It was a comparison between the greatest generation of feminists, who changed the world for the better, and the self-absorbed narrow-minded pish that passes for modern feminism, which is proud of destroying life.

> What else could possibly be reasonable?

In cases in which the father is offering to take sole custody of the child and raise it and pay for it while the mother is insisting on abortion because she doesn’t want to raise a child, you honestly think that there is only one conceivable reasonable course of action. Jesus wept.

Because the focus is on the person whose body all this is happening to. I did say others might find it purely semantic. As I said, it’s not that I have a particular interest in denying a bloke the right to decide whether to become a father or not. It’s just that I think the person who is most affected by it should have the final choice.

You know, there was a time when feminists were proud of their role in creating the next generation. How the suffragettes must be spinning in their graves.

That’s nice. I’m sure Emmeline and Christabel would object to my non-nationalistic pacifism, too. (Actually, I’m sure they wouldn’t give a shit, given my total non-importance.) What’s that got to do with anything?

"We must have the absolute right to abortion because childbirth can be painful." Life’s painful. Get over it

Not discussing the right to abortion. The person going through the pain is the person who gets the final choice whether to go through with it or not, yes. What else could possibly be reasonable?

> To me, the two are slightly different.

Say a woman is pregnant with my baby, and wants to abort. You say I’m not allowed to stop that happening. In what way is that different from telling me that I may have no say in whether I become a father? If you insist that no man may ever stop any woman having an abortion, how does any man ever have a say in whether to become a father?

You know, there was a time when feminists were proud of their role in creating the next generation. How the suffragettes must be spinning in their graves. "We must have the absolute right to abortion because childbirth can be painful." Life’s painful. Get over it.

Oh, that’s what you’re on about. Right, okay. In that case, I’d say I don’t tell you whether you can become a father – I’d say I tell you whether you can, morally speaking, dictate to a woman whether she has an abortion or not. To me, the two are slightly different. To others, this may well come across as purely semantics.

And either way, I’d say – and you may well take offence at this – that between the right to decide to become a father or not, and the right to decide whether a painful and potentially dangerous thing happens to one’s own body, if the two are in conflict, the latter is vastly more important. Sorry, but I don’t see them as anywhere near equal.

> pills, condoms, diaphragms and IUDs can fail

And they all say as much on the packaging. It’s basic risk assessment, isn’t it? If you’re not willing to accept, say, a 0.5% risk of pregnancy, don’t have sex. Or at least, don’t have sex 200 times.

I’m not convinced, though, that abortion has been criminalised in Texas. As far as I can see, the idea of having to go [gasp!] to a hospital was so traumatic for these eejits that they opted for the jumping-on-the-womb option instead.

Is there some reason I can’t think of why this girl wasn’t allowed to cross state lines, by the way? Abortion’s illegal in Northern Ireland, but that doesn’t stop Northern Irish girls having abortions: they just have them in Liverpool.

Otherwise, are you seriously trying to suggest that teenagers don’t know how to make babies, but do know how to bring on a miscarriage? That would require some pretty weird gaps in the education process, wouldn’t it? ‘What does that do, Mrs. Smith?’ ‘Erm… Nothing, but if you look at the big round thing above that, that’s where you need to kick a pregnant woman to kill her foetus. Okay, kids, there’s the bell. Enjoy your recess.’