I know that everyone probably realises that "Sleeping Around" is meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but just to avoid confusion: of course there are other things in my life besides sex... I spent a lot of the past week with work, charity commitments and outings with family and friends. But the column isn't called "Volunteering Around" or "Girl Sitting Alone with a Takeaway".
Having said that, regular readers of the column will know that there are many things I get worked up about other than blow-jobs: for example, the current debate over lowering the abortion limit to twenty weeks.
I live in fear of the UK going down the same road as the US, where for years the anti-choice minority has used foetal rights legislation to chip away at a woman's right to choose and access to safe, healthy abortions are becoming a thing of the past for women in many states.
Louise France recently asked in The Guardian if it could happen here, and a pro-choice campaigner told her complacency was his greatest fear.
In Oklahoma, for example, a new law requires that doctors perform ultrasounds, with or without the woman's consent, prior to performing an abortion, and according to Salon, the choice of whether the ultrasound is vaginal or abdominal depends on which has a clearer picture - NOT whether or not the woman wants another piece of medical equipment inserted into her.
Scary stuff.
Catherine, my sweet charity worker.
Did not your mother teach you about birth control?
Women are supposed to make the choice before, not after.
Posted by: Ken Hughes | Friday, 09 May 2008 at 04:11 PM
Ken: When women make the choice about what goes on with their bodies is none of your damn business.
Posted by: Macander | Friday, 09 May 2008 at 05:21 PM
Ken - birth control can fail. The pill does not suit everyone and if you have never had a condom break you probably have not had enough action in your lifetime.
Posted by: Sophie | Friday, 09 May 2008 at 05:44 PM
Ken - GET REAL!
As a male, originally born in England, now re-located to the U.S. - I am in a deep state of shock with regards women's rights and the wretched 'pro-life' movement here...I mean what on earth does 'pro-life' mean...the opposite being 'anti-life'!? Who's life?
Once again, the religiosity that governs/influences the U.S. have exerted their moral crusade onto a woman's basic 'human rights' - pretty much EVERYWHERE here.
Just last week I saw a bumper sticker read 'equal rights for unborn women' - a new (and rather degrading) angle on feminist discourse...
Catherine, as a male and feminist, I salute you and your articleS. Sorry that many of my er 'male' er 'counterparts' fail to grasp your irony, wit and femininity.
Posted by: Chris F | Friday, 09 May 2008 at 07:30 PM
Do women own the fetus' inside them? This life is growing inside them, it didn't have a choice of coming into this world. The sad fact is, people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. Sex = possible pregnancy, that's it. If you didn't want to take the chance of a possible pregnancy, then why sleep around? People want freedoms, the freedom to sleep around with whoever they want, and so on and so forth, then why don't you give the life that your brought inside this world the same freedom you expect. The right to live.
Posted by: Angel | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 12:09 AM
Angel: "Do women own the fetus' inside them?"
Own the fetus' what?
Seriously, though, if a woman doesn't 'own' her own foetus, who does? The state, a church, 'society' as a whole, or just people who think like you. Are you suggesting a woman becomes a slave to her foetus as soon as she becomes pregnant? Yikes!
Posted by: Macander | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 04:14 AM
Something that the so called pro life lobby tend to forget, not every pregnancy goes perfectly and not every woman has the luxury of choosing partners. In light of those poor woman and children held by that Austrian monster, victims of rape and sexual abuse, also pregnancies that threaten the health and well being of the woman, how on earth anyone can reject these scenarios out of hand is beyond me.
I don't believe that this issue is about reproductive rights. I think it is more a way of re-establishing the subserviance of women and turning back the clock on any progress that women have made towards equality.
I'm a bloke. There is probably quite a lot that I don't understand about women's issues and equality. But I firmly believe that equality is not something that any group must fight for alone. Equality and the right to live without discrimination is such a basic and fundamental Right. That includes respect for women's reproductive rights.
Posted by: AT | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 08:42 AM
"Women are supposed to make the choice before, not after."
'Supposed'?
Just who is making these rules up, you? Your grandmother? Some imaginary rule-maker that lives in the sky?
Wouldn't you be happier reading the Daily Mail?
Posted by: BritSwedeGuy | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 08:52 AM
Maybe we should just shoot anyone who introduces the word "rights" into ANY political debate? The very word is itself steeped in moral absolutism, with the clear implication that others must yield to the person using it. There mere fact that politicians try to bribe people with illusory "rights" ought to be enough to put reasonable people off using it.
Posted by: Ian Kemmish | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 09:38 AM
Hey Catherine Townsend Talks About Grown Up Issues.
Let's see how long she can keep this up.
Posted by: Matt | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 01:56 PM
but just to avoid confusion: of course there are other things in my life besides sex... I spent a lot of the past week with work, charity commitments and outings with family and friends
So says Ms Catherine Townsend above.
In that case, why do you still manage to sound so superficial most, if not all of the time? Are you REALLY sure you didn't make that lot up, just to pad out your column?
Methinks Ms Townsend doth protest too much.
Posted by: Jamie | Saturday, 10 May 2008 at 03:33 PM
"Are you suggesting a woman becomes a slave to her foetus as soon as she becomes pregnant?"
A slave? How about a mother, nurturing the fetus until it's strong and grown enough to be born.
