It's not old-fashioned to support fatherhood

Simon

well said.

mart

Reactionary? The word has no significance outside politics.

And it's outside politics where we should be looking for answers to these issues.

The mere thought of making it a political touchstone is nauseating.

Does "modern" mean "in favour of all technological advances, bar none"? I don't think so.

Well done to the Spectator, as always, for being on the right side of the argument.

Ray

On this issue the Guardianistas are rather like those die-hard proponents of slavery in the early nineteenth century who were forced to progressively vacate one defence after another as their arguments for keeping Africans in chains became ever more hollow and tenuous.
Yet it's ironic that when both reason and morality finally failed them altogether they too fell back on that old canard about the clammer to free the slaves being "hi-jacked by religious nutters" like William Wilberforce, "foisting their Bible views on people". Plus ca change...
Thankfully, now as then, ever more people of all faiths and none are now finally waking up to what a terrible evil has been committed in our name.

Nick Kaplan

This guardian article is (deliberately) misleading, condescending, and it utterly misses the point. It makes out that this is a battle between backwards religious people and reasonable scientists, suggesting that it marks a clash of values and there is nothing that can be done to persuade those horrible irrational religious folk. But I am an atheist and I still have some deep philosophical reservations about abortion, yet the article makes out that this is some clear cut issue on which the reasonable person can only reasonably take one side. But the whole pro-life/ pro-choice debate is childish and misleading, I’m both pro-life and pro-choice, but as I don’t believe anyone has the right to choose whether to murder or not, so the issue is just about at what point do we classify something as a living being. This is a question I do not have an answer to and I don’t believe anyone else has a particularly good answer either, with most people choosing the completely arbitrary point whereby if it could survive on its own outside the womb then it is a life. The ‘liberal’ (and I use the term loosely) left seem to think that the religious attach some kind of anachronistic significance to an embryo and thus should be ignored, but this is simply not the case, no religious text speaks on embryology, they are not trying to uphold some arcane law. The reason religious people think abortion is wrong is because they believe an embryo is a life and killing is wrong ( a reasonable philosophical position). Science provides no answer to this challenge (as the left assume it does), instead only philosophy has the potential to find a solution. Ashley suggests that the solution is that one should “live according to your beliefs, but don't try to impose them on the rest of us” a sentiment that in most cases I would agree with, but is just spurious nonsense in the case of abortion. If abortion is truly killing a living being, then one cannot just live and let live, and no amount of scientific evidence or feminist ranting will convince a reasonable person of the reverse. If Ashley’s excuse for an argument is considered ‘progressive’ then I would take the label ‘old-fashioned, reactionary, conservative’ as a compliment.

Jonny Mac

Interesting & powerful analogy, Ray.

Ian C

Once again there is a fundamental misunderstanding of teh term liberal. In Jackie Ashley's version it seems to be 'let it be so if you think it appropriate, whatever the rest of society wants'. This is not liberalism but libertarian anarchy - and I regard myslef as libertarian until something harms anyone or will lead to harm of others e.g. drug use and even abortion. It is quite sacary how the left regards itslef as progressive these days, when, as said above their ideas have been shown over the past half-century to be anything but selfish, me-first, rights based and without regard or responsibilty to the greater good.

Stuart

I worry very much about linking the cutoff for abortions to the number of weeks at which the foetus can be viably born. It seems to me a matter of not much dispute that scientific progress will eventually allow a full gestation to take place without the explicit need for a womb. At this point, do we simply outlaw abortion on the basis that all fertilised eggs are viable?

At some level, the date given for an upper cutoff for abortions will have to be arbitrary. Is there REALLY any great justification for moving from one arbitrary date (24 weeks) to another (12, 18 or 20 weeks - depending on who you talk to)?

Agreed on fatherhood, though - two strong role models for a child ought to be the norm. To be fair, I could imagine that two strong gay role models may be just as effective as two strong straight role models, but single parenthood should be something that we support through necessity, not something we encourage through financial incentives.

David Lindsay

It was, of course, Margaret Thatcher who destroyed the economic base of paternal authority, initially in working-class families and communities, but very rapidly throughout society once that dam had been breached. She also introduced the practice of mothers effectively married to the State, which was unheard of before the 1980s.

David Lindsay

You do all realise, don't you, that Cameron voted in favour of this Bill?

Frank Pulley

Matthew

It is 'old fashioned' to support fatherhood. What you fail to mention is that much of 'old fashioned' is and always has been right. That is what conservatism is about, isn't it? 'Progress' should evolve ethically and with common sense driving any necessary change, conserving those parts of the heritage which have served us best. As for Jackie Ashley's 'counter-revolutionary' gibe, well she would, wouldn't she? As one who was one of the architects of the counter-cultural subversion of the last few decades I would expect her to squeal now that the tide appears to be turning. Unless McCameroon declares his intention to be the leading counter-revolutionary, he won't get my vote. What a silly caption!

Stuart

David Lindsay, what has Cameron got to do with it? Are commenters on the Coffee House blog not allowed to hold opinions or make statements which disagree with David Cameron? If one decides they'd rather vote Conservative than Labour, does this automatically require them to submit all their thoughts and reasoning to the will of David Cameron?

I think you have us confused with the Labour Party.

Joe Cookson

I've been disturbed by how the argument has been regarding that 'the science hasnt changed since 1990'. This is a red herring which could be an argument used against all forms of change. If there is any possibility that a child could survive, say at 22 weeks, whether a 5% chance or not, abortion simply should be prohibited. This isnt an attack on the woman's 'right to choose' Ms Primarolo, it is a safeguard. If the 'right to choose' wasnt constrined in anyway then we'd have abortion up to birth in any case wouldnt we? Matthew youre entirely right that when people start playing politics and bickering like this they are on their way out; the right may have recaptured the agenda again for the first time some of us can remember its been so long.