Ben Shapiro

Miffer - exactly.

Datun - I agree completely with your 21.23 post about tactics and stances. It is really poor if on a board like this we can't express concerns, qualms and uncertainties about feminist issues.

test.abortionrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/AR-PS-Later-abortions.pdf

shinynewusername

I do agree with everything you say. I have always been of the opinion that you have to have militant forerunners spearheading women's rights. A wishy-washy approach doesn't work. By the time demands get a diluted down to legislation you're lucky if you have got what you want.

That's why I said if I was in parliament, I would have a harder stance. But here, in the confines of an anonymous forum, I can express doubts and niggles, that I would have to leave at the door of those negotiations.

It's an incredibly emotive subject. And personal opinion often has to be sacrificed for the sake of an outcome.

I guess we are all agreeing on this.

shinynewusername

Thank you.

"I go misty-eyed when I look at my DC"

My love for my extremely-premmie-now-strapping-DS has exactly fuck all to do with my view on medical procedures other women have.

So please don't glibly say that there are not ethical issues with abortion at all, it just isn't the case for many, many women. Telling them they should be fine with all aspects of abortion is tantamount to gaslighting, IMHO

That is not the point at all. (And "gas-lighting" now = "disagreeing with anything" on MN. Yawn).

No one is saying that there are no ethical issues. My first post on this thread was to defend the moral integrity of the argument that abortion is completely wrong.

What irks me is the "oo yuck" Pro-Choicers. Because women didn't get the right to abortion by being too squeamish to say that abortion - however ever difficult - is a moral good. Yes it's difficult, but it is important and much worse things will happen if the rights are eroded.

All across the world, abortion rights are under attack. Don't kid yourself that it can't happen here - 30 years ago, women in the US thought the battle had been won. And the way that the Anti-Choice lobby have eroded abortion rights is by playing on the squeamishness of people who are theoretically pro-Choice but too naice to be vocal about it and chipping away at abortion rights bit by bit. Either you believe that the ethical choice belongs to the woman who is actually pregnant or you don't.

So I am sick of people who claim to respect women's autonomy but who don't like the thought of abortion because "I go misty-eyed when I look at my DC". Sorry, but that is of fuck all relevance to a 16 year old who has been pressured into sex by an older boy or a desperate 44 year old with 3 kids with SN who's pregnant because a condom broke. Or indeed to anyone at all. Because no one is asking anyone to have an abortion if they don't want to. But you can't call yourself pro-Choice if you aren't prepared to fight for every woman's right to exercise that choice.

Yes I should think if I had an abortion I would consider it 'unwanted'. Much like surgery for an illness might be needed, but I wouldn't particularly want to undergo it.

Reducing unplanned pregnancies is surely something most (all?) feminists agree is a good thing.

If the focus gets shifted to being on reducing abortions rather than pregnancies that is wrong IMO. I have no desire to increase or decrease abortion, although I guess under examination I'd admit to wanting the rate to increase (women being forced to keep unwanted pregnancies in abusive relationships is surprisingly common I think but it's not something I've got any detail about).

but anyone who says 'yes I'm pro choice But why is it even relevant? If you're vehemently pro-choice and believe in a woman's right to choose, why even say you don't like it and feed into the anti-abortion lobby's rhetoric which is pernicious enough anyway and thus undermine abortion rights?

Because you don't get to dictate what goes on in my head. I firmly see abortion as a least worst option. I am pro choice but that does not mean I personally have to set aside my views and go along with the "it's just a cluster of cells" line.

I think by acknowledging the ethical issue but finally judging that the woman's right to choose takes precedence disarms the rabid pro-life argument

I agree.I also think refusing to even consider there is any other ethical viewpoint fans the flames of hard line anti abortionist.

For example how much fuel did Lena Dunham give them with her idiotic comments about wishing she had had an abortion.

has assured me that there is no chance she could be pregnant, then goes on to admit that she is (a) sexually active and (b) not using contraception. This happens several times a week

But that feeds exactly in to the argument that some women are treating abortion as contraception. You even suggested embarrassment might prevent women seeking contraception- more embarrassing than seeking an abortion?

There was a thread on here at the end of last year (I think) that caused me some personal difficulties that I still haven't been able to resolve to my internal logic.

I am pro-choice, and living in the US has made me very grateful that we have the access to abortion that we do in the UK (except NI). But I can't bring myself to support abortion on demand at any stage before birth: I know the arguments about if you are pro-choice, you are pro-choice, and I know that women who have late abortions currently only do so in the most awful situations, and this would be unlikely to change if we lifted the current 24 week cut off.

But I'm sat on the sofa with my strapping DS, who is pretty much the same size as me, nearly as strong as me and who eats three times the amount I do, but was born prematurely and could be held in the palm of DH's hand. I can't agree that it would have been OK for me to decide to terminate that pregnancy at 35 weeks because I wanted to, when DS needed virtually no external support to thrive.

So please don't glibly say that there are not ethical issues with abortion at all, it just isn't the case for many, many women. Telling them they should be fine with all aspects of abortion is tantamount to gaslighting, IMHO

(Sorry for the me-rail)

About a third of pregnancies are unplanned. People just don't behave rationally about sex. I have lost count of the number of times a woman has assured me that there is no chance she could be pregnant, then goes on to admit that she is (a) sexually active and (b) not using contraception. This happens several times a week.

