Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

Yes, larrygrylls, she most certainly did. It's on iplayer if you want to watch...

Trills,

I actually agree with you that the woman should decide. Definitely the least worst option. On the other hand, I would tend to go with the option being keep the baby with sole responsibility if the father does not want it, or have an abortion. I don't feel it is fair to say I am having your baby that you do not want, but you still have to pay.

Someone has to make the decision, larry.

If two people disagree on something that is a yes/no question, someone has to be given the "privilege" of having the deciding vote. You can't compromise and have half a baby.

It's sad if a man wants a baby and the woman does not, but giving the woman the choice is (IMO) the least-worst option.

Emmeline,

Not so. Woman and man have sex, contraception fails. Woman wants baby, man does not. Consequence: woman has baby, man pays for 18 years +. Woman does not want baby, man does. Consequence: woman has early abortion (not trivial, but not major life trauma either). "Privilege", if you want to use that word, resides with the woman, not the man.

Twofingers,

Did Cristina really say that? That is woefully misinformed and she should correct it. Apparently in the U.S, survival rates of 23 week olds is 53% so it is coming down but that neglects the fact that I suspect most of those will be severely handicapped. I think the record is something like 21 weeks and that is a one in a million +.

Cristina Odone perpetuating some myths on Question Time last night:

?plenty of medical and scientific breakthroughs that show us that the foetus is viable between 20-24 weeks, they survive at 20 weeks . There are thousands and thousands of Britons alive that have not only survived but thrived as premature babies who were born between 20-24 weeks

Was she deliberately lying or woefully misinformed? I'm heartily sick of the religious right presenting bullshit as if it were fact.

Abigail If you ever feel like it, there's an incredible book called "Crazy for God" by Francis Schaeffer, about how he and his dad (the 'evangelical Pope' of the 70s and 80s) basically pushed the religious right into an extremely politicized anti-abortion stance (which they didn't always have, it used to be a thing only Catholics and Quakers objected to, and those two denominations are pretty rigorous when it comes to life - anti-death penalty, etc).
These people then came to dominate the US's right wing party and claim that they were the voice of the majority blah blah. In fact, a huge percentage of American women have had abortions, but the culture of shame is such that it's never spoken of.

Anyway, Schaffer sincerely regrets his actions now - to the extent that he wrote the book exposing them all - and boy howdy, even he says he never expected them to be so successful, politically.

Hideous, frightening stuff.

If abortion is made illegal, abortions would still happen. Only the rich would be able to have safe abortions without the risk of death or permanent gynaelogical damage. Most women would have to take a risk with a knitting needle. This is why I am pro choice.

Susan Faludi in Backlash mentions that in 1800 abortion was legal in all states in the US and public opinion was pretty neutral. It wasn't until the middle of the 19th century when women were trying to make it legal for wives to refuse sex on health grounds that reproductive rights and abortion in particular was attacked. It was a backlash. Just like all this is a backlash.

Restricting abortion has never been about the foetus and has always been about controlling women.

Larry, all the consequences a man risks, a woman risks too. But still men do not get pregnant and do not risk all that a woman risks. It is less a priviledge than a burden. Priviledge would be to tell others they must risk what you do not have to.

I'm with Drjohnsonscat - Abortion is good. The more we hinder abortion the less happiness and human potential we will realize.

larrygrylls

and has probably studied feminism at some right on ex poly

You would have a great deal of trouble being more wrong.
Hard science, Russel Group, close to 40 years since...

I think a lot of the stuff posted here is bollocks, but I'm interested in what people think. I disapprove very strongly of abortion... but I disapprove of bringing unwanted kids into the world and forcing women to have kids very much more.

Slug,

"I'm not misquoting you at all Larry "

What I said: "There are as many women who find late abortion atrocious as men"

This is what you "quoted" me as saying: "I respectfully suggest that anyone who finds abortion atrocious make the decision not to have one themselves and keep their opinions away from my bodily autonomy."

That is a misquote, according to anyone's definition of a misquote. The fact that you did not directly quote me does not mean that you did quite clearly indirectly imply that I found ALL abortion atrocious, a position a million miles away from where I am.

And it is funny that you accept OneMoreChap's contribution to the debate merely because he totally agrees with your perspective and and has probably studied feminism at some right on ex poly

And where you really rile me is in the comment "you cannot get pregnant, butt out" as if, in this day and age, there are zero consequences to a man in getting a woman pregnant. He will have to pay for 18 years at least (assuming he is not actually an involved parent) and will have NO SAY in whether the baby is born or not. In reality, in this day and age, it is a woman's PRIVILEGE (a word you like to use a lot) to decide whether her DNA combined with a MAN's DNA ends up originating a life.

