The offensive view in question belongs to a 'parenting expert', i.e. Celia Lashlie, a supposed education adviser and author (wow, she published a book, she MUST be right!) who suggests that female teachers talk too much, because she didn't like spending time in classrooms with female teachers. Because, you know, as women, our voices are too high pitched, and we talk too much. Surprisingly, the answer put forward was not that she should get some ear plugs, or surprise that this woman hates other women, but that women should shut up.

For a start, why is it that nobody ever accuses men of having annoying voices? During my education and social life, I've met men and women with all sorts of voices, some of them annoying. But no matter how deep, or squeaky, or strange a man's voice, you'll never hear calls for him to shut up because he sounds annoying. Certainly you don't hear calls for this in the media. It would be taken as standard that a man's voice, no matter what its quality, is essential to his life, and something you put up with. Yet, women don't get given this respect. Telling us we have annoying voices is socially acceptable, because deep down, a lot of people really do wish women would shut up.

Certainly, it makes it easier to ignore their concerns, their ideas or opinions, or complaints. The voice fixation is a convenient mask. If it weren't you would get people asserting how much they hate some men's voices, but since it just seems to apply to women's voices, that should set alarm bells ringing. Whenever a standard is conveniently only applied to certain groups, it's a big warning sign for oppression.

It can be argued that the focus on how annoying women's voices are is the patriarchy's way of literally trying to silence women. After all, we've been told for years to shut up, that the men are talking, and that we're shrill. In case I need to spell out to someone just why this is sexist, let's turn the tables. Imagine if, instead of exploring social factors, feminists had simply made the claim that men held women back, and annoyed women with their booming voices, so men should just shut up and step back. By labelling the instrument of someone's expression as unacceptable, you literally silence them, since they are meant to be discouraged from participating in conversation. And this only seems to occur to women.

If you think about it, most women really aren't that high pitched. But the accusation that women are shrill and should just shut up is used to literally silence women, because it is seen as an acceptable excuse to tell women to literally shut up. This silencing extends far beyond the limits of speech, since even online, one of the first things you're likely to encounter as a feminist is some troll labelling you a 'shrill' woman, even though they clearly can't hear your voice. Not liking someone's voice is not an acceptable reason for ignoring a person or group of people, and should not be condoned by the media. We shouldn't have to change our voices, because we are not responsible for whether someone likes our voices or not. Just like nobody has to change their clothes or hair style if I don't like theirs.

The funny thing is that women have long been important in education, especially of younger children. From nurses and governesses to teachers later on, women have long had a role in educating boys. Funnily enough, their voices never seemed to be much of a problem, until now. Since women have been educating and bringing up competent men for thousands of years, you'd think that it's a bit late to start blaming us for their supposed demise, especially since I doubt our voices have suddenly got squeakier. But then again, it's much easier to ignore what someone is saying by pretending that they are hard to understand, or not worth listening to.

And the answer postulated by the 'expert'? Get more men into the female-dominated job of teaching. This could be commendable. After all, we feminists don't believe in isolating jobs for women only or men only. But this is entirely the wrong reason. Yes, it's concerning that women seem to get placed in the lower-paid less respected areas of teaching, and that men tend to avoid them like the plague. But I doubt that men will suddenly flock to those posts because you tell them to, and the idea that these boys must be doing poorly because they don't meet any men is bizarre. It ignores the social pressures on children to not study, and the fact that peer pressures on boys and girls are different. It ignores the different gender roles of boys and girls, and instead of exploring these, the 'expert' simply suggests allowing 'boys to be boys'. Yeah, because the macho- man obsessed mentality isn't already causing problems with boys. We clearly need to encourage our boys to be aggressive, feel entitled over women, and a general loathing of anybody different.

Also, why are these people only concerned about boys? Nobody was making a big deal back when boys outperformed girls. Are the people clamouring for male role models interested in whether girls and women might need female role models? I don't see the Mail calling for more female professors and researchers, more female fire fighters and so forth, because girls need role models to aspire to fields where there are relatively few women present. In fact, they'd be the first to oppose such a move as 'Politically Correct'. Mothers are also told not to 'try to run their sons' lives'. Whilst this may be good advice in moderation, it should apply to both genders, and indeed to both parents. We have parents refusing potentially life-saving vaccines because of the fear of their daughter having sex some day, and yet it's only unacceptable to be a pushy parent if your offspring is male. The problem is, by focusing only on male children in instances like this, it gives the impression that it's OK to be controlling of girls' lives and that if they fell behind boys in education, that would be acceptable, too.

