Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

I absolutely don't agree with reducing the limit of abortion to 20 weeks.

The fact that there are babies able to survive (with vast medical intervention) at 23 weeks has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of having an abortion at this stage of pregnancy.

The majority of abortion at this stage happen because of the diagnosis of serious health conditions, only the mother has the right to decide what to do.

Blackcurrants,

You really are missing the point. The point is whether you regard the foetus, at any point up until birth, as human. I do. If you don't, I can entirely see your perspective. However, if you do, then it follows it is not just the rights of the woman which need to be considered, but that of the foetus as well and, at some level, it is a trade off. Every single human being's rights are curtailed when they infringe that of another human being. There is nothing magical about bodily autonomy versus any other human right. You have a right to free speech but not if it causes hate crime. Your rights have been infringed. It does not make you a non human.

I can respect those who genuinely don't believe a foetus is a human up until the moment of birth. I can see that their position is at least logically consistent. To believe that the foetus is human yet has zero rights is trying to make zero equal to one.

Ultimately, as I have said, society needs to take a stance and legislate on this, or not. I am confident enough in womankind to believe that the law would be absolutely no different if all males were excluded from the debate.

Laws are for the tiny minority of people who decide to act against societal norms.

I think this is way too simplistic.

Laws exist for all manner of reasons and they are both subject to cultural influence and able to exert cultural influence.

Not going to playact your baddie feminist brainwasher, Larry, sorry.

Having bodily autonomy is a binary state: you either have it, or you don't. People who want to erode women's rights to bodily autonomy do not think they deserve full rights as people.

"I don't think we're going to persuade lazza, however, that women are really people. I've certainly given up."

Lazy dog-whistle argument. Do you think the majority of women who are anti late abortion do not believe themselves to be people? Or do they just need re-educating?

frothy there you go again, assuming that women should be allowed to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies!

crazy talk!

"I cannot demand a medical procedure is performed on me unless a doctor deems it to be in my best interest."

Surely ending an unwanted/potentially harmful pregnancy is in the woman's best interest, should she deem it to be as such?

"What makes you think that women would choose to abort in the middle of labour, unless their lives somehow depended on it?"

This argument that you don't need to legislate against something because most people are nice and sensible is an argument against all laws. Laws are for the tiny minority of people who decide to act against societal norms.

Not that different, Larry, in that women who self-medicate to induce an abortion have been prosecuted in countries where abortion is illegal.

"In the same way that no one can legally force you to donate a kidney or blood to keep someone else alive, so no one should be able to force a woman to continue a pregnancy. I can't force you, Larry, to give bone marrow to anyone. Even to the Queen. Even if it's your fault she needs bone marrow because you ran her over. No law in the land would make you do it. You have bodily integrity."

They are different though. Once a woman is pregnant she cannot just decide not to become pregnant. What she needs is a medical procedure performed on her. I cannot demand a medical procedure is performed on me unless a doctor deems it to be in my best interest. The right to remain free from interference is different to the right to demand interference.

Blackcurants, don't be daft... Women aren't people. They're incubators for the next generation of men.

What makes you think that women would choose to abort in the middle of labour, unless their lives somehow depended on it?

If the baby is capable of living autonomously (with medical support, of course) why should it not have the chance? That would put a woman in exactly the same position as all men are in now.

No it wouldn't - unless of course you have discovered a way that men can become pregnant and give birth.

drjohnsonscat you are brilliant. Thank you for coherently saying what I have given up trying to say!

I don't think we're going to persuade lazza, however, that women are really people. I've certainly given up.

Frothy,

Your straw man is the other extreme of the debate; the pro lifers' stance. For most of us, that is an equally uncomfortable position as the one that it is fine to terminate a foetus's life at the cervical neck whilst being born. When does the brain form, when does a baby become "human"? For most that is a really tough question. For me, a foetus capable of having a different emotional and physical response to its parents' voices than to that of any other human being clearly demonstrates a certain degree of humanity.

I do think it is a really tough question, though, and pretty subjective. That is why legislators try and reflect the will of the people (via a free vote according to their consciences) and try to come to some sort of compromise. Sure, parliament is weighted towards men but I don't think the abortion votes ever come down to men vs women.

larry you need to define your terms. You say they may not have the same "status" but they do have the same "humanness". I don't think you quite know what you mean. Either they do or they don't have the same status.

I don't think anything magical happens at birth other than the baby ceases to use me and my body to make its way to the world. Once that happens I am happy for the world to accord that baby rights equal to mine. Until that happens, and until I am free of the risk of being made subordinate to another against my will, I will maintain my primacy. Foetuses are subordinate to the person who brings them here, until they are here, at which point they have the same rights as you and me.

"Won't someone think of the elves". I just snorted my tea

No magic.

Before birth, foetus depends on woman's body. Woman has rights over her body, including the right to decide to whom she grants the use of it. As woman is the donor, woman's rights to grant or withdraw that use are what count.

In the same way that no one can legally force you to donate a kidney or blood to keep someone else alive, so no one should be able to force a woman to continue a pregnancy. I can't force you, Larry, to give bone marrow to anyone. Even to the Queen. Even if it's your fault she needs bone marrow because you ran her over. No law in the land would make you do it. You have bodily integrity.

After birth, baby has own body, own bodily integrity. Baby has rights over body.

See how easy it is?

larry, you seem convinced that, given the choice, women left right and centre would be getting abortions at 39 weeks pregnant... Why is that?

Wow larry. Why are you so intent on insisting that women are incubators of children and not people in their own right?

'That would put a woman in exactly the same position as all men are in now. They have no say on whether their DNA ends up becoming a baby or not.'

Wow. Your true colours are showing.

No Larry, once the baby is born it can breathe independely of the mother - while it may need some medical assistance in order to do so, it doesn't need her assistance. That's why birth is the deciding point.

DrJohnson,

It is no safer to extract a dead baby from a woman than a live one.

They may not have the same "status" but they are clearly the same person in the biological or "humanness" sense of the word. If you disagree with that, you have to believe that something magical happens at the moment of birth, other than the disentanglement, such as the sould or consciousness entering the body.

Larry, a baby 8 months post conception outside the womb is legally recognised as a person; a baby months post conception that is still inside the womb is not yet legally recognised as a person. It is not living independently, it is surviving via the womb, the placenta and so forth.

If we start saying babies at 8 month post conception in the womb deserve the same rights and legislation as a baby outside the womb, it won't be long until that's gradually whittled down to all feutus/embryos are legislated in the same way as babies outside the womb. Hell. Lets just replace birth certificate with conception certificates... I mean, why worry about the incubator... Sorry, I mean MOTHER, an already viable, independently living human, when there's a cluster of cells to some description that may, some day become another viable, independent living human being for us not to care about...

And larry your last statement is just wrong. A baby in the womb, even at the last moment before delivery, is not capable of independent life because it is still attached to another person and might still cause the death of another person just by virtue of coming into the world. Until they are outside of the woman's body and have been safely disentangled, they do not have the same status. You might accord them the same status emotionally - but legally and morally they simply do not have the same status.

As you acknowedged in my example of danger of death.

If they had the same status you would not be able to choose between the unborn baby and the woman in mortal danger. It would not be obvious that the woman must be prioritised. But it was obvious even to you that the woman is prioritised. This is in direct conflict to your assertion that a baby inside the womb at this stage of development is precisely the same as a baby outside the womb.