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

[redadmiral]

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

Sorry, to be clearer, a wife is the female spouse of a man; a husband is the male spouse of a woman.

I'm really not that into the debate, but I think that one argument is that late abortions are not a good thing, but some people believe that women can be trusted to be responsible and try to avoid this if at all possible. That is why it is to many people a feminist issue. The Tories are a rather Paternalistic party IMO (look how many female MPs they have for a start) and I think that not allowing women to make valid decisions on such a personal subject is part of why they generally vote that way.

Well I asked whether it was a step in the right direction- which it is- but it also in itself upholds inequality (see the background). I think the difficulty is that you can get married in a country like Canada - and have an entirely equal union then come back here and suddenly - oh no- you're actually not given quite the same rights etc.

It doesn't personally affect me and I haven't had to live with any prejudice concerning sexuality so I don't know.

INteresting though. The UK is becoming more liberal but not that liberal.....

I'm completely liberal when it comes to civil partnerships, but I'm 100% anti-abortion. It's for me that's about protecting people across the board. I'm pro-CP's and only wish they'd been extended to sibling partnerships, tbh. But I'm anti-abortion, because I believe completely that human life begins at conception.

It's as simple as that, really.

heteronormativity freckle.

You can't have fully equal gay/hetero rights if the room goes silent everytime a woman refers to her 'wife'.

It's interesting- something I hadn't really realised, but then began to see it everywhere.

In places like Canada- where there is equal marriage- you can (apparently)- as a woman- refer to your wife without anyone batting the tiniest of eyelids.

I was a little surprised to see how the votes went on this and that it was kept at 24 weeks, in line with current evidence.

I thought this link was going to be about the tories' Carlton Club and that it's finally starting to accept women as full members. Grudgingly liking Cameron's stance on this.

yes kayharker- that's what I was trying to say about the abortion voting reflecting attitudes to when life begins rather than anything else at all.

pmsl cristina

Thanks for the link, yurt. No longer having any gay friends (not for any particular reason - used to have loads in my youth but that was a long time pre-civil partnerships ), I have no first hand experience of what they choose to call themselves. Are both lesbians in a civil partnership wives, then? Or does one opt to be the wife and the other the husband? And ditto for gay men? I don't have a problem either way, just mildly curious.

Well the person I've spoken to about this would both use 'wife' (and that seems to be the norm in Canada). Here I think more people use partner.

Well, they're not keen for men and women to use the terms 'wife' and 'husband' in officialdom here even if you are a man and a woman. 'Partner' is the catch-all term for pretty much anyone now.

Edward Leigh is RC - I don't honestly see why Ruth Kelly is entitled to her views and Leigh is not. I don't agree with him btw.

Ah, but it's the Guardian.

As a point of interest his children are something in line to the throne but as Catholics they would be barred.

Some of my UK lesbian friends use the terms "wife" and "marriage" very deliberately. Though they are using them socially, not in legal contexts. I was quite surprised really, I'd assumed the lesbians I knew wouldn't want to be involved in marriage etc, too heteronormative, but my friends see it as being fully accepted in society (similar to Yurt's friends, I think).

erm I think you might know who my 'friend' is fennel (follow link). Yes I agree about the deliberate use of 'wife' (and something that I completely hadn't thought of before).

Words are powerful....

oh first link I mean......

Tories are/were also against extending maternity leave, against paternity leave and the minimum wage, IIRC. All of which polices are anti-women (given women are the lowest paid group).

How many women are there in senior positions in the Tory party? Not many, I'll bet.

I do know who you're talking about yurt yes I think it's a more common position than I'd realised though - the friend I'm thinking of isn't particularly political at all or bothered about language usually, but she was very keen to get married "properly" - in a church, with all the heteronormative (can you tell I like that word?) paraphenalia.

Why is Ruth Kelly's 'profound personal faith ' more valid than other people's views????

I'm more interested on the right to keep at least a few fingers' grip on my purse so that we won't freeze ourselves blue this winter, to be quite frank.

I don't agree with Ruth Kelly's views on abortion or many other issues MrsGuy, but her religious views explain why she voted the way she did. And Swedes has explained that Edward Leigh is RC also. So both of them are following the teachings of their faith. I didn't feel amending the law as it stands was strictly necessary - and I think the ideological objection to any change is always going to be concern that it is the start of a process of attrition of the 1967 Abortion Act.
Personally I can see sound medical evidence for taking the limit for abortion on demand back to 22 weeks, to ensure that wrongly calculated EDDs don't mean that terminations for social reasons are carried out beyond the time of viability.
Personally I would never choose to terminate a pregnancy unless in exceptional circumstances but I also think allowing abortions to take place safely and legally is a cornerstone of enlightened democracy.

Marina - Well said.

But back to the OP - why does the Guardian article not mention Edward Leigh's RC faith? It's poor journalism.

Estimated due dates are always an inexact science. Given that the length of the cycle and length of pregnancy varies between women - the 'normal' length of pregnancy is a broad range of 38 to 42 weeks.

I don't think it makes much sense to base the time limit for abortions on something which is so individual and so inexact.

Edam - Due dates have no bearing on the abortion time limit at all.

No, I was responding to Marina's post where she made a link between EDD and changing the limit from 24 weeks to 22.

Edam - I think the point Marina was trying to make is that the conception date is sometimes miscalculated so that the EDD is calculated as a week or two later than it should be (ie the pregnancy is more mature than the mother thinks).