And finally, should women shut up, even if they are annoying? No. For a start, our precious boys will have to learn to live with women in their everyday lives, and nobody, no matter how annoying they find women, can avoid having contact with 50% of the world's population. Women's voices being found annoying is a symptom of how little society values women, and should be something we work towards eradicating, not something we work around or encourage. You can't expect half the world to literally shut up and step back so that you don't have to deal with them. I'd argue that if boys find women annoying (there's no evidence of this in the article, it's all about the opinions of the 'expert'), it is especially worrying, and even more reason for them to have more contact with, and get used to women. Whatever the oppressed group some people feel uncomfortable around, the onus should be on the privileged group who feel uncomfortable to get over it. We should never ask disabled people to disappear because some people feel uncomfortable, or people of colour, or LGBTQ people, because they have the same rights to exist and be heard, and live life to the full. This, naturally, should also apply to women.

Photos by angegreene and R4vi, shared under a Creative Commons license

In language, some writers still use the male second person 'he' to refer to a general audience, for example: "It can be said that if the reader were to think deeply, he would consider this to be an exaggeration." To me, this sentence is alienating. Yes, even after growing up in a society that aims everything at white men, assuming that everyone who is not one will have to like it and lump it, I still don't feel included. I have never grown up being called 'he'. Ever. Writing that assumes their reader is a 'he' is rarely written in a way that we can actually assume will be only read by men. Rather, it's a throwback to the worse remnants of tradition that men mustn't be insulted by not being addressed as men. To address any males as if they were women would be more insulting and alienating, we are taught, than addressing a majority of women as men. However, we're not in the 18th century. Men are actually not fragile creatures who crumble if they are not directly addressed as men every time people are referred to.

It's a poor excuse, as Richard Dawkins wrote in one of his books that some 'feminist' chastised him for writing 'she', because it was patronising, so sod it, just write 'he'. Sorry, you can write 'he or she'. And no, it doesn't ruin everything, as some stuck-in-the-stone-ages sods claim. Those of us who have grown up with such innovative language don't skip a heartbeat when we see it. If you hate using both, then occasionally use either gender. You can substitute 'she' for some examples and 'he' for others. Why not, nobody needs to assume the reader is always male in every example. Use 'Zie', if you think changing is too inconsistent. If that's too newfangled for you, use 'they'. If you're too much of a grammar obsessive (I empathise), pick one of the above. But pick one. Show women that you have noticed they exist. We'll thank you, believe me. Either way, there are many ways to try and be inclusive, by removing the repetitive focus on male pronouns. Not doing any of the above is sheer laziness, or more likely, an outright refusal simply because you don't want to be inclusive. Neither deserves a pat on the back.

You also get the deluded souls who insist that phrases such as 'mankind' as in 'man has done X' or 'Great men have done Y' is inclusive, and totally not misogynist. The fact that 'man' has come to encapsulate many people who are NOT MEN, thereby masking their existence has never occurred to them. It probably wouldn't, because many of the people arguing that these words are inclusive are men.

They are not. The words do not take parts that are male and female, and blend them. Nor do they take something that is neither, and can only used to refer to people in a non-gendered sense. They take words that focus on men. These words are like an invading army. They don't live peacefully side by side with the other, they trample over it, masking its existence with their gendered association. They remind us that men have been controlling women throughout history, defining history (and no, I don't see history as a gendered word, for crying out loud!) by silencing others not like them. They are a verbal reminder that men dominated over women, and that they don't want to change that.

I don't take the etymological roots of the word 'man' as proof of it NOW being gender-neutral. Yes, it originally was, but now, when we are referring to a single entity, the word 'man' is always used to refer to male person. We never use these to refer to a woman when we know her gender. Why? Because we see it as words designated to men. They are never neutral. The only reason we use them in a mixed gender context is because we as a man-centric society, cannot bear it if men aren't recognised in a group. It's not even about calling people all 'women'. I can't help but think that the people who have issues with using the word 'humankind', or 'humans', or 'people', do so because their maleness, their male-centric-ness is not being recognised and suitably flaunted. After all, none of the above words are coded female. They're not taking away one's manliness by grouping him in with 'womankind' or 'women'. But they take away men's special status as being the supreme group that everyone else fits around. And that is enough for people who conform to a male-centric society to feel that they are being erased.