Ok. So being pro choice yet wanting a reduction in unplanned pregnancies is rational.

As for 'unwanted abortions' - I can totally see how this would buy in to the pro life rhetoric. On the other hand, I have definitely been in the situation where I was contemplating an abortion that was unwanted. The pregnancy was more unwanted, obviously. I was using protection and it was a false alarm. But it did make me focus.

Ooh sorry for typos. Hopefully you got the gist.

Reducing unwanted pregnancies would be potentially through, for example, better sex education. This would possibly lead to fewer abortions (although the rate is already quite low in the UK) but the abortions which would/do take place aren't "unwanted".

About a third of pregnancies are unplanned. People just don't behave rationally about sex. I have lost count of the number of times a woman has assured me that there is no chance she could be pregnant, then goes on to admit that she is (a) sexually active and (b) not using contraception. This happens several times a week.

Unplanned pregnancy really can happen to anyone. I have seen pregnant 12 year olds , I have seen pregnant 50 year olds. There are a huge number of factors: co-ercion, family pressure, embarrassment about getting contraception, gastroenteritis or time differences on holiday causing pill failure, thinking you're menopausal, thinking you can't get pregnant because you're fully breastfeeding etc etc. All contraception, even sterilisation, has a failure rate. Anyone who says, "Well I was careful and never got pregnant" should actually be saying "I was careful and lucky". It takes both.

And judging by a lot of comments on this thread by people whose opinion I respect, imagine that if I expose myself to more pro life rhetoric, might pro choice views might become more entrenched.

I will think on.

I can agree with your second paragraph, quite easily.

I can accept how the first paragraph doesn't accord with what a lot of pro-choice people say, but I still don't understand why. Unless it is a very extreme reluctance to just align yourself with anything that they say.

I don't like the idea of framing reducing unwanted pregnancies as reducing unwanted abortions tbh.

I should think the most traumatic unwanted pregnancy is one where the woman is opposed to abortion and therefore keeps the pregnancy and has a child to look after.

I'm more keen to reduce that happening than I am bothered about the abortion rate. Seems to me that has more chances for deep and lasting damage (both physical and mental) to multiple people.

Okay, I understand why sometimes you have to take an extreme view. If you are faced with an opposing extreme view, you have to come to the table fully armed and make sure there are no chinks in your armour.

One of those chinks in this case being ethics. So you leave any niggling doubts at the door otherwise you can't fight your corner to achieve the desired outcome. And if I was debating this in parliament, no doubt that is what I would do.

I also understand that the availability of abortion being used as an argument is another chink.

But I still have questions. shiney you have said that the stats do not support the issue of abortion being more free available makes people have more abortions. I accept that.

My question would be what are the reasons that women get pregnant by mistake and can we reduce those reasons? If anyone thinks those reasons are irrelevant and therefore reduction is moot, then I would have a problem with that.

If those reasons are relevant but there is nothing we can do about them, why is that?

Actually I disagree. I think by acknowledging the ethical issue but finally judging that the woman's right to choose takes precedence disarms the rabid pro-life argument. Or at least softens the polarisation of the opposing sides

but anyone who says 'yes I'm pro choice but I don't like it'. I'll take that.

But why is it even relevant? If you're vehemently pro-choice and believe in a woman's right to choose, why even say you don't like it and feed into the anti-abortion lobby's rhetoric which is pernicious enough anyway and thus undermine abortion rights?

Datun, I totally agree with you that we should try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, whether they result in abortion or birth, because they often lead to bad outcomes for the woman.

But the facts do not support the idea that easier access to abortion increases the abortion rate - except in countries where there is little access to contraception, e.g. Russia. Countries with liberal abortion laws and good access to contraception have the lowest abortion rates. The myth that easy access to abortion = lots of abortion is a really dangerous one that has been used extensively by the Anti-Choice lobby.

I would rather not be pregnant at all than ever have to go through the process of having an abortion and I have no doubt I'm the same as the vast majority (when they don't want to be pregnant). Supposed "ease of access" doesn't change that.

Rhetorical admonition -is that a euphemism for goady fuckery?

No one has said that, Datun. What I am disputing is your point upthread that easier access to abortion = more abortion. That is just plain wrong and straight from the Pro-Life, anti-woman playbook.

Ok. Why does ease of access not make the risk of pregnancy less pressing? I'm fully prepared to hear the reasons, by the way.

I do feel very strongly that a woman should have rights over her own body. Very strongly.

But if getting into a situation where you have to consider an abortion can be reduced, I don't see the problem with that.

I do appreciate that almost any argument is going to be jumped on as being 'on the other side'. That's not where I am and I'm happy to hear further reasons.

Ok it isn't an issue for you and you are entitled to believe what you believe. But you are not entitled to impose that on me anymore than I am entitled to do so to you.

I FULLY support a woman's right to access abortion and support. But I DO believe there are ethical issues. You don't. There it is. I think that's the best we can do with such a difficult issue unless we want to hammer everyone with a different ethical position into submission