Why is abortion now an election issue?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

In an act of pure serendipitous coordination Michael Howars and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor have been striving to make it so (the tories saying 20weeks should be the limit; the cardinal saying maybe Labour isn't the natural party of catholics anymore).

Abortion hasn't been a politcal issue the more than ten years, and even when it was (a couple of human fertilisatiuon and embryology bills back) it was never a party political issue. It has always been legislated for on free votes as a matter of concience. Now Political capital seems to have to be made on this (and lets bet on stem cells be just around the corner) and I'll tell you why. Labour has allowed some religious fucknuts to get into the cabinet (I'm looking at you Ruth 'Opus Dei' Kelly) and Blair is a suspected religious fucknut (known fucknut for other reasons). Howard wants to cause schism between the religious and non-religious in the cabinet and pick up a few working class catholic and islamic votes at the same time, (possibly also charismatic, evangelical, black church) and suddenly it becomes clear. Make abortion an issue that Labour try to keep as a concience thing, show them as dithering, but basically pro-life and wack them in the black churces and steal some inner-city votes.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:22 (twenty years ago)

100% OTM.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:24 (twenty years ago)

I blame Cosmopolitan magazine.

― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:25 (twenty years ago)

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:28 (twenty years ago)

(for a second I misread the thread title as "Why is abortion now an ejection issue?" ahem)

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:28 (twenty years ago)

It almost was, luckily I wiped off the spittle flecks in time.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 10:31 (twenty years ago)

Even calling it a matter of conscience is a form of moral judgement which is inappropriate. I think Cosmo have been spectacularly stupid in bringing this one out into the open - the seven million young-woman voters they're trying to engage with can be divided and ruled on this issue quite easily through a combination of emotional blackmail and religious differences. Also, it just shows how little the men know about the mechanics of actually going to get an abortion; namely that there is no such thing as 'on demand' because the woman has to basically say she'll go nuts if she doesn't have a termination when her lifestyle, not life, is in danger. What is so wrong with women just saying that this conception is unwanted and would represent a cost too great to the individual and/or the taxpayer? Blair is probably caught between W. and Cherie on this.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:12 (twenty years ago)

Cherie is a Catholic tho, which can complicate the issue somewhat.

I was semi-serious about Cosmo, btw. The issue I had the displeasure of reading on Sunday was without a doubt one of the oddest collections of journalism I've ever read. It featured an article on something called the EMOGASM side by side with this abortion hoopla.

― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:17 (twenty years ago)

I would be amazed if any laws were changed as a result of Howard dragging this onto the agenda. The government knows full well there would be uproar if they did and its more of a vote-loser than a vote-winner. Calm down people.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:21 (twenty years ago)

this might have all been kicked off by those photos of 12-week-old foetuses (is that the word?) a few months ago.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:24 (twenty years ago)

Coming soon: Michael Howard on the outlawing of Baby Lambs for slaughter (with pics)

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 11:38 (twenty years ago)

My first reaction was "what do you mean NOW??" until I saw this was a UK thread.

― tokyo rosemary (rosemary), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

Because the Tories and Howard are really, really desperate & prepared to try anything. Because many of them believe that there is an large, atavistic, reactionary swathe in British public opinion & that tapping into it may be their last best hope. It's unprincipled but arguable makes strategic sense. If they don't do something drastic they will be badly beaten again and Howard's career will be over (despite recent loopy Tory press articles claiming he's still young enough to the election after this one.) A high risk strategy but worth the gamble because the downside leaves them not much worse off - if it plays very badly they'll lose an election they were going to lose anyway, elect a new leader and distance themselves from what will be portrayed as Howard's eccentricities.

― frankiemachine, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)

Because many of them believe that there is an large, atavistic, reactionary swathe in British public opinion & that tapping into it may be their last best hope

They're right on both counts

― My Son Calls Another Man Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 14:53 (twenty years ago)

Why would this only pick up working class Catholic votes?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 15:13 (twenty years ago)

I was wondering that myself

― My Son Calls Another Man Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 15:14 (twenty years ago)

Same thing may be happening in Canada aswell. It's not been an issue for a while but at the Conservative's 1st policy convention it looks like the issue will be discussed and possibly made into party policy. Even though their leader, Stephen Harper, really doesn't want that happening.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 15 March 2005 15:27 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.