These people insist that the word 'mankind' is not about men. To all these people, I say to you: prove it. Prove being referred to as if you are someone else is actually not denying your existence. Prove it by assuming the default instead is, unlike you (I'm assuming most of them are men), female. Ask people to refer to you, and the hypothetical reader as 'she'. Refer to humans as 'women', and 'womankind'. Instead of 'great men', say 'great women'. If a word that most of the time is used exclusively for one group can be adequate for both, surely either will do?

Can't do it, can you? You'll go on about how you're not a woman (what a thought! A woman!) and that the word 'woman' can only be used to refer to people who are, in fact women. It's the same for me. It really is. No matter how many times you tell me 'mankind' is supposed to represent me, I still look at that little three-letter word at the front, and you know what, it isn't me. Neither is 'he', 'him', 'his' or 'himself'. They're not me. They never will be. Society has brought me up to answer to the label 'woman', the words 'she', 'her', 'hers' and 'herself' to describe me. We may have a discussion about what labels really say, and whether they are necessary, if you wish. That's another long discussion for another day. But if I choose to keep the labels society has brought me up with, I and the other three billion like me, deserve to be represented. We don't want invisible inclusion, to melt into a word designed around men.

I'm a human. The word 'human' connects us all, whether we have ovaries or testes, or neither, or both. It's not perfect, because it has the word 'man' in it (and I'll chalk this up to etymology, like the word 'woman'), but it can always be used to refer to both men and women. Short of inventing new words for them all, I think 'human' is what I'm personally comfortable with. I appreciate that it is necessary when writing about problems people defined as women suffer, to use a word that encapsulates us, hence the use of the word 'woman'. This is a complex issue, but I believe that if we choose to use any words already existing in common usage, we should properly use them. That is, male words only for men, not as words with which to mask the inclusion of women.

Don't always put 'his' before 'hers' and try to pay attention to these things. Don't frame maleness as being a rejection of all that is bad and female. Don't' frame femaleness as lacking all the positive points of maleness. These also assume male is the default. Men are courageous, strong and have a penis. Women are considered not strong, not courageous, and to lack a penis. We do not 'lack' male traits, because personality traits are not unique to a gender. We have strength, both of the kind seen as male and other kinds normally ignored. Next time, instead of framing it as lacking male traits, maybe turn it around. What if we said men lacked a uterus, or lacked breasts, or lacked ovaries? The focus on male gonads stems from the patriarchy. Whilst I don't like focusing on either, maybe in the right contexts framing it in terms of being woman-centric will be a subversive way to demonstrate how male-centric society it. This one's important in feminist discourse, because it's tempting even as a feminist to frame things in male centric terms, without realising.

And whilst I'm at this, I'm not 'a female'. I'm not a specimen, or nameless organism in an ecologist's quadrat. I'm a woman, a person, a human who wants all of her rights, and wants rights for everyone else still owed theirs. Using the word as a noun rather than an adjective ('a female' instead of 'female') reads to me as if you're appraising an animal. It creates a distance from their humanity. It's clinical, and creepy. The use of these words as nouns is gendered, because it's much rarer to see women calling men 'males' as if to herd them together as some amorphous group. Even the same men who usually sleazily refer to women as 'females' don't refer to all men as 'males'. They don't refer to themselves as 'a male', and they don't generalise about 'all males' or more importantly, don't refer to their mates as 'the males'. They don't refer to a group of men as 'males' full stop. Men are still 'men' to them, when it comes down to it.

Whereas I have seen men refer to 'females' more times than I'd care to recall. And funnily, when they call women 'females' they're even more likely to be either dismissive, or plain predatory, and I think this reflects the distance that the word creates from women's humanity. Therefore men who are less likely to see women as fully human are more likely to call them 'females' and act as if they are some below par species good only for mating with.

So, people, here's the deal. Women deserve to be included equally in mixed groups by not being masked by men. You realise, and probably admit that history has been very male-centric (even if you don't agree with feminist views of how much inequality we still have left to battle). It is precisely because these words have been used historically to silence women, and to mask their existence that I don't believe they refer to me. We want neutral words that can equally refer to both. And we deserve them.