The fetus didn't have a say to who or when it's going to be born. What if you were the result of a one-night stand, and the only thing you were to your mother was a inconvenience. A trip to the doctor's office, an appointment to be filled, easy as making an appointment to get your hair cut. People spout on and on about "reproductive rights", but what about the rights of the fetus coming into this world, it's human, isn't it? Does it not have the ability for heart, lungs, skin and hair to develop? Can it not hear what is going on outside or suck it's thumb, kick and yawn? People don't realize that "thing" inside them is alive, having the makings to become a baby.
"Pro-lifers are often caricatured as stupid creationists who just want to put women back in their place. Science and free inquiry are supposed to help them get over their "love affair with the fetus." But science hasn't cooperated. Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn't want to see what abortion kills. The fetus is squirming, and so are we."
--Slade Magazine, April 2007
Murder is murder, no matter how you slice it. Abortion kills.
Posted by: Angel | Sunday, 11 May 2008 at 12:11 AM
"Murder is murder, no matter how you slice it. Abortion kills."
Angel - are you an American by any chance? It is not only the spelling of foetus that gives it away, but also the views as I don't think anyone outside the US still argues form these sort of hard-line absolutist pro-life positions any more.
If you check the link below only Chile and a couple of Central American countries have an absolute ban on abortion. The rest of the planet takes (with varying degrees) a more practical approach.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png
Posted by: James | Sunday, 11 May 2008 at 10:58 AM
James:
No, I was merely copying what Macander had said.
I was born on Aran Island in Scotland and now I live in Edinburgh.
Posted by: Angel | Sunday, 11 May 2008 at 09:21 PM
Angel, do you mourn the death of your toe nail when it is cut off? At conception there is just a collection of cells; personality comes later and is formed as the brain develops. At the early stages there is no personality in there; the cells that are forming to potentially become a human being do belong to the person's body; if you are religious i shall explain it to you that your 'God' would totally be at one with that person's choice; that 'God' understands that when you eat an egg you are not deliberately murdering a potential chick; stop the sentimentality and look at facts; understand that there is so much suffering in the world as people do not want to take responsibility; the most responsible choice in the world is to NOT bring an unwanted child into the world and to terminate that life when it is no more than a potential person that is the right thing to do; 'God' celebrates such wisdom and would not be in the least offended. If you are believing in souls, then the soul moves on to other life....there is no wrong or right in this debate - only choice and that is what we HAVE to keep alive - the right to choose.
Posted by: lorrie | Monday, 12 May 2008 at 12:35 AM
"people do not want to take responsibility"
That, right there is the most truthful thing you said. People don't want to take responsibility. They want the freedom to sleep with and whatever they please and don't want to face the responsibility and side effects of those decisions.
"is so much suffering in the world"
So? They has been suffering in the world since time began, every century has been marked by horrible suffering. Why should this century be any different. Is that still a reason not to have children?
"the most responsible choice in the world is to NOT bring an unwanted child into the world"
Then quit having sex if you didn't want to get pregnant. I don't give a donkey's hind end who and what you engage in sexual activity with, but don't start the whining when you wind up finding yourself pregnant.
"terminate that life"
Terminating human life, that's murder in any book. We aren't talking about a toenail or a chicken, we are talking about a living, breathing, human being, with all the potential to become the next Mozart, Einstein, or just a good kid.
"'God' celebrates such wisdom and would not be in the least offended."
I also remember hearing something along the lines of "Thou shalt not kill."
Posted by: Angel | Monday, 12 May 2008 at 08:07 AM
not a human being until quite developed in womb actually, probably about 5-6 months and personality starts to develop after birth - I think some pro life people have actually murdered doctors so that commandment didn't effect them very much did it? You murder animals every time you eat them - are you a vegetarian? Or are you one of those people who thinks 'God' made humans superior just because some old book about 2000 years old said it at a time when people were very uncivilized and thought seas parted in order to save certain groups of people. CHOICE and respecting people's RIGHT to choose is the God given thing here if you believe in God as you obviously do -and by the way, he is not some patriarchal figure who is judging ,,,,,because if that figure that apparently says 'thou shall not kill' have developed a world of nature that is killing every day...Burma Cyclone? These beliefs are childish and stop the world from progressing.
Posted by: lorrie | Monday, 12 May 2008 at 08:17 AM
Angel:
"James:
No, I was merely copying what Macander had said.
I was born on Aran Island in Scotland and now I live in Edinburgh."
I quoted your first post -- I always spell foetus with an o when writing myself.
Anyway, on to more important matters:
"Abortion kills." So do unwanted children, or children who are unable to be cared for economically or socially. They also themselves die in great numbers, every day, in far worse conditions than by legally available abortion procedures. Until it is able to survive outside the mother's womb, whatever "rights" it has are entirely subservient to the mother's needs.
Posted by: Macander | Monday, 12 May 2008 at 09:01 PM
'I also remember hearing something along the lines of "Thou shalt not kill."'
... and here's your problem neatly encapsulated. Hardline religion is a problem. Obviously not killing people is (or at least should be) a common moral value without the need for religion to back it up, but particularly if birth control precautions have been taken and for whatever reason failed, the choice belongs to the mother. It's her body and her life which are affected by this first and most of all, and nobody else should have any right to overrule her decisions on the matter.
Not everybody shares religious views, you should not try to make them and you should keep your views out of their bodies. Are you going to take every single thing the bible says seriously?
Posted by: Chan | Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 05:16 PM