My issue with Nadine Dorries is she makes the terrible mistake of extrapolating from her own experience of pregnancy to cover all women. Her pregnancy convinced her she could never have a termination. Mine convinced me they were all the more important. But that's just my view. I'm not trying to impose it on anyone - I'm just trying to keep everyone's options open. She's taking her view and assuming its universal. Hugely arrogant.

"I respectfully suggest that anyone who finds abortion atrocious make the decision not to have one themselves and keep their opinions away from my bodily autonomy."

Well said.

But he isn't exactly pro abortion is he? He's "We'll let the wimminz have some rights to shut them up but there comes a point where we must tell them what is good for them".

I, for one, am fed up to the back teeth with men telling me what I can and can't do with my body, especially the ones who feel it is their right to tell me that I don't understand the issues. Nadine Dorries on the other hand, with whom incidentally I have a frequent frank exchange of views via twitter, is, at least a woman.

slug

And I'll say it again. You can't get pregnant. Butt out.

Yah.
I disagree completely with his stance, and worked from the 70s on to support abortion liberalisation.

It's a feeble comment to say - you can't get pregnant, so you have no voice.

He has influence - as do all of us - with the mostly male legislators in the Commons; since the Dorries individual is a woman, we need more men on the pro-abortion side. Whatever you think is right, men do have a voice in this debate.

I'm not misquoting you at all Larry

Just for a moment, stop and try to see it from the position of a person (difficult though it may be to see women as people and not a sub-species of male) and realize just how like slavery it feels to be told that you are not allowed to make decisions about your own body. As a man you will never understand how women's bodies are public property, how men feel they have the right to touch, invade and dictate to us how they are used.

This was linked to further up the thread but it's worth linking again to dispel the myth of 'inconvenience' that you are so keen to promote.

And I'll say it again. You can't get pregnant. Butt out.

I said LATE abortion, please don't misquote me. I am in favour of abortion on demand up to a limit.

Well, you do have. I cannot demand a surgeon or doctor do whatever operation I choose on me. They have to consent to it. So, in that sense, I don't have any more privilege than you.

Since I'm not a co-joined twin Larry it is not a decision for me to make. In co-joined twin surgery the final say is given to the people concerned, it's not for the general public to wade in with their opinions.

Well, actually Larry, I would like to be afforded the same privileges over my own body as men have over theirs thank you very much.

I respectfully suggest that anyone who finds abortion atrocious make the decision not to have one themselves and keep their opinions away from my bodily autonomy.

And if "bodily autonomy" is all important, should a siamese twin who shares a heart have a right to commit suicide? Easy question..or not so easy?

Slug,

Well, actually, you don't, sorry. Not legally, anyway.

And much as you would like this debate to split by sexes, it doesn't. There are as many women who find late abortion atrocious as men.

Again with the mansplaining larry.

You see, for millennia men have told women what they can and can't do with their bodies. You can't get pregnant. Why on earth do you think that gives you the right to dictate to those who can what they should and shouldn't do?

Women's bodies aren't public property. They are ours. That means we get the right to say who touches them, who enters them and whether or not a pregnancy in our bodies is carried to term.

I'm not sure it is possible to have a meaningful exchange of views with someone who can describe an unwanted pregnancy as something which "merely risks annoyance and/or inconvenience". There speaks someone who has no possible conception of the effect that an unplanned pregnancy can have.

Annoyance is something you feel when someone pinches your parking place.
Inconvenience is something you undergo when someone turns up unexpectedly as you are about to sit down to dinner.

If they consider themselves to be a mother then they are, If they do not, then they are not.

Just another way in which people who wish to reduce or remove access to abortion seem to be ignoring the most important thing - what the woman wants or feels.

Trills,

Paramount means that if the mother risks physical or mental harm through carrying the foetus, she has the right to abort at any point. If she merely risks inconvenience or annoyance, than the right of the foetus (I am talking 20 weeks + here) to life trumps her right to avoid the annoyance and/or inconvenience. Although the mother comes first on a like-for-like basis, the right to life weighs heavily against the absolute right to do as she chooses.

Trills, have you tried telling any heavily pregnant women that they are NOT the mother of the baby they are carrying yet and will only become so at birth? Works both ways...