"I also think it's somewhat inappropriate to leap down a man's throat when they attempt to offer an alternative viewpoint, particularly when they are commenting on a feminist blog. Is this not a friendly, open space to discuss and learn from one another's povs? I frequently disagree with several F-Word bloggers' points but I tend to take the opportunity to attempt to consider and learn from what they are saying, rather than totally disregarding it for not agreeing with my own opinion. Just a thought."

Which I found gave me a lot of food for thought. Clearly, The F-Word is a site dedicated to sharing various feminist points of view, the more the merrier. The addition of commenting made my day, because suddenly you could get more than one person's opinions on a post, and there was a chance to learn even more. Yes, it is important to consider where an opinion is coming from, especially if the person holding it looks like they have more personal experience with an issue. If it affects them more, or if they know more about the topic at hand, they're definitely worth listening to, especially if you disagree with them. Listening to people with more experience than you is the main way of learning the bounds of our privilege, and unravelling societal influences on us.

At the same time, I have issues with how we define a safe space and what we consider to be fair criticism vs. what constitutes an unfair attack. The foundation of much current feminist discourse is that insults on an individual person's actions are not acceptable, but that criticism, by which we mean deconstruction of an opinion or action are acceptable. We will always have disagreements, and it is only by exchanges where the opposing arguments are deconstructed and replied to that there can be any real education or personal growth. Sometimes this gets heated and personal, which is something impossible to avoid on a feminist blog.

I understand a safe space to be a place where members of an oppressed group can talk frankly about issues that affect them. It is an island in a world where their opinions are pushed aside, and a place on the internet where their opinions are not insulted or assumed to be wrong because they are different. In short, a safe space is there to serve the needs of the oppressed, not the oppressor. This means that their opinions are the ones that are most important, because they are the ones with direct experience of the topic, and the safe space was created to give them a place to share those experiences and related opinions, without having to deal with a lot of dissent or being silenced by the privileged, who after all have the entire rest of the internet to be heard.

This isn't to say that all people don't have equal rights to an opinion, they do. And all people have the right to express that opinion where they see fit. However, each space has a right to govern which opinions should be given weight, and which would stop real discussion. I remember feeling pretty bemused at how feminist blogs used to not put up every comment, and used to worry that if I unwittingly wrote something wrong, I'd get banned or have my comments deleted. Hence, I was very careful in what I posted. But when I had been around a bit longer, and had more experience and confidence, two things happened. First, I had enough experience from reading comments to not ask the most repetitive questions, and try the best to educate myself. Naturally, I was just as inexperienced as the most helplessly misguided commenters you can get, not so long ago. I was grateful to those who took the time to explain, and who pointed things out gently, but I was also grateful to those who were a bit harsher. It stung, but it helped me realise where I was wrong.

Second, I realised just why we need to foster an environment that is nurturing to discussion and makes minorities feel welcome in their own space. I saw how even one privileged and fairly-well meaning commenter, or plain troll could quickly side-track a thread, or insist that they know better than the people who have experienced this. I saw many people claim that they know more than women, POC or LGBTQ people, or still believe that when it comes down to it, other people's lives should be decided based on what makes someone else uncomfortable or comfortable.

In the real world, on most websites, and even on Top Gear, male commenters have the chance to have their voices not only heard and represented more than their fair share, but believed more. They, as men, are brought up to be forthright with their opinions, and to be confident to express what they think, regardless of the foundations of their experience. On the other hand, they should understand that we as women are brought up to be just the opposite. We're told 'Don't be too confident! Who do you think you are, girl? Don't be too arrogant. Nobody likes opinionated women, so you'll never get married if you are so forward. Men don't like smart women, so just talk less. Look interested, don't disagree, and smile. Don't make a fuss, don't correct him, you'll only embarrass yourself. Keep quiet. Why does it matter?'

This is the burden of what society expects us to be, and it's a message we get over and over. From those who wish us well and those who don't. Even as confident, eloquent feminists unafraid to speak our minds, it's there in the background, something we ourselves fight with every day. Sometimes we win, sometimes it does. Especially when it's safer for us to be silent.

