy feely speeches, and that an analysis of how he and others in his party voted might prove a bit of a wake-up call to people who think that the time limit reduction is an infringement of a woman's right to choose.

The thing that I found more chilling actually was the amendment that Cameron voted for to say that lesbian's must 'consider a baby's right to a father' before getting sperm donation. I remember the Tories being a very anti-gay party (think Clause 28) and depressingly it sounds as if little has changed. I do think it's worth bringing to people's attention - younger people than myself may not even remember what it was like whenn the Tories were in power, and, TBH, I think they are not being clear about their real agenda. That is why the article is important.

lesbians even....

I think this is a very emotional issue that doesn't accurately reflect tories/labours view towards women at all.

I'm very much pro-choice and certainly pro women having choice over their bodies but am not sure whether I would vote 22 or 24 weeks. Agree with Freckle's ppint. I think both 22 & 24 weeks have pros/cons. Personally I'm more interested in sorting out the law that allows terminations for disability to take place until term - in that a think a far more robust definition of 'severe disability' is needed.

Waves at Yurt

They may be pro father's rather than anti-gay.

Our local Tory mp voted for 22 weeks but he's an evangelical christian so I suppose he was always going to. I'm not sure it reflects anything about his political views- rather his religious ones.

Perhaps there are more tory churchgoers?

Maybe Yurt,, but I somehow don't think we'd have the civil partnerships under a Tory goverment....

Have had, I menat to say - I hope they wouldn't remove them. (I'm not gay, BTW - peopel who are may have more detailed evidence or opinions...)

oh I don't think they'd remove them. I think society, let alone the tory party has changed. It's become more liberal and I'm sure that is reflected in the tory party.

Although not everyone is happy with civil partnerships. See Equal Marriage Rights.

They are not happy because it's not fully enforceable though, rather than disliking the idea in itself, if I've read it right?

I'm just not sure that bills on abortion/embryology etc are good indicators of someone's overall liberalism (or otherwise) as they are such emotive issues that they really do in the end come down to personal feelings.

Well, wouldn't that then cause a more even split of opinion across the parties if it were a totally personal thing?

We might have to agree to disagree on this thread and agree on the other one. ;)

No it's unequal.

People who are gay cannot get married- they have to have civil parterships.

People who are hetero by the way can't have civil partnerships they have to get married.

Therefore people who are gay are being treated differently (and unequally) than people who are heterosexual.

If you're gay then you can't say 'this is my wife' - because she's not. She's your civil partner.

It's interesting (had some lengthyish chats about this) and I can see why something I had assumed was universally a good thing, may actually not be viewed that way by all.

or

I just don't think 22/24 weeks says anything about people's liberalism. It probably says more about their attitude towards when life begins.

But somehow I don't think that inequality is what some people (shall i say 'old school' euphemistically) disagree with. Yes, it's not great that it's not a proper marriage, but surely that's better than not being recognised in law at all? Presumably the people you are referring to want it improved legally, not done away with completely?

Why would a gay person want to call their partner "wife" or "husband"? A wife is the spouse of a man; a husband is the spouse of a woman. If the couple is gay, they can be neither of these things. Perhaps they need to choose other, gay partnernship compatible names. Something more specific than partner.