Suzanne Moore is not persuaded by the new gang of anti-abortionists.
Now this new breed of anti-abortionists snip round the edges of the process with their strategies of delay … er, sorry, “independent counselling”. But beware their language of care. This is not about care but about control. This control absolutely depends on shame: sexual shame. This shame keeps us quiet. Shame keeps us locked into individual guilt. Shame even makes us stupidly grateful that we are allowed to have any choice at all.
This whole debate around counselling pivots on the idea of deep and private shame, positing the idea of counselling being used to sell an evil procedure. Women are always “vulnerable” dupes, never simply adults who have made decisions.
Sexual shame and worse – something more like witch-shame. A woman who doesn’t want to have what would be her own baby is some kind of terrifying violation of nature. Women don’t get to be just people, who can make choices; women are always a special case.
Is anybody unsure about why ‘counselors’ are there? It’s the pro-life crowd lobbying for equal time. Got to give them credit, though. They’ve found a way into the clinic, instead of having to stand outside of it, picketing and shouting.
In the UK it is illegal to perform female genital mutilation even if the woman concerned wants help to mutilate herself; it is considered irrelevant that she may consider it to be a cultural or religious requirement.
Is that poor law, condemned by: “Women don’t get to be just people, who can make choices; women are always a special case”? As a man, I thought the law made sense; what do women think?
I believe that maximising the ability of women worldwide to control their own reproduction is a high priority for the human race, for ethical, human rights, and utilitarian reasons. But that doesn’t stop me being aware of the risk of pressures on women to do things that they might not do if fully empowered.
The fault lies with the fact that many women are not fully empowered, and CAN be pressured. If/when that is corrected, these concerns should go away. But that is a long way off.
And for the record, I totally oppose the attempts to change the UK abortion laws in this way. I don’t believe they arise from the sort of concerns expressed above, but instead from unenlightened ideology (probably religion).
@Barry Pearson
That law prohibiting FGM protects UK surgeons; if it was meant to prohibit women from having control of their bodies, then I’d imagine the UK would strictly enforce the rest of the law, the part that makes it a crime for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on a permanent resident of the UK. That law took effect in 2003, and there has yet to be a single prosecution.
Is it bad law? Since the UK is allowing something it says the law prohibits (FGM on foreign soil), the law’s effect is no different from the previous law of 1985, which didn’t say anything about FGM abroad. Not enforcing the 2003 law makes it weak; but its weakness keeps it from depriving a woman of a right, which is what you described.
And look what else: if FGM doesn’t happen in the UK, then what are the counselors discussing? And isn’t it a shame that counselors can’t discuss FGM with young women, especially if these young women might be under the impression that FGM was a necessary part of their religion?
I’m not really sure where you are going with this, but it sounds a bit like you think that some restrictions on the women’s body autonomy should exist because women are not fully empowered and can be pressured into making decisions. I hope you see how your suggestion (if that is your suggestion) isn’t exactly going to help empower women. It also veers toward exactly what the article is about : you assume that women can’t make decisions for themselves, so it’s better that the “good guys” put some pressure on them rather than “the bad guys”.
annp:
I can’t decide from what you wrote whether you would support the restriction I identified if the law applied worldwide? So I’ll re-pose the question:
“If the UK law applied to FGM performed on UK citizens anywhere, and were enforced as it should be, would you support or reject the concept of not allowing it even if the women herself wanted it?”
I’ll give my opinion: for as long as I think that pressure can be applied to vulnerable women, I think that safeguards, perhaps including a ban, are needed to avoid a women doing something she would not do if empowered and informed.
Needless to say, that applies to men too, mutatis mutandis!
Beatrice:
I have a vision for how I would like people, organisations, and governments to behave in future. (See below).
Until we achieve that vision, what should we do about constraints to protect people who are vulnerable now but wouldn’t be in that visionary future? Do we say that the constraints are impeding progress towards the vision? Or is that view using currently-vulnerable people as cannon-fodder in our attempts to achieve that vision?
(I suspect it is the latter).
For my vision for the future, go to my blog via the link in my name. Click on the “Enlightenment” tag down on the right.
See “Dimensions of enlightenment”. Read the section starting “Dimensions?” The “Enlightened views” for the 4 sub-headings are my vision of a better world. The “Unenlightened views” are what we should reject.
Now see “The war for enlightenment”. I see this whole matter as: “We are engaged in a war for enlightenment, being fought over generations”. This isn’t something that will be settled soon. Any currently-vulnerable people will probably be vulnerable for a significant time.
I believe UK foreign aid should be conditional on progress towards “education for girls” and “women’s control over their own reproduction”, because both of these are so important on ethical, human rights, and utilitarian grounds. I believe lots more battles also need to be fought on many fronts. But let’s use the appropriate tactics in any battle.
Ah, since you didn’t actually answer me, I’m going to assume I was correct. You supposedly have a “good reason” that can only be understood if I read about your vision for the better future, but I’d rather if you just addressed my concerns here.
Beatrice:
You didn’t ask a question! Had you done so, I might have been able to answer it!
I try very hard to say what I mean. Therefore, the reader needs to assume that I mean what I say. Any variation, or paraphrasing, becomes the views of the person doing that, not mine. And my views cannot be compressed into blog-sized chunks, so you can only hope to know what I mean by reading my larger pages. I’m sorry that they are large: they are typically the result of very many hours of research, analysis, and writing. I’m not very good at producing executive summaries that don’t distort things.
But I’ll see if I can make progress:
“it sounds a bit like you think that some restrictions on the women’s body autonomy should exist because women are not fully empowered and can be pressured into making decisions”:
In the case of FGM, it IS the case that SOME women are not fully empowered and CAN be pressured into making decisions. (Do you think otherwise?) I asked what women here think of the concept that they should be constrained? I think they should, for a matter as serious as FGM. But it is just my opinion.
“I hope you see how your suggestion … isn’t exactly going to help empower women.”
As I thought I had made clear, achieving empowerment needs explicit action, and the constraints were not part of that process. Empowerment needs lots of other actions. The constraints are there to protect vulnerable women from pressure, which is an objective I make no apology for. And as I said to “annp” earlier:
Needless to say, that applies to men too, mutatis mutandis!
“you assume that women can’t make decisions for themselves”:
Do you REALLY think that over-generalisation can be deduced from anything I’ve said? A little bit about myself:
When I started my career in the computer industry in 1968, my first manager was a woman, as were a number of later managers and many technical colleagues. This was unremarkable; some of the pioneers of the industry, my heroes, (Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper), were women, and it was taken for granted that women could do anything in the business that men could do. My entire life has involved working with women who could make decisions for themselves, and in fact for the world at large.
But there are people, men and women, who cannot make unbiased informed decisions for themselves. It is not their fault; they may be the victims of objectionable ideologies (especially religions) that treat women as lesser beings. This is the primary reason that I consider Islam and the Roman Catholic Church to be the equal-worst religious influences on the planet.
The trick is surely to identify the vulnerable ones from the others. Even though I am a man, the thought of FGM makes me cringe, and I think a woman who wants that is likely to be under undue pressure. I wonder what another of my heroes (I have a couple of her books on my Kindle) Ayaan Hirsi Ali would say?
In the case of abortion, as you can see from a recent post on my blog, my view is:
“We do need to take some of the hypocrisy out of the process. If we decide according to constitutionally-valid means that abortions of various types are valid within certain periods, then we must ensure that matters can be expedited within the defined periods. If abortions are permitted in various circumstances up to (say) 24 weeks, then it would be hypocritical, thwarting the intentions behind the law, to place unnecessary delays and obstacles into obtaining those abortions.”
Remember that the person who is proposing the changes that this thread is about, and that I oppose, is a women.
@Barry
This law, in both its forms, could only ever ‘protect’ the UK from having to be a party to surgeries it did not want to be a party to. That the law prevented women from having an FGM in the UK, and so ‘protected’ them, could be argued either way. Were they protected or were they delayed, or denied, or ignored? Doesn’t matter, they couldn’t get one. Their welfare is not being considered, is my point, because if this was about their welfare, the 1985 law would have clearly stated it. Instead, it stated bluntly, Not in the UK. The UK claims the right not to have to perform FGM.
And then they did it again in 2003. This law wasn’t meant to be enforced, it was only ever going to be another protection for the UK. The UK claims the right to globally condemn this practice.
Now that they know that they have right to condemn the practice, but no power to stop it, will the UK reconsider?
I think they are morally obligated to revisit this law. I think the 2003 amendment was a tacit admission that FGM is morally wrong no matter who does it. I think they can take some political cover by explaining that the surgery is irreversible and, in accordance with the standard of human rights and individual liberties in the UK, it should be agreed to freely.
So a law like, “Judging this practice to be extreme and irreversible, the UK declares women under the age of X shall not be permitted to leave the country until they have received counseling about certain religious practices and their associated requirements.”
Ridiculously restrictive, isn’t it? Awful. But, am I restricting a woman’s right, or am I restricting a foreign countries right?
annp:
I see this law a an attempt to protect women. You appear to see it as a ploy or conspiracy to enable the UK to maintain a public (international) position on the topic, but I may be misrepresenting you.
Since I see no evidence for a ploy/conspiracy position, I can’t comment on it. Although I notice that both the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have extensive material on the subject, including requests for people to get in touch where they suspect contravention of the law.
(I note that they both say it is illegal to take girls who are British nationals or permanent residents of the UK abroad for FGM whether or not it is lawful in that country; and it is illegal to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of FGM abroad. I had missed those sections).
But I would still like an answer to my earlier question:
“If the UK law applied to FGM performed on UK citizens anywhere, and were enforced as it should be, would you support or reject the concept of not allowing it even if the women herself wanted it?”
That question arose in the context of whether women are always able to make their own choices, or whether some women are vulnerable and need protection. I remain of the view that some women (and for different matters, some men) ARE vulnerable to pressure and need protection. I wonder if that view is simply not acceptable for some reason?
This discussion took a weird turn. First of all, I wasn’t aware that FGM was performed mainly on women over 21. In any case, medical personnel should be, and usually are, trained to look for signs that patients might be at risk of violence from domestic partners. Doesn’t matter if the doctor suspects beatings or risk of genital mutilation – they are supposed to intervene and offer help.
Back to the topic -should we require all women who request pre-natal care to sit through a counseling session to make sure they understand the risks of pregnancy and childbirth?
@Barry
Your question contains the now very much-disputed assumption:
If the UK law applied to FGM performed on UK citizens anywhere, and [was] enforced as it should be….
And I said:
This law wasn’t meant to be enforced, it was only ever going to be [a] protection for the UK And then I gave my reasons for believing this: because if this was about their welfare, the 1985 law would have clearly stated it. Instead, it stated bluntly, Not in the UK. … in 2003, [the] UK claim[ed] the right to globally condemn this practice. There has yet to be a single prosecution. If it was meant to be enforced, it would be enforced. The thing speaks for itself. And not a conspiracy; but a diplomatic stance, asking the question of countries who will perform FGM: if we criminalize your religious expression, what will you do? And they answered: Your law concerning our religious expression will not affect on our religious expression.
Would I support a woman’s right to FGM if she chooses to have surgery?
Sure, but she must go abroad. FGM is illegal, the UK has made it a crime. Additionally, it’s none of my business what a woman chooses to do with her body, and her right to choose should not depend on what I think about her situation. If you’re asking me would I picket to protest for her right to choose what happens to her body: yes I would. Would I protest for her right to have FGM in the UK? I don’t think so, not as I understand the situation; the UK would have to have some tangible meaningful advantage that other countries don’t have. For instance, if the UK was proven to be safer than anywhere else, I would support her attempts to legally have her needs met.
Any woman presently who wants to have the surgery may freely do so, outside the UK without prosecution, under the present law. If the law which wasn’t meant to be enforced was suddenly enforced, and this young lady wants this surgery, I have no right to stop her.
Any woman presently who doesn’t want this surgery becomes vulnerable outside the UK under the present law. If the law was enforced as it should be… You see, I have no idea what that means. Was the law meant: a) to stop FGM; or b) to prosecute the offender(s)?
Would you agree that ‘a’ protects the young lady, while ‘b’ protects no one?
Flora Poste:
According to the UK Home Office, FGM is mostly carried out between infancy and 15. I find your “… mainly … 21 ….” dubious.
In answer to your question: “should we require all women who request pre-natal care to sit through a counseling session to make sure they understand the risks of pregnancy and childbirth?”:
I decided a long time ago that anyone must be mad to have children! So I am childfree at 64. But I accept that this is a minority opinion.
Examples of common conditions that can complicate a pregnancy include: heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney problems, autoimmune disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, diabetes, and cancer infections. (I’m just quoting!)
I don’t know the best way to ensure that women are able to make informed decisions about these. (I’m assuming that making informed decisions is better than making uninformed or default decisions, but perhaps others will disagree). I’m glad I had a career in the computer industry; much simpler!
Needless to say, similar principles apply to men (although obviously not about being pregnant) too, mutatis mutandis.
(I once had a manager who was heavily pregnant when I joined the unit as a consultant. She had everything planned: who could have a distant conversation in the first week after birth, who could visit her then, when she would arrive back on site, what would happen after that. Things happened to plan! She’d had practice with a previous child).
annp:
In answer to: “Was the law meant: a) to stop FGM; or b) to prosecute the offender(s)? Would you agree that ‘a’ protects the young lady, while ‘b’ protects no one?”
No, I don’t agree. A lot of law is like that. Our protection against a lot of crime is to prosecute the offenders as a deterrent.
I find some of your comments thought-provoking! Thank you for that.
I had bought into the views of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali; and the position of the World Health Organisation which states:
“FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.”
I had assumed that an older woman who wanted this must be heavily indoctrinated to the level where protection may be necessary. But would heavy indoctrination be a sufficient reason to interfere with her own choices? Are the results of indoctrination still “own choices”?
(I need to think more about this!)
Barry, you miss my point. The point is that society has a responsibility to protect children. What that looks like might be different in different circumstances- requiring consent for ear piercing and not for abortion, for example. Because reality is messy.
The other point is that there exist professions – medicine and social work – which have expertise in helping people make informed decisions. Make sure women and girls have free access to professionals skilled in helping vulnerable people become less vulnerable, but don’t require them to listen to lectures. Most of your blather is beside the point.