The reason this is relevant is because in a mixed space, even when discussing gender issues, and even in a feminist space, if we don't make an effort to address this, the societally-enforced pattern repeats itself. Men used to talking over women, or disregarding them in many ways, without meaning to or realising, will perpetuate this pattern, and women will be silenced. Whilst part of dealing with sexism is encouraging women to share their opinions, and trust in their experience, this can only go so far if they are still being talked over. By focusing on being especially attentive to the opinions of an already privileged group, we would be giving men an advantage, and they would probably take it, owing to their privilege. So it's also up to male commenters to actively try and remember that they are likely to try and talk over women, and to actively try and really listen to women. Not only when it is convenient, but when women disagree with them and when they feel put upon. It's easy to be an ally when you agree, but it is when you feel put upon as a privileged person, when you disagree that you need to think carefully and examine their experiences, and whether they might be more sensitive because it affects them directly.

In this way I believe it is vital that feminist discourse isn't confined by having to temper feminist words and opinions to be more palatable to men because of their privilege, or give them special attention. Any opinion, male of female, can be examined. Whilst I believe a person's specific choices are private, and should not be fodder for insults and personal attacks, choices themselves, and opinions need to be deconstructed and criticised, analysed from a feminist perspective. This isn't easy, and needs to be done in a balanced way to not tip into attack, but it can be done.

By sheer virtue of being men, male commenters enter the discussion likely to be at odds with feminists, and this will cause friction. They will be in the minority, and have their comments analysed by many people at once. They will probably come into the discussion with privilege, and where this is evident, it will be pointed out to them. Where they have little experience in the issue, this will also be pointed out. It is necessary to remind the privileged that they enter a discussion with the danger of silencing those they supposedly support, and that it is up to them to be aware of their limited experience, and that things will not be tailored towards them.

If we have to spend time and effort paying special attention to men, or tiptoeing around their feelings, we will be putting them before the women for whom this space was really set up. We would be failing women if a feminist space became just another place for men to talk unchallenged or without criticism, with their opinions being favoured. We would also not be doing these men a favour, because criticising an opinion, analysing it and replying are to me an acknowledgement of the person. It says "I see what you have said, and I will read it, and I may disagree, but I will engage the argument." To a woman, whose arguments all her life have been brushed under the carpet and dismissed without being engaged, serious criticism of one's words isn't an insult. It's treatment as an equal, something I do not experience often. So I won't feel sorry for the men I engage as equals willing to change, and willing to be allies, because they deserve to go through the same journeys of learning as everyone else, and have their opinion treated to the same consideration. I believe it would be far bigger an insult to treat anyone who disagrees as a lost cause, who is not capable of understanding, as a troll whose arguments shouldn't be touched or examined. It hurts too much to have one's beliefs ignored and spurned without being examined for me to willingly do it to someone else, when I feel they can be engaged.

However, that engagement won't be light. In the end, it is the privilege of an oppressor (white as well as male, straight as well as white) that they can feel offended when treated equally, because they are not preferentially treated as they are used to it. This is something they need to get over if they truly want to be allies, and it's something that needs work and isn't easy. Yes, being in an environment where people disagree with you, and don't give you your way, or your opinion special worth is shocking when you first start. It's never easy starting to realise what you have, and the privileges you lose in an equal setting. But from what I have seen around the blogosphere, I think that not watering down criticism of the privileged is the bigger mark of respect and the biggest favour. It gives them a chance to learn, and to prove that they really do want equality, and really do want to listen to minority voices. It hurts, and all of us feel offended at some time or other because our opinion got short shrift, but I feel it is necessary to growth.

I do think it necessary that ad hominem attacks are kept to a bare minimum, because they are inflammatory, and don't add to discourse and nobody, no matter how seemingly deserving really needs to be insulted. At the same time, The F-Word has only fairly recently allowed comments, and I think it is still working on its niche of exactly what to allow and not allow. Most blogs have one or two contributors, and clear bounds of which niche both the blogstresses and most commenters tend to fall in. The F-Word is deliberately meant to be diverse, so there is more chance of very disparate opinions clashing. To the contributors' credits, I haven't seen comments sink to useless levels, and criticism and debate may become heated, but hasn't crossed the line as far as I know. It's just something to bear in mind, because the environment here is unique in that it's varied, and pitched at more than one level. I think that gives a lot of opportunities, but it does leave confusion and the potential for disagreements.

I won't pretend that my thoughts on this are the right ones, or the only possible interpretation, so I thought I'd start discussion on this. In a feminist space, how far we should go to educate the more privileged, and the limits of what a space considers acceptable should be a topic of discussion in itself, because we can only gain beneficial discussion about other topics if we set up the right environment for it. I'd like to see what commenters, (men and women) think about this topic, so please feel free to add your opinion.

*Rhona, I hope it's OK to discuss your comment here, although I understand if you'd like me to remove it. I didn't intend to single you out, or pick arguments, or imply that you must be wrong, but as a mark of respect for your point of view, which in itself prompted a lot of thought on my account. So thank you.

We know for a fact that current scientific theory does not support the reduction of the time limit, and neither does the Commons Science and Technology Committee or the British Medical Association. Babies born around the limit for abortion (24 weeks) are nowhere near what would be considered viable in real terms. They have a high mortality rate and long lasting health problems. But this isn't about that.

The issue of viability is misleading, because it is used to draw attention away from the women who would be having these abortions. My aim here is to put forward the idea that viability cannot be the standard with which we decide who gets abortions and when.

What would happen if abortion limits were decided by the gestation period at which babies prematurely born can survive? What will happen when science and care reach the stage at which babies born earlier and earlier can be kept alive? This will certainly be no mean feat, even if it is in the distant future, the babies that do survive very, very premature birth will even then suffer serious complications and high mortality rates. We will not in the foreseeable future be able to change the fact that once born, a premature baby does not mature just as it would if it had been carried to term, and for whatever reason, premature babies will always need a lot of close care and attention, and will always be likely to have health problems as a result. The time at which we can help some of these babies survive might get earlier and earlier, but the damage and the risks of premature birth won't go away.

But where would that leave women, if babies born at say, 13 weeks start to survive? Pro-life lobbyists would no doubt insist that a limit at 13 weeks would be too long, because some babies born at that time would survive. After all, that was their only rationale behind lobbying for a cut in the time limit this week. The medical evidence and leading medical groups did not support them, and their main argument rested on the emotionally laden comparison between foetuses aborted at the same age as some wanted babies are born, and how they are exactly the same. They are not.

The act of birth divides them, one being a physically separate entity, a live being in its own right, and the other being attached to another body, dependent on that body for all sustenance. The prior is a baby; something legally recognised as alive, the latter is a foetus; something that is not a separate entity, but a continuation of someone's body, that feeds off someone else.

And hence we come to the idea of control over one's body, and the legal right to exert it. The idea here is that every person owns their body. Everyone is responsible for what happens to their body, and nobody is allowed to do something to someone else's body without consent, or to require something of someone's body without their permission.

Let's go through a scenario. Carol's brother, Steve, is ill. He has some kind of kidney problem, and is dying, and the only thing that can save him is a kidney transplant. Carol is the only match for Steve in their immediate family that can be identified.

We can argue that it would be 'the right thing' for Carol to nobly give up an organ for her brother. It would certainly be very nice of her. But legally, she has no obligation to do so. Even though Steve may be a model citizen, rescues grandmothers who cross the street, has a Nobel Prize and five kids, and his kidney problem was not caused by any action on his part (in other words is about as deserving a recipient as most people can picture) she has no legal obligation to give him her kidney. Even though she has two, and doesn't technically need both kidneys to survive. It may be cruel of her in our eyes that she chooses not to. But it's her right, something the law supports.

Why? Because legally and ethically we see it as wrong for a person to force someone else to give part of their body. We draw a line that stops people from forcing someone else to keep them alive. We value the life of the person who needs that support, yes, and we would very much like it if more people donated bone marrow or kidneys, or even their organs after they died. But we cannot, and do not force them to donate an organ, or hook up that other person onto their body, because we are aware of the serious risks and complications for the donor. It is all about the donor's choice, and the fact that they must be willing to make the sacrifice themselves.

Now, imagine Carol becomes pregnant. Only for whatever reason, she has carried the foetus to say, 22 weeks. Why should the law force Carol to keep this 'person' (if you believe a foetus is alive, I don't. At least, I don't believe it's alive any more than any other clump of cells) alive when she is not under any legal obligation to keep her brother, someone who she has known and loved all her life, alive? It would be the height of hypocrisy to demand that women keep foetuses, and carry them to term, because they approximate real babies enough in your eyes, when real, living people aren't given the same privilege. Why should we give foetuses more rights than babies or adult humans?

Having a growing mass inside of you compete for your own nutrients isn't easy, and puts many strains on the host, whether it's cancer or a foetus. No, I'm not calling foetuses a cancer or a parasite, but medically speaking, they are in the same category of things that take nutrients from the body, grow, and can put the host body in danger. Fortunately, most of the time, women are perfectly happy to be host to a foetus, because they want the baby that will be born in a several months time. Nobody actually loves the at worst physically endangering and at best inconvenient process of pregnancy, but many women are willing to go through with it, because they love the thought of the baby they want to have at the end of it. And that's fantastic, I'm happy for them. Babies can be a wonderful thing for those who want them.

But what about those women who don't want a baby? Who don't want to go through the risk and discomfort of nine months of pregnancy to give away a baby they don't want, or a baby who will die shortly after birth, or who will be stillborn? What can we say justifies forcibly keeping them pregnant because of the age of the foetus (at 24 weeks a foetus is still very far from full grown) and forcing them to give birth, which is a traumatic, difficult, potentially dangerous process?

Would pro-lifers make a bargain with women, that if a woman doesn't want to carry a foetus to term, she can have it removed, and it can be kept alive in an incubator and then adopted? After all, according to them, babies born at that age are perfectly viable, and that's their issue with abortion. Except we all know that this wouldn't happen. For one, most pro-lifers don't tend to care much about babies after birth.

More importantly, even they recognise that we do not have facilities that are anywhere near good enough that we can deliver all the babies at 24 weeks, and have them grow up without much difficulty and risk. Otherwise, women (conservatives included) might be queuing up to cut pregnancy times in half, and have a much easier time of things. If they want this to be about viability, they should be advocating that every woman who wants an abortion should be able to deliver this 'viable' baby then and there, and pass it on to be looked after by someone else. Conservatives get to keep the babies, and everyone's happy.

But we know that this cannot be a reality, for the foreseeable future. Women can't just give birth whenever someone decides babies and foetuses are viable and pass it on to someone else. They would have to carry it to term, taking on all of the risks and dangers of a pregnancy and labour that they did not wish to continue. And that would be wrong. Since we don't have the ability to magically take away 'viable' foetuses and save them, we can't tell women what to do with their bodies. It's their risk, and therefore their decision.

The viability argument does not take into account women's circumstances, or whether they can get an abortion easily. It does not take into account the limits of technology, and how we test for serious disorders at this time. It does not take into account many of the complicated reasons why a woman may need a longer time period to realise that she's even pregnant, or wants (or needs) an abortion. These should be the deciding factors in where to draw the limit, so that any woman should be able to get an abortion when she NEEDS one. We support all people in their right to keep their organs and not support anybody else with their body when it comes to organ or tissue donation, no matter how much the would-be recipient needs it, or how 'innocent' the recipient is. We should therefore support pregnant women in the same manner.

That's why viability shouldn't be what decides where we put the limit. We can't save all 'viable' babies, nor can we let all women who don't want to continue a pregnancy pass on the baby to someone else. Therefore, we still need these abortions, because we should not force any person to support another with their body. Right now, living breathing humans don't have a right to claim someone else's body should support them. Therefore an entity which is not alive yet should not be given special rights above those that all living people have.

This being a contentious, difficult topic, I can't say it's an easy question to think about. I don't have an absolute lack of reservations about later term abortions, because the foetus is more developed. But even more, I don't want to compromise women's rights, and ultimately, the wellbeing of those foetuses if they are born into an environment that neither wants them, nor can care for them. There is never going to be any easy solution, nor should we lie around expecting one. We need this discussion, difficult though it is, so that we may work to find the least harmful answer we can. I'd love to see what other people think about this issue, so please feel free to comment, even if you disagree.

* Writing comments involves a lot less analysis of one's own language and disclaimers, and I'm still in fear of starting a blog war, or making a huge faux-pas of some sort. So please tell me if I'm saying something that is privileged and ignorant, or putting my foot in my mouth. I'll thank you. Really. I haven't had time to do any reading of all the wonderful feminist blogs I normally lurk at recently (The F Word being the only exception), so it's perfectly possible that someone will have covered this or done much more justice to this difficult topic, so feel free to tell me if that's the case. I also don't claim credit over the old 'kidney operation